No more corruption.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
crusader for open meetings
Roy Brown seems to be changing and growing. We all can learn from his example. I met with Mr. Brown on 1-17-2011, talking about attorney invoices for over an hour with observers, and found that he was indeed concerned about corruption in government. I appreciate Mr. Brown's initiatives.
Big story here. Sleepergate.
Big story here. Sleepergate.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
way to go sanctuary for independent media
City of Troy settles with Sanctuary for Independent Media after shuttering center in 2008 for free speech reasons, now funds media art there
Big story here.
Kruger Used Campaign Contributions for defense
Columbia County News: ReformNY: Kruger Used Campaign Contributions to Pa...: ReformNY: Kruger Used Campaign Contributions to Pay Legal Fe... : New York’s notoriously weak campaign finance laws were highlighted this we...
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna canned
Here is a town that fired Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna for double dealing. If only Stuyvesant and now Ghent would wake up and smell the garbage.
Sleepergate here.
Sleepergate here.
cover up under way?
If you are hear to read about the scandal in the Columbia County Attorney office, click here. You know, with the guy getting paid to sleep. Sleepergate.
Monday, January 9, 2012
just released
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Sleepergate: nice work if you can get it
Imagine a job where you get paid $150 to $200 per hour for sleeping, with pension, insurance and paid holidays (when you get paid to sleep, the idea of a holiday is kind of strange but, yes, the sleepers get paid holidays). Is this a dream?
No, welcome to the very special world of the Columbia County municipal attorney. Right now rich lawyers are getting paid in their sleep with your tax money.
If an attorney were to bill for 21 hours of work (at as much as $175 per hour) in a single 24 hour period, we might conclude that either 1) the man is a machine who does not urinate, defecate, eat or sleep; or 2) Holmes is billing for time he spent snoozing in bed.
The man we are talking about is Tal Rappleyea, the man who is or was in 2011 the designated Town Attorney in Durham, Ashland, Prattsville, Lexington, Cairo, Stuyvesant, Austerlitz, Copake, Chatham, Greenville, Jewett and assistant attorney for Columbia County. The day of 21 hours of billing is October 1, 2010.
On October 1, 2010 Tal Rappleyea billed the above towns and Columbia County for 21 hours of work. That day was not way out of line of the other days I've looked at so far: there are more days over 15 hours billed in a 24 hour period than under. Even on his birthday, October 4, he billed for 13.5 hours -- he took it a little easy, as it was his birthday and all. He only worked 13.5 hours.
In 2010, by double and triple billing the man earned well over $200,000 from the towns, plus another about $44,000 from the County. Not satisfied, Rappleyea also steals benefits from the county for which he is not eligible.
I emailed the County Attorneys today to get clarification on this stuff. They refused to comment. So if I get some details wrong, it's kind of their fault. They are welcome to correct me and I will adjust anything I may have gotten wrong. Here is what seems to be the case, the scam.
The Columbia County Board of Supervisors (CCBOS) approves an annual salary for the attorneys in a resolution. Seems like all the assistant attorneys get about $44K: Clarissa D. Garvey, Charles E. Hoag, Jr., Tal G. Rappleyea, Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Barrett D. Mack, Brent R. Stack.
The attorneys, including Rappleyea, then calculate what hourly rate they would have to receive in order to work 30 hours per week, as would make them eligible for pensions and other benefits, then charge that hourly rate, whatever the number comes out to be. For example, rather than bill 5 hours at 150 dollars per hour, which may be the regular fee for that attorney, the would bill 30 hours at 25 per hour. The amount paid for the week may be the same but by lying about the numbers of hours, the attorneys steal pensions and benefits. And there is no way to know how many hours they actually worked, if they did any work at all.
Rappleyea bills Columbia County $27.24 per hour and the town of Chatham $175 per hour. Say what? But you see, it's a pension scam. He would never work for $27 an hour. He doesn't really work ever, actually, he sleeps, has coffee, makes some calls, goes to some meetings, collects his dough. And his pension. I say when you put down "6 hours" it should mean 6 hours.
Other County attorneys work for towns and other clients, certainly including County Attorney Robert J. Fitzsimmons and likely Deputy County Attorney Andrew B. Howard. Just like Rappleyea, they are billing towns or other clients by the hour and collecting a salary from the county.
I wrote to all of these people today and asked if they would like to deny this statement: every single one of them is defrauding the government by claiming pension and benefit credits they don't deserve in the scheme I outlined above. I said, in my email, please deny this: What Rappleyea is doing is not exceptional: you are all stealing.
I got no response. They won't deny it. None of them deserve pensions. Why not at least deny it before I publish? They are all getting pension credits? More crazy billing in that list of names up there somewhere?
I only have hard evidence for Rappleyea. The people noted here, Stack and Fitzsimmons, refused to supply the records for the rest of the crew. If they were in the clear, why not give up the time sheets?
If Rappleyea's time sheets were exceptional, why not tell me that? You can excuse me for thinking his time sheets are not exceptional. When it says "hour" to me that means 60 minutes of work.
How many people at 401 State Street knew about this scheme? Certainly I told everyone in the County government before I wrote this blog entry. No one bothered to explain anything. What's to explain? Shut up and go away.
Open season on the taxpayer in Columbia County. These rich guys, like Rappleyea, steal the sales tax my business brings in a year in 5 minutes.
If Rappleyea were a Democrat, he'd be in jail already. Double billing, stealing pension: his rap sheet is longer than the issues in this blog post. He is guilty of a number of crimes over a couple of years. More than one town, more than one man.
21 hours in a single day, I mean, come on.
Quitin Cross, Hudson Democrat, got two years for much less, credit card fraud, a couple thousand. Pegeen Mulligan-Moore worked for Democrats and stole $380,000. Went to jail for hard time. Any Republicans get indicted by any Republican DA? I know Democrats steal. So do Republicans.
Will, where are the documents to prove all this? I got them. I would post them, no problem. First, I would like to see some of these people deny some of this, explain why they did not respond to my requests to show me the documents that prove the stealing of benefits is not widespread.
The ball is in the court of the County Attorney's office. I looked at the documents. I saw fraud. I emailed for an answer. Silence.
What's the deal? Anyone buy this grid?
No, welcome to the very special world of the Columbia County municipal attorney. Right now rich lawyers are getting paid in their sleep with your tax money.
If an attorney were to bill for 21 hours of work (at as much as $175 per hour) in a single 24 hour period, we might conclude that either 1) the man is a machine who does not urinate, defecate, eat or sleep; or 2) Holmes is billing for time he spent snoozing in bed.
The man we are talking about is Tal Rappleyea, the man who is or was in 2011 the designated Town Attorney in Durham, Ashland, Prattsville, Lexington, Cairo, Stuyvesant, Austerlitz, Copake, Chatham, Greenville, Jewett and assistant attorney for Columbia County. The day of 21 hours of billing is October 1, 2010.
On October 1, 2010 Tal Rappleyea billed the above towns and Columbia County for 21 hours of work. That day was not way out of line of the other days I've looked at so far: there are more days over 15 hours billed in a 24 hour period than under. Even on his birthday, October 4, he billed for 13.5 hours -- he took it a little easy, as it was his birthday and all. He only worked 13.5 hours.
In 2010, by double and triple billing the man earned well over $200,000 from the towns, plus another about $44,000 from the County. Not satisfied, Rappleyea also steals benefits from the county for which he is not eligible.
I emailed the County Attorneys today to get clarification on this stuff. They refused to comment. So if I get some details wrong, it's kind of their fault. They are welcome to correct me and I will adjust anything I may have gotten wrong. Here is what seems to be the case, the scam.
The Columbia County Board of Supervisors (CCBOS) approves an annual salary for the attorneys in a resolution. Seems like all the assistant attorneys get about $44K: Clarissa D. Garvey, Charles E. Hoag, Jr., Tal G. Rappleyea, Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Barrett D. Mack, Brent R. Stack.
The attorneys, including Rappleyea, then calculate what hourly rate they would have to receive in order to work 30 hours per week, as would make them eligible for pensions and other benefits, then charge that hourly rate, whatever the number comes out to be. For example, rather than bill 5 hours at 150 dollars per hour, which may be the regular fee for that attorney, the would bill 30 hours at 25 per hour. The amount paid for the week may be the same but by lying about the numbers of hours, the attorneys steal pensions and benefits. And there is no way to know how many hours they actually worked, if they did any work at all.
Rappleyea bills Columbia County $27.24 per hour and the town of Chatham $175 per hour. Say what? But you see, it's a pension scam. He would never work for $27 an hour. He doesn't really work ever, actually, he sleeps, has coffee, makes some calls, goes to some meetings, collects his dough. And his pension. I say when you put down "6 hours" it should mean 6 hours.
Other County attorneys work for towns and other clients, certainly including County Attorney Robert J. Fitzsimmons and likely Deputy County Attorney Andrew B. Howard. Just like Rappleyea, they are billing towns or other clients by the hour and collecting a salary from the county.
I wrote to all of these people today and asked if they would like to deny this statement: every single one of them is defrauding the government by claiming pension and benefit credits they don't deserve in the scheme I outlined above. I said, in my email, please deny this: What Rappleyea is doing is not exceptional: you are all stealing.
I got no response. They won't deny it. None of them deserve pensions. Why not at least deny it before I publish? They are all getting pension credits? More crazy billing in that list of names up there somewhere?
I only have hard evidence for Rappleyea. The people noted here, Stack and Fitzsimmons, refused to supply the records for the rest of the crew. If they were in the clear, why not give up the time sheets?
If Rappleyea's time sheets were exceptional, why not tell me that? You can excuse me for thinking his time sheets are not exceptional. When it says "hour" to me that means 60 minutes of work.
How many people at 401 State Street knew about this scheme? Certainly I told everyone in the County government before I wrote this blog entry. No one bothered to explain anything. What's to explain? Shut up and go away.
Open season on the taxpayer in Columbia County. These rich guys, like Rappleyea, steal the sales tax my business brings in a year in 5 minutes.
If Rappleyea were a Democrat, he'd be in jail already. Double billing, stealing pension: his rap sheet is longer than the issues in this blog post. He is guilty of a number of crimes over a couple of years. More than one town, more than one man.
21 hours in a single day, I mean, come on.
Quitin Cross, Hudson Democrat, got two years for much less, credit card fraud, a couple thousand. Pegeen Mulligan-Moore worked for Democrats and stole $380,000. Went to jail for hard time. Any Republicans get indicted by any Republican DA? I know Democrats steal. So do Republicans.
Will, where are the documents to prove all this? I got them. I would post them, no problem. First, I would like to see some of these people deny some of this, explain why they did not respond to my requests to show me the documents that prove the stealing of benefits is not widespread.
The ball is in the court of the County Attorney's office. I looked at the documents. I saw fraud. I emailed for an answer. Silence.
What's the deal? Anyone buy this grid?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Register Star article today
Here it is. Couple of points missing: 1) Everett told me to merge the lots; 2) when does Everett go away?
He did threaten to sue Holly Tanner. If he is not going to sue Holly Tanner, then he can't sue anyone, certainly not me. Of course they back tracked and denied they did so threaten. That's to be expected. But why did he send Holly Tanner the letter saying he "reserves all rights"? What did he mean by that? Who merged the lots? No me. The County Clerk did that.
If we look at his huffy puffy letter as an empty threat, then, no, he did not threaten to sue Holly Tanner. I guess that is what Dave Everett meant: you are not supposed to take my letters so seriously.
If you actually take his letter seriously, that the town wants to preserve their rights in terms of Planning Board, the only one they can sue is Holly Tanner. She merged the lots.
So if we recognize that Everett was bluffing, then no, he didn't threaten to sue Holly Tanner. If we take him at face value, then yes he was threatening to sue Holly Tanner.
What kind of suit would it be to sue me for filing some paperwork? Without naming the clerk who accepted and processed the form, in agreement with me?
He's have to sue the county clerk if he sued me.
Everett bluffed again. Called him on it. He sent out a huffy, puffy bluffing lawyer letter and thought everyone would cower in the corner in fear of his suits... but didn't work out that way.
David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna asked me to merge the lots back together!!! When I did what he said, he threw a hissy fit!!!!
He did threaten to sue Holly Tanner. If he is not going to sue Holly Tanner, then he can't sue anyone, certainly not me. Of course they back tracked and denied they did so threaten. That's to be expected. But why did he send Holly Tanner the letter saying he "reserves all rights"? What did he mean by that? Who merged the lots? No me. The County Clerk did that.
If we look at his huffy puffy letter as an empty threat, then, no, he did not threaten to sue Holly Tanner. I guess that is what Dave Everett meant: you are not supposed to take my letters so seriously.
If you actually take his letter seriously, that the town wants to preserve their rights in terms of Planning Board, the only one they can sue is Holly Tanner. She merged the lots.
So if we recognize that Everett was bluffing, then no, he didn't threaten to sue Holly Tanner. If we take him at face value, then yes he was threatening to sue Holly Tanner.
What kind of suit would it be to sue me for filing some paperwork? Without naming the clerk who accepted and processed the form, in agreement with me?
He's have to sue the county clerk if he sued me.
Everett bluffed again. Called him on it. He sent out a huffy, puffy bluffing lawyer letter and thought everyone would cower in the corner in fear of his suits... but didn't work out that way.
David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna asked me to merge the lots back together!!! When I did what he said, he threw a hissy fit!!!!
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Special Prosecutor Looking for Something to Prosecute
Special Prosecutor David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna Threatens to Sue Holly Tanner.
1) What is the public interest in whether my barn and house are on two or one lots? Why is Stuyvesant still spending money on something this unimportant? In other words, big deal. The town paid Everett probably $1000 to write that crazy letter. A thousand bucks is a big deal in a small town. And that $1000 is on top of $100,000 spent on Everett in 2011.
2) When does Mr. Everett stop being Special Prosecutor? Does he get to go out looking for things to prosecute in order to keep the gravy train rolling? Accusing me of stuff I didn't do has been pretty profitably for Everett to date. Why should he stop?
3) Divide means to cut up. If you mash two together, you are not dividing, you are merging. Read the Stuyvesant Zoning Ordinance or the application for a subdivision online: do you see anything about putting two parcels together to make one lot? Divide: read town law. It means to make more. I made fewer.
4) How can Everett sue me for filing paperwork? Why did he send the letter to Holly Tanner? I don't see a suit against me here. For what? I didn't merge two lots together: I can't. Everett must want to sue Holly Tanner.
I've dealt with Everett for 9 months now as Special Prosecutor and I don't wish that on Holly Tanner. She doesn't deserve it.
Everett asked me to put the lots back together. Here is the letter (page 4).
David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna asked me to merge the lots back together!!! When I did what he said, he threw a hissy fit!!!!
Everett asked me to put the lots back together. Here is the letter (page 4).
David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna asked me to merge the lots back together!!! When I did what he said, he threw a hissy fit!!!!
Here is my review of what happened:
On September 6, 2011 Holly Tanner's professional, well run County Clerk's office received a routine application to unify two lots. The application asked to put a house and a barn on the same deed into a single listing for tax purposes. The man filing the paperwork was me. The barn and the house were on the same lot a few years ago.
Now, more than two months later, Dave Everett, working as the Special Prosecutor for the town of Stuyvesant, has written a letter threatening to sue Holly Tanner (I guess) for accepting paperwork and filing it according to the law.
Why? Everett says that you need Planning Board approval to put lots together. My attorney thinks that you do not need Planning Board approval to put lots together when they are on the same deed. According to my attorney and our title company, you only need approval by the town Planning Board to split lots apart.
In passing, Everett accuses me and my attorney of some kind of crime, as if it were obvious that you need Planning Board approval and that we knowingly lied when, in fact, it's not even true and certainly not obvious. It's hardly a crime... What a crazy thing to say.
We didn't lie. I would file the same form again right now. I'm right. Even if I were wrong, it wouldn't be a crime, but even less so when I'm right.
Stuyvesant's Special Mr. Wrong
We did not and do not need Planning Board approval to merge two lots on the same deed back into one listing. Everett is wrong again.
Being wrong is nothing new to Dave Everett.
Everett sent me a bill to pay for the town engineer to review my sound study. I didn't pay it. I didn't have to. If he wasn't wrong about that, why did he drop it and stop sending me invoices?
Everett was wrong on invoices.
Everett was the attorney when the Planning Board issued a positive declaration on SEQR (environmental review) of the lot merger. Even he had to admit the declaration was deficient. The declaration was withdrawn.
Everettt was wrong on SEQR.
The town board hired Everett and Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in executive session. That was against the law and WOH and Everett didn't notice that the town broke the law. They do not deny they broke the law in their motions to dismissed filed in state court.
Did you get that: They don't deny they screwed that one up.
Everett was wrong on Public Officers Law.
Three times wrong. Now the lots issue: number four for Everett. Stuyvesant has paid him $100,000 to be wrong, wrong, wrong and now wrong again.
Subdividing means making one lot into two (division). Making two lots into one lot is not dividing but unifying or merging. You need approval to subdivide. You don't need Planning Board approval to unify, especially when the two lots are on the same deed.
"I subdivided two lots and now I have one." Doesn't even make sense. That's not what dividing means.
In Everett's letter, he cites a portion of Town Law Section 276 (4) (a) to support his claim. Interestingly, he left out the first sentence of Town Law Section 276 (4) (a), which provides: " 'Subdivision' means the division of any parcel of land into a number of lots, blocks or sites as specified in a local ordinance, law, rule or regulation, with or without streets or highways, for the purpose of sale, transfer of ownership, or development."
1) The word "division" is defined as "act or process of dividing" (see Websters Dictionary). Subdivision also contemplates the creation of lots (i.e. in the plural) not merger into a single lot. Clearly, the instant merger deed does not constitute a "subdivision" within the meaning of Town Law Section 276 (4) (a).
1) The word "division" is defined as "act or process of dividing" (see Websters Dictionary). Subdivision also contemplates the creation of lots (i.e. in the plural) not merger into a single lot. Clearly, the instant merger deed does not constitute a "subdivision" within the meaning of Town Law Section 276 (4) (a).
2) Also, look at Town Law Section 276 (4) (a): "...for the purpose of sale, transfer of ownership, or development..."
Putting two back into one does not lead to sale, transfer or development but precludes those options on each parcel without the other, making all of those things harder. And I did not do any of those things: no sale, no transfer, no development.
3) And then there is "as specified in a local ordinance, law, rule or regulation" -- and the laws in the town of Stuyvesant are silent on the issue of putting lots back together.
So there are three legal flaws in Everett's crazy argument.
3) And then there is "as specified in a local ordinance, law, rule or regulation" -- and the laws in the town of Stuyvesant are silent on the issue of putting lots back together.
So there are three legal flaws in Everett's crazy argument.
Everett is Threatening Holly Tanner
Everett's letter, cc-ed to Holly Tanner, dated December 20, 2011, reads, "I am writing to advise you that the merger of the two lots without Planning Board approval violates the Town's Subdivision Regulations and the Town reserves all of its rights to enforce the Subdivision Regulations." As Everett's letter notes, Holly Tanner's office merged the lots in question. There is no way to read this other than as a threat to sue Holly Tanner.
If the threatened suit is against me, why did Everett send it to Holly Tanner?
Of course, Everett was the guy who told me to put the lots back together. Then, when I did exactly what he asked, he threatens to sue the county?
Everett blew a hole in the budget of Stuyvesant, causing an 18.8% tax increase through his endless persecution of a small, family business. Everett has already duped the town board of Stuyvesant out $100,000. Now he wants to drag the county into his absurd vendetta and suck yet more money out of the taxpayers.
Here are additional points:
No elected official in Columbia County is more highly regarded by Democrats and Republicans than Holly Tanner. If Holly Tanner isn't above Everett's threats, no one is safe from this Special Prosecutor out to generate more work for himself.
Holly Tanner is a professional. Dave Everett comes along and says she screwed up? Nonsense. Holly Tanner, my attorney, the title company and I all agree: Everett is wrong.
I don't see what the big deal is. I filed some papers to put my barn and my house back on to one lot or parcel. Why should any one care? Why would the town of Stuyvesant sue the county to stop that? It's nuts.
Everett has already taken a wrecking ball to Stuyvesant, now left with almost no reserve fund, in the middle of two lawsuits, increasing taxes by 18.8% this year and the bleeding of funds has not stopped. Indeed, if Everett has his way, the bleeding will never stop.
Will the taxpayers of Stuyvesant ever wake up? Do the rest of the taxpayers in Columbia County want to be dragged into Everett's dog fight and see their budgets blow up too?
When does Everett's term as Special Prosecutor expire?
Background links:
Saturday, December 17, 2011
status update
In the federal case, Pflaum (me) v. Stuyvesant (town), we have a 50-e deposition in Albany on Monday. If you sue a municipality, they get to depose you twice, plus some other advantages for the town. They write the laws, so...
In the state suit, the town, through Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, submitted motions to dismiss. They did not use the word "loud." They did not deny they broke Public Officer's law. They did not cite any cases where a ZBA overruled a Planning Board. They did not refer to the clear language of the Zoning Ordinance which says auto services facilities are illegal in agricultural districts. So, they conceded a lot, while giving the motions the old college try, see what happens.
Supervisor Valerie Bertram signed an affidavit that the minutes of the February 10, 2011 executive session were released to the public on March 19, 2011.
Other than these two suits, nothing political to report as of now. More to come.
In the state suit, the town, through Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, submitted motions to dismiss. They did not use the word "loud." They did not deny they broke Public Officer's law. They did not cite any cases where a ZBA overruled a Planning Board. They did not refer to the clear language of the Zoning Ordinance which says auto services facilities are illegal in agricultural districts. So, they conceded a lot, while giving the motions the old college try, see what happens.
Supervisor Valerie Bertram signed an affidavit that the minutes of the February 10, 2011 executive session were released to the public on March 19, 2011.
Other than these two suits, nothing political to report as of now. More to come.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
register star article on the stuyvesant budget
2012 Amount To Be Raised By Taxes: $376,953
That will pay for a lot of lawyers.
Is it 3% or 8%? I heard 8.5% at the meeting. Martin, do we have audio or was I hearing things?
Dog park? Yes, $72,000 could have paid for a dog park. I think the paper meant dog bark, not park. Funny that a bark costs more than a park, I could see how you might get that wrong.
What does the budget look like with all the numbers in there? The public will never see that budget? That's how I understand the quote below. Or are the figures in the budget now and that budget is available somewhere? Anyone seen it? Or will the public comments be closed with the numbers still not in there?
If I were on the board, I would make sure this was all clear before I voted, if only to protect my own reputation.
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
Jamison brought up the $72,491.59 payable to outside attorney, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, LLP...
Bertram responded by saying that although the cost, “is a reality,” the Board decided “not to put it in there (the 2012 budget.)”
According to Bertram, “on the date agreed upon to finish the public hearing, all the numbers will be plugged in,” for a finalized budget. Bertram added that the town will vote on the finalized budget after the allotted time for the public hearing has been closed.
Monday, November 14, 2011
What's up with the attorney line in the budget?
There are a lot of questions about the 2011/2012 Stuyvesant budget.
Here is one question about the 2011 figures: Why the games with attorney fees?
Before we start, I have to make this clear: all expenses to deal with me up to now, the money spent by the town to date, in 2011, have been related entirely to their campaign against me in town court, at the town zoning board and at the town planning board.
NONE of the actions in the budget now and NONE of the money spent prior to October 26, 2011 were spent on actions which I initiated. THEY initiated all the actions and spent $100,000 based on their choice to hire a special prosecutor. The federal lawsuit has been covered by insurance up to now.
Now, I have sued the town, naturally. My article 78 is unlikely to be covered by insurance, unlike my federal civil right suit filed in March. Anyone in my shoes would have to sue them. They forced me to sue them.
In 2012, yes, they will have a lot of legal expenses based on suits that I filed against them. So, there will be legal expenses in 2012, just like in 2011. The 2011 expenses are from them hitting me and the 2012 expenses are from me hitting back.
Clear? 2011: them hitting me, 2012: me hitting them. Now, on to the budget... Note, they hit first. I'm exercising my right to self defense.
The town spent $90,000-100,000 on a special prosecutor for me in 2011, David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna. Those funds are mostly not in the 2011 budget.
The year is almost over. The money has already been spent. About half of the fees paid are actually in the budget, about $50,000 of the $100,00 spent.
Half the funds are not in the budget. The budget shows $95,000 in the bank. Does that mean the town really has $45,000 in the bank? Or where is the other $50,000 coming from? Or does the town owe David R. Everett and Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna another $50,000 and will pay out of the $95,000 that's still in the bank?
When the fees to the special prosecutor are in the budget, the funds are listed under the zoning and planning, not in the "town attorney" line. When David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna works on my case, his fees are applied to zoning and planning.
Here are the potential problems with the way the money is listed: 1) some of the money was spent in criminal court, not zoning or planning; 2) when Tal Rappleyea worked on the same issues, his fees were applied to the town attorney line.
In short, the listing of the expenses as entirely in zoning and planning, pretending that criminal court never happened, is a flat out lie. Listing these expenses as zoning and planning is not how the town usually handles the same kinds of bills in the past.
Why would the town do this? Here I have to speculate: 1) not to raise any red flags at the comptroller's office (a 450% increase in actual expenses in November 2011 over projected budget in January 2011 in the attorney line might trigger an automatic audit); 2) the town attorney's fee was set at $125 an hour in January at the organizational meeting, but David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna was paid at a much higher rate and the town never amended the pay schedule set at the beginning of the year.
Now, let's take a look at the 2012 figures, again concentrating on the attorney line. The proposed 2012 budget does not include any increase in town attorney expenses over the anticipated expenses of January 2011. Say what? Do they plan to fight at least 2 lawsuits with the same $30,000 they budgeted in 2011?
No. They will have $100,000 or more in additional legal expenses in 2012. As noted, it isn't clear how much carry over there is to handle these additional fees. They have $95,000 in the bank? Or $45,000? How can you cover perhaps $150,000 in fees with $45,000?
Why not raise the attorney line and put in the actual fees? Well, next year, they can legitimately claim to have been sued. When the comptroller comes and says, "Why so much increase?" they can say, "We were sued!" But that won't explain 1) why the expenses in 2011 before the suit and 2) why they didn't increase the budget in 2012 when the first suit (and there will be many) was already filed in October before the budget was made?
So, how much did the town spend on David R. Everett and Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in 2011? Can't tell by looking at the budget. How much does the town expect to spend defending suits as a result of the stupid decision to hire David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna? Can't tell by looking at the budget.
Is this even a budget? Looks like an exercise in creative accounting to me. If I was on the board, I would in no way vote for this possibly fraudulent document.
Here is one question about the 2011 figures: Why the games with attorney fees?
Before we start, I have to make this clear: all expenses to deal with me up to now, the money spent by the town to date, in 2011, have been related entirely to their campaign against me in town court, at the town zoning board and at the town planning board.
NONE of the actions in the budget now and NONE of the money spent prior to October 26, 2011 were spent on actions which I initiated. THEY initiated all the actions and spent $100,000 based on their choice to hire a special prosecutor. The federal lawsuit has been covered by insurance up to now.
Now, I have sued the town, naturally. My article 78 is unlikely to be covered by insurance, unlike my federal civil right suit filed in March. Anyone in my shoes would have to sue them. They forced me to sue them.
In 2012, yes, they will have a lot of legal expenses based on suits that I filed against them. So, there will be legal expenses in 2012, just like in 2011. The 2011 expenses are from them hitting me and the 2012 expenses are from me hitting back.
Clear? 2011: them hitting me, 2012: me hitting them. Now, on to the budget... Note, they hit first. I'm exercising my right to self defense.
The town spent $90,000-100,000 on a special prosecutor for me in 2011, David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna. Those funds are mostly not in the 2011 budget.
The year is almost over. The money has already been spent. About half of the fees paid are actually in the budget, about $50,000 of the $100,00 spent.
Half the funds are not in the budget. The budget shows $95,000 in the bank. Does that mean the town really has $45,000 in the bank? Or where is the other $50,000 coming from? Or does the town owe David R. Everett and Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna another $50,000 and will pay out of the $95,000 that's still in the bank?
When the fees to the special prosecutor are in the budget, the funds are listed under the zoning and planning, not in the "town attorney" line. When David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna works on my case, his fees are applied to zoning and planning.
Here are the potential problems with the way the money is listed: 1) some of the money was spent in criminal court, not zoning or planning; 2) when Tal Rappleyea worked on the same issues, his fees were applied to the town attorney line.
In short, the listing of the expenses as entirely in zoning and planning, pretending that criminal court never happened, is a flat out lie. Listing these expenses as zoning and planning is not how the town usually handles the same kinds of bills in the past.
Why would the town do this? Here I have to speculate: 1) not to raise any red flags at the comptroller's office (a 450% increase in actual expenses in November 2011 over projected budget in January 2011 in the attorney line might trigger an automatic audit); 2) the town attorney's fee was set at $125 an hour in January at the organizational meeting, but David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna was paid at a much higher rate and the town never amended the pay schedule set at the beginning of the year.
Now, let's take a look at the 2012 figures, again concentrating on the attorney line. The proposed 2012 budget does not include any increase in town attorney expenses over the anticipated expenses of January 2011. Say what? Do they plan to fight at least 2 lawsuits with the same $30,000 they budgeted in 2011?
No. They will have $100,000 or more in additional legal expenses in 2012. As noted, it isn't clear how much carry over there is to handle these additional fees. They have $95,000 in the bank? Or $45,000? How can you cover perhaps $150,000 in fees with $45,000?
Why not raise the attorney line and put in the actual fees? Well, next year, they can legitimately claim to have been sued. When the comptroller comes and says, "Why so much increase?" they can say, "We were sued!" But that won't explain 1) why the expenses in 2011 before the suit and 2) why they didn't increase the budget in 2012 when the first suit (and there will be many) was already filed in October before the budget was made?
So, how much did the town spend on David R. Everett and Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna in 2011? Can't tell by looking at the budget. How much does the town expect to spend defending suits as a result of the stupid decision to hire David R. Everett of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna? Can't tell by looking at the budget.
Is this even a budget? Looks like an exercise in creative accounting to me. If I was on the board, I would in no way vote for this possibly fraudulent document.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
at least 8% increase
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN OF
STUYVESANT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Town Board for the Town of Stuyvesant at the Stuyvesant Town Hall on the 19th day of November 2011, at 10:00 a.m., regarding the adoption of a Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c. This law is being proposed to comply with subdivision 5 of the General Municipal Law §3-c which expressly authorizes the Town Board to override the tax levy limit by the adoption of a local law approved by vote of at least sixty percent (60%) of the Town Board. At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard concerning the same.
Copies of the proposed law shall be available at the time of the hearing and shall be available at times prior to and after the hearing at the Town Clerk’s Office during normal business hours for the purpo! se of inspection or procurement by interested persons.
The proposed Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law §3-c establishes the Stuyvesant Town Board’s intent to override the limit on the amount of real property taxes that may be levied by the Town of Stuyvesant.
Melissa Naegeli, Town Clerk
Town of Stuyvesant
Dated: November 11, 2011
RS1T11/12#60087
TOWN OF
STUYVESANT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Town Board for the Town of Stuyvesant at the Stuyvesant Town Hall on the 19th day of November 2011, at 10:00 a.m., regarding the adoption of a Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c. This law is being proposed to comply with subdivision 5 of the General Municipal Law §3-c which expressly authorizes the Town Board to override the tax levy limit by the adoption of a local law approved by vote of at least sixty percent (60%) of the Town Board. At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard concerning the same.
Copies of the proposed law shall be available at the time of the hearing and shall be available at times prior to and after the hearing at the Town Clerk’s Office during normal business hours for the purpo! se of inspection or procurement by interested persons.
The proposed Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law §3-c establishes the Stuyvesant Town Board’s intent to override the limit on the amount of real property taxes that may be levied by the Town of Stuyvesant.
Melissa Naegeli, Town Clerk
Town of Stuyvesant
Dated: November 11, 2011
RS1T11/12#60087
Friday, November 11, 2011
comment
Dear Town Board,
At last night at the meeting, public comments were not closed on the budget hearing. Here are my comments.
The theme of this criticism, my opinion as a taxpayer, of the 2012 budget is lack of consideration of cuts and savings through consolidation and too much reliance on tax increases. The proposed 8% increase is likely to only be the first of many increases on an already ridiculous amount of property taxes we pay. The supervisor herself said that if all the costs that really exist, and if the town were not draining the reserves, the increase would be much higher.
The justice department costs the town about $30,000. This could be outsourced to another town. This might save as much as $20,000.
We have lighting districts. There is no evidence that street lights improve safety on rural roads. Turn the lights off would save $18,000.
The assessors office could be outsourced or consolidated with other towns, as has been recommended by study after study for decades. Not only would this save money, it would likely produce better and fairer assessment. Savings: at least $20,000 after the first year.
Part of all of the highway department could be outsourced. A town of 2000 people with 25 miles of roads should not have a highway department. It’s inefficient. Savings? Who knows? Many a hundred thousand, maybe more, per year.
In the short term, the problem are lawsuits and legal expenses. I am the guy suing the town. If you have mediation, as I proposed a year ago, you might have avoided all these fees.
Next, instead of the town getting involved in neighbor to neighbor disputes, the town should tell people who complain about their neighbors to sue their neighbors in court and leave the town out of it. It's called a Nuisance Use lawsuit. Make it policy to recommend it to people who complain.
Zoning Control Officer/Building Code Enforcement: again, outsource. The few building inspections could be covered on a fee per inspection or fee per enforcement action that would likely save the town $15,000 in expenses (salary and benefits) and hundreds of thousands in legal costs due to liability because the current town employee has a habit of stirring up trouble.
After the town gets rid of all these inefficient functions, what would be left for the town to do? Stuff that is not happening now: grow small business with services and support, support agriculture with services and support, improve the agro-tourism infrastructure with trails and services, improve education with tutoring and classes for adults and kids. Most of this would be paid for by grants, small fees (sliding scale/voluntary) and fundraising. All of these things would be investments that would increase the tax base and property values and essentially be revenue neutral.
The cuts proposed here would be from 150,000 to 400,000, as much as 33% of the current budget, allowing for a cross the board tax cut of 25% over two years while simultaneous increasing the tax base, improving services to residents, protecting open space and creating a better place to live, raise a family and invest.
Thank you for consideration of this statement on the budget.
Will Pflaum
Stuyvesant Falls, NY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)