Lancaster conservative party endorsements

[DebLemaster]

CONGRATULATIONS to our endorsed candidates:

Dawn Gaczewski for Supervisor
Diane Terranova for Town Clerk
Robert Leary for Town Council
Bruce Stutz for Town Council

[Lee Chowaniec]

CONGRATULATIONS to our endorsed candidates:

Dawn Gaczewski for Supervisor
Diane Terranova for Town Clerk
Robert Leary for Town Council
Bruce Stutz for Town Council

I am really surprised the Conservative Party has announced its endorsed candidates first. I thought the party would have waited for the Republican and Democratic committees to announce their endorsed candidates before doing so to ensure that the candidates they are endorsing have major party backing to ensure a viable candidacy opportunity.

Or does this official announcement indicate that the Conservatives already have knowledge of the outcome of tonight’s scheduled closed meetings of the Republicans and Democrats to endorse their 2019 election candidates?

[shortstuff]

CONGRATULATIONS to our endorsed candidates:

Dawn Gaczewski for Supervisor
Diane Terranova for Town Clerk
Robert Leary for Town Council
Bruce Stutz for Town Council

Why has the Conservative Party already made their endorsement(s) public? It would have been best to have waited for the Democratic & Republican Party to have made their announcements.

This endorsement is very disappointing. Robert Leary is a great person and has always been my first choice because of his economic background and great demeanor. With that said, his loss of the Independent endorsement the past two elections he ran in tells us something. The Independent Party has been hijacked by the Democrats and again, he will not get that endorsement which would secure his win. What change will he make to secure the Independent endorsement? Has the Conservative Party thought about that?


Who is Bruce Stutz? I have never heard of him, so his unknown recognition will not be favorable for him.

We know with certainty that Kristen McCracken is running for Town Council, can we all see why this race will be in the bag for the Democrats...and then we hear there is an turncoat Republican the Democrats are endorsing.

Sadly, this slate will solidify a majority Democratic win. Ruffino has it in the bag.


Should I have to say it, Dawn Gaczewski's liberal voting record is not in concert with the Conservative Party's mission statement. She has voted consistently to override the tax cap in the event they were to us that nuclear option. She has voted consistently with Johanna Colemen's agenda. She has been unscrupulous with the Pantry fundraising monies she mismanaged for the Village of Lancaster. Are the taxpayers in both the Village and the Town ready for a monarchy of boyfriend and girlfriend leadership?

[gorja]

A Conservative acquaintance once said to me that it's wrong to vote for a Local law to override the tax levy limit.

Yet, this one - Dawn Gaczewski did vote 'YES' tot hat resolution her first 2 years.
In her third year, when she was kissing ass to get an endorsement from the Republicans as she knew the Dems had dumped her
decided to change her course of action.

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster (“Town
Board”) has considered and evaluated a proposed Local Law which amends in part the Town
of Lancaster Code, Chapter 40, Taxation, by enacting a new Article VII. Tax Levy Limit
Override, which allows a Tax Levy Limit Override for fiscal year 2017 established in General
Municipal Law § 3-c; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board called for, noticed, and held a public
hearing on the proposed Local Law on October 3, 2016, where all interested parties were
permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed Local Law or
any part thereof, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, acting as Lead Agency under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) has determined the action is a Type II action
under SEQR, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster after due
review and deliberation finds it in the best interest of the Town to adopt said Local Law.
NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster that:
1. The attached Local Law No. 5 of 2016 is hereby adopted which allows
a Tax Levy Limit Override for fiscal year 2017 established in General Municipal Law § 3-c.

2. The Local Law shall be effective upon its filing with the Secretary of
State pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law.

The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to vote
on roll call, which resulted as follows:

COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER GACZEWSKI VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER RUFFINO VOTED NO
COUNCIL MEMBER WALTER VOTED NO
SUPERVISOR COLEMAN VOTED YES
October 17, 2016

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster (“Town
Board”) has considered and evaluated a proposed Local Law which allows a Tax Levy Limit
Override for fiscal year 2018 established in General Municipal Law § 3-c; and

WHEREAS, the Town Board called for, noticed, and held a public
hearing on the proposed Local Law on August 7, 2017, where all interested parties were
permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed Local Law or
any part thereof, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board, acting as Lead Agency under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) has determined the action is a Type II action
under SEQR, and

WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster after due
review and deliberation finds it in the best interest of the Town to adopt said Local Law.

NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster that:

1. The attached Local Law No. 4 of 2017 is hereby adopted which allows
a Tax Levy Limit Override for fiscal year 2018 established in General Municipal Law § 3-c.

2. The Local Law shall be effective upon its filing with the Secretary of
State pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law.

The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to vote
on roll call, which resulted as follows:

COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER GACZEWSKI VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER RUFFINO VOTED NO
COUNCIL MEMBER WALTER VOTED YES
SUPERVISOR COLEMAN VOTED YES
August 21, 2017

Some COnservative values, eh?

[gorja]

Does this sound like the mayor and Special events coordinator?

Conflicts of Interest: Municipal Officers and Employees
The Fundamentals of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law

Conflict of Interest -

Prohibition on Interests in Contracts
Under certain circumstances, article 18 prohibits municipal officers and employees from having
interests in contracts with the municipality for which they serve. More specifically, unless a
statutory exception applies, a municipal officer or employee is prohibited from having an interest
in a contract with the municipality for which he or she serves when the person has the power or
duty – either individually or as a member of a board – to negotiate, prepare, authorize, or
approve the contract; to authorize or approve payment under the contract; to audit bills or claims
under the contract; or to appoint an officer or employee with any of those powers or duties

What is an “Interest” in a Contract?
The second factor that must be present in order for a municipal officer or employee to have a
prohibited interest in a contract is that the individual must have an “interest” in the contract.
Article 18 defines the term “interest” as “a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit
accruing to a municipal officer or employee as the result of a contract with the municipality
which such officer or employee serves.”

Whether a municipal officer or employee receives a benefit “as a result of” a municipal contract
is a factual determination. For example, ordinarily, a municipal officer or employee who
receives payment under a contract with his or her municipality would have an interest in the
contract because the payment is a direct financial benefit resulting from the contract.

A municipal officer or employee, however, does not have to be a party to a contract in order to
have an interest in the contract. To illustrate, when a municipality contracts with a person who
resides with a municipal officer or employee, and the proceeds from the contract are used to
defray common household expenses, the municipal officer or employee would have an interest in
the contract because he or she receives an indirect financial benefit as a result of the municipal
contract.

Under article 18, a municipal officer or employee is also “deemed” to have an interest in the
contracts of certain individuals and business entities with which he or she has a relationship. In
these instances, the law presumes that a municipal officer or employee receives a benefit as a
result of the contract. In other words, once it is established that there is a municipal contract with
one of these individuals or business entities, the municipal officer or employee is considered to
have an interest in the contract, without any separate or additional factual showing that the
municipal officer or employee receives a benefit as a result of the contract.

What Powers and Duties Can Give Rise to a Prohibited Interest?

It is also important to understand that if a municipal officer or employee has one or more of the
powers or duties that can give rise to a prohibited interest in a contract, it is the existence of these
powers and duties, not whether they are exercised, that causes an interest in a contract to be
prohibited. As a result, recusal or abstention does not cure a prohibited interest in a contract.

[shortstuff]

Does this sound like the mayor and Special events coordinator?

Conflicts of Interest: Municipal Officers and Employees
The Fundamentals of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law

Conflict of Interest -

Prohibition on Interests in Contracts
Under certain circumstances, article 18 prohibits municipal officers and employees from having
interests in contracts with the municipality for which they serve. More specifically, unless a
statutory exception applies, a municipal officer or employee is prohibited from having an interest
in a contract with the municipality for which he or she serves when the person has the power or
duty – either individually or as a member of a board – to negotiate, prepare, authorize, or
approve the contract; to authorize or approve payment under the contract; to audit bills or claims
under the contract; or to appoint an officer or employee with any of those powers or duties

What is an “Interest” in a Contract?
The second factor that must be present in order for a municipal officer or employee to have a
prohibited interest in a contract is that the individual must have an “interest” in the contract.
Article 18 defines the term “interest” as “a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit
accruing to a municipal officer or employee as the result of a contract with the municipality
which such officer or employee serves.”

Whether a municipal officer or employee receives a benefit “as a result of” a municipal contract
is a factual determination. For example, ordinarily, a municipal officer or employee who
receives payment under a contract with his or her municipality would have an interest in the
contract because the payment is a direct financial benefit resulting from the contract.

A municipal officer or employee, however, does not have to be a party to a contract in order to
have an interest in the contract. To illustrate, when a municipality contracts with a person who
resides with a municipal officer or employee, and the proceeds from the contract are used to
defray common household expenses, the municipal officer or employee would have an interest in
the contract because he or she receives an indirect financial benefit as a result of the municipal
contract.

Under article 18, a municipal officer or employee is also “deemed” to have an interest in the
contracts of certain individuals and business entities with which he or she has a relationship. In
these instances, the law presumes that a municipal officer or employee receives a benefit as a
result of the contract. In other words, once it is established that there is a municipal contract with
one of these individuals or business entities, the municipal officer or employee is considered to
have an interest in the contract, without any separate or additional factual showing that the
municipal officer or employee receives a benefit as a result of the contract.

What Powers and Duties Can Give Rise to a Prohibited Interest?

It is also important to understand that if a municipal officer or employee has one or more of the
powers or duties that can give rise to a prohibited interest in a contract, it is the existence of these
powers and duties, not whether they are exercised, that causes an interest in a contract to be
prohibited. As a result, recusal or abstention does not cure a prohibited interest in a contract.

Spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep this stuff rolling in gorja. But let's remember throughout the campaign trail. Her endorsement from both the R & C is very disturbing to me. Because of her voting record as you displayed in the aforementioned, her disturbing connection with the food pantry, her relationship with the Mayor of the Village and their bully like mentality to residents within their village community and much more, is questionable. She backed Coleman during her tenure as Town Council by supporting her liberal agenda. Dawn's skill set which is lacking does not qualify her to be the Town Supervisor. Where is the common sense here? Town Supervisor??????? Please say it out loud---
Dawn for Town Supervisor...………….WHAT???????????????????????????? ???????????

[Breezi]

Here we go again with the carnival barkers GORJA and SHORTSTUFF. Now they have law degrees. The sections of law that you GORJA sited and bigmouth SHORTSTUFF was blabbing about explain what the legislative intent was pertaining to when the law was enacted. ONCE AGAIN LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MIND! Just curious bigmouth SHORTSTUFF, has the Florida Republican Party had enough of your bigmouth yet. Have they tossed you out yet like the Lancaster Republicans and Lancaster Conservatives did? LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS!

[shortstuff]

Here we go again with the carnival barkers GORJA and SHORTSTUFF. Now they have law degrees. The sections of law that you GORJA sited and bigmouth SHORTSTUFF was blabbing about explain what the legislative intent was pertaining to when the law was enacted. ONCE AGAIN LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MIND! Just curious bigmouth SHORTSTUFF, has the Florida Republican Party had enough of your bigmouth yet. Have they tossed you out yet like the Lancaster Republicans and Lancaster Conservatives did? LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS!

Just so we are clear, gorja posted the facts read the aforementioned from the resolutions. It clearly indicates her voting record. The facts are what will be posted. Lets keep the opinions to oneself.

Oh to enlighten you, I was never thrown out of the Conservative Party or the Republican Party. But we heard all about you weasel. Again, let's keep it clean. You have no respect but the other Breezy at least kept it respectful. He doesn't call people names like you do.

How's coffee night?

[Breezi]

Esquire SHORTSTUFF just so you know esquire the General Municipal Law Article 18 is The NEW YORK STATE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW and not a local law.And again Esquire SHORTSTUFF do you know what the LEGISLATIVE INTENT was regarding Article 18 when it was passed by THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, and signed into LAW by THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK. Before you cast dispersions on an individual for violating New York State Law KNOW YOUR FACTS. Gerry Spence you are definitely NOT. A carnival barker you ARE. LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND. Maybe you should change your name to Frado.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I can well understand the conflict of interest concerns regarding Dawn Barczewski’s Village activities, etc. It is my understanding that Gaczewski has agreed to relinquish her Village extracurricular Village activities if successful in becoming elected as Town Supervisor.

Perhaps that is part of the agreement reached by the Republican Party when they vetted her and chose to endorse her. Wasn’t it mentioned in their mission statement:

Understanding that no process is infallible every candidate has pledged the information they provided to the committee regarding their background as well as their intent seeking the Republican endorsement is accurate. In keeping with the trust extended by the continuants I represent my support for said candidates is directly contingent on the honesty of their answers and maintains the option to be revoked should contradictory information arise. At the risk of sound presumptuous I think I can safely say that such a critical and or guarded optimistic position is mirrored by other members of the Lancaster Town Republican Committee.

Perhaps that ‘conflict of interest’ concern should be openly brought before Gaczewski and her position on the matter clarified when petition garnering and primary campaigning takes place. Unlike the recent judgeship election and prior town board election, where false claims were made by some of the candidates and their supporters, street BS should be openly publicized.

The town’s supervisor position is a full-time job. Outside interests detracting from that and/or other full-time jobs as well. Perhaps Mr. Ruffino should be questioned on how he is going to handle the matter should he be elected – resignation from his banking position, leave of absence, etc.?

There are questions to be asked and answered regarding why one party believed one of their incumbents was not fit for re-election and the other two parties endorsed that same candidate. Questions to be asked of each candidate by the public regarding their positions on issues and qualifications - regardless of party affiliation.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
The town’s supervisor position is a full-time job. Outside interests detracting from that and/or other full-time jobs as well. Perhaps Mr. Ruffino should be questioned on how he is going to handle the matter should he be elected – resignation from his banking position, leave of absence, etc.?

Ruffino has always said he would leave HSBC resign or retire. He has over 30 years there

[gorja]

There's more to the Town of Lancaster than the Village of Lancaster
Dawn G is such a big promoter of the village, I'd be afraid more of my taxes would be steered to support the village.
Would she be running her Adworks business from town hall?

On a positive note, she won't be found by the LPD in a construction site getting a blow job.

[gorja]

Will Diane Terranova be able to be placed on the Democrat ballot during the primary if she gathers the signatures?

From the county election site-

Also, any registered voter residing within the state may circulate and witness a petition of the party in which he or she is enrolled.

Does that mean that Diane or Dawn cannot circulate petitions for those endorsed by the republican candidates?

[gorja]

From the Erie County Conservative party website-

Erie County residents vote for lower taxes, smarter spending and a government built to assist them with jobs, better roads and affordable services. Elected officials who understand how to prioritize. Elected officials who strive to better our economy . Elected officials who want to reduce property taxation; reduce governmental regulation; and promote our workforce while maintaining in place the necessary safety net for those less fortunate. These are the goals of the Erie County Conservative Party and the goals we look for in our candidates.

If that's the goal of the Conservative party, how could they endorse a candidate who consistently votes for a tax levy override law and voted liberally the last 4 years in office?

The ONLY council member who voted Conservatively was Councilman Ruffino

[mark blazejewski]

I can well understand the conflict of interest concerns regarding Dawn Barczewski’s Village activities, etc. It is my understanding that Gaczewski has agreed to relinquish her Village extracurricular Village activities if successful in becoming elected as Town Supervisor.

That is my understanding as well Mr. C.