Parks laborer hiring; clarification, please

After listening to the recording of the July 15th town board meeting, clarification is needed.

At the July 1st town board meeting a proposed resolution to hire James Speyer as a laborer in the Parks department was tabled for further review. Supervisor Coleman declared that Parks, Rec. & Forestry crew chief Michelle Barbaro had submitted a letter of recommendation for the hiring of Speyer. It was then revealed that two hires were being considered and the resolution was ‘tabled’ for further discussion.

On July 9th, Barbaro submitted letters of recommendation for the hiring of not only Speyer, but Justen Wilczak for a laborer position in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department. The resolution language for both individuals exactly mirror each other.

Wilczak was hired (resolution #14) by unanimous vote, Speyer (by a 3-2 vote against) was not hired (resolution #18). Councilmembers Dickman, Gaczewski and Walters voted ‘no’. Dickman commented that he was voting ‘no’ because there were several other candidates who were more experienced. He encouraged Speyer to reapply in the future. Gaczewski commented her ‘no’ vote was based on Dickman’s reasoning.

So, unable to attend the meeting and seek clarification, I am asking (anyone):

Were there two Parks laborer positions up for hire? Supervisor Coleman and councilmember Ruffino voted to approve resolutions to hire both Speyer and Wilczak – leaving the impression there were two positions available.

If there was but one position open and Parks crew chief Barbaro was being put under pressure to hire an individual not considered experienced and qualified as other candidates on the top three list, did she then on July 9th submit to the board a letter recommending hiring Speyer and Wilczak for two positions: or recommending either Speyer or Wilczak for the one position open and letting the board decide on the better candidate?

Comment

Why the interest here? Well, it's election time and Ruffino has been portraying himself as the true fiscal conservative in his Supervisor race against Gaczewski.

In resolution #18 Ruffino voted against the creation of a part-time payroll supervisor creation based on the increased amount and need of recent job hires. Ruffino declared that the explanation that there is money in the budget to pay for the increased staffing was indicative of a budget with too much ‘fluff’ in it. Gaczewski and Dickman also voted against the resolution.

In summary:

Ruffino and Gaczewski both voted to deny a job creation in the Supervisor’s office – payroll supervisor. A position that would have paid a higher hour salary rate than the newly appointed payroll supervisor.

Ruffino voted to approve the hiring of both Speyer and Wilczak as Parks laborers. Gaczewski voted to hire but one.

Who is the fiscally conservative one here?

So let me get this straight. Using your logic Lee

Quote:

---

Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Ruffino and Gaczewski both voted to deny a job creation in the Supervisor’s office – payroll supervisor. A position that would have paid a higher hour salary rate than the newly appointed payroll supervisor.

Ruffino voted to approve the hiring of both Speyer and Wilczak as Parks laborers. Gaczewski voted to hire but one.

Who is the fiscally conservative one here?

---

IF another laborer appointment is presented for resolution at the next meeting
and Gaczewski votes 'yes' and Ruffino votes 'no', that would make Ruffino fiscally conservative on that vote.

That makes no sense just as Gaczewski voting 'yes' to appoint the registered conservative, tea party supporter and voted 'no' to the other
and being described as fiscally conservative. Gaczewski never stated that her vote was cast to cut staff in the park's department.
So how does fiscally conservative come into play? Just my opinion.

On July 1, Councilman Dickman stated that he wanted the Speyer resolution pulled because he had questions for Park crew chief Barbaro
who was not present that night.
On July 15, the park crew chief was present at both the work session and the board meeting and
Councilman Dickman asked no questions of Barbaro at the work session or meeting.

Quote:

---

=gorja;1881650]So let me get this straight. Using your logic Lee

IF another laborer appointment is presented for resolution at the next meeting
and Gaczewski votes 'yes' and Ruffino votes 'no', that would make Ruffino fiscally conservative on that vote

---

.

Yes; because until I hear someone express the need for two hires when the department has been hiring temporary part-time employees, part-time permanent employees and equipping the department the way it has which should make the department more productive, I do not see the need for two new full-time hires.

Quote:

---

That makes no sense just as Gaczewski voting 'yes' to appoint the registered conservative, tea party supporter and voted 'no' to the other
and being described as fiscally conservative. Gaczewski never stated that her vote was cast to cut staff in the park's department.
So how does fiscally conservative come into play? Just my opinion.

---

So, Wilczak is a registered conservative? A tea party supporter? And despite that political indictment Wilczak’s hiring was approved unanimously. Speyer was not found experienced or qualified enough by three of the board members for the position and was not hired.

So, are you saying this hiring and non-hiring selection is politically motivated? I would then have to suspect the July 15th second hiring was contrived to hire two laborers so that Speyer would get hired – as he was not looked at as being the most qualified candidate at the July 1st work session by two of the councilmembers, and where the board only had 4 members present and the reason there was no majority and the resolution was withdrawn.

No, Gaczewski never did state that her vote was cast to cut one of the hires, but that she agreed with Dickman that Speyer was not the best candidate. Nor did any board member indicate that with Speyer out of the picture another hire would be proposed by resolution. Didn't Dickman encourage Speyer to put his name in again should another hire take place in the future? It couldn't be now as he was just turned down.

If that situation would occur, it would behoove Parks crew chief Barbaro explain why the need for another full-time laborer and whether that will impact her part-time staff status. IMHO, if there is second individual hired there better be a damn good reason – one that has not been mentioned; yet. And yes, if either Ruffino or Gaczewski were to vote for a second hiring, without good reason for doing so, I would chastise either one. That has to happen, however (another hire).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

On July 1, Councilman Dickman stated that he wanted the Speyer resolution pulled because he had questions for Park crew chief Barbaro
who was not present that night.
On July 15, the park crew chief was present at both the work session and the board meeting and
Councilman Dickman asked no questions of Barbaro at the work session or meeting.

---

Nor did Ruffino comment on either resolution to hire the two Parks laborers. Didn't you find that strange since he likes to comment about everything lately?

Do you know whether Dickman approached Barbaro privately? Or, not?

Dickman and Walters made their Speyer hiring concerns publicly known at the July 1 work session meeting. Dickman and Gaczewski publicly expressed like concerns at the July 15th general meeting and Speyer's hiring was not town board approved. Ruffino sat silently and voted 'yes'. The other Democrat voted 'yes' and the Republican, Conservative and Blank voted 'no'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Do you know whether Dickman approached Barbaro privately? Or, not?

---

No, I do not know. The only private conversation that I'm aware of is between Gaczewski and Walter.
As soon as Gaczewski arrived in the board room, she told Walter that she needed to talk to him and they left the room.

What I find interesting is the new payroll supervisor hiree with all this vast knowledge of school district payroll.
Yet, she resigned her Account clerk typist position from Lancaster schools in Feb 2018 which she began in 2016 (according to seethroughny).
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1587d111_c.jpg

I just read The Sun article on the July 15 Town Council meeting.

Concerning the Speyer matter, I have a question: "Are there additional Speyer family members currently employed by the Town of Lancaster and/or the villages of Lancaster and Depew, and if so, how many members?"

0 current members?

5 current members?

8 current members?

More than 8 current members?

What gives?

Just askin'.

Well Gorga, the cat is out of the bag. I don’t subscribe to the Lancaster Sun but did pick up a copy at the vet’s office today. The undercurrent speculation that the Speyer hiring for Parks laborer position was patronage sponsored had teeth to it was confirmed by Councilmember Dawn Gaczewski when she is quoted as saying: “I’m really kind of sick of the nepotism and the friends and family hiring.”

That’s a good thing to make public, but only if Gaczewski and Dickman were honest in their opinion that the other two candidates being considered were ‘more experienced / qualified and deserving for the position, and where they are not guilty of playing the same game. You (Gorga) have already alluded to Wilczak being a Conservative. Yet, he was unanimously approved for the position, where Speyer was not. Not if the board sees the need for a second hire and proposes a resolution to do just that and gives no reason as to need or staff adjustments – I understand that all three candidates hold part-time positions in the Parks Department – I would find that very disturbing. As Councilmember Ruffino pointed out: “Two part-time positions were already created in the Parks Department that were not in the budget.”
If we are hiring two employees who already part-time laborers in the Parks Department to full-time positions, one would have to believe those two part-time positions would not be filled.

As I have often stated: I see nothing wrong with friends and family patronage as long as the candidate selected is found to be the most qualified for the position.

This is but one of the many rumors circulating about future hiring and replacement positions. Time will tell which are, rumors of fact. just that.

Are you saying Lee that there was not 2 open FT positions in the park's department from resignations, retirements or terminations?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Well Gorga, the cat is out of the bag. I don’t subscribe to the Lancaster Sun but did pick up a copy at the vet’s office today. The undercurrent speculation that the Speyer hiring for Parks laborer position was patronage sponsored had teeth to it was confirmed by Councilmember Dawn Gaczewski when she is quoted as saying: “I’m really kind of sick of the nepotism and the friends and family hiring.”

---

Yet, she asked no questions of the department head. It very well could be patronage as I believe the one brother is an LPD officer. I still feel that
Amatura and Barbaro know that they have to work with who they hire. Therefore, they would choose the best candidate or suffer the consequences.

Quote:

---

Gaczewski, “I’m really kind of sick of the nepotism and the friends and family hiring.”

---

But it was okay in the village.
On April 11, 2013, Village trustee Schroeder became co-owner of a property at 182 Central Ave
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...741216b300.jpg

11 days later, April 22, 2013 -
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1b56493a_b.jpg

In my eyes, that's patronage and Schroeder didn't even 'abstain'
for personal or business reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

I just read The Sun article on the July 15 Town Council meeting.

Concerning the Speyer matter, I have a question: "Are there additional Speyer family members currently employed by the Town of Lancaster and/or the villages of Lancaster and Depew, and if so, how many members?"

0 current members?

5 current members?

8 current members?

More than 8 current members?

What gives?

Just askin'.

---

From a Cheektowaga Chronicle article-

It stated that former Cheektowaga Assistant Police chief James Speyer has 4 sons, three of whom are police officers.

https://cheektowagachronicle.com/jam...-cop-31-years/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

From a Cheektowaga Chronicle article-

It stated that former Cheektowaga Assistant Police chief James Speyer has 4 sons, three of whom are police officers.

https://cheektowagachronicle.com/jam...-cop-31-years/

---

A sincere thanx for the information Gorja. If you can find any further circumstances, let the readers know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

Are you saying Lee that there was not 2 open FT positions in the park's department from resignations, retirements or terminations?



Yet, she asked no questions of the department head. It very well could be patronage as I believe the one brother is an LPD officer. I still feel that
Amatura and Barbaro know that they have to work with who they hire. Therefore, they would choose the best candidate or suffer the consequences.



But it was okay in the village.
On April 11, 2013, Village trustee Schroeder became co-owner of a property at 182 Central Ave
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...741216b300.jpg

11 days later, April 22, 2013 -
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1b56493a_b.jpg

In my eyes, that's patronage and Schroeder didn't even 'abstain'
for personal or business reasons.

---

I do not know of any such resident conflict during her tenure as an elected town official, which has impacted the ethical performance of her sworn office.

If lifetime development suggests anything, it is about extending experience, and applying its import virtuously.

Quote:

---

In post #10, Gorga wrote:

Are you saying Lee that there was not 2 open FT positions in the park's department from resignations, retirements or terminations?

---

Not to my knowledge. Are you saying there were resignations, retirements or terminations? If this was the situation, why was it not posted in the body of the resolution language; for either the singular July 1st resolution or the other two July 15th resolutions? Why did Supervisor Coleman make it a point to say there is money in the budget to make this happen if it was a simple replacement?

It was quite clear at the July 1st meeting that there was only one resolution to hire a Parks laborer position, that Dickman and Walter openly questioned the qualifications of Speyer and why the resolution was tabled – 4 board members present, no majority to approve or deny the resolution. July 15th comes along and now there are two job openings. Speyer gets denied, Wilczak gets hired. But there is no talk of another resolution coming for a second hiring. This may pass your smell test, but not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Well Gorga, the cat is out of the bag. I don’t subscribe to the Lancaster Sun but did pick up a copy at the vet’s office today. The undercurrent speculation that the Speyer hiring for Parks laborer position was patronage sponsored had teeth to it was confirmed by Councilmember Dawn Gaczewski when she is quoted as saying: “I’m really kind of sick of the nepotism and the friends and family hiring.”

Yet, she asked no questions of the department head. It very well could be patronage as I believe the one brother is an LPD officer. I still feel that
Amatura and Barbaro know that they have to work with who they hire. Therefore, they would choose the best candidate or suffer the consequences.

Gaczewski, “I’m really kind of sick of the nepotism and the friends and family hiring.”

---

Amatura, Ruffino and Barbaro collectively made it a point to support Speyer and in doing so characterized him as being qualified for the laborer position. Gaczewski openly challenged that selection arguing that there were other candidates on the list more experienced and qualified, and Gaczewski openly declares that she is sick of the patronage.

You claim silence on the part of Dickman and Gaczewski, yet you speak nothing of Ruffino’s silence during the resolution consideration; silence by the man who vigorously defended Speyer’s hiring at the July 1st work session meeting and when the resolution was withdrawn.

So again, my position is that I don’t care who got the job the other night. I question why we are not being informed on the need of this position, publicly informed whether there is another hire coming and what these impacts are going to have on current part-time status and budget impacts. Should it not be expected by the taxpayer that when the town spends their money they get an explanation on need and cost on their money is being spent?

As to the remainder of your post and the attack on Gaczewski in the light of patronage, I have said repeatedly in the past that patronage in politics is the norm and I find no objection to it as long as the position created is necessary and the individual selected is the most qualified individual.

What is disturbing here is that the hiring patronage rumor that has been circulating on this appointment bears legitimacy – if indeed the most qualified individual was not selected.

There are also rumors circulating that should certain candidates win office changes are also coming to certain town appointed positions. That would be particularly disturbing to me as I believe the town’s strength lies in those positions and the individuals now occupying those positions are deserving of keeping those positions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Not to my knowledge. Are you saying there were resignations, retirements or terminations?

---

I, honestly don't know. I was asking you because you seemed certain that there was only one position.
I thought you may have had information from your sources to that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
There are also rumors circulating that should certain candidates win office changes are also coming to certain town appointed positions. That would be particularly disturbing to me as I believe the town’s strength lies in those positions and the individuals now occupying those positions are deserving of keeping those positions.

---

I've heard some too. Ron Giza be appointed to Parks crew chief, Melissa Heath appointed to a Deputy town clerk position
and removal of the Highway superintendent's stipend for parks overseer.

But rumors are defined as currently circulating stories or reports of uncertain or doubtful truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I, honestly don't know. I was asking you because you seemed certain that there was only one position.
I thought you may have had information from your sources to that fact.

---

Going strictly by what I have heard on the recordings.

Still don't see the need of a second job creation with the information that has been publicly disseminated.

Quote:

---

gorja;1881955]I've heard some too. Ron Giza be appointed to Parks crew chief, Melissa Heath appointed to a Deputy town clerk position
and removal of the Highway superintendent's stipend for parks overseer.

---

Ah, there are more rumors out there than what you posted. It's politics at its ugliest - especially so when qualified individuals are replaced for patronage reasons. Has the recent primary not taught you the ugly machinations of politics even at the town level stage?

Quote:

---

But rumors are defined as currently circulating stories or reports of uncertain or doubtful truth.

---

Agree! But as I had stated the laborer hiring was also a circulating rumor, has been made public and seems to have credibility, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Agree! But as I had stated the laborer hiring was also a circulating rumor, has been made public and seems to have credibility, eh?

---

The rumor that I heard on the afternoon of the July 1st meeting was that Michelle Barbaro was not selecting the appointee but Ron Giza was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

The rumor that I heard on the afternoon of the July 1st meeting was that Michelle Barbaro was not selecting the appointee but Ron Giza was.

---

Yes, that rumor is out there as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Ah, there are more rumors out there than what you posted. It's politics at its ugliest - especially so when qualified individuals are replaced for patronage reasons. Has the recent primary not taught you the ugly machinations of politics even at the town level stage?

---

Some of these rumors seem to be supported by historical circumstances.

The Ron Giza vs. Barbaro rumor appears to be supported by Giza's historic "reputation."

The rumor regarding a possible appointment of Melissa to the position of Deputy Town Clerk, as I understand it, seems to echo a similar rumor back during the 2015 Town Clerk's campaign.

According to some very reliable source(s), Melissa it was rumored, was in line for the Deputy Town Clerk's position had Lindsay won the office. That rumor, according to some, emerged rather late in the campaign, and blinded many on the right. Some have suggested that it may have been a contributing factor in Lindsay's defeat.

If these are rumors, they are very informed rumors, and not just "shots in the dark."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

Some of these rumors seem to be supported by historical circumstances.

The Ron Giza vs. Barbaro rumor appears to be supported by Giza's historic "reputation."

The rumor regarding a possible appointment of Melissa to the position of Deputy Town Clerk, as I understand it, seems to echo a similar rumor back during the 2015 Town Clerk's campaign.

According to some very reliable source(s), Melissa it was rumored, was in line for the Deputy Town Clerk's position had Lindsay won the office. That rumor, according to some, emerged rather late in the campaign, and blinded many on the right. Some have suggested that it may have been a contributing factor in Lindsay's defeat.

If these are rumors, they are very informed rumors, and not just "shots in the dark."

---

The Melissa rumor, and others as yet unmentioned, is particularly disturbing because it implies promised jobs to party support individuals who may not be worthy of occupying town appointed positions; and even worse the removal of individuals deserving to hold their positions and reappointment.

As a 'blank' I never paid much attention to a primary because I didn't have skin in the game. This year, for myriad reasons, I did pay attention and learned the importance of a primary, the machinations / lying involved and the unexpected line-stealing results. Results so unexpected that I will be forced to vote on a Democratic or Republican line (ugh) because my election candidate's name will not be on an Independence or Conservative line - even though they were endorsed by those minor parties.

Two of the most revolting rumors remain unmentioned. Hopefully, these rumors are nothing more than that, unfounded rumors. But as one has already seen the light of day, anything is possible.

SO, that's why you haven't taken shots at the one supervisor candidate

Quote:

---

Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
I will be forced to vote on a Democratic or Republican line (ugh) because my election candidate's name will not be on an Independence or Conservative line

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

SO, that's why you haven't taken shots at the one supervisor candidate

---

No need to. You have done a good job of that. Your Ruffino support is obvious. All I am saying is peel the onion. It is early in the election campaign.

Where the candidates stand on issues of today remain to be seen – hiring, spending (budget due date is getting close), debt load, infrastructure, future development policy, athletic fields, dog control, etc.

I have posted several times that Gaczewski ‘has a lot of explaining to do’. Primarily in distinguishing herself as a conservative when she ran and won as a democrat for council and too often serving on and voting on a board supporting liberal policies, hiring and spending habits.

I was very impressed with Gaczewski calling out the patronage hiring in town. That shot was directed at the Dems and rogue Republicans. If you can produce any rumors, more importantly verifiable facts that either Gaczewski or her Republican Party (today’s Republican Party) have also promised jobs to their supporters, put it out there.

I like the individuals now serving in appointed positions just fine. Keep in mind when these people are appointed, they are sworn with the words: The individuals so appointed shall serve at the will of the Town Board unless otherwise specified by law.

With the exception of a one-four-year term, the Democrats have enjoyed a majority- controlled board for 70 years. If there are any issues in town, it’s pretty hard to blame a Republican Party administration.

Actually, all I was saying was that we now know who you're backing for supervisor.
As in the past, you indicated at that time, you had no candidate for supervisor only for town clerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

Actually, all I was saying was that we now know who you're backing for supervisor.
As in the past, you indicated at that time, you had no candidate for supervisor only for town clerk.

---

Actually, I have given you no reason to make that assumption because if I were committed to supporting Gaczewski I would not have written that my ‘candidate’ is not found on the Independence or Conservative line. Gaczewski is the endorsed Independence Party candidate for Supervisor, no?

While you have given reasons for your backing of Ruffino and the savaging of Gaczewski, I have given you reasons why your candidate does not walk on water. Two years of championing fiscal responsibility does not eradicate 14 years of supporting policies and programs that cost the town millions.

My only commitment at this time is to support Terranova – who was not endorsed by her Democratic Party Committee but challenged and won the party’s endorsement anyway. She gets endorsed by the Republican, Conservative and Independence Parties and winds up endorsed on only two – the one she was not endorsed by. Strange, eh?

Let the games begin. Can’t wait for budget time. And wouldn’t it be nice if the budget was finalized and voted on by the town board before Election Day?

I very well understand the past.
But since I guess the last 4 years don't count, it was okay for Gaczewski to vote to approve creating the Assistant Park supervisor position
and the Forestry supervisor position and I guess wrong for Ruffino to vote no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I very well understand the past.
But since I guess the last 4 years don't count, it was okay for Gaczewski to vote to approve creating the Assistant Park supervisor position
and the Forestry supervisor position and I guess wrong for Ruffino to vote no

---

Why are you saying: “Since the last four years don’t count?” Of course they count. You have been making the point that in the last two years Ruffino has become the fiscal watchdog.

I agree that Ruffino was in his right to vote ‘no’ on the two resolutions and I for the most part agree with his decision because in the last four years the town has done a lot of questionable hiring and spending has increased significantly.

Refresh my memory. How did the other four members vote and what was their reasoning for the ‘yes’ vote? Parks, Recreation and Forestry has added several positions this year. Ruffino did vote ‘no’ on these two but recently voted ‘yes’ to add two full-time laborers to the department without any explanation as to reason for the need. He was also adamant that Speyer should have been one of the individual’s hired.

Ruffino and Highway Superintendent Amatura claimed that it was not the town board’s place to authorize the Park’s recommended hiring, but Amatura’s as he is the department overseer. Not so, from my understanding. Amatura does the hiring in the Highway department and the town board by resolution formally recognizes the hiring. The Park’s crew chief recommends a hiring and the town board authorizes it’s approval.

The language in today’s resolutions is so nonspecific and/or obtuse, and with but so few in the public asking for clarification, transparency is lacking.

While focusing on board votes, I hope you didn’t miss the irony of Supervisor Coleman explaining her support for the hiring of a part-time payroll supervisor (who would actually be earning more per hour than the newly elected full-time supervisor) and the resolution ‘no ‘votes cast by both Ruffino and Gaczewski. And then Ruffino one-ups Gaczewski by voting ‘no’ to the hiring of the new payroll supervisor.

I am tired of hearing the same old BS every election year. I want to hear what plans the candidates have in place to make Lancaster a better town; now and in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Refresh my memory. How did the other four members vote and what was their reasoning for the ‘yes’ vote?

---

The only other 'NO' vote was Matt Walter voting no to the Assistant park chief position.
I don't remember any commentary on the 'yes' votes. But you know me, my memory isn't the greatest.

And the part time payroll position, I didn't look back to the supervisor's wish list raises. But I do wonder if that particular
per hour wage for the part time payroll position was what was originally requested by Coleman for the payroll supervisor at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I've heard some too. Ron Giza be appointed to Parks crew chief, Melissa Heath appointed to a Deputy town clerk position
and removal of the Highway superintendent's stipend for parks overseer.

But rumors are defined as currently circulating stories or reports of uncertain or doubtful truth.

---

gorja,

I went and did some research and contacted people.
1. No, Melissa is not going for the Deputy Town Clerk-False
2. I have my connections out on Ron Giza. I'll let you know what the answer is.

But insider did tell me this one:
I am to ask the question, which by the way is in public meetings: ……………………………………..favors for endorsments Hmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortstuff

gorja,

1. No, Melissa is not going for the Deputy Town Clerk-False

---

I hope your sources are correct, because if the information posted by Gorja on the "Desiderio as tax receiver; Perish the thought" thread is correct, and my understanding of Melissa's property tax history is correct, Lancaster, IMHO, would have a Tax office controlled by two individuals with concerning backgrounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

I hope your sources are correct, because if the information posted by Gorja on the "Desiderio as tax receiver; Perish the thought" thread is correct, and my understanding of Melissa's property tax history is correct, Lancaster, IMHO, would have a Tax office controlled by two individuals with concerning backgrounds.

---

Melissa's taxes were paid 3 days after the primary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

Melissa's taxes were paid 3 days after the primary

---

That is my understand as well Gorja.

If true, lateness in my opinion may be a disqualifying vice, and the payment of assessed penalties is not necessarily a mitigating virtue.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortstuff

gorja,

I went and did some research and contacted people.

1. No, Melissa is not going for the Deputy Town Clerk-False

---

Hey Shortstuff, I don't know what you mean by "going for," but obviously one does not publicly seek an office as a presumptive appointee, when that position is subject to Town Council confirmation.

With that said, did your research exclude an exercise in historiography in connection with this?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

The rumor regarding a possible appointment of Melissa to the position of Deputy Town Clerk, as I understand it, seems to echo a similar rumor back during the 2015 Town Clerk's campaign.

According to some very reliable source(s), Melissa it was rumored, was in line for the Deputy Town Clerk's position had Lindsay won the office. That rumor, according to some, emerged rather late in the campaign, and blinded many on the right. Some have suggested that it may have been a contributing factor in Lindsay's defeat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by shortstuff:
But insider did tell me this one:
I am to ask the question, which by the way is in public meetings: ……………………………………..favors for endorsements Hmmmm

---

Very interesting!!!
Speaking of which, I do have a question. If someone would happen to know the answer,iIt would be GREAT.
Is there any family relationship between Bill Schroeder the village mayor and Harold W. Schroeder, one of the Regional vice chairs of the
Erie County Conservative party?

Back to the thread subject: Hiring clarification

There is a resolution Monday night (#33)to appoint Connor O’Brian as a laborer in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department. This is the second hiring in this department in the past month and if you read the resolution (and the last when Wilczak was hired in July) there was again was no language to indicate:

• Need for hiring full time position(s) – retirements, resignations or are they job creations
• Job description
• Staffing and cost implications
• Why O’Brian and not Speyer who was initially and adamantly supported by Councilman Ruffino and the Highway Department Supervisor?

Hope this gets discussed and cleared up at the work session or at the regular meeting. A large sum of money has been spent by this department to upgrade its equipment. An upgrade in equipment and technology results in higher productivity. Yet, we are hiring more staff in this department and not told why. Don’t we deserve an explanation as to reason for department spending outlay?

I was told the Park laborer positions were vacant positions. :)

Another rumor squashed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I was told the Park laborer positions were vacant positions. :)

Another rumor squashed

---

What rumor are you referring to?

In listening to the recording of the town board meeting, I did hear you ask on department vacancies and heard Supervisor Coleman tell you that there were vacancies and she requested confirmation from Parks, Recreation, Buildings and Forestry crew chief Barbaro. Barbaro confirmed there were vacancies and that there was money in the budget for the two full-time hires. I did not hear whether the vacancies were a matter of positions never filled and that these were newly created positions or whether the vacancies resulted from retirements, resignations, staffing changes, etc.

At the time of resolution approval, the only discussion focused on Council member Ron Ruffino’s objection to Committee Chair Dawn Gaczewski being involved in the candidate interviewing process. Ruffino had made same such objection at a previous meeting when a candidate he felt deserved appointment was found lacking in qualifications. Gaczewski remarked that 11 candidates had been interviewed and the board majority agreed that Wilczak and Obrien were more qualified for the appointment.

That does not clear up the nature of the vacancies – especially hearing a part-time laborer had resigned and that a department full-time laborer individual opted to go to part-time.

Unlike the Highway Department where the Superintendent has hiring authorization and where the town board recognizes the hiring by resolution, the Parks crew chief recommends a hire to the board and they have the authorization to approve or deny that recommendation. And as Parks, Recreation, Buildings & Forestry Committee Chair, it is my understanding Gaczewski has standing to be at the interview process. Despite Ruffino’s rancor in not getting an applicant he favored hired, he and the other board members voted unanimously to hire O’Brien.

Still need to hear need for hires, impact on staffing, any increase in cost.

Need an end to resolution language lacking in details / particulars.

Need to have all individuals addressing the board to use the microphones provided so that individuals listening to the meeting recording can comprehend what is being said and not err in judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Need to have all individuals addressing the board to use the microphones provided so that individuals listening to the meeting recording can comprehend what is being said and not err in judgment.

---

Are you speaking of me, Mr Lee? Sorry about that

At the upcoming September 3rd, Town board meeting,
these two positions will be upgraded from part time temporary seasonal to
part time permanent

John Cook - Assistant Park Crew Chief - temp/seasonal - effective date 5/7/19 to permanent effective date 9/3/19

John Pilato - Forestry Supervisor - temp/seasonal - effective date 5/22/19 to permanent effective date 10/22/19