1-16-18 Board meeting

[shortstuff]

This is interesting considering our newly appointed officer's name is Philip J. Carcaci - 1-22-15 Lancaster Bee.

Interesting gorja, this speaks volumes. This means then there is a relationship that exists which tells us that nepotism is still alive and well in Lancaster. I have to agree with Lee on his assessment of Matt Walters posts. Again, double talk from him. Either that or it might be naiveté. Lancaster should be looking to its neighbors for officers who have lost their positions due to circumstances (like downsizing) before they look outside the scope of the town.

[gorja]

Originally posted by gorja:
This is interesting considering our newly appointed officer's name is Philip J. Carcaci - 1-22-15 Lancaster Bee.

Police officer’s position may hinge on arbitration
by JULIE HALM Editor
Union arbitration made the hiring of a new officer in the Lancaster Police Department a complicated matter during Monday night’s meeting of the Lancaster Town Board.


Two resolutions were proposed regarding personnel in the department as a result of the retirement of Lt. John Robinson III. Lancaster Police Chief Gerald Gill recommended Officer Jonathan Ziders, a member of the department, to be promoted to the position.

Members of the board spoke highly of Ziders and voted unanimously for his advancement to the position. “I know that John is a man of integrity,” said Trustee John Abraham.

To fill the position left open by Ziders’ advancement, Gill recommended Brett M. Carcaci, but the situation surrounding the appointment caused controversy. During the meeting, the Town Board adjourned to an executive session to discuss matters surrounding both appointments.

According to Lancaster Town Supervisor Dino Fudoli, who spoke to The Bee after the meeting, the town and the union are involved in binding arbitration, meaning that the outcome of the deliberation — which will include a legal representative from the town, union representative Shaun DiMino of the Lancaster police, and a mediator – could significantly alter the salaries of members of the department, according to Fudoli.

Before voting against the appointment of Carcaci, Fudoli said he was concerned that the officer would be put through training using taxpayer money, and then the result of the pending arbitration could result in his release from the department.

“Hiring during arbitration is not a good idea; it does not bode well for the outcome,” said Fudoli.

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly financial, and with the looming arbitration, I don’t think it’s fair to him [Carcaci].”

Carcaci was appointed to the position, however, as the remaining four members of the board voted in favor of the resolution.

Several of the board members cited a growing community as one of the reasons for their decision.

“I’m very proud that Lancaster is a full-service town. We cannot compromise public safety,” said Donna Stempniak, noting that the appointment is not increasing the size of the department.

Abraham also noted that ongoing problems with prostitution, as well as constant or increasing instances of drug use, shop lifting, domestic violence and routine traffic patrol, do not allow for the downsizing of the Police Department.

According to Fudoli, the department has roughly 50 members and the size has fluctuated only marginally over several years. The supervisor stated that the arbitration between the town and the union began roughly six weeks ago and the hearing is scheduled for March. He said he has been told not to anticipate a decision until August or September.

So, does anyone know whether there were other qualified candidates vetted for this appointment?
It's not like this candidate had extensive experience as a police officer since his salary in 2017 from Rochester police department was only $19,000+. The starting annual salary is $40,011. What's that about 6 months?

[MaddMatt]

So, does anyone know whether there were other qualified candidates vetted for this appointment?
It's not like this candidate had extensive experience as a police officer since his salary in 2017 from Rochester police department was only $19,000+. The starting annual salary is $40,011. What's that about 6 months?

Thank you for posting this information. I was not aware of this history as it was before my time on the board.I am not sure of the relation (if any) between the officers.

As for vetting, the LPD has the most extensive process of any town department. Interviews by numerous personnel, psychological exam, physical fitness test and more are all taken into account before the hiring moves forward. I believe there were a handful of people considered for the position. Some were/are officers from other jurisdictions and I believe Chief Gill also consulted the list of the top new candidates that have to complete schooling as well. I will check with the Chief next week to get more information on this specific hiring process.

Matthew Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

[Lee Chowaniec]

Thank you for posting this information. I was not aware of this history as it was before my time on the board.I am not sure of the relation (if any) between the officers.

As for vetting, the LPD has the most extensive process of any town department. Interviews by numerous personnel, psychological exam, physical fitness test and more are all taken into account before the hiring moves forward. I believe there were a handful of people considered for the position. Some were/are officers from other jurisdictions and I believe Chief Gill also consulted the list of the top new candidates that have to complete schooling as well. I will check with the Chief next week to get more information on this specific hiring process.

Matthew Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

Seriously Matt, you were not aware of the police hiring process before you were elected to the board? Well, when you talk to Chief Gill (and/or the board members) you may want to ask on the following:

In the past, there were executive sessions held with the Chief on candidate selection and vetting. The public were made aware of who the top three candidates were and what qualified the candidate to be chosen. Perhaps the public did not question the process this time as in the past because they did not know the hiring was imminent and had no information on the individual selected.

You state that you believe there were a handful of people considered for the position; officers from other jurisdictions and new candidates as well. However, you are not sure. For that reason I have to ask whether the Chief, as department head, has the authority to hire an officer without the consent of the town board. Is the board’s approval by resolution a mere formality to make such hiring official?

For the sake of transparency and credibility could the names of the top three candidates be posted?

For the sake of transparency and credibility could you determine whether there is a relationship between the two police officers in question?

Why the big to do about ‘bringing this boy back home (from Rochester) to Lancaster. He was not a past Lancaster police officer.

Lastly, if someone tells you that this is of no concern to the public and that they don’t have the right to know – privileged information – as a taxpayer I have a problem with that; especially considering the position requires the passing of a civil service examine and certain parameters are to be met to determine best qualified candidate.

[gorja]

Originally posted by MaddMatt:
Thank you for posting this information. I was not aware of this history as it was before my time on the board.I am not sure of the relation (if any) between the officers.

As for vetting, the LPD has the most extensive process of any town department. Interviews by numerous personnel, psychological exam, physical fitness test and more are all taken into account before the hiring moves forward. I believe there were a handful of people considered for the position. Some were/are officers from other jurisdictions and I believe Chief Gill also consulted the list of the top new candidates that have to complete schooling as well. I will check with the Chief next week to get more information on this specific hiring process.

Thank you for responding Matt. I agree with Lee in being transparent regarding the names of the other candidates and the reasons Chief Gill felt Carcaci outshined the others

[4248]

Bottom line here folks - the Chief will get who he wants and the board will pass the need paper work. No one on that Board wants the police chief or his friends not supporting them come election time.

This is nothing new - its nothing out of the ordinary for Lancaster ! Why the big discussion here - as if you can change any of this ?

The only way this patronage/nepotism will ever end is when the regular street level officers speak up. But they won't - they have to be good team players - they believe their turn will be coming some day !

Mr.W. is gonna continue to ride the fence and pretend to be naïve as long as he can get away with it. So why keep poking at it - we live here pay our taxes here - beyond that we are not supposed to be a true partner with the Governing body.

Have a great day !

[Lee Chowaniec]

Bottom line here folks - the Chief will get who he wants and the board will pass the need paper work. No one on that Board wants the police chief or his friends not supporting them come election time.

This is nothing new - its nothing out of the ordinary for Lancaster ! Why the big discussion here - as if you can change any of this ?

The only way this patronage/nepotism will ever end is when the regular street level officers speak up. But they won't - they have to be good team players - they believe their turn will be coming some day !

Mr.W. is gonna continue to ride the fence and pretend to be naïve as long as he can get away with it. So why keep poking at it - we live here pay our taxes here - beyond that we are not supposed to be a true partner with the Governing body.

Have a great day !

Woof! Nicely said!

[MaddMatt]

I guess I am a little confused about the role that the members of this forum wants the board to play. I

I hear that we want outsiders to run and I did. I was not involved in politics until 3 years ago, so maybe I am a little green. That comes from being a businessman and not a politician. The inner workngs of the hiring process at each department was not something I had researched prior to being elected. I would venture to bet that the same could be said for every candidate. I have no intention of being a lifelong politician. I ran because I felt I could help my community.That remains my focus.

I hear that politics shouldn't come into the hiring process and yet you say board members should be more involved in the day to day hiring in departments? When I was COO of a 7 store retail chain, I didn't get involved in hiring at the store level. I didn't tell my managers who to hire because I didn't have to work side by side, day in and day out with these employees. I trusted my managers to hire the best candidates for the position. I believe that department heads should be responsible for hiring as they know best the qualifications of each position. On some department hirings, I will request more information on the applicants or the qualifications sought when I feel I have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation. In the case of the police department specifically, I trust our Chiefs and Captains to want the best officers representing and protecting our community and hire accordingly.

I hear that you want to have access to board members and I give it. But when you don't agree with my answers, I am called disingenuous, naive or worse. Someone told me a few months back that members of this forum just want to beat up on local politicians so they will withdraw. Then they have a case for saying that politicians aren't accessible or transparent. I have staunchly defended the contributors here and the venue that SpeakupWNY provides. I promised to stick around to contribute as much as I can and I will.

Matthew Walter
Lancaster Town Council
716.901.5340

[mark blazejewski]

I hear that you want to have access to board members and I give it. But when you don't agree with my answers, I am called disingenuous, naive or worse. Someone told me a few months back that members of this forum just want to beat up on local politicians so they will withdraw. Then they have a case for saying that politicians aren't accessible or transparent. I have staunchly defended the contributors here and the venue that SpeakupWNY provides. I promised to stick around to contribute as much as I can and I will.

In 2014, a situation concerning local government which impacted my personal life caused me to become more vocal about local government and the underlying politics. I decided to put a voice to my tax dollars.

Since then, my awareness has been raised in areas unrelated to my initial area of concern. In that time, Speak Up has served me as a primary channel for both ventilation of opinion and inhalation of knowledge.

I have gotten to know some of Speak Up's contributors. They are very good and decent people, exemplary citizens, dedicated and honorable, and shine a light on controversies in the transparent interests of their community and their families. I am very grateful to them for their interest, their tutelage, and the courage that they demonstrate in asking the hard, informed, and I am sure, on occasion, the rather awkward questions.

With that being said, I am very grateful to you for your personal commitment to take serious your pledge to be open and accessible. I can well appreciate your position as an elected official. You must thread a necessary needle, perhaps sometime held with a nervous hand, balancing your "keeping faith" transparency commitments to the voters, and your obligations to function within the legally prescribed lines of confidentiality to which you swore your oath.

In a perfect world, mutual understanding between the commentators and the "target" (that would be you councilman) should drive the thoughtful postings on Speak Up.

IMHO, you are the only one with the courage to take the fire here, and yea that includes fire from your truly.

[Greg Sojka]

I do not believe Matt should have to pay for the sins of former board members. He may have to clean up the mess. Matt can not be blamed for the millions of taxpayer money wasted on Colecraft or past hirings.Matt I see the concerns of the writers on this forum.The bizarre hirings of "special" employees. I would recommend TRUST BUT VERIFY. We have seen many strange hirings and trading employment, I hope you will hire the most qualified candidates or applicants.Lancaster first!

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=MaddMatt;1779939]

I guess I am a little confused about the role that the members of this forum wants the board to play.

Indeed; and it appears I am now as well.

I hear that we want outsiders to run and I did. I was not involved in politics until 3 years ago, so maybe I am a little green. That comes from being a businessman and not a politician. The inner workngs of the hiring process at each department was not something I had researched prior to being elected. I would venture to bet that the same could be said for every candidate. I have no intention of being a lifelong politician. I ran because I felt I could help my community.That remains my focus.

The board is part of the ‘inner workings’ as it approves the hiring by resolution. In post #19 you were asked questions on the hiring process with the understanding that you would talk to Chief Gill next week and get back to us. Yet you chose to write this post alleging an appointed department head who serves at the will of the board has the authority to hire at his will. Why then does the board vote to approve the request? If the board voted the request down, then what? That was one of the questions in post #19.

I hear that politics shouldn't come into the hiring process and yet you say board members should be more involved in the day to day hiring in departments? When I was COO of a 7 store retail chain, I didn't get involved in hiring at the store level. I didn't tell my managers who to hire because I didn't have to work side by side, day in and day out with these employees. I trusted my managers to hire the best candidates for the position. I believe that department heads should be responsible for hiring as they know best the qualifications of each position. On some department hirings, I will request more information on the applicants or the qualifications sought when I feel I have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation. In the case of the police department specifically, I trust our Chiefs and Captains to want the best officers representing and protecting our community and hire accordingly.

As I wrote in post #19: In the past, there were executive sessions held with the Chief on candidate selection and vetting. The public were made aware of who the top three candidates were and what qualified the candidate to be chosen. Perhaps the public did not question the process this time as in the past because they did not know the hiring was imminent and had no information on the individual selected.

So are you saying that the public can’t ask for an explanation on why the hiring of a newbie Rochester police officer was the best fit for Lancaster – and/or the names of the top three candidates interviewed for filling the position; for the sake of transparency?

Didn't police politics come into play when Fudoli was ousted as supervisor? Everything is about politics!

I hear that you want to have access to board members and I give it. But when you don't agree with my answers, I am called disingenuous, naive or worse. Someone told me a few months back that members of this forum just want to beat up on local politicians so they will withdraw. Then they have a case for saying that politicians aren't accessible or transparent. I have staunchly defended the contributors here and the venue that SpeakupWNY provides. I promised to stick around to contribute as much as I can and I will.

First off, you have given no answers on this matter.

As others, I have commended the town for providing transparency and openness re all the information and board recordings on the Town website. That should not, and does not preclude residents from questioning or challenging town reps on matters they don’t agree with. ‘Beating up local politicians’ to get them to withdraw is ludicrous as no Lancaster board member has resigned within his or her term. It is the politicians and their support groups that beat up on each other.

Lastly, when a board member once stated that they didn’t want the Ethics Committee to be looking over their shoulders (board members) some town officials get prickly when residents have the audacity (in their minds) to speak out to hold the board accountable. “How dare these taxpayers question us as to how we spend their money!”

[mark blazejewski]

Lee Chowaniec;1779969]


Didn't police politics come into play when Fudoli was ousted as supervisor?

IMHO, yes, and to a disgusting and dangerous extent.

Lastly, when a board member once stated that they didn’t want the Ethics Committee to be looking over their shoulders (board members) some town officials get prickly when residents have the audacity (in their minds) to speak out to hold the board accountable. “How dare these taxpayers question us as to how we spend their money!”

That is why your tenacious activism is needed Mr. C. Our community is, or at least should be, in your debt.

[gorja]

The only thing this inquiring mind would like to know is this.
Was Mr Carcaci hired due to a family relationship on the force or did he out qualify everyone else?

[Lee Chowaniec]

The only thing this inquiring mind would like to know is this.
Was Mr Carcaci hired due to a family relationship on the force or did he out qualify everyone else?

Hang on, Gorga. The Chair of the Public Safety Committee has to check with Chief Gill to get the answers to the questions we are all asking.

[gorja]

Hang on, Gorga. The Chair of the Public Safety Committee has to check with Chief Gill to get the answers to the questions we are all asking.

Okie dokie