|
|
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
2008 |
2007 |
2006 |
2005
|
|
|
Your opinion counts...
|
|
Click here to share your views on issues concerning the Town of Rochester. While all correspondence is welcomed, the Rochester Republican Club reserves the right to post only letters or excerpts which embrace the Republican values. Moreover, the opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Rochester Republican Club.
|
|
|
 Click here to send letters to local newspapers.
|
|
|
Yippeee!!!
|
|
|
|
More rules!
More regulations!!
More stop lights!!!
Let's hear it for Pammy's plan to turn Rochester into suburbia.
Yippeee !!!
Alysse Ricks
Accord
|
|
|
Campaigning October 2007
|
|
|
|
This evening, Friday, October 12, 2007, a group of people stopped my sister as she was leaving my home, they were four in number and on foot. They asked her what the house number was that she had just left, she said 39. They said ok and walked away. I did not see them at all. She called me shortly thereafter. They went to my mother's house, where she resides, at 21 Sheldon Drive, Kerhonkson, NY, Town of Rochester. Those people were Pamela Duke, Francis Gray and two other individuals my sister was not familiar with. I reside at 39 Webster Avenue, Kerhonkson, NY, Town of Rochester. Why is that Pam, Francis and the others didn't stop at my house to campaign? I called several of my neighbors. The campaigners had stopped at some of their homes, but not at others. Is this selective campaigning? Are some Town of Rochester residents more special than others? Is it just that Pam and friends think they have this election all sewed up in a neat and tidy package, so they don't have to approach all Town of Rochester residents? The answers to these questions will never be known, but I, a registered Republican, and Town of Rochester resident want to be noticed and heard, something Pam, Francis and the others, on their campaigning tour, the night of October 12, 2007, were obviously not interested in doing. My name is Lynn Churchill. My legal address is 39 Webster Avenue, PO Box 128, Kerhonkson, NY, 12446. My email is froggie4692@aol.com. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.
Lynn Churchill
Kerhonkson |
|
|
Code of what?
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor:
This is regarding the Code of Conduct adopted by the Town of Rochester during the July 5, 2007 Town Board meeting. Worth noting the interesting timing: draft dated August 2006, Code adopted after town officials were involved in a "porno" scandal, during a meeting when they didn't appoint the most qualified person for the Assessor position. Is this a Code of Conduct, an irony, propaganda or a Code of Contradictions? Few examples may help:
|
MISSION STATEMENT...
We, the employees and officials of the Town of Rochester, are committed to excellence in providing services to our community, in a professional, respectful and courteous manner.
|
|
That's lie #1. The majority of the Board voted to replace the Town's 20-year veteran Tax Assessor, Sharon Hornbeck, with someone who doesn't live in our town, has minimal training and no experience as a Municipal Tax Assessor. This is a disservice to our community. Sharon wanted to stay for one more term, which would have taken her to retirement at full benefits.
So tell me, where is the commitment to excellence in services provided to the community? Where is the professionalism and respect? How was Sharon's work — appreciated with a New York State award — respected?
|
|
The Guiding Principles of this Code of Conduct indicate that employees and officials have collectively developed this code of conduct.
|
|
That's lie #2. Councilman Santosky was not asked for his input regarding the development of this Code.
This will be one more tool for Supervisor Pam Duke's political cleansing (that she has been doing since taking office). She fired the Attorney for the Town, the Code Enforcement Officer and now the Tax Assessor. None of them for any valid reasons. Is this commitment to excellence or to cleansing?
|
|
RESPECT...
|
|
This is the biggest joke!
That means that members of this Town Board would like to be treated as they treated Manuela Mihailescu, a volunteer for Historic Preservation Commission unfairly accused of being associated with a porn site?
That this Town Board will finally recognize HOW Manuela was made to feel during her second "interview" for the HPC? At least they acknowledge that "members of the public will remember how you made them feel..." I'm sure Manuela will remember.
|
|
TEAMWORK...
|
|
There is no "I" in team, right? Does this mean:
No more meetings that don't include ALL Board Members?
That Board members won't be left out of conversations, e-mails and paperwork that pertain to Town Business? I doubt it!
That the Town Board will actually work together to write the "Rochester Reporter" so that is really a Town Board newsletter instead of a political newsletter hailing Pam Duke? (Currently the newsletter is written by non-Board members with very little input — most often disregarded — from the Town Board members). Also doubtful!
|
|
ACCOUNTABILITY...
|
|
Really! Does this mean...
That Supervisor Duke will now accept responsibility AND accountability for the Town-owned property that she gave away without putting it up for bid? That board members will show accountability for NOT checking in any way the "porno rumor" and showing to a volunteer applicant hundreds of porno photos in Supervisor's office?
|
|
And the list of contradictions can go on and on. Why was this Code of Conduct adopted only in July 2007 if drafted in August 2006? Is this a Code of Coincidences?
Kandy Santosky
Kerhonkson |
|
|
Rochester Truth Comes Out.
|
|
|
|
To the Editor:
The Bluestone and Ulster County Press were right on target when they ran a cartoon of certain Town of Rochester town board members. The town attorney also should have been included in the cartoon. The caption of brainless, gutless and heartless was worded to perfection.
Last January, they accused a town resident of running a porno site to keep her off a volunteer board for political gain and reasons. It took six months for the truth to come out. Recently, through a small claims court case, they were forced to tell the truth. They were no longer able to hide behind what they claimed to be an executive session privilege even though New York State's expert on open government disagreed with them.
I am sure you will be reading more on this topic once the court transcripts are out. The residents of Rochester must be informed and assured that the truth and open government is the standard in our town government. The court transcripts will not allow them to change or spin what was said and done.
Thanks again for following this story for six months, and I am looking forward to reading more about the truth in this matter in upcoming issues.
Shane Ricks
Accord
|
|
|
|
Reprehensible. Repugnant. Unconscionable.
|
|
|
One does not need a magnifying glass to clearly see the actions of a
majority of our Town Board and town attorney as reprehensible, repugnant and unconscionable in regards to what has taken place against town resident
Manuela Mihailescu. A Town Media Release dated Accord, February 2, 2007 is stating, "Every member of the Board interacted with this individual with respect and courtesy at all times."
Courtesy? What courtesy? Webster
defines courtesy as "1. Excellence of manner or social conduct; polite
behavior. 2. A courteous, respectful, or considerate act or expression. 3.
Indulgence, consent, or acquiescence. 4. Favor, help or generosity."
Accusing someone at an interview for a Historic Preservation Commission of
having a part in a porno site and then flashing many lewd and disgusting
photos in front of them as evidence to prove their guiltiness and not even
allowing the website addresses to be revealed to show where the smut came
from so as to defend one's innocence desperately begs of anything to do with
courtesy.
Respect? What respect? Webster defines respect as, "1. Esteem for or a
sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or trait,
or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or trait.
2. Deference to a right, privilege, privileged position or to something
considered as having certain rights or privileges. 3. The condition of being
esteemed or honored." Saying the Town Board showed "respect" to Manuela
is a gross perversion and a far cry from such a highly esteemed quality.
The Town states, "We sought to protect and preserve the best interests
of the Town, fulfilling our responsibility to investigate matters that
potentially have a bearing on her appointment, while at the same time being
mindful of the rights of the individual and proper and ethical due process."
If the Town Board took it upon themselves to accuse someone of improper
actions (which were bogus) in that person's personal life and which could
possibly affect their role on a town commission, then why don't they hold
others to the same standard of measure?
In the past year Steve Fornal was placed by the Town Board as the chair
of the Planning Board. Did they go through the same scrutiny of his
background, writings, beliefs, internet connections and consider protecting
and preserving the best interests of the Town, fulfilling their
responsibility to investigate matters that potentially have a bearing on an
appointment? The answer is a big, resounding "NO."
Anyone can discover the deviant, perverted, and anti-American mind and heart of Steven Lance Fornal
or Steven Lance, as he sometimes goes by, by reading for themselves the smut
he writes. One would be fooling herself to believe that this kind of
thinking would not affect the kinds of rulings he will make. How
adversely it will affect the many lives who are forced to deal with this
pervert while he has a position of authority on the Planning Board.
Remember also that his personal beliefs will affect the changes he makes to
the codes of this town. Double standard? You bet! This is gross negligence
on the part of the Town Board who voted for Steve Fornal. Wake up Town
Board and get your heads out of the proverbial sand.
It is obvious from the chain of events that took place that the Town
Board preplanned what happened at the meeting February 1st and that
they didn't have any intentions of dealing with the problems that they
created. They even planned for the police to be there to control the people.
Did they really think that they could do what they did and people would just
politely say, "Oh that's OK. You're in charge."?
What a statement of arrogance to say that "We attempted
to move on with other Town business. It soon became apparent that this would
be impossible because of interruptions from persons who wished to turn the
routine meeting into a political rally." There were people at the meeting
from various political parties who were very offended and outraged with the
actions of the Board. Anytime the Board faces opposition because of their
asinine actions, they blame it on others wanting to turn it into a political
rally.
The Town states, "There are times and places for such activities, and
we embrace their right to free expression, however, when town business
cannot be discussed with mutual respect, and when the public's physical
safety is threatened, the choice to adjourn was an obvious one." If the Town
embraces the right to free expression, then why didn't they let the people
freely express their grievances? Whose physical safety was threatened? Was
their fear a sign of their guilt? How can the people of this Town respect a
Board that acts with such disrespect? Rod Futerfas' comments to the crowd lacked any
common sense, were pretty stupid and showed how he has no respect for the
people of the Town of Rochester who pay his bill month after month. It's time to ask
for what?
There is no need to speculate on the motives of people who were not
there to see what happened coming out and supporting someone who has been
violated by a Town Board that claims they, "will continue to conduct town
business as it has in the past: in a professional, businesslike and diligent
fashion, mindful of the rights of all of our citizens and cognizant of our
responsibility to conduct business with civility." We were there to support
a fellow citizen who was horribly wronged by bullies with impure motives. A
fair-minded person like Manuela would not come out with some outlandish
story to create such a ruckus.
Does the Town Board really believe that they
have a story the people of this town will buy? Just because the bullies,
including Rod Futerfas, the town attorney, outnumbered the victim 5 to 1,
does this make whatever story they come up with more believable? Not
hardly. The Town Board's reputation precedes them. Is surfing the web for
pornography a normal practice of Councilman Gray's business in this Town?
Get a clue! Don't continue doing business like you have in the past. Get an
education about acting in a professional, businesslike and diligent fashion,
mindful of the rights of all of our citizens and be cognizant of the
responsibility to conduct business with civility.
Julia Krom
Kerhonkson
|
|
|
Daily Freeman, February 8, 2007
|
|
Board Botched It
Dear Editor:
As an educated observer living in the Town of Rochester for well over 20 years, I can not understand the lack of common sense displayed by the other councilmen regarding not seconding Councilman Santosky's motion to move the monthly Town Board meeting to a location able to hild the large crowd waiting patiently outside.
This simple action would have lifted the cover on an already boiling pot, allowing some of the steam to escape.
But instead, by keeping these constituents out in the cold, literally, as well as figuratively, from attending and participating in what has been an open forum of government, it escalated the tension until the meeting hastily closed citing the disruptiveness as the cause.
This type of circular reasoning, or blaming the victims for wanting to participate in their town meeting, is questionable and quite typical in this town's government.
What was the goal? Not to allow people to speak opinions and participate because they may have differed from the board's.
I sat there as Councilman Miller scolded those lucky enough to be inside when the frustrated people left outside started beeping their horns in protest. (What's next, a raffle to see who can or cannot enter?)
None of us should have been treated like children with such lack of respect, especially when we didn't create it, in the first place.
Yes, there were a lot of emotional issues that needed to be addressed. When isn't there when dealing in politics?
But knowing how to handle crowds, and basic psychology on how not to incite potential riots or fan the fires, should be a course offered our local politicians.
This poor decision and attempts to control by strong arming and posting state troopers at meetings will only breed more resentment, frustration or, worse, apathy, a proven formula for people to drop away, not caring, feeling powerless.
That, history teaches us, is fertile soil to grow violence, fascists, and dictators, and will be combated at the polls during the election, unless they, too, get closed because there isn't enough room to handle the glut of people wanting to register their opinions.
Toni Sindone
Accord
|
|
|
Open Government?
Dear Pam:
Is your idea of 'open government' calling in the NY State Troopers to make sure that all who wanted to attend the February 1 Town of Rocehster
Town Board Meeting at our Town Hall would be shut out?
Try looking up the word 'open' in the dictionary, dear. In my Wesbter's, the definition of 'open' is accessible.
What dictionary do you use that 'open' means shut?
Most Sincerely,
Alysse Ricks
Accord
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
