last night's executive session: Whiteman Osterman and Hanna suing the town? violating public officer's law again? speculation?

Howl alert: before anyone starts howling: 1) if you didn't go into executive session with little explanation, people would not have to speculate about what you are doing; 2) the conclusion that Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the town is based on logical induction, not inside information.

So at the town board meeting (Stuyvesant) last night, the town transferred $14,000 to zoning and planning to pay for the special counsel and special prosecutors of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna was there. The board and David R. Everett, attorney and lawyer and partner at Albany's biggest law firm, the largest law firm in the capital district, went into executive session for 30 minutes. The reason was "Pending litigation regarding the Glencadia matter."

The only pending litigation right now is a Federal civil rights lawsuit and Everett would have no role in that case other than perhaps as a witness, so it can't be related to that case. There is no other pending litigation, so it's a bit of a mystery. Maybe Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is going to sue the Town of Stuyvesant for non-payment? That's the only case that would seem to be a legal reason for an executive session involving a lawyer unrelated to ongoing litigation.

So either  Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is suing the Town of Stuyvesant or the town board of Stuyvesant violated Public Officer's law again. Anyone see any other possibilities?

I mean maybe they talked about who would represent them in State Court - but that is not pending litigation. They might have said "potential pending litigation" in that case. But why talk about something that may or may not happen before it happens? And they didn't say "potential" litigation. The only actual pending litigation is in Federal Court. There is no activity in town bodies: the planning boards and zoning boards are done.

Wait: I got away out for them! I can save them! They can claim that the ... means that ... is pending... but ... so .... with case law showing... which must exist... Phew!

Or maybe they talked about the Federal lawsuit, but how can they talk to a lawyer about a case he is not handling? Can you talk about pending litigation with a lawyer unrelated to the case and call that conversation privileged? I would think not, but it's certainly a fine issue for judicial review.

Perhaps they went into the session to talk about the handwritten note inserted into the public record by someone in the town, a packet of materials relating to protected First Amendment speech which the town ZBA accepted as evidence, including an anonymous slanderous note, the author of which is known to the town clerk but is not the person who delivered the package of materials to the town.

This matter does relate to pending litigation, as it is a clear violation of civil rights. The attorney in question, David R. Everett, is involved in this incident since he accepted the same packet of protected speech, included anonymous libel, as evidence for ZBA action. The only comment he made about the packet was "excellent" in an email to the town clerk.

I think they could legally go into executive session to talk about this. But they would have to state the reason as "personnel" as the person who wrote the note and the clerk herself, who accepted the note, and the secretary of the zoning board, who passed the note to the members of the board, all work for the town. But they didn't say "personnel" and name the parties.

So, no, I don't think that cuts the mustard. They couldn't have talked about that, not legally.

I will now FOIL the minutes of the executive session and by law the minutes have to be released to the public in 7 days from yesterday. But they certainly have not written the minutes yet. So they have some time to think about what they did and adjust the minutes accordingly.

The minutes will probably be one sentence.

I mean, other than Everett suing Stuyvesant, they cannot go into executive session to discuss pending litigation, not legally, unless they claim that ... means ... which is a stretch.

admission of guilt? re-writing history? making up laws? ignoring chronology? what?

Here is the audio of the resolution passed by the Stuyvesant Town Board tonight authorizing  David Everett second partner and lead attorney in this case.

So here they are appointing a firm after the firm has already handled three planning board meetings, one appearance as special prosecutor, one appearance before the zoning board?

Shouldn't you approve the special counsel first, then have the special counsel write tortured secret memos explaining to the zoning board of appeals that they may not be a zoning board of appeals? The tortured secret memo already exists.

Shouldn't you approve the special prosecutor to pursue a charge he knows is false without approval of a judge before he actually writes motions? The case is already dismissed.

No, the town would say, we did approve the special counsel first in an executive session.

No, I say, you didn't. All you did, and it was illegal, was start the process of looking for a lawyer, not hiring one. And only for Planning.

Okay, town, why? Why did you hire special counsel? It can't be because I sued you. I sued you on March 28. You signed the contract on March 10.

Why? In the audio above the reason seems to be that I'm so terrible that I have all these cases and am filing all these FOILs (two FOILs!) and am so bad they have to get someone in here to put a stop to my lawlessness?

But all the charges against me are false, get dismissed, fall away, all false. You can't really blame me for having too many cases, can you?

I was charged with the same offense THREE TIMES. I know the constitution says you can't do that, but they did: planning, zoning and criminal court about the same thing: dog barking.

The charge of loud barking dogs is impossible according to the laws of physics because the site where the dogs are kept is 1000 feet away from any neighbor or road and sound tests, affirmed by the editor of the leading peer review acoustics journal in the world, says that the barking contributes ZERO decibels to the ambient noise level at 1000 feet.

That's what I did wrong? In other words, not a damn thing?

I am accused of an offense that is impossible three times. Then, because I have so many cases pending, and therefore must be a terrible menace to society, the town has to hire the most expensive law firm in Albany. But they will vote to approve the firm 4 months after the firm starts working and retroactively legalize the firm.

"Hello, Heavan, can I speak to Franz Kafka?"

"I'm sorry he's before the Stuyvesant board right now trying to find out what he did wrong."

First of all, obviously, David Everett should have to return the money he has received to date. He was working without legal authorization up this point, despite the town board trying to re-write history.

But it is still not clear that he is now legal.

At 1:20 Valerie Bertram says, "Whereas on February 10, 2011, the Town Board authorized the hiring of David R. Everett.

What? No they didn't. Read the minutes. Do you see the name of the firm in there anywhere? Zoning? Criminal court? The illegal executive session in February did not authorize the hiring of this firm. The illegal executive session authorized the supervisor to look for an attorney.

And the illegal session was illegal.

Tonight's resolution depends on the February 10, 2011 executive session due to the statement above. But that session was in violation of public officer's law, given the reason "personnel" before the executive session, and retaining special counsel without firing the old lawyer does not fall under the definition of personnel. Also, "personnel" is insufficient reason to call an executive session. Lastly the minutes of that session were never submitted and voted on in an open session and were not even written within 10 days of the end of the executive session.

So, on July 14, 2011 they passed a resolution to authorize something that has already happened without authorization based on a resolution to do something completely different that was passed during an illegal meeting.

Well, that clears things up.

Next, as 1:43 Valerie Bertram says she signed a retainer agreement withthe albany law firm on March 10. No way she can do that. She just spent money based on an executive session, an illegal one to boot.

And did she really sign a contract on March 10? Can we see it? Are there any phone records showing a pattern of phone calls? Where was it signed? Who was there?

Next, at around 2 minutes, we hear that they didn't break any laws. So why this resolution? If the executive session was legal, then you don't need a resolution in July.

Re-affirm? What kind of resolution is it that re-affirms something that never happened? The town never before voted to hire WOH, the law firm. In February they voted to look for another lawyer.

And what is this anyway, hiring a law firm to deal with one guy? Can you hire a firm to deal with one guy just because he's beating you? Some guy comes up here with no lawyer, Tal can handle them but if someone comes with some good lawyers and is clearly completely innocent, we'll go get the big guns?

That's got to be some kind of illegal. No way. Just for me?

Someone complained about dog barking? It's not even true. Therefore we have to hire the most expensive law firm in Albany?

You have to be smoking something they don't grow on this planet.

You didn't hire them because I sued you.

Then at the end they retroactively legalize the special counsel, which they claim, falsely, they already did.

I still say the special counsel is illegally representing the corrupt organization known as the government of the Town of Stuyvesant because the resolution does not acknowledge that the executive session was a screw up.

 Now the reason is not that I said that Tal helped himself to $10,000 or that I sued the town. The reason for this is just I suck?

You are not going to lawyer your way out of this one. Even Mr. Wolf won't help.


Pulp Fiction Mr. Wolf Scene - Watch more Funny Videos

greene columbia, columbia greene, scratch scratch

Here is the story about the DA's brother's sweatheart DWI deal.

Timothy McEachern, 46, is the brother-in-law of Columbia County District Attorney Beth Cozzolino. From the Times Union:

Her office recused itself from the case shortly after it was brought, the aide noted, asking that it be handled by a special prosecutor from the office of Greene County District Attorney Terry Wilhelm.

For two weeks, Wilhelm declined to return calls from the Times Union about the case. 

"This only points out that if you're a member of the club in Columbia County, you'll be taken care of. It's a classic example," said Gene Keeler, a former Columbia County district attorney who is seeking the office in the November election. He is running as a Democrat; both Cozzolino and Wilhelm are Republicans.

Meanwhile, Beth Cozzolino serves as special prosecutor in the Evan Spitz case in Greene County. About Spitz case. "Evan Spitz is the son of the Greene County Jail superintendent."

Maybe this is a case of you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

How about this: Columbia and Greene counties look to counties other than each other for special prosecutors. Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna seem to be available, big Albany law firm. Try them!

petty, trivial, negligible, measly, shabby, slight, frivolous

This is a petty blog post. The piece with the neighbors is petty and there is no way to discuss it without presenting the blatant pettiness of the whole thing.

If you are new to this blog, skip this entry until you have looked at some of the stuff on this list. Did you look at it? Okay, now on to petty-land.

How many times can I say petty? trivial, insignificant, base, casual, cheap, contemptible, frivolous, inconsequent, inconsiderable, inessential, inferior, irrelevant, junior, lesser, light, little, lower, measly, minor, narrow-minded, negligible, nickel-and-dime, niggling, paltry, peanut, penny-ante, pettifogging, picayune, piddling, scratch, secondary, shabby, shallow, shoestring, slight, small, small-minded, subordinate, trifling, two-bit, unimportant

One aspect of this conflict with the town of Stuyvesant is that a tiny group of disgruntled and unhappy neighbors have obliged the zoning officer by complaining about me when invited to do so by Gerry Ennis. Most people in the neighborhood have been great and supportive... thank you.

...a reservoir of gullible people...

I haven't written too much about this small cabal riled up by the town government to offer cover for their otherwise bizarre campaign against me since the people involved seem to be lead astray rather than up to no good on their own.

I would much rather focus on the roles of the bigger fish, people with some authority, as I do here. For example, I have to talk about special prosecutors and Beth Cozzolino, not this petty stuff... but prosecutors can wait a day or so.

This post shows Gerry Ennis encouraging complaints and fingering me without investigation. The key phrase in that link is "he told me." Also, "new kennel" is interesting since I have been in operation for more than 4 years at that point. He just fingered me because he wanted to get me. Mary Kline lives 1600 feet away from my barn.

The neighbor in the video below is from a household 1000 feet away. This neighbor wrote a letter of support when I went to the planning board in 2009. Then in April 2010, her husband told me there was no problem. In March of 2011, Patty said this.

Yet the husband, Fritz, signed an affidavit that lead to a criminal charge against me in January 2011. Interesting, Fritz did not use the word "loud" in that inditement instrument.

Below we see Patty videoing my barn. I video her videoing me and then we talk. She says that the difference between the time she wrote the glowing letter in May 2009 and November 2009 is that she changed the configuration of her yard and removed plants and other junk.

So, therefore, my business should be shut down?

Why does the town encourage, invite or solicit these types of complaints? Why does the town coordinate complaints with people who are not credible?

My beef is with the town. Still, if there weren't people in the neighborhood so easily lead astray, it would be harder for this corrupt town government to operate.

The town should be interested in reducing conflict and insisting on verifiable, objective measures, not collaborating with obsessive people who's story does not make sense.

And the story obviously does not make sense.

laundry list

I started this blog on January 1, 2011. In the past seven months I have written about a number of issues relating to the government of the town of Stuyvesant and Columbia County and I wanted to clarify the list here, for the record, for anyone new to this conflict.

Stuyvesant Town Attorney helped himself to $10,000 in public money without paperwork with the approval of the supervisor. He also submitted a fraudulent invoice, and demanded payment from an applicant before the planning board in violation of policy. 

When I told the supervisor about this problem, the town hit me with a criminal citation based on a previously unknown law, a charge that defies the laws of physics.

The town assessor listed a Hudson river resort as a tax exempt state park for tax purposes.

The town board held an illegal executive session and secretly and illegally allocated money to a law firm. 

The zoning officer either did surveillance on my house or lied in the public record about it. 

The supervisor used her position as chair of the public safety committee in the Board of Supervisors to try to get officers to arrest Martin Roby for repeatedly FOILing to see the bank records with account numbers visible to track wire transfers between accounts, a problem in other towns. 

The town hired a special prosecutor without permission. 

Town board member made threats of illegal retaliation on video.

Someone did some petty weirdness.

The town board held an illegal executive session and spent money illegally on a special counsel and special prosecutor. 

The town FOIL officer ignores requests for documents and the town has no effective FOIL appeal system.  There was this.

The zoning officer revoked my business permit without evidence of a violation and without the authority to do so. Many of his statements are clearly false and indeed impossible.

The planning board, supervisor and town attorney abused a good faith offer to settle the permit dispute as a reason to attempt to revoke the permit in another way. Here is my reward for offering to settle. 

The supervisor maintains her position as chair of the county ethics board. 

The chairman of the county board of supervisors Roy Brown is entirely aware of all these allegations, did no independent investigation and has refused to consider a process to determine if the supervisor Bertram should retain the position as chair of the ethics board. 

The District Attorney Beth Cozzolino is aware of allegations of a pattern of fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and abuse in Stuyvesant Town government.

County Attorney Robert Fitzsimmons is aware of these allegations and has suggested no action regarding Bertram's position as chair of the ethics board. The issue of government lawyers reoccurs in this case.

I am wholly innocent of all charges and there is no evidence I ever did anything wrong and yet I have spent $60,000 in legal fees and other expenses to deal with this town harassment. Here is the narrative.

Due to systematic failure in local ethics enforcement in New York State, I filed a suit in Federal Court.

And don't forget kidnapping Santa's elves.

possible illegal misappropriation of funds, apparent violations of law by town board

This post deals with the way the Town of Stuyvesant (12173) hired Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, an Albany law firm, as special counsel, David Everett, attorney, and William Nolan, attorney in 2011. The argument below suggests that this process was illegal and that WOH should return potentially illegal payments to the taxpayers of Stuyvesant in order to avoid the impression that WOH seeks to benefit from careless spending of public money.

Here is a Q&A on open meetings:

The Law provides for closed or "executive" sessions under certain circumstances prescribed in the Law. It is noted that an executive session is not separate from an open meeting but rather is a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded.

Okay, the meeting that lead to these minutes was held during a public meeting as per the law.

The Law requires that a public body take several steps to close the meeting. First, a motion must be made during an open meeting to enter into executive session; second, the motion must identify the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered; and third, the motion must be carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body.

That happened in February 2011. They did these things.

Citing "personnel matters" is not a sufficient ground for going into an executive session.

Stop. That was the only reason cited. Valerie Bertram said, "We are going into executive session to discuss a personnel matter." The board agreed and off they went. No more information.

The motion to go into executive session should be more specific. For example, a motion could be made to enter into executive session to discuss "the employment history of a particular person." The person would not have to be identified.

No, nothing more than "personnel" was given as the reason. You would have never known they were hiring special counsel, if they did in fact hire special counsel as per minutes. And I am not convinced that this executive session and these minutes correspond correctly.

It is important to point out that a public body cannot vote to appropriate public monies during a closed session. Therefore, although most public bodies (except school boards in most instances) may vote during a properly convened executive session, any vote to expend public monies must be taken in public.

Stop. No. They hired special counsel and spent a ton of public money, maybe 5% to 10% of the total annual budget as a result of this executive session.

So was it a personnel issue anyway?

Here is the legal definition:

... the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation...

No medical issues, no issues of credit. We can forget those. Tal was not dismissed, suspended, demoted, disciplined, removed or promoted, as indicated by board members in subsequent meetings.

How about "appointment" and "employed"? Special counsel might be an "appointment" but you would have to actually appoint the special counsel by name, not create the category to be filled later. The contract would have to come first, then the appointment, not the other way around.

In the case of the criminal charges handled by Whiteman Osterman and Hanna as special prosecutor in court based on this executive session, that would only be after approval by a judge.

So here are the outstanding issues with this process:

1. The executive session in February was called and approved in a public meeting but the rationale for the meeting "personnel" was too vague to allow for the executive session.

2. The issue discussed was not in fact a personnel matter as defined by the law.

3. Money was spent as a result of this executive session, which is not allowed.

4. A special prosecutor for criminal court emerged from this executive session in violation of criminal court procedure.

5. The minutes were never entered into the public record and no vote to approve the minutes was taken in subsequent town board meetings. There is no evidence that the minutes were written within 10 days of the session and there are no dates by the signatures on the minutes linked above.

6. The minutes only notes "planning" special counsel but the firm has acted on the zoning boards and in criminal court.

7. Attorney client privilege claims have resulted from this flawed process which may shield further errors and violations.

8. The minutes authorize the supervisor to enter into a contract which would then have to be approved in public meeting and no such contract was entered into the public record.

Conclusion: Large amounts of public money have been misappropriated without legal authorization. Claims of attorney privilege have been abused by an attorney without legal standing to do so.

Remediation: Whiteman Osterman and Hanna should return all funds to the taxpayers of Stuyvesant and this process should be restarted and done over legally and publicly at the next public town board meeting. All records held as privileged should be released on the town website.

Fake response: Since I didn't get a real response, I wrote my own fake response.

fewer $20 an hour jobs versus one $450 an hour job

New to the blog? Try this entry, sort of background, or curious about town lawyers, try this entry.


Issue one: was David Everett hired legally?

David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna may not be the legal attorney for the zoning or planning board and may have no attorney-client relationship with any board or entity of the town of Stuyvesant.

Here is the moment when Tal left and Dave came in.

Why? Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna was hired by the town board in special session, as noted by Valerie Bertram in the June town board meeting. The extraordinary thing is that the firm was hired to handle zoning, planning and criminal charges against me, including services as a special prosecutor in criminal court. I think the issue of the special prosecutor might involve some violations of criminal proceedings, statutes dealing with prosecution, as normally hiring a special prosecutor has to be requested from a judge and is only granted when the regular prosecutor has some kind of close relationship with the accused, which Tal and I don't have. How you hire a special prosecutor seems to be a contentious issue in every case and not something one side can just do arbitrarily. But that's a side note for now since I blogged that issue before. Let's get to the main argument for this post.

Was this executive session legal according to Public Officers Law, article 7? I'm not sure.

§105. Conduct of executive sessions.

1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session

Full stop. I filed the lawsuit on Friday, it was served on Saturday, March 26, 2011 around noon. David Everett took over from Tal Rappleyea at the Monday, March 28, 2011 planning board hearing at 7 PM. The reason for removing Tal and putting David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna is the lawsuit, nothing else, so there could not have been a session prior to Saturday, March 26, 2011 or authorization for the session at the public meetings in March. You can't have an executive session to discuss a lawsuit until you have been notified that the suit is filed.

So the executive session had to happen between Saturday, March 26, 2011 and Monday, March 28, 2011. There was no public meeting in which an executive session could have been voted on between those the filing and change of attorneys.

But an executive session has to be part of a public meeting. The town board, it seems, conducted an executive session without approving and announcing the session in a public hearing. I see nothing in the law that remotely suggests such an action can be legal.

The legality of Mr. Everett's role in planning and zoning generally hinges entirely on the legality of the special session. I think. Anyone disagree? Why? What did I miss? Links?

Let's continue with the Public Officer's Law.

for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:

Stop. Hiring Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna involved the spending of money. This firm is NOT involved in the federal lawsuit. Can the town legally pay Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna? Maybe they can hire the firm in executive session but when it comes time to pay them, they need to make a public presentation. Public moneys were appropriated as a result of the executive session held between Saturday, March 26, 2011 and Monday, March 28, 2011, start of the planning board.

The vote to hire this firm has implication for the town budget, perhaps 5 to 10% of the entire budget for the year for the whole town budget will go to this firm.

So, the special session was not called in a public hearing. Then the special session made decisions which lead to 5% to 10% of the annual budget being allocated in a particular way, funds that would not have been allocated without the executive session, funds with no direct relationship to pending litigation.

Here is the provision that allows for an executive session relevant to this case:

d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;

They can have an executive session to discuss a lawsuit. The reason is valid. The way the session was called may not be. The subsequent payments made to WOH may or may not be according to the law.

Given that Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna is NOT the firm handling the federal lawsuit, though, that portion of the executive session, at least the decision to pay that firm, would certainly have had to have a public component to be legal. At least it seems pretty clear that the hiring was illegal given the language in the public officer's law.

Can they make decisions about planning and zoning attorneys without consulting the planning and zoning boards? Perhaps. Can they make budgetary decisions, or decisions involving public money, not directly related to the suit and still claim that the executive session was about current litigation? Not sure.

I'm just a humble dog farmer. Let's see what the grey beards have to say over at New York Department of State. Key quote: "As such, it is clear that an executive session is not separate and distinct from an open meeting, but rather that it is a part of an open meeting."

Sounds illegal to me, this special session in March. If the session was illegal, David Everett has no standing to represent himself as the attorney for the ZBA or planning boards. Or does he? How could he? He can't really be legally paid for this work, can he?  Could his correspondence still be confidential? Maybe Mr. Everett has no more standing to issue confidential letters than any member of the general public.

Anyway, please let me know if anyone knows of any laws that outweigh the public service law in terms of the conduct of meetings, open and executive. Or maybe there was a public meeting on Sunday or Monday on the dates in question and I'm not aware of it, or minutes are published somewhere other than the town website....

Speaking of minutes...

Now, what about the minutes for the executive session? Here is the law:

2. Minutes shall be taken at executive sessions of any action that is taken by formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon; provided, however, that such summary need not include any matter which is not required to be made public by the freedom of information law as added by article six of this chapter.

3. Minutes of meetings of all public bodies shall be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the freedom of information law within two weeks from the date of such meeting except that minutes taken pursuant to subdivision two hereof shall be available to the public within one week from the date of the executive session.

Where are the minutes? If no minutes are released and available to the public, if no minutes were kept, then the session is invalid. I could FOIL the minutes but my FOILs are routinely ignored by the town.

Okay, I'll FOIL the minutes. There. FOILed.

The law says one week to make minutes public and this session occurred 3 months ago as I write this. I shouldn't have to FOIL the minutes. They should be on the town website or available to pick up at the office whenever the clerk is on duty.

Anyone out there have them?

Therefore, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna may have been selected illegally, or the firm may have been selected legally but cannot yet be paid for its work until the town conducts an open, public vote to pay them. The executive session seems to have violated the plain language of the law in the way it was called and because it lead to an expenditure of public money not directly related to a lawsuit, as it was not paid to a firm representing the town in a lawsuit and used for intern functions of the town.

Mr. Everett presented himself to the ZBA as their attorney. Is he?

At the very least, we should see the minutes and have an official statement from the town board about whether or not they feel they hired Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna legally. We would need to see the minutes of the session and the announcement of the public hear that occurred between Saturday, March 26, 2011 after the serving of the papers regarding the federal suit and Monday, March 28, 2011 at 7PM when Mr. Everett took over from Tal Rappleyea. Everett only handle cases when I am involved. Can this arrangement in and of itself be legal? Did Tal formally recuse himself? Was that done according to Hoyle?

Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna might need to re-imburse the town for any money spent on the mistake of assuming Mr. Everett was the official attorney for the ZBA and planning boards, payments to the taxpayer with interest. Then re-do the hiring of this firm in public, at least the payment portion of their arrangement, without discussing the lawsuit in federal court, which this firm has no role in defending.


Issue two: errors

David Everett is not always right.

Error one:

I think it is a mistake to assume Everett is the attorney legally empowered to represent the ZBA. He may not have advised the town board of the proper way to conduct an executive session. In this, he may have not shown attention to relevant laws and made his first mistake in this process. If, as I suggest may be the case, without knowing for sure, the town board screwed up the executive session, isn't that Dave Everett's fault? I mean, the town board is not made up of attorneys.

At every turn, Mr. Everett has made what appear to my lay, inexperienced eyes to be errors of law. If my simple reading of the law is roughly accurate, it may be a mistake to assume that Everett's opinions, as expressed in the secret letter, are correct.

That's another reason we should have a look at the secret letter. It might be wholly or partially wrong. More apparent mistakes:

Error two:

In the letter of April 4, 2011 Mr. David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, writing on behalf of the planning board as attorney, so claimed, noted Parkview Associates v. City of New York, 71 NY 2nd 274 (1988). This citation referred to my case, Glencadia Dog Camp, but is clearly more relevant to the permit granted in 2004 and reviewed in 2008 for Main Auto repair facility. This court decision noted here deals with an application approved by a planning board that was in violation of the law. The court held that the law supersedes planning approval. The approval of the auto repair facility in 2004 and reviewed subsequently to allow for a larger sign violates town zoning law (see page 14, Town of Stuyvesant Zoning Ordinance, Adopted on May 10, 2001 As Local Law #1-01). The repair shop is in an agricultural district and is clearly forbidden by local law.

Errors three, four and five:

In the letter on May 20, 2011 municipal attorney David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna wrote,

“As you know, the Town's zoning code provides that: Reasonable costs incurred by the Planning Board for private consultation fees of a planner, engineer, attorney or other extraordinary expense in connection with the review of a proposed site plan shall be charged to the applicant ....In this regard, the board may require such costs to be paid in advance, not to exceed 5% of the total project cost, and may deny application upon the failure of the applicant to make payment within 60 days of the date of the original application submission.

“As you know, the Planning Board has asked Mr. Jurkowski to review and comment on your client's noise study and provide technical advice on this matter. Mr. Jurkowski is a professional engineer licensed in New York and he is the designated Town Engineer. He also has experience with environmental noise impact issues. As required by the zoning code, the Board has requested that Mr. Pflaum post an escrow to cover Mr. Jurkowski fees in assisting the board with this matter. Mr. Jurkowski is preparing an estimate of the initial escrow amount.”

Here are the problems with these statements; 1) town policy and planning board procedures require that payments and escrow be set up in advance and not submitted at the end of the process due to problems and ethical violations in the past; 2) the cost of the project is zero therefor the entity before the board, me, does not have to pay squat; 3) Mr. Jurkowski is the engineer on the town garage project that I am leading the resistance to, a direct affect on his bottom line, and therefore should be excluded as a candidate due to conflict of interest.

Mr. Everett is clearly aware of the conflict of interest, as indicated by his letters referring to this blog, and yet continued to promote his opinion as vital. He failed to look for an unbiased opinion from an engineer not directly affected by my opposition to this town project.

I call that an error. I count five errors to date and we have one letter left.

Error six:

Mr. Everett's letter of June 3, 2011 repeats the error of the May 20th letter:

"As a result, under the Town's law, Mr. Pflaum will be responsible for paying the Board's engineering fees on this application up to May 23rd,the date when he withdrew his application. Mr. Jurkowski is preparing a final invoice for services rendered to the Board. Upon receipt of that invoice, I will forward it to you for payment by your client. It is my understanding from Mr. Jurkowski that his fees will be approximately $1,000 for this matter."

Sending this invoice could constitute an ethical violation, in contradiction to planning board policy and state law.

In conclusion, given Mr. Everett's track record of legal error (or so I say and I am not a lawyer and could be wrong) and possible lack of standing as attorney  (or so I say and I am not a lawyer and could be wrong), the secret letter should be released publicly, the town board should release the minutes of the executive session, the town should publicly hire the firm in order to be able to legally pay WOH, and the firm might need to return all payments made to date to the taxpayer, with interest.  (or so I say and I am not a lawyer)

Anyway, I would like to hear any opinions about why I might be wrong about any of this. Seems like the town didn't follow the rules and its Everett's fault. I am not a lawyer and I have no experience. Please consider all of these issues as questions. I am asking questions and I honestly would like responses.

How many times did I say I'm not a lawyer?

Again, I'm asking questions as a humble dog farmer with no experience in these matters. I have concerns and questions but no definitive answers and would welcome outside, unbiased expertise and opinion, from anyone really. Thanks for considering responding, lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer.


Issue three: jobs

In the past, town officials (Tal Rappleyea, Tom Shanahan, Valerie Bertram, Gerry Ennis, Howard Gleason) have promoted the theory that my business violates zoning by having too many employees. Zoning only allows two employees. They think I have had more. Scandalous! Hiring people! Arrest that man! Call in the $450 an hour hired gun to get him to stop this terrible crime! Too many jobs!

I do not think they have a clue what they are talking about, for the record. It's not really their business, is it? And I can have as many contractors as I want, can't I?

It seems to be possible the the secret letter may attempt to resurrect this charge of illegally creating too many jobs and violating town law by paying too much in taxes. This old charges is the standard back up charge in case the dog barking thing doesn't pan out. They had some other back up charges, and who knows what's in the secret letter, but this TOO MANY JOBS meme is a old solid Stuyvesant line of reasoning.

David Everett gets $450 an hour. People working at Glencadia might get $15, $20, $25, $30 an hour, more or less. When I post an ad for a job at $20 per hour, I get 300 responses. I stopped posting ads because it's too difficult to deal with the onslaught. What are the 299 people I didn't hire doing now? Auto detailing on Mr. Everett's BMW for $8 an hour?

Instead of paying more than $60,000 to fight a preposterous charge, I could have invested in the local economy and created at least one more job. Maybe for a guy making $450 an hour another $20 an hour job doesn't seem like a big deal.

Is that what's in the letter? A new plan to kill jobs?

There is one permanent $20 job dead already not out there somewhere because of someone else's quick in and out $450 an hour job.

But I could be wrong. I'm just a dog guy. I'm no economist. I'm not a lawyer. I work in a barn with animals. I just ask questions for free on my free blog. I'm sure David Everett has all the answers. Of course, he'll charge $450 an hour to put them in a letter with letterhead and all, and that is much more serious than a dumb blog.

No one really answers these kinds of questions do they? Not in Stuyvesant. Not in Columbia County.

Okay, I'll sit here in the barn with the dogs and goats and sheep and chickens and horses and wait for my answers.

Thanks.

Monday, March 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm, Stuyvesant Town Hall, planning board, public comments

I run a small business, Glencadia Dog Camp. In August 2010, the town of Stuyvesant began a campaign to shut the business down and destroy the livelihoods of my family and my employee one or, sometimes, employees, two. After the shocking and unconstitutional revocation of my permit without a hearing or any due process, I have been fighting back against the town of Stuyvesant, clearly a town in which corrupt practices flourish in government. This anti-corruption blog and all the issues discuss, all the malfeasance reported, all of that came out of the revocation of the permit to operate my business in 2010.

I will be before Judge Bruno on March 2, 7 pm to answer a criminal citation, possibly leading to a jury trial at some later date with penalties up to 15 days in jail, and on Monday, March 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm at the Stuyvesant Town Hall for a planning board public hearing which may help determine whether the business I built with considerable investment of time and money can be shut down by town officials with no just cause. With all these hearings, I will be asking folks to come out and support me a few times over the next few months and I would like to take a moment to tell you why you should. Right now, I hope to get people to come to the planning board in March.

Here are the reasons:

One: the charges are false and trivial but the stakes are high. If the town is allowed to shut my business down, my family will be rendered poor and all my investments will go down the drain. Hopefully, a few of you will be moved simply on that basis. Am I innocent? Yes, yes. Have we as a family suffered? Yes. Is there any public interest in this protracted battle over nothing? No.

Two: the charges were leveled in order to silence and intimidate me and stop me from exercising my constitutional rights. One charge after the next, one proceeding after the next. I have zoning, planning and criminal proceedings all going forward at the same time, on various trivial and demonstratively false charges. On the other hand, I have lead the charge for a referendum on the million dollar town garage, investigated the boat club assessment and building permit problems, pointed out a 10,000 hole in the budget, and called for a hearing to determine whether the supervisor Valerie Bertram should be the chair of the Ethics Board of Columbia County. Could my political and anti-corruption activity possibly be the reason that impossible and false charges have been leveled at me? Why else would I have three sets of hearings going forward on various false charges? I have been mugged and I'm fighting back. Is there any other way to understand all of this stuff going on up here in Stuyevesant? Is the town out of line? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,

Three: the town of Stuyvesant is corrupt and the Columbia County Board of Supervisors doesn't seem to care. With Valerie Bertram as chair of the Ethics Board and no hearing on the matter, the Columbia County Board of Supervisors is sending a clear signal: they care more about each other and their private interests than in protecting the public, stopping government corruption and graft and growing the economy. No one is watching the store, folks. It's open season on your tax money. Look for yourself at this and this.

If the people, the voters, don't take a stand against corruption, government waste and corruption will continue to sap the economic vitality out of the county.

Corruption and waste can end if we take a stand. In my small way, I have and I was punished for it. In Egypt, Tunisia, Libya the threat of death did not stop the people from standing up to corruption and we should be able to get in our cars and drive to 5 Sunset Drive in Stuyvesant NY 12173 on March 28 to take a stand in favor of economic development and against government corruption. Children, don't get weary.

Open, accountable government and a good climate for investment and economic growth are the same thing in principle and in my case specifically. Like jobs? Come on over to the hearing. Hate corruption? Join me on March 28.

A year ago, I never thought I would have to fight for my constitutional rights. Now I know better. Think you will never have a problem? That's what I thought; you never know. Don't sleep on your rights. Join me and take a stand for the constitution and our economic future right here in Columbia County.

Thank you. Oh and here's another reason to show up: PLEASE! Pretty please! Thanks.

the truth

I was planning a sound test tomorrow to prove that the charge against me is not worth many thousands of dollars and years of litigation. I invited all the members of the planning, zoning and town boards so that we could systematically establish that the charge that Glencadia Dog Camp is ever or has ever been loud is not only theoretically false but in fact demonstratively false. If a physics paper and testimony of 31 eye-witnesses (so far) is insufficient, let's add a measurement experiment to the pile of evidence.

The purpose of the sound test was to follow up on my open house, when I invited the entire town to visit my facility, with a test specifically for those who might need to decide on the truth or falsehood of this dog barking charge. No one seemed to want to come, so I did the sound test this morning and won't ask folks to come back and pitch in tomorrow. But I can repeat this test anytime with any witnesses who might like to contact me.


Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

By way of reference, here is the neighborhood:


Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

Is the Columbia County Board of Supervisors Serious about Ethics?

The State of New York Temporary State Commission on Local Government Ethics Final Report (January 1993, Henry J. Miller, chair) notes (page 7) that “Ethics laws must reflect local government’s dependence upon volunteers” and that “Ethics laws for municipal officials must be enforced locally.”

I am the volunteer the Commission had in mind. As intended, I took my complaint to the local government, then to the county government.

When you see what happened to me do you want to volunteer? I would hope, perversely,  you would see what happened to me, get mad and say, “Yes, I do.” The more people do FOIL and volunteer to look into their local governments, the harder it will be for them to hammer us all back down.

So join me. Volunteer. Get hammered.

My necessarily superficial investigation of town finances and practices found serious problems: solicitation of inappropriate payment, movement of funds from the town bank account to contractor pockets without paperwork, invoice fraud, assessment manipulation allowing privileged property owner to avoid paying taxes, filing false statements and frequent pre-dawn observation of a residence.

I went to the supervisor. I wrote for four month then met in person. She assured me no one did anything wrong. She also told me she hadn't read my complaint. Four days later I was hit with a criminal citation based on a false, indeed impossible charge. The maximum penalty: 15 days in jail based on a previously unknown law.

Thanks for volunteering! Let me know if you see any other suspicious behavior!

So I went to the county, both with a private meeting with the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors. Then I sent a letter to all the supervisors. The Chairman claims he has no authority. No one has so far has read and then stepped up to allow for a hearing as to whether the supervisor of my town, Valerie Bertram, should retain he chair of the Ethics Board.

The Columbia County Board of Supervisors is reluctant to exercise supervision over their membership or consider any action that might stem the tide of corruption in Columbia County. The county has an Ethics Policy on the website and has established an Ethics Board but that policy and that board may be disingenuous.

Is the county government right to simply wash their hands of the matter and leave a supervisor who clearly punished me for bring ethics charges to her attention as the chair of the Ethics Board?


Columbia County: is Stuyvesant the exception or the rule? Is Valerie Bertram representative or an outlier in terms of ethics?

Remove Chair of Columbia County Ethics Board: call for a hearing

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Official Correspondence: An open letter to the Columbia County Board of Supervisors

I am writing to call for a hearing to determine if Stuyvesant Supervisor Valerie Bertram should be removed from her position as chair of the Columbia County Ethics Board. I presented her with credible evidence of wrongdoing by people under her and the town as a body, with her knowledge and approval, retaliated against me. I will argue that leaving Ms. Bertram in her current position is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house.

County Chairman Brown heard my allegations and wrote to Ms. Bertram, link below. In his letter, Mr. Brown noted the suggestion that Ms. Bertram be asked to voluntarily resign from the Ethics Board as an alternative to the hearing proposed here.

In my experience, open accountable government, democracy and a healthy environment for economic growth are synonymous. Government corruption can gum up the works in every aspect of human life, including the economy. My business has suffered and I have not made additional investments that might well have produced more jobs locally.

I do not need to establish the criminality of the underlying charges to demonstrate that Ms. Bertram’s response is unethical. As a private citizen I am not authorized to bring criminal charges, nor can I subpoena documents, nor is it obstruction of justice to mislead me. My FOIL submissions to the town of Stuyvesant are routinely rejected and ignored. Despite these handicaps in obtaining and verifying information, in the proposed hearing at the county level I would argue that 1) the underlying charges were serious, well substantiated and actionable; and 2) Ms. Bertram’s response was entirely inappropriate.

My necessarily superficial investigation of town finances and practices found serious problems: solicitation of inappropriate payment, movement of funds from the town bank account to contractor pockets without paperwork, invoice fraud, assessment manipulation allowing privileged property owner to avoid paying taxes, filing false statements and frequent pre-dawn observation of a residence.

The Columbia County Board of Supervisors should not allow this example to serve as a model for the county. However, Ms. Bertram deserves a chance to answer my charge that she retaliated against me for bringing ethical violations to her attention. Therefore, a hearing is absolutely necessary, unless Ms. Bertram avails herself of Chairman Brown's offer to discuss resignation. In my letter of Thursday, February 3, 2011 to Chairman Brown I argued that the Ethics Board itself is the proper venue for this hearing. Otherwise, the entire Columbia County Board of Supervisors would hear the case without the benefit of an advisory opinion.

There is no equal protection under the law, no due process, and no accountability in Stuyvesant. The concerted effort by many officers of the government is intended to ruin my business, the way I provide for my family, and, potentially, put me in jail on a false charge. Since I am obviously wholly innocent, the real purpose of this extraordinary campaign against me was an attempt to intimidate and silence me, to punish and convince me not to exercise my constitutional rights.

Prior to the coordinated attack on my rights by this town government, my life was dangerously close to perfect: prosperous, surrounded by beauty and happiness. I have a lot to lose. As a private citizen with no institutional standing and as a business owner vulnerable to politically motivated manipulation of zoning rules, I am vulnerable.

Vulnerable or not, punished or not, imprisoned or not, impoverished or not, I will never compromise when it comes to basic principles of fairness. The curse of this campaign against me may be a disguised blessing, revealing a prize I took for granted prior to this struggle: the Constitution of the United States of America. If I were put a higher price on a permit or almost anything else than I do on my constitutional rights I would disgrace to the blood of patriots. “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The Columbia County Board of Supervisors should not embrace open defiance of bedrock principles of American jurisprudence by leaving Ms. Bertram in her position as chair of the Ethics Board. Ms. Bertram’s response to allegations of corruption and abuse in her own government in the town of Stuyvesant was wholly inappropriate and should not be a model of ethical behavior to be embraced at the county level.

I will be at the Columbia County Board of Supervisors meeting tomorrow night, Wednesday, February 9, at 7:30 PM. If logistical and jurisdictional issues need to be hammered out in person, I will be available to speak individually with any board member or with the board as a group if public comments are allowed or authorized tomorrow. Thank you for your attention to the issue of corruption in government in Stuyvesant, Columbia County, and how we might start to stamp it out. See you all tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Will Pflaum
PO Box 40
Stuyvesant Falls, NY 12174
518-470-3981
glencadia@gmail.com


Links to documents (some files make take a minute or two to load):

Documents presented to Roy Brown, Chairman of the Board, Columbia County Board of Supervisors, Robert J. Fitzsimmons, County Attorney, and David Colby, President and CEO, Columbia County, Chamber of Commerce on January 24, 2011:

http://yesi.am/case/1-24-11-county.pdf

Audio of that meeting:

http://yesi.am/case/11-24-10-meeting.mp3

Letters following January meeting with Roy Brown, from Mr. Brown to Valerie Bertram and from me to Mr. Brown:

http://yesi.am/case/post-meeting-letters.pdf

Documents submitted to the planning board:

http://yesi.am/case/Planning-Board.pdf

Blog entry about harassment:

http://sunshineonthehudson.blogspot.com/2011/01/zoning-and-building-enforcement-more.html

Blog entry about assessments:

http://sunshineonthehudson.blogspot.com/2011/01/property-assessments-mistakes-were-made.html

Blog entry about unusual payments:

http://sunshineonthehudson.blogspot.com/2011/01/attorney-invoices-mistakes-were-made.html

FOILs and recent issues with access to information:

http://yesi.am/case/open-foils.pdf

Audio of December Stuyvesant Town Board meeting with discussion of ethical issues:

http://eichybush.com/STUYVESANT/December_2010_town_board/december_meeting_martin_roby_tal_rappea_will_Pflaum_val_bertrum_ron_knott.mp3

no million dollar garage

As I pointed out in the first entries on this blog, there are open questions about the financial integrity of town government having to do with contractor invoices and assessments. These two issue ought to make us wonder if the taxpayers should be giving even more money to this government. No way they should have more money to throw around when they can't explain what they did with the money we already gave them.

The 2009 re-assessment through GAR was a huge tax increased disguised as a re-evaluation. The town got 9% more in taxes the subsequent year. That 9% increase followed a 3% increase the previous year. Meanwhile, many of the excessive number of positions held by town officers pay over 70 dollars an hour.

The government of the town of Stuyvesant proposes to spend $890,000 to expand and renovate the current garage and build two new salt sheds. 

It is the biggest capital project in the history of this town.  Here is some of the audio with me bringing up the idea of a referendum at the public meeting on the project.

The town would like to use money from the settlement between GE and New York State for this project but that would violate the expressed intent of the 1995 settlement. 

If we get a referendum on this together, the citizens of the town can nix the bond issue they need to build this thing. I plan on making that referendum happen.

This project is very bad idea. Why?

1. It’s dumb.

Stuyvesant is a town of 2,000 people with 25 miles of road to maintain. In this town the state and county maintain 29 miles of road. That is three sets of highway departments coming and out of town maintaining road, picking up the plow and driving over someone else’s unplowed road, then putting the plow back down when they get back on their own road. Same with cutting the grass. Same when our trucks drive through Ghent or Kinderhook or Stockport or when their trucks drive through Stuyveasnt. This is really stupid.

Instead of locking us into this bizarre world of duplicated services forever, why not study consolidation and outsourcing? Instead of expanding the garage to have more trucks, the highway department should be selling off its vehicles and outsourcing or consolidating with other entities.

Some day someone or something is going to force this to change. When sanity and economies of scale come into government and road maintenance we will be left with a useless ugly salt shed we never needed and an ugly garage that we should have sold off to a private entity.

And when common sense finally breaks into New York State government we’ll still be paying the debt on these white elephants salt shed we don’t need to stand there and look ugly reminding us how stupid we were (or the town government was).

We have some good potential capital projects in town: bike paths, fixing broken bridges, expanding waterfront access, etc. This dumb salt shed is the stupidest possible capital project the town could have come up with.

2. If we don’t need one highway facility, and we don’t, we certainly don’t need two.

It’s bad enough that the town of Stuyvesant has a highway department at all when this should be a county or state or town consortium function, but we really don’t need two highway garage sites.

We have one big one on Sharptown road and a small one on County Route 26A. The town proposes to build a big salt shed on Sharptown road to hold a lot of salt and leave enough salt for one storm at 26A.

Why do they need one storm’s worth of salt on 26A? Because, they say, the trucks and cars of the highway personnel cannot get in and out of Sharptown road in a storm. I would like some proof of that.

The real reason that they don’t want to put all the salt at Sharptown road may be that the supervisor of the town lives right near the Sharptown facility and doesn’t want the extra truck traffic. A significant percentage of the cost of this project is there to keep trucks away from the supervisor’s house.

Then, if we can truck the salt from Sharptown to 26A before each storm, why couldn’t we just truck the salt from the brand new salt shed on 9H before each storm and not have a big salt shed at all? That would save $440,000.

They want to make the garage at 26A bigger to have more trucks. Like I said, we should be finding ways to have fewer trucks. The garage we have is fine, if we need a garage at all, and we don’t. The roof doesn’t leak.

One or the other site should be sold off and more functions should be outsourced. We don’t need two facilities.

3. If we do need a salt shed, and we don’t, why do need a custom built one?

The salt shed on 9H is a prehab and cost 280,000. Our town proposes to build a custom one for 440,000. Either way, the salt shed will be ugly, useless and a waste of money. But what’s up with this custom construction deal?

The town guys will argue that a custom shed will last longer. I don’t know how they know that. And who cares how long it will last? We don’t even need it now.

The real reason they need a custom salt shed is the real reason this project even came into existence: to pay contractors. The whole thing is a basically a slush fund. The guys pushing this don’t know anyone who builds prefabs and the ability to play footsie with the invoices is more limited with a prefab.

4. Do town employees and elected officials really need all these palaces for themselves?

Why is it that the biggest capital project in the history of the town is to make a place that only officials and employees of the town will get to use? How about the second biggest project, the town hall: who mostly uses that? What about the citizens? Do we not get a capital project one day? How about a park? Or a trail? Or a bridge? We’ve got a broken bridge in town. How about painting the bridge over Stuyvesant Fall? How about some way for citizens to get their boats to the Hudson river? How about investing in the agro-tourism infrastructure of the town? What will happen when the lease on the town park in Stuyvesant Falls down by the waterfall expires: will we have the capital to buy the land or will the folks in the Falls lose that great spot by the water where there is that big no swimming sign?

What a waste. What a boondoogle. I say, send this sucker back to the drawing board. No million dollar garage.

Zoning and Building Enforcement: More Mistakes?

In the first entry of this blog, we looked at attorney invoices. We saw that the town attorney has admitted mistakes. Valerie Bertram, supervisor, has to date taken no action in response to the problems in attorney billing nor addressed the missing 10,000 in the budget line for attorney fees. The mistakes do not appear to be mistakes.

In the second entry, we considered the assessor's office and found much of the same pattern. Again, the person responsible for this department has admitted mistakes that have serious consequences for the town budget. Again, the supervisor has taken no action. Again, the pattern of behavior on the part of the assessor with the aide of the attorney do not appear to suggest an innocent mistake, or a series of related mistakes.

Now we turn our attention to the zoning enforcement officer / building code enforcement officer Gerry Ennis (Gerald Ennis).

Let's start with a single piece of paper. This one. This is a document generated my Mr. Ennis himself.

Apparently written on July 1, 2010, Mr. Ennis claims he walks by my house 20 to 25 times per month at 5:30 AM in the morning. I spoke to Gerry in April 2010 and he said he had been by my house three times and heard no barking. Immediately after hanging up the phone, I wrote a letter to him, cc-ed to other town officials, that if my understanding of the phone call was incorrect, that he had not stated that he heard no barking the first three tries, he should write back. Following the April call he came one more time that I am sure of and he heard not one bark. The dog control officer also visited the property and heard no barking.

If he didn't hear anything the first five times, he figured he'd try 25 more times. Unless he's lying.

It would be pretty wrong for a public official working for the town government to write a lie down and submit it into official evidence as part of a campaign to close a man's business and ruin his ability to earn a living. In this case however, it might just be worse if he were telling the truth.

Maybe Gerry made a mistake.

And let's consider the hand written notes at the bottom of this same document: "On August 9, after not hearing from Mr. Pflaum @ his fence I issued his 3rd violation notice and revoked his home occ. permit."

A few points: 1) I spent 5,000 on the aforementioned fence and other sound proofing prior to Mr. Ennis beginning his need to get exercise on my driveway at 5:30 in the morning and here is the invoice; 2) I wrote to Mr. Ennis 4 times plus phone calls between the first and second notice of violations, that is I responded; 3) in those letters I offered to show Mr. Ennis 17 letters of support from the neighbors, including every single nearby neighbor, and video and scientific evidence that the barking produced by other neighbors is orders of magnitude louder and more frequent at any reasonable point of consideration than any noise that could be produced by my facility: Mr. Ennis showed no interest in looking at these materials; 4) Mr. Ennis does not have the authority to revoke a permit and the notices of violation also require the option of a jury trial to be valid: this was an unconstitutional act as you can read here.

The charge defies the laws of physics. Here and here. The enforcement defies the law and the constitution. Also, Gerry lied in order to ruin my business.

I built the fence.

I responded: letters on May 17, 2010,  May 11, 2010, May 3, 2010, and April 30, 2010. More phone calls.

He could not have heard barking in excess of a normal residence, even if did come at 5:30 in the morning, because that is impossible.

Here he goes.

And he invented at least one of the "complaints." Here is Gerry tampering with witnesses. You aren't supposed to tell the complaining person what the source of their problem is. Here is the other star witness for the prosecution.

Does anyone think something is fishy going on here? Gerry never issued building permits for as many as 14 residences on the boat club property and yet he has time to come by my house 25 times to listen to dogs that by the laws of physics cannot be loud?

To wit:

• Mr. Ennis did not follow procedure in terms of code enforcement and notice of violation, in that New York Zoning Law and Practice says that the notice of violation should be followed by a citation, which I would be able to contest in town court with a jury trial. Instead of allowing me due process, Mr. Ennis revoked my permit on his own. My due process rights were thus violated.

• Why is the dog control officer not involved?

• All of my near neighbors have written letters of support for my business or told me they would appear on my behalf in the process of fighting Mr. Ennis’s unfair campaign against me. Mr. Ennis did not look at these letters and supporting evidence when I wrote to him. Instead of taking me up on my offer to show him around my property and give him the letters of support and show him the videos I have in my possession, he came on the evening of May 10th at about 7 PM and stood on my porch without knocking on the door. When my wife finally opened the door anyway, when our dog barked, she told him I wasn’t home. He said, “I know” handed her an application to build a fence and left.

Valerie Bertram, supervisor, is fully informed and responded that "Gerry did nothing wrong." Nothing at all.

shut 'em down

At the town meeting tonight Martin Roby asked about what appeared to be a double standard in the enforcement of easements. When councilman Ron Knott found a case where a citizen was not following his easement a few years ago, driving a motorbike around near Ron's house, the town took action based on Mr. Knott's complaint. When the town itself is not taking any action to protect their own easement, letting people drive snowmobiles in a town park, the board was reluctant to take any action against itself to put up some signs or something to show that snowmobiles are not allowed in the park.

A valid point. Worth noting at least. Different properties, different standards. Some people hear noise from a motor bike and the issue is addressed. Some people wonder about noise in a park and their issue is not addressed.

But then Tom Shanahan, head of the Republican Party in the town of Stuyvesant and member of the Planning Board and owner of a lobbying firm in Albany, interrupted Martin and wouldn't let him finish his point. Instead of stepping in to enforce the town rules allowing anyone to speak without interruption, board members told Martin to be quiet and shut down the meeting.

Here is the audio of the end of the meeting and parlay afterwards.

On a similar note, at my meeting with supervisor Valerie Bertram on Tuesday, Mr. Bertram said that I might not be allowed to speak or ask questions at meeting, that if she didn't like my questions she would shut the meeting down.

Property Assessments: Mistakes Were Made

... I made a mistake. Yet, somehow, I got the answer right ...

A quick boat club review before we get to the new stuff:

To review, in October, Martin Roby, open government activist, acquired a screen shot from the County Clerk's office and posted it on the Stuyvesant Forum, a Yahoo group devoted to local Stuyvesant issues. Here it is.

What Martin found was that a 31.4 acre parcel was 1) listed as two parcels although no subdivision ever occurred; 2) one listing was listed as a tax exempt State Park although the property is clearly operating as a private entity; 3) there are many houses on the listing for the boat club, ultimately some 25 homes, which have never gotten building permits and were not on the assessment; 4) the property is listed as a woodlot when it is a developed resort. At the end of this article, links are provided to demonstrate these problems.

The boat club has been paying taxes as a woodlot, paying the town of Stuyvesant $500 a year in taxes for many years. The assessment at the time Martin obtained the abstract was $340,000.

However, a Hudson river estate within about 2 hour drive of New York City, an isolated, private estate with a 25 houses, a marina, 31.4 acres and other improvements, surrounded by protected state land on three sides and the Hudson river on the other side, is certainly worth many millions of dollars. The town of Stuyvesant has been leaving up to $70,000 a year on the table, uncollected taxes due to the town if the assessment on this property had been fair.

This assessment was certified in July 2009 by Howard Gleason. He signed off on it following the GAR associates process.

The assessor Howard Gleason has since admitted that this listing was a mistake. Here is the interview he held with Lee Jamison in which he admits his mistake and outlines the steps he plans to take to get a more accurate assessment on this property.

If error is the problem, then we are talking about many interlocking mistakes. The property should not have been listed as a tax exempt state park. The construction of the houses should have involved building permits. The single property should not have two assessment listing. The assessment should have been much higher. The property is not a woodlot.

Did Howard make all these mistakes by himself?

If the multiple problems, consistently presenting a pattern of privilege and advantage are due to random error, Howard Gleason's actions are not logical. Mr. Gleason told Lee Jamison that he appreciates people who help him out pointing out mistakes and allowing him the chance to correct these errors. So far, Martin has not gotten a thank you card. Personally, Mr. Gleason seems to be working to raise my assessment and presented me with papers prior to a public meeting in an attempt to intimidate me so that I would not exercise my constitutional rights.

How does he thank people for finding and publicize these mistakes? By raising their taxes.

But if the problem is a mistake, why is Mr. Gleason, with the aide of Tal Rappleyea, working to so hard to show the original assessment of 340,000 is not entirely absurd? Mr. Gleason's job is to raise money for the town, not to work as the advocate for a single, privileged land owner.

In the Register Star article below, Tal and Howard argue that the value of the entire property, 25 houses, marina, pavillion and 31 acres, is only to be taxed at the marina rate. When speaking to Lee, Howard came up with comparable properties hundreds of miles away on Lake Ontario.

Meanwhile, the land right next to the boat club, the land that is actually owned by the state, is valued at 104,000 per acre. If that rate were applied to the boat club, it would be worth 3.2 million.

What did Howard come up with to compare this property too? I received this list of marina in New York State. The only property with more than 6 acres is this one in Ontario County, 4 hours and 19 minutes drive from Stuyvesant town hall. Here is the assessment from the county website.

The only property on the Hudson is this one, an abandoned lot in a high crime area: 2.72 acres sold in 2005 for 266,000 per acre.

What about Hudson New York. about 15 miles as the crow flies from the Hook Boat Club? Read this article. Right here in Columbia County a site on the Hudson is assessed at 4.5 million and the owners are objecting that 1.5 million is more appropriate.

Or how about Poughkeepsie Yacht Club? With 2 acres and one building, it is assessed at 1.7 million. Here is the card for that property.

How about any of the other boat clubs in the Mohawk yacht association?

WHOOPS! I made a little mistake. 

I, Will, the dog guy, pay more taxes on my house than the Hook Boat Club although I have a fraction of the land, only one house (not 25) and am not a marina on the Hudson River.

I pay more than them. And, while I write this, the assessor is trying to raise my taxes and figure out a way not to raise the taxes on the boat club.

It fricken outrageous.

The first entry on this blog was about attorney invoices. After months of FOILing and asking town supervisor Valerie Bertram to look into an apparent case of petty corruption or sloppy bookkeeping, after showing her that there is a 10,000 dollar discrepancy in 2009 attorney pay (invoices, ledger and budget produce different numbers), after getting no response and leadership from the supervisor, Martin raised the issue of attorney invoices at the town board meeting December 2010. The public discussion was followed by a summary on this blog.

Valerie Bertram has taken no action to address problems. Town attorney Tal Rappleyea admitted mistakes were made.

Those two elements also characterize issue of the Hook Boat Club assessment. As in the attorney invoice issue, a town employee, in this case the assessor Howard Gleason, has admitted he made mistakes. As in the attorney invoice issue, Valerie Bertram has been kept abreast of the situation and taken no action.

As in the case of the attorney invoices, the tax payer is getting the short end of the stick. The buck stops nowhere and employees have carte blanch to engage in what appear to be examples of blatant corruption and favoritism.

Here is my letter to Val asking for an outside audit of the boat club assessment. Starts in part two of the letter.

Here is a statement supporting the conclusion that no subdivision of the property ever occurred.

Here is an article in the Columbia Paper about the boat club.

Here we see Tal and Howard working to lower the assessment of the property without admitting the original assessment was a mistake.

Here we have Howard admitting a mistake and finding bizarre comparable properties to justify the erroneous assessment. (If it's a mistake, why assume it is about right?)

Here are photos of ongoing construction.

Here we see no building permits, no tax bills to the questionable acre, etc.

More.

Attorney Invoices: Mistakes Were Made

"...it's like a cop pulling you over and demanding twenty bucks for gas..."

by Will, the dog guy

At this week's town board meeting (Thursday December 30), Martin Roby, the chicken guy, open government activist, raised the issue of attorney invoices. Attorney pay was the first part in the budget I investigated, to the extent I could figure out what is going on given way the town chose to hide the attorney invoices.

So far I have only popped the hood on one part of the budget and the engine isn't a fine tuned machine - more like a lot of mice in the radiator using the insulation for a nest. 10,000 dollars of taxpayer money is just missing in action and Supervisor Valerie Bertram refuses to look into the issue. But we'll get to that.

Martin is concerned about the appearance of petty corruption and wanted to give elected and appointed officials a chance to explain why the appearance of impropriety was not in fact inappropriate. I've been trying to get a response for a long time, so it seemed time to bring the issue up at a public meeting.

Here is a discussion at the December meeting when Mr. Rappleyea admits a mistake.

Martin spoke specifically of an incident in June 2009 in which I was billed 437.50 for research following my sessions with the planning board to get the permit to operate a home business.

Martin argues that giving a guy a bill for $437.50 at the meeting when he is granted a permit (for research done 4 months earlier) without warning him is like a cop pulling you over and asking for $20 for gas, Martin said. Except the cop didn't actually buy any gas.

Tal came up to me privately after the meeting was adjourned, after I got my permit in 2009. This gave me the impression that he has to pay an unadvertised fee in order to get my permit. The normal and legally mandated way to get applicants to pay consulting fees (engineering usually) is to set up an escrow account and have the applicant pay a sum in advance.

But the mistakes made in this case do not stop with the manner of billing. There is also the issue of whether Mr. Rappleyea did or did not do any research.

He did not, in fact, do any billable research. He billed me and the town for nothing.

The April 2009 invoice to the town of Stuyvesant for 687.50, of which I paid 437.50. Mr. Rappleyea did attend the meetings.

How do I know the research noted in the bill is wrong?

For the research to be billable to the town or to an applicant before a board, the research should pertain to some issue raised during the hearing or necessary to make a determination by the board. No such issue appears in the minutes of any of the relevant hearings.

My site plan review was one paragraph long. I doubt it took Tal 3.5 hours to review it.

Did someone ask him to research something? Was there a matter of law we needed to settle in order to proceed? Was there anything unknown or any controversies about any matter? Mr. Rappleyea does not now recall by memory what the issue was, as he stated at the December 30 meeting.

Further, the attorney's research would have had to be given or used at the time of the hearing to be billed at the time of hearing. If Mr. Rappleyea did not write a report for the board or speak to the board, or maybe present his research in the hearing or present me, since I paid for it, with some kind of report, then why is the research billable? Professional development is not billable to the board for this hearing. Research should be about an issue that pertains to this particular hearing and should be presented at the time of the hearing to someone involved, someone who then used or acknowledged the research at the time.

I have FOILed all the minutes and attachments to those minutes. There is no attorney research in those documents.

Bringing this issue up at the town meeting was no ambush: I have been writing to Valerie Bertram and sending in FOIL requests for months about attorney invoices. I have noted copies of these letters in the links at the end of this post.

We have one incident that appears to involve inappropriate timing and billing for work that was not done. We now have some idea of what the April 2009 bill involves. What about the other 11 months?

I FOILed the invoices for 2009 and Mr. Rappleyea, presumably, blacked out all the information on those invoices. I cannot see what issues he was working on, what percent of the time he was billed was spent on research versus, say, consultation or paperwork.

One month clearly, April, includes some problems. The other 11 months are blacked out, like secrets in a spy movie.

Why are they blacked out? On December 30 at the meeting, Tal said that he works for the board, not the town in general. Here is the audio of Tal's position. He said that he is allowed to black out or hide information that may be part of litigation or possibly part of litigation. Here is the audio of the discussion of potential litigation and actual litigation.

There was no ongoing litigation at the time and there is none now. So actual litigation cannot be a reason for his hiding his invoices.

What about potential litigation? Mr. Rappleyea blacked out every single item on every single invoice except for the work he did answering Martin Roby's FOIL requests.

Is Tal sure that Martin would never sue the town because he objects to his FOIL requests? Is everyone else possibly going to sue the town, including Columbia County, CSX railroad and the New York State Greenway agency, but not Martin Roby?

If the possibility of a lawsuit justifies hiding every single issue in the invoices except for Martin's FOIL requests, then it pretty much means Tal believes he does not have to expose any of his invoices to scrutiny.

Yet we know that one of the invoices was a mistake by his own admission. We know that there is a strong suggestion of fraud in one invoice. I would like to see the other eleven months. They're hidden. I have appealed the hiding of the content of the invoices. Check out the links below.

So let's look at the money. In 2009 the town of Stuyvesant spent $31,483 on attorney fees, according to the budget, only for Tal, there were no other lawyers paid. The 12 invoices noted above only added up to $21,450.

$10,000 is missing.

In September, I realized there was a $10,000 difference between the bills and the budget. So, in October 2010, I asked again for all documents adding up to and necessary to understand $31,383. I received a one page print out called "General Fund Vendors Ledger." That print out added up to $28,732.

I wrote a letter in November asking for an explanation, sending it to Valerie Bertram, supervisor, Melissa Naegeli, town clerk, and to Tal Rappleyea, attorney. I waited two weeks and got no response so I sent in a FOIL for attorney contracts and cancelled checks and other documents necessary to figure out this issue without an explanation from the chief executive of the town, Valerie Bertram.

Mistakes were made.


Substance of the FOIL appeal
Val's response to my appeal
My response to Val

Invoice January
Invoice July
Invoice Feb
Invoice June
Unblacked out invoice (as presented in June 2009)

Chart with missing money
Follow up FOIL after not receiving response to the above request for an explanation
http://yesi.am/case/minutes1.jpg
http://yesi.am/case/minutes2.jpg

Background:
Chicken Law video