Lancaster resident questions reason for $7,000 stipend

[Lee Chowaniec]

As several other residents have done in the past, Carmen Hangauer questioned why the Town Building Inspector is still getting a $7,000 stipend for services he no longer provides for the Village of Lancaster. This time had more impact because Hangauer provided documents (prior resolutions) that verified Jeff Simme was no longer providing code enforcement duties for the village.

Mrs. Hangauer addressed the town board and requested that for purposes of clarification whether Building Inspector Jeff Simme was still getting paid the $7,000 stipend from the Village of Lancaster for doing code enforcement duties as stated in the recent budget. After being told he was Hangauer asked about the $23,000 in the budget that came from the village and whether that was for administration…

Supervisor Dino Fudoli interjected that it was for administration, overseeing the Building Department permits, but that the town does not handle code enforcement stuff anymore; just the building permits that come through the town, just administration.

Hangauer: So why is Jeff Simme receiving this $7,000 stipend?

Fudoli: There are still some duties he is performing; overseeing.

Hangauer: So is this $7,000 part of the $23,000 administration fee or separate from that?

Councilman Mark Aquino: For clarification, the village used to cut a check to the town for $30,000. Two years ago, the village unilaterally cut it to $23,000 because they decided that they were going to do their own code enforcement. I was the village attorney at the time and I didn’t agree with. The Village of Lancaster is in the budget process right now and this may be a good time to revisit this.

Hangauer: According to what I understand, the $7,000 was to be paid to Town of Lancaster Assistant Code Enforcement George Pease from 2010. Pease took Simme’s place as code enforcement officer and an agreement was reached between the town and village that the village would pay the $7,000 to Pease. Did Pease get that $7,000?

Aquino: I think what happened was that there was some indication that we (the town) didn’t want Pease working for the Village on town time. We told them that if he was going to be paid for that, he would have to do it on Village time. Then they decided to take code enforcement to the Village. George retired shortly thereafter anyway. That is my recollection of what happened a couple of years ago.

Hangauer: Okay, so back to the $7,000 in the budget, is Simme still receiving that?

Fudoli: Yes.

Hangauer: Why?

Aquino: For services he provides for the Village. When the agreement was put in place several years ago, there are services his department provides. You can talk to the Village about that.

Hangauer: I am bothered by this. I want to know why the town is paying out $7,000 when no code enforcement services are now being provided by the town for the village. From 2001 to 2010, former Town Supervisor Robert Giza and Village of Lancaster Mayor Bill Cansdale made up an agreement (resolution) that described what the $7,000 was for – code enforcement services, attendance to Village Board meetings, attendance at Planning and Zoning Board meetings. So there are some things expected for this $7,000.

I would like this addressed as there are issues arising that the community is paying attention to now. We are wasting money and there are concerns how and why staff are being appointed, and reappointed. You guys are stewards for this community and should be looking out for the taxpayers. This is not being fiscally responsible and I would like an answer as to why we continue to pay this $7,000 when no code enforcement services are being provided to the Village of Lancaster and they are not paying us in return.

Comments

Mrs. Hangauer had in her possession a document from March 19, 2001, titled ‘Municipal Cooperative Agreement’ that spells out the payment of $23,000 for services rendered by the town to the village, and the $7,000 for the services and type provided by the code enforcement officer.

Hangauer’s second document pertained to a correspondence submitted by the Village of Lancaster dismissing Simme as code enforcement officer and retaining George Pease in his place.

In the September 9, 2010 correspondence from Village Mayor Cansdale it was stated:

As you know, the Village Board of the Village of Lancaster has not been satisfied with the code enforcement provided by the Town Building Inspector Jeffrey H. Simme. As you may also know many times I and other members of the Village Board have expressed to Mr. Simme his need to adjust the manner in which he represents the interest of the Village of Lancaster in responding to code violations and complaints. It is at this time apparent that our past efforts in dialogue have not been sufficiently fruitful. Any Improvement in Mr. Simme's performance has been slight and intermittent.

After thoughtful consideration the Village Board of the Village of Lancaster has concluded that the continued involvement of Mr. Simme in addressing code violations and complaints within and on behalf of the Village of Lancaster is not in the best interest of the Village or the residents of the Village. Accordingly, I with the authority of the Village Board, respectfully request an amendment to the municipal cooperative agreement entered into between the Village and the Town on February 26, 2001.The amendment would assign to Mr. George R. Pease of the Town of Lancaster Building and Zoning Department the tasks and compensation previously delegated to Mr. Simme.

What should also be noted that in his first budget proposal (2013) Supervisor Fudoli proposed reducing the $7,000 stipend to $3,000. The $7,000 was added back into an amended budget by Council members Aquino, Stempniak, Abraham and Ruffino.

[4248]

Bravo - great catch.

Now if someone has time - go back and look at who received payments from the old Bocce Building. There's many players who have been receiving multiple tax funded stipends and pay checks. Its not easy going back to 1998 or so - but it would be rewarding to show the public what their votes have really given them.

They had ways of denying stipends and pay received for what Supervisor Giza used to call "Cross Boarding" - they would say, "Councilmember S sits on the library committee for free - or look at all the time Bob donates to the Boys and Girls Club" - yet truth be know they received compensation it was just not called a pay check - they were given "Stipends" or compensation for cross boarding.

You know it always amazes me how no one has ever truly looked at the finance minister - its his job to create the maze of numerical budget book keeping. When was Lancaster ever audited by a non party friends company ? They hired people to tell us how good things look - never actually factually showing dollar for dollar where the tax dollars went. You'd need a forensic audit to get the facts - some agency that could cut through the Town Clerks records and the finance minister records.

Some of us have been advocating a full audit sense around 1997. Its great that those of you who have taken up the torch for open government seem to be making some awesome headway. Good for you - please keep digging.

[gorja]

Great job, Mrs Hangauer.

Lee,
Am I understanding the present numbers? The town is now receiving $23,000 instead of $30,000 and $7,000 is still being given to Mr Simme. Isn't Mr Simme the employee who has been ill and has had to modify his work with the town due to illness?

Also, am I to understand that presently the Village does their own Code enforcement, so there should not be a stipend to anyone in the town for CE services.

Why isn't the supervisor proposing a resolution to negate this stipend? It may be voted down by the Dems but at least it would be in the public that he is against it. But from your above post, it doesn't sound like the supervisor is hot to get id of it.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Councilman Mark Aquino: For clarification, the village used to cut a check to the town for $30,000. Two years ago, the village unilaterally cut it to $23,000 because they decided that they were going to do their own code enforcement. I was the village attorney at the time and I didn’t agree with. The Village of Lancaster is in the budget process right now and this may be a good time to revisit this.

Wasn't there any conflict of interest at that time with Aquino holding down the Lancaster town councilman spot and the Village of Lancaster attorney spot since they do have business between the two municipalities. If so, would the same be true now, as Aquino is also the Village of Depew attorney while holding the Town of Lancaster councilman spot. AS we have municipal agreements with both villages for Dog control services, the Village of Lancaster pays nothing does Depew?

[shortstuff]

Wasn't there any conflict of interest at that time with Aquino holding down the Lancaster town councilman spot and the Village of Lancaster attorney spot since they do have business between the two municipalities. If so, would the same be true now, as Aquino is also the Village of Depew attorney while holding the Town of Lancaster councilman spot. AS we have municipal agreements with both villages for Dog control services, the Village of Lancaster pays nothing does Depew?

Good questions, this is a situation where one hand does not seem to know what the other hand is doing. As someone once said, when you walk pass these people--hold on to your wallets!

[Frank Broughton]

Some of us have been advocating a full audit sense around 1997. Its great that those of you who have taken up the torch for open government seem to be making some awesome headway. Good for you - please keep digging.

Isn't the state going town by town doing just that right now? I believe it is alphabetical and they are up to B right now.

[Lancaster Resident]

The $7,000 stipend to Mr. Simme issue raises the whole issue of stipends as well. If any Lancaster Town employee (Mr. Simme, or other) is doing work for the Village of Lancaster, or other municipality, the reimbursement from the other municipality should go to the Town ONLY, not the employee that did this "extra" work on Town paid time. The same case can be made for other work given stipends within the Town. If the employee is doing this work on Town paid time, then the work should be considered compensated by the salary the employee is already receiving from the Town. To get paid their regular Town salary, and one or more stipends too, for work done during the same business hours the Town is already paying the employee for is "double dipping". These stipends appear to be a backdoor way to give certain Town employees a substantial raise, without calling it a raise. If these stipends are motivated for patronage/political payback reasons, then it is even more outrageous. Time to stop this nonsense!!!

[gorja]

Excellent point, Lancaster resident. The town didn't want Mr Pease working for the village on town time but apparently didn't mind if Simme did.

[4248]

When you've help facilitate developers, business interests that support the Controlling Party as long as he has been - the Councilmen and Town Hall insiders don't move lightly. They never want someone like that to feel abandoned - he knows way too much. They have to carry him as long as possible and act caring while doing it.

After all its tax dollars their feeding him - nothing comes out of their pockets. Once they see they cant Politically take the heat any more - he'll be retired. Voters have short memories and Party Players expect the same considerations.

Just another day in the life of the "Sons of Patronage"

[walking tall]

The layers that are endemic to a village inside a town like Lancaster creates opportunities for mis-management and unaccountability. The 16 year and counting Democratic controlled votes at the town level have enabled a system in the town to perpetuate this veil of shrouded secrecy. They want to delay responses so that the public forgets issues like the Simme case. Too much times passes before clarification is given I appreciate and applaud Mrs. Hangauer for looking back and seeing the dirty laundry and slight of hand shell game going on.

Lets get rid of Village governance, put it under one central own administration, hold their feet to the fire, and pin their shoulders back when you want answers...no need to wait years for clarification. It seems increasingly as things get uncovered that Lancaster is rife with stewards of taxpayer monies who would rather sweep things under the rug and blindfold the constituents. With their actions, and the diligence of people like Mrs. Hangauer, the microscope is now out like never before. The lab rats are being exposed and the anti-virus is your vote.

Lets remember that at the 2015 election. For God's sake, for our sake as a vital, vibrant and relevant and most importantly a respected community, lets remember that! Town's that turn out to be laughing stocks for continually re-electing the same so-called stewards, get a reputation and is a reflection on all its' citizens.

[shortstuff]

We need to start looking closer at this department. It appears a few things are taking place, many personnel are out sick or not in the field. Hiring part time staff is all well and good but the question to ask is -- who is out there enforcing the code?

[Frank Broughton]

So many here have addressed the issue in this town as the Democrats making bad decisions, one after another. I have to ask though, how many here went door to door, made phone calls and supported the opponents who ran against them with their "feet"? It is fine and dandy to pick apart what these rats are doing, but what YOU do with your "feet" come election time is what really matters.

Did anyone who writes in this section go door to door for the opponents of these poor performing Democrats?

[shortstuff]

So many here have addressed the issue in this town as the Democrats making bad decisions, one after another. I have to ask though, how many here went door to door, made phone calls and supported the opponents who ran against them with their "feet"? It is fine and dandy to pick apart what these rats are doing, but what YOU do with your "feet" come election time is what really matters.

Did anyone who writes in this section go door to door for the opponents of these poor performing Democrats?

Hi Frank, we sure did--

[4248]

Frank you have a great point.

Although there doesn't seem to be much "Leather on the pavement" - there is a growing audience here. Many people are seeing through the smoke - they see that valid issues of tax abuse are being brought to light.

They see how those who represent the status quo attack those who expose collusion and patronage. A handful of occasional posters only come on to attack concerned citizens - this mirrors what was the standard at Town Board sessions. That seems to be lessening - yet there's still the reality of as Lee stated in another post :

"Town Governance - Ah, now here you are screwed as you can’t vote on the budget. Oh, you can go to the public hearing on the budget and comment/question/complain all you want about any line item on the budget, but the town board members will nod their heads, sigh, and even express concern and then vote for whatever best serves their interests."

Yet, many of us see the need for a more united non party driven effort to bring about actual change.

Some are content riding the fence and throwing stones - some have invested time and personal monies - most voters just follow the lead of locals who financially benefit from tax payer funded patronage.

Unity of purpose - united agenda for change - residents have the right to support candidates regardless of "Party Label" or affiliation.

How does a group of like minded tax payers become a force for change ?

[ichingtheory]

I wonder if Channel 2, "Holding your Officials Accountable" segment would be interested in this stipend issue.