Wow, the Town Board looks awful now. The Ethics Committee recommended the Town Board take a team building class, to learn how to get along with each other. Only Tara Thomas agreed to take the class, Klotz, Nolen, etc.. all refused. This shows a lot. Keep this in mind if they run for re-election. Here's a nice letter which sums up the facts:

http://www.saratogian.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDail...%2F07%2F14%2F2320462

I don't understand the move by the Nolen bloc to refuse to accept the findings of the committee that they set up. Clearly, the findings are correct and impartial. Anyone who wasn't buried up to their necks in this bitter dispute could see that. We didn't really need the committee or the waste of taxpayer dollars to get this conclusion which they rejected anyway. If I had been in the crowd, I would have applauded Mrs. Carlton, too. Mr. Klotz, I would like you to explain your action here, because I expected you would have respected the findings.

So which do you folks think is worse: driving a hard bargain with a contractor and getting something for the town for free (the pool quote), or launching a political witch hunt that costs the taxpayers $8000 with ultimately nothing to show for it?

By rejecting the team building idea, Klotz and Nolen have no interest in making the Town Board a useful panel. It's ironic, since Klotz ran a campaign stating it was his goal to bring unity to the Board.

I usually find myself supporting Mr. Klotz's positions when it comes to the affairs of the town, but I have to admit that, based on what I read in the Spotlight and the Saratogian letter, his position sees off base here.

I sure would be interested in hearing his (and the rest of the board's) side of things, as I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for the actions of the town board.

It appears that the town board has some explaining to do since they seem to be losing big time in the court of public opinion with this one.

Lets not forget that Mr Klotz's wife was one of the people who suggested the review to the board in the beginning. Those people on the board who didn't get there way with the review
(Nolan) among others are sore losers in not accepting the report and, should be held accountible for the $8,000 bill.

An ethics committee is charged with making recommendations back to the Town Board on the matters referred to it. It’s then up to the Town Board to make a final determination and take actions that it determines to be appropriate. In the opinion of the majority of the Town Board, none of the findings of the ethics committee were significant enough to warrant further action related to the charges.

Tara Thomas did vote with the rest of us on the motion that does not include the team training. During discussion it was pointed out that the atmosphere on the 2008 Town Board has been different (less contentious for the most part) from the 2007 Town Board. I don’t think that the dynamics of the past or current town board would be helped by training. In my opinion, it has not been a matter of not knowing how to get along, but more a matter of not wanting to get along. Team training would be a waste of time and money.

There were a number of findings in the ethics committee report. Some were stated clearly and fairly. Some were presented in confusing and factually inaccurate ways. The Town Board could have reviewed the ethics committee report line by line and finding by finding. I think that would have been more divisive than helpful, since none of the findings were significant enough to likely result in any disciplinary actions anyway.

I have attended numerous training sessions offered by the state of New York and others on ethics matters. Some findings of the ethics committee are not consistent with my understanding of what an ethics board could or should find. The matter I voted to refer hinged on the applicability of provisions in the employee manual. When I voted to refer the matter raised by my wife and seven other citizens, I believed that there were weighty enough concerns that it was quite possible that an ethics committee could find wrongdoing. If the committee had found wrongdoing, I would have pressed for consequences. Since the committee (for whatever reason) found that the provisions of the manual do not apply and therefore there was no wrongdoing, I decided not to further press the matter. We could have found that the provisions do apply even if the ethics committee decided they don’t. Not accepting all of the recommendations doesn’t mean that I don't take any of the recommendations seriously, even if I continue to disagree with some of the findings.

The findings and recommendations of the ethics committee that are most significant are that the ethics law and employee handbook are inadequate. We all agreed to amend these and to move on in a more productive, less contentious manner.

The 2007 board dragged its feet on this after the initial complaint was filed- after the election, when it would have been politically wise to put Paul Sausville in his place instead of letting him run rampant like he did. How many people do you think his harmless little memo prevented from speaking up? My guess is that he knew what he was doing, but then again, it's the same neocon degenerates that elected George Bush that elected Paul Sausville.

No, we saw Tara Thomas follow the orders monday night and the same ragtag bunch of overly informed spin doctors fall back in line behind the Saus & Sickles. Reason called in sick today.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Klotz Sr.:
The findings and recommendations of the ethics committee that are most significant are that the ethics law and employee handbook are inadequate. We all agreed to amend these and to move on in a more productive, less contentious manner.

Thanks for your response, as usual, Peter. I certainly hope this is what happens. I'm afraid that sentiments like Whitey's are still simmering just below the surface, though, which will make your stated goal that much more difficult.

Perhaps this was bound to happen with the void that was created when Meager stepped down. I just hope that the board can shake off the last remnants of that hangover and move on. As long as we don't end up like Colonie, I guess we'll be doing okay.

Thanks for the response and your explanation of the situation, Peter. Your posts are one of the reasons that I value this message board.

They are a dysfunctional Board.

Imagine paying for an Ethics Committee investigation, and then disagreeing with their findings when the outcome turns out to be what they weren't hoping for...unbelievable.

With all the petty bickering going on within the Board, how do they think they can run an up and coming town? Sounds like the board has absolutely no class. I think they all need to go to some kind of seminar and learn the proper way to conduct business.

I'm sure the board will return to civility eventually, but it will probably take the turnover of at least a couple more seats. At very least, clarifying the employee handbook shouldn't hurt. Peter, maybe you should propose adding a set of behavior guidelines to be followed at all meetings (if it isn't there already).

JP is right. Our town needs to run like a business, not a student council. Actually, that is an insult to student councils.

quote:

Imagine paying for an Ethics Committee investigation, and then disagreeing with their findings when the outcome turns out to be what they weren't hoping for...unbelievable.

quote:

Imagine paying for an Ethics Committee investigation, and then disagreeing with their findings when the outcome turns out to be what they weren't hoping for...unbelievable.

I doubt you have read the ethics committee report.

Seems rather inappropriate for the Town Board to automatically endorse any report without some sort of review.
It certainly would have been easy to just endorse it and follow the recommendations and pay (more money) for a "team building" course. But I don't think it would address any real issues.
We could have hashed through a detailed review of the findings to specify the particular parts that we found problematical, but that too would have not resulted in any significant improvements to the way things are.
There was one finding of wrongdoing that we decided not to pursue. The way the Ethics Committee saw it, it was not something that they recommended any sort of major response to.

Interesting...

Sort of like telling an alcoholic that he has a drinking problem and needs to go to AA, and having him say "Thanks for your input, but I am fine."

quote:

Originally posted by DA:
Interesting...

Sort of like telling an alcoholic that he has a drinking problem and needs to go to AA, and having him say "Thanks for your input, but I am fine."

Interesting analogy. The framing of the situation as politically motivated does put any further discussion in a difficult and suspect position. I can not and will not speak for the thinking of others. I’m also cynical enough to acknowledge that no motives (even my own) are pure. I respect the findings of the ethics committee enough to officially let it go, even if I personally continue to disagree with some of the findings.

Is it any wonder some of the town governments are in trouble? The boards don't know how to govern. Seems nobody knows how to run any type of government. Not even Bush. What a mess this country and state are in.

Wouldn't it be considered part of the role of the town supervisor to gain concensus and build his team? Isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?
Maggie

I think Mr. Sausville was put in a difficult position from the beginning. After so many years of having Mr. Meager as supervisor, those in town government were basically married to his style. Of course, Mr. Sausville's style is his own, and some people aren't good with change. Add to that the nasty schizm that occured as a result of the battle for the supervisor position, and we get the mess that we're in today.

This is essentially what it would be like to have two parties in our local government. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. They keep each other more honest.

Actually Roy it appears that there ARE two parties on the Board. I do wish it would make them deal more honestly with one another and make them feel accountable to the Citizens of Malta but I haven't seen that from Nolen and Winters yet.
I have to ask a few questions:
1)How did Peter Klotz's wife Ann get a hold of a Town of Malta Employee Manual? Is that something we can look at as a citizen? How would one go about that?
2)How did Peter Klotz's wife Ann get a copy of an internal memo regarding employee political activity in the Town's Offices/Buildings? Is that a public access document? How do we as citizens access memo's sent from Office to Office?
3)Why did Peter Klotz's wife Ann bring charges against Mr. Sausville and not Mrs. Nolen, Mr. Winters and Mrs. Gizzi? I guess I know that answer...Nolen, Winters, Gizzi and Democrat Young all wrote to endorse her husband. But how does a Pastor's wife determine who should be persecuted and who shouldn't? And I must ask...all of us married folk know that we are our OWN people but I would NEVER have done anything that would have caused harm, embarassment or the slightest perception of impropriety when my spouse was alive. What was he/she thinking?
4)Why didn't Pastor Klotz recuse himself from the discussion/vote regarding his wife's charges against Mr. Sausville? I find it very hard to believe he could be fair and impartial in these circumstances? Especially when the others accused were quilty of the same violation (for writing endorsments for him). Although, I also find it difficult to wrap my thoughts around the fact that he IS a Pastor. Call me an oldfoggy but I still think you are who you ARE and it is impossible to separate your passion and calling from your everyday dealings with people. There is a certain "grace" most pastors have about them, providing a calmness to volatile situations and an ability to advocate tolerance for the mistakes people make and their imperfectness.
Now onto some comments and not questions:
ONE of the objections Mr.Klotz had with the Ethics Committee Finding was he said he couldn't "remember" Nolen and Winters of the Town Board NOT bringing THEMSELVES up on charges...I believe Thomas made the motion and there was..s.i.l.e.n.c.e...
Surprisingly NO ONE seconded it and it died.
ONE of the objections that Mrs. Nolen had was she couldn't "remember" writing any letters that would have put her in violation which the Ethics Board pointed out. OR she said, "the letters I wrote were too long ago to be brought up on charges as they were a YEAR ago!!" (So, this was not the FIRST time for Nolen.) What was FUNNY, and ALMOST worth the $8000 was when the attorney not only found the letters, but told Nolen the dates of the letters!! Aha!
Well, hopefully someone will be able to provide some answers to my questions.
Truly, I always felt that OUR VOTE was our endorsement or rejection of the job our public officials do. How do we rid ourselves of self-serving, non-citizen based representatives, that refuse to listen to the Citizens of Malta, when they have time left on their term?
I don't say everyone has to agree with everything that comes before them but how about some civility to one another at the meetings and in the public eye and how about taking into account what the Citizens of Malta want?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ann24:

I have to ask a few questions:

1)How did Peter Klotz's wife Ann get a hold of a Town of Malta Employee Manual? Is that something we can look at as a citizen? How would one go about that?

The Town Employee Manual is a a public document

2)How did Peter Klotz's wife Ann get a copy of an internal memo regarding employee political activity in the Town's Offices/Buildings? Is that a public access document? How do we as citizens access memo's sent from Office to Office?

I was a recipient of the memo.

3)Why did Peter Klotz's wife Ann bring charges against Mr. Sausville and not Mrs. Nolen, Mr. Winters and Mrs. Gizzi?

My wife did not bring charges against anyone. She asked a question of the Town Board that went unanswered for nearly five months.

4)Why didn't Pastor Klotz recuse himself from the discussion/vote regarding his wife's charges against Mr. Sausville?

I submitted an extended explanation for this that should be in the records of the meeting.

ONE of the objections Mr.Klotz had with the Ethics Committee Finding was he said he couldn't "remember" Nolen and Winters of the Town Board NOT bringing THEMSELVES up on charges...I believe Thomas made the motion and there was..s.i.l.e.n.c.e...
Surprisingly NO ONE seconded it and it died.

Either Tara Thomas or Paul Sausville made the motion and the other one seconded it. Sue Nolen and Gerald Winters were barred by the ethics law from voting on it. I recused myself because I was the object of the endorsement. The motion failed for want of a majority and was subsequently withdrawn. The motion was hastily composed and presented and not in proper form. Knowing that my recusal would end in a less than majority vote anyway,and not wanting to further engage in an argument, I decided to let it fail for lack of a majorty vote.