| Author |
Message |
    
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 539
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:32 am: | 
|
Dave,
So you're saying you agree with me in principle, but not in implementation? Bush and Cheney should not be involved (either directly or indirectly) with the awarding of contracts that can financially benefit themselves or those close to them. This is the same thing, albeit on a much smaller scale, as what we are talking about here.
To extend your logic of 11:32pm, Cheney should absolutely be able to cast the deciding vote on whether Haliburton gets contracts. Heck, he shouldn't have had to divest himself of his interest in it.
All that said, I don't disagree that the way things have been done around here in the past has been atrocious. To say they had to leave the room for discussions is absurd, unless there was concern of coercion (not too likely in this town) or stifling someone's opinion (not too likely in this crowd).
Though I wasn't around at the time, from what I've read, Bill should have been recused on votes before Patrick joined the board, and both after he joined. But they are citizens as well as board members, and have a right to be heard by the board and participate just as any other citizen.
As far as MHD's point about John Gross, I wholeheartedly agree. I believe this was supposed to be a temporary arrangement until a more suitable candidate (for at least one of the positions) was found. Is there a search going on, or do we have contracts with Mr. Gross for each position/ And if so, does anyone know the lengths of the contracts.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:30 am: |
|
MHD:
At the time of those meetings there was
no application pending and therefore there was no conflcit. The potential for conflict did not occur until the application was submitted.
Dave: The BOT did not decide about the conflict. The state board of ethics did. There have always been specific rules that deal with conflicts and specifically with property and the 200 ft. rule. It was put in place because an elected official in some town sold his property for personal gain while voting on allowing a developer to put in a large development and he made a killing (financially).
In Partrick and Bill's case, the issue was a little different but the law is meant to cover any and all possibilities. The reason we went to the ethics board is because Patrick questioned it and at least four trustees decided we should get that opinion. I would think even Patrick would agree that it was pretty clear that he could not participate. Patrick accepted that there was a conflict, yet you don't? Why not? Have you read the report? Have you called the state ethics board or discussed the issue with an attorney who has any expertise in this area? The ruling was very clear. Bill C and Patrick had to leave the room when discussing the quarry. There was no exception given. They cannot state their opinions. Try to remember that there are people in the village including some who live closer to the quarry than MHD does and they were NOT against the quarry being developed.
The charter review committee's recomendation is presented to the BOT and if the BOT gives the ok, then it gets placed as referendum to be voted on by everyone who votes in S. Orange.
One could argue that a moderator should not be posting his own opinions on matters and at the same time try to remain impartial. If you were truly impartial, then you would know how the charter review works and how it would get passed. Instead, a poster (woodstock) has to correct you. Maybe he should be the moderator? At the very least the moderator should not make factually incorrect posts.
And for those who wonder why there are so few elected official post on here it is because of two reasons. One is because every thread turns into a trustee bashing encouraged by misinformation being posted.
The second is that there is no impartial moderatotor to help keep the threads on target without personal attacks.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 944
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:42 am: |
|
Mark,
1) If Ed Matthews is going to script your posts, perhaps he should post here himself. The application was submitted in Februrary 2000. Perhaps you should re-read the meeting minutes from May 22, 2000, where Bill Calabrese was very much present.
2) Can you address the concerns of the excessive power of John Gross, the conflict of Ms. Theroux & the state of the search for a replacement CFO and Treasurer?
3) I saw no "personal attack" at all from Dave. he was experiencing frustration as any other resident. Unlike Village Hall, this is Dave's house we are all playing in & he doesn't have to recuse himself.  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:59 am: |
|
MHD:
1: Ed gave me one correction, hardly a script. Second, I already stated that before we went to the ethics board, the belief was that an elected official could stay in the room. We knew that he could not vote. Patrick raised the issue and a trustee votes far more frequently than the village president.
2. I do not discuss personell issues in public so I won't discuss any specific employee. Trustee Theroux has recused herself from any vote where she was advised there was a conflict. I also think if there is to be a discussion on this topic it should be done with the full BOT including Ms. Theroux.
3. I did not say Dave made a personal attack. I said that he does not act as a moderator when one is made. It is his house and it his rules, but he also states he is a moderator and I think he is more of a participant. |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:59 am: |
|
For the record, The BoT has requested that a new ruling be requested from the Local Ethics Board re the question that both Patrick and Bill may not participate in hearing public safety issues relating to the quarry, which certainly carry no personal financial impact possibilities for anyone. This surely sounds incredulous to at least some of us. |
aplastic
Citizen
Username: Aplastic
Post Number: 24
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:16 am: |
|
If a developer/applicant is unhappy with all or part of a board's decision, an easy basis for appeal is a conflict or apparant conflict of a public official. It is always better to avoid such conflicts (whether real or perceived) from the beginning. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:22 am: |
|
aplastic: Exactly! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 946
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Mark,
Why then did village Counsel wait until Patrick Joyce was elected to enlighten everyone about this perceived "conflict of interest"? Then again, this is the same village counsel who neglected to do a proper inspection of the Village Shoprite site before purchasing the site at taxpayer expense and which now require environmental cleanup at taxpayer expense.
If you cannot discuss a specific employee, can you discuss whether a search is underway for a permanent CFO and Village Treasurer? Having all roles in the hand on a single person sounds very dangerous to me.
Allan - thank you. I am glad to hear that is being pursued. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:15 pm: |
|
MHD: Actually, the village attorney had bought it up before Patrick was elected. Patrick challenged the conflict issues stating he did not think that he had one using many of the same reasons posted above.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 960
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:08 am: |
|
I saw that the meeting from last week was re-run on cable last night. For the sake of all humanity, I sure hope Bill & Patrick didn't watch it on TV....we all might get sued. 
Does anyone know if a letter was, in fact, sent to the Ethics Board requesting a new ruling & if a response has been received, yet? I'd hate to see this juvenille politcally motivated treatment of Bill & Patrick continue. Ironically, the issue that prompted this whole mess certainly would have been of interest to them, as residents, due to the potential health risks that were raised. It's absured that they were not allowed to sit and listen in person and hear about something that could affect them and their families. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:09 pm: |
|
bump...
Does anyone know if a letter was, in fact, sent to the Ethics Board requesting a new ruling & if a response has been received, yet? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 426
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 8:31 pm: |
|
dave: methinks that mrosner somehow thinks that the owner of this site should be impartial, kinda like politicians are supposed to be. LOL!! a moderator? LOL!!
Wrong mrosner, dave not only sets the rules, not only owns the board, but also does a good job in insuring all sides voice their opinions and enforces when necessary. This is the role of a moderator.
And when he expresses his opinions, he is EDITORIALIZING, something an owner can do, whenever.
And he has a good product, something the SO muni govt doesn't have.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
reflective: here is what I said:
. I did not say Dave made a personal attack. I said that he does not act as a moderator when one is made. It is his house and it his rules, but he also states he is a moderator and I think he is more of a participant.
As you can see, I said it is his board and can do what he wants, but IMO he is not a moderator. From some threads on the political soapbox, I see a lot of people agree with me on that point.
Obviously, I think his product is good or at least has the potential but then again, if muni gov't was run more like a small private business (think dictatorship) I think we would operate more efficiently too.
Of course, my biggest objection to the board is allowing people to use anonymous names, but I do understand the advantages to allowing them. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
|
Does anyone know if a letter was, in fact, sent to the Ethics Board requesting a new ruling & if a response has been received, yet? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
A letter was sent. A response has not yet been received. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Thank you, Mark. Please update us here when a ruling is received.
If I recall correctly, the original ruling was received very quickly after the request was made. |
David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Mark,
By your avoidance of the question, can we assume that the BOT is pleased that Mr. Gross is wearing three hats (administrator, CFO and treasurer) and that no effort is being made to change that? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:20 pm: |
|
David: I have stated before I cannot discuss a specific employee's performance in public ( or online) and my feeling is that the question was about Mr. Gross's performance and not about whether we should have two people do those jobs.
I do think (and I have said this to Mr. Gross) it would be better for the village to have someone else be the CFO/treasurer.
My opinion has nothing to do with Mr. Gross or whether he can do both jobs, only if he should do both jobs.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Mark,
What are you and the Village DOING about not having one person do all THREE jobs?
Not only does it sound inappropriate (or certainly APPEAR to be), it sounds dangerous & possibly illegal to have a single person in charge of ALL financials.
In my opinion, simply having the APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough for something to be a conflict of interest. |
David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Mark,
I was not asking you to comment on the performance of Mr. Gross. I was asking if the BOT is happy with one person (any one person) handling all three jobs. Now that you have said that you would prefer it to be split up, have you proposed it in a BOT meeting? Has anyone? (Saying it to Mr. Gross, as you say you have done, is not going to change anything.) |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 4:40 pm: |
|
David: I did not say you did ask about John's performance, but that I felt the question when first asked was being asked in regards to performance and not about his having multiple job titles or whether that creates any kind of problem(s).
Nobody has raised the issue in a while (probably over two years). Three board members are supposed to be doing a review of the village administrator. I think it would be appropiate to discuss this issue when the review has been completed.
|
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 137
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Just wondering: will the review now under way of Village Administrator John Gross be completed, and John Gross terminated, two days before the next BOT election, in similar fashion to the demolition of the Beifus site the week before the last election (and still no progress a year and a half later), and the fence going up around the SOPAC site the day before the last election (and still no progress a year and a half later)? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 8:14 pm: |
|
It's only been a YEAR since the Beifus building was demolished. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Correction...it will be a year on May 12 (easy to remember because the election was on May 13). Not saying there is any correlation....it just makes it easy to remember. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Evaluation of an employee is always a fruitful endeavor, but wouldn't it be most advantageous to do so before extending a long term lucrative contract? Just a thought. |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 114
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Welcome to MOL. Pizzaz |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 140
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Thanks MHD for checking the calendar. The older I get, the faster time seems to recede..... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page