2020 Town of Lancaster Organizational Meeting

[Lee Chowaniec]

At the January 6, 2020 town board organizational meeting, the new administration by resolution will appoint or reappoint several individuals to serve at the will of the town board. Rumors abound as to who will continue to serve in some of those positions; whether those positions will be filled by patronage and/or with individuals less qualified.

We have recently witnessed the fulfillment of a long-running rumor that the Director of Administration & Finance (DAF) would be replaced should the one candidate be elected as Town Supervisor – as this is his office purview. The candidate did win, the DAF received no contact and/or commitment that he would be retained and opted to take early retirement – a sad loss for the town. It appears the supervisor-elect has reconsidered his early-on selections (a wise move) and is now interviewing candidates for the position based on qualifications.

Like rumors have been circulating for months as to whether other changes will take place in other appointed positions - positions which are under the influence of the 5-member Town Board; Code Enforcement Officer, Town Attorney & Parks crew chief to mention a few.

That is, whether there will be a 5-member town board; whether the vacated seat of one of the council members can be filled by consensus of a 4-member board comprised of two Democrats and two Republicans – so called Democrats and Republicans. It appears unlikely and the seat will remain open until the 2021 election. Then again, in politics 'let' make a deal' is a given.

Losing Dave Brown was appalling. Finding a replacement of equal value is near impossible. To replace qualified individuals in current appointed positions for sake of change (for whatever reason) would be absurd and not in the best interest of the town.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
It appears the supervisor-elect has reconsidered his early-on selections (a wise move) and is now interviewing candidates for the position based on qualifications.

He did have the job posted. One would assume to get candidates that were interested.The posting is no longer there.

[gorja]

Maybe a new Director of Administration and Finance would feel there is a not a need for a FT payroll supervisor
and a PT payroll supervisor. Why two supervisors? Why not a PT payroll clerk instead of a $31 per hour supervisor?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Maybe a new Director of Administration and Finance would feel there is a not a need for a FT payroll supervisor
and a PT payroll supervisor. Why two supervisors? Why not a PT payroll clerk instead of a $31 per hour supervisor?

While I agree with your opinion regarding the hiring and Ruffino’s ‘no’ vote, please explain to me what role a new Director of Administration & Finance would play in affecting a hiring?

August 19, 2019 resolution

24. Coleman/________ Appoint Morgan Fay Payroll Supervisor Part-Time Permanent [Fay, Morgan

WHEREAS, Johanna Coleman, Supervisor of the Town of Lancaster, by letter dated July 11, 2019 has requested the creation of one (1) position of Payroll Supervisor Part-Time, in the Town of Lancaster Supervisor’s Office.

The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows:

COUNCIL MEMBER DICKMAN - VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER GACZEWSKI - VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER RUFFINO - VOTED NO
COUNCIL MEMBER WALTER - VOTED YES
SUPERVISOR COLEMAN - VOTED YES

It is the Supervisor’s budget and he or she cannot arbitrarily abolish an employee position without town board majority vote?

[gorja]

While I agree with your opinion regarding the hiring and Ruffino’s ‘no’ vote, please explain to me what role a new Director of Administration & Finance would play in affecting a hiring?

August 19, 2019 resolution

24. Coleman/________ Appoint Morgan Fay Payroll Supervisor Part-Time Permanent [Fay, Morgan

WHEREAS, Johanna Coleman, Supervisor of the Town of Lancaster, by letter dated July 11, 2019 has requested the creation of one (1) position of Payroll Supervisor Part-Time, in the Town of Lancaster Supervisor’s Office.

The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows:

COUNCIL MEMBER DICKMAN - VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER GACZEWSKI - VOTED YES
COUNCIL MEMBER RUFFINO - VOTED NO
COUNCIL MEMBER WALTER - VOTED YES
SUPERVISOR COLEMAN - VOTED YES

It is the Supervisor’s budget and he or she cannot arbitrarily abolish an employee position without town board majority vote?

Who's to say that a majority of the town board wouldn't want to vote fiscally conservatively? Maybe that's just election mantra

As I'm hearing that the Dir of Finance does work closely with the payroll ladies. Mr Brown was in attendance both times the resolution was brought forward. He usually only showed during budget talk. Just my observation, no fact inferred. I apologize if it appeared that way.

A divided Lancaster Town Board granted the new supervisor's wish to hire his own secretary, a move that sparked sharp debate at Monday's board meeting and will leave another town employee jobless.

While two Town Board members objected to a stipend paid to the new secretary and raised concerns about the town's obligation to pay benefits to the former worker, Supervisor Dino J. Fudoli defended the move.

"What we're doing is just going back to the letter of the law," Fudoli said at Monday's Town Board meeting.

With Fudoli hiring Lynn Sacha as his assistant, Mary Nowak, the longtime secretary to former Supervisor Robert H. Giza, exercised her right as a member of the Civil Service Employees Association union to move into the Town Clerk's Office.

Nowak was able to "bump" the clerk typist with the least seniority in that office, Diane Terranova, leaving Terranova without a job -- for now.

The twin resolutions that allowed for the hiring of Sacha and the shifting of Nowak to the clerk's office both passed by 3-2.

The Republican Fudoli won the backing of two Democrats, Mark S. Aquino and Ronald Ruffino Sr., but he was opposed by two other Democrats, John Abraham Jr. and Donna G. Stempniak. The secretary position "wasn't in the budget," Stempniak said at the board meeting, prompting Fudoli to reply, "It's in town law."

https://buffalonews.com/2012/02/07/f...lerk-laid-off/

[mark blazejewski]

Who's to say that a majority of the town board wouldn't want to vote fiscally conservatively? Maybe that's just election mantra

I don't know about a "majority" of the Town Council, but speaking of "election mantra," I wonder which Ron Ruffino will actually take office.

(Bear in mind, the preparation of a budget is of far greater importance with long-term effects than casting a showboat "NO" vote on contingency authority to raise the tax cap in event of an emergency.)

Will it be the Ruffino who represented himself as "the most fiscally conservative" member of the Town Board during the campaign, or the historic Ron Ruffino?...

Ruffino Voting Record 2.jpg

[gorja]

I don't know about a "majority" of the Town Council, but speaking of "election mantra," I wonder which Ron Ruffino will actually take office.

(Bear in mind, the preparation of a budget is of far greater importance with long-term effects than casting a showboat "NO" vote on contingency authority to raise the tax cap in event of an emergency.)

Will it be the Ruffino who represented himself as "the most fiscally conservative" member of the Town Board during the campaign, or the historic Ron Ruffino?...

Ruffino Voting Record 2.jpg

I'm betting on the conservative Ruffino. I'm hoping Leary will be too.
Mazur, I don't have a clue. Dickman has been voting the liberal route.

[mark blazejewski]

At the January 6, 2020 town board organizational meeting, the new administration by resolution will appoint or reappoint several individuals to serve at the will of the town board. Rumors abound as to who will continue to serve in some of those positions; whether those positions will be filled by patronage and/or with individuals less qualified.

In my world Lee, the election returns were decisive only in that the voters appeared say that they want more time to consider the direction that Lancaster should take. In that regard, for this next year, all Council players are on something of a "probation," with the voters constantly assessing which caucus is serving the overall best interests of the town.

The problem for the Democrats is that they may be either tainted or celebrated by what Ruffino does.

Ruffino the perceived actor, will now be the focus of the attention he so seemingly craves. On that Council stage he will be the leading man, but the question is what role will he play?

During the campaign, Ruffino touted his conversion to the conservative fiscal faith.

(Now, under the glare of lights and through the unfiltered mic, Ruffino, center stage, will be required to actually preside over the sessions, and without the assumed, but rather conspicuous, assistance of text-message instructions from his political director(s) in the gallery, but, I digress.)


It will be indeed interesting to see if Ruffino debuts with an on-stage imitation of Art Laffer, or a Shakespearean engaging a forlorn memory: "Alas,poor Art! I knew him, Terry."

Furthermore, as Supervisor, Ruffino will personally and solely make some appointments which do not require Council approval. Such appointments will not only test his recent campaign rhetoric that he is "not controlled by party bosses," but suggest his personal competence. Most important, Ruffino's commitment to truly act in the overall best interests of "the people" will be evaluated, and by the exact same people he may or may not have duped.

Ergo, Ruffino's performances will reflect, for better or worse, on the Democrat caucus.

Such reflection may surface resultant from an appointment which does not require Council approval. If the rumor of the appointment of Cindy Maciejewski is true, and that she is destined to become Ruffino's secretary, it is going to raise some eyebrows.

It will be very hard for the Republicans and Conservatives not to loudly point out that such an appointment has very deep roots in patronage and political payback, and illustrates that Ruffino was, and remains, the handmaiden of the Democrat bosses.

Equally, again if the rumor is true, some Democrats may argue that a Maciejewski appointment is nothing more than a reward to Ms. Maciejewski for her role in a campaign, driven by political bosses, which seemed solely aimed at destroying fellow Democrat Diane Terranova.

Those same Democrats may also argue that Ruffino's seeming silence during the general election campaign was tacit support for Ann Desiderio, and that Ruffino was willing to place politics and the wishes of political bosses over the best interests of the taxpayers and residents.

As for those positions requiring Council confirmation, the Republicans have an opportunity, and an apparent mandate, to remain faithful to their commitment to support candidates for appointed office that will unify the town and that are eminently qualified to serve, without regard to strict party label.


"To the victory goes the spoils" Old Hickory once said. The problem is that the victor of the 2019 election will truly not be decided until November 3, 2020.

[gorja]

Originally posted by mark blazejewski:
If the rumor of the appointment of Cindy Maciejewski is true, and that she is destined to become Ruffino's secretary, it is going to raise some eyebrows.

I think the supervisors in general are entitled to choose a secretary of whom they can trust.
The salary is only $1,100 more per year ($21 per week). Fudoli chose Lynn Sacha with the backing of Councilmen Ron Ruffino and Mark Aquino.
Maciejewski would lose the $2,645 per year planning board secretary stipend unless she kept that position.

[mark blazejewski]

I think the supervisors in general are entitled to choose a secretary...

I did not suggest that the Supervisor holds no such an entitlement...

Furthermore, as Supervisor, Ruffino will personally and solely make some appointments which do not require Council approval.

...but in that connection, did suggest that...

Such appointments will not only test his recent campaign rhetoric that he is "not controlled by party bosses," but suggest his personal competence. Most important, Ruffino's commitment to truly act in the overall best interests of "the people" will be evaluated, and by the exact same people he may or may not have duped.

Furthermore, I assume that you are not suggesting that these considered observations Gorja have no merit?:

It will be very hard for the Republicans and Conservatives not to loudly point out that such an appointment has very deep roots in patronage and political payback, and illustrates that Ruffino was, and remains, the handmaiden of the Democrat bosses.

Equally, again if the rumor is true, some Democrats may argue that a Maciejewski appointment is nothing more than a reward to Ms. Maciejewski for her role in a campaign, driven by political bosses, which seemed solely aimed at destroying fellow Democrat Diane Terranova.

Those same Democrats may also argue that Ruffino's seeming silence during the general election campaign was tacit support for Ann Desiderio, and that Ruffino was willing to place politics and the wishes of political bosses over the best interests of the taxpayers and residents.

...or that the current tie status of the Council contradicts this comment?...

As for those positions requiring Council confirmation, the Republicans have an opportunity, and an apparent mandate, to remain faithful to their commitment to support candidates for appointed office that will unify the town and that are eminently qualified to serve, without regard to strict party label.

\

Ruffino is Supervisor now Gorja, and he exclusively will own those decisions for which he bears singular responsibility. No more hiding behind his peers and manipulating circumstances.

To Mr. Ruffino, a comment:

"Your Supervisor now Ron; time to stop dancing and grow up.

[gorja]

I did not suggest that the Supervisor holds no such an entitlement...




...but in that connection, did suggest that...



Furthermore, I assume that you are not suggesting that these considered observations Gorja have no merit?:



...or that the current tie status of the Council contradicts this comment?...

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't blame Ruffino for choosing a secretary that he knows has his back, patronage or not. He wouldn't get that necessarily from an unknown individual.

[mark blazejewski]

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't blame Ruffino for choosing a secretary that he knows has his back, patronage or not. He wouldn't get that necessarily from an unknown individual.

I do not presume to tell him whom to appoint. He needs to do what he needs to do, but at the same time, he owns such decisions, along with the attendant, legitimate analysis suggesting possible motivation(s), including patronage.

[gorja]

Since John Bruso lost his re-election bid,
I was hoping he would be appointed again to the Zoning board.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I think the supervisors in general are entitled to choose a secretary of whom they can trust.
The salary is only $1,100 more per year ($21 per week). Fudoli chose Lynn Sacha with the backing of Councilmen Ron Ruffino and Mark Aquino.
Maciejewski would lose the $2,645 per year planning board secretary stipend unless she kept that position.

Ruffino, like Fudoli, are authorized to select their own Director of Administration & Finance and Personal Secretary without the need for 'backing' from anyone to justify his decision.

[mark blazejewski]

Entered in error.