Amended budget resolution draws rowdy responses – resolution vote - Part II

[Lee Chowaniec]

When the time came to vote on Resolution #18, sponsored by Councilman Mark Aquino, to approve the final/modified 2015 Town of Lancaster budget, Supervisor Dino Fudoli addressed the council members and the following dialogue ensued.

Fudoli: There were some questions asked before by the public and quite honestly I have a few of my own on the modified budget. Concerning the Parks and Recreation reorganization model being presented in the amended budget, and as resident Lee Chowaniec alluded to in his questions earlier, it is something we have been talking about.

Being that we are only six weeks to the end of the year, and we are changing the model entirely here, and which I support doing, what kind of forward plans are in place to get this accomplished before January 2015? Quite honestly, we have been looking at doing this in my office as a DPW (Department of Works) model. This has been done in some towns and I would like to know if the board put a contract in place that would hire a Highway Superintendent? If so, my office needs a copy of that to show him taking on two roles. Has contract been drafted yet for Dan Amatura to sign?

Councilman Mark Aquino: It hasn’t been drafted yet. We were working on the budget wording.

Fudoli: Okay. Has anyone approached the unions? I had one of the union representatives come in my office today and he was quite concerned because … currently we have White Collar and Blue Collar unions and they do not comingle. In other words White Collar employees (Parks) can’t hop in a plow truck for snow removal. I had a conversation with Highway Superintendent Dan Amatura on this past Friday and I don’t think he fully understood the fact that you just can’t take a White Collar worker and throw him in a plow truck, and that Blue Collar workers in the Highway Department can’t cut grass.

Councilman John Abraham: It will have to be made clear that he has to keep the departments separate.

Fudoli: Right, but has anyone approached the unions to talk to them about the implications? The union person that came to my office was quite concerned as he had no guidance. While I support the model it has not been thought through and I am going to vote no on the proposed amended budget because it puts two jobs back on te payroll that I had eliminated in my budget proposal.

Again, I support the model but I wish the board would have taken more time and received the answers to the questions I asked. And, to look at organizing it as a DPW model; one union and you can negotiate with the unions. I want to know if the board even considered that because right now without contract without either union involved, my concern is that right the White Collar union would not come to the table to negotiate anything without some give and take. Has the board thought of that is all I’m asking.

Council member Donna Stempniak: Well we didn’t start on this yet.

Fudoli: But you budgeted for it and it should be in place by January 1st. You’re putting the cart before the horse. As I said, there is no agreement in place with the Highway Superintendent.

Council member Donna Stempniak: We can’t do that until we do the budget.

Aquino: We have already talked to Mr. Amatura, we can put something together; we have six weeks to do it. In respect to the unions, certainly we are changing things but will separate them. We know we can’t tell someone from Parks to jump on a plow and Mr. Amatura is aware of that.

Fudoli: Amatura had the assumption that he could get the Park’s guys to do a better job. Is he saying that the Park’s guys are not efficient? Or maybe does he think he can use some of his workers? My understanding is that he felt he could intertwine the two, and you can’t do that. In a DPW model you can certainly do that. The unions would, in their best interest, to go along with model. Again, I feel we are putting the cart before the horse here without even speaking to the unions and making them aware of that; and finding some cost savings as well.

Spending money by taking the two jobs that I took out of the tentative budget is unnecessary in my opinion. Putting them back in the budget and using the savings from this model proposal and using fund balance revenue to help offset the increased spending is not the right way to do things. Why not find the actual savings by doing it the right way is what I’m saying.

Aquino: I don’t know if that DPW model is the right was. This is a one-year budget. If we go through this and we get to a place where it does not work, nothing stops us from going next year and start looking at the DPW model. We just thought this was a way to get more efficiency. Get more people in a supervisory role, an appeal level and a little more coordination. I’m not opposed to looking at the DPW model.

Fudoli: I am going to pose a question to you that was asked me today by a union representative. Amatura will be at the top of management. Interim crew chief Mark Lubera will be in Forestry, and an individual not yet selected will manage recreation; recreation director. It was mentioned that this job might be competitive; I don’t know at this time whether it will be. “Who will this people report to,” was the question asked me by the union rep.

Abraham: The idea is that Amatura is going to be the Department head. He will have the Department Recreation Director, who will be under Amatura, as well as the working foreman who will oversee the work. Any discipline, any issues with an employee would go to Amatura.

Fudoli: Right, but it’s not the discipline stuff I am asking on. Who are the employees responsible to? If they are responsible to Amatura, and say Mark Lubera stays in his supervisory position, Lubera cannot direct an employee to do something and Amatura direct the same employee to do something. You see what I’m saying. There has to be a direct chain of command. And that has to be drawn up in their bargaining agreements.
The union rep. said that when he looked at the budget what he saw was that his guys are to be responsible to three people. And, I can’t have my workers answer to three people.

Aquino: That’s not what he said. There’s going to be a foreman that they are going to report and he is going to be scheduling the work. But the guy they are going to report to is no different than when Mr. McCracken was here. I guess what we’ll say is that Amatura is the man. That’s how we envision it. Now again, it’s got be worked out with a contract. We are not going to be violating any relationships. But we have some time to do that.

Fudoli: Are you guys going to hold committee meetings on that?

Aquino: Sure.

Fudoli: I haven’t seen a committee meeting in three years.

Okay, one last thing. I did take the Town Clerk’s overtime out of the budge – those holidays and those Saturdays. Are you guys okay with that?

Abraham: We are okay with that. In lieu of doing that we’ re thinking of having a drop off box installed at Town Hall due to the amount of money that does come in on those dates.

Fudoli: What I’m saying is that when you set the budget, and whatever the tax rate is, whether we are open one hour, or 30 days, or 30 years you are not collecting anymore than what the budget calls for in taxes. So what we collect on those days is irrelevant. Businesses are open on Sundays because they want to get more business in.

Abraham: We are not disagreeing with you on that. What we are saying is that when we look at the lock box, whatever money that would come in that day would be deposited in the lock box.

Fudoli: That makes sense, because I wanted to change this before and you guys said no.

As Mr. Fronczak alluded to earlier, what is the purpose of changing the stipend for the Building Inspector ($7,000)?

Aquino: Because it’s alignment. I am of the opinion you get paid to do the job; whatever it is. Every year we bring this up and frankly I’m tired of it. To me, I personally think the position is justified; a salary to do everything, which includes some Village work. I’m tired of dealing with this so I put it in the budget; just like a couple of years ago.

Fudoli: That’s deceiving.

Aquino: That is not deceiving. He is getting paid a salary.

Fudoli: But we are not collecting the money (from the Village).

Aquino: It’s an appropriation, not collecting. An appropriation is not about collecting.

Fudoli: Are you doing this so that next year when you run for election you don’t have to explain this to the public/

Aquino: No, I am not going to run for election next year; so we’ll see. It’s not deception. Maybe we should meet with George (?). I’ll sit down with George.

Fudoli: You never sat down once.

Aquino: Oh no! I too was there.

Fudoli: You left the meeting.

Aquino: I guess you can accomplish a lot if it’s in your way.

Fudoli: The board could do the right thing; negotiate with them before taking the money out.

Aquino: I would rather deal with them but it is what it is.

Fudoli: It’s giving away town money. Inflating the revenue received.

Aquino: No it’s not. We are actually saving more money than we are spending. We make more revenue and you call it deception as well. That’s your opinion.

Why don’t you go and negotiate instead of spending two hours in Town Hall.

Fudoli: Yeah, right.

Aquino: Therefore, I move resolution #18…

The resolution to approve the final budget was passed by a 3-1 vote; Supervisor Fudoli voted no. Councilman Ron Ruffino was absent – for the second year, on vacation.

Next: Public comment session - or the final round in the bout

[4248]

The games continue - this is what they are doing behind the Supervisors back : These Town Councilmembers are also on Committees - the Supervisor is not told if and when they meet - he is not asked to be included in these deals - he's not informed on changes that will affect the Towns Budget and our taxes.

The Supervisor is stone walled and cut out of the loo at every level - from the Town Clerks agenda preparation to job creation and employee selections - this all in an effort to Maintain Dem Party Control and foil the Supervisors efforts to control spending and reduce patronage : Politics as usual !

Supervisor asks the Town Board : Concerning the Parks and Recreation reorganization,"what kind of forward plans are in place to get this accomplished before January 2015?
I would like to know if the board put a contract in place that would hire a Highway Superintendent? If so, my office needs a copy of that to show him taking on two roles. Has contract been drafted yet for Dan Amatura to sign?

Fudoli : "Okay. Has anyone approached the unions?

Fudoli: Right, but has anyone approached the unions to talk to them about the implications?

Fudoli : "Again, I support the model but I wish the board would have taken more time and received the answers to the questions I asked

Fudoli: Right, but it’s not the discipline stuff I am asking on. Who are the employees responsible to?

Fudoli: Are you guys going to hold committee meetings on that?

Fudoli: I haven’t seen a committee meeting in three years.


--------------------------------

Councilmember Stempniak and her friends withhold information from the Supervisor and the tax payers - while helping to create tax funded paylines and stipends and patronage appointments - its all about Party Control.

Councilmember Aquino is the new leader when it comes to the number of tax funded job/appointments and paychecks he receives.

[Frank Broughton]

This is all backwards, they are doing the supervisor's job. He needs to step up to the plate and expose these dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

[4248]

This is all backwards, they are doing the supervisor's job. He needs to step up to the plate and expose these dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

No Frank - you got most of it backwards - the Supervisor wants to be included in their hidden meetings - they exclude him on purpose.

The Supervisor wanted to reorganize some of our Departments a few years ago - the Dems told people he wanted to cut their patronage jobs - they block and mock his efforts.

Councilmember Aquino said it best, "Its not our job to negotiate with you."

Then they take his original plan and present it as if its theirs. These people have had agenda items removed when submitted by others - only to reword the item and put it on a future agenda as "their amendment" - when you control the Town Clerk and Town Attorney - you can under mine the Supervisor at every turn.

Lately the Supervisor mistakenly thought the Finance minister Mr.Brown was working with/for him on the budget. It turns out when the proposed budget was made public - the four controlling members rearranged it and added spending for patronage.

It was also said there were "mistakes in the budget" - then some numbers were changed - well where did those numbers come from - who provided the four amigos different numbers - guess what Mr.Supervisor - you were walked right into that one by the finance minister cooperating with his four amigo friends.


People are wondering why Councilmember Aquino keeps fighting to get Building Department Head Mr.Simmi more money ! Could it be his department has helped push through and hide many developers missteps. Could it be Mr.Simme used to draw a check from the old bocce building/west main street facility - the one Councilman Aguino was keeping the books for - where he was responsible for maintenance of - could it be - as some believe - Mr.Simmi used to earn some maintenance money from the same source ?

Well only they know the truth - Mr. Simmi will retire soon - so every dime he earns now will serve to increase his lifetime tax funded pension. It pays to have friends.

Supervisor Fudoli has no idea the history - family connections and entitlements entwined in the Tall Hall he has been elected to Supervise.

[Frank Broughton]

Duh? My backwards means they have no right to be dictating to the supervisor. It is his responsibility. If they are meeting without him is that not illegal?

[4248]

OK - now I think I get it - Frank - you keep thinking Lancasters Controlling Memebrs follow accepted guidelines and rules and or they actually have ethics.

Sir, this is Lancaster where they've refused to empower a board of ethics for over 20 years.

This is Lancaster where when questioned on continual patronage appointments being made - they say, "The voters say we can"

This is Lancaster where Town Hall is run by the Controlling Party's book keeper -

This isn't a Town where compromise comes into play -

Its trip the other guy when you can - kick him while he's down and say he tried to chew on your shoe.

This is Lancaster where Town Officials can assault and intimidate others and if the Police show up they tend to arrest the person being harassed.

Quit acting like these people actually care about civility or rules they apply to the little people.

Less than 10 %+/- of the residents even vote or care about these people or their actions.

Before you answer try and understand - what you believe should be isn't - what most people don't want to see - is routine in Lancaster's Government.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Duh? My backwards means they have no right to be dictating to the supervisor. It is his responsibility. If they are meeting without him is that not illegal?

Excellent observation and question, Frank.

Before every meeting, between the work session and the regular meeting and when time allows, the DEMS meet in the Town Clerk's office across the hall. When we questioned the legality of having more than a majority of town board members meeting in a room, we were told by them that it was not an official meeting but that they were 'caucusing' and were told it is legal.

Supervisor Fudoli needs to take this matter to Robert Freeman and get clarification whether it is indeed legal and whether he is invited to 'collaborate' on a town matter as he is not seen at those impromptu meetings.

Collaboration and comprise in this town between a Republican Supervisor and four controlling Democratic board members in this town, Frank, horse****!

Conflicts of interest galore, ethical behavior absent.

Yes, it may be the same in other municipalities but in Lancaster those pesky gadflies bring the waste to the surface.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Before every meeting, between the work session and the regular meeting and when time allows, the DEMS meet in the Town Clerk's office across the hall. When we questioned the legality of having more than a majority of town board members meeting in a room, we were told by them that it was not an official meeting but that they were 'caucusing' and were told it is legal.

From what I read, the law was changed in 1985 to also exclude discussion of public business from the provisions of the Open meeting law when there is a political caucus.

N.Y. PBO. LAW § 108 : NY Code - Section 108: Exemptions
Nothing contained in this article shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to: 1. judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, except proceedings of the public service commission and zoning boards of appeals; 2. a. deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses. b. for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or of the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations; and 3. any matter made confidential by federal or state law. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/P....eO4ZLD6q.dpuf

[4248]

The Town Board meetings written agenda should not be published until its signed off on by the Supervisor and the Town Atorney.

The Supervisor should be able to add a counter item to the agenda for public vote. If he feels a job is uneeded or a appointment is wrong - he should put a item addressing his concerns and make them vote him down - this would create a legal accurate record of the item in dispute and how the other members voted.

That clear record could then be made public - he should request in writing to be given notices af all meetings and caucuses - the names of those in attendance and for what reason they met. If they gathered in Town Hall - that's using tax funded fascility to meet - that meeting should be subject to public notice.

I believe if the Supervisor had a Town Atorney who worked for the tax payers - that attorney would help him word this request - place it on the agenda and let them refuse and vote to keep it secret and exclude our elected Supervisor.

He should then make a public statement announcing each time they do this - "Tonights Town Board session was preceded by the four Dem Councilmembers meeting in a private session - they feel their agenda should remain private - :I ask the Town Clerk to note this in the meeting minutes"