IMHO, The November 9, 2020 Town Council Work Session: Oh, So Revealing

[mark blazejewski]

Just My Opinion Based On My Understanding Of The Audio Recording, Town Council Work Session, November 9, 2020:


Eric Sevareid once said "What separates the men from the boys in politics is that the men want to do something; the boys want to be somebody." In my opinion, the November 9, 2020 Town Council Work Session on the 2021 Budget vividly drew that distinction. The Ruffino administration revealed itself to be the latter; Councilman Leary emerged as the former.


In its budget presentations, the Ruffino administration seemingly revealed itself to be a dysfunctional compendium of incompetence, contradictions, pettiness, and self-indulgence.


In the very first round of sparring, Councilman Leary sought clarification from Budget Director Cuviello regarding reserve monies in connection with a presented $1,231,250 figure. Budget Director Cuviello seemingly did not know whether or not that figure was attendant to the Unrestricted or Restricted Fund Balance. When Leary responded that he was "looking at exactly what you sent me," Cuviello queried Leary "Is this in the budget?"


Although rather technically highbrow to the lay observer, the Budget Director's comments, taken at face value, seemingly suggested an ignorance, or at the very least, an uncertainty, of the contents of the budget that she, herself, prepared; hardly a reflection of focused, professional expertise.


In keeping with his showboat "fiscally conservative" theme, Ruffino, in his comments regarding the Fund Balance, seemed to be saying that he did not favor spending down the reserves to a permissible point in an effort to assist economically strapped taxpayers. Rather, the Supervisor chose to "be more conservative with this" because of the unforeseen world of potential Covid lockdowns; a curious comment from one who previously ridiculed his opponent in 2019 for her prudent reactions to a potential lurking emergency.


Nevertheless, Supervisor Ruffino seemed to expect the Council to provide him with cover as his budget shifted a financial burden upon the backs of the economically-strapped Lancaster taxpayer. In Ruffino's own words: "I don't want to be the only one out there." Are those not curious comments from one who purportedly leads Lancaster?


Round two, as I understand it, was a disgraceful display of rather obvious pettiness, applied with pedantic arguments, perhaps in pursuit of some type of retribution.


Animal Control Officer Karn, who strongly advocated for her hard working staff, animal welfare, and public safety, appeared to be obstructed by thin arguments in support of relatively marginal savings.


Further regarding part time Animal Control personnel matters, Budget Director Cuviello suggested that budget resources should be applied with strict consideration to the trending pattern of actual hours heretofore worked, without serious regard to potential permissible hours.


On the other hand, ACO Karn in consideration of her full portfolio, prudently and wisely requested that such resources be applied with consideration towards full engagement of allowable hours as per CSEA guidelines.


Supervisor Ruffino's comments on the Animal Control spending issue appeared to be both confusing and contradictory.


While the Supervisor suggested that he preferred to "scale-down" Animal Control spending, he held with some ambiguity, support for a dog census; an exercise which would simultaneously increase revenues and serve the interests of public safety and health.


In that connection however, the Supervisor dismissed a door-to-door census citing Covid concerns and appeared to favor a telephone survey. If I understood the audio recording referenced below correctly, when the option of a mail-in census was raised, the Supervisor was quick to point out that such a census was ineffective in the past, and specifically stated that residents discarded the questionnaire.


The comments regarding the mail-in option were perplexing to me. Our family has had a licensed dog since 1966, and during that time, I can not recall one instance of receiving such a questionnaire. Absent a specific historical reference, is it not reasonable to question the accuracy, or perhaps truthful basis of the Ruffino reference?


(I also ask parenthetically, how many people would be comfortable confiding to a faceless, unverified telephone voice, the existence of a household dog, which in many instances, may serve as a supplemental component to residential security?)


Moreover, Mr. Ruffino throughout the budget process as in other undertakings throughout this year, has properly noted the public health threat that is Covid. In that regard, a failure to undertake a dog census seemingly opens the door to danger.

Is not the possibility of an unvaccinated dog, perhaps roaming in an area where rabies transmissions have been present, a troublesome safety and health issue?


Is Mr. Ruffino unconcerned by the public health dangers resident in rabies transmission?


The most enlightening area of budget scrutiny was present in the exchange concerning Council salaries.


While Messrs Leary, Dickman, and Mazur, out of respect for the taxpayers negatively impacted by the Covid situation, refused a salary increase, Supervisor Ruffino held fast in his demand for the reinstatement of the Supervisor's stipend for budget duties and a pay raise for the Supervisor.


In listening to Mr. Ruffino make his case for both, I was struck by his words, which reflected more of a negotiating posture for a personal service contract, rather than a discussion of budget lines for an elected official's compensation.


In my opinion, Supervisor Ruffino simply did not, and does not, understand that in 2019, he did not seek a private sector career move subject to comparable, merit-based negotiation. In point of fact, in 2019, he sought an expanded public trust, with a set salary and benefits package, and did so as a fully informed incumbent trustee.


Indeed, in my opinion, Mr. Ruffino's compensation pleadings were a shameless, self-indulgent application of personal advocacy rather than a staunch, honorable presentation focusing on, and attending to, the needs of the community which many times honored him with their votes.


In the end, Council Members Leary, Dickman and Mazur took pity on Ruffino, and did so perhaps in the same way as an exhausted parent gives in to the rantings of a child's tantrum. However, I note that although the Council seemed to surrender on the pay raise issue, I understand that raise was limited to a 1.5% increase, and not to the 1.9% increase which I understood to have been present in the Tentative Budget.


Thus was the Ruffino administration, on stage in all of its vainglorious self-praise.



Conversely, Councilman Leary emerged from the November 9, 2020 Work Session, as a principled advocate for the residents and the taxpayers. That impression only confirms perceptions of a genuine, confident leadership, which he has demonstrated throughout his short tenure.


During the March 16, 2020 Town Council "Covid Session," while Ron Ruffino, in a paraphrase lamented "It hurts a lot to be going through this; this is new to me. I am under a lot of pressure," freshman Council Member Leary was quick to reassure an anxious public. In an apparent effort to assuage public concerns, Leary asked the Chief of Police a series of questions, the answer to which confirmed the fact that Lancaster's essential services were functioning fully and effectively.


During the November 9 Work Session, while Ruffino and Cuviello advanced Covid as a reason for not fully spending down the fund reserves, Bob Leary pushed against their argument in support of the Lancaster taxpayers; and


While Ruffino and Cuviello signaled a deprioritization of the Animal Control budget, Leary, in the interests of public health and safety, as well as for the human treatment of animals, was steadfast in his support for proper funding for the Animal Control Office; and


While Supervisor Ruffino tantrumatically compared what he considered to be his undervalued services to those of his peers and fellow town elected officials, Councilman Leary along with Council Members Mazur and Dickman led by empathetic example an refused a salary increase; and


While Supervisor Ruffino insisted that the Supervisor's stipend for budget duties be reinstated, Councilman Leary was resolute in his fiscal conservative opposition.


Indeed, what separates the men from the boys in politics is the perception that the men want to do something; the boys want to be somebody.



References:

https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372/2020-03-16-tbm

https://soundcloud.com/user-32929237...MGhHZl77c1xLFE

[gorja]

What I thought was odd that the Animal control officer department head didn't know her own employment status.

[Lee Chowaniec]

A different perspective

Let’s cut to the chase, this budget and the budget process has been a flawed disaster from day one – an embarrassment for the Town of Lancaster. A budget designed and orchestrated by a Supervisor and Budget Director who should have known better!

The precedent teleconferenced budget work session may have been revealing, but should have not been necessary had the October 5th filed tentative budget been appropriately designed and presented to the town board members and later presented at the public hearing as the ‘preliminary budget’.

As I have stated in numerous earlier posts, the filed tentative budget was a disaster, lacking in information / completeness, filled with errors, and most importantly, having a tax levy (Amount to be Raised by Taxation) far exceeding the tax cap limit. Why that budget was filed is beyond comprehension because it became the ‘preliminary budget’ and the one that was supposed to be reviewed by the public at the October 19th public hearing.

The board was asleep at the wheel. But certainly a Town Supervisor who had been a town councilmember for 18 years, worked on budgets for those 18 years and swore to never vote to override a tax cap waiver resolution, files a budget that is well over the tax cap limit. And then there is his Budget Director, ex budget director of Clarence who drops the ball as well.

To make matters worse, a ‘revised tentative budget’ is posted on the town website on Saturday, October 17th, two days before the public hearing and without town board approval. The revised budget has less fund balance used, lowers the tax levy from a 6.6% increase to 5.35%, but still over the tax cap limit.

The circus continues when at the public hearing I ask what budget version I should be speaking on, receive no answer and ask whether the board realizes that neither budget version meets the tax cap limit. Budget Director Cuviello responds they realized that fact that very day and put together a ‘supplemental’ budget version where $254,000 more of fund balance was used to meet the tax cap limit – a grand total now of $562,000 of fund balance being used and where the tax levy increase is within tax cap limit – 4.56%. A ‘supplemental’ budget version the public has no copy of to review prior to the public hearing and comment on. You could not write this **** up and get it past anyone who knows anything about budgets.

When I asked why more fund balance was being used (from a healthy fund balance) to lower the tax levy resulting in lower resident tax liability, I was told they wanted to keep the fund balance where it was if there was a future COVID shutdown. As councilman Leary, I believe there is adequate fund balance revenue to use more of to lower the tax levy and resulting tax liability – for businesses as well as residents who are struggling with the impact of COVID and high New York State taxes. We are in this together, right Mr. Supervisor?.

Can't wait to see the 'final' version, the changes made, and to get some idea what my tax liability is going to be.

In the near twenty years I have followed the town's budget process, I have never witnessed such a debacle under other Supervisors and the counsel of former Budget Director Dave Brown. Miss ya. man!

[mark blazejewski]

What I thought was odd that the Animal control officer department head didn't know her own employment status.

If your comments have any merit, perhaps the Animal Control Officer's purported lack of focus upon her own self-enrichment, suggests that she prioritizes her job over her compensation?

That would certainly be a refreshing contrast with some other Lancaster town actors, eh?

[mark blazejewski]

From today's Lancaster Bee:

Town holds budget work session talking salaries, stipends

November 12, 2020

by MARIA PERICOZZI Editor


Lancaster Town Council members Adam Dickman, Bob Leary and Dave Mazur agreed to not increase their salaries in the 2021 budget during Monday’s work session.

Their salaries in 2021 will not include the standard 1.5% raise most other departments are expected to receive.

“If we’re trying to save money, we shouldn’t be giving ourselves a raise,” Dickman said.

The council also discussed removing a budget officer stipend for the town supervisor.

In previous years, a $5,000 budget officer stipend was approved for the former supervisor. When Ruffino became supervisor, he advocated to place the $5,000 stipend back into the 2020 budget.

In January, Leary spoke against the measure and said the stipend should be removed. Dickman agreed and said most supervisors do not get the stipend the first year and they learn the budget first. The stipend was eliminated in the 2020 budget.

The supervisor’s salary in the 2021 tentative budget is $72,500, which is a standard increase from last year’s salary, Ruffino said.

“I’m nowhere near the salary of a supervisor,” Ruffino said. “I’m $18,000 away from the town clerk.”

Leary said he has done research regarding the stipend, and that it is usually given to part-time supervisors in small towns.

“The budget officer, I don’t think it belongs in there and it never probably should have been in there,” Leary said.

Ruffino said in towns the size of Lancaster, the supervisor’s salaries are $10,000 to $15,000 more. Ruffino said last year he provided that research to the council members. The council members requested that Ruffino provide research regarding supervisor’s salaries in towns of equal sizes and what they were doing in the 2021 budget for their salaries.

“It’s only fair to take a look at that,” Mazur said.

The board also agreed on a raise for part-time dog control officers to $14 an hour for 2021 and $14.50 an hour for 2022.


Dog Control Officer Jean Karn said people at McDonald’s and Arby’s make more than $14 an hour.

“They are essential. My employees have worked the entire COVID and have taken dogs in from COVID houses. That is an insult to my employees,” Karn said.

Karn said her employees put their lives on the line daily.

“It’s all about negotiation. We’re trying to do what’s best for the taxpayers from the tax end,” Mazur said.

Pam Cuviello, director of finance for the town of Lancaster, said the budget fund balance use is conservative, in case of another shutdown.

Leary advocated to use more of the fund balance to lessen the taxes on residents. “I think something like $400,000 would be a better number to put in there, bring the taxes down for our taxpayers and still keep us in pretty good shape as far as the general fund goes,” Leary said.

Cuviello said if there is another shutdown, which is being talked about already, sales tax will be reduced again, and the town would have a big problem, because the Lancaster Police rely on sales tax to operate their account.

“We don’t know what’s coming down the pipe,” Cuviello said. “I’d rather be on the conservative side, and not add that additional fund balance at this point in time. If we find that things shake out differently as the year goes on, and we’re into next year, we can certainly make adjustments and amendments to the budget.”

Ruffino said as of Monday, the county was given a chance to improve the COVID-19 infection numbers; otherwise, the county will have to add more restrictions, including shutting down indoor dining-in restaurants.

The full tentative budget can be found at www.lancasterny.gov/.

The next Lancaster Town Board meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 16. Residents can dial into the meeting by calling 800-4267 and using the PIN 1232. Residents are asked to mute their phones until they would like to speak during the public comment period.

Reference: https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ries-stipends/

In previous years, a $5,000 budget officer stipend was approved for the former supervisor.

What in Hell does that sentence mean?

[Lee Chowaniec]

What I thought was odd that the Animal control officer department head didn't know her own employment status.

On June 3, 2017, by resolution, Jean Karn was appointed to the position of Dog Control Officer, part-time, effective June 23, 2017, at an annual salary of $34,000, on step, which represents 85% of the full salary of $40,000 which shall be reached after 24 months of service in accordance with the following step schedule: Date of Employment until 12 months: 85% of full salary 13 – 18 months of service: 90% of full salary 19 – 24 months of service: 95% of full salary After 24 months of service: 100% of full salary.

It was FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Karn is designated to oversee the dog control function within the Town subject to the expectations, oversight, and direction of the Town Supervisor, or designee, and shall work a schedule to be determined by the Town Supervisor, or designee. Council member Ron Ruffino voted ‘no’.

On November 6, 2017, the 2018 budget was adopted, and the Dog Control Officer salary was set at $50,000. What changed? New contract? New list of duties? Would love to see her contract – if there is one, with a job description.

In 2019, Karn's salary is reduced to $48,756. Karn willingly takes a cut in pay to help increase the wages of her Assistant DCO’s.

In 2020, her pay increased to $50,750.

In the revised 2021 tentative budget, Karn requests her salary be set at $51,000. In the ‘Supplemental’ tentative budget proposal her request is listed at $51,511.

You find it odd that Karn questions her job description? I find it odd that Karn and the council members had to do the math for the Supervisor and Budget Director that confirmed the wage proposal for the assistant DCO’s had them earning $12.80 an hour, not the $14,00 touted by the budget experts.

What’s odd, and a total disaster, was the entire budget proposal, its revisions, its credibility, etc., etc., etc.

Can’t wait to see the final version that will be put up for adoption. This has been one giant cluster****!