Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 96

Thread: 2020 Town of Lancaster Organizational Meeting

  1. #46
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    What am I thinking?

    Lee went to those meetings for years and years.
    He'd be the one to ask if 99% of leave requests were denied.

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #47
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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.
    It is unfortunate, although not surprising to me, that your information appears limited to one and two year Leaves of Absence.

    While I do not suggest that you are responsible in any way for research, record keeping and/or disposition, your apparent inability to produce such a record(s) tends to support my tentative conclusion that such, to me troubling, lengthy FOUR YEAR Leave(s) of Absence may be without, at the very least, recent precedent.

    Perhaps if the Supervisor puts an additional "Research Stipend" on the Monday's Agenda, with the incentive of compensation, he can research his long career's records and provide the readers with an answer to the above.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 4th, 2020 at 11:29 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?"

  3. #48
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    It's a moot point anyway as it won't pass

    When a Conservative leadership states that 99% of L.O.A.s are turned down and for good reason,
    it logically follows that the Conservative followers will vote 'no'.

    Mark you're the one with the allegation that requests for L.O.A.s are always voted 'no'.
    It's up to you not me to produce the evidence.

    I will say that I have never heard of a 4 year L.O.A.

    But the Conservative leadership member stating that only 1% of L.O.A.s are approved would have to be proved.

    Don't worry, their leadership will be there to make sure they tow the line.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #49
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]

    Mark you're the one with the allegation that requests for L.O.A.s are always voted 'no'.
    A question is an inquiry; an impression is an opinion; and, an allegation is an assertion.

    I do not believe that I made any such assertion. Example please?

    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    It's up to you not me to produce the evidence.
    As I have made no allegation, I bear no responsibility to prove anything. I only made queries and in that regard, as I have previously submitted, and now confirm, you also bear no responsibility to provide such evidence/answer(s).


    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I will say that I have never heard of a 4 year L.O.A.
    Regarding the above-bracketed, we are kindred.

    Just my opinion, but such a long time period does not reflect what I believe is commonly considered to be a Leave of Absence, but I think the military would classify such lengthy absence as either desertion or M.I.A.

    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    But the Conservative leadership member stating that only 1% of L.O.A.s are approved would have to be proved.


    Nah, I don't think they have the energy to really research that. They are impacted by nausea from the Stipend request.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 4th, 2020 at 12:00 PM.
    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?"

  5. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    What am I thinking?

    Lee went to those meetings for years and years.
    He'd be the one to ask if 99% of leave requests were denied.
    Truthfully, I never paid much attention to leave of absence matters in the past because if I remember correctly, they were for health or personal reasons. It has only been in the past several years where such ‘leave of absence’ requests involved transfers from a union position to a White-Collar position where the individual sought protection should the position not work out for any reason within a year’s timeframe.

    I have not attended board meetings in the past year but do listen to recordings of the work session and regular meetings. The Section 75 you refer to was approved by resolution in 2018 to protect Barbaro from removal without cause.

    I do not ever recall a four-year leave of absence granted to any individual to give them an opportunity to return to their previous position should their term expire in the new position. The concern is almost a moot point as the individual will most likely find a position in another department – as is the case with the present Supervisor confidential secretary moving over to legal.

    I believe this precedent setting resolution will be discussed at the work session and pro or con reasons given for its approval or denial.

  6. #51
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    I have not attended board meetings in the past year but do listen to recordings of the work session and regular meetings. The Section 75 you refer to was approved by resolution in 2018 to protect Barbaro from removal without cause.
    Was the 2018 resolution passed within the time frame covering the one year Leave of Absence effective November 6, 2017?
    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?"

  7. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Was the 2018 resolution passed within the time frame covering the one year Leave of Absence effective November 6, 2017?
    November 5, 2018 - Resolution #22; Councilman Ruffino cast the only 'no' vote.

  8. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Regarding the addition of the $5,000 stipend for Supervisor s ‘Budget Officer’ in the Organizational Meeting Schedule of Salaries:

    I say addition because the stipend was absent in the adopted 2020 budget schedule of salaries which listed under Supervisor:

    Supervisor – (as Supervisor) - $71,098
    Supervisor – (as budget officer) – 0
    Total - $71,098

    It amount was so noted in the Legal Section of the Lancaster Bee October 9, 2019 edition regarding the upcoming public hearing where the schedule of salaries was listed and was not discussed at the public hearing or appeared in the adopted budget.

    Just want to know the process that allowed this change to take place.

  9. #54
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    November 5, 2018 - Resolution #22; Councilman Ruffino cast the only 'no' vote.
    So that I am understanding this correctly Mr. C., is it reasonable for me infer that Ruffino's "No" vote may have been a negative reaction to Ms. Barbaro, resultant from her expired Leave of Absence?

    If I am incorrect or if my inference extends the limits of reasonable assumption Lee, please straighten me out.
    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?"

  10. #55
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Was the 2018 resolution passed within the time frame covering the one year Leave of Absence effective November 6, 2017?
    The resolution itself has no details. The details were described at the work session that evening
    As Dave brown stated, it was protection against removal without cause. But was not a LOA issue.
    The Recreation director Giroux also received a LOA from his position when appointed to his Director position.
    The resolution passed with all 'yes' votes.


    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.
    So I still don't understand the 99% voted down claim.

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

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

    Since Lee stated, he doesn't recall a 4 year LOA prior to this, I would say that that is the case
    that there were none..

    This will be the end of what I'll say on this subject.
    Here, the election is over. I
    nstead of sitting back and seeing if this board can work together
    for the betterment of the town
    , the Conservatives are back to making up rumors trying to
    support division between them.


    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #56
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post








    This will be the end of what I'll say on this subject.
    Here, the election is over. I[/FONT][/SIZE]nstead of sitting back and seeing if this board can work together
    for the betterment of the town
    , the Conservatives are back to making up rumors trying to
    support division between them.

    Fair enough Gorja, and thank you for the thoughtful exchange. Now on to another subject related to these comments...



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

    The entire issue of the currently-proposed stipend for the Supervisor regarding budget/financial duties here in Lancaster, raises in my mind not only hypocrisy concerns, but as I see it, suggests perhaps an unnecessary and entirely frivolous compensation, applicable to Ruffino's pension calculations, for merely performing what might be described as " the routine duties of a full time Supervisor" in matters attendant to financial issues.


    As I understand things, but perhaps I am wrong, the idea for such a stipend(s) rose from world of the small town, wherein the Supervisor's position is usually part time in nature, and in lieu of a full time Budget Director, the Supervisor tends to financial matters as, for a lack of better words, an "ancillary duty."

    Lancaster has had, and most probably will have, a Budget Director in place in 2020, so exactly what are the duties that justify the proposed $5,000 stipend, which are exempt from the Budget Director's portfolio and imposed upon the Supervisor?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 4th, 2020 at 05:08 PM.
    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?"

  12. #57
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Lancaster has had, and most probably will have, a Budget Director in place in 2020, so exactly what are the duties that justify the proposed $5,000 stipend, which are exempt from the Budget Director's portfolio and imposed upon the Supervisor?
    I would hazard a guess that it would be the same duties that Supervisor Coleman assumed in 2019
    I'm sure he will be thoroughly involved on the budget process.
    It looks that way from his letter to Department heads on December 19

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #58
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I would hazard a guess that it would be the same duties that Supervisor Coleman assumed in 2019
    I'm sure he will be thoroughly involved on the budget process.
    It looks that way from his letter to Department heads on December 19
    So, based on the posted letter, am I to understand that meetings with department heads are not part and parcel of the Supervisor's "routine" duties/responsibilities, and that perhaps Fudoli and Coleman used the time, otherwise expended in such meetings, fiddling with gadgets?

    As for the review process, the Ruffino letter does not hold that"I" am going to periodically review budget policies, but rather "my administration" is going to periodically review budget policies.

    Is not the Budget Director a component member of his "administration?"


    For $5000-a-year stipend, $20,000 over the entire life of his four-year term, one may reasonably expect that Ruffino will singularly himself develop, line by line, the entire budget, just my opinion.

    If in fact Ruffino is going to do undertake such a task, why is he hiring a full time Budget Director, or is this a case where the Budget Director will fiddle with gadgets?

    Moreover, in applying your own logic relating to the posted correspondence, should not each and every Town Council Member be eligible for a similar stipend for their review talents?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 4th, 2020 at 05:55 PM.
    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?"

  14. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Attached is information from the NYS Comptroller re: Budget officer"
    Opinion No. 91.


    The supervisor as budget officer (as defined in Town Law subdivision 2 of section 103) prepares a tentative budget and presents it to the town clerk for transmittal to the town board for review, amendment, and the adoption of a preliminary budget and calling for a public hearing upon said preliminary budget pursuant to legal notice in the official newspaper setting forth the time and place of the public hearing and setting forth the proposed salaries of all elected officials.

    Once the budget officer files the required tentative budget with the town clerk, the function of budget officer would seem to be at an end. Thereafter, the budget is in the hands of the town clerk and the town board and is eventually adopted by a majority vote of the town board.


    As stated in a prior post, I just want to know the process that allows the change to the final budget. In fact, examining the Organizational Meeting agenda there is no resolution to approve the Schedule of Salaries.

    The first agenda item is to consider adoption for salary structure for the P. T. Payroll Supervisor. So, why is this position not included in the regular list of Schedule of Salaries and why isn’t the regular list up for resolution approval vote; especially considering Supervisor Ruffino has included a ‘Budget Officer’ stipend when it was not approved in the final 2020 town budget.

    Do the board members get to vote on the Schedule of Salary resolution (not that there is such resolution listed on the agenda). If the board majority were to decline the addition would that adversely impact the other listed salaries.

    Mr. Ruffino will argue that Supervisor Coleman added it in the 2019 budget but removed it in this year’s budget. Mr. Ruffino did vote ‘no’ to this year’s budget but did approve the 2019 budget when the stipend was added after 7 consecutive years of its removal. Supervisor Fudoli declined the stipend in 2013 and 2019 was the only year it was added, and then removed this year.

    Shouldn’t the added stipend come by way of budget amendment? $5,000 in a $36 million budget is no big deal. But when the individual asking for the stipend is touting fiscal responsibility and demanding it from others, it does sound rather hypocritical.

  15. #60
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    I did a little timeline of the budget officer and Dir of Fiance from 1976 - 2020.
    It probably won't mean anything to anyone but it kept from filling my face for a couple hours.


    Georgia L Schlager

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Lancaster’s Organizational Meeting; or, whose on first and why
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: January 18th, 2018, 04:31 AM
  2. Lancaster Organizational appointment resolution dispute
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 6th, 2015, 02:05 PM
  3. Lancaster Central School District BOE Organizational meeting
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2011, 10:17 AM
  4. Lancaster Central School District Board of Education Organizational meeting
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2010, 12:29 PM
  5. I attended my first lancaster Town Meeting
    By tonyolm in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 2003, 02:38 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
  •