Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: July 1st Town Board Agenda

  1. #1
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150

    July 1st Town Board Agenda

    Resolution #15 - Eliminate One (1) Police Lieutenant & Add One (1) Police OfficerPosition For Police Department [Police]

    Great job Supervisor Coleman and Police Chief Karns, in my humble opinion

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Resolution #15 - Eliminate One (1) Police Lieutenant & Add One (1) Police OfficerPosition For Police Department [Police]

    Great job Supervisor Coleman and Police Chief Karns, in my humble opinion
    Resolution #15 sounds great.

    But how do you explain resolution #16 which calls for the appointment of a police officer to lieutenant – especially when no mention is made of a lieutenant retiring?

    We are eliminating a lieutenant position and taking that open slot and creating a police officer position in the one resolution and then promoting a police officer to lieutenant in the next resolution. Clarification, please.

    Three years ago, under the Fudoli administration there were 49 sworn officers in Lancaster. How many are there now - especially after these moves?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Gorga, I commend you for attending Town Board meetings and for speaking at the public comment session on pre-file resolutions, asking questions for clarity on proposed resolutions. When in years past there were several residents questioning the board on resolutions to hold them accountable, with rare exception you are off times the sole individual addressing the board. I able no longer able to attend those meeting but do listen to the recordings.

    Several new positions have been created by the town in the past few years.

    There are several other hiring resolutions on Monday's agenda that should peak one’s interest and should be questioned for clarification and for fiscal accountability:

    Resolution #17 – Recognize Appointment Corey Shelton Light Equipment Operator.


    Is this a new hire or job classification change?

    Resolution #18 – Appoint individual as laborer in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department.


    Is this a new hire? Resolution language is vague.

    Resolution #19 – Appoint Parks, Recreation & Forestry Part-Time Temporary Seasonal Employees


    All the positions are for 5 months of employment. No employee receives benefits. The great majority of positions pat $12 per hour. 6 of the Recreation Attendant positions pay $21 per hour. Reason?

    There are several endorsed candidates already serving on town boards and we are able to judge their actions. Now that the primary is over wouldn’t it be nice to see and hear from the other endorsed candidates at the town board meetings on town matters / issues – to give us some evidence that they are knowledgeable and already involved in the government process. Too often these individuals lay in the weeds and wait to go into the attack mode shortly before election day.

  4. #4
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Resolution #15 sounds great.

    But how do you explain resolution #16 which calls for the appointment of a police officer to lieutenant – especially when no mention is made of a lieutenant retiring?

    We are eliminating a lieutenant position and taking that open slot and creating a police officer position in the one resolution and then promoting a police officer to lieutenant in the next resolution. Clarification, please.

    Three years ago, under the Fudoli administration there were 49 sworn officers in Lancaster. How many are there now - especially after these moves?
    I believe a Lieutenant was appointed to Karns's former captain position

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Resolution #18 – Appoint individual as laborer in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department.

    Is this a new hire? Resolution language is vague.
    It's a part time seasonal position. If you read the last sentence of Barbaro's letter in the communications,
    people say they'll take a position and then they don't.

    Following your approval or disapproval, we will notify the applicant of your decision.
    Very often a candidate may decline the appointed position and a future resolution may be necessary
    to replace this position.
    She has been adding that to most of her appointment letters of request.

    The workforce just isn't like it use to be. Here today; gone tomorrow

    Resolution #19 – Appoint Parks, Recreation & Forestry Part-Time Temporary Seasonal Employees

    All the positions are for 5 months of employment. No employee receives benefits. The great majority of positions pat $12 per hour. 6 of the Recreation Attendant positions pay $21 per hour. Reason?
    All the $21. positions are supervisors in that particular sport.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Now that the primary is over wouldn’t it be nice to see and hear from the other endorsed candidates at the town board meetings on town matters / issues – to give us some evidence that they are knowledgeable and already involved in the government process. Too often these individuals lay in the weeds and wait to go into the attack mode shortly before election day.
    You have people like Leary who in 2017 didn't look at the budget until 2 weeks after the public hearing.
    This was posted October 30, 2017. After he allegedly read the budget, he didn't have the facts straight of what he read.


    Georgia L Schlager

  7. #7
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by gorja:
    All the $21. positions are supervisors in that particular sport.
    I honestly don't know what I was looking at this morning but you're right Lee. They are all recreation attendants with different wages.

    Edit-
    Well now I do. In the communications, those earning $21. were basketball supervisor, cheerleading supervisor, boys volleyball supervisor, girls volleyball supervisor,
    lacrosse supervisor, girls basketball supervisor. In the resolution, they are all called recreation attendants, but Barbaro's letter defines the positions.
    Last edited by gorja; June 29th, 2019 at 05:07 PM.

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I honestly don't know what I was looking at this morning but you're right Lee. They are all recreation attendants with different wages.

    Edit-
    Well now I do. In the communications, those earning $21. were basketball supervisor, cheerleading supervisor, boys volleyball supervisor, girls volleyball supervisor,
    lacrosse supervisor, girls basketball supervisor. In the resolution, they are all called recreation attendants, but Barbaro's letter defines the positions.
    • Regarding this resolution, I found the same disparity between the language in Barbaro’s request form to that of the formal resolution. What would it have taken to add (Supervisor) in the resolution as stated in the request letter to indicate the reason for the wage difference? Not everyone wants to spend an inordinate amount of time going through the communications for clarification.

    • Concerning TransparencBarbaro’s notation: Following your approval or disapproval, we will notify the applicant of your decision. Very often a candidate may decline the appointed position and a future resolution may be necessary to replace this position.

    Why wasn’t this added to the resolution which would help clarify the resolution – a simple copy and paste. Why compel residents to read the communications to garner information for clarity?

    • There are still a few other hires where the language in the communications or resolution is not clear as to the reason of the hire – an added employee position, replacement for employee retirement / resignation, etc. Transparency and openness?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    You have people like Leary who in 2017 didn't look at the budget until 2 weeks after the public hearing.
    This was posted October 30, 2017. After he allegedly read the budget, he didn't have the facts straight of what he read.

    I can't understand why you posted this in this thread.

    And, the public hearing may have passed, but Leary's post (mailer?) was several weeks before the budget was approved, at least a week before the 2017 election and where there is no indication that this was the first time he 'looked' at the budget.

    He was correct in stating that the budget increased over $1 million - as did the tax levy and the tax rate increased by 2.54%; all this while the town's property valuation increased significantly, and (if I remember correctly) the town hired new personnel in four town departments.

    What facts didn't he have straight? I have found Leary to be a very knowledgeable and honest person. It is very possible that in this day of deceitful, 'dirty tricks' party politics Leary's mailer could very well have been written and delivered by the party bosses. You have seen the BS coming from Desiderio's campaign manager, right?

  10. #10
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    I can't understand why you posted this in this thread.

    And, the public hearing may have passed, but Leary's post (mailer?) was several weeks before the budget was approved, at least a week before the 2017 election and where there is no indication that this was the first time he 'looked' at the budget.

    He was correct in stating that the budget increased over $1 million - as did the tax levy and the tax rate increased by 2.54%; all this while the town's property valuation increased significantly, and (if I remember correctly) the town hired new personnel in four town departments.

    What facts didn't he have straight? I have found Leary to be a very knowledgeable and honest person. It is very possible that in this day of deceitful, 'dirty tricks' party politics Leary's mailer could very well have been written and delivered by the party bosses. You have seen the BS coming from Desiderio's campaign manager, right?
    Sorry, it was posted on the wrong thread. You can ignore it. I should have completed the rest of the Leary post.

    Bob Leary for Lancaster Town Councilman
    5 hrs ·
    Last Night I had an opportunity to read through the 2018 proposed budget for the Town of Lancaster. The proposal calls for an increase of over 1 million dollars in the budget for the second year in a row. In order to pay for this increase the proposal calls for an across the board tax hike for the Town and Villages. Additionally it looks as though the board members want to give themselves a raise. So; despite the unchecked over development of our community to add a bigger tax base, they still don't have enough money to pay for the budget and want to reach into your pockets to take more. Enough is enough so on November 7th, let's stop the same old thing from the same old Career Politicians. Please Vote for Adam Dickman and Bob Leary and put an end to this political nightmare.

    Carmen HangauerThank you Bob Leary for doing that. I am disappointed that the budget calls for a raise for the board members. Which tells me Johanna Coleman will receive another raise two years in a row, not good considering this is an election year.

    Bob Leary for Lancaster Town Councilman Hi Carmen Hangauer, the proposal indicates a raise for the members and not for the Supervisor this time. Thanks Bob

    Carmen Hangauer Bob, thx ...

    Georgia Lynne The supervisor is receiving a 2% raise from $68,337 to $69,704 according to the tentative budget


    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #11
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Resolution #18 – Appoint individual as laborer in the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department.

    Is this a new hire? Resolution language is vague.
    Apparently the Supervisor candidate, events coordinator Gaczewski feels she is more qualified in selecting a parks laborer
    candidate than the parks overseer (Highway superintendent) and/or the Parks crew chief .

    The resolution was pulled to study. Political bull****

    Georgia L Schlager

  12. #12
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,307
    Hey Gorja,

    How about this signature?

    I kinda like it!
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; July 2nd, 2019 at 11:28 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Apparently the Supervisor candidate, events coordinator Gaczewski feels she is more qualified in selecting a parks laborer
    candidate than the parks overseer (Highway superintendent) and/or the Parks crew chief .

    The resolution was pulled to study. Political bull****
    In the work session, Supervisor Coleman informed the board members that there was a written recommendation from Parks Crew Chief Michelle Barbaro to hire Speyer.

    Councilman Dickman requested the resolution be pulled as Barbaro was not present. Coleman asked councilman Walter how he felt about it and he agreed to pulling the resolution. Ruffino on the other hand asked for the reason for pulling it.

    Highway Superintendent Amatura voices that Barbaro could not be present and that is why he was present as the Department head and that he also recommended the hire, as is his jurisdiction. A disagreement ensued as to who had the hiring authority and Dickman and Walter remained steadfast in their belief that Barbaro should be present. Councilman Ruffino continued to press that Barbaro was not present but submitted a letter of recommendation and that should have sufficed with her boss present.

    Amatura voiced that this was no different than his past hires where he recommended the individuals to be hired. “The board sets policy, they don’t hire people,” said Amatura. “I sat in on the interviews. There were three good candidates. I choose the one and recommended his hiring,”

    Walter commented that the other people who sat in on the interviews did not agree that the best candidate was chosen.

    Supervisor Coleman asked again what they wanted to do as it was a 2-2 vote and a majority was needed for resolution approval. The resolution was withdrawn.

    At the regular meeting when it was announced that resolution #18 was being withdrawn, Ruffino asked on the reason for pulling the resolution.

    Councilman Walters answered that he spoke to some of the members sitting in on the interviews and they felt the candidate recommended was not the most deserving candidate for the position.

    Ruffino: “So we have a department head who sent a letter of recommendation, the Parks Crew Chief also sends in a letter of recommendation, so you have two letters of recommendation, so you have…first of all I disagree with council members being put into interview rooms unless it’s something…

    Supervisor Coleman: "Mr. Ruffino, you can carry this conversation later on with Mr. Walter." (Executive Session)."

    Comment


    So, Gorga, Ms. Gaczewski’s name is not mentioned once the entire time in the work session or regular meeting, but you state: “Apparently the Supervisor candidate, events coordinator Gaczewski feels she is more qualified in selecting a parks laborer candidate than the parks overseer (Highway superintendent) and/or the Parks crew chief.”

    In fact, she was not even at the meeting and you have no idea on what position she will take. What do you base your reasoning on?

    This resolution becomes interesting as to who does have the final say in the hiring process. Unlike an appointed position where the appointee serves at the will of the board, the Highway Supervisor is an elected official who does have hiring jurisdiction. What's really going on here folks?

    I would have liked to be a fly on the wall in the Executive meeting that followed.

  14. #14
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    So, Gorga, Ms. Gaczewski’s name is not mentioned once the entire time in the work session or regular meeting, but you state: “Apparently the Supervisor candidate, events coordinator Gaczewski feels she is more qualified in selecting a parks laborer candidate than the parks overseer (Highway superintendent) and/or the Parks crew chief.”
    I read between the lines.

    Lee posted:
    Ruffino: “So we have a department head who sent a letter of recommendation, the Parks Crew Chief also sends in a letter of recommendation, so you have two letters of recommendation, so you have…first of all I disagree with council members being put into interview rooms unless it’s something…
    Dickman, Ruffino, and Walter weren't at the interview.

    Georgia L Schlager

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I read between the lines.


    Dickman, Ruffino, and Walter weren't at the interview.
    So, are you saying that Gaczewski was the only council member present at the interviews?

    That she may not have been present at the meeting but influenced Walter and Dickman that the candidate chosen wasn't the best candidate interviwed?

    I wonder if we will find out at the next meeting the real reason some board members considered Speyer's hiring unacceptable.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 7-17-17 Town board agenda
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 25th, 2017, 11:46 PM
  2. Town board meeting on July 3rd; seriously?
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: June 30th, 2017, 01:52 PM
  3. Pass it on. Clarence Town Board Agenda 7 p.m., Wednesday, Nov. 9 Agenda
    By silentnoise in forum Amherst, Clarence and Williamsville
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 7th, 2016, 10:41 PM
  4. Lancaster Town Board Agenda
    By shortstuff in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 18th, 2015, 08:28 PM
  5. Town Board Agenda for Monday's Meeting
    By shortstuff in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 16th, 2012, 01:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •