Oh, I thought the "Schedule of Salaries" was always a resolution at the organizational meeting which is the first meeting of the year.Quote:
Originally posted by Neubs24:
The fact that he's using his first meeting to bring this up shows where his priorities lie, IMO.
Pardon me for my ignorance.
Ah, "The Great Ruffino" in another dramatic moment...
JUST MY OPINION:
In his 18 years on the Town Council, Supervisor Ruffino appears to have repeatedly used the budget process to advance his political, and in this case, personal fortunes.
When the political climate required, he was a tax and spend liberal for many years; when that political climate reversed, he flavored his votes and utterances with fiscal conservatism; when ambivalence may have prevailed, he, on four occasions, was not present for fiscal year budget votes: A whopping 25% of all such budgets for which he was eligible to vote.
More specifically, regarding the 2020 budget, Ruffino curiously missed budget amendment deadlines, only to make some high-profile, but entirely inappropriate budget cutting proposals the very night before election day, November 4, 2019. Even more suspiciously, those proposals were preceded by a last-minute mailer heralding impotent and untested proposals.
Now, he complains, loudly and vocally, that the Supervisor's stipend for 2020 was excluded from the same 2020 budget that he so manipulated and voted for, by a collusive Council in order to personally "spite" him.
More troubling, a significant issue during the 2019 campaign was the continued promulgation of the longstanding "Old Boys' Club," which many voters, taxpayers, and residents held honored patronage and politics, to the exclusion of placing the needs and concerns of the town front and center.
It seemed that during the 2019 campaign, Mr. Ruffino, his eighteen years of continuous service notwithstanding, touted a renewal of what many consider to have been of a long-since-forgotten 2001 commitment to confront the issues facing a town experiencing the growing pains of development, or perhaps more accurately, over-development: Declining infrastructure, public safety issues, green space, and high taxes.
In connection with the instant stipend matter, I hold that for the Supervisor, in what I understand to have been his very first agenda item, for the very first Council meeting under his direction, to prioritize the stipend (which would impact the calculations towards increasing his personal pension) over those issues described above, may have reduced his own 2019 pledges to hallow campaign rhetoric, and his promised priorities to the world of casual concerns.
In my opinion, with Supervisor Ruffino, it would seem that the People's Office of Supervisor may have been brushed by the fanciful wings of the Peter Pan Syndrome. In that regard, I believe that the Supervisor's radio presentation to the town's stakeholders took the form of a tantrum-like rant; an excited utterance of a self-absorbed petulant brat, whose language skills do not include a lucid understanding of the word "No!"
Just my opinion
It's more likely that the puppeteer from the local Conservative party just pulled Councilman Leary's strings and the puppeteer knew pulling the support for the stipend at the last minute would make headlines. That particular stipend would not have been a part of the resolution if the others hadn't feigned their earlier support.
Yikes!Quote:
Originally Posted by gorja
I guess we are back to Howdy Doody reruns.
The Conservative Party does exert influence. That cannot be denied as up to a few years ago Democratic Party candidates running for office were favored and endorsed by the Lancaster Conservative Party for years. I could never understand the irony of that as conservative and liberal is oxymoronic regarding political ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by gorja
Now that the conservative party has returned to its conservative side, it appears the liberal Dems are quite upset and attempt to either steal the endorsement or trash the opposing candidate.
The change in sides is quite evident as the Conservative Party endorsed five candidates in the 2019 election and three were elected; same number as the Republican Party and one more than the Democratic Party.
For the first time since the 1992 Greco Republican administration, the town board is not under major Democratic Party control – and only that one time in 70 years. I therefore found it amusing this past election year to hear Democrats promise fiscal conservativeness, controlled growth, and improved infrastructure.
While you are hearing and saying Leary caved, others are saying he initially believed the stipend could be added into the budget, but after doing research determined it was not warranted and/or in the best interests of the community. It’s over, how much longer are we going to beat a dead horse?
The supervisor position is unquestionably underpaid. Ruffino's approach was indelicate and clumsy. The ball will be in court this coming budget. This is when this should be addressed.
I totally agree, but in the interests of closure...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec
...I whould like some clarity to the circumstances referred to in the bracketed comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec
Not being privy to any verified "inside information," and only relying on what I read, a "Bee" article held that Mr. Ruffino spoke to Mr. Leary "prior to the meeting..."
That very same "The Bee" article is replete with gross inaccuracies such as this presentation...Quote:
Ruffino said he met with Leary and Mazur prior to the meeting...
Quote:
Council members Robert Leary and Bruce Stutz joined incumbent Adam Dickman on the bench after being the top vote getters in November’s general election.
As such, I am suspect of anything resembling "facts" in "The Bee" article.
In that regard, one may have the impression that this purported conversation took place at some point after Mr. Leary's term of office began January 1, 2020 and/or perhaps just minutes prior to the January 6, 2020 work session. In my world, impressions are not conclusive facts. "Prior to the meeting" is a rather general characterization of the time period, in my opinion.
Is it possible for anyone to provide me and the other readers with that exact time and date of any such alleged meeting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorja
Ruffino said that the outgoing Council cut the stipend to "spite" him.
Now that bracketed, near-unintelligible conspiracy theory which seems to leave many people scratching their heads, except Ruffino supporters and this paragon of steadiness...
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=...d=ii_k59qu2vi1
I find it unfair to state that our new Councilman Leary caved. Maybe Mr. Leary, being new, was strong armed or tricked by Ruffino into agreeing with a stipend before he was able to do his research or was able to take time to think about what is right. Mr. Leary will make a fine Councilman and I am confident that he will spend the next 47 months representing us as a conservative member of the board. Cut him some slack. It was his first meeting and we all know Ruffino's tricks. Maybe I should say Giza and McCracken. Who's the real puppet here?? IMHO!
Councilman Leary did not "cave." Councilman Leary voted "No."Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
Perhaps your use of Councilman Leary vs. Mr. Leary very simply raises a truly profound question: When specifically did the purported conversation take place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
Lacking as we do, an authoritative assertion as to a possible specific date and time, if such an alleged conversation, if existent at all, took place during the transition period prior to January 1, 2020, did not that conversation involve Mr. Citizen Leary, and NOT Councilman Leary?
If Mr. Leary in fact had such a purported conversation before being fully equipped with the appropriate prestige, rank, restrictions, and the full insights, permissible only by office, was not Mr. Leary speaking to Mr Ruffino as a simple Lancaster resident without official portfolio of office, and not as a fully informed, duly installed, both by calendar and oath, member of the Council?
Would not a pre-incumbency time component perhaps account for a possible empathetic "first impression" mussing of a private citizen, rather than the alleged fully-informed commitment of a public official, holding full legislative responsibilities, that many suggestively infer?
Correction, he always has been, and remains, an outstanding Councilman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
Leary's conduct during the first Council Work Session and Public Meeting was outstanding. It was probing, principled, and strong. It was Ruffino that came across self-serving, selfish, petulant and petty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
Again with a puppet show. Buffalo Bob, Where Are You?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
I'm not sure who you are referencing with the title "Buffalo Bob". I do want to make one think clear Mr. Blazwjewski. You are one of the few people on Speakup that I enjoy and who actually gets it. I was assuming Leary spoke with Ruffino prior to the meeting which would make him Mr. Leary and not Councilman Leary. Again, Ruffino is a mastermind thanks to his "political bosses" which he vowed to destruct in his previous campaign in 2017 for re-election as councilman. I've had conversations with Ruffino many times regarding our water pressure and traffic issues. He can never come up with an answer and always dances around the issues we've been battling for decades. People in our neighborhood voted for him but I certainly didn't. I was not happy with my choices but I voted for the less of the two evils. I can't say the same for our ignorant neighbors. As a wise man once said, He who is not contended with what he has, would not be contended with what he would like to have. Keep doing favors and trying to line your pockets on the tax payers' dollar Ron!
Thank you for the kind words Saras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saras2017
My reference to Buffalo Bob relates to previous comments made by my political opponent, but valued friend Gorja.
Indeed, IMHO, the Ruffino camp is in serious trouble having failed, in the very first Council session under his direction, to keep faith with his new found "fiscal conservatism" which he articulated in both 2017 and 2019.
With that said, I see Ruffino and his handler-bosses as metaphorically wounded prey. They may strike out in enraged response, most probably by touting gratuitous and twisted charges of wanton obstruction, or otherwise desperately employing tactics to stain the opposition in order to level the public perception playing field.
Supervisor Ruffino is constantly being taken to task for his rhetoric on why he believes he should have received a $5,000 stipend for acting as Budget Officer to offset what he believes to be a salary structure lacking in comparison to other town Supervisors.
The 2020 budget was approved before he took office and he knew what the position paid before and when the budget was finalized. As a council member he never brought up his salary concerns during the budget hearings.
Regardless, his complaint was ill-founded in comparing Lancaster salary position to other towns. He should have looked at our town’s history and he would have discovered that his current $71,096 salary pales in comparison to that of the 2012 Giza administration salary – and why. In 2012, Supervisor Giza’s salary was $74,441 and he earned another $8,122 as Budget Officer for a total of $82,122. He was also provided with a town vehicle.
Giza was defeated by Fudoli. Fudoli ran on a promise to cut the Supervisor salary by 10%, eliminate the Budget Officer stipend and to use his own vehicle. Supervisor Fudoli did reduce his salary by 10% (from $74,441 to $66,907), did not take the Budget Officer stipend and used his own vehicle for town travel. That same schedule remained through his four years in office.
Coleman became Supervisor in 2017. Her salary increased to $68,337 in 2017, $69,704 in 2018 and $71,098 in 2019. She proposed a 2020 budget with no salary increase and no Budget Officer stipend. Coleman did not receive a stipend her first two years in office, proposed and received one in 2019 and removed it in the 2020 budget proposal.
The 2020 budget was approved. Ruffino tried to add the stipend back in and did not get the votes – and rightfully so, IMHO. However, he has the right to complain that the Supervisor’s salary does not reflect ‘market value’, but his reasoning is illogical.
We shall see what his 2021 proposed budget will bring, and what gets approved.