POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 24th 2024 Edition
"FILE THE POESTENKILL PFAS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOW"
If we look at this matter of Poestenkill's PFAS lawsuit against the Averill Park School District, the Board of Education, the District Superintendent and Principal and Vice-Principal of Algonquin Middle School objectively and dispassionately, as we must do to fully protect our interests as property owners and taxpayers in Poestenkill, or as inhabitants of Poestenkill, it becomes crystal clear that to decisively put an end to this matter once and for all, because face it, people, these are serious charges of dereliction of duty, disregard for duty and gross negligence Poestenkill has levied against the School District et al., and to finally end the controversy as to who is right and who is wrong, and who is telling the truth, versus who is lying, it is essential that this matter be brought to trial before a jury in open court as soon as possible, which process has to begin with Poestenkill serving its complaint on the School District et al., which now should be done ASAP.
Time is a'wasting!
If, as councilmember Wohlleber tells us, this lawsuit against School Board et al. is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents, which happens to be us, then why the dithering and shilly-shallying around?
Their duty to the inhabitants of Poestenkill and thus, the only acceptable course of action open to them, which is filing the complaint and getting the show on the road, should now be incandescently clear to Democrat Tom Russell, councilman Wohlleber, councilman Burzesi, councilman Hass and councilwoman Butler.
So why do they sit on their hands and do nothing?
Now, not tomarrow, is the time for newly-elected supervisor Russell to step up to the plate and take decisive action in getting the complaint served and timely filed.
DON'T LET HIM DITHER!
DON'T LET HIM SHILLY-SHALLY!
DEMAND THAT HE TAKE ACTION NOW WHEN IT IS NEEDED!
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 25th 2024 Edition
"TOWN'S SHREDDED CREDIBILITY ON TRIAL WITH POESTENKILL PFAS LAWSUIT VOTE TO PROCEED WITH LITIGATION AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOW"
Let us face facts here, people - when it comes to having credibility as a fully functioning, efficient, effective, responsible governmental entity capable of providing law and order in Poestenkill while actively protecting and safeguarding the public's health, as well as the right of each person in Poestenkill to clean air and water, and a healthful environment, Poestenkill town government, including the office of the town supervisor, the town council, the town planning board and the town zoning board, has barely a shred left, and indeed, it is that remaining shred of credibility that is at stake with this up-coming vote to proceed with litigation against the Averill Park School District, the Board of Education, the District Superintendent and Principal and Vice-Principal of the Algonquin Middle School for willfully and negligently contaminating Poestenkill's water supply with PFAS, and let us not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise, as both the school district and the candid world watch like hawks to see which way this vote will go, either to proceed with prosecuting these serious charges of dereliction of duty, disregard for duty and gross negligence Poestenkill has levied against the School District et al., and to finally end the controversy as to who is right and who is wrong, and who is telling the truth, versus who is lying, by bringing this matter to trial before a jury in open court as soon as possible, or to forget about protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents and letting the matter drop, with newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell being seen by all parties as having the decisive vote in the matter, for as he votes, so shall the majority of the town board vote with him, and when one goes back to the YouTube video of the July 13, 2023 Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDM4oJxMWEI and when one listens to the impassioned rhetoric of councilman Eric Wohlleber beginning at 46:25 as to the crying need for this litigation to proceed to finally get justice for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and the children of Algonquin Middle School who Wohlleber made clear are the victims of this clear dereliction of duty by the Averill Park School District, which dereliction of duty cannot go unpunished as councilman Wohlleber made crystal clear in his impassioned speech that evening as he called for heads to roll and people to be jailed, as they would be if this were Flint, Michigan with its low tolerance for corrupt and incompetent public officials who put the lives of children in jeopardy, one sees the sheer magnitude of what is truly at stake here, which is the future of democracy itself in Poestenkill, as well as law and order, where the guilty do not go unpunished for their foul deeds, as too often has been the case in the past in Poestenkill.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 25th 2024 Edition
"TOWN'S SHREDDED CREDIBILITY ON TRIAL WITH POESTENKILL PFAS LAWSUIT VOTE TO PROCEED WITH LITIGATION AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOW"
Let us face facts here, people - when it comes to having credibility as a fully functioning, efficient, effective, responsible governmental entity capable of providing law and order in Poestenkill while actively protecting and safeguarding the public's health, as well as the right of each person in Poestenkill to clean air and water, and a healthful environment, Poestenkill town government, including the office of the town supervisor, the town council, the town planning board and the town zoning board, has barely a shred left, and indeed, it is that remaining shred of credibility that is at stake with this up-coming vote to proceed with litigation against the Averill Park School District, the Board of Education, the District Superintendent and Principal and Vice-Principal of the Algonquin Middle School for willfully and negligently contaminating Poestenkill's water supply with PFAS, and let us not delude ourselves into thinking otherwise, as both the school district and the candid world watch like hawks to see which way this vote will go, either to proceed with prosecuting these serious charges of dereliction of duty, disregard for duty and gross negligence Poestenkill has levied against the School District et al., and to finally end the controversy as to who is right and who is wrong, and who is telling the truth, versus who is lying, by bringing this matter to trial before a jury in open court as soon as possible, or to forget about protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents and letting the matter drop, with newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell being seen by all parties as having the decisive vote in the matter, for as he votes, so shall the majority of the town board vote with him, and when one goes back to the YouTube video of the July 13, 2023 Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDM4oJxMWEI and when one listens to the impassioned rhetoric of councilman Eric Wohlleber beginning at 46:25 as to the crying need for this litigation to proceed to finally get justice for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and the children of Algonquin Middle School who Wohlleber made clear are the victims of this clear dereliction of duty by the Averill Park School District, which dereliction of duty cannot go unpunished as councilman Wohlleber made crystal clear in his impassioned speech that evening as he called for heads to roll and people to be jailed, as they would be if this were Flint, Michigan with its low tolerance for corrupt and incompetent public officials who put the lives of children in jeopardy, one sees the sheer magnitude of what is truly at stake here, which is the future of democracy itself in Poestenkill, as well as law and order, where the guilty do not go unpunished for their foul deeds, as too often has been the case in the past in Poestenkill.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 26th 2024 Edition
"SCHOOL BOARD'S FATAL ERROR SAID TO SPELL DOOM FOR DEFENDANTS IN POESTENKILL'S PFAS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT"
Chalk it up to arrogance, say some, a belief that they are above the law and thus, omnipotent, or indifference as in not caring, because they don't have to care, given no one has the power to make them care, or perhaps it is just another all-too-common case these days of more of the just plain stupidity and ignorance that seem to plague us today at all levels of what purports to be government in New York and America today from the bottom to the top and everywhere in between, for what appears to be a fatal error on the part of the School District Defendants is said to have the Poestenkill town board members and attorney Andy Gilchrist giddy with glee at the prospect of a quick slam-dunk trial for damages against the School District Defendants in a court of law as Poestenkill takes this case against the School District Defendants to court to finally get some much-needed resolution of the matter as to who is right and who is wrong, the town of Poestenkill or the School District Defendants, and who is telling the truth, versus who is lying, by bringing this matter to trial before a jury in open court as soon as possible to protect the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents and to finally get justice for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and the children of Algonquin Middle School for whom Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber is seeking justice and has made clear are the victims of this clear dereliction of duty by the Averill Park School District Defendants, which dereliction of duty cannot go unpunished as councilman Wohlleber has made crystal clear by calling for heads to roll and people to be jailed, as they would be if this were Flint, Michigan with its low tolerance for corrupt and incompetent public officials who put the lives of children in jeopardy.
As to the School Board's fatal error that now promises Poestenkill an easy slam-dunk when Andy Gilchrist brings this matter before a jury in what promises to be the trial of the century in Rensselaer County, bigger even than the trial of mobster "Legs" Diamond in Rensselaer County, where he was acquitted of racketeering on December 17, 1931, it was their individual and collective failure to timely protest their innocence when handed a copy of the same DEC report Poestenkill is relying on as its chief evidentiary exhibit in its lawsuit to show the School Board defendants guilty.
By failing utterly and completely to timely file any and all objections on the record they might have had to DEC finding the School District Defendants to be the guilty parties in the matter though gross negligence, the town of Poestenkill now has them all over a barrel, as their silence is construed to be a sign of an absence of innocence, and thus, a clear presumption of guilt, which is all Poestenkill needs to win this matter.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
January 26th 2024 Edition
"SCHOOL BOARD'S FATAL ERROR SAID TO SPELL DOOM FOR DEFENDANTS IN POESTENKILL'S PFAS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT"
Chalk it up to arrogance, say some, a belief that they are above the law and thus, omnipotent, or indifference as in not caring, because they don't have to care, given no one has the power to make them care, or perhaps it is just another all-too-common case these days of more of the just plain stupidity and ignorance that seem to plague us today at all levels of what purports to be government in New York and America today from the bottom to the top and everywhere in between, for what appears to be a fatal error on the part of the School District Defendants is said to have the Poestenkill town board members and attorney Andy Gilchrist giddy with glee at the prospect of a quick slam-dunk trial for damages against the School District Defendants in a court of law as Poestenkill takes this case against the School District Defendants to court to finally get some much-needed resolution of the matter as to who is right and who is wrong, the town of Poestenkill or the School District Defendants, and who is telling the truth, versus who is lying, by bringing this matter to trial before a jury in open court as soon as possible to protect the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents and to finally get justice for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and the children of Algonquin Middle School for whom Poestenkill councilman Eric Wohlleber is seeking justice and has made clear are the victims of this clear dereliction of duty by the Averill Park School District Defendants, which dereliction of duty cannot go unpunished as councilman Wohlleber has made crystal clear by calling for heads to roll and people to be jailed, as they would be if this were Flint, Michigan with its low tolerance for corrupt and incompetent public officials who put the lives of children in jeopardy.
As to the School Board's fatal error that now promises Poestenkill an easy slam-dunk when Andy Gilchrist brings this matter before a jury in what promises to be the trial of the century in Rensselaer County, bigger even than the trial of mobster "Legs" Diamond in Rensselaer County, where he was acquitted of racketeering on December 17, 1931, it was their individual and collective failure to timely protest their innocence when handed a copy of the same DEC report Poestenkill is relying on as its chief evidentiary exhibit in its lawsuit to show the School Board defendants guilty.
By failing utterly and completely to timely file any and all objections on the record they might have had to DEC finding the School District Defendants to be the guilty parties in the matter though gross negligence, the town of Poestenkill now has them all over a barrel, as their silence is construed to be a sign of an absence of innocence, and thus, a clear presumption of guilt, which is all Poestenkill needs to win this matter.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 6th 2024 Edition
"ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
In reviewing the Poestenkill Town Board meeting minutes for September 14, 2023 (see, also, September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw @ 7:02) one comes across this following under the heading PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, to wit:
P. Plante, resident, spoke about his personal experiences and noted that there are new people in Town who do not know of many past issues.
He discussed his past experiences, citing a November 1995 Advertiser article, and other issues.
end quotes
Specifically, in the 11 December 1995 edition of the Advertiser, then Poestenkill town councilman Keith Hammond had published a series of malicious lie and falsehoods wherein he stated that I am “mentally disturbed,” a condition he states as an alleged psychiatric expert causes my “inability to effectively function in society,” notwithstanding that I have been licensed by the state of New York as a professional engineer to safeguard life, health and property in the state since 1986, and notwithstanding that on February 15, 1994, Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914, annulled a mining permit issued by the planning board, and on March 28, 1994, Justice Spain, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
Keeping in mind those dates, we go back in time to September 21, 1995, over a year after those two lawsuits against the ethically-challenged town of Poestenkill were decided in my favor, not a bad accomplishment for someone councilman Hammond, on 11 December 1995, a little over two months after the following article, labeled as “mentally disturbed, with an inability to effectively function in society,” to the article in question in the now-defunct local newspaper, The Courier, titled “P’kill adopts code of ethics,” which article is quoted verbatim, without editorial comment, as follows to get what was said about ethics in Poestenkill back then on the record today, as there are indeed a lot of people who have moved to Poestenkill since then who are unaware of all the history on the issues of corruption, cronyism and ethics that preceded them in this town, paying especial attention to the comments of then-Poestenkill councilman Paul Sieloff, the same Paul Sieloff named in the lawsuit above, on who is "qualified" to hold public office in Poestenkill towards the end of the article, to wit:
The Poestenkill Town Board on September 13, in a four-to-one vote, adopted a revised code of ethics.
The new law is a culmination of months of debate, which saw town board members spell out different versions of an ethics code.
The bulk of the new code was drawn up by current members of the ethics board.
It increases the number of members from four to five, and established specific terms of office.
The board can also look into questionable conduct beyond allegations of conflicts of interest and other influential improprieties.
The town board added two other clauses to the code of ethics after earlier public hearings.
The board can call for an ethics board investigation (previously, officials submitted themselves to ethics investigations voluntarily) and ethics board rulings involving elected officials and members of the town planning board and zoning board of appeals will be made public.
The last clause was forwarded by Councilman Mark Dunlea, who was unable to attach two other amendments to the ethics law at the Sept. 13 meeting.
Dunlea wanted to prohibit town officials from representing clients before the town, and to allow private citizens to call for ethics investigations into Dunlea’s filing of local law with the state, allegedly without the town board’s approval.
Dunlea, who has dismissed those charges as politically motivated, has refused to submit the charges to the ethics board, although he has asked Sal Ferlazzo, the attorney to the town, to look into them.
Ferlazzo was not at the meeting.
Councilman Paul Sieloff asked why Dunlea wanted to allow residents to petition for ethics investigations, yet wouldn’t submit himself to one several residents have asked for.
“I’m not going to legitimize their activities,” Dunlea responded.
He said he wanted the town board to decide whether or not a complaint should be pursued.
“Let’s just give it to the board of ethics.”
“If they feel that the code of ethics has been violated, let them deal with it,” Dunlea said.
However, Dunlea was unable to get the amendments adopted.
Councilman Keith Hammond said he agreed with Dunlea’s amendments, but the town board, after holding several public hearings, was past the point of where the law could be amended further.
“It’s not at the last moment,” said Dunlea.
“I brought it up at every single meeting.”
Supervisor Jay F. Nish supported Dunlea in the first amendment, but not the second.
Nevertheless, in both cases Dunlea couldn’t get a majority.
Sieloff disagreed with banning town officials from representing clients before the town because, he said, it would diminish the already small pool of qualified residents from serving in office.
Sieloff also agreed with Dunlea’s contention that private citizens had no way to petition for an investigation under the proposed code.
“They can request it in person.”
“They can request it in writing.”
“They don’t need a process,” he said.
Ultimately, Dunlea was the lone councilman voting against the revised code, which lacked his proposed changes.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 6th 2024 Edition
"ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
In reviewing the Poestenkill Town Board meeting minutes for September 14, 2023 (see, also, September 14, 2023 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiTSiQs53aw @ 7:02) one comes across this following under the heading PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, to wit:
P. Plante, resident, spoke about his personal experiences and noted that there are new people in Town who do not know of many past issues.
He discussed his past experiences, citing a November 1995 Advertiser article, and other issues.
end quotes
Specifically, in the 11 December 1995 edition of the Advertiser, then Poestenkill town councilman Keith Hammond had published a series of malicious lie and falsehoods wherein he stated that I am “mentally disturbed,” a condition he states as an alleged psychiatric expert causes my “inability to effectively function in society,” notwithstanding that I have been licensed by the state of New York as a professional engineer to safeguard life, health and property in the state since 1986, and notwithstanding that on February 15, 1994, Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. Spain, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914, annulled a mining permit issued by the planning board, and on March 28, 1994, Justice Spain, in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Rensselaer County Index No. 179138, annulled a resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter.
Keeping in mind those dates, we go back in time to September 21, 1995, over a year after those two lawsuits against the ethically-challenged town of Poestenkill were decided in my favor, not a bad accomplishment for someone councilman Hammond, on 11 December 1995, a little over two months after the following article, labeled as “mentally disturbed, with an inability to effectively function in society,” to the article in question in the now-defunct local newspaper, The Courier, titled “P’kill adopts code of ethics,” which article is quoted verbatim, without editorial comment, as follows to get what was said about ethics in Poestenkill back then on the record today, as there are indeed a lot of people who have moved to Poestenkill since then who are unaware of all the history on the issues of corruption, cronyism and ethics that preceded them in this town, paying especial attention to the comments of then-Poestenkill councilman Paul Sieloff, the same Paul Sieloff named in the lawsuit above, on who is "qualified" to hold public office in Poestenkill towards the end of the article, to wit:
The Poestenkill Town Board on September 13, in a four-to-one vote, adopted a revised code of ethics.
The new law is a culmination of months of debate, which saw town board members spell out different versions of an ethics code.
The bulk of the new code was drawn up by current members of the ethics board.
It increases the number of members from four to five, and established specific terms of office.
The board can also look into questionable conduct beyond allegations of conflicts of interest and other influential improprieties.
The town board added two other clauses to the code of ethics after earlier public hearings.
The board can call for an ethics board investigation (previously, officials submitted themselves to ethics investigations voluntarily) and ethics board rulings involving elected officials and members of the town planning board and zoning board of appeals will be made public.
The last clause was forwarded by Councilman Mark Dunlea, who was unable to attach two other amendments to the ethics law at the Sept. 13 meeting.
Dunlea wanted to prohibit town officials from representing clients before the town, and to allow private citizens to call for ethics investigations into Dunlea’s filing of local law with the state, allegedly without the town board’s approval.
Dunlea, who has dismissed those charges as politically motivated, has refused to submit the charges to the ethics board, although he has asked Sal Ferlazzo, the attorney to the town, to look into them.
Ferlazzo was not at the meeting.
Councilman Paul Sieloff asked why Dunlea wanted to allow residents to petition for ethics investigations, yet wouldn’t submit himself to one several residents have asked for.
“I’m not going to legitimize their activities,” Dunlea responded.
He said he wanted the town board to decide whether or not a complaint should be pursued.
“Let’s just give it to the board of ethics.”
“If they feel that the code of ethics has been violated, let them deal with it,” Dunlea said.
However, Dunlea was unable to get the amendments adopted.
Councilman Keith Hammond said he agreed with Dunlea’s amendments, but the town board, after holding several public hearings, was past the point of where the law could be amended further.
“It’s not at the last moment,” said Dunlea.
“I brought it up at every single meeting.”
Supervisor Jay F. Nish supported Dunlea in the first amendment, but not the second.
Nevertheless, in both cases Dunlea couldn’t get a majority.
Sieloff disagreed with banning town officials from representing clients before the town because, he said, it would diminish the already small pool of qualified residents from serving in office.
Sieloff also agreed with Dunlea’s contention that private citizens had no way to petition for an investigation under the proposed code.
“They can request it in person.”
“They can request it in writing.”
“They don’t need a process,” he said.
Ultimately, Dunlea was the lone councilman voting against the revised code, which lacked his proposed changes.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 7th 2024 Edition
"AN EXISTENTIAL QUESTION ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
Before we go further into this subject of ethics or lack thereof in what purports to government in the town of Poestenkill, i.e., the office of the supervisor, the town council, and the planning and zoning boards by going back in time to the November 30, 1993 town board minutes and In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), which is a famous court case involving, not surprisingly, ex-Poestenkill supervisor Keith Hammond and the Poestenkill board of ethics acting as a rubber stamp for Hammond, big surprise that, we first need to go back to the September 21, 1995 edition of The Courier and the article titled “P’kill adopts code of ethics,” where we are confronted with this following statement from then-Poestenkill town councilman Paul Sieloff, as follows:
Sieloff disagreed with banning town officials from representing clients before the town because, he said, it would diminish the already small pool of qualified residents from serving in office.
end quotes
Which statement then raises the existential question of why, when Poestenkill had a population of 3,869 persons in 1995, was there only a small pool of qualified residents who could serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact the statutory language of New York Town Law § 2 defines a town as a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law, how is it and how can it be that out of all those inhabitants, 3,869 of them in 1995, only a small pool of them were qualified to serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights of the New York State Constitution, law of the land throughout New York state, which would include the town of Poestenkill, notwithstanding that Poestenkill would and does deny that fact, clearly states "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof," how is it that other than a small handful of people who are somehow "qualified" to serve in public office, the majority of the town residents are somehow disqualified from serving in office?
Who or what disqualifies them?
And conversely, who or what determines who can be in that small pool of people in Poestenkill who are "qualified" to serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact New York State Constitution Article III, §13 states in clear and unequivocal language that the enacting clause of all bills before the New York state legislature shall be “The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows,” then how is it and how can it be that the majority of people in Poestenkill are not qualified to serve in public office in Poestenkill be it on the town council, the town planning board and the town zoning board?
Is it because they don't have the right last name?
Is it because they don't live in the right subdivision?
Could it be because they are not in the proper social strata, not being cronies of those it is important in Poestenkill to be a crony of?
Is it because they haven't contributed sufficient funds to either or both the Democrat and Republican parties not only in town, but at the county level as well?
Is it because they are not card-carrying members of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association?
Is it because they cannot prove political reliability?
Is it because they can't prove a definite conflict of interest?
Or is it because they are deemed to be too honest to serve in public office in Poestenkill, which thought takes us to a Troy Record editorial in the 4 April 1989 edition titled “Give Paul Plante a break” where we have as follows as to what certainly disqualifies myself from being able to serve in any office in Poestenkill, to wit:
Trying to form an opinion on the entire Paul Plante episode is an exercise in frustration.
This much is pretty clear: He is headstrong, possesses a pretty good temper and is honest to a fault.
The latter has not been challenged even by his attackers.
As a matter of fact, that appears to be the bone they have to pick with him – that he is too honest and is unyielding in his honesty.
What this has meant to Mr. Plante is that he is being attacked from all sides and, to defend himself against the attacks, he has expended all his financial resources.
end quotes
To conclude, when in the 11 December 1995 edition of the Advertiser, then Poestenkill town councilman Keith Hammond stated that I am “mentally disturbed,” a condition he stated as an alleged psychiatric expert causes my “inability to effectively function in society,” and when in June of 2005 Hammond spoke at a town board meeting for then-supervisor Slavin and the Poestenkill Town Board publicly calling me a "RETARD", it was in fact based on that 4 April 1989 editorial, because to Hammond and the Poestenkill town board, you had to be mentally disturbed to be honest in public office in corrupt Rensselaer County and you had to be a RETARD thinking you could take the town of Poestenkill to court and prevail against them without suffering retaliation.
And so it goes in Poestenkill where only the few are in fact qualified to serve in public office in this town.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 7th 2024 Edition
"AN EXISTENTIAL QUESTION ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
Before we go further into this subject of ethics or lack thereof in what purports to government in the town of Poestenkill, i.e., the office of the supervisor, the town council, and the planning and zoning boards by going back in time to the November 30, 1993 town board minutes and In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), which is a famous court case involving, not surprisingly, ex-Poestenkill supervisor Keith Hammond and the Poestenkill board of ethics acting as a rubber stamp for Hammond, big surprise that, we first need to go back to the September 21, 1995 edition of The Courier and the article titled “P’kill adopts code of ethics,” where we are confronted with this following statement from then-Poestenkill town councilman Paul Sieloff, as follows:
Sieloff disagreed with banning town officials from representing clients before the town because, he said, it would diminish the already small pool of qualified residents from serving in office.
end quotes
Which statement then raises the existential question of why, when Poestenkill had a population of 3,869 persons in 1995, was there only a small pool of qualified residents who could serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact the statutory language of New York Town Law § 2 defines a town as a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, and formed for the purpose of exercising such powers and discharging such duties of local government and administration of public affairs as have been, or, may be conferred or imposed upon it by law, how is it and how can it be that out of all those inhabitants, 3,869 of them in 1995, only a small pool of them were qualified to serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact §11 of Article I, the Bill of Rights of the New York State Constitution, law of the land throughout New York state, which would include the town of Poestenkill, notwithstanding that Poestenkill would and does deny that fact, clearly states "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof," how is it that other than a small handful of people who are somehow "qualified" to serve in public office, the majority of the town residents are somehow disqualified from serving in office?
Who or what disqualifies them?
And conversely, who or what determines who can be in that small pool of people in Poestenkill who are "qualified" to serve in office in Poestenkill?
If in fact New York State Constitution Article III, §13 states in clear and unequivocal language that the enacting clause of all bills before the New York state legislature shall be “The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows,” then how is it and how can it be that the majority of people in Poestenkill are not qualified to serve in public office in Poestenkill be it on the town council, the town planning board and the town zoning board?
Is it because they don't have the right last name?
Is it because they don't live in the right subdivision?
Could it be because they are not in the proper social strata, not being cronies of those it is important in Poestenkill to be a crony of?
Is it because they haven't contributed sufficient funds to either or both the Democrat and Republican parties not only in town, but at the county level as well?
Is it because they are not card-carrying members of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association?
Is it because they cannot prove political reliability?
Is it because they can't prove a definite conflict of interest?
Or is it because they are deemed to be too honest to serve in public office in Poestenkill, which thought takes us to a Troy Record editorial in the 4 April 1989 edition titled “Give Paul Plante a break” where we have as follows as to what certainly disqualifies myself from being able to serve in any office in Poestenkill, to wit:
Trying to form an opinion on the entire Paul Plante episode is an exercise in frustration.
This much is pretty clear: He is headstrong, possesses a pretty good temper and is honest to a fault.
The latter has not been challenged even by his attackers.
As a matter of fact, that appears to be the bone they have to pick with him – that he is too honest and is unyielding in his honesty.
What this has meant to Mr. Plante is that he is being attacked from all sides and, to defend himself against the attacks, he has expended all his financial resources.
end quotes
To conclude, when in the 11 December 1995 edition of the Advertiser, then Poestenkill town councilman Keith Hammond stated that I am “mentally disturbed,” a condition he stated as an alleged psychiatric expert causes my “inability to effectively function in society,” and when in June of 2005 Hammond spoke at a town board meeting for then-supervisor Slavin and the Poestenkill Town Board publicly calling me a "RETARD", it was in fact based on that 4 April 1989 editorial, because to Hammond and the Poestenkill town board, you had to be mentally disturbed to be honest in public office in corrupt Rensselaer County and you had to be a RETARD thinking you could take the town of Poestenkill to court and prevail against them without suffering retaliation.
And so it goes in Poestenkill where only the few are in fact qualified to serve in public office in this town.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 8th 2024 Edition
"MORE ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
While we are on this subject of murky ethics in Poestenkill town government, i.e, the town board, planning board and zoning board, and the fact of an obvious ruling class here in Poestenkill, the "small pool of qualified residents" in Poestenkill deemed fit to serve in office over the rest of us not so qualified, which small pool of qualified residents would include Democrat supervisor Russell, who would not have been planning board chairman were he not a member of the ruling class and councilman Burzesi, who would not have been zoning board chairman were he also not a member, what follows is from Exhibit C of a complaint filed by Poestenkill residents in 1994 in Rensselaer County Supreme Court in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, a lawsuit that centered around "ethics" in Poestenkill.
The document which is part of the official town board meeting minutes from the November 30, 1993 Poestenkill town board meeting on the subject of a Code of Ethics is relevant and of interest for the language that is contained therein, including an expose of Poestenkill's very murky ethics going back to the 1970's, to wit:
Councilman Sieloff stated that this particular Code of Ethics is a draft from a much larger town and he feels it should be modified to work into the town’s structure.
He questioned Section 8 regarding the bipartisan Town Ethics Board and he feels approving the document would serve only to open up the probability of “witch hunts in the town.”
Councilman Dunlea feels that the current Ethics Code is not working and it was evident 2 years ago when certain ethics problems arose.
To date, to his knowledge there has been no decision.
He further stated that “the town has had some serious ethics violations.”
Councilman Sieloff stated that he “strongly resents any implications that the town has major ethics problems.”
He feels that making this statement is an “insult to the people who put a lot of hours in at Town Hall for very little pay.”
Councilman Sieloff feels that the present Ethics Code should be upgraded; however just to fill in the “gaps” and not because he feels the town has an ethics problem.
Councilman Kaskoun stated that this document is an upgrade and it is a good place to start.
He further stated that things did happen in this town and the “town needs a strong ethics code.”
Councilman Kaskoun feels that a code should be workable.
Supervisor Nish feels that all areas of the code need to be updated.
He further stated that there have been some isolated ethical problems which were discussed at great length at the time.
He would like to submit several changes to the present document that is before the Board.
Councilman Legenbauer feels that this particular document is very “wordy.”
She feels that there are a lot of good areas; however, “it is overwhelming.”
Supervisor Nish questioned what would happen to the present Ethics Board?
Councilman Dunlea stated that they would be asked if they wished to be reappointed to the Ethics Board.
Councilman Sieloff would like to offer an alternative to this document by taking some aspects from this document and the present Ethics Code but it would not be completed until January 1994.
Councilman Dunlea stated that he was not happy with the whole situation surrounding the town’s insurance contract or appearing before a grand jury on the McDonough insurance probe.
He stated once again that the town has had some ethical problems.
He feels that the town should take steps to protect the public trust and give the town guidance; this document can do that.
Supervisor Nish stated that he hoped that Councilman Dunlea was not purporting that this administration nor the previous one when L. Fisher was supervisor was involved in the McDonough insurance problem.
Councilman Dunlea stated that Poestenkill was one of the three towns which was cited with a Federal indictment and he was not happy with the way the insurance contract was handled last year.
Supervisor Nish asked Councilman Dunlea what part of the insurance situation he was not comfortable with?
Supervisor Nish stated that the town went out to bid; however, Councilman Dunlea stated that the town went out to bid for insurance after he made a motion to require that.
The first year he took office, one of the first things he asked for was that the town go out to competitive bidding and suddenly one day he came down to Town Hall and finds a “controversy brewing out there because things had been moved around with insurance contracts.”
Councilman Kaskoun stated there needs to be a document in place that would allow any future Town Boards can refer to and rely on: “let’s move forward.”
Councilman Legenbauer questioned what would happen to the previous cases that were before the present Ethics Board.
Councilman Kaskoun stated that the way he sees the situation was that any previous ethic problems would be finished unless a new procedure was started.
Councilman Dunlea stated that he would like to see the Ethics Code in place by the end of 1993.
Motion by Dunlea, seconded by Kaskoun, and an oral vote of three ayes (Councilman Dunlea, Kaskoun, and Supervisor Nish) and two nays (Councilman Legenbauer and Councilman Sieloff) to hold a public hearing on the proposed Code of Ethics on December 8, 1993, at 7 p.m.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 8th 2024 Edition
"MORE ON ETHICS IN ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED POESTENKILL"
While we are on this subject of murky ethics in Poestenkill town government, i.e, the town board, planning board and zoning board, and the fact of an obvious ruling class here in Poestenkill, the "small pool of qualified residents" in Poestenkill deemed fit to serve in office over the rest of us not so qualified, which small pool of qualified residents would include Democrat supervisor Russell, who would not have been planning board chairman were he not a member of the ruling class and councilman Burzesi, who would not have been zoning board chairman were he also not a member, what follows is from Exhibit C of a complaint filed by Poestenkill residents in 1994 in Rensselaer County Supreme Court in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, a lawsuit that centered around "ethics" in Poestenkill.
The document which is part of the official town board meeting minutes from the November 30, 1993 Poestenkill town board meeting on the subject of a Code of Ethics is relevant and of interest for the language that is contained therein, including an expose of Poestenkill's very murky ethics going back to the 1970's, to wit:
Councilman Sieloff stated that this particular Code of Ethics is a draft from a much larger town and he feels it should be modified to work into the town’s structure.
He questioned Section 8 regarding the bipartisan Town Ethics Board and he feels approving the document would serve only to open up the probability of “witch hunts in the town.”
Councilman Dunlea feels that the current Ethics Code is not working and it was evident 2 years ago when certain ethics problems arose.
To date, to his knowledge there has been no decision.
He further stated that “the town has had some serious ethics violations.”
Councilman Sieloff stated that he “strongly resents any implications that the town has major ethics problems.”
He feels that making this statement is an “insult to the people who put a lot of hours in at Town Hall for very little pay.”
Councilman Sieloff feels that the present Ethics Code should be upgraded; however just to fill in the “gaps” and not because he feels the town has an ethics problem.
Councilman Kaskoun stated that this document is an upgrade and it is a good place to start.
He further stated that things did happen in this town and the “town needs a strong ethics code.”
Councilman Kaskoun feels that a code should be workable.
Supervisor Nish feels that all areas of the code need to be updated.
He further stated that there have been some isolated ethical problems which were discussed at great length at the time.
He would like to submit several changes to the present document that is before the Board.
Councilman Legenbauer feels that this particular document is very “wordy.”
She feels that there are a lot of good areas; however, “it is overwhelming.”
Supervisor Nish questioned what would happen to the present Ethics Board?
Councilman Dunlea stated that they would be asked if they wished to be reappointed to the Ethics Board.
Councilman Sieloff would like to offer an alternative to this document by taking some aspects from this document and the present Ethics Code but it would not be completed until January 1994.
Councilman Dunlea stated that he was not happy with the whole situation surrounding the town’s insurance contract or appearing before a grand jury on the McDonough insurance probe.
He stated once again that the town has had some ethical problems.
He feels that the town should take steps to protect the public trust and give the town guidance; this document can do that.
Supervisor Nish stated that he hoped that Councilman Dunlea was not purporting that this administration nor the previous one when L. Fisher was supervisor was involved in the McDonough insurance problem.
Councilman Dunlea stated that Poestenkill was one of the three towns which was cited with a Federal indictment and he was not happy with the way the insurance contract was handled last year.
Supervisor Nish asked Councilman Dunlea what part of the insurance situation he was not comfortable with?
Supervisor Nish stated that the town went out to bid; however, Councilman Dunlea stated that the town went out to bid for insurance after he made a motion to require that.
The first year he took office, one of the first things he asked for was that the town go out to competitive bidding and suddenly one day he came down to Town Hall and finds a “controversy brewing out there because things had been moved around with insurance contracts.”
Councilman Kaskoun stated there needs to be a document in place that would allow any future Town Boards can refer to and rely on: “let’s move forward.”
Councilman Legenbauer questioned what would happen to the previous cases that were before the present Ethics Board.
Councilman Kaskoun stated that the way he sees the situation was that any previous ethic problems would be finished unless a new procedure was started.
Councilman Dunlea stated that he would like to see the Ethics Code in place by the end of 1993.
Motion by Dunlea, seconded by Kaskoun, and an oral vote of three ayes (Councilman Dunlea, Kaskoun, and Supervisor Nish) and two nays (Councilman Legenbauer and Councilman Sieloff) to hold a public hearing on the proposed Code of Ethics on December 8, 1993, at 7 p.m.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 9th 2024 Edition
"REFLECTIONS ON THE 8 FEBRUARY POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD MEETING"
RESPECT
"Be respectful!"
That is a directive we in attendance at the February 8, 2024 Poestenkill town board meeting distinctly heard newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, who mistakes himself as our "leader," command at the opening of what was billed as the "public comment period" of the meeting, which command certainly serves to betray the ignorance of the Democrat as to the relationship between the inhabitants of this town and the Poestenkill town board, as if we are subjects in this town, not citizens, and the town board, and especially the Democrat supervisor are our rulers, to whom we must bow, scrape, grovel, taking the knee while tugging our forelocks and being properly subservient and obsequious (obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree).
We inhabitants of this town are not ruled by Democrat Tom Russell, nor do we answer to Democrat Tom Russell, and we most certainly do not owe respect to the Democrat, as if it were his due, which it is not.
As supervisor, assuming by some method pursuant to New York State Town Law § 12 Poestenkill has become a town of the first class, Tom Russell has clearly defined duties to us as citizens and inhabitants of the town pursuant to New York State Town Law § 52, which section of law clearly states that as supervisor, Tom Russell shall be the chief executive officer of the town and head of the administrative branch of town government responsible for the proper administration of town affairs, law enforcement and the maintenance of peace and order in the town, as well keeping the town board informed generally concerning town affairs and of the financial condition and future needs of the town while making such recommendations as may seem to him desirable.
IF he performs those clearly defined duties to us to our satisfaction then he gets our approbation (approval).
IF he fails to perform those clearly defined duties to us to our satisfaction then he gets our opprobrium (harsh criticism or censure).
Nowhere in OUR Constitution, OUR laws, or OUR town code is it stated that we are in any way, shape or manner subservient to Tom Russell, or that somehow, we owe him unearned respect as a matter of course.
As I was taught on the first day of kindergarten in the then-new Poestenkill elementary school by one of the women who held Poestenkill together during World War II while the men were fighting against the forces of a rug-chewing madman in Europe, or were in the Pacific, either at sea, or in such hellholes as Bataan, Saipan, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea, and have never forgotten, RESPECT IS EARNED THROUGH HARD WORK.
The mere fact that we were born did not entitle us to any respect whatsoever, nor does the fact that Tom Russell became town supervisor because he was the only other choice to Keith Hammond entitle him to respect as his due.
To the contrary, it is Tom Russell who owes respect to every face he sees looking back at him from the audience, given those are the people he works for and is responsible to.
Certainly we should treat Tom Russell with the same civility and courtesy we would give to any other inhabitant of the town, but if he wants respect, then he had best earn it, not try to command it as if he were our ruler and we his subjects to do his bidding.
THE TWO-MINUTE RULE
"And that you LIMIT your comments to a MAXIMUM of two minutes."
That is another command or directive the Democrat supervisor issued to the assembled at the beginning of the so-called public comment period, as Mr. Russell works very hard to stifle our voices in OUR town and in a meeting of OUR local government.
THE MISSING TOWN PERSONNEL DIRECTORY
As transparency turns to opacity in Poestenkill in an apparent effort to keep us ignorant as to exactly what is going on in town hall, and who is feeding off the taxpayers at our expense, thinking back to Keith Hammond putting his cronies on the town payroll, there were no answers given to the question as to who caused the removal of the personnel directory from the town website, or why that personnel directory, which gave us the names of ALL people employed by town government, was removed.
PIZZOLA CREATIVE
A question was raised as to why, when one goes to the bottom of the "Welcome" page of the town website, one comes across a link to “Designed by Pizzola Creative.”
No answer was given.
It would appear that who removed the personnel directory from our town website at her own volition was someone named Sierra Pizzola in Castleton-On-Hudson, who on her Linkedin site states that she is an analytical thinker by day and a creative thinker by night whose planner and closet are color coded because she believes in organization, efficiency, and doing things right the first time, doing best when she is busy, while thriving in fast-paced work environments, living for the adrenaline of a tight deadline, and the exhilaration that her work brings her, a passionate worker, a team player, and she's undoubtedly, always the loudest in the room.
It would be appreciated if supervisor Russell would contact Ms. Pizzola post haste to have her restore our website to what it was before she exerted her efforts on it, because in this case, she clearly did not do things right the first time.
THE TOWN ETHICS BOARD
As to the question of who is on the town ethics committee, supervisor Russell named Jill Gressens, a longtime political operative in the town, Sue Pattenaude, and Connie Van Slyke, with conflicted town attorney Andy Gilchrist as "advisor," although in item 26 of the minutes of the January 6, 2022 town board meeting, Andy is clearly listed as "chairman."
HOW ETHICS COMPLAINTS ARE MADE IN POESTENKILL
As to how ethics complaints are to be made in Poestenkill, where nothing is in writing on the subject, supervisor Russell responded that ethics complaints start with the town board, which will then forward the complaint to the ethics committee.
THE TOWN LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT
When asked when the lawsuit against the Averill Park School District was going to be filed, no answer was forthcoming, as Andy Gilchrist was not there to give an answer, despite the fact that that ball is in the hands of the town board, not Andy Gilchrist.
THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING
When asked when the public hearing for Water District No. 2 was going to be held, supervisor Russell stated that he had been in communication with Laberge Engineering about cost increases due to inflation, and had no answer as to when the hearing would be held, although councilman Wohlleber made clear the hearing is still open.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 9th 2024 Edition
"REFLECTIONS ON THE 8 FEBRUARY POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD MEETING"
RESPECT
"Be respectful!"
That is a directive we in attendance at the February 8, 2024 Poestenkill town board meeting distinctly heard newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, who mistakes himself as our "leader," command at the opening of what was billed as the "public comment period" of the meeting, which command certainly serves to betray the ignorance of the Democrat as to the relationship between the inhabitants of this town and the Poestenkill town board, as if we are subjects in this town, not citizens, and the town board, and especially the Democrat supervisor are our rulers, to whom we must bow, scrape, grovel, taking the knee while tugging our forelocks and being properly subservient and obsequious (obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree).
We inhabitants of this town are not ruled by Democrat Tom Russell, nor do we answer to Democrat Tom Russell, and we most certainly do not owe respect to the Democrat, as if it were his due, which it is not.
As supervisor, assuming by some method pursuant to New York State Town Law § 12 Poestenkill has become a town of the first class, Tom Russell has clearly defined duties to us as citizens and inhabitants of the town pursuant to New York State Town Law § 52, which section of law clearly states that as supervisor, Tom Russell shall be the chief executive officer of the town and head of the administrative branch of town government responsible for the proper administration of town affairs, law enforcement and the maintenance of peace and order in the town, as well keeping the town board informed generally concerning town affairs and of the financial condition and future needs of the town while making such recommendations as may seem to him desirable.
IF he performs those clearly defined duties to us to our satisfaction then he gets our approbation (approval).
IF he fails to perform those clearly defined duties to us to our satisfaction then he gets our opprobrium (harsh criticism or censure).
Nowhere in OUR Constitution, OUR laws, or OUR town code is it stated that we are in any way, shape or manner subservient to Tom Russell, or that somehow, we owe him unearned respect as a matter of course.
As I was taught on the first day of kindergarten in the then-new Poestenkill elementary school by one of the women who held Poestenkill together during World War II while the men were fighting against the forces of a rug-chewing madman in Europe, or were in the Pacific, either at sea, or in such hellholes as Bataan, Saipan, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea, and have never forgotten, RESPECT IS EARNED THROUGH HARD WORK.
The mere fact that we were born did not entitle us to any respect whatsoever, nor does the fact that Tom Russell became town supervisor because he was the only other choice to Keith Hammond entitle him to respect as his due.
To the contrary, it is Tom Russell who owes respect to every face he sees looking back at him from the audience, given those are the people he works for and is responsible to.
Certainly we should treat Tom Russell with the same civility and courtesy we would give to any other inhabitant of the town, but if he wants respect, then he had best earn it, not try to command it as if he were our ruler and we his subjects to do his bidding.
THE TWO-MINUTE RULE
"And that you LIMIT your comments to a MAXIMUM of two minutes."
That is another command or directive the Democrat supervisor issued to the assembled at the beginning of the so-called public comment period, as Mr. Russell works very hard to stifle our voices in OUR town and in a meeting of OUR local government.
THE MISSING TOWN PERSONNEL DIRECTORY
As transparency turns to opacity in Poestenkill in an apparent effort to keep us ignorant as to exactly what is going on in town hall, and who is feeding off the taxpayers at our expense, thinking back to Keith Hammond putting his cronies on the town payroll, there were no answers given to the question as to who caused the removal of the personnel directory from the town website, or why that personnel directory, which gave us the names of ALL people employed by town government, was removed.
PIZZOLA CREATIVE
A question was raised as to why, when one goes to the bottom of the "Welcome" page of the town website, one comes across a link to “Designed by Pizzola Creative.”
No answer was given.
It would appear that who removed the personnel directory from our town website at her own volition was someone named Sierra Pizzola in Castleton-On-Hudson, who on her Linkedin site states that she is an analytical thinker by day and a creative thinker by night whose planner and closet are color coded because she believes in organization, efficiency, and doing things right the first time, doing best when she is busy, while thriving in fast-paced work environments, living for the adrenaline of a tight deadline, and the exhilaration that her work brings her, a passionate worker, a team player, and she's undoubtedly, always the loudest in the room.
It would be appreciated if supervisor Russell would contact Ms. Pizzola post haste to have her restore our website to what it was before she exerted her efforts on it, because in this case, she clearly did not do things right the first time.
THE TOWN ETHICS BOARD
As to the question of who is on the town ethics committee, supervisor Russell named Jill Gressens, a longtime political operative in the town, Sue Pattenaude, and Connie Van Slyke, with conflicted town attorney Andy Gilchrist as "advisor," although in item 26 of the minutes of the January 6, 2022 town board meeting, Andy is clearly listed as "chairman."
HOW ETHICS COMPLAINTS ARE MADE IN POESTENKILL
As to how ethics complaints are to be made in Poestenkill, where nothing is in writing on the subject, supervisor Russell responded that ethics complaints start with the town board, which will then forward the complaint to the ethics committee.
THE TOWN LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT
When asked when the lawsuit against the Averill Park School District was going to be filed, no answer was forthcoming, as Andy Gilchrist was not there to give an answer, despite the fact that that ball is in the hands of the town board, not Andy Gilchrist.
THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING
When asked when the public hearing for Water District No. 2 was going to be held, supervisor Russell stated that he had been in communication with Laberge Engineering about cost increases due to inflation, and had no answer as to when the hearing would be held, although councilman Wohlleber made clear the hearing is still open.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 10th 2024 Edition
"FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE 8 FEBRUARY POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD MEETING"
The phrase "down a rabbit hole" is a metaphor for something that transports someone into a troublingly surreal state or situation, and such was the case Thursday night, 8 February 2024, in Poestenkill town hall at the town board meeting when newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell had what has become known as a "Joe Biden" moment when he could not remember the name of the Poestenkill town clerk, Sue Horton, who has been a respected town clerk in Poestenkill for many years now, notwithstanding her name was on the same ballot in November of 2023 as was Mr. Russell's name, but the cognitive issues did not end there, as councilman Wohlleber was having his own "Joe Biden" moment when he was asked why the personnel directory had been removed from the town website which according to official town records, he is responsible for, sitting there mute with a blank stare on his face in response to the question which he should have been able to easily answer, given that if one were to go back to the 5 January 2023 Poestenkill town board meeting minutes under Item #6, Committee Assignments, one finds that councilman Wohlleber was in charge of the website committee, and if one then went to the minutes of the January 4, 2024 town board meeting, again under Item #6, Committee Assignments, one finds that councilman Wohlleber was still in charge of the website committee as of that date, and beyond that, if one goes to councilman Wohlleber's Facebook page, "Wohlleber working for Poestenkill," one finds an entry by councilman Wohlleber from 23 August 2022 where he states that he was working on an RFP for the town to invest in a new website, so how councilman Wohlleber was unable to bring any of that history involving himself to mind thirty-five (35) days later on 8 February 2024 remains an unsolved mystery.
Is there something besides PFAS and coliform bacteria in the water in Algonquin Estates we should be worrying about, something that wipes out people's minds and renders them unable to think?
Or is it simply a case of the cognitive decline associated with advanced age?
As to water manager Bill Sansone, when questioned about low water pressure in areas of Poestenkill served by Water District No. 1, which he is responsible for, his answer was that that was news to him, nobody had ever addressed that to him, and yet, when one goes to the town website under Water Department, one finds this following entry, to wit:
Water District #1
Poestenkill has approximately 400 homes hooked up to the municipal water system.
Although we have lived through some difficulties that come with establishing a new water system, they are substantially behind us now.
We now have full pressure through most of the water district.
end quotes
If according to the town's own website on the Water District page where Mr. Sansone's name is given as Water Manager right above that same entry, there is full pressure through most of the water district, it would seem to logically follow that there is not full pressure in some of the water district.
How or why that was news to Mr. Sansone when it is stated on his own website page on the town website remains an unsolved mystery at the time of this writing, and as to his statement that nobody had ever addressed that to him, that is another unsolved mystery, given it is stated in clear and easily comprehensible plain language on his own website page on the town website.
So what on earth is going on here in Poestenkill with these cognitive issues affecting all these town officials we must rely upon to keep us safe and secure here in Poestenkill?
Is it something related to Seasonal Affective Disorder, perhaps, a lack of sunlight causing memory issues that should pass as the season progresses into spring?
Or is it something more serious?
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 10th 2024 Edition
"FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE 8 FEBRUARY POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD MEETING"
The phrase "down a rabbit hole" is a metaphor for something that transports someone into a troublingly surreal state or situation, and such was the case Thursday night, 8 February 2024, in Poestenkill town hall at the town board meeting when newly-elected Democrat supervisor Tom Russell had what has become known as a "Joe Biden" moment when he could not remember the name of the Poestenkill town clerk, Sue Horton, who has been a respected town clerk in Poestenkill for many years now, notwithstanding her name was on the same ballot in November of 2023 as was Mr. Russell's name, but the cognitive issues did not end there, as councilman Wohlleber was having his own "Joe Biden" moment when he was asked why the personnel directory had been removed from the town website which according to official town records, he is responsible for, sitting there mute with a blank stare on his face in response to the question which he should have been able to easily answer, given that if one were to go back to the 5 January 2023 Poestenkill town board meeting minutes under Item #6, Committee Assignments, one finds that councilman Wohlleber was in charge of the website committee, and if one then went to the minutes of the January 4, 2024 town board meeting, again under Item #6, Committee Assignments, one finds that councilman Wohlleber was still in charge of the website committee as of that date, and beyond that, if one goes to councilman Wohlleber's Facebook page, "Wohlleber working for Poestenkill," one finds an entry by councilman Wohlleber from 23 August 2022 where he states that he was working on an RFP for the town to invest in a new website, so how councilman Wohlleber was unable to bring any of that history involving himself to mind thirty-five (35) days later on 8 February 2024 remains an unsolved mystery.
Is there something besides PFAS and coliform bacteria in the water in Algonquin Estates we should be worrying about, something that wipes out people's minds and renders them unable to think?
Or is it simply a case of the cognitive decline associated with advanced age?
As to water manager Bill Sansone, when questioned about low water pressure in areas of Poestenkill served by Water District No. 1, which he is responsible for, his answer was that that was news to him, nobody had ever addressed that to him, and yet, when one goes to the town website under Water Department, one finds this following entry, to wit:
Water District #1
Poestenkill has approximately 400 homes hooked up to the municipal water system.
Although we have lived through some difficulties that come with establishing a new water system, they are substantially behind us now.
We now have full pressure through most of the water district.
end quotes
If according to the town's own website on the Water District page where Mr. Sansone's name is given as Water Manager right above that same entry, there is full pressure through most of the water district, it would seem to logically follow that there is not full pressure in some of the water district.
How or why that was news to Mr. Sansone when it is stated on his own website page on the town website remains an unsolved mystery at the time of this writing, and as to his statement that nobody had ever addressed that to him, that is another unsolved mystery, given it is stated in clear and easily comprehensible plain language on his own website page on the town website.
So what on earth is going on here in Poestenkill with these cognitive issues affecting all these town officials we must rely upon to keep us safe and secure here in Poestenkill?
Is it something related to Seasonal Affective Disorder, perhaps, a lack of sunlight causing memory issues that should pass as the season progresses into spring?
Or is it something more serious?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 14th 2024 Edition
"RUBBER-STAMP POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO RULE OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
"Rule of law," a very foreign concept here in Poestenkill for many years now, as has been proven in several Article 78's where the town was the loser, as well as Hitchcock v. Town of Poestenkill, New York et al, Case Number: 1:2021cv00758, filed July 2, 2021 in US District Court for the Northern District of New York, where former supervisor Keith Hammond and present code enforcer Tracy Church were forced to have to admit guilt in violating the civil rights of Poestenkill resident Joseph Hitchcock, is defined as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by public officials such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, by subordinating that power to well-defined and established laws.
Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, which should include the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and . independently adjudicated.
Rule of law is important because adherence to the rule of law helps to preserve the rights of all people in a democratic society; the operative words being "the rights of ALL people," and not just a select few, such as is the case here in Poestenkill.
As to "law" itself, it is supposed to serve many purposes with the four principal ones being to establish standards, maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect liberties and rights.
According to the American Bar Association, the rule of law is a set of principles, or ideals, for ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, is above the law, where everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone is held accountable to the same laws, there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, there is an independent judiciary, and human rights are guaranteed for all.
And from that definition, especially the part about everyone being held accountable to the same laws, which clearly is not and has not been the case in Poestenkill for many years going back at least to the 1980's, by referring to the 810-page record of Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department published Oct 24, 1996 and cited as 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), from its contents which include sworn affidavits from myself and Keith Hammond on the subject of ethics, along with a "rubber-stamp" ethics decision, essentially a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card," issued to Keith Hammond by the Poestenkill ethics board, we are then able to discern the clear and present danger to Rule of Law in Poestenkill the "rubber-stamp" (an organization that gives automatic approval or authorization to the decisions of others, without proper consideration) Poestenkill Board of Ethics, a creature of, and political extension of the Poestenkill town board, clearly is, and to make that demonstration, we first need to go to the September 18, 1995 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94 being appealed from by Poestenkill, to wit:
Plaintiffs’ first argument is based on a claim that Councilperson Keith Hammond, the town board member who proposed Local Law No. 2 of 1994, should have been disqualified from voting on said proposal because of a conflict of interest and, thus, a violation of Chapter 16, the Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code, the Town’s Code of Ethics, has occurred.
The Court, based upon an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case at bar, as well as the applicable statutory and Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code provisions, concludes that a clear conflict of interest, in fact, did exist.
Unlike the factual situation involved in Matter of Segala v. Planning Board of the Town of Amenia, 204 AD2d 332, in the case at bar, Councilperson Hammond had much more at stake than merely stating his personal opinion.
Councilperson Hammond’s interest in this matter may properly be labeled as financial, especially in light of the fact that he owns property located within the very residential area in which Local Law No. 2 of 1994 permits commercial mining operations.
Thus, by voting in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, Hammond has clearly furthered his financial interests in that he has effectively provided himself with the opportunity to mine for gravel on his own property.
Any other interpretation of the situation by the Court would surely constitute a “head in the sand” attitude.
Notwithstanding the fact that Councilperson Hammond obtained a favorable ethics opinion from the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics prior to voting on the subject Local Law, it is crystal clear to the Court that an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest existed relative to Councilperson Hammond’s personal interests, his proposal of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, his voting in favor of same and its eventual passage.
In light of the substantial controversy surrounding this matter, it was crucial that the public be assured that the decision would be made by town officials completely free to exercise their best judgment of the public interest, without any suggestion of self-interest or partiality.
Anything else would undermine the people’s confidence in the legitimacy of the proceedings and the integrity of the municipal government. (Matter of Zagoreos v. Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287- 288)
Thus, the Court concludes that a violation of Chapter 16 of the Town of Poestenkill’s Land Use and Development Code occurred and that Councilperson Keith Hammond should have been disqualified to vote on Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
Consequently, any vote by him in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994 must be completely disregarded.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 14th 2024 Edition
"RUBBER-STAMP POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO RULE OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
"Rule of law," a very foreign concept here in Poestenkill for many years now, as has been proven in several Article 78's where the town was the loser, as well as Hitchcock v. Town of Poestenkill, New York et al, Case Number: 1:2021cv00758, filed July 2, 2021 in US District Court for the Northern District of New York, where former supervisor Keith Hammond and present code enforcer Tracy Church were forced to have to admit guilt in violating the civil rights of Poestenkill resident Joseph Hitchcock, is defined as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by public officials such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, by subordinating that power to well-defined and established laws.
Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, which should include the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and . independently adjudicated.
Rule of law is important because adherence to the rule of law helps to preserve the rights of all people in a democratic society; the operative words being "the rights of ALL people," and not just a select few, such as is the case here in Poestenkill.
As to "law" itself, it is supposed to serve many purposes with the four principal ones being to establish standards, maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect liberties and rights.
According to the American Bar Association, the rule of law is a set of principles, or ideals, for ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, is above the law, where everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone is held accountable to the same laws, there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, there is an independent judiciary, and human rights are guaranteed for all.
And from that definition, especially the part about everyone being held accountable to the same laws, which clearly is not and has not been the case in Poestenkill for many years going back at least to the 1980's, by referring to the 810-page record of Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department published Oct 24, 1996 and cited as 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), from its contents which include sworn affidavits from myself and Keith Hammond on the subject of ethics, along with a "rubber-stamp" ethics decision, essentially a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card," issued to Keith Hammond by the Poestenkill ethics board, we are then able to discern the clear and present danger to Rule of Law in Poestenkill the "rubber-stamp" (an organization that gives automatic approval or authorization to the decisions of others, without proper consideration) Poestenkill Board of Ethics, a creature of, and political extension of the Poestenkill town board, clearly is, and to make that demonstration, we first need to go to the September 18, 1995 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94 being appealed from by Poestenkill, to wit:
Plaintiffs’ first argument is based on a claim that Councilperson Keith Hammond, the town board member who proposed Local Law No. 2 of 1994, should have been disqualified from voting on said proposal because of a conflict of interest and, thus, a violation of Chapter 16, the Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code, the Town’s Code of Ethics, has occurred.
The Court, based upon an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case at bar, as well as the applicable statutory and Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code provisions, concludes that a clear conflict of interest, in fact, did exist.
Unlike the factual situation involved in Matter of Segala v. Planning Board of the Town of Amenia, 204 AD2d 332, in the case at bar, Councilperson Hammond had much more at stake than merely stating his personal opinion.
Councilperson Hammond’s interest in this matter may properly be labeled as financial, especially in light of the fact that he owns property located within the very residential area in which Local Law No. 2 of 1994 permits commercial mining operations.
Thus, by voting in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, Hammond has clearly furthered his financial interests in that he has effectively provided himself with the opportunity to mine for gravel on his own property.
Any other interpretation of the situation by the Court would surely constitute a “head in the sand” attitude.
Notwithstanding the fact that Councilperson Hammond obtained a favorable ethics opinion from the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics prior to voting on the subject Local Law, it is crystal clear to the Court that an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest existed relative to Councilperson Hammond’s personal interests, his proposal of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, his voting in favor of same and its eventual passage.
In light of the substantial controversy surrounding this matter, it was crucial that the public be assured that the decision would be made by town officials completely free to exercise their best judgment of the public interest, without any suggestion of self-interest or partiality.
Anything else would undermine the people’s confidence in the legitimacy of the proceedings and the integrity of the municipal government. (Matter of Zagoreos v. Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287- 288)
Thus, the Court concludes that a violation of Chapter 16 of the Town of Poestenkill’s Land Use and Development Code occurred and that Councilperson Keith Hammond should have been disqualified to vote on Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
Consequently, any vote by him in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994 must be completely disregarded.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 16th 2024 Edition
"HOW THE RUBBER-STAMP POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO RULE OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
To understand how the October 24, 1996 decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, cited as 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), makes the Poestenkill ethics board a clear and present danger to "Rule of law" in Poestenkill, where "Rule of Law" is defined as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by public officials such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, by subordinating that power to well-defined and established laws so that all persons in Poestenkill, all 4,322 of us at the 2020 census, which should include the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated to establish standards, maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect liberties and rights ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, is above the law, where each and every one of us is treated equally under the law, and each and every one of us is held accountable to the same laws, and there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, with an independent judiciary, and human rights guaranteed for all, it is necessary to understand what is known as the Article 78 process in New York, which process in this case is governed by the procedures outlined in Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR), titled "Proceeding against body or officer," which Article provides in § 7802(a), Parties, that the expression “body or officer” includes every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer, or other person, or aggregation of persons, whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this article and in § 7803, Questions raised, provides that the only questions that may be raised in a proceeding under Article 78 are as follows:
1. whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law; or
2. whether the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction; or
3. whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or
4. whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.
end quotes
So, quite simply, Article 78 of the New York CPLR provides the citizens of this state with a summary process to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance against a body or public officer with the supreme court of the specific county the petitioners reside in, or in the case of an Article 78 against the state, in Albany County Supreme Court, on one or more of those questions above, and it is intended to give common citizens like us the means to hold our public officials in Poestenkill accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated to maintain lawful order in Poestenkill and resolve disputes to protect our liberties and rights while ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are above the law.
Stated in another way, the Article 78 process is supposed to afford each of us common citizens in Poestenkill with a means to ensure that each and every one of us is treated equally under the law, and that each and every one of us, including the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are held accountable to the same laws, by affording us a clear and fair process for enforcing laws in Poestenkill with a Petition for Redress of Grievance to an independent judiciary, as was the case in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94.
Except, as we shall see from the Appellate Court's ruling in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), that is no longer true when a town like Poestenkill has an ethics board, as that ruling, which has now created a very dangerous precedent in Poestenkill, makes a favorable ruling by an ethics board a virtual "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card, which in turn gives town ethics board more power over our lives than a supreme court justice now has, which takes us back to Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94 to see what we have lost, or more properly, been stripped of, keeping in mind that in New York state and Poestenkill, a public officer has the following general characteristics:
• The position is authorized by statute, resolution or charter. In other words, a
State or local enactment created the position and refers to it as an “office.”
• The officer must take and file the constitutional oath.
• The officer carries out a statutorily defined duty or duties.
• The duties are part of the sovereign power of the governmental entity.
• The duties may involve the exercise of discretion.
end quotes
In other words, the public officers of Poestenkill, contrary to a popular belief by some in the town, are not our lords who we are beholden to, as if we were serfs or thralls, nor are they our masters nor we their subjects to be ordered about and treated as they please, as we see by going to the September 18, 1995 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94, as follows:
Plaintiffs’ first argument is based on a claim that Councilperson Keith Hammond, the town board member who proposed Local Law No. 2 of 1994, should have been disqualified from voting on said proposal because of a conflict of interest and, thus, a violation of Chapter 16, the Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code, the Town’s Code of Ethics, has occurred.
end quotes
Now, of importance. because this is a critical difference between a petition by citizens for redress of grievance to a state supreme court justice on the one hand and a petition by a town official to the town ethics board for an ethics ruling on the other; in the case of the citizens, they cannot simply say to the judge that in their opinion they think a public official has a conflict of interest.
Rather, they must present the court with evidence and facts to support their contention, as we see from the following words from that Supreme Court decision in Byer et al., to wit:
The Court, based upon an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case at bar, as well as the applicable statutory and Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code provisions, concludes that a clear conflict of interest, in fact, did exist.
end quote
An examination of the facts and circumstances!
Whereas, as we shall see from the record in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) which resulted from the town's appeal of the Canfield decision, all the public official has to say to the Poestenkill ethics board is that they don't feel they have an ethics problem, and that is it, which takes us back to the Canfield decision, where we have this, to wit:.
Notwithstanding the fact that Councilperson Hammond obtained a favorable ethics opinion from the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics prior to voting on the subject Local Law, it is crystal clear to the Court that an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest existed relative to Councilperson Hammond’s personal interests, his proposal of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, his voting in favor of same and its eventual passage.
In light of the substantial controversy surrounding this matter, it was crucial that the public be assured that the decision would be made by town officials completely free to exercise their best judgment of the public interest, without any suggestion of self-interest or partiality.
Anything else would undermine the people’s confidence in the legitimacy of the proceedings and the integrity of the municipal government. (Matter of Zagoreos v. Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287- 288)
Thus, the Court concludes that a violation of Chapter 16 of the Town of Poestenkill’s Land Use and Development Code occurred and that Councilperson Keith Hammond should have been disqualified to vote on Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
Consequently, any vote by him in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994 must be completely disregarded.
end quotes
And all of that was negated, as we shall see, by the Appellate Court, based on no more than the following from Exhibits "A" and "B" of the 15 April 1995 Hammond Affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court in that matter, which exhibits were rejected by Judge Canfield, as we see above:
April 20, 1994
Members of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics
This letter is to request the opportunity to meet with the Board of Ethics so that I might acquire an opinion as to whether or not I should be involved in any land use decisions, more specifically, Natural Products Code Revision.
It is the opinion of twenty-six people, who signed a protest petition against my having any direct involvement with Natural Products Code Revision, that I have a conflict of interest because I operate a small gravel mine on my farm.
I have stated that I do not feel I have a conflict of interest, and that this was merely an attempt to stifle my participation because of their belief that there is no room in the Town’s R-zone for gravel mining and that my rewriting the code allowed for applications to be made up to ten acres.
It is my personal belief that if I am not allowed to participate in land use decisions because they may have an effect on my property then I will be of little use as a Town Board member.
Virtually every decision made by a town board has an effect one way or another on land values and taxes.
As a property owner and taxpayer most decisions will have an effect of some kind on my property.
My wife and I are content in our chosen occupation as dairy farmers.
We only applied for rezoning to natural products to make what once was dangerous and unusable ground, into workable cropland.
We have never stated any intentions of rezoning more property to natural products.
We have invested almost everything we have into improving our home and our farming operation.
We are very proud of how far we have come and we believe we have established one of the finest farms in Rensselaer County.
I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
Respectfully,
Keith Hammond
cc: Poestenkill Town Board Members
Exhibit B of 15 April 1995 Hammond Affidavit
TOWN OF POESTENKILL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Keith Hammond
FROM: Poestenkill Board of Ethics
For the Board: Anne T. O’Connor, Chairperson
Nelson Armlin, Recording Secretary
DATE: June 6, 1994
RE: Response to Mr. Hammond’s letter to the Board of Ethics of April 20, 1994
After careful consideration of all relevant material, it is the opinion of this Board that, based upon the facts submitted with respect to this inquiry, there are no conflicts of interest presented that are sufficient to preclude Mr. Hammond from participating in any actions of the Town Board involving issues relating to mineral extraction in the Town of Poestenkill except any that affect his own property.
This Board gave serious and careful consideration to questions raised with respect to this inquiry, and will, within several weeks, submit to Mr. Hammond a summary of the opinions and concerns expressed by members of the Board during our deliberations.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 16th 2024 Edition
"HOW THE RUBBER-STAMP POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO RULE OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
To understand how the October 24, 1996 decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, cited as 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), makes the Poestenkill ethics board a clear and present danger to "Rule of law" in Poestenkill, where "Rule of Law" is defined as the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by public officials such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, by subordinating that power to well-defined and established laws so that all persons in Poestenkill, all 4,322 of us at the 2020 census, which should include the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated to establish standards, maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect liberties and rights ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, is above the law, where each and every one of us is treated equally under the law, and each and every one of us is held accountable to the same laws, and there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, with an independent judiciary, and human rights guaranteed for all, it is necessary to understand what is known as the Article 78 process in New York, which process in this case is governed by the procedures outlined in Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR), titled "Proceeding against body or officer," which Article provides in § 7802(a), Parties, that the expression “body or officer” includes every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer, or other person, or aggregation of persons, whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this article and in § 7803, Questions raised, provides that the only questions that may be raised in a proceeding under Article 78 are as follows:
1. whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law; or
2. whether the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction; or
3. whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed; or
4. whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.
end quotes
So, quite simply, Article 78 of the New York CPLR provides the citizens of this state with a summary process to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance against a body or public officer with the supreme court of the specific county the petitioners reside in, or in the case of an Article 78 against the state, in Albany County Supreme Court, on one or more of those questions above, and it is intended to give common citizens like us the means to hold our public officials in Poestenkill accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated to maintain lawful order in Poestenkill and resolve disputes to protect our liberties and rights while ensuring an orderly and just society where no one, such as the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are above the law.
Stated in another way, the Article 78 process is supposed to afford each of us common citizens in Poestenkill with a means to ensure that each and every one of us is treated equally under the law, and that each and every one of us, including the Poestenkill supervisor, the Poestenkill town board, the town code enforcer, and the members of the town zoning and planning boards, are held accountable to the same laws, by affording us a clear and fair process for enforcing laws in Poestenkill with a Petition for Redress of Grievance to an independent judiciary, as was the case in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94.
Except, as we shall see from the Appellate Court's ruling in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), that is no longer true when a town like Poestenkill has an ethics board, as that ruling, which has now created a very dangerous precedent in Poestenkill, makes a favorable ruling by an ethics board a virtual "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card, which in turn gives town ethics board more power over our lives than a supreme court justice now has, which takes us back to Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94 to see what we have lost, or more properly, been stripped of, keeping in mind that in New York state and Poestenkill, a public officer has the following general characteristics:
• The position is authorized by statute, resolution or charter. In other words, a
State or local enactment created the position and refers to it as an “office.”
• The officer must take and file the constitutional oath.
• The officer carries out a statutorily defined duty or duties.
• The duties are part of the sovereign power of the governmental entity.
• The duties may involve the exercise of discretion.
end quotes
In other words, the public officers of Poestenkill, contrary to a popular belief by some in the town, are not our lords who we are beholden to, as if we were serfs or thralls, nor are they our masters nor we their subjects to be ordered about and treated as they please, as we see by going to the September 18, 1995 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice James B. Canfield, a former Rensselaer County District Attorney in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 183977, Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, Index No. 183977, RJI No.41-1190-94, as follows:
Plaintiffs’ first argument is based on a claim that Councilperson Keith Hammond, the town board member who proposed Local Law No. 2 of 1994, should have been disqualified from voting on said proposal because of a conflict of interest and, thus, a violation of Chapter 16, the Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code, the Town’s Code of Ethics, has occurred.
end quotes
Now, of importance. because this is a critical difference between a petition by citizens for redress of grievance to a state supreme court justice on the one hand and a petition by a town official to the town ethics board for an ethics ruling on the other; in the case of the citizens, they cannot simply say to the judge that in their opinion they think a public official has a conflict of interest.
Rather, they must present the court with evidence and facts to support their contention, as we see from the following words from that Supreme Court decision in Byer et al., to wit:
The Court, based upon an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case at bar, as well as the applicable statutory and Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code provisions, concludes that a clear conflict of interest, in fact, did exist.
end quote
An examination of the facts and circumstances!
Whereas, as we shall see from the record in Matter of Byer et al. v. Town Of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) which resulted from the town's appeal of the Canfield decision, all the public official has to say to the Poestenkill ethics board is that they don't feel they have an ethics problem, and that is it, which takes us back to the Canfield decision, where we have this, to wit:.
Notwithstanding the fact that Councilperson Hammond obtained a favorable ethics opinion from the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics prior to voting on the subject Local Law, it is crystal clear to the Court that an insurmountable appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest existed relative to Councilperson Hammond’s personal interests, his proposal of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, his voting in favor of same and its eventual passage.
In light of the substantial controversy surrounding this matter, it was crucial that the public be assured that the decision would be made by town officials completely free to exercise their best judgment of the public interest, without any suggestion of self-interest or partiality.
Anything else would undermine the people’s confidence in the legitimacy of the proceedings and the integrity of the municipal government. (Matter of Zagoreos v. Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287- 288)
Thus, the Court concludes that a violation of Chapter 16 of the Town of Poestenkill’s Land Use and Development Code occurred and that Councilperson Keith Hammond should have been disqualified to vote on Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
Consequently, any vote by him in favor of Local Law No. 2 of 1994 must be completely disregarded.
end quotes
And all of that was negated, as we shall see, by the Appellate Court, based on no more than the following from Exhibits "A" and "B" of the 15 April 1995 Hammond Affidavit to Rensselaer County Supreme Court in that matter, which exhibits were rejected by Judge Canfield, as we see above:
April 20, 1994
Members of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics
This letter is to request the opportunity to meet with the Board of Ethics so that I might acquire an opinion as to whether or not I should be involved in any land use decisions, more specifically, Natural Products Code Revision.
It is the opinion of twenty-six people, who signed a protest petition against my having any direct involvement with Natural Products Code Revision, that I have a conflict of interest because I operate a small gravel mine on my farm.
I have stated that I do not feel I have a conflict of interest, and that this was merely an attempt to stifle my participation because of their belief that there is no room in the Town’s R-zone for gravel mining and that my rewriting the code allowed for applications to be made up to ten acres.
It is my personal belief that if I am not allowed to participate in land use decisions because they may have an effect on my property then I will be of little use as a Town Board member.
Virtually every decision made by a town board has an effect one way or another on land values and taxes.
As a property owner and taxpayer most decisions will have an effect of some kind on my property.
My wife and I are content in our chosen occupation as dairy farmers.
We only applied for rezoning to natural products to make what once was dangerous and unusable ground, into workable cropland.
We have never stated any intentions of rezoning more property to natural products.
We have invested almost everything we have into improving our home and our farming operation.
We are very proud of how far we have come and we believe we have established one of the finest farms in Rensselaer County.
I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
Respectfully,
Keith Hammond
cc: Poestenkill Town Board Members
Exhibit B of 15 April 1995 Hammond Affidavit
TOWN OF POESTENKILL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Keith Hammond
FROM: Poestenkill Board of Ethics
For the Board: Anne T. O’Connor, Chairperson
Nelson Armlin, Recording Secretary
DATE: June 6, 1994
RE: Response to Mr. Hammond’s letter to the Board of Ethics of April 20, 1994
After careful consideration of all relevant material, it is the opinion of this Board that, based upon the facts submitted with respect to this inquiry, there are no conflicts of interest presented that are sufficient to preclude Mr. Hammond from participating in any actions of the Town Board involving issues relating to mineral extraction in the Town of Poestenkill except any that affect his own property.
This Board gave serious and careful consideration to questions raised with respect to this inquiry, and will, within several weeks, submit to Mr. Hammond a summary of the opinions and concerns expressed by members of the Board during our deliberations.