Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Parks laborer hiring; clarification, please

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,284

    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?

  2. #2
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,004
    So let me get this straight. Using your logic Lee
    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.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,004
    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.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,284
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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'.

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,004
    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.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  6. #6
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,004
    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).

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,284
    =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.

    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).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Residents request clarification on language use/policy changes
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 9th, 2013, 07:40 PM
  2. Mr. Marrano please provide Lancaster airport assessment/tax clarification
    By Lancaster Resident in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 08:56 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 13th, 2009, 07:47 PM
  4. Clarification
    By Stevenco in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 07:29 PM
  5. Clarification on protest Please
    By watchdog in forum Erie County Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 30th, 2005, 10:41 PM

Posting Permissions

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