2020 Town of Lancaster Organizational Meeting

[gorja]

Thankfully it turned out not to be a patronage job. That does not indicate such rumor did not have validity considering Brown reached out to Ruffino and never got so much as a returned phone call or email. I still have to question who found disfavor with Brown and reason why – Ruffino or the Democratic Party Chair or co-Chair?

What does Clarence’s bond rating have to do with their Director of Administration & Finance?

I do agree, Lee that Dave Brown did an excellent job. Sometimes change is good and sometimes change is bad.
Time will tell. I guess why I'm making a big deal of this decision is because the posters here seemed to infer that Ruffino
was going to appoint a somewhat of an unqualified dufus to this position. Though the appointed person is not Dave Brown,
it is someone with qualifications and experience to do the job and maybe will cost the taxpayers less.

And now, I'll drop the subject

Have a HAppy New Year!!!!

[MaddMatt]

Sometimes change is good and sometimes change is bad.
Time will tell.

My only question regarding this appointment is whether he/she is a resident of Lancaster?

I believe there were at least a couple of applicants that reside in the town

Matt

[gorja]

My only question regarding this appointment is whether he/she is a resident of Lancaster?

I believe there were at least a couple of applicants that reside in the town

Matt

The rumor, I heard is that he/she WILL be moving to Lancaster

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
We do know that the winning 2020 elected candidates have been sworn in and will officially on the job January 1, 2020.

Actually, as of this afternoon, the winning elected candidates have been sworn in.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Items of interest regarding Monday evening’s Lancaster Town Board meeting:

Organizational Meeting

New Director of Administration & Finance

Pamala Cuviello
Hired 01/13/20 on step - $72,250 (85% of $85,000 full rate)
Full rate is $85,000 after two years

New Payroll Supervisor (Provisional)

Voight
Hired on 09/09/19 on step - $48,282 (85% of $56,802 full rate)
$51,122 as of 01/01/20 (90% full rate - $24.58/ hr.)

Deputy Payroll Supervisor (Part Time) earns more per hour than the Payroll Supervisor - $31.21 (???)

Supervisor
Ruffino (Budget Officer) $5,000
Stipend was not approved in the 2020 budget

Regular Meeting Resolution

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster hereby approves, as presented, the Agreement for Leave of Absence between the Town, the CSEA White Collar Unit and Cynthia Maciejewski.

A four-year leave of absence? Two other two-year leave of absences were approved for individuals leaving union positions to take on management positions. Here Building and Zoning Clerk to Secretary to Supervisor.

[mark blazejewski]

Supervisor
Ruffino (Budget Officer) $5,000
Stipend was not approved in the 2020 budget

Personally, I do not have a big problem with the stipend. But is that request in harmony with the Supervisor's campaign rhetoric and self-touted representation?...

"Speaking for myself, I have been the most fiscally conservative, experienced and qualified Town of Lancaster Supervisor candidate and have shown that every day since being elected to the Town Council..."---Ron Ruffino, June, 2019

Surely Council Member Ruffino, as the "most experienced" Town of Lancaster Supervisor candidate must have have anticipated such a personal need and expressed that need and intention during the campaign?

Is it not perplexing, if not hypocritical, that Mr. Ruffino actively supported a candidate for Town Clerk who unambiguously opposed similar stipends in the Town Clerk's office, and now, among his first acts as Supervisor, is not to remove, but to restore, a similar stipend which impacts his own personal finances?

It seems to me that Mr. Ruffino, during the 2019 Town Clerk's campaign, had a golden opportunity to speak to the issue of stipends, and to draw a public distinction between what he considered to be a necessary vs. a frivolous stipend, just my opinion of course.

BTW, perhaps Supervisor Ruffino can, as the "the most fiscally conservative" now fully explain just how much money did Gaczewski's "Yes" vote to grant the Town Council standby emergency authority to raise the Tax Cap, ultimately cost the taxpayers?

If such authority did not exceed $5,000, then I guess you were not "the most fiscally conservative" candidate, eh Mr. Supervisor?

Regular Meeting Resolution

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster hereby approves, as presented, the Agreement for Leave of Absence between the Town, the CSEA White Collar Unit and Cynthia Maciejewski.

A four-year leave of absence?

That length of time does not strike me as a leave of absence, but rather as a de facto acknowledgement that the current holder of the position serves at the exclusive, four-year pleasure of the former clerk. Actually, it is akin to holding any permanent appointment to the Building and Zoning Clerk's position in abeyance for the duration of the Ruffino term, just my opinion of course.

Great employment flexibility, if you can get it.

[mark blazejewski]

CORRECTION: If one subtracts the now requested $5,000 stipend, that figure would be $288, 530, right?

[mark blazejewski]

Supervisor
Ruffino (Budget Officer) $5,000
Stipend was not approved in the 2020 budget

WITH MY TIN FOIL HAT ON:

It does occur to me that Supervisor Ruffino, IMHO, is the consummate actor, always in search of the dramatic moment.

In that connection, myself being rather naive about governmental process and parliamentary procedure, I ask "Is it permissible for a Resolution to be introduced and seconded by Council Members, only to be voted against by the exact same sponsoring Council Members?"

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Ruffino introduced, and Mazur seconded, a Resolution that, in the spirit of good intentions and cooperation, was supported by the Ruffino opposition, only to have Ruffino and Mazur vote against it?

Let's see, doesn't the roll call proceed Dickman, Leary, Mazur, and Ruffino?

Boy, that sure would justify a Ruffino claim that he remains "the conservative member of the Town Board."

WHEN DEALING WITH RUFFINO, KEEP A CLEAR EYE AND AN OPEN MIND!

[mark blazejewski]

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster hereby approves, as presented, the Agreement for Leave of Absence between the Town, the CSEA White Collar Unit and Cynthia Maciejewski.

A four-year leave of absence? Two other two-year leave of absences were approved for individuals leaving union positions to take on management positions. Here Building and Zoning Clerk to Secretary to Supervisor.

Does not Supervisor Ruffino have a history in voting "NO" to requests for such leaves of absence, specifically in regards to the Recreation Department?

[mark blazejewski]

In connection with the issue of the Budget Officer stipend and the Leave of Absence Resolution, this I understand is the reaction of a member of the Conservative Party's senior leadership:

"The Conservative Party is not at all happy about the stipend.

What bothers me even more is the leave request for Cindy. 99 percent of union employee leave requests are turned down and for good reason.

If memory serves me, Ron voted NO for Michelle Barbaro’s leave.

Why the change of heart now??

I think we all know the answer."

[gorja]

In connection with the issue of the Budget Officer stipend and the Leave of Absence Resolution, this I understand is the reaction of a member of the Conservative Party's senior leadership:

I guess your little birdie was mistaken


Councilman Ruffino voted 'NO' to the granting of Barbaro to have Civil Service Law section 75 protection.
Nothing to do with L.O.A.

At least, that's all that I could find.

[mark blazejewski]

I guess your little birdie was mistaken


Councilman Ruffino voted 'NO' to the granting of Barbaro to have Civil Service Law section 75 protection.
Nothing to do with L.O.A.

At least, that's all that I could find.

This is what I posted about Ruffino's history regarding such votes...

Does not Supervisor Ruffino have a history in voting "NO" to requests for such leaves of absence, specifically in regards to the Recreation Department?

Councilman Ruffino voted 'NO' to the granting of Barbaro to have Civil Service Law section 75 protection.
Nothing to do with L.O.A.

At least, that's all that I could find.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Was the Ruffino vote to not grant her section 75 protection in any way cast in connection with the Leave of Absence, and can you post that specific Resolution?

[gorja]

This is what I posted about Ruffino's history regarding such votes...






Was the Ruffino vote to not grant her section 75 protection in any way cast in connection with the Leave of Absence?

No, the section 75 was in the following year.

I, myself can't locate a history of voting 'no' to L.O.A.s

[mark blazejewski]

No, the section 75 was in the following year.

I, myself can't locate a history of voting 'no' to L.O.A.s

Thank you for the information Gorja.

I asked this question...

Does not Supervisor Ruffino have a history in voting "NO" to requests for such leaves of absence, specifically in regards to the Recreation Department?

So, are you saying that Council Member Ruffino has a history of voting "YES" to four year Leaves of Absence?

Could you please post any such supporting Resolution(s)?

[gorja]

Thank you for the information Gorja.

I asked this question...



So, are you saying that Council Member Ruffino has a history of voting "YES" to four year Leaves of Absence?

Could you please post any such supporting Resolution(s)?

To that question, I'd have to say that I have no information of COuncilman Ruffino voting 'yes' or 'no' to a 4 year L.O.A.

Maybe, your person can post the times that a 'no' vote from Council man Ruffino was had for a 4 year L.O.A.

Just because, I can't locate them doesn't mean that they're not there.

So, show me where those votes are.