This seems quite small-minded in the scheme of things. We have 4 highway departments in ONE town. This is a very appropriate situation to explore consolidation and that consolidation would require a large space among other considerations.

It is unfortunate that the focus of protecting the town's drinking water has fallen so low on their priority list. Having a contaminated site already from a previous town oversight , it would seem that it would add an additional incentive to assure something like that could never happen again.

We are not talking about accomodating a low impact operation . What we are talking about here is the housing of big trucks. excavation equipment, employee vehicles along with fuel and salt storage This they want in the center of the village on top of the town's water supply. With that in mind the Rokeby site is in line with that use. Of course there will be cleanup and remediation costs ultimately involved, but in the scale of things this would be a minor investment if our entire drinking water supply was compromised by an unforseen incident or accident which we all know has a potential to happen.

Even with their estimate of a $10,300 for the phase 2 study as a deal breaker for them, let's remember it wasn't that long ago the GOP majority allowed 2 local developer friends reduction in recreation fees totalling many times that amount. If consolidation were to be achieved costs and savings would be shared.

Let's abandon this partisan bickering against the concerns of the entire town. This is not a small decision. This has a great impact on everyone. Let's give it a thorough consideration. Who doesn't want a second opinion?


Milan board at odds over financial records
Supervisor: Bookkeeping software outdated

Tensions flared over the poor state of the town's bookkeeping at a recent town board meeting, highlighting potential flaws in the financial records as well as dissension across party lines.

Board members Ross Williams and Diane May, the sole Democrats, abstained from accepting the financial reports for April, citing the fact the board has still not accepted the December 2008 financial report.

"We're now looking at an April report based on numbers that aren't right," Williams said. "There is no integrity in the numbers of the monthly financial statements for the town...READ MORE
Poughkeepsie Journal May 18

Executive Session Ethics: THE OMINOUS PRECEDENT
Supervisor and ethics committee member compromise the confidentiality of executive session and the ethics law

So, where in last night's Town Board Agenda was the discussion about the moral and legal hazard posed in the previous Town Board meeting by the Supervisor and her fellow Republican Ethics Board member?

The part where Ethics Board member Linda Keeling asked, and got, permission from the Supervisor to read a letter, which the Supervisor had previously received and read? Supervisor Crane knew what Linda Keeling was about to reveal, and encouraged her! Linda knew well she was in Executive Session at the Ethics Board meeting, since we have on tape a challenge to the Board's going into Executive Session to discuss the matter, and the Board clearly stated what Executive Session was, and why they were convening the Executive Session. Linda raised no objection at that time.

The reading of her letter in the Town Board meeting, by her, was in a public meeting, being taped by public access television, and the subject matter discussed the internal debate during the Executive Session of the previous week's Ethics Board meeting. Discussing the int ernal debate in an Executive Session of any Board, is breaking the law. The results of a vote within the session are sometimes divulged, the debate in reaching that result is confidential information, and remains so, legally protected. The reason for that is so that the members in the Executive Session feel free to fully express their concerns without fear of later retribution. The Board's voting decision gives the Board one voice to the outside world.

For those of you who are puzzled, according to state law, other than the few notable exceptions which call for Executive Session confidentiality, or employee personnel records, all operations of the Town are subject to public scrutiny. Executive Session is the only case where there is private debate in a public meeting, and that debate is not divulged, and cannot be divulged.

Interestingly this 'leaked' meeting was about a complaint brought by a Republican, defeated soundly in the previous election by the Democratic Board member she is challenging in the Ethics complaint. This gets full airing, since the complaint was turned down, and she was not happy. What???

Two years ago, I brought a complaint against a Republican Board member in a clear conflict situation, to the Ethics Board, and was told in the public portion of the Ethics Board meeting, that the case, if it was discussed at all, would be discussed in the mandatory privacy of the Executive Session, and that I would never be informed of even so much as WHETHER THE DISCUSSION HAD TAKEN PLACE. We have Town Attorney Christine Chale informing us of this, on videotape, during that meeting. True to her word, we NEVER heard a word further on the matter.
DOUBLE STANDARD? Republican Board member is protected by executive session secrecy, but Democratic Board members are NOT?

Are we to assume now, that since the local GOP is no longer running things, their obsessive secrecy while in control--(in many cases in clear violation of 'sunshine laws' requiring open scrutiny by the public), is now turning into demands for 'open book' for everything, including executive sessions, mandated as confidential? All this, of course, since they are no longer in control?

This clear diregard of the rules of Executive Session, by both the Supervisor, and the Ethics Board member, should send a chill down the spine of any Town resident concerned about the rule of law in our town. It sets an ominous precedent.

Kathy Stewart
Red Hook

Whose interests ARE they protecting?

Red Hook's Town Board meetings: The public comment period since January '09 has been filling up with some familar faces coming out in easy- to- predict opposition to just about any actions put forth by the new town board majority. Many of these actions entail moving forward on necessary updates to town law, with the intention of bringing the town hall and its business closer to the 21st century . They are issues that have been purposely 'put off' and left stagnating for years by the previous majority party. It is high time for Red Hook to move forward on them.

We all like a little dissent, and a healthy debate helps to move forward good decisions. However, this dissent is a little puzzling.

What is particularly puzzling about these complaints is that in addition to reading from carefully written scripts, these 'chosen orators' seem to defend positions that conflict with their own best interests.

We have listened to hardworking taxpayers surprisingly defend an out of town company which, working on no-bid contracts for the town, by definition not subject to price competition, will continue to add to these same taxpayers' property taxes. Their stated concern is that by looking at this company's political contributions, we might be compromising the company's first amendment rights--- Why would they care---let the company defend itself. Also, Is that possible, after the fact? How about just asking them to give up their private clients in a town where they hold an official position? That one seems obvious to many of us. How about just hiring for the work when we need it, and hiring from a list of approved professionals? We may not even need the service over the course of a given year. This whole issue has a lot of payments that need to be looked at. Why would anyone defend any aspect of this practice?

The same group argues just as vociferously against the first amendment rights of high school students filming town board meetings. They then go on to complain about how unflattering they look on video while speaking on the issues that they themselves are presenting before the town. (We do understand their embarrasment....If you don't say it, we can't show it!!)

Then with even more fervor, they argue against the constitutional rights of student voters of a college that has been part of the community longer than many of the people seeking to take students rights away. That is a useless argument, since it is Federal Law that vests these students with their rights to vote here.

I think the practice is called “wanting it both ways.”

The common denominator in all these stories is the fragile and crumbling system which has been in control of our town for generations. As the 'old guard' are defeated, one by one, they are throwing the last of the party faithful under the bus in an attempt to maintain the control that has served them so well for so long. They are sending 'the troops' out on the road in a vain attempt to to silence what is by now the thundering opposition to their self-interested manner of pushing through matters of self-interest, rather than addressing the needs of the community. It is too late. We 'get' what they are up to.

We urge these community members to re-examine the whole idea of taking this dive for the party, any party, and to turn their energy to positive advocacy for our whole Community.

IF YOU DO NOT SAY IT, WE CANNOT SHOW IT!

The right to video public meetings is a very basic part of the open meetings law in this state. People attending public meetings should be aware of this, and they are always free to leave the meeting if they do not wish to be videotaped. They have NO rights to harass or attempt to stop the person videotaping. Their explanation of: "They distort it, we all look like idiots, " makes no sense. Our answer to that is: " If you do not say it, we cannot show it."
Here are a few hints: Think HARD, and think through what you want to say, before you speak in public. Do not read things someone else wrote and told you to read as your own. That becomes very obvious on film. If you are running the meeting, please try to be impartial, and call from people on both sides of the issue---you do know who they are. When you don't call on both sides, that also looks sketchy when people later view the film. Also, keep BOTH sides to the three minute limit.
In a public hearing, or in the three minutes allotted for public questions in a Town Board meeting, the PUBLIC, individuals, are invited to give their thoughts to their elected representatives. This is a time for genuine exchange of ideas, not scripted political responses sent in by party bosses and political action committees. It is not a gossip fest in a bar, or across the back fence. It is a time for the serious business of the community.
Public meetings are held to advance the business of the community, and if you feel that you look foolish----it may be that you are there for a different reason, and it shows.

Red Hook Should Pass Plan, End Pay-To-Play

A reform ordinance - ethical spending - is a welcome proposal. We, the citizens of Red Hook and our elected leaders, have the right to establish rules for contracting with businesses. It is sound business practice. The end of "pay-to-play" will ensure that town money is wisely spent - that a dollar paid will give us a dollar's worth of value.

We get three benefits from this proposal:

1. This new rule protects taxpayers. Too long our town has allowed a cloud of suspicion to conceal how tax dollars were spent.

2. This new rule also protects town leaders. They will be free from any hint of ethical failure.

3. This new rule still allows individuals full "freedom of speech" to support their leaders as they see fit.
Look closely at who opposes this good legislation:

€ Candidates who want no restrictions to hamper their fundraising. They will claim this is about limits to campaign finance; they are wrong.

€ Those who may consider that "business as usual" can include buying influence.

€ Also, lobbyists who would pressure our leaders instead of letting the free market determine who gets Red Hook's business.

A Public Contract Reform Ordinance will usher in a new era of trust. Our town can prosper with absolute trust that the influence-peddlers have been chased out of town hall. Let us support this fully.

Vicky K. Perry
Red Hook
(from the Poughkeepsie Journal Letters to the Editor)

Democrats won the Town Board majority in last year's Town of Red Hook elections. Things WILL change---that is why they were elected. They have a different philosophy--no more graft and nepotism, different supporting cast. So why be surprised over Republican Committee members showing up in Town Hall to complain? Why mistake it for the genuine concern of a majority of residents? It isn't, and they aren't. They are screaming in pain over having lost their influence. They had better get used to it. They are loud, but they are not the majority, and the majority is tired of being led around and being 'fleeced' regularly for their projects. Thy hijacked the 'Grand Old Party', but they did not fool us.
On with the agenda:

PAY TO PLAY
Councilman McKeon is the lead on this one, and he is right. Mock 'anger' by Supervisor Crane and ex-town attorney Trezza(who did very well for himself, thank you very much) over "I never took a penny from anyone, we don't need this." Hogwash. They faithfully followed their cronies in the party, and hired and appointed people and firms who collectively did MILLIONS of dollars in business in the majority of Hudson Valley Towns, and in addition contributed, in many cases, over $50,000 dollars per year to the State GOP, for 'trickle down.' We are not fooled, their fake outrage masks a horror of losing their privileged positions and massive money influxes, positions SO privileged that it appears they have hired PR firms and are doing a 'full court press' in town hall hearings. They are certainly making full use of GOP Assemblyman Molinaro's fully paid and benefitted staff of 12 in THREE offices---for a SIX-MONTH a year job in the Assembly. Get the picture? The 'blowback' alone tells us how desperately we need this law to change the track of this town.

POLLING PLACE CHANGE
This is not about a church fund-raiser, as opponents have billed it. There is a genuine problem with overcrowding in the polling place, and a space so small that new voting machines would not even fit in the alotted space. There are twice the number of voters in this polling place than any other in the town. It is overcrowded. The state will not allow, until 2011, the splitting of the district into two, as will be done then. In the mean time, the largest number of voters in the district are at Bard, and Bard has the facilities NOW to house a larger station. Period. That is all. The rest is sour grapes in a small town.

ENERGY STAR CERTIFICATION:
This is a major consumer protection initiative. Additional inspections, high tech ones to make sure that the additional protections you had put in your walls are actually there. This is also a protection for local contractors, and assures that sub-contracted work is up to par, without their having to sit over their sub-contractors to be sure. This is basically a check list of things that most contractors can or should be doing already. It requires virtually no extra work time, and adds a level of professionalism to all contractors in this town. People from nearby towns will be looking for Red Hook contractors, since they know they will be Energy Star certified. Impossible to believe that a good contractor would object to this plan: beware of those who do--they do not want to be checked. Why? Energy efficient, 'green' building is what future consumers will demand. It puts Red Hook right on the curve---ahead of the curve was yesterday--NOW this is what people want. Saving Energy is saving money.

Democratic agenda? A community run for the community at large, not for the convenience of a few well-connected friends. It has to work for all.

It's a miracle!
Jim Ross has got "ethics religion"
take a look...

One would think that a proposed ordinance to cut out corruption on town contracts and open them up to more bidders would bring cheers from voters concerned about how their hard-earned money was being spent.

The HUGE fuss that erupted during last week's public hearing just sounded a little wierd upon review of the meeting----what was it?

Well, as we started digging into just one, of the NO BID town contracts, and looked what it actually was, at the characters complaining, and heard their rather elaborately crafted speeches, full of distortion and mis-information, we began to realize that there was MUCH more at stake here, and much bigger numbers, and much more and wider implications for New York State's GOP, and the contractees themselves.
Here is what you need to watch for as you watch the upcoming films:

Keep an eye on the characters speaking out: they all have very obvious connections to Red Hook's GOP Committee, one is a town board hopeful, having been defeated in the last election.

Compute the numbers (or is it 'payola?) . This same engineering firm has the no-bid contract as Town Engineers for the vast majority(see the map above ) of towns in Dutchess and Columbia Counties, and we are still counting the ones in Ulster and Greene Counties. The Town Of Hyde Park alone was paying some $47,000. That is basically a RETAINER!! How many towns need to spend that much money on engineering business every year? THIS year? That is $470,000 for every ten towns!!! That is quite a haul.

Add to that the fact that they appear before these same towns on behalf of private clients---for the last several years, they have been in before the Village and Town Planning Boards representing Keith Lore for Anderson Commons, a project of some 51 houses over Red Hook's aquifer. When this website requested a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement on that project, their engineer Peter Setaro replied to the FOIL request that the electronic file requested was 'proprietary'. Totally untrue---it is a public document, it affects the welfare of the public, and was presented in a public meeting. It was never provided. The law now allows us to use public funding to pursue this illegally-denied FOIL request.

One more example of how appearing before Planning or Zoning boards in towns where they are the contract engineers is a BLATANT conflict of the public's interest.

Most Mid-Hudson Valley Towns having the same Engineer, this same engineer makes hefty contributions to the GOP---, while GOP Town Board members appoint them to no-bid positions worth millions of dollars if you combine all the towns to which they have been granted access to by the GOP.

Close connections to GOP powers-that -be, guaranteed contracts worth millions that the towns themselves may not even need. Here's a honey pot that needs big-time protection.

Watch the excuses pile up. Tune in for the next town board meeting, and watch them resume throwing out accusations---at everyone BUT the ones actually making off with the money.