Is the Town required to post the legal notice in the newspaper when there is a special meeting?
It is my understanding that they can call a meeting with 24 hours notice in an emergency...and I hardly think this qualifies...but there is a more serious problem with this resolution.
Apparently, they are trying to base this third vote on the same required public hearing that already took place back on 8/11...after which the resolution failed, and has since been certified. Any attempt now to pass the same resolution would require another public hearing, for which five days notce is required...which explains why the only stated purpose of the meeting is to pass the resolution.
I did not get back to Martin tonight...but it may not matter...because the vote itself may not be legal anyway.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
It is my understanding that they can call a meeting with 24 hours notice in an emergency...and I hardly think this qualifies...but there is a more serious problem with this resolution.
Apparently, they are trying to base this third vote on the same required public hearing that already took place back on 8/11...after which the resolution failed, and has since been certified. Any attempt now to pass the same resolution would require another public hearing, for which five days notce is required...which explains why the only stated purpose of the meeting is to pass the resolution.
I did not get back to Martin tonight...but it may not matter...because the vote itself may not be legal anyway.
ROTTERDAM Town may reconsider incentive Board previously rejected early retirements BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Town Board members will take another crack at passing a retirement incentive for municipal workers, less than two weeks after they shot down the measure during a special meeting. Supervisor Frank Del Gallo called for a special meeting at 6 p.m. today in Town Hall to reconsider the incentive known as Part A, even though board members Gerald Parisi, Matt Martin and Nicola DiLeva rejected the same resolution 12 days ago. Town Attorney Michael Godlewski said the decision to revisit the issue came after the difficult budget situation facing the town this year came into clearer focus. “Since that meeting occurred, we’ve been taking a closer look at the budget,” he said Monday. Municipalities have until Wednesday to approve the incentive, which is only available to workers over the age of 55 who have at least 25 years invested into the state retirement system. Under the proposal, board members would have the ability to offer workers one additional month of service credit for each year of town employment for up to three years of additional retirement credit. A Freedom of Information Law request answered by the town earlier this month indicated only four employees among the work force of 179 full- and part-time workers who would be eligible for the incentive. They include Sandra LeVielle and Kathryn Matteo in the Receiver of Taxes office; Robert Meers in the Highway Department; and Darlene Mullally, a confidential secretary to Del Gallo. Mullally was hired by the town in January just days after the town laid off her predecessor, Kim Bruhns. To hire Mullally, a resident of Rensselaer, board members ratified a change to a local residency law that required the supervisor’s confidential secretary to reside in Rotterdam. The retirement incentive resolution would give Del Gallo the chance to target certain positions for elimination during the town’s budget process by offering the incentive. However, it would not automatically guarantee those jobs would be eliminated. But board members expressed reservations about offering the incentive after town Comptroller Patrick Aragosa indicated it wasn’t likely to bring any savings. He said the workers eligible for the payout would cost the town about $191,000, in addition to about $85,000 in un- used vacation time payments. Parisi, DiLeva and Martin successfully argued to have the incentive pulled from the board’s August agenda and then voted against it during a special meeting earlier this month. Both DiLeva and Parisi said they have no intention of changing their stance. DiLeva was incensed by what she called a “lack of transparency” over the matter. She said she has no intention of revisiting an issue that has already been decided. “What they’re doing is back door politics and I won’t be a part of it,” she said. .....................>>>>........................>>>>..........http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00901&AppName=1
Shame on you Matt...you made it clear to me that you were changing your vote, but you didn't have the guts to admit that to the People's Gazette. If we have our way, your vote on this scam won't matter.
Shame on you Matt...you made it clear to me that you were changing your vote, but you didn't have the guts to admit that to the People's Gazette. If we have our way, your vote on this scam won't matter.
Waaaaaaaa What are you gonna do Kelly, send him a threatening birthday card?
Mullally was hired by the town in January just days after the town laid off her predecessor, Kim Bruhns. To hire Mullally, a resident of Rensselaer, board members ratified a change to a local residency law that required the supervisor’s confidential secretary to reside in Rotterdam.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it appears that the Town Board is about to approve a "golden parachute" for an employee of 8 months whose hiring required a change to the town (residency) law and the severance of Kim Bruhns, the former Executive Secretary.
In the private sector, short term employees have no retirement pensions or severance payments if laid off. Most don't even receive paid time off or benefits such as 401K employee match until their first year employment anniversary. Employees are not vested in their retirement or savings plan match for several to many years.
A few questions ...
1. Was Ms. Bruhns awarded any severance payment when she was terminated? 2. What is the cost of retaining Ms. Mullally's services in her current or another capacity? 3. Who proposed this early retirement package? 4. Who in the current town government made the decision to hire Ms. Mullally in January knowing that she would be eligible for early retirement with less than a year of service to Rotterdam residents at the taxpayers' expense?
The language was altered, which included a clause about the Town's authority to rescind a resolution...the defeated resolution being the resolution in this case. Matt Martin tried to assure me before the meeting that it was designed to protect us...that language included reinforcement of the necessity to approve any retirement packages by a vote of the Board...that he would not vote for any targeted employees...including Mullally. Somehow I wasn't reassured.
Then there is still the issue of legality. The resolution, now worded differently and much more extensively, is, in fact, an entirely different resolution that merely accomplishes the same thing...but it still requires a another public hearing for which notice is required. Council Member Di Leva has been in touch with state officials to confirm this, and they have indicated that what has occurred is illegal. Justin Mason has been apprised of these developments and is reportedly confirming this with the State.
More back door b.s. from our wonderful town board. vote em out! Dileva must be fuming right about now. I thought I saw smoke coming from TH moments ago.
The language was altered, which included a clause about the Town's authority to rescind a resolution...the defeated resolution being the resolution in this case. Matt Martin tried to assure me before the meeting that it was designed to protect us...that language included reinforcement of the necessity to approve any retirement packages by a vote of the Board...that he would not vote for any targeted employees...including Mullally. Somehow I wasn't reassured.
Then there is still the issue of legality. The resolution, now worded differently and much more extensively, is, in fact, an entirely different resolution that merely accomplishes the same thing...but it still requires a another public hearing for which notice is required. Council Member Di Leva has been in touch with state officials to confirm this, and they have indicated that what has occurred is illegal. Justin Mason has been apprised of these developments and is reportedly confirming this with the State.
If Matt Martin voted for this "new" resolution, he can rest assured that he will be out if he decides to run again. He looks like a fool now.
More back door b.s. from our wonderful town board. vote em out! Dileva must be fuming right about now. I thought I saw smoke coming from TH moments ago.
DiLeva and Parisi were not there...they did not want any part of this scheme...but you are right...DiLeva is fuming.
Logged
