Quoted from Hack

Cicero - BG voted 'yes' because FDG 'promised the people a chance to vote' or something like that...I can't remember the exact wording. It had NOTHING to do with him supporting it. And I challenge you to show otherwise.

Uhh...He voted "Yes".  Doesn't that count as proof?  He could have voted "No" and then given one of his classic long winded explainantions why.

I guess I'm still old school, when a yes vote meant you support it, and no meant you oppose it.  But according the Hack - not in this case.

Quoted from CICERO

Uhh...He voted "Yes".  Doesn't that count as proof?  He could have voted "No" and then given one of his classic long winded explainantions why.

I guess I'm still old school, when a yes vote meant you support it, and no meant you oppose it.  But according the Hack - not in this case.

         Cicero is correct again!  T.B. mistake #1, ND changes language of referendum language to include REMS as designated provider if Ambulance District vote passes.  This made a relatively simple referendum (although be it unnecessary) into a political football.  Mistake #2 everyone approves this.  All showed their cards on this as Cicero points out.  Mistake #3 will be not postponing/cancelling vote based on the audit/investigation as to where the money went, which would have corrected mistake #1 & #2.  Part of the audit should be a total tally of all the bailout money provided along with all the possible ALS funding that would have occurred in that time frame so the taxpayers get a better handle on what they have paid to date.

          It is only the Town's responsibility to assure their is ambulance service, not get embroiled with the politics of what provider it may or may not be.  Rule number one, only support what is the best interests of the municipality with respect to cost and service.  Any other path is a one-term mentality, IMO.

The audit gives BG and others a non-voting out

No $ in next years budget and no contract and you have a self sustaining company

Bring me an RFP for how much you will be paying the town of rotterdam

Other than the few people who post here,   I have yet to meet anyone who opposes REMs and who will
vote no on December 14.       Every resident that I have met -- loves REMS  .. does NOT want to privatize
the ambulance service ... and is planning to vote YES on December 14.    

No wonder the naysayers are so apoplectic.


[b]Vote YES on December 14[/b]

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Other than the few people who post here,   I have yet to meet anyone who opposes REMs and who will
vote no on December 14.       Every resident that I have met -- loves REMS  .. does NOT want to privatize
the ambulance service ... and is planning to vote YES on December 14.    

No wonder the naysayers are so apoplectic.


[b]Vote YES on December 14[/b]

            Should this be true, then the T.B. wasted their time putting together a budget and going through multiple iterations to trim it so as to not burden tax payers.  It would be obvious that taxes are of little to no concern to the residents.  This debacle is a better example of abuse of power rather than advocacy for the residents.  It will be interesting to see how your friends feel after an audit and investigation shows how much money was diverted from taxpayers over the years to float your provider.  And your friends should know that the "soft billing" process is history, no matter who the provider is since total fiscal disclosure and transparency will be the new norm.  No matter how you look at it, The Party's Over!

Quoted from Hack

Gadfly - I don't have those answers for you, but I suspect it has something to do with proving the residents don't want REMS as their provider. Trust me on this one, BG is NOT a fan of REMS. If he had his druthers, he would have crushed them the last time he was on the board(which he tried to do...hence the no contract for years upon years).

BTW - The 'deferring to the public' was a last ditch effort by the former super to win election, not political retribution. Or at least not from what I've heard. He actually had the votes on the board to push it through, but it would have been political suicide. But it didn't matter in the end...

Cicero - BG voted 'yes' because FDG 'promised the people a chance to vote' or something like that...I can't remember the exact wording. It had NOTHING to do with him supporting it. And I challenge you to show otherwise. Again, I have a feeling this whole charade has to do with building a case to yank REMS certificate of need.

In this case, the easiest way to couch the whole issue would have been to tell Mohawk the town won't even consider a switch of providers until the end if 2011, budget the usual amount of money for REMS then put the tax district up to vote. If it's shot down, then start the next discussion: Do we want to fund REMS through the general fund. By that point, the board would have a better idea of what REMS financial needs are...Have a public hearing and the do a straight-up vote among the board. Then you find out where their true allegiances lie.

  

It's true that there are Board Members who don't want this tax district...FDG has told me himself that he doesn't want it...by many
accounts, BG doesn't favor it either...still others do not believe it will pass, for the same reason they intend to vote no...that voters
will never approve the measure given the options, and especially the latest circumstances. What they do not seem to understand is
that the vast majority of these voters have no clue...while the Town Attorney lies about information that was supposed to be mailed
to voters...that surely will not include details of the private tax-free option...which would make it a useless waste of money...if it is
ever mailed. BG couldn't have squashed this if he wanted to...the majority of Steve's Board would have opposed because they were
too busy the kissing special interest a$$ who want this new patronage pit.

Steve made a number of u-turns...all meant to bolster his re-election chances...but he would have rammed this through if not for
the political screwing that occurred before he used the public as a scapegoat when the timing was convenient for him...he never
considered negative consequences for his actions...not even after he backed out of the deal.

If this is a "charade" on the parts of FDG and BG it is a highly risky game to play with the wallets of taxpayers...they should eliminate
that risk by cancelling the vote...they already have a more than strong enough case to do so...and to void their Certificate of Need.

I disagree with the course you recommend...we should not budget anymore money for this operation...and if the tax vote goes
forward and fails, to finance one more cent out of the budget would be an affront to the will of the electorate who would have
already opposed spending their tax dollars on REMS in the form of a defeated referendum.

ever wander how rems would reeact too a call at gadflys house

think they wood let mohauk get it

Maybe they would both go on coffee break and let you expire since you a waste of life and drag on society.

Quoted from 795

ever wander how rems would reeact too a call at gadflys house

think they wood let mohauk get it

REMS would respond in a timely and professional manner as they have always done.

Quoted Text

Mohonasen school project, Rotterdam ambulance votes set in same week
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
By Michael Goot (Contact)
Gazette Reporter

ROTTERDAM — Anyone who owns property in the Mohonasen Central School District can vote two days in a row next month.
A proposed vote on Mohonasen’s $43.4 million building project is scheduled for Dec. 13. The next day, property owners in Rotterdam will head to the polls to decide whether to create an ambulance taxing district for Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services (REMS)................>>>>..................>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2010/nov/23/1123_mohonvote/

Can someone verify this for me?

I heard that IF this vote passes and rems gets it's taxing district, the rotterdam town board will no longer be in control, so to say, over rems' taxing and finance.  REMS would form it's own board. This self created board would be the ones to vote, approve or disapprove of any increases to the rotterdam taxpayers in the future.

Is this true????

Yes.

It would take another referendum vote on the issue to dissolve the tax district and that's why the tax district should never be formed but keep it as a budget item that can be controlled.

Quoted from bumblethru

Can someone verify this for me?

I heard that IF this vote passes and rems gets it's taxing district, the rotterdam town board will no longer be in control, so to say, over rems' taxing and finance.  REMS would form it's own board. This self created board would be the ones to vote, approve or disapprove of any increases to the rotterdam taxpayers in the future.

Is this true????

The Town Board has never had any control over REMS...financial or otherwise...only the power to deliver taxpayer bailouts...as they
have unwisely done. REMS has always had their own Board...and the only thing that would change with a tax district is that they would
have free reign with public money as a taxing entity...rather than asking the Town for taxpayer cash, they will simply take it as they
deem necessary.

As Shadow points out, the benefit in financing REMS through the annual budget...if that were necessary, which it is not...it would
give the Board oversight...to which REMS has never been exposed...and have always rejected any efforts to do so...despite their
demonstrated inability to manage their finances or to run REMS as a self-sustaining business.

I want to share a few quotes from two of our Founding Fathers.

Benjamin Franklin, the "Sage of Philadelphia", is quoted as saying in his address at the
Constitutional Convention that,

"The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater the need the prince
has of money for distribution among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all
resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure"

Though we are not ruled by a Monarchy as our Founders were prior to declaring independence from
England, this assessment holds true in our Republic today.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people, under
the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."  

It is time that We The People resist the tendency to look to government to provide for all of our needs and,
like our ancestors, learn to become self-sufficient and personally accountable for our successes and failures.  
Lest, we will continue to sacrifice our individual liberties.