POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 17th 2024 Edition
"THE RUBBER-STAMP POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR RIGHTS IN POESTENKILL BECAUSE IT DENIES US DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
Due process of law, which like Rule of Law, does not exist in Poestenkill, is supposed to be a bedrock protection for all American citizens, even those in Poestenkill, New York, and due process important to a free society such as ours is supposed to be, because it refers to the idea of fundamental fairness, the idea, radical as it is in Poestenkill today, that the government must treat an individual according to rules and procedures, not things made up on the fly or plucked from out of thin air.
In fact, due process may be the single most important guarantee in the Constitution and the entire legal system to ensure that the government, starting with the government of Poestenkill, does not run roughshod over our individual liberty.
Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied by the town of Poestenkill must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power.
When a government like that of Poestenkill harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
As to the government of Poestenkill running roughshod over our individual liberty, and causing us harm by not following the exact course of the law, which constitutes a due process violation, which in turn offends the rule of law, as it should in a sane and rational society, in Stanley Byer, Donna Carr, et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, decided on the 18th day of September, 1995, by the Hon. James B. Canfield, Justice of the Supreme Court, and filed in the Office of the Clerk of Rensselaer County on the 22d day of September, 1995, Judge Canfield made it incandescently clear that my interests have been harmed by Poestenkill's callous disregard for the law and my rights, as if I were a second-or third-class citizen in Poestenkill with less rights than a stray dog, to wit:
In support of his Motion to Intervene, Plante maintains that he is an interested person in this litigation by virtue of the fact that he resides in the Town of Poestenkill, that he has been, and will continue to be, adversely affected by mining operations in that Town, and that he has a specific and personal interest in the outcome of this litigation.
Plante further contends that he has been involved in other litigation relative to mineral extraction operations in the Town of Poestenkill and that he has an extensive knowledge of the development of the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill.
The Court also notes that Plante is participating in this action/proceeding as plaintiffs' "expert" in his capacity as a licensed Professional Engineer and, in particular, his purported expertise in matters involving the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereinafter referred to as "SEQRA".
In the case at bar, the Court finds it beyond cavil that Plante's property interests are at stake and that the same have been and will continue to be adversely affected in the event that plaintiffs are unsuccessful in their challenge to Local Law No. 2 of 1994.
Further, it is obvious that Plante is already involved in this litigation as plaintiff's engineering expert.
Thus, the Court concludes that Plante undoubtedly is an "interested party" under Section 7802(d) and that he is entitled to intervene in the instant proceeding.
Therefore, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion and in the interests of justice, grants Plante's Motion to Intervene in this action/proceeding.
end quotes
Of note is the fact that that finding was never challenged by Poestenkill, nor was it appealed from, given that Poestenkill didn't have a leg to stand on with respect to that evidence-based decision, which brings us to the stark difference between an Article 78 proceeding in County Supreme Court before an elected Justice as was the case in Stanley Byer, Donna Carr, et al. v. Town of Poestenkill, decided on the 18th day of September, 1995, by the Hon. James B. Canfield, Justice of the Supreme Court, and filed in the Office of the Clerk of Rensselaer County on the 22d day of September, 1995, which was a very transparent proceeding, given anyone could review the various filings which are public record, as I did as an intervenor, and the accused were afforded due process of law, knowing the charges being leveled against them and having the opportunity to know and confront their accusers, as both Keith Hammond and Paul Sieloff chose to do with sworn affidavits and what they thought was exculpatory evidence, in other words, a FAIR TRIAL, whereas the ethics board proceeding is secret and one-sided, with the affected citizens having no idea the proceeding is even taking place, nor having an opportunity themselves for a fair hearing that is evidenced based, as was 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, where the Court, based upon an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case at bar in a record almost 800 pages in length, as well as the applicable statutory and Town of Poestenkill Land Use and Development Code provisions, concluded that a clear conflict of interest, in fact, did exist, whereas the June 6, 1994 Response of the Poestenkill board of ethics was based on nothing more than Keith Hammond telling the Board of Ethics on April 20, 1994 that it was the opinion of twenty-six people, who signed a protest petition against his having any direct involvement with Natural Products Code Revision, that he had a conflict of interest because he operated a small gravel mine on his farm, and his subsequent statement that in his opinion, the only one that mattered in that one-sided and secret proceeding, he did not feel he had a conflict of interest, and he further felt, because in that proceeding it was all about feelings, not evidence, as was the case in Rensselaer County Supreme Court, that the accusation that he had a conflict of interest was merely an attempt to stifle his participation in approving the law because of their belief that there was no room in the Town’s R-zone for gravel mining and that Keith's rewriting the code allowed for applications to be made up to ten acres, which feelings were rubber-stamped by the board of ethics, and which rubber-stamping of Keith Hammond's feelings resulted in Judge Canfield's 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 overturned to our detriment, thus depriving us of due process of law in Poestenkill so long as the Poestenkill board of ethics continues to exist.
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 19th 2024 Edition
"IN RE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, 232 A.D.2d 851 DEALS A DEATH BLOW TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
As has been previously stated, the direct result of the action of the Poestenkill ethics board in simply "rubber-stamping" then-Poestenkill councilman Keith Hammond's "feelings" that he did not have a conflict of interest in the matter of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, was the overturning on appeal by Poestenkill of Judge Canfield's September 18, 1995 decision 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, to our detriment, which in turn has deprived the non-politically connected inhabitants of Poestenkill of due process of law in Poestenkill so long as the unelected and secretive Poestenkill board of ethics continues to exist, as well as depriving us of the one weapon we had against arbitrary, capricious and lawless government in Poestenkill, that being CPLR Article 78, which was our first defense to ensure that the government of Poestenkill was not able to run roughshod over our individual liberty.
It was Article 78 of the CPLR which afforded us with the due process of law needed to hold the town of Poestenkill and its officers and board members accountable for the manner by which laws are applied by the town of Poestenkill in an evenhanded manner, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power, as well as ensuring that decisions by the town board, or planning board or zoning board 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, so as to maintain our confidence in the legitimacy of governmental proceedings in the town of Poestenkill and the integrity of our municipal government, which is clearly not the case now with the inordinate amount of raw political power the unelected members of the Poestenkill ethics board have been handed over our lives by the Appellate Court findings in In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, which board now has the power to totally negate a Supreme Court decision by issuing a favorable ethics decision for the conduct complained of, with the inhabitants of Poestenkill not being able to present evidence in that closed and secret proceeding, nor can the inhabitants of Poestenkill appeal from that ruling, which very effectively has rendered Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules a dead letter and a nullity.
More to the point, In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 has not only handed the unelected members of the Poestenkill board of ethics virtually unlimited power over our lives, our health, our safety and our well-being, it has done the same for the conflicted town attorney of Poestenkill Brunswick's Andy Gilchrist, who very effectively has been rendered our lord and master by In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, with the power he now has over affairs in Poestenkill at the town board level thanks to his power over the Poestenkill ethics board by virtue of being their "advisor," as if any of the members of the Poestenkill ethics board put there by the Poestenkill town board are going to go against the lawyer the town board put in place over them as their "legal advisor."
Which brings us to the subject of the procedural due process of law in Poestenkill we have been stripped of by In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, which procedural due process rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, must include the following:
1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
end quote
What In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 has done first of all is to strip from us the first requirement of due process of law, that being the unbiased tribunal.
The Poestenkill town ethics board is hardly an unbiased tribunal.
Moreover, the Poestenkill board of ethics provides us with no notice of a pending appeal and the grounds asserted for it, nor are we afforded an opportunity to present reasons to the ethics board as to why a favorable ethics decision should not be granted.
Unlike in the Article 78 process, we have no right to present evidence to the ethics board, nor can we exercise our right to call witnesses as is the case in the Article 78 process, where our witnesses present their evidence in sworn affidavit form.
And unlike the Article 78 process which afforded Keith Hammond with the right to know opposing evidence against him and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses through sworn affidavits, as Keith Hammond was permitted to do by the Court 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, secret proceedings before the Poestenkill ethics board afford us no due process protections whatsoever.
Accordingly, to restore due process of law in Poestenkill, and Rule of Law, and to strip unelected Brunswick attorney Andy Gilchrist of the power he now has over our lives, it is imperative that we demand that the Poestenkill board of ethics be disbanded, and that the ethics code be removed from the Code of the Town of Poestenkill in its entirety.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 19th 2024 Edition
"IN RE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, 232 A.D.2d 851 DEALS A DEATH BLOW TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN POESTENKILL"
As has been previously stated, the direct result of the action of the Poestenkill ethics board in simply "rubber-stamping" then-Poestenkill councilman Keith Hammond's "feelings" that he did not have a conflict of interest in the matter of Local Law No. 2 of 1994, was the overturning on appeal by Poestenkill of Judge Canfield's September 18, 1995 decision 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, to our detriment, which in turn has deprived the non-politically connected inhabitants of Poestenkill of due process of law in Poestenkill so long as the unelected and secretive Poestenkill board of ethics continues to exist, as well as depriving us of the one weapon we had against arbitrary, capricious and lawless government in Poestenkill, that being CPLR Article 78, which was our first defense to ensure that the government of Poestenkill was not able to run roughshod over our individual liberty.
It was Article 78 of the CPLR which afforded us with the due process of law needed to hold the town of Poestenkill and its officers and board members accountable for the manner by which laws are applied by the town of Poestenkill in an evenhanded manner, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power, as well as ensuring that decisions by the town board, or planning board or zoning board 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, so as to maintain our confidence in the legitimacy of governmental proceedings in the town of Poestenkill and the integrity of our municipal government, which is clearly not the case now with the inordinate amount of raw political power the unelected members of the Poestenkill ethics board have been handed over our lives by the Appellate Court findings in In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, which board now has the power to totally negate a Supreme Court decision by issuing a favorable ethics decision for the conduct complained of, with the inhabitants of Poestenkill not being able to present evidence in that closed and secret proceeding, nor can the inhabitants of Poestenkill appeal from that ruling, which very effectively has rendered Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules a dead letter and a nullity.
More to the point, In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 has not only handed the unelected members of the Poestenkill board of ethics virtually unlimited power over our lives, our health, our safety and our well-being, it has done the same for the conflicted town attorney of Poestenkill Brunswick's Andy Gilchrist, who very effectively has been rendered our lord and master by In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, with the power he now has over affairs in Poestenkill at the town board level thanks to his power over the Poestenkill ethics board by virtue of being their "advisor," as if any of the members of the Poestenkill ethics board put there by the Poestenkill town board are going to go against the lawyer the town board put in place over them as their "legal advisor."
Which brings us to the subject of the procedural due process of law in Poestenkill we have been stripped of by In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, which procedural due process rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, must include the following:
1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
end quote
What In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 has done first of all is to strip from us the first requirement of due process of law, that being the unbiased tribunal.
The Poestenkill town ethics board is hardly an unbiased tribunal.
Moreover, the Poestenkill board of ethics provides us with no notice of a pending appeal and the grounds asserted for it, nor are we afforded an opportunity to present reasons to the ethics board as to why a favorable ethics decision should not be granted.
Unlike in the Article 78 process, we have no right to present evidence to the ethics board, nor can we exercise our right to call witnesses as is the case in the Article 78 process, where our witnesses present their evidence in sworn affidavit form.
And unlike the Article 78 process which afforded Keith Hammond with the right to know opposing evidence against him and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses through sworn affidavits, as Keith Hammond was permitted to do by the Court 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, secret proceedings before the Poestenkill ethics board afford us no due process protections whatsoever.
Accordingly, to restore due process of law in Poestenkill, and Rule of Law, and to strip unelected Brunswick attorney Andy Gilchrist of the power he now has over our lives, it is imperative that we demand that the Poestenkill board of ethics be disbanded, and that the ethics code be removed from the Code of the Town of Poestenkill in its entirety.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 22d 2024 Edition
"IMPACTS OF IN RE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, 232 A.D.2d 851 FELT STATEWIDE"
To see that the adverse impacts of In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), are not felt just in Poestenkill, but statewide as well, given it is an appellate level decision, it is only necessary to Google "Poestenkill Board of Ethics," and when one does, what one finds is as follows:
* New York State Bar Association
Running a Local Municipal Ethics Board
by SG Leventhal — Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, 853, 648 N.Y.S.2d. 768 (3d Dep't 1996)
* Tug Hill Commission
Ethical Considerations for Planning and Zoning Boards
GML § 808 authorizes municipalities to create a local board of ethics, which can provide advisory opinions. ... Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, 853 (3d Dept.
* Pace Law School
Ethics in Land Use: Guiding Principles for Attorneys and ...
by SG Leventhal — See, Leventhal and Ulrich,. Running a Municipal Ethics Board: Is Ethics Advice Confidential? ... Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (3d Dept. 1996)
jstor
Legal Ethics and Land-Use Planning
by PE Salkin · 1998 — Every state has enacted a code of ethics or a code of conduct for public ... Town of Poestenkill, 648 N.Y.S.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).
As to the decision itself, here is what was stated by the Appellate Court, to wit:
At issue in this case is the validity of Local Laws, 1994, No. 2 of the Town of Poestenkill (hereinafter Local Law No. 2) passed by the Town Board in July 1994.
Local Law No. 2 permits property owners to apply to rezone up to 10 acres in a residential zone to a natural products (hereinafter NP) designation for the purpose of mining gravel.
Local Law No. 2 was enacted less than a year after the Town Board adopted Local Laws, 1993, No. 1 (hereinafter Local Law No. 1), which had prohibited rezoning of all residentially zoned land to an NP designation.
In this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, petitioners contend, inter alia, that the Town Board failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) in issuing a negative declaration regarding the environmental impacts of Local Law No. 2 and that Town Board member Keith Hammond, who proposed and supported Local Law No. 2, should not have been permitted to vote on its adoption because of a purported conflict of interest.
The vote approving Local Law No. 2 was 3 to 2; therefore, were Hammond disqualified from voting, Local Law No. 2 would have been defeated.
Supreme Court declared Local Law No. 2 invalid, concluding that Hammond should have been disqualified from voting because he possessed a financial interest in the subject matter of the legislation.
The court noted that the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics (hereinafter Ethics Board) had issued an opinion concluding that there was no conflict of interest, but nonetheless concluded that Hammond's vote on Local Law No. 2 created an appearance of impropriety.
Supreme Court also annulled the negative declaration issued by the Town Board with regard to Local Law No. 2 on the ground that the Town Board's SEQRA review was inadequate.
The issue in this case is not the desirability of gravel mining (itself no small controversy), but rather the level of personal financial interest in such a controversy as will warrant the disqualification of a duly elected public official.
Petitioners claim that Hammond should have been disqualified from voting on Local Law No. 2 because he possessed a financial interest in the outcome of the vote, in direct violation of General Municipal Law article 18 and the Poestenkill Code of Ethics.
The record in this case reveals that in 1992, before he was elected to the Town Board, Hammond, a dairy farmer, obtained a permit to mine 1.02 acres of his property solely for the purpose of restoring the parcel to a productive agricultural use.
Additionally, the record also reveals that before his election to the Town Board in November 1993, Hammond publicly objected to Local Law No. I's absolute ban on the rezoning of residential areas to permit gravel mining.
Petitioners also point out that Hammond owns land in a residentially zoned area that is suitable for gravel mining, although Hammond has stated that he has no present intention of applying for an additional permit to mine gravel on his land.
In determining whether a conflict of interest exists, courts should take a case-by-case approach in looking to the extent of the interest at issue (see, Matter of Parker v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 184 AD2d 937, 938, lv denied 80 NY2d 761).
It is critical that the public be assured that their officials are free to exercise their best judgment without any hint of self-interest or partiality, especially if a matter under consideration is particularly controversial (see, Matter of Zagoreos v Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287-288).
In this case, the Ethics Board had determined that there was no conflict of interest that would have prevented Hammond from voting on Local Law No. 2.
This finding is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of Parker v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., supra, at 938; DiLucia v Mandelker, 110 AD2d 260, 263, affd 68 NY2d 844).
Based on the record before us, we find the Ethics Board's determination to be entirely rational.
The mere fact that Hammond obtained a permit to mine a portion of his land in 1992, more than a year before he was even elected to the Town Board, does not create a conflict of interest since Local Law No. 2 could have absolutely no effect on the continued validity of this permit.
Although Hammond opposed Local Law No. 1 and addressed the issue of gravel mining during his 1993 campaign, his statement of personal opinion does not constitute a basis for finding a conflict of interest (see, Matter of Segalla v Planning Bd., 204 AD2d 332, 333; Matter of Laird v Town of Montezuma, 191 AD2d 986, 987).
Indeed, any other conclusion would necessarily have a chilling effect upon a candidate's ability to express an opinion on important issues during an election campaign or to advocate changes in the law once elected.
Certainly, the disclosure by candidates for public office of their opinions on controversial topics is to be encouraged, not penalized.
We also reject petitioners' purely speculative argument that Hammond may financially benefit by Local Law No. 2 because he owns residentially zoned land which may be suitable for mining (see, Town of N. Hempstead v Village of N. Hills, 38 NY2d 334, 344; Matter of Segalla v Planning Bd., supra, at 333; Matter of Ahearn v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 158 AD2d 801, 802, lv denied 76 NY2d 706).
Since every owner of property in a residentially zoned district is affected by Local Law No. 2, "petitioners' argument would make all but a handful of property owners in the [Town] ineligible to sit on the board in such matters" (Town of N. Hempstead v Village of N. Hills, supra, at 344).
Simply stated, we respectfully disagree with Supreme Court's finding that Hammond "clearly * * * furthered his financial interests" by his vote.
Local Law No. 2 merely permits a property owner to apply to the Town Board for a rezoning, a process which itself requires a complete SEQRA review and the issuance of a special use permit from the Town Planning Board.
Even if we discount Hammond's statement in the record that he has no intention of applying for an NP rezoning in the future, the possibility that he might apply, and that after all the requisite reviews his application might be granted, does not rise to the level of personal financial interest which has previously resulted in disqualification (see, Matter of Keller v Morgan, 149 AD2d 801; Matter of Zagoreos v Conklin, supra; Matter of Tuxedo Conservation Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd., 69 AD2d 320).
The interest which disqualifies a member of councils to vote is a personal or private one, not such an interest as he [or she] has in common with all other citizens or owners of property (Matter of Tuxedo Conservation Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd., supra, at 326, quoting Annotation, 133 ALR 1257, 1261-1262).
Since we find no such conflict, Supreme Court erred in declaring Local Law No. 2 null and void.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 22d 2024 Edition
"IMPACTS OF IN RE TOWN OF POESTENKILL, 232 A.D.2d 851 FELT STATEWIDE"
To see that the adverse impacts of In re Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), are not felt just in Poestenkill, but statewide as well, given it is an appellate level decision, it is only necessary to Google "Poestenkill Board of Ethics," and when one does, what one finds is as follows:
* New York State Bar Association
Running a Local Municipal Ethics Board
by SG Leventhal — Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, 853, 648 N.Y.S.2d. 768 (3d Dep't 1996)
* Tug Hill Commission
Ethical Considerations for Planning and Zoning Boards
GML § 808 authorizes municipalities to create a local board of ethics, which can provide advisory opinions. ... Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851, 853 (3d Dept.
* Pace Law School
Ethics in Land Use: Guiding Principles for Attorneys and ...
by SG Leventhal — See, Leventhal and Ulrich,. Running a Municipal Ethics Board: Is Ethics Advice Confidential? ... Town of Poestenkill, 232 A.D.2d 851 (3d Dept. 1996)
jstor
Legal Ethics and Land-Use Planning
by PE Salkin · 1998 — Every state has enacted a code of ethics or a code of conduct for public ... Town of Poestenkill, 648 N.Y.S.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).
As to the decision itself, here is what was stated by the Appellate Court, to wit:
At issue in this case is the validity of Local Laws, 1994, No. 2 of the Town of Poestenkill (hereinafter Local Law No. 2) passed by the Town Board in July 1994.
Local Law No. 2 permits property owners to apply to rezone up to 10 acres in a residential zone to a natural products (hereinafter NP) designation for the purpose of mining gravel.
Local Law No. 2 was enacted less than a year after the Town Board adopted Local Laws, 1993, No. 1 (hereinafter Local Law No. 1), which had prohibited rezoning of all residentially zoned land to an NP designation.
In this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, petitioners contend, inter alia, that the Town Board failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) in issuing a negative declaration regarding the environmental impacts of Local Law No. 2 and that Town Board member Keith Hammond, who proposed and supported Local Law No. 2, should not have been permitted to vote on its adoption because of a purported conflict of interest.
The vote approving Local Law No. 2 was 3 to 2; therefore, were Hammond disqualified from voting, Local Law No. 2 would have been defeated.
Supreme Court declared Local Law No. 2 invalid, concluding that Hammond should have been disqualified from voting because he possessed a financial interest in the subject matter of the legislation.
The court noted that the Town of Poestenkill Board of Ethics (hereinafter Ethics Board) had issued an opinion concluding that there was no conflict of interest, but nonetheless concluded that Hammond's vote on Local Law No. 2 created an appearance of impropriety.
Supreme Court also annulled the negative declaration issued by the Town Board with regard to Local Law No. 2 on the ground that the Town Board's SEQRA review was inadequate.
The issue in this case is not the desirability of gravel mining (itself no small controversy), but rather the level of personal financial interest in such a controversy as will warrant the disqualification of a duly elected public official.
Petitioners claim that Hammond should have been disqualified from voting on Local Law No. 2 because he possessed a financial interest in the outcome of the vote, in direct violation of General Municipal Law article 18 and the Poestenkill Code of Ethics.
The record in this case reveals that in 1992, before he was elected to the Town Board, Hammond, a dairy farmer, obtained a permit to mine 1.02 acres of his property solely for the purpose of restoring the parcel to a productive agricultural use.
Additionally, the record also reveals that before his election to the Town Board in November 1993, Hammond publicly objected to Local Law No. I's absolute ban on the rezoning of residential areas to permit gravel mining.
Petitioners also point out that Hammond owns land in a residentially zoned area that is suitable for gravel mining, although Hammond has stated that he has no present intention of applying for an additional permit to mine gravel on his land.
In determining whether a conflict of interest exists, courts should take a case-by-case approach in looking to the extent of the interest at issue (see, Matter of Parker v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., 184 AD2d 937, 938, lv denied 80 NY2d 761).
It is critical that the public be assured that their officials are free to exercise their best judgment without any hint of self-interest or partiality, especially if a matter under consideration is particularly controversial (see, Matter of Zagoreos v Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 287-288).
In this case, the Ethics Board had determined that there was no conflict of interest that would have prevented Hammond from voting on Local Law No. 2.
This finding is entitled to great weight (see, Matter of Parker v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd., supra, at 938; DiLucia v Mandelker, 110 AD2d 260, 263, affd 68 NY2d 844).
Based on the record before us, we find the Ethics Board's determination to be entirely rational.
The mere fact that Hammond obtained a permit to mine a portion of his land in 1992, more than a year before he was even elected to the Town Board, does not create a conflict of interest since Local Law No. 2 could have absolutely no effect on the continued validity of this permit.
Although Hammond opposed Local Law No. 1 and addressed the issue of gravel mining during his 1993 campaign, his statement of personal opinion does not constitute a basis for finding a conflict of interest (see, Matter of Segalla v Planning Bd., 204 AD2d 332, 333; Matter of Laird v Town of Montezuma, 191 AD2d 986, 987).
Indeed, any other conclusion would necessarily have a chilling effect upon a candidate's ability to express an opinion on important issues during an election campaign or to advocate changes in the law once elected.
Certainly, the disclosure by candidates for public office of their opinions on controversial topics is to be encouraged, not penalized.
We also reject petitioners' purely speculative argument that Hammond may financially benefit by Local Law No. 2 because he owns residentially zoned land which may be suitable for mining (see, Town of N. Hempstead v Village of N. Hills, 38 NY2d 334, 344; Matter of Segalla v Planning Bd., supra, at 333; Matter of Ahearn v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 158 AD2d 801, 802, lv denied 76 NY2d 706).
Since every owner of property in a residentially zoned district is affected by Local Law No. 2, "petitioners' argument would make all but a handful of property owners in the [Town] ineligible to sit on the board in such matters" (Town of N. Hempstead v Village of N. Hills, supra, at 344).
Simply stated, we respectfully disagree with Supreme Court's finding that Hammond "clearly * * * furthered his financial interests" by his vote.
Local Law No. 2 merely permits a property owner to apply to the Town Board for a rezoning, a process which itself requires a complete SEQRA review and the issuance of a special use permit from the Town Planning Board.
Even if we discount Hammond's statement in the record that he has no intention of applying for an NP rezoning in the future, the possibility that he might apply, and that after all the requisite reviews his application might be granted, does not rise to the level of personal financial interest which has previously resulted in disqualification (see, Matter of Keller v Morgan, 149 AD2d 801; Matter of Zagoreos v Conklin, supra; Matter of Tuxedo Conservation Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd., 69 AD2d 320).
The interest which disqualifies a member of councils to vote is a personal or private one, not such an interest as he [or she] has in common with all other citizens or owners of property (Matter of Tuxedo Conservation Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd., supra, at 326, quoting Annotation, 133 ALR 1257, 1261-1262).
Since we find no such conflict, Supreme Court erred in declaring Local Law No. 2 null and void.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 23d 2024 Edition
"ON THE POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS AS A PURE POLITICAL RUBBER STAMP"
The "why" of why we have a Board of Ethics in Poestenkill, like many things, is now lost to antiquity, but suffice to say that in the time of its existence, it has become nothing more than a farce, defined as something that was supposed to be serious but has instead turned ridiculous, as we clearly see with the June 6, 1994 Ethics Board ruling in the case of Keith Hammond, where we see the name Nelson Armlin listed as Recording Secretary, which immediately raises the question of where have we seen that same name before, the answer to which is in the caption of a March 28, 1994 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. 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, which decision annulled an unethical and unlawful resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 where the Poestenkill town board, including this very same Nelson Armlin, laundered a fraudulent waste management facility permit issued to Benson Brothers by the DEC, which was a felony, and which annulment by Justice Spain was based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter, which serves to make clear what is required of a member of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics, which is a blind eye to wrongdoing by public officials in Poestenkill, which takes us to a January 1, 2014 e-mail to myself from then-Poestenkill zoning board chairman Frank Burzesi, wherein was stated as follows:
I have referred your concerns to the town ethics committee and requested a determination.
end quote
What chairman Burzesi referred to as my concerns that he presented to the rubber-stamp Board of Ethics were contained in a lengthy document titled "Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's Refusal To Enforce the Provisions of the Poestenkill Land Use Code; Due process of law" dated January 1, 2014 to Hon. Frank Burzesi, Chairman, Poestenkill Town Zoning Board, with copies to Annette Davidson, Secretary, Kevin McGrath, Board Member, Terry Lantry, Board Member, Harold Van Slyke, Board Member, and Paul Jamison, Board Member, which document complained of then-Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Robert Brunet refusing to enforce the provisions of the Land-Use Code of Poestenkill against a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association, while at the same time engaging in retaliatory attacks against myself with false charges of code violations levied against myself by Brunet, as can be seen in this excerpt from a July 23, 2013 writing to then-Poestenkill town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo titled RE: Code Enforcement Officer Robert Brunet; questionable mental stability; intimidation; coercion; intentional infliction of emotional distress, wherein was stated as follows:
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
On Monday, 22 July 2013, I received via registered mail a most incredible diatribe dated July 19, 2013 from your code enforcement officer Robert Brunet which has me wondering about his mental stability, which calls into question his fitness to serve as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
The incredible, barely comprehensible diatribe starts thusly:
On May 21, 2013 this office received a formal complaint regarding your property at 50 Liberty Lane, Town of Poestenkill.
I have no open permits from this town that would give Code Enforcement Officer Brunet authority and jurisdiction over me or my property, nor am I engaged in any activities that would require any kind of permit from Code Enforcement Officer Brunet, nor does Code Enforcement Officer Brunet have any open files on me from previous administrations.
Going back to this incredible, barely comprehensible rant from Code Enforcement Officer Brunet dated 19 July 2013, based on what he is calling a formal complaint dated 21 May 2013 from an un-named, anonymous complainant, without citing any law, code, rule or regulation, Code Enforcement Officer Brunet states that this un-named anonymous complainant has "general concerns involving safety at the structure and specific concerns as to whether proper materials have been utilized that comply with the New York State Building code requirements."
Do tell.
WHY?
WHY is this un-named, anonymous complainant concerned about the safety "at the structure"?
And safety of what?
My safety?
I am the only one authorized to be there, afterall.
As to the safety of the structure, which has been standing there now since the 1990s, a period of well over FOURTEEN (14) years, without any incidents of any kind which could possibly lead a sane or rational person to conclude the structure was unsafe, let me assure you as a New York State Licensed Professional Engineer who Code Enforcement Officer Brunet has called "one of the smartest engineers in New York State" that I personally designed that structure with my personal safety in mind, since it would be me who would be harmed if the structure was unsafe, that that structure is probably the soundest and safest one there is in the Town of Poestenkill, a fact which was mentioned in the records of the Town of Poestenkill FOURTEEN (14) years ago now by Code Enforcement Officer Eugene Bechard after I took him on a full and complete inspection tour of the structure in question.
And Code Enforcement Officer Brunet has those same records in his possession, so he would know that what he was saying in his 19 July 2013 diatribe about safety concerns was pure fantasy either cooked up by him as a means to coerce and intimidate me into dropping my charges against him of refusing to enforce the provisions of the Land-Use Code of Poestenkill, or by some dangerous lunatic who apparently walked by my structure and for some lunatic reason, thought I might be unsafe in there.
That calls into question Mr. Brunet's very sanity, Mr. Supervisor, as well as his fitness to hold such an important office in the Town of Poestenkill.
It is said that the onset of Alzheimer's makes people mean and vindictive, which is clearly the case here from the rambling, nearly incoherent tone of Mr. Brunet's very threatening 19 July 2013 registered letter to me, where he is claiming authority and jurisdiction over my person and property based on the alleged complaint of a dangerous lunatic who has stalked me, and trespassed on my property, and broke into my house, as well.
What calls Mr. Brunet's sanity into question here is that despite my certification as a New York State Licensed Professional Engineer to the Town of Poestenkill over FOURTEEN (14) years ago that the structure was well-engineered, being based on the California Earthquake Code, and studies of structures damaged in hurricanes in Florida, Mr. Brunet is instead relying on the word of a lunatic passing by my structure that it is now unsafe.
And if after further investigation, Mr. Brunet is found to be in possession of his wits, then the only other conclusion available is that Mr. Brunet is acting under color of law with this bogus complaint to intimidate me, and coerce me to drop my appeal of his refusal to enforce the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill.
There are no other conclusions available, and both of them give you a serious problem to deal with, Mr. Supervisor, as you are ultimately responsible for the fitness of those who serve the Town of Poestenkill, to include the Code Enforcement Officer.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt and stern attention to this very serious matter, I remain
Sincerely,
Paul R. Plante
end quotes
Not a word was ever heard from the Poestenkill Board of Ethics in that matter, nor was then-Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer ever held to account by the Town of Poestenkill.
So much for ethical conduct by public officials in Poestenkill, which concept itself is a farce, but the clearest evidence of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics acting as a mere rubber stamp for Poestenkill town officials can be found in the minutes of the Poestenkill Zoning Board of Appeals for July 11, 2017, Attendees: Paul Jamison, Chair, Cheryl Sargeant, Terry Lantry, Kevin McGrath, and Tim Hoffay, wherein was stated as follows:
Chairman Jamison makes a motion to recommend to the Town Board to remove Member Sargeant due to excessive absences, to appoint Michael Colello as Member and to appoint Nicole Heckelman as Alternate.
Motion is seconded by Member Lantry, four (4) ayes, zero (0) nays, and zero (0) abstentions.
Chairman Jamison also directs Clerk Kane to send memo to Town Ethics Board requesting opinion that it is acceptable for Nicole Heckelman be on the Zoning Board of Appeals while husband, Don Heckelman, is member of Planning Board.
end quotes
As to abolishing the Poestenkill Board of Ethics with the aim of restoring Rule of Law in Poestenkill, I would refer the reader to this article from the July 13, 2012 edition of the Eastwick Press by David Flint titled "New Lebanon Moves To Dissolve Ethics Committee," where we have as follows on that subject:
After hearing members of the Ethics Board arguing among themselves at a number of recent Town Board meetings, the New Lebanon Town Board at their meeting this past Tuesday took steps to dissolve that Board and move the task of monitoring the Town’s ethics to the County.
Councilman Doug Clark said he didn’t want to continue to hear two halves of the Ethics Board debate each other at every Town Board meeting.
He thought there would be advantages to having their function carried out instead by the Columbia County Ethics Board.
“Less of a local agenda and more of a neutral bystander,” he said.
He then made a motion to have the Town Attorney prepare the law to that effect, which the Town Board would review at their August meeting.
At that time they would schedule a public hearing on the matter for September.
Councilman Matt Larabee seconded the motion, and it passed 4-1 with Councilman K.B. Chittenden dissenting.
Chittenden said he thought it was better to keep these things local.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 23d 2024 Edition
"ON THE POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS AS A PURE POLITICAL RUBBER STAMP"
The "why" of why we have a Board of Ethics in Poestenkill, like many things, is now lost to antiquity, but suffice to say that in the time of its existence, it has become nothing more than a farce, defined as something that was supposed to be serious but has instead turned ridiculous, as we clearly see with the June 6, 1994 Ethics Board ruling in the case of Keith Hammond, where we see the name Nelson Armlin listed as Recording Secretary, which immediately raises the question of where have we seen that same name before, the answer to which is in the caption of a March 28, 1994 decision of Rensselaer County Supreme Court Justice Edward O. 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, which decision annulled an unethical and unlawful resolution of the Poestenkill Town Board made on November 10, 1992 where the Poestenkill town board, including this very same Nelson Armlin, laundered a fraudulent waste management facility permit issued to Benson Brothers by the DEC, which was a felony, and which annulment by Justice Spain was based upon facts stated under oath by myself in my pro se petition in that matter, which serves to make clear what is required of a member of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics, which is a blind eye to wrongdoing by public officials in Poestenkill, which takes us to a January 1, 2014 e-mail to myself from then-Poestenkill zoning board chairman Frank Burzesi, wherein was stated as follows:
I have referred your concerns to the town ethics committee and requested a determination.
end quote
What chairman Burzesi referred to as my concerns that he presented to the rubber-stamp Board of Ethics were contained in a lengthy document titled "Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's Refusal To Enforce the Provisions of the Poestenkill Land Use Code; Due process of law" dated January 1, 2014 to Hon. Frank Burzesi, Chairman, Poestenkill Town Zoning Board, with copies to Annette Davidson, Secretary, Kevin McGrath, Board Member, Terry Lantry, Board Member, Harold Van Slyke, Board Member, and Paul Jamison, Board Member, which document complained of then-Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Robert Brunet refusing to enforce the provisions of the Land-Use Code of Poestenkill against a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association, while at the same time engaging in retaliatory attacks against myself with false charges of code violations levied against myself by Brunet, as can be seen in this excerpt from a July 23, 2013 writing to then-Poestenkill town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo titled RE: Code Enforcement Officer Robert Brunet; questionable mental stability; intimidation; coercion; intentional infliction of emotional distress, wherein was stated as follows:
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
On Monday, 22 July 2013, I received via registered mail a most incredible diatribe dated July 19, 2013 from your code enforcement officer Robert Brunet which has me wondering about his mental stability, which calls into question his fitness to serve as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
The incredible, barely comprehensible diatribe starts thusly:
On May 21, 2013 this office received a formal complaint regarding your property at 50 Liberty Lane, Town of Poestenkill.
I have no open permits from this town that would give Code Enforcement Officer Brunet authority and jurisdiction over me or my property, nor am I engaged in any activities that would require any kind of permit from Code Enforcement Officer Brunet, nor does Code Enforcement Officer Brunet have any open files on me from previous administrations.
Going back to this incredible, barely comprehensible rant from Code Enforcement Officer Brunet dated 19 July 2013, based on what he is calling a formal complaint dated 21 May 2013 from an un-named, anonymous complainant, without citing any law, code, rule or regulation, Code Enforcement Officer Brunet states that this un-named anonymous complainant has "general concerns involving safety at the structure and specific concerns as to whether proper materials have been utilized that comply with the New York State Building code requirements."
Do tell.
WHY?
WHY is this un-named, anonymous complainant concerned about the safety "at the structure"?
And safety of what?
My safety?
I am the only one authorized to be there, afterall.
As to the safety of the structure, which has been standing there now since the 1990s, a period of well over FOURTEEN (14) years, without any incidents of any kind which could possibly lead a sane or rational person to conclude the structure was unsafe, let me assure you as a New York State Licensed Professional Engineer who Code Enforcement Officer Brunet has called "one of the smartest engineers in New York State" that I personally designed that structure with my personal safety in mind, since it would be me who would be harmed if the structure was unsafe, that that structure is probably the soundest and safest one there is in the Town of Poestenkill, a fact which was mentioned in the records of the Town of Poestenkill FOURTEEN (14) years ago now by Code Enforcement Officer Eugene Bechard after I took him on a full and complete inspection tour of the structure in question.
And Code Enforcement Officer Brunet has those same records in his possession, so he would know that what he was saying in his 19 July 2013 diatribe about safety concerns was pure fantasy either cooked up by him as a means to coerce and intimidate me into dropping my charges against him of refusing to enforce the provisions of the Land-Use Code of Poestenkill, or by some dangerous lunatic who apparently walked by my structure and for some lunatic reason, thought I might be unsafe in there.
That calls into question Mr. Brunet's very sanity, Mr. Supervisor, as well as his fitness to hold such an important office in the Town of Poestenkill.
It is said that the onset of Alzheimer's makes people mean and vindictive, which is clearly the case here from the rambling, nearly incoherent tone of Mr. Brunet's very threatening 19 July 2013 registered letter to me, where he is claiming authority and jurisdiction over my person and property based on the alleged complaint of a dangerous lunatic who has stalked me, and trespassed on my property, and broke into my house, as well.
What calls Mr. Brunet's sanity into question here is that despite my certification as a New York State Licensed Professional Engineer to the Town of Poestenkill over FOURTEEN (14) years ago that the structure was well-engineered, being based on the California Earthquake Code, and studies of structures damaged in hurricanes in Florida, Mr. Brunet is instead relying on the word of a lunatic passing by my structure that it is now unsafe.
And if after further investigation, Mr. Brunet is found to be in possession of his wits, then the only other conclusion available is that Mr. Brunet is acting under color of law with this bogus complaint to intimidate me, and coerce me to drop my appeal of his refusal to enforce the Land-Use Code of the Town of Poestenkill.
There are no other conclusions available, and both of them give you a serious problem to deal with, Mr. Supervisor, as you are ultimately responsible for the fitness of those who serve the Town of Poestenkill, to include the Code Enforcement Officer.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt and stern attention to this very serious matter, I remain
Sincerely,
Paul R. Plante
end quotes
Not a word was ever heard from the Poestenkill Board of Ethics in that matter, nor was then-Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer ever held to account by the Town of Poestenkill.
So much for ethical conduct by public officials in Poestenkill, which concept itself is a farce, but the clearest evidence of the Poestenkill Board of Ethics acting as a mere rubber stamp for Poestenkill town officials can be found in the minutes of the Poestenkill Zoning Board of Appeals for July 11, 2017, Attendees: Paul Jamison, Chair, Cheryl Sargeant, Terry Lantry, Kevin McGrath, and Tim Hoffay, wherein was stated as follows:
Chairman Jamison makes a motion to recommend to the Town Board to remove Member Sargeant due to excessive absences, to appoint Michael Colello as Member and to appoint Nicole Heckelman as Alternate.
Motion is seconded by Member Lantry, four (4) ayes, zero (0) nays, and zero (0) abstentions.
Chairman Jamison also directs Clerk Kane to send memo to Town Ethics Board requesting opinion that it is acceptable for Nicole Heckelman be on the Zoning Board of Appeals while husband, Don Heckelman, is member of Planning Board.
end quotes
As to abolishing the Poestenkill Board of Ethics with the aim of restoring Rule of Law in Poestenkill, I would refer the reader to this article from the July 13, 2012 edition of the Eastwick Press by David Flint titled "New Lebanon Moves To Dissolve Ethics Committee," where we have as follows on that subject:
After hearing members of the Ethics Board arguing among themselves at a number of recent Town Board meetings, the New Lebanon Town Board at their meeting this past Tuesday took steps to dissolve that Board and move the task of monitoring the Town’s ethics to the County.
Councilman Doug Clark said he didn’t want to continue to hear two halves of the Ethics Board debate each other at every Town Board meeting.
He thought there would be advantages to having their function carried out instead by the Columbia County Ethics Board.
“Less of a local agenda and more of a neutral bystander,” he said.
He then made a motion to have the Town Attorney prepare the law to that effect, which the Town Board would review at their August meeting.
At that time they would schedule a public hearing on the matter for September.
Councilman Matt Larabee seconded the motion, and it passed 4-1 with Councilman K.B. Chittenden dissenting.
Chittenden said he thought it was better to keep these things local.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
24 FEBRUARY 2024
Hon. Thomas Russell
Supervisor
Town of Poestenkill
Poestenkill Town Hall
38 Davis Drive
Poestenkill, NY
12140
RE: Ethics Complaint Against Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
At the February 8, 2024 Poestenkill Town Board meeting, you confirmed the fact that there is indeed in existence a Poestenkill Board of Ethics, and that all ethics complaints pursuant to Article II of the Poestenkill Town Code must first be made to the Poestenkill Town Board, which body will then forward the complaint to the Ethics Board.
Accordingly, pursuant to your directive on February 8, 2024, what follows is an ethics complaint against Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church that I wish you to forward to the Poestenkill Board of Ethics at your earliest convenience, and please inform them that I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions they may have on the issue.
INTRODUCTION
The laws regulating government ethics are designed to encourage high standards of conduct among public officials, and to promote public confidence in government.
FACTS
On 6 February 2021, acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill.
PREFACE
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-3, wherein is stated that a Town Employee is any officer or employee of the Town of Poestenkill, whether paid or unpaid, whether service is in a full-time, part-time or advisory capacity, Tracy Church is a Town employee subject to the provisions of Article II of the Poestenkill Town Code.
DUTIES OF POESTENKILL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DEFINED
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code Chapter 92, titled Building Code Administration and Enforcement, § 92-1 states that “(T)his chapter provides for the administration and enforcement of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the Uniform Code) and the State Energy Conservation Construction Code (the Energy Code) in this Town. This chapter is adopted pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Except as otherwise provided in the Uniform Code, other state law, or other section of this chapter, all buildings, structures, and premises, regardless of use or occupancy, are subject to the provisions this chapter.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
Pursuant to § 92-2 of the Poestenkill Town Code, the Code Enforcement Officer appointed pursuant to § 92-3B of this chapter.
§ 92-3(A) of the Poestenkill Town Code states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that the office of Code Enforcement Officer is hereby created, and the Code Enforcement Officer shall administer and enforce all the provisions of the Uniform Code, the Energy Code and this chapter, such responsibility being in addition to the powers and duties conferred upon the Code Enforcement Officer pursuant to Article XII of the Land Use Regulations of the Town of Poestenkill as set forth in Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill and is also in addition to all other authority conferred upon him by law.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
§ 92-3(A) of the Poestenkill Town Code further states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that the Code Enforcement Officer shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To receive, review, and approve or disapprove applications for building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, and the plans, specifications and construction documents submitted with such applications;
(2) Upon approval of such applications, to issue building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, and to include in building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits such terms and conditions as the Code Enforcement Officer may determine to be appropriate;
(3) To conduct construction inspections, inspections to be made prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, firesafety and property maintenance inspections, inspections incidental to the investigation of complaints, and all other inspections required or permitted under any provision of this chapter;
(4) To issue stop-work orders;
(5) To review and investigate complaints;
(6) To issue orders pursuant to § 92-16A of this chapter;
(7) To maintain records;
(8) To collect fees as set by the Town Board;
(9) To pursue administrative enforcement actions and proceedings;
(10) In consultation with this Town's Attorney, to pursue such legal actions and proceedings as may be necessary to enforce the Uniform Code, the Energy Code and this chapter, or to abate or correct conditions not in compliance with the Uniform Code, the Energy Code or this chapter; and
(11) To exercise all other powers and fulfill all other duties conferred upon the Code Enforcement Officer by this chapter.
end quotes
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 92-3(B) the Code Enforcement Officer shall be appointed by the Town Board and the Code Enforcement Officer shall possess background experience related to building construction or fire prevention and shall, within the time prescribed by law, obtain such basic training, in-service training, advanced in-service training and other training as the State of New York shall require for code enforcement personnel, and the Code Enforcement Officer shall obtain certification from the State Fire Administrator pursuant to the Executive Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
CHURCH’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO HIS DUTIES TO TOWN INHABITANTS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, every Town employee shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests.
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully put aside his duty pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, wherein is clearly and unequivocally stated that every Town employee, which would include Tracy Church, shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D), a Town employee shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) each Town employee shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(D)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that a Town employee such as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the influence of any party or person, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(E)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that each Town employee including Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
CONCLUSION
Poestenkill Town Code § 28-7 states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that in addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any such Town employee who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this chapter may be warned, reprimanded, suspended or removed from office or employment in the manner provided by law after such recommendation by the Board of Ethics.
In this case, the conduct complained of is so egregious as to demand that Tracy Church be removed as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
Hon. Thomas Russell
Supervisor
Town of Poestenkill
Poestenkill Town Hall
38 Davis Drive
Poestenkill, NY
12140
RE: Ethics Complaint Against Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church
Dear Mr. Supervisor:
At the February 8, 2024 Poestenkill Town Board meeting, you confirmed the fact that there is indeed in existence a Poestenkill Board of Ethics, and that all ethics complaints pursuant to Article II of the Poestenkill Town Code must first be made to the Poestenkill Town Board, which body will then forward the complaint to the Ethics Board.
Accordingly, pursuant to your directive on February 8, 2024, what follows is an ethics complaint against Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church that I wish you to forward to the Poestenkill Board of Ethics at your earliest convenience, and please inform them that I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions they may have on the issue.
INTRODUCTION
The laws regulating government ethics are designed to encourage high standards of conduct among public officials, and to promote public confidence in government.
FACTS
On 6 February 2021, acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill.
PREFACE
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-3, wherein is stated that a Town Employee is any officer or employee of the Town of Poestenkill, whether paid or unpaid, whether service is in a full-time, part-time or advisory capacity, Tracy Church is a Town employee subject to the provisions of Article II of the Poestenkill Town Code.
DUTIES OF POESTENKILL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DEFINED
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code Chapter 92, titled Building Code Administration and Enforcement, § 92-1 states that “(T)his chapter provides for the administration and enforcement of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the Uniform Code) and the State Energy Conservation Construction Code (the Energy Code) in this Town. This chapter is adopted pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Except as otherwise provided in the Uniform Code, other state law, or other section of this chapter, all buildings, structures, and premises, regardless of use or occupancy, are subject to the provisions this chapter.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
Pursuant to § 92-2 of the Poestenkill Town Code, the Code Enforcement Officer appointed pursuant to § 92-3B of this chapter.
§ 92-3(A) of the Poestenkill Town Code states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that the office of Code Enforcement Officer is hereby created, and the Code Enforcement Officer shall administer and enforce all the provisions of the Uniform Code, the Energy Code and this chapter, such responsibility being in addition to the powers and duties conferred upon the Code Enforcement Officer pursuant to Article XII of the Land Use Regulations of the Town of Poestenkill as set forth in Chapter 150 of the Code of the Town of Poestenkill and is also in addition to all other authority conferred upon him by law.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
§ 92-3(A) of the Poestenkill Town Code further states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that the Code Enforcement Officer shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) To receive, review, and approve or disapprove applications for building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, and the plans, specifications and construction documents submitted with such applications;
(2) Upon approval of such applications, to issue building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, and to include in building permits, certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits such terms and conditions as the Code Enforcement Officer may determine to be appropriate;
(3) To conduct construction inspections, inspections to be made prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, temporary certificates and operating permits, firesafety and property maintenance inspections, inspections incidental to the investigation of complaints, and all other inspections required or permitted under any provision of this chapter;
(4) To issue stop-work orders;
(5) To review and investigate complaints;
(6) To issue orders pursuant to § 92-16A of this chapter;
(7) To maintain records;
(8) To collect fees as set by the Town Board;
(9) To pursue administrative enforcement actions and proceedings;
(10) In consultation with this Town's Attorney, to pursue such legal actions and proceedings as may be necessary to enforce the Uniform Code, the Energy Code and this chapter, or to abate or correct conditions not in compliance with the Uniform Code, the Energy Code or this chapter; and
(11) To exercise all other powers and fulfill all other duties conferred upon the Code Enforcement Officer by this chapter.
end quotes
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 92-3(B) the Code Enforcement Officer shall be appointed by the Town Board and the Code Enforcement Officer shall possess background experience related to building construction or fire prevention and shall, within the time prescribed by law, obtain such basic training, in-service training, advanced in-service training and other training as the State of New York shall require for code enforcement personnel, and the Code Enforcement Officer shall obtain certification from the State Fire Administrator pursuant to the Executive Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
end quote
Nowhere in that Code section is any mention made of the Town of Poestenkill empowering the Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer to file false charges with the New York State Police in a blatant attempt to crush dissent in Poestenkill and to deter town residents from standing up to perceived corruption, favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church did on 6 February 2021.
CHURCH’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO HIS DUTIES TO TOWN INHABITANTS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, every Town employee shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests.
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully put aside his duty pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, wherein is clearly and unequivocally stated that every Town employee, which would include Tracy Church, shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D), a Town employee shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) each Town employee shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(D)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that a Town employee such as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the influence of any party or person, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(E)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that each Town employee including Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
CONCLUSION
Poestenkill Town Code § 28-7 states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that in addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any such Town employee who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this chapter may be warned, reprimanded, suspended or removed from office or employment in the manner provided by law after such recommendation by the Board of Ethics.
In this case, the conduct complained of is so egregious as to demand that Tracy Church be removed as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Plante, NYSPE
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 26th 2024 Edition
"ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST POESTENKILL OFFICIAL FILED"
In the latest news in Poestenkill, a town neither safe nor quiet if one lives in proximity to the Poestenkill transfer station, an ethics complaint against Poestenkill code enforcement officer Tracy Church requesting his removal from office due to unfitness to serve in that capacity has been filed with Poestenkill supervisor Tom Russell on the grounds that the laws regulating government ethics are designed to encourage high standards of conduct among public officials, and to promote public confidence in government, which confidence is sorely lacking in the case of code enforcer Church.
According to the filed complaint, a copy of which should be available for public review in the office of the Poestenkill town clerk, on 6 February 2021, acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put Poestenkill resident Paul Plante's life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that Plante was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have Plante detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for Plante's complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill.
The complaint continues as follows:
CHURCH’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO HIS DUTIES TO TOWN INHABITANTS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, every Town employee shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests.
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully put aside his duty pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, wherein is clearly and unequivocally stated that every Town employee, which would include Tracy Church, shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D), a Town employee shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) each Town employee shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(D)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that a Town employee such as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the influence of any party or person, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(E)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that each Town employee including Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
CONCLUSION
Poestenkill Town Code § 28-7 states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that in addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any such Town employee who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this chapter may be warned, reprimanded, suspended or removed from office or employment in the manner provided by law after such recommendation by the Board of Ethics.
In this case, the conduct complained of is so egregious as to demand that Tracy Church be removed as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
end quotes
The complaint leaves newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Russell, a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association and Keith Hammond's chosen planning board chairman with two choices, both of which will send a strong message to the inhabitants of Poestenkill as to who the Democrat supervisor really is, to wit:
A) He can wrap his arm around Church and give Church the protection of his office, thus making it crystal clear that business as usual and favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill will continue unabated on his watch; or
B) He can sack Church.
Stay tuned for further details and updates as they happen.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
February 26th 2024 Edition
"ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST POESTENKILL OFFICIAL FILED"
In the latest news in Poestenkill, a town neither safe nor quiet if one lives in proximity to the Poestenkill transfer station, an ethics complaint against Poestenkill code enforcement officer Tracy Church requesting his removal from office due to unfitness to serve in that capacity has been filed with Poestenkill supervisor Tom Russell on the grounds that the laws regulating government ethics are designed to encourage high standards of conduct among public officials, and to promote public confidence in government, which confidence is sorely lacking in the case of code enforcer Church.
According to the filed complaint, a copy of which should be available for public review in the office of the Poestenkill town clerk, on 6 February 2021, acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put Poestenkill resident Paul Plante's life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that Plante was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have Plante detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for Plante's complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill.
The complaint continues as follows:
CHURCH’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO HIS DUTIES TO TOWN INHABITANTS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, every Town employee shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests.
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully put aside his duty pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-4, wherein is clearly and unequivocally stated that every Town employee, which would include Tracy Church, shall strive to ensure that his or her duties are always performed independently, impartially and in the public interest, free of conflicting personal interests, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D), a Town employee shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person.
Pursuant to Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) each Town employee shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(D)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(D) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that a Town employee such as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall not, by his or her conduct, give reasonable basis for the inference that any person can improperly influence him or her or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official duties, or that he or she is affected by the influence of any party or person, for which Tracy Church must be removed from his position as Poestenkill Code Enforcement Officer.
WILLFULL AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF POESTENKILL TOWN CODE § 28-5(E)
By acting willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm on 6 February 2021 in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, where Tracy Church put my life and well-being in jeopardy by making a false report to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that I was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have me detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for my complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, Poestenkill Town Code Officer Tracy Church did willfully violate so much of Poestenkill Town Code § 28-5(E) wherein is clearly and un equivocally stated that each Town employee including Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer Tracy Church shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.
CONCLUSION
Poestenkill Town Code § 28-7 states in clear and unambiguous regulatory language that in addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any such Town employee who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this chapter may be warned, reprimanded, suspended or removed from office or employment in the manner provided by law after such recommendation by the Board of Ethics.
In this case, the conduct complained of is so egregious as to demand that Tracy Church be removed as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer.
end quotes
The complaint leaves newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Russell, a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association and Keith Hammond's chosen planning board chairman with two choices, both of which will send a strong message to the inhabitants of Poestenkill as to who the Democrat supervisor really is, to wit:
A) He can wrap his arm around Church and give Church the protection of his office, thus making it crystal clear that business as usual and favoritism and cronyism in Poestenkill will continue unabated on his watch; or
B) He can sack Church.
Stay tuned for further details and updates as they happen.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 7th 2024 Edition
"POLITICAL RETALIATION AS AN ART FORM IN POESTENKILL"
Whatever may be the case in other towns in New York, or America, for that matter, given that in theory, we are all supposed to be American citizens with the same supposed rights, regardless of what town we live in, in Poestenkill, where we are ruled, not governed, political dissent is not tolerated, and when political dissent rises to the level of the filing of successful Article 78's by a dissenting town inhabitant against the Poestenkill town board, or the Poestenkill planning board, challenging their unlawful and lawless actions, i.e. crimes, in a court of law, and thereby exposing political corruption in Poestenkill for all the world to see, as has been the case in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914, Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Index No. 179138, and Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, woe be unto that citizen, who shall find themselves facing the considerable wrath of Poestenkill, with them essentially shut out of participation in government in Poestenkill, while being stripped of the protection of law, and facing on-going retaliation from Poestenkill, which in Poestenkill's well-developed repertoire of retaliatory tactics can take the form of vehicular assaults, or the spreading of false rumors; for example, as in public officials making the claim in public meetings that the person being retaliated against is "mentally ill, " or a "dangerous retard," or has a criminal record, or was fired from his employment, or making the person's life more difficult by stripping them of the peace of mind, safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes and their property, as we saw on 6 February 2021, when acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put Poestenkill resident Paul Plante's life and well-being in jeopardy make a false report, a crime, to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that Plante was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have Plante detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for Plante's complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, or in a new sophisticated retaliatory tactic twist unique to Poestenkill, as numerous town residents have noticed as they wonder what exactly is going on with what are being called the Nazi concentration camp spotlights lighting up a patch of woods next to Weatherwax Road coming in off Rt. 66 and just past Liberty Lane, like the Averill Park football field or the Rensselaer County jail, thereby harassing the dissenters by lighting up their land, known as light trespass, so that it appears to passersby and the dissenter as if the Ku Klux Klan were holding a mass cross burning in the woods next to the dissenter's home with Poestenkill's encouragement and permission, all to strike fear into the heart of the dissenter to cow them into submission, or force them to have to flee Poestenkill for their peace of mind and safety.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 7th 2024 Edition
"POLITICAL RETALIATION AS AN ART FORM IN POESTENKILL"
Whatever may be the case in other towns in New York, or America, for that matter, given that in theory, we are all supposed to be American citizens with the same supposed rights, regardless of what town we live in, in Poestenkill, where we are ruled, not governed, political dissent is not tolerated, and when political dissent rises to the level of the filing of successful Article 78's by a dissenting town inhabitant against the Poestenkill town board, or the Poestenkill planning board, challenging their unlawful and lawless actions, i.e. crimes, in a court of law, and thereby exposing political corruption in Poestenkill for all the world to see, as has been the case in Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 177914, Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Poestenkill Town Board, Jay F. Nish, Paul Sieloff, Nelson Armlin, Mark Dunlea and Kristine Legenbauer, Index No. 179138, and Matter of Paul R. Plante v. Planning Board of the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County Index No. 204938, woe be unto that citizen, who shall find themselves facing the considerable wrath of Poestenkill, with them essentially shut out of participation in government in Poestenkill, while being stripped of the protection of law, and facing on-going retaliation from Poestenkill, which in Poestenkill's well-developed repertoire of retaliatory tactics can take the form of vehicular assaults, or the spreading of false rumors; for example, as in public officials making the claim in public meetings that the person being retaliated against is "mentally ill, " or a "dangerous retard," or has a criminal record, or was fired from his employment, or making the person's life more difficult by stripping them of the peace of mind, safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes and their property, as we saw on 6 February 2021, when acting in his official capacity as Poestenkill Town Code Enforcement Officer, Tracy Church did willfully and with malice and intent to cause harm put Poestenkill resident Paul Plante's life and well-being in jeopardy make a false report, a crime, to the New York State Police in Sand Lake that Plante was mentally ill and a danger to him and the Poestenkill town board in a vain attempt to have Plante detained and transported to a secure mental facility to be locked in a cage, that in retaliation for Plante's complaints about endemic corruption in Poestenkill, or in a new sophisticated retaliatory tactic twist unique to Poestenkill, as numerous town residents have noticed as they wonder what exactly is going on with what are being called the Nazi concentration camp spotlights lighting up a patch of woods next to Weatherwax Road coming in off Rt. 66 and just past Liberty Lane, like the Averill Park football field or the Rensselaer County jail, thereby harassing the dissenters by lighting up their land, known as light trespass, so that it appears to passersby and the dissenter as if the Ku Klux Klan were holding a mass cross burning in the woods next to the dissenter's home with Poestenkill's encouragement and permission, all to strike fear into the heart of the dissenter to cow them into submission, or force them to have to flee Poestenkill for their peace of mind and safety.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 13th 2024 Edition
"QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ANSWERED IN POESTENKILL"
In "The Prince," Machiavelli's advice was that a prince should carefully calculate all the wicked deeds he needs to do to secure his power, and then execute them all in one stroke, because in that way, his subjects will slowly forget his cruel deeds and the prince can better align himself with his subjects, and rulers should strive to maintain or expand their position, even if immoral acts are necessary to accomplish that goal, and that sounds very much like the advice that newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association and Keith Hammond's hand-picked planning board chairman has chosen to guide him as he takes the reins of power in Poestenkill into his hands with his TWO-MINUTE rule for speaking at town board meetings on issues of interest and/or importance to Poestenkill residents, who rule is clearly intended to stifle discussion and debate and dissent in this town, which is a sign of a tyrant or despot in power.
As for me, I am elderly now, and because my spine is deteriorating, I have trouble entering and exiting the basement of Poestenkill town hall where the town board holds its meetings, just outside the boiler room where in Poestenkill, the important political decisions are made, and as a result, I am not going to go to the discomfort of leaving my hearth and home and the comfort of my fire to go to Poestenkill town hall to beg two-minute's worth of time from supervisor Russell, as if I were a penitent, or a serf on his knee, eyes cast down to the floor, tugging his forelock while begging a boon from his lord and master, with the result that these following questions will neither be asked nor answered at the March 14, 2024 town board meeting:
* WHEN CAN WE EXPECT A VOTE BY THE POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD TO AUTHORIZE POESTENKILL TOWN ATTORNEY ANDY GILCHRIST TO FILE HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLEGEDLY CONTAMINATING POESTENKILL'S DRINKING WATER WITH PFAS?
On Monday, July 17, 2023, @ 8:48 AM, Poestenkill Town Councilmember Eric Wohlleber sent out a notice to Poestenkill town residents titled Subject: Poestenkill PFOA Update, wherein was stated as follows:
Neighbors,
I have received several calls/emails recently on the Town Board's action on Thursday night, so I thought I would provide an update to this group.
On Thursday, July 13th the Poestenkill Town Board approved a resolution to authorize a notice of claim in relation to the PFOA/PFOS contamination to be served to the Averill Park Central School District.
I voted for this resolution because it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents.
By serving the school district this notice of claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
This notice of claim provides the Town of Poestenkill one-year to file any potential action in relation to the contamination.
As per the resolution - "The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Final Assessment Area Report on April 20, 2023 - concluding the Algonquin Middle School is the significant source area for PFOA and PFOS contamination found in groundwater in such location..." and "the Town of Poestenkill confirms it authorization to cause the preparation of a notice of claim on behalf of the Town of Poestenkill to the Averill Park Central School District.... with respect to all legal and/or equitable rights and remedies that the Town of Poestenkill may have against the Averill Park Central School District with respect to groundwater contamination and costs incurred by the Town of Poestenkill..."
The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, if the Town Board chooses that route.
end quotes
A new town board has been selected and sworn in and seated.
IF this is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents, and IF by filing the Notice of Claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination, then why the delay?
* WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE SUPERVISOR WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SUPERVISOR'S CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO ACTS AS A POLITICAL ENFORCER OR GOON FOR THE SUPERVISOR?
According to the U.S. Post Office, supervisor Russell has had that complaint in his possession since February 27, 2024.
Has he taken action to remove Church from his position as town code enforcement officer?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE ON THE POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE THE POESTENKILL PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE THE POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD CHAIRMAN?
* WHO IN THE TOWN IS PAYING FOR NEW SOFTWARE AND NEW ANTENNAS FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 1?
* WHO IN THE TOWN PAYS THE SALARY OF THE WATER MANAGER?
* WHY IS IT NECESSARY FOR POESTENKILL TO HAVE TO ADD CHLORINE TO THE TROY CITY WATER THAT SERVES POESTENKILL WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 1?
* IF THE ASSISTANT TO THE WATER MANAGER DOES ALL THE WORK IN THE DISTRICT, SUCH AS TAKING READINGS AND ADDING CHLORINE, WHAT EXACLY DOES THE WATER MANAGER DO?
* IS ANDY GILCHRIST STILL THE ATTORNEY FOR POLARO?
* IS ANDY GILCHRIST THE ATTORNEY FOR OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE TOWN?
* IF SO, WHY IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 13th 2024 Edition
"QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ANSWERED IN POESTENKILL"
In "The Prince," Machiavelli's advice was that a prince should carefully calculate all the wicked deeds he needs to do to secure his power, and then execute them all in one stroke, because in that way, his subjects will slowly forget his cruel deeds and the prince can better align himself with his subjects, and rulers should strive to maintain or expand their position, even if immoral acts are necessary to accomplish that goal, and that sounds very much like the advice that newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, a member of the Poestenkill Businessman's Protective Association and Keith Hammond's hand-picked planning board chairman has chosen to guide him as he takes the reins of power in Poestenkill into his hands with his TWO-MINUTE rule for speaking at town board meetings on issues of interest and/or importance to Poestenkill residents, who rule is clearly intended to stifle discussion and debate and dissent in this town, which is a sign of a tyrant or despot in power.
As for me, I am elderly now, and because my spine is deteriorating, I have trouble entering and exiting the basement of Poestenkill town hall where the town board holds its meetings, just outside the boiler room where in Poestenkill, the important political decisions are made, and as a result, I am not going to go to the discomfort of leaving my hearth and home and the comfort of my fire to go to Poestenkill town hall to beg two-minute's worth of time from supervisor Russell, as if I were a penitent, or a serf on his knee, eyes cast down to the floor, tugging his forelock while begging a boon from his lord and master, with the result that these following questions will neither be asked nor answered at the March 14, 2024 town board meeting:
* WHEN CAN WE EXPECT A VOTE BY THE POESTENKILL TOWN BOARD TO AUTHORIZE POESTENKILL TOWN ATTORNEY ANDY GILCHRIST TO FILE HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE AVERILL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLEGEDLY CONTAMINATING POESTENKILL'S DRINKING WATER WITH PFAS?
On Monday, July 17, 2023, @ 8:48 AM, Poestenkill Town Councilmember Eric Wohlleber sent out a notice to Poestenkill town residents titled Subject: Poestenkill PFOA Update, wherein was stated as follows:
Neighbors,
I have received several calls/emails recently on the Town Board's action on Thursday night, so I thought I would provide an update to this group.
On Thursday, July 13th the Poestenkill Town Board approved a resolution to authorize a notice of claim in relation to the PFOA/PFOS contamination to be served to the Averill Park Central School District.
I voted for this resolution because it is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents.
By serving the school district this notice of claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination.
This notice of claim provides the Town of Poestenkill one-year to file any potential action in relation to the contamination.
As per the resolution - "The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Final Assessment Area Report on April 20, 2023 - concluding the Algonquin Middle School is the significant source area for PFOA and PFOS contamination found in groundwater in such location..." and "the Town of Poestenkill confirms it authorization to cause the preparation of a notice of claim on behalf of the Town of Poestenkill to the Averill Park Central School District.... with respect to all legal and/or equitable rights and remedies that the Town of Poestenkill may have against the Averill Park Central School District with respect to groundwater contamination and costs incurred by the Town of Poestenkill..."
The Town had, by law, 90 days after the filing of the final report (by NYSDEC) to file the notice of claim to reserve the town's rights for any potential future action, if the Town Board chooses that route.
end quotes
A new town board has been selected and sworn in and seated.
IF this is an important step in protecting the property rights, property values and the health of Poestenkill residents, and IF by filing the Notice of Claim, the Town is taking a necessary step in protecting the rights of the town on behalf of its residents who have been negatively impacted by the PFOA/PFOS contamination, then why the delay?
* WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE SUPERVISOR WITH RESPECT TO THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SUPERVISOR'S CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO ACTS AS A POLITICAL ENFORCER OR GOON FOR THE SUPERVISOR?
According to the U.S. Post Office, supervisor Russell has had that complaint in his possession since February 27, 2024.
Has he taken action to remove Church from his position as town code enforcement officer?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE ON THE POESTENKILL BOARD OF ETHICS?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE THE POESTENKILL PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN?
* OTHER THAN THE RIGHT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, WHAT QUALIFIES SOMEONE TO BE THE POESTENKILL ZONING BOARD CHAIRMAN?
* WHO IN THE TOWN IS PAYING FOR NEW SOFTWARE AND NEW ANTENNAS FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 1?
* WHO IN THE TOWN PAYS THE SALARY OF THE WATER MANAGER?
* WHY IS IT NECESSARY FOR POESTENKILL TO HAVE TO ADD CHLORINE TO THE TROY CITY WATER THAT SERVES POESTENKILL WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 1?
* IF THE ASSISTANT TO THE WATER MANAGER DOES ALL THE WORK IN THE DISTRICT, SUCH AS TAKING READINGS AND ADDING CHLORINE, WHAT EXACLY DOES THE WATER MANAGER DO?
* IS ANDY GILCHRIST STILL THE ATTORNEY FOR POLARO?
* IS ANDY GILCHRIST THE ATTORNEY FOR OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE TOWN?
* IF SO, WHY IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 14th 2024 Edition
"ON THE SENIOR CITIZENS TAX EXEMPTION"
At the February 22, 2024 town board meeting, newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, who seems to fancy himself as the autocrat or gauleiter of Poestenkill who is the supervisor or controller of the lives of the people of Poestenkill, can be heard going on in the stentorian tone he has adopted as part of his autocrat persona about the alleged or supposed senior citizens' property tax exemption which supposedly is available to senior citizens in Poestenkill, and I say supposedly, because in reality, like so much in Poestenkill, that is a sham, and I say that as someone living in Poestenkill who had that property tax exemption, which I had for many years, stripped from me by Poestenkill last year, because Poestenkill now considers my federal disabled veterans disability pension to be "income," despite federal law to the contrary (there is no law in Poestenkill) with the consequence that it put me over an arbitrary income threshold which made me ineligible.
As I say, for years I had the exemption, until last year, when all of a sudden, out of the blue, with no explanation given, I was notified by Poestenkill that I no longer had the exemption and would have to reapply.
And when I did reapply, although I have no income, I was told that I earned too much to qualify, even though I earned nothing at all.
According to Poestenkill's new rules, which will affect every other senior citizen in Poestenkill trying for the exemption, income now includes:
* all Social Security payments, salary and wages (including bonuses)
* disability payments
* workers compensation
Income does not include:
* welfare payments
So as we clearly see, and here is Poestenkill's intentional insult, if I was not a disabled veteran, but was on welfare, instead, I would be entitled to the exemption, so that for having stood up to defend this country, for which service I was twice wounded in combat, I am being penalized and denied a benefit that goes to those on welfare, which I consider a gross insult to myself as a veteran and as an insult to all other disabled veterans in this town who like me are struggling to make ends meet and are going without and doing without.
According to the Veterans’ Affairs website, disability compensation is a benefit paid to Veterans because of injuries or disease that happened during active duty, and the benefits are tax-free.
Except in Poestenkill, that is not true, because Poestenkill considers that disability compensation as income, and that serves to put me over the arbitrary threshold to be eligible for the property tax reduction, which means Poestenkill is taxing my disability compensation, because outside of that and social security, I have no other means to pay the extra property taxes, which is not only highly discriminatory to disabled veterans, but a form of theft, as well.
And the same goes for Worker's Compensation benefits, which we are told in State Agencies Bulletin No. 1404 by the New York State Comptroller under IRS regulations, workers' compensation-related benefits are exempt from federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and workers' compensation-related benefits are also exempt from New York State and local income taxes, if applicable.
Except in Poestenkill, where there is no law, that is not true, either, because despite any laws to the contrary, Poestenkill considers worker's comp benefits to be taxable income.
As to social security, according to the IRS, earned income does not include amounts such as pensions and annuities, welfare benefits, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation benefits, or social security benefits.
Except in Poestenkill, as we see above, social security is considered taxable income as well, even if no federal or state taxes were paid on it as income.
And for a married older couple in Poestenkill on social security with no other income, the combined benefits of both will likely put them over the threshold in Poestenkill, so that like me, they will be denied the exemption and instead will have to pay the full property tax amount.
So as we see, Poestenkill has set itself up as a thief here, to rob the elderly to feed its political coffers, and in Poestenkill, where there is no law, who can possibly be surprised at that!
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 14th 2024 Edition
"ON THE SENIOR CITIZENS TAX EXEMPTION"
At the February 22, 2024 town board meeting, newly-elected Democrat town supervisor Tom Russell, who seems to fancy himself as the autocrat or gauleiter of Poestenkill who is the supervisor or controller of the lives of the people of Poestenkill, can be heard going on in the stentorian tone he has adopted as part of his autocrat persona about the alleged or supposed senior citizens' property tax exemption which supposedly is available to senior citizens in Poestenkill, and I say supposedly, because in reality, like so much in Poestenkill, that is a sham, and I say that as someone living in Poestenkill who had that property tax exemption, which I had for many years, stripped from me by Poestenkill last year, because Poestenkill now considers my federal disabled veterans disability pension to be "income," despite federal law to the contrary (there is no law in Poestenkill) with the consequence that it put me over an arbitrary income threshold which made me ineligible.
As I say, for years I had the exemption, until last year, when all of a sudden, out of the blue, with no explanation given, I was notified by Poestenkill that I no longer had the exemption and would have to reapply.
And when I did reapply, although I have no income, I was told that I earned too much to qualify, even though I earned nothing at all.
According to Poestenkill's new rules, which will affect every other senior citizen in Poestenkill trying for the exemption, income now includes:
* all Social Security payments, salary and wages (including bonuses)
* disability payments
* workers compensation
Income does not include:
* welfare payments
So as we clearly see, and here is Poestenkill's intentional insult, if I was not a disabled veteran, but was on welfare, instead, I would be entitled to the exemption, so that for having stood up to defend this country, for which service I was twice wounded in combat, I am being penalized and denied a benefit that goes to those on welfare, which I consider a gross insult to myself as a veteran and as an insult to all other disabled veterans in this town who like me are struggling to make ends meet and are going without and doing without.
According to the Veterans’ Affairs website, disability compensation is a benefit paid to Veterans because of injuries or disease that happened during active duty, and the benefits are tax-free.
Except in Poestenkill, that is not true, because Poestenkill considers that disability compensation as income, and that serves to put me over the arbitrary threshold to be eligible for the property tax reduction, which means Poestenkill is taxing my disability compensation, because outside of that and social security, I have no other means to pay the extra property taxes, which is not only highly discriminatory to disabled veterans, but a form of theft, as well.
And the same goes for Worker's Compensation benefits, which we are told in State Agencies Bulletin No. 1404 by the New York State Comptroller under IRS regulations, workers' compensation-related benefits are exempt from federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and workers' compensation-related benefits are also exempt from New York State and local income taxes, if applicable.
Except in Poestenkill, where there is no law, that is not true, either, because despite any laws to the contrary, Poestenkill considers worker's comp benefits to be taxable income.
As to social security, according to the IRS, earned income does not include amounts such as pensions and annuities, welfare benefits, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation benefits, or social security benefits.
Except in Poestenkill, as we see above, social security is considered taxable income as well, even if no federal or state taxes were paid on it as income.
And for a married older couple in Poestenkill on social security with no other income, the combined benefits of both will likely put them over the threshold in Poestenkill, so that like me, they will be denied the exemption and instead will have to pay the full property tax amount.
So as we see, Poestenkill has set itself up as a thief here, to rob the elderly to feed its political coffers, and in Poestenkill, where there is no law, who can possibly be surprised at that!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 29th 2024 Edition
"POLITICAL RETALIATION CONTINUES IN POESTENKILL"
Drivers on Weatherwax Road this morning once again made note of what are being called Poestenkill's Nazi concentration camp spotlights on the north side of the brick house owned by Gettings on the west end of Liberty Lane, known locally as "Hate Alley," lighting up a patch of woods next to Weatherwax Road coming in off Rt. 66 and just past Liberty Lane like the Averill Park football field, the Rensselaer County jail, or the Poestenkill transfer station, so that it appears to passersby as if Poestenkill's version of the Ku Klux Klan were holding a mass cross burning in the woods with Poestenkill's encouragement and permission, all to strike fear into the heart of professional engineer Paul R. Plante, who has resided on Liberty Lane for over fifty years, in order to cow Plante into submission, with the hope of making life for Plante, listed in a May 1990 Report to the then-Poestenkill town board by then-Poestenkill dog control officer Christine R. Lincoln as a "well-known agitator," which is an indication of just how long Poestenkill's "Hate Campaign" against Plante has been on-going, because of Plante blowing the whistle on endemic corruption in Poestenkill, so ugly that Plante will be forced to have to flee his home in Poestenkill for his peace of mind and safety.
Drivers on the west end of Liberty Lane have also noticed that as they drive by the yellow house on Liberty Lane just east of Gettings and the house with the Nazi concentration camp spotlights mounted on its north side, that they are hit in the eyes by a spotlight mounted on the side of a carport, which is a further component of Poestenkill's on-going "Hate Campaign," which has featured and included a vehicular assault against Plante on Liberty Lane on 29 December 1989, which vehicular assault was covered over and buried by Poestenkill town court and the New York State Police.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
March 29th 2024 Edition
"POLITICAL RETALIATION CONTINUES IN POESTENKILL"
Drivers on Weatherwax Road this morning once again made note of what are being called Poestenkill's Nazi concentration camp spotlights on the north side of the brick house owned by Gettings on the west end of Liberty Lane, known locally as "Hate Alley," lighting up a patch of woods next to Weatherwax Road coming in off Rt. 66 and just past Liberty Lane like the Averill Park football field, the Rensselaer County jail, or the Poestenkill transfer station, so that it appears to passersby as if Poestenkill's version of the Ku Klux Klan were holding a mass cross burning in the woods with Poestenkill's encouragement and permission, all to strike fear into the heart of professional engineer Paul R. Plante, who has resided on Liberty Lane for over fifty years, in order to cow Plante into submission, with the hope of making life for Plante, listed in a May 1990 Report to the then-Poestenkill town board by then-Poestenkill dog control officer Christine R. Lincoln as a "well-known agitator," which is an indication of just how long Poestenkill's "Hate Campaign" against Plante has been on-going, because of Plante blowing the whistle on endemic corruption in Poestenkill, so ugly that Plante will be forced to have to flee his home in Poestenkill for his peace of mind and safety.
Drivers on the west end of Liberty Lane have also noticed that as they drive by the yellow house on Liberty Lane just east of Gettings and the house with the Nazi concentration camp spotlights mounted on its north side, that they are hit in the eyes by a spotlight mounted on the side of a carport, which is a further component of Poestenkill's on-going "Hate Campaign," which has featured and included a vehicular assault against Plante on Liberty Lane on 29 December 1989, which vehicular assault was covered over and buried by Poestenkill town court and the New York State Police.