| Author | Message | ||
     Mayor McCheese Citizen Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 170 Registered: 7-2004  |
Maybe S.O.D.A. can run for office. He doesn't have anything else to do. (except correct people's grammar, and yell at pizzaz) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1912 Registered: 5-2001  |
No thanks, I'd rather have Steglitz/Theroux. On second thought....Soda for BOT!  Still waiting for a response from Dr. Rosen (or Steglitz/Taylor) on what benefit this sweetheart deal provides the taxpayers of this town.... | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1918 Registered: 5-2001 |
I still have not heard from Dr. Rosen here or in response to an email sent to him. Does anyone know if he is away? I think we all deserve an explanation of this deal. | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 107 Registered: 3-2004 |
In the last ten years I wonder how many "new" positions were added to the list of employees in the village? How many positions have been added? (In the old days, I remember when there was a Village Clerk, and that person did what is now done by the Clerk, the Adminstrator, the assistant to the Administrator, and I am not sure who else). Maybe if the administrator did just that, we might be able to afford "a redevelopment consultant" to concentrate on something that falls within their area of expertise. In the last ten years I wonder what the increases in salaries have been compared to the average in this area? In a time when most managers must cut back and people have lost jobs, I wonder how many people are afforded the luxury of earning not only one but two salaries, and appear to be protected in ways that appear to conflict? I also wonder how many businesses have been able to expand departments even when funds are low. Our recreation department might be another example? How many more people are on board within the last ten years? Add into that the costs for healthcare and other benefits. | ||
| kevin Citizen Username: Eloso Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2004 |
Where can one find the village budget? I think it would be very enlightening to see the budget over the last ten years and find out where the money goes. | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 133 Registered: 4-2003 |
For the record Mark Rosner voted for the ordinance on first reading as well as supporting it in closed session. I will be happy to explain my position after he explains his. By the way, I don't believe any of the incumbents will be running in May; so anyone is free to run and explain what they would do differently. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1724 Registered: 4-2002 |
Trustee Rosen: First off, it was a resolution, not an ordinance for the amendment to Mr. Gross's contract (in other words, there was no first reading). Second, I did not support it in closed session. I stated I had to think about it but would prefer a different percentage split and I stated I did not know why we had to do anything since he already has a contract. I did give an explanation at the beginning of this thread. I am not sure why your explanation in contingent on mine anyway. You supported the resolution so I think it is fair that residents would like to know your reasoning. By the way, for the record, unless closed session minutes are approved by the BOT and then approved to be released, anything said in those meetings are NOT supposed to be discussed in public. Since you made misrepresnted what I said in closed session, I needed to clarify but would hope you would refrain from using closed session comments in the future. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 812 Registered: 12-2001  |
By the way, I don't believe any of the incumbents will be running in May; so anyone is free to run and explain what they would do differently. That's the best news I've heard in a long time (except for Patrick). | ||
| Josh M. Citizen Username: Jmaxlaw Post Number: 220 Registered: 3-2004 |
Trustee Rosen-- In all due respect-- I think you're ducking the question from both Trustee Rosner as well as others on this forum because there is no good explanation. This is pure protectionism... plain and simple. While I'm on my soapbox: this shows how bizzare the running of Village government is right now. John Gross-- never elected to anything-- is running the show. Now-- the Trustees have saddled the taxpayers with an anvil of a contract which protects him from future Trustee boards and Village Presidents. By the way-- while Mary "Walking Conflict of Interest" Theroux stepped down-- I think there should be an independent investigation into whether or not she even discussed this with any other trustees. As she would directly gain from this arraingement as Mr. Gross' paramour-- the results of the investigation should be forwarded to the Attorney General's office. This includes conversations held in closed session. Yes, I'm serious. If no justification is listed, then I would encourage Mr. Rosner to call for an additional independent investigation (anyone here trust Ed Matthews to handle this?) regarding how this deal came about. This stinks to high heaven-- and needs to be looked into. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 813 Registered: 12-2001 |
By the way-- while Mary "Walking Conflict of Interest" Theroux stepped down Josh, are you basing this on Mr. Rosen's comments above (about her not running) or did she actually step down? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 731 Registered: 5-2004  |
ok, I'm now very confused. Above, Mark Rosner says he voted against this resolution. (2/16 10:01am). Dr. Rosen indicates (2/22 above) that Mark voted FOR this resolution, and Mark does not correct him. Which was it? Did Mark vote for or against this resolution? I'd normally guess against, but what really happened? Are Mark and Allan talking about the same vote? | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 814 Registered: 12-2001 |
The actual resolution (not sure if there was one or two readings) was voted FOR by Mr. Rosen and AGAINST by Mr. Rosner when it actually counted. Mr. Rosen was referring to discussions that took place in closed session that have no real impact on how the trustees will vote when it is brought up for the "official" vote. See the salary issue for another example of what people say they will do in closed session is much different than how they will actually vote. Right Mary? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1925 Registered: 5-2001 |
Singlemalt, I think Josh was referring to Mary "Walking Conflict of Interest" Theroux stepping down DURING THE DISCUSSION of the issue at the meeting (i.e. recusing herself). | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1725 Registered: 4-2002 |
Rastro: I voted against the resolution. Allan seems to think that it was an ordinance (which would require two votes). Just for the record I am talking about the vote for the amendment to John Gross's contract. Singlemalt: Mary Theroux has not stepped down and she has not stated whether she is running again or not. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1926 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Dr Rosen stated that he would explain his position after you explained yours. Can you reiterate why you voted AGAINST this amendment and then Dr. Rosen can explain why he voted FOR it? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1726 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: That is pretty funny. Dr. Rosen needs me to explain why I voted against and yet he represented the majority opinion? I am glad to see he can still dance the sidestep. I just want to re-iterate that my vote had nothing to do with Mr. Gross's performance. I voted against the resolution because: 1. I do not like to renegotiate contracts in the middle unless there is some overriding reason why it needs to be done. 2. I do not know of any reason why we need to effectively give tenure to a position that did not enjoy that luxury previously. 3. I felt it was the wrong thing to do. | ||
| Daniel I. Goldberg Citizen Username: Dig Post Number: 49 Registered: 8-2004 |
Trustee Rosen: I'm afraid this is an issue that you need to answer. The Board is arrogant to think that it could pass this resolution without the residents demanding answers. It seems to me that, based upon history, and your obfusication in answering the question, the Board's motivation in passing the resolution is transparent: The resolution was fueled by nothing more than an effort to protect John Gross, and sadly signifies the rampant and malignant politcal (patronage) abuses in the Town's local government. Please, please, tell me Trustee Rosen how passage of this resolution was in the best interest of the residents. Be assured that, one way or another you and the rest of the Trustees that voted in favor of this resolution will have to answer this question. | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1526 Registered: 11-2001  |
Who started this thread?  | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 816 Registered: 12-2001 |
Mark, Once again, thank you for being a responsible trustee. You have proven to me over the past year that you are an excellent representative of the taxpayers. You have found a loyal supporter going forward! | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 134 Registered: 4-2003 |
I am talking about the salary ordinancewhich codifies the reallocation of monies. |
