| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4909 Registered: 5-2001  |
 I heard Mr Gross makes... One Billion Dollars | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 523 Registered: 4-2002 |
Actually, I think it would be better to post what Mr. Gross really gets paid and some of his qualifications. Base Salary: $117,500 Treasurer/CFO 15,000 He is not the assistant purchasing agent and receives no money for that. He does not get paid for being the executive director of the Arts Center. As of this point he does not get paid for being assistant emergency management director. There is an ordinance being considered by the board on Monday night regarding that issue. And yes, he does get health benefits, a cell phone, car and a pension. What a shock that we actually give health benefits to village employees or that there is a pension plan. I think the CEO of every small, medium and large sized business get a cell phone and a car. The above numbers can be verified at village hall at the clerk's office but I doubt that Lamppost or Bets would be interested in getting the facts first (or ever). He went to school and took (and passed ) an exam to be CFO. He has the certificate hanging on his wall. He has prior experience as an administrator. Ms. Harris did not recently get a large raise and will get a raise that other employees in village hall get (currently 4%). I don't comment on the performance (either good or bad) of any employee in public. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 48 Registered: 6-2001 |
What is the status of the Pilot meeting? My questions, to anyone familiar with the PILOT process, are: 1)When in the construction process are PILOTs negotiated and how are those negotiations tied in with the mechanisms that make the PILOT law? 2)How do the procedures allow for meaningful input from the Trustees and the public? 3)Are the issues discussed in public before a BOT vote or does the confidentiality of the negotiations require that the meetings be closed to the public? 4)Are the negotiations for the next PILOT taking place even as the meeting to discuss them is being pushed back? 5)I have heard BOT members complain that the Gaslight is to big and to ugly. If we have to have another PILOT can the granting of it be used to control big and ugly? 6)How can a developer make a go/no go decision on a project without knowing the status of a PILOT request? 7)How can future projects in the re-development zone be denied a PILOT after the GasLight has been granted one? | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4911 Registered: 5-2001 |
I've edited out the incorrect information regarding salaries. Mark has posted the correct information. Looking back through this topic, I note there are several times I should have stepped in to stop what were personal attacks and I wish I had. There are plenty of ways to debate without getting nasty and without posting incorrect (though easily verified) public information regarding village employees. The civility level will be raised or people are going to find themselves without a password. This applies to everyone on whatever side of whatever issue. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 525 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dan Sheflo: The date of the PILOT meeting needs to be rescheduled by Ed Matthews and John Gross. Mr. Gross was away for one week and then was sick upon his return. As soon as they have a new date, we will announce it. No discussions regarding the PILOT have taken place - not in public nor behind closed doors. The planning board already approved the site plan for Beifus and Shop-Rite, but the developers agreement can be used to assure the village/BOT of the materials, etc. We do not have to give a PILOT to another developer just because one was given to Gaslight. Different situation, different times, etc. I have stated before I believe that if we did not give a PILOT to Gaslight, there would be nothing there but an abandoned dealership. Each situation dictates that you look at doing a PILOT on it's own merit and not on the basis of what was done elsewhere. As for how a developer makes a go/no go decision when they might be hoping/counting on a PILOT is the same question I have asked. I can't figure it out and it would seem logical that the developer should negotiate that up front. The size of the gaslight was a matter of economics and I think/thought it was too big, but I am sure the developer would have liked to have been even bigger. I won't comment on whether it is ugly or not because that is a matter of opinion. Main street has reviewed and worked with the architects on both projects to help assure that they won't be "ugly". I would think that the initial discussion/negotiations for a PILOT will be done in closed session. The vote on a PILOT must be in public so there will be a chance to ask questions regarding any proposed PILOT agreement. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 49 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark, You abstained from voting on John Gross' new five year contract and it passed 2-1. What is your reasoning for abstaining? You were elected to exercise your judgement and vote for what you think is in the best interest of the town. I hate abstentions. Why sit up there if your not going to make it count? I heard from a BOT member that Pilots will be a likely topic on Monday. Can you confirm? | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 317 Registered: 5-2001 |
For those of us who didn't see the meeting, who voted FOR the contract and who voted AGAINST it? I assume that Mary had to recuse herself for "personal" reasons? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 526 Registered: 4-2002 |
The first (and longest) meeting discussing Mr. Gross's contract took place while I was away on vacation. Many of the points in the contract were agreed upon by the four trustees who were there and the Village President. As much as I agree with you about hating to abstain on a vote, I also don't like to vote on this type of issue without having input. I made my feelings clear to the other trustees about holding an important meeting when they knew one of us could not make it. Unless we were under the gun timewise, then it should be held before or after a regularly scheduled meeting. I am not thrilled about an employees contract having to be discussed in public and I certainly don't ever want to discuss an employee's performance in public. I will only say I was not thrilled with all aspects of the contract, but that is not a reflection of the performance of Mr. Gross. So, in my best judgement, I do not think I should vote for a contract that I did not have input. It would make more sense if you asked the other trustee who abstained or the one who voted against the contract why they voted the way they did, yet they had input into the contract. By the way, abstentions do count because unless there are more yes votes than no votes, it does not pass. And abstaining is just what a trustee should do when (s)he does not have all the information to make an informed vote. There are six trustees and if one abstains, the other five should be able to make a decision that reflects what they think is right. If I thought that passage of this contract was going to be harmful to the village, then I would have voted against it. By the way, I abstained on every ordinance and resolution that was discussed at that meeting. Believe me, the whole issue is a sore point and I told that to the other trustees. I have not heard that PILOT's will be discussed Monday night. Since they were not discussed at conference agenda, I did not expect them to be discussed at the meeting on Monday. If I hear differently I will post on Monday. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 527 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mayhhewdrive's post slipped in ... but for the record, Steve Steglitz and A. Taylor voted for, Patrick Joyce voted against and A. Rosen abstained (as obviously did I). | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 318 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Looks like we were posting at the same time...can you also respond to my question above? As for absentions....I agree they are useful if someone does not have all the facts, but I disagree that they still "count". On the issue of the Quarry...I still don't understand why Don Schatz abstained after attending virtually every meeting on the subject. | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2003 |
Having two out of five trustees abstaining suggests that a vote should not have taken place. If Mark and Alan needed more information before making a decision, more time and discussion should have gone into the process. South Orange utilizes a six-person board (plus President), and two yes-votes passes a decision? This does not sound right (for any vote, not just this issue). | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 50 Registered: 6-2001 |
Back when Mary Theroux was appointed to the BOT there was a big discussion about the seating arrangements at meetings. It went on for an absurd amount of time. Afterword, I said to Mary that it is more important where you stand than where you sit. An abstention is no stand at all. In my mind an abstention does not even count as an at bat. Make your voice be heard and be a part of the voting record. As for the planning board member who abstained after twenty meetings over two years that is just mind blowing. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1852 Registered: 5-2001  |
I'm just visiting from the next town over, but I always thought that these decisions had to be made by a majority of the governing body - which would not be 2-1 of a 6 person body. But, the ins-and-outs of the Village form of government aren't my speciality, so I could be wrong. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 265 Registered: 9-2002  |
Is it better to have an uninformed position than no position? I'd rather someone said "I don't know" than back a position without the minimum information to make a decision. As long as the abstention isn't a cop-out, I don't mind. But I do wonder why someone who did have "all the information" abstained. And I agree with Nohero - isn't there a minimum number of voting members to constitute a legitimate vote? Could all but one member vote, and have a resolution pass? Mr. Rosner, did Mr. Rosen give a reason for abstaining? Are abstentions included in the voting record? Are reasons for abstaining? Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 51 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark is a bright guy who is a longtime trustee. I doubt very much that he was uninformed. Mark wrote "I do not think I should vote for a contract that I did not have input. " then he should have voted against it. He really should have input on issues. I am not judging the contract or the employee I just find fault with the process. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 528 Registered: 4-2002 |
With certain issues four yes votes are needed (budget for one), and others only need a simple majority. In some cases a vote has to be take at two different meetings (all ordinances). I gave a reason for abstaining and despite what Dan says, I don't see how I could vote on something that I did not have input into nor did I have the minutes of the meeting for me to catch up on the discussions that did take place at that meeting. I was told that the majority of the trustees who had been at the meeting had agreed to certain points in the contract but that there was to be more discussion. When we had a follow-up meeting I told the rest of the board I was going to abstain on any vote that concerned anything from that saturday meeting. It would not be fair to the employees who were hoping for resolution regarding their pay for them to have to wait because I missed a meeting. Furthermore, it would not have been fair for me to vote on some of the issues that were discussed and not others. The other five trustees and the village president are all capable of voting on what they discussed. Based on the fact that they had already agreed to vote yes, my vote was not going to matter. However, I agree with your assesment that it is the process that was/is at fault and not the contract or employee. That is why it would not have beem fair to vote no either. I don't know if Dr. Rosen gave a reason in public but he had told me prior to the meeting. However, I don't like to answer for others so I will let Allan either answer this himself Monday night or I will ask him if he wants me to post for him. Also, it was not really the seating arrangement that was being questioned, but the order of the voting which continues to be done alphabetically (I think there is some kind of law about that). I had raised the issue about rotating the order of voting so the same person did not always vote first (or last). My objection was that the person who voted last could easily vote the easy way out (against a tax increase that was agreed to at budget hearings and there are already four yes votes). | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 354 Registered: 6-2001  |
Wow. Not for nothing, but that is one major cop-out. Why weren't the minutes available to you, long after the initial meeting took place? Why didn't you have any input? Don't you agree it should be the entire Board of Trustees that is informed and votes, especially on such a significant resolution? Five years extends beyond your (and every trustee's and President Calabrese's) term(s) in office. This was an extremely generous contract, especially in light of the current economy. Based on the figures you posted above, John Gross is now guaranteed to earn more than $662,500 over the next five years. Unfortunately, I could not attend the July 21 meeting, and since I subscribe to satellite TV and don't receive the broadcasts, I do not know what the outcome of the "assistant emergency management director" ordinance was. How'd you vote on that one? What were the figures involved? I am frustrated and tired of the lackadaisical way citizens are treated when they try to voice their concerns at the meetings. I'm frustrated that the last posted trustee meeting minutes are from April. I'm frustrated that I can't look at the online agenda for the July 21 meeting. If that utter frustration comes out online, why is that surprising? Perhaps I am in the minority, thinking that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" applies here. But isn't your duty to hear every voice? Come on, I can handle the truth! [Edited to add: I do know that there are many more contracted positions in the Village; my post refers to the administrator position, which post holds complete financial control. Compared with other municipalities, where such contracts are 2-year deals at most.] | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 529 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bets: You can consider it a cop-out if you want, but I gave a reason for abstaining. I did not have input because I was away on vacation. Mr. Gross's performance was not in question so to vote against the contract would not have been fair. To vote in favor when I was not sure about some of the clauses in the contract would not have been the right thing to do. I don't know what you mean when you say you can't look at the agendas online. They are posted before the meetings on the village webpage. If you want copies of the minutes, then you can wait till they are posted online or request a copy from the village clerk. It is a cop-out to suggest that you can't come to the meetings or see them. I am sure you can figure out a way to come to a meeting or to get a copy of the video. Since you did a survey of most municipalities and the length of contracts for those administrators, maybe you would care to share with the rest of MOL. I would hate to think what the logic is behind giving only a two year contract and having to go through this twice as often (this contract is for a four year extension of the current contract). Of course, if you liked Mr. Gross, you would be questioning why we only gave a two year contract and how could we take the chance of losing a village administrator. I find it very frustrating to have you imply that I don't listen or treat citizens with respect. I listen to everyone, I reply to everyone and I never tell anyone not to speak their minds. Just because you disagree with me on a vote or an issue, does not mean you have not been treated fairly. It only means we have a difference of opinion. I will agree with you that perhaps you are in the minority and maybe you need to try seeing the other person's point of view sometimes. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 355 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark, please answer my question: Why were the minutes of the first meeting not available to you? Could you not have informed yourself by reading the minutes before Monday night's meeting? I really just don't get it. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 530 Registered: 4-2002 |
They were not given to me in a timely manner. Sometimes the minutes are not enough. In this case, I wanted to speak to each trustee about what took place and what they felt about the contract. As of this point, I have read the minutes and I still do not feel comfortable voting on the contract. I feel very strongly that the meeting should not have been held on that Saturday morning. It was though, and I think the other trustees should explain any questions about the contract that any person raises. |
