Reply With QuoteDvoakley, I respectfully disagree. The issue here is not politics and frankly, I do not understand what your comments about Schratz have to do with the issues we are discussing here. The issue here is the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer money without justification and in an apparent attempt to mislead us into believing that we got our money's worth when we paid $8.6 million for this pelletization project and that it is saving us money. It seems to me that is a vitally important topic and certainly justifies continuing this thread.Originally posted by Dvoakley
This is a thread that is going no where. It's the politcal season and everyone is twisting the story toward their own end.The sensible thing to do is let the police investigation play out. Executive seasons to discuss the status will only lead to leaks to the public (like JT).
Schratz has no money. Even the Reps don't like her, she's a real witch. So she's trying to get in the press with every manipulation she can use. Maybe some peolple will forget her days as a shrew but I'm betting she's a dead duck already. What you are really watching is her political death rales.
With respect to the police investigation, I think it is proper to question, as has already been done by others and me in this thread, whether that investigation is simply the latest attempt by those actually responsible for this fiasco to divert attention away from their own culpability. I am deeply concerned that such an investigation would be initiated by the attorneys handling the Canna hearings and the three members of the town board that already believe he is guilty.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact of this alleged investigation on the Canna hearings. How is Canna supposed to get a fair hearing while this alleged criminal investigation is proceeding? I hear that there is a police detective sitting in on the hearings listening to the testimony. I have never heard of anything like this. Canna is apparently claiming that this deprives him of a fair hearing and renders the second hearing null and void as well. Are we going to end up with another procedurally defective hearing after spending another $500,000 or more?
You will recall that these same attorneys handled the first hearing, which cost us approximately $500,000, and was later declared to be null and void because formal board action was required to properly designate the hearing officer and that simple procedural rule was not followed. Now we have the same attorneys the second time around apparently directly involved in a criminal investigation of the plant staff, making wild allegations about criminal activity and sabotage, and apparently coordinating the meeting that led to this alleged criminal investigation. I don't know about you but just off the top of my head, this course of conduct raises a number of serious questions.
First, the claims of criminal activity and sabotage by the plant staff are alleged to have occurred during the past five years since Canna has been gone and it is further alleged that these activities and sabotage are responsible for the failure of the pelletization project. That position directly controverts the case against Canna and the Town's previously espoused position that the project began to work correctly after Canna was removed and Watkins was brought in. So, I have to ask, are these attorneys representing the Town in a Section 75 hearing against Canna or are they representing the Town in a criminal investigation against the current operators of the facility that directly controverts the claims against Canna.
Second, who authorized these attorneys to engage in an investigation that essentially torpedoes the case against Canna? The Town Board certainly didn't authorize it. Seems to me we now have another action without proper Town Board authorization that could lead to the case against Canna being thrown out on procedural grounds. As you know, the four (4) Town Board members that were not invited to the secret meeting on July 20, 2005 in the Supervisor's office are raising these types of questions.
Third, the Amherst Employees Association, which represents most of the operators at the facility, has already filed a Notice of Claim against the Town alleging defamation of character and other claims involving misuse and/or abuse of process. This is likely to lead to additional lawsuits against the Town that could result in millions of dollars more in liability that ultimately has to be paid by the taxpayers of Amherst.
Fourth, as a result of the second round of hearings against Canna and the negative publicity it has generated for the Town and the pelletization project, we now have an ongoing audit by the New York State Comptroller's office.
Fifth, due to a recent letter from an Amherst taxpayer to the New York State Attorney General and New York State Comptroller, I understand we now also have an open investigation by the Attorney General's office exploring the issue of whether Microlink (Watkins) was brought in by Bowers and Johnson in 1998 when they knew or should have known that there was no scientific basis for what Microlink was proposing.
How many more mistakes will we have to pay for before the Town Board puts a stop to this? It appears to me that Councilmember O'Loughlin is the swing vote here and could have helped us to avoid all of this by refusing to vote to authorize the second hearing in June 2004 or, at least, putting a stop to it after it became clear that this was getting out of hand. He fancies himself as a financial guru and it seems to me this is an opportunity for him to use those abilities to save the taxpayers a lot of money and aggravation and the Town further embarrassment.
I understand that we paid these two attorneys approximately $175,000 for the first proceeding alone (in addition to the $125,000 paid to the first hearing officer and the approximately $100,000 paid to the first court reporter) and we are now paying them again for the second proceeding. Why didn't we get someone new who could do it right the first time and, if appropriate, hold these attorneys responsible for the fact that the first hearing was declared null and void due to a procedural error?
If the charges against Canna are really legitimate, why is it taking so long to prove it I understand the second hearing has already lasted 85 days. And why are we now torpedoing the case by alleging that the project does not work and that our own employees are responsible due to alleged misoperation and sabotage occurring since Canna has been gone.
I think these are legitimate questions that need to be answered NOW. Frankly, I don't think we can afford to wait and see how things "play out." If you have any factual information that can help answer these questions, please share it. As for me, I am going to continue to look into this and I will share what other information I can as it becomes available to me.
