Insubordination....Part II

Yes, the RPS software used by the Town of New Hartford Assessor's Office works very similar to an accounting software. You don't necessarily see everything that is being put in a record when you are making changes because the RPS software automatically has the computer insert some information every time you access a record. And just because you delete something doesn't necessarily mean that the record is deleted. In accounting, it is called an audit trail. It can be beneficial if you ever have a computer problem and you need to re-create your database, but it can also be beneficial for someone to verify that what is being told is the truth. You would be amazed at what someone who doesn't actually use the RPS software interface, but only gets the "raw data" can ascertain about what is being done "behind the scenes" particularly when they are well-versed in database management.

Honest & Open Government? This kind of underhandedness is exactly what needs to be squelched in the Town of New Hartford. When a town board enacts a board resolution and then the same town board defies their own resolution, it is unconscionable! When a town department head feels that he can openly try to "skirt" that same resolution (and I'm not convinced that at least one board member is not in cahoots with the assessor), it is time to take a close look at who is running this town.

On August 7, 2007, we asked the Town Clerk for certification of the validity of the information contained on the purported 2007 Final Roll disk. That is our right under the Freedom of Information Law and the town clerk is charged with seeing that we receive a certification if we request it. To date, we have yet to receive certification that the disk(s)we were given indeed contained 2007 assessment data. Guess the assessor doesn't want to certify to something that is not true--can't say that I blame him. He is facing a double edge sword right now--if he doesn't certify the records, he has a problem--if he does certify the records, he has a problem because I can prove that the records are not 2007 records.

That brings us to August 24, 2007, I sent an email to:

all town board members
the town clerk
Mr. Green, the New Hartford Town Attorney
Rachel S. Pauley, Office of the State Attorney General
Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government

Either the assessor has some explaining to do and/or the Town Board is derelict in seeing that their board resolution of July 11, 2007 is followed or the Town Board never had any intention of seeing to it that we received the requested information and their resolution was merely for the "public view". Guess somewhere along the line someone underestimated my abilities in database management.

I have to ask, just what is it that the Assessor and/or the Town Board are hiding?

The fact that the assessor and Maxwell used tax map numbers to determine neighborhood codes instead of grouping "like" homes and you were given a line of "bull" when you asked questions during the State Reassessment Program years?

The fact that some very recognizable names are enjoying assessments that never seemed to get raised while many others seemed to be raised two and three times?

The fact that some assessments were never raised even though the assessment database clearly shows that square feet of living space was added during the State Reassessment years?

The fact that many commercial properties were never reassessed during the State Reassessment years?

The fact that during the State Reassessment many homes were moved from one neighborhood code to another neighborhood code year after year for no rhyme or reason?

The fact that some 5,000+ square feet homes are considered "Neighborhood Codes 4817 - Starter Homes" and have only been trended 7.5% just like the homes on Balsam Crescent and Sycamore?

Or could they be hiding something regarding Preswick Glen?

Or are they just so arrogant that they pass a resolution in favor of giving us the database and then behind the scenes prevent us from getting the information and willingly defy their own board resolution? Is this the kind of government you want in New Hartford?

There is no way of telling what they think they might be hiding but I can tell you that some of our "leaders" (and I use the word loosely) are not happy with the amount of information on our website and our Assessments Online program. We do have the right to the assessment information...it is just a pity that the Town Board is so underhanded that they will stop at nothing even if it is unlawful.

Insubordination...Dereliction of Duty...and/or just plain Secrecy? Part 1

You might recall my blog titled Tick Tock, Tick Tock when I said I would prove I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

On May 2, 2007, we requested a copy of the 2007 Tentative Assessment database so that New Hartford residents would have the current assessment information available to file a grievance or to just review their assessment information. Time passed and on June 11, 2007, we received a denial letter citing a court case as a reason. Unfortunately, the court case was unrelated to our case--it seems either someone didn't read the whole court case or they were trying to "pull the wool over our eyes", so to speak. At any rate, we filed an appeal with the Town Board. On July 11, 2007 the town board passed the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby approve the Freedom of Information Law Appeal filed by James M. Lawrence on July 2, 2007 with regard to his May 2, 2007 FOI request for a copy of the RPS Assessment database system and that Assessor Paul Smith is hereby authorized and directed to release the requested information to Mr. Lawrence, said information to be used in a manner as approved previously by the Town Board.

The board vote was 4 to 1--only Councilman Payne voted 'nay'.

Shortly after the board passed the resolution, we received a copy of the purported 2007 Tentative Assessment database, however, there was one slight problem. According to the timestamp on the assessment table in the file we were given, the last time assessment information was updated was August 18, 2006. Since the taxable status date in New Hartford is March 1, it would be impossible that the assessment information was updated with the 2007 information. Given the fact that we didn't receive the disk until July and the 2007 Final Roll was available, we decided to not pursue this "error" by the assessor and instead on July 20, 2007, we submitted a Freedom of Information request for the 2007 Final Roll.

On August 6, 2007, we received a copy of the supposed 2007 Final Roll Assessment database together with a print-out that looked like it was from ORPS telling us that the database had some of the information removed and what we were given was a "sanitized" version of the database. (I think they wanted to give us the impression that the purported assessment database disk was actually from the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS).) No problem; all the files that were listed on the print-out as being removed were not necessary to us. However, when we looked at the disk... lo and behold, the files that the print-out says has been removed are still there. And just look at the timestamp on the 2007 Final Roll disk...9/29/06. Oops--guess the database on the disk we were given isn't really the 2007 Final Roll. It would appear that the disk is something that was put together for our benefit--guess someone underestimated my database knowledge and thought I wouldn't notice (or maybe it was a test). The assessor has also claimed that there is proprietary information in the database such as Enhanced STAR incomes. Look at the STAR ENHANCED Exemption Table...the income field is blank...the incomes are not in the database and never have been! The assessor knows that...caught again!

To further state my case, here is a "screen shot" of my assessment record. Funny, in April 2007, we received a Notice of Change of Assessment because we added a 2-stall garage to our house. Look at our record in the purported 2007 copy of the assessment database--no change noted in the assessment of my house for roll year 2007--it is the same assessment as in prior years. So either the assessor made a mistake when he sent us the Notice of Change or someone forgot to increase our assessment in the database. If that is the case, then I can expect no increase in assessment on my school tax bill. Wouldn't that be a nice surprise? Or could it just be that once again the assessor and town board were trying to "pull a fast one" when they gave us the assessment data disk in response to our Freedom of Information request?

There are other things I could point out that definitely makes it clear that these disks do not contain either the 2007 Tentative Assessment database or the 2007 Final Roll, but I don't want to give away all my trade secrets!

Tick Tock, Tick Tock....

To be continued....

Freedom of Information and the New Hartford School - Final Episode

One of the items that Mr. Wiatr requested to review were School Board Minutes. We were quite taken back by the length of the minutes in the minute books. Both Mr. Wiatr and I have been to school board meetings, but rarely do we walk out knowing anymore than when we arrived. Board meetings are brief and then executive sessions are called.

As we were leaving our meeting with Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Nole, we asked about the New Hartford Central School Board minutes.

Mr. Gilligan told us that the minutes that you will find on the New Hartford Central School website have been selectively shortened in an effort to save staff time (notice the website says they are "meeting summaries", not Board minutes). Mr. Gilligan was sure that most people do not want to take the time to read the entire minutes of school board meetings anyway. We informed Mr. Gilligan that we not only want the entire minutes of school board meetings, but that Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government plans to make them available and searchable on our website.

Today, August 28, 2007, in an effort to bring you "searchable" school board minutes, just like we have already done with Town Board Minutes, Mr. Wiatr sent a Freedom of Information request via email to Ms. Greico requesting scanned copies of all School Board minutes for 2005, 2006 & 2007 to date. As soon as we receive the information, we will post it on Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government's website. We will let you decide if you want to take the time to read them.

Let's see how long it takes the school to answer our Freedom Of Information requests. We will let you know as soon as the information is available.

Freedom of Information and the New Hartford Central School - Part 3

Now back to the meeting held so that the school could make the requested documents available for "inspection" with Mr. Wiatr, myself, Mr. Nole and Mr. Gilligan in attendance.

We looked at several documents during our "inspection" and asked many questions. A couple of days later, on August 2, 2007, Mr. Wiatr emailed a Freedom of Information request on behalf of Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government (notice I said emailed a Freedom of Information request) for the following documents:

1. Agreement between New Hartford Central School District and New Hartford Employees Union dated July 1, 2005 thru June 30, 2007 together with a copy of the Board Resolution and any addendums.

2. Agreement between New Hartford Central School District and New Hartford Teachers Association – Administrative Group dated January 1, 2001 thru 2007 with addendums, if any together with a copy of the Board Resolution and any addendums.

3. Agreement between New Hartford Central School District and New Hartford Employees Union dated July 1, 2005 thru 2007 together with a copy of the Board Resolution and any addendums.

4. Contract between Daniel Gilligan, Superintendent and New Hartford School District together with a copy of the Board Resolution and any addendums.

All Agreements (Contract[s]) requested pursuant to this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request are to include signed copies of executed Agreements and/or Contract(s).

Here is Mr. Wiatr's Freedom of Information request to New Hartford Central School, in its entirety.

On August 20, 2007, Mr. Wiatr received a letter from Aurelia Greico, New Hartford Records Access Officer. The school notified Mr. Wiatr that it would cost $19.00 for the copying of the requested documents.

On page 2 of Ms. Greico's letter, she states:

"The documents requested are not in electronic form, are not deemed matters of overriding public interest, and are not matters where the District would retain an inventory copy. Certainly if you have any authority to the contrary, we will review it."

(Funny, Mr. Nole seemed to think they were electronically produced when we asked him during our "inspection meeting".) Oh well!

Ms. Greico, start your review--how about the Freedom of Information Law - is that high enough authority for you? It is our belief that the New Hartford Central School undoubtedly has access to a scanner, so Mr. Wiatr responded to Ms. Greico today (August 27, 2007) stating that he would appreciate receiving the documents scanned and emailed to him.

So to that end, we have started a countdown clock specifically for the New Hartford Central School. We will be generous and start the clock on August 2, 2007, when Mr. Wiatr submitted his Freedom of Information Request after our "inspection meeting"--starting the clock on April 9, 2007 when Mr. Wiatr first sent a Freedom of Information request for these documents would look "ridiculous".

Final episode tomorrow....

Freedom of Information and the New Hartford Central School - Part 2

On May 30, 2007, Mr. Wiatr received a letter from Aurelia Greico, Records Access Officer at New Hartford Central School. Her letter refers to the District's policy regarding Public Access to Records. It's nice to know that the District has a policy albeit last updated on November 5, 2002! However, Ms. Greico, I think you will find that the Freedom of Information Law trumps the District's policy! By the way, for the record, the last update to the Freedom of Information Law was in March 2007.

Ms. Greico also states she is enclosing an Application for Public Access to Records. This is the baloney I particularly want to speak to. Talk about arrogance on the part of the school; or should I use the word ignorance? The school's application says and I quote,

"I certify that the only purpose of the records inspection is for my own information, and that it will not be used for any private, commercial, fund raising, or other purpose".

What the Hell part of the law are they reading? Nowhere in the law does it say that you cannot use the requested information any way you choose and by the way, Freedom of Information requests are not just to "inspect" records, they are also to obtain copies.

Ms. Greico, Mr. Hallak, Mr. Gilligan, and Mr. Nole, may I suggest that you take the time to read the following website - What's New with the Committee on Open Government? In part it says:

In sum, when an agency has the technology to scan a record without an effort additional to responding to a request in a different manner, and a request is made to supply the record via email, in our opinion, the agency must do so to comply with the Freedom of Information Law.

Somehow, I would find it difficult to believe that the school does not have the capability to scan rather than copy documents. And I do believe that it takes the same amount of time and effort to scan as it does to copy. Mr. Hallak, your contention that Mr. Wiatr was merely trying to save money is correct, because that is what the law is intended to do. The law was written that way to make it easy and cost-effective for ANYONE to obtain copies of public documents.

One of the opening paragraphs on the Committee on Open Government's website is:

The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality. The legislature therefore declares that government is the public's business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Another thing that begs clarification is that when you want to submit a Freedom of Information request there is nothing saying that you have to use the school's form or any one's form for that matter. You can write a letter or send an email. The Committee on Open Government does provide a sample form that can be used should you choose to send your request via email, but you can just as well create your own form. The main thing is that you have to make sure to include as much detail about the record as possible, such as relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc. and be sure to put Freedom of Information Request as the subject. In fact, as noted on the Committee on Open Government's website:

This means that if an agency has the ability to receive requests for records from the public and transmit records by means of email, it will be required to do so. Therefore, to implement the amendment, agencies should designate an email address for purposes of receiving requests for records via email.

I wonder what email address the school has designated for the purpose of receiving requests; I couldn't seem to find one on their website!

I also want to once again cite Attorney Anthony Hallak's letter where he states on page 2,

"The District also reserves its rights under the Public Offcers Law and will seek appropriate remedies for any abuse of process."

Mr. Hallak, if anyone is guilty of abuse of process, I dare say it is you in your capacity as an officer of the Court and a practicing attorney. It becomes painfully clear that the remedy you seek is one of "Litigation v Communication" coupled with the payment of legal fees for legal advice that has more holes in it that a colander. Perhaps, a complaint with the Fifth Judicial Grievance Committee, Syracuse, New York is in the offing?

I notice that you end your diatribe with "Dictated but not read". Attorney Hallak, it might serve you better if you start reading (and maybe even researching) what you dictate prior to sending it out.

One final note that both the town and school might want to read up on:

On August 16, 2006, Governor Pataki signed into law, effective immediately, legislation that broadens the authority of the courts to award attorney’s fees when government agencies fail to comply with the Freedom of Information Law (S. 7011-A, Chapter 492).

To be continued:

Freedom of Information and New Hartford Central School - Part 1

On April 9, 2007, prior to the school board election, Mr. Ed Wiatr submitted Freedom of Information requests to New Hartford Central School. Those requests have yet to be filled in their entirety.

On June 11, 2007, Mr. Wiatr received quite the letter from Anthony G. Hallak, attorney for New Hartford Central School. I urge everyone to read Mr. Hallak's letter to Ed Wiatr so you can judge for yourself. Please keep in mind that your tax dollars are paying for this bullsh*t and I have a feeling that Mr. Hallak's opinions don't come cheap!

Mr. Hallak allegations of "inappropriate threats" by Mr. Wiatr are unfounded...Mr. Wiatr's letters to Aurelia Greico, Records Access Officer does not appear to imply any "inappropriate threats". In fact, Mr. Wiatr's June letter to Ms. Aurelia Greico, New Hartford Records Access Officer, merely says that "you are in violation of the FOIL Law and should the requested documents not be received by June 12, 2007; it is my intention of putting this matter before the public and litigated in the appropriate forum." Mr. Wiatr is well within his rights to make that statement and it doesn't sound threatening to me.

Let me quote Mr. Hallak in his letter of June 11, 2007"

"When a person requests copies and the agency is willing to produce them, but the applicant refuses to pay requisite fees, agencies need not accede to ensuing requests until applicant has paid requisite fees....Your attempt to demand that the same be reduced to electronic form is an attempt on your part to avoid the costs of reproducing the hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of documents required. The District has no obligation to do so. The District is not required to retrieve and transform information...We are not required to create an electronic medium for your convenience."

Mr. Hallak's contention that in order to get documents that are requested under the Freedom Of Information Law, one has to pay for copies is untrue. We suggest that Mr. Hallak study the Freedom of Information Law a little better. In fact, on October 24, 2006, the Observer Dispatch contained an article "Public records available by e-mail today."

"When FOIL went into law in 1974, 'high-tech' was a typewriter. Email has now become a way of life, and increasingly people obtain information through e-mail. Freeman said."

The Freeman is this case is Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government. Since Attorney Anthony G. Hallak is probably busy typing away on his typewriter, if anyone knows him, you might want to send him a copy of the Observer Dispatch article; it might be time to update his knowledge of the FOI Law. As Ed and I looked at each document in our meeting at the school, we asked Mr. Nole if it was electronically produced. Mr. Nole confirmed that the documents were either electronically produced at the school or by B.O.C.E.S. So Mr. Hallak, for the record, whether you like it or not, if the documents are available electronically, the District MUST provide them to us electronically if we request them that way. That is the LAW!

According to Mr. Hallak's letter, he also states:

"we request you set up an appointment to review the requisite records during regular business hours....However, we reserve our rights to have someone present during the review and limit the time devoted so as not to take District employees away from their duties to the public."

Sure thing, Mr. Hallak. I know how time-consuming it is for school personnel to read all the bloggers everyday and some of us even get a visit 3, 4 and 5 times a day. In fact, I feel among the privileged for the number of visits I get from New Hartford Central School each day. The last thing we want to do is "waste" any of the District employees time!

On July 31, 2007, Ed Wiatr and I had a meeting with Dan Gilligan, Superintendent of New Hartford Central School and Robert Nole, Assistant Superintendent of the Business Office to review the requisite records requested by Mr. Wiatr's Freedom of Information requests of April 9, 2007.

This is a long story about the Freedom of Information Law and how local town and school personnel are either misinformed regarding Freedom of Information or are deliberately attempting to keep information away from taxpayers. I will report the story in 3 or 4 different segments.

To be continued....

Preswick Glen - How many lawyers does it take to....

A small article on page 4 of the Local section of the August 23, 2007 Observer Dispatch caught my eye - N. Hartford school district hires help for counsel.

The New Hartford School District hired Attorney Bill Ryan to help Daniel Vincelette, the town's legal counsel, on matters concerning Preswick Glen. According to the article, School Superintendent Dan Gilligan said the school district has unique interests, and it is best in such cases to have two attorneys on board.

What unique interests does the school have that the town doesn't? Very strange...

Anyway, this is the second time that the Observer Dispatch has reported that the school was hiring their own attorney in the Preswick Glen lawsuit. July was the first time this was mentioned in the paper.

On July 31, 2007, Ed Wiatr and I had a meeting with Dan Gilligan, Superintendent of New Hartford Central School and Robert Nole, Assistant Superintendent/Business Office. That meeting took place shortly after the Observer Dispatch first reported that the school was hiring their own attorney to represent them on matters concerning Preswick.

Naturally, the Preswick Glen issue came up during our discussions with the school. According to a February 14, 2007, Observer Dispatch article "Under the cost-sharing agreement, the school district will pay a larger share of the legal fees, around 68 percent, while the town and the county will pay 6 percent and 26 percent, respectively." I asked Mr. Gilligan, point blank - If the school is hiring their own legal counsel, would the school no longer be paying a portion of Daniel Vincelette's legal fees. Mr. Gilligan's reply was that the school would indeed no longer be contributing 68% of the legal fees for hiring Mr. Vincelette. However, since there are now two lawyers involved, Mr. Vincelette will probably be billing the town and county for fewer hours making the total bill for Mr. Vincelette less than it would be if the school didn't hire their own legal counsel. Therefore, Mr. Gilligan felt that the town and county would probably not be incurring any more expense than they would if the school was still paying the 68% share of Mr. Vincelette's legal fees.

Sounds like the old "two can live cheaper than one" theory. Have I told you about the bridge I have for sale?

On a final note - Thank you to all the taxpayers in Oneida County who don't live in New Hartford, but will be helping to foot these bills. It is much appreciated! What with the costs the people in New Hartford will incur to pay the legal fees for Mr. Ryan (the school legal counsel) and to also pay our portion of Dan Vincelette's legal fees, we certainly can use all the help we can get!

Oh, by the way, I certainly have a lot more to say about the meeting Ed & I had with Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Nole. You don't want to miss this - Stay tuned!

Freedom of Information - Opinion Letter

A while back, Ed Wiatr, on behalf of Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government wrote to Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee On Open Government. Yesterday, Mr. Wiatr received an Opinion Letter (email) from Mr. Freeman.

A little history....Since about June 2006, in an effort to prevent us from posting town board meeting minutes on our website in a timely fashion, New Hartford town government started making minutes more difficult for us to get copies of even after we filed Freedom Of Information requests.

In December 2006, the Town Board announced that they would be holding meetings only once (1) a month instead of twice as had been done by previous administrations. That meant (or so they thought) that minutes would be delayed for more than a month because they would first need to be approved by the Town Board.

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you are on, Concerned Citizens is well versed in the Freedom of Information Law and the Open Meetings Law. By law, minutes of meetings are to be available to the public within two (2) weeks of any public meeting whether they are approved or not. If not approved, the minutes merely need to be marked accordingly. So, to make sure that all residents are kept apprised of any actions taken by the town board, Concerned Citizens started submitting FOIL requests for the DRAFT minutes of all town board meetings.

At first, we were told we would have to pay for the town board meeting minutes because the Town Clerk said they were only available in pdf format; those minutes are often 30 or more pages at $.25 per page, it adds up. Knowing that the Freedom of Information Law had recently been amended to allow for electronic transmission of requested documents, Concerned Citizens once again challenged the town and requested that the board minutes be sent to us electronically to our email address. The Town Clerk contacted Mr. Freeman from the Committee on Open Government regarding our request. Once again, Mr. Freeman sided with us and stated that, according to law, any documents that are created in an electronic medium must be made available electronically, without charge, if requested in that form.

We are making available Robert Freeman's Opinion Letter so that you can read it for yourself.

Concerned Citizens is a group of town residents dedicated to working toward preserving the rights of all residents in the Town of New Hartford.

It is important to note, we were told on our last visit to the Town Clerk's office that Town Board meetings will once again be held two (2) times a month; on the second and last Wednesday of every month! Guess the town board wants to make sure that APPROVED minutes are available within two (2) weeks so that we don't have to get copies of the DRAFT minutes!

VOTE FOR CHANGE......

Visit Russ Cerminaro's website

View Town of New Hartford Streets in Ward 2

Catching Up....

I am a little behind, but I want to welcome a new blogger....Historical Utica, New York

Somewhere along the way we lost our passion, pride, respect and care for the overall well-being of the city as a whole.

Like when you lose your keys, I believe, you must retrace your steps in order to find them. Well that's what I hope to come from this blog. I plan to retrace Utica's history with the hopes that those with the power to do so, will find their way again.

I refuse to give up on our city, and after you read these posts, I think you'll see why. I hope that you all join in on this journey.

Also, check out Utica Post.

The Utica-Post will be an independent newspaper concentrating on the City of Utica. It is a venture that is being produced by local citizens who believe in fair and balanced media. Citizens who believe in the 1st Amendment.

It's about time...Good luck to those involved...I eagerly await this newspaper.

I also want to comment on the Community Forum held in Herkimer on Thursday evening regarding the expansion of the Mohawk Valley Water Authority. I must admit that I wasn't really as familiar with the topic as I should have been; I was glad that I decided to attend and gain a better understanding of the subject. Each side presented their arguments, but the "star" of the evening was Frank Montecalvo. Frank knows his subject matter and he has a way of making the most complicated subjects understandable.

If you were not able to attend the forum, or even if you did, don't miss reading Frank's comments that he presented at the Community Forum; he has been kind enough to post them online. Frank also has a website Hinckley Lake: Redistributing the Region's Water Resources. Well worth your time to visit both sites. This topic should be of interest to all of us. Get involved!

Empire Zones - Part II - On the Homefront

You might remember when I blogged about the resolution passed by the New Hartford Town Board regarding the Oriskany Manufacturing LLC.

At the May 9, 2007 Town Board meeting Earle Reed, Town Supervisor was ecstatic at the jobs it would bring to the area and told Peter Zawko, Vice President of Economic Development, Mohawk Valley EDGE "bring us some more of these jobs".

Naturally, the first thing I did was to FOIL the resolution because it was difficult to figure out exactly what they were talking about in the town board meeting. Obviously, the town board acted as if they knew and they apparently felt they had enough information to pass the resolution, but...

Well to make long story short, the resolution contained a tax map number. Now it just so happens that I not only have the assessment database, but I have a copy of the tax maps for the Town of New Hartford.

Amazing what I found out. The property in question, tax map #317.010-5-1, is indeed in the Town of New Hartford, is currently assessed for $200, is approximately 1 acre that the Town Assessor has tagged (for assessment purposes) as a residential vacant lot. As of 7/1/06 it was owned by Edward Wurz. (We are waiting for the assessor to provide us with 2007 information--he seems to be having a problem with giving us the 2007 assessment database per our Freedom Of Information request of July 20, 2007 so we are unable to let you know if the land was sold to someone else subsequent to July 1, 2006.)

At any rate, we found the town board resolution interesting, so we decided to submit a Freedom of Information request for all documents pertaining to the Oriskany Manufacturing LLC and Oneida County Empire Zone in the files of all town board members and/or department heads.

At first, Earle Reed, New Hartford Town Supervisor, said that all information must be requested from the County because his office doesn't have any information. Amazing! The New Hartford Town Board unanimously passed a resolution and yet there is no information available from the Town as to the particulars. Why am I not surprised?

A few days pass and then out of the blue we get an email that something regarding Oriskany Manufacturing is waiting for us in the Town Clerk's office; we just need to pay $1.25 to get the information.

Let's look at just the aerial map of Wurz Ave that was included in the information we were given from the Town Clerk's office. I have drawn a red circle around the parcel that is actually in the town of New Hartford; the actual parcel is rectangular; bordered by the black town line on the left and the by white lines on the other two sides. The black line running down the length of the map is the Town of New Hartford-Whitestown property line. The white line denotes the boundaries of the properties that they want to (or may have by now already) include in an Empire Zone. The building within the white lines is the old Bonide Building at 2 Wurz Ave. in Yorkville.

Not sure how Earle Reed thought the particular parcel in the Town of New Hartford (tax map #317.010-5-1) would bring jobs to the Town of New Hartford. The fact of the matter is that it is a completely separate parcel from the old Bonide parcel located in Yorkville and really didn't need to be included. It really doesn't look like it could add much to the job growth or have any investment possibilities in New Hartford, but if you had been at the meeting, you would have thought we were adding to the town's future.

Look at the verbiage on page one (1) of the information given to us. "Oriskany Manufacturing, LLC is owned by Mike Fitzgerald and currently has three (3) Empire Zone certified sites at 1914 Dwyer Ave, Utica {Utica Empire Zone} and at 6049 & 6133 Judd Road, Oriskany {Oneida County Empire Zones}." There is no mention of these other two certified sites on the Oriskany Manufacturing Technologies, website and a search as to the businesses that operate out of the other (2) Empire site addresses purportedly owned by Mr. Fitzgerald appears to indicate that neither 6049 or 6133 Judd Road Oriskany are connected to Oriskany Manufacturing Technologies. Of course the Oriskany Manufacturing Technologies website hasn't been updated since December 10, 2003! A lot might have changed since then!

According to the information we were given, "the site [2 Wurz Ave., Yorkville] has already been purchased by Broad Street Warehouse, LLC, a real estate holding company also owned by Mike Fitzgerald." Also "Oriskany Manufacturing will make leasehold improvements..." So it must be that Broad Street Warehouse, LLC is going to lease the property to Oriskany Manufacturing because leasehold improvements are "Construction or improvements for the purpose of preparing the premises for a tenant to conduct business." Wonder how many jobs or investment dollars he has brought into the area with his three (3), soon to be four (4) Empire Zone locations.

The question is, what would prompt the New Hartford Town Board and Mohawk Valley EDGE to include this approximately 1 acre of land that is deemed by the assessor to be vacant residential land for assessment purposes and assessed for $200 as part of an Empire Zone?

Guess someone should keep a close eye on this "deal"!

Tick Tock, Tick Tock...

26 days and counting! That's how long it has taken so far for the assessor to copy the 2007 Final Roll assessment file to a cd as requested in our July 20, 2007 Freedom of Information.

The Town Clerk said the cd would be made available to us by Monday, August 20, 2007...that is the magic day. Time is running out before I will have to once again submit an appeal to the town board.

Remember? That would be the same Town Board that admitted that legally I was entitled to the file when they passed a resolution 4 to 1 to release the information to me at the July 11, 2007 Town Board meeting. Councilman Robert A. Payne, III was the only one on the Town Board who didn't quite get it! By the way, just what does legal mean, Councilman Payne?

I guess I will have to prove to the town board and the assessor that I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday and my knowledge of database is far more extensive then they have thus far given me credit for. Wait until you read my blog on this one...I will even provide pictures and reports. I expect my blog should be online August 21 or shortly thereafter. Must be something pretty important that they are trying to hide!

Hmmm! Assessments...now what could the assessor and town board be trying to hide regarding a "little thing" like assessments?

Stormwater Group meeting....

Just a reminder that the Stormwater Group meeting will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at the Kellogg Road Community Center starting at 5:30 p.m.

This meeting is open to the public.

Animal Control and Red Rats

On July 23, 2007, just like I said I would in my blog, I went over to the Town Clerk's office to try and straighten out the mess regarding the licensing of my dogs. I am told, no problem, we have corrected the information in our computer; we apologize for the problem and this will be the last of it.

First thing this morning, my doorbell rings. It's Animal Control to inform me that my license for Bandit has expired and I failed to renew it. That would be Bandit, the dog that passed away in June. Animal Control says they cannot imagine why my name keeps appearing on their reports.

Well, duh, does harassment come to mind or should I just chalk it up to sheer stupidity? And we pay their salaries. Doesn't seem fair!

Empire Zones - Part 1

The Business Review, a paper in the Albany area, had an interesting story on Empire Zones in NYS last Thursday, August 9, 2007, State demands Empire Zone accountability.

The agency's decision to send the 3,000 warning letters is an obvious sign of problems within the 20-year-old Empire Zone program, which critics have derided for inefficiency and lack of economic success.

A key state lawmaker, who has legislative authority to monitor the agency's operations, has expressed his opinion that the mass mailing of warning letters was misguided.

"I'm somewhat perplexed by the initiative that ESDC has taken," said Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, chairman of the Assembly Economic Development Committee.

Obviously, there is a problem. The fox is in charge of the hen house. Perhaps we should take the politics out of Empire Zones.

"The projections contained in the initial applications were merely expressions of hope for how the company might grow in the future," he said. (My note - he would be none other than Mr. Schimminger, chairman of the Economic Development Committee). "They were not the basis for receiving benefits. In a way, ESDC is mixing apples and oranges. It's making a flawed comparison."

Merely expressions of hope? In other words, don't hold us to it in case we fail, but we think...

Empire State Development Corp. acknowledges that it has no intention of taking immediate action against companies accused of employment or investment shortfalls.

The agency's decision to send the 3,000 warning letters is an obvious sign of problems within the 20-year-old Empire Zone program, which critics have derided for inefficiency and lack of economic success.

"It's clearly in need of reform," says State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, a member of the Senate Corporations Committee. "There clearly needs to be more accountability. You would almost have to start over."

In need of reform? You think?

Approximately 10,000 companies across the state have been certified to participate in the Empire Zone program. Empire State Development reviewed their 2005 annual business reports, and sent warnings to those businesses that fell at least 40 percent short of their initial projections.

10,000 companies have been certified and 3,000 of them were sent letters because they were at least 40 percent short of their initial projections......so, almost 1/3 of the companies getting tax breaks via Empire Zones were at least 40% short of their hopes?????

"We have to have some sort of penalty in the future," said Maziarz, "provided there is some sort of a safety net for those industries that have been harmed by (adverse) market forces."

I got it...How about ten (10) lashes with a wet noodle! And don't worry, if your HOPES don't materialize into jobs or investments in the community where you are receiving the TAX BREAK, you can always blame it on the market!

Don't miss today's editorial in the Observer Dispatch Empire Zone Failures Draw State Wrath.

Next, Part 2 On The Homefront!

Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock.....

Tick Tock

The players.....the town board....the assessor......Councilman Robert A. Payne, III

Stay tuned....one (or maybe all) of the player(s) obviously think I fell off the turnip truck yesterday. What could they be hiding?

Town Board Meeting

Next town board meeting will be held tomorrow, August 8, 2007 at the New York Mills High School on Maurauder Blvd. starting at 5:30 p.m.

We have the agenda now online.

Wake up New Hartford residents...

you are being mistaken for fools!

Increasing the size of government when the population is decreasing is one way of “controlling” what goes on in government. If people do not wake up soon, it will not take long before a “majority” of people in the Town of New Hartford, either work for the town or school, are married to someone who works in the town or school or are related to someone who works in the town or school; the “average” Joe Taxpayer will be the minority and his vote will be worthless.

“Partnership”, by their terms, is another way to ensure that whatever government wants, government will get and has nothing to do with consolidation as you and I may define it. Remember when Dan Gilligan, Superintendent of New Hartford School, sent out a memo telling school employees to be sure to vote on the March 29, 2007 Town bonding?

Meanwhile these “lazy-ass” town and school employees spend their time reading all the different websites and blogs (and other things out there on the "information highway"). Maybe I should start reporting how much time in a day both the school and town spend reading our Four (4) websites and this blog. Then I can also tell you just what websites and blogs they arrive from and go to after they read ours.

I have a feeling that if they spent less time on the internet, they would have more time to be able to respond to Freedom of Information requests in a more timely fashion! Of course, that would assume that they really want to respond in a timely fashion.

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government

New Hartford, N.Y. Online

New Hartford, N.Y. Online Assessment Program

Vote for Russ Cerminaro

Tick Tock, Tick Tock

Even after a personal visit to the Town Clerk's office as well as 2 emails to the Town Clerk hoping to find out why it is taking so long for the assessor to copy the assessment file to a disk, we still have not been given the cd requested in our Freedom of Information request of July 20, 2007.

At this point, you have to wonder if they are trying to hide something....is there something they don't want residents to know? After all, they did vote at the July 11, 2007 Town Board meeting that we legally have a right to the information!

Or could it just be a case of the Town Board sticking their middle finger up to town residents and the law again?

Closing the barn door....

after the horses get out.

Yes, sir, that's what it is like. You will notice on pages 9 & 10 of the DRAFT July 11, 2007 Town Board minutes---Award of Competitive Bid - Multi-purpose Excavator.
Back at the March 14, 2007 Town Board meeting, the Highway Superintendent asked the Town Board to withhold action on a bid received for a multi-purpose excavator (in other words a Gradall) until after the March 29, 2007 Special Election (the election where the people decided that the town shouldn't bond to purchase a Gradall).

Well, the town clerk noticed that they never passed a resolution to accept the bid that was received in February 2007 so the Town Board unanimously voted to accept the bid at the July 11, 2007 meeting.

Unfortunately, the Gradall was already purchased in September 2006 without a bid and they waited until February 2007 to even bother getting a bid. When they advertised for that bid in February 2007, they made the specs so specific (in order words they described the Gradall they already purchased to a "T") that the only company that submitted a bid was the company that the Highway Superintendent already purchased the Gradall from back in September 2006.

It doesn't end there. At the May 9, 2007 meeting, the Town Board voted to BAN (Bond Anticipation Note, in other words "purchase"), the same Gradall that, the taxpayers voted down at the March 29, 2007 Special Election.

So what we will see this October? A bond resolution to extend the time to repay the BAN from 5 years to 15 years. And will we also be told it will have a negative impact on the tax rate like they tried to say with the other two bond resolutions for Highway Equipment last Fall?

So in closing (the barn door) what we have is:

• Sept. 2006 (1 month before the bond resolutions were even passed by the Town Board, let alone give residents a chance to vote on the spending plan) the Highway Superintendent illegally signed a Lease/purchase agreement that he was not authorized to sign and actually took possession of the new "used" Gradall.
• February 2007 (6 months later) - the Highway Superintendent decides to advertise for bids (said bid invitation so very specific as to even state the fact that they were looking for a "used" Gradall)
• May 2007 (3 months later) - The Town Board unanimously voted to BAN (Bond Anticipation Note) to pay for the Gradall that they have already owned since September 2006.
• July 2007 (2 months later AND almost 1 year after they purchase the Gradall) - Oops! we forgot to approve the one and only (what a joke!) bid we received in February 2007.

O.K. it now sounds like the barn door is closed, but I do believe the horses are already loose!

Here we go 'round the Mulberry Bush.....

It's been a busy summer and I apologize for just getting around to posting the July 11, 2007 DRAFT board minutes that the Town Clerk so graciously provided us via email within the two (2) week period allowed by law---FREE of charge (versus the $9.50 it cost us for the June 13, 2007 DRAFT minutes) because these DRAFT minutes were sent to us electronically, just as we requested. What a difference a month (and a call to Robert Freeman, Ex. Dir. of the Committee on Open Government) can make.

There are a few things I want to point out regarding the July 11, 2007 DRAFT minutes over the next couple of days, but first, to supplement my past few posts, let me point out the discussion and resolution (blue box drawn around the discussion and resolution starting at the bottom of the first page), including Councilman Bob Payne's first (and only ever in 19 months on the Board) "nay" vote on the Appeal we had to file regarding the Assessment disk that seems to take eons to provide to us.

Ah, the lazy days of summer....