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?


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?