POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 22nd 2026 Edition
"POESTENKILL'S SHIP OF STATE ON THE ROCKS WITH A STRONG ON-SHORE WIND BLOWING AND A CLUELESS CAPTAIN ASLEEP AT THE HELM!"
Before we ponder the implications here in Poestenkill of the prediction of political columnist H. L. Mencken back in the days of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge that “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people so that on some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron,” and Chief Justice Roberts making it crystal clear to us on June 28, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) that "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," and Donald J. Trump, the titular head of the Republican party of America to whom all lesser Republicans not only in America, but Iran and Venezuela, as well, owe loyalty, fealty and obeisance if they know what's good for them, telling the New York Times and by extension every Republican in America that "My own morality is the only thing that can stop me from world dominance: 'I Don't Need International Law,'" to get a feel for the serious financial situation that has been imposed on us Poestenkill residents unlucky enough to have been stuck without our consent into this Water District No. 2 Fiasco, thanks to the duplicity and perfidy of Democrat Tom "Snake In The Grass" Russell and his Republican crony Frank Burzesi, who is a licensed professional engineer with no excuse of ignorance, let's go back to 8 January 2026 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill own Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56), where we see seated at the high table from our right Republican David Hass, the reigning elder on the town board who serves in that capacity as the font of wisdom for the other council members, seated at the head of the table where he belongs, followed by Eric Wohlleber, then Michelle, and at her right hand, her champion and deputy Frank Burzesi, followed by political newcomer Republican Rodney Rescott, of whom little is known about at this juncture, and last but hardly least, at the foot of the table sits the dude known lovingly here in Poestenkill as "Little Big Man," he being the lawyer Phil Danaher, and when the play action starts, we have Michelle, the captain of our sinking ship, on stage as follows:
MICHELLE: Um, and the final business item listed tonight is the water district.
And hopefully everybody is relaxed tonight and blood pressures aren't raised.
Um, okay.
So I would like to talk, do I?
Q: Water District Two?
GARAFOLO: Yes, uh, lot's of meetings behind Water District No. 2.
Um, I don't know what the public knows.
So I am going to try to start at the basics and what we need to talk business-wise about tonight.
end quotes
Now, first off, who is the "public" that Michelle is talking about?
That is an official town meeting!
Everybody in that room that Michelle is looking out at are what is known as the inhabitants of the municipal corporation of Poestenkill pursuant to Town Law 2, while Michelle is the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation.
Thus, as far as she and we are concerned, we are the essence of the stockholders of this municipal corporation, and we aren't at all interested in being treated like ignorant second graders here who are still sucking our thumbs or a Binky with respect to this Water District No. 2 financial mess.
While Michelle knows absolutely nothing about Water District No. 2, we inhabitants of Water District No. 2 are really quite knowledgeable about what has been going on, which really isn't very difficult, given that the majority of the history Michelle is ignorant of is on Youtube.
Getting back to the reporting relationship between us, who Michelle contemptuously dismisses as "you guys," an insulting term to apply to the inhabitants of this town and especially us elders, as has been stated over and over, pursuant to New York State Town Law § 2, a town is defined as a municipal corporation comprising the inhabitants within its boundaries, formed for the purpose of exercising local government powers, and the reporting relationship between us as inhabitants of this municipal corporation and Michelle as chief executive officer is not in the nature of a hierarchical employment structure, but rather it is a political and democratic relationship between constituents and an elected official.
In point of fact, the inhabitants of the town, which is us, are the town, and it is we who constitute the municipal corporation, because logically speaking, as forbidden as that is here in anti-intellectual Poestenkill, without us, there is no Poestenkill.
As to Michelle, and it really is too bad for us that she is so pathetically ignorant with regard to her duties and responsibilities to us as the inhabitants of the municipal corporation known as Poestenkill, we inhabitants do not report to her as supervisor,
To the contrary, Michelle as supervisor and Eric, Frank, David and Rodney as the town board serve the inhabitants by managing town affairs, keeping accounts, and passing local laws, and a damn lousy job they have done of it over these last several years, Rodney at present excepted.
To conclude, Michelle as the supervisor of Poestenkill is not a "boss" of the inhabitants.
Instead, she is the primary point of contact for constituent problems, complaints, and suggestions, so that the relationship is one of representation and service, where the inhabitants elect the supervisor to manage the town's administrative and fiscal affairs.
Which takes us back to Chief Justice Roberts making it crystal clear to us on June 28, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) that "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
What we inhabitants of this municipal corporation known as Poestenkill do not need right now is a low-bandwidth, political neophyte and lightweight in way over her head in charge of this present Water District No. 2 financial fiasco, but what we inhabitants of this municipal corporation known as Poestenkill unfortunately do have right now is a low-bandwidth, political neophyte and lightweight in way over her head in charge of this present Water District No. 2 financial fiasco.
Michelle might be good at getting your logo successfully onto a coffee cup to get your brand out there for everybody to see, but with respect to this Water District No. 2 mess, she is punching way above her weight class as that saying goes.
Bottom line, we're in big trouble deep, people.
Stay tuned, more on this Financial Fiasco is yet to come.
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 23rd 2026 Edition
"WINTER IS OVER, MICHELLE, STOP THE SNOW JOB - WE'RE SICK OF HAVING TO SHOVEL IT - THE MAKINGS OF YET ANOTHER WHITEWASH AND COVER UP!"
And before we go further with debunking this obvious snow job we were getting from Republican Michelle Garafolo at the 8 January 2026 town board meeting (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56), let's go back to the following for a closer examination, to wit:
GARAFOLO: Yes, uh, lot's of meetings behind Water District No. 2.
Um, I don't know what the public knows.
So I am going to try to start at the basics and what we need to talk business-wise about tonight.
end quotes
Now, what Michelle needed to talk about that evening was the fact that Laberge, huge surprise there, wants more money from the pockets of the elderly on fixed incomes trapped inside the boundaries of Water District 2 against our will thanks to the perfidy (deceitfulness; untrustworthiness) of Democrat Tom Russell and Republican Frank Burzesi, and Michelle is trying to figure out a way to get that extra money for them.
As to what the public knows, if we go back to October of 2025, just before Election Day, we have a piece of partisan campaign literature titled "Let's get Poestenkill on the right track!" from the very same Michelle Garafolo, who seems to have a seriously short memory here, never a good sign in a public official, along with Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott, which states as follows:
Revitalizing the stalled Water District 2 project on Route 66, which has had slow progress during the past two years after the Town received significant grant funding.
The project needs to be completed or grant funding will be lost.
We need to get this project moving and water flowing!
end quotes
Now, in a sane and rational world, which Poestenkill clearly is not, a logical person would be forced to have to conclude that since Michelle Garafolo was not only aware of problems with Water District 2 in October of 2025, but took pains in her campaign propaganda to inform the people of Poestenkill, that come 8 January 2026, which is not a very long time after, that Michelle would remember what she told us in October of 2026, and would be there to give us a very lengthy report on how it was that with Republicans Eric Wohlleber, Frank Burzesi, himself a licensed professional engineer with absolutely no excuse for either ignorance or irresponsibility, and Dave Hass on the town board during that period, that this was allowed to happen by them.
But not a peep!
WHY, Michelle?
Because no Republican ever says anything bad about another Republican, especially when they are on her "team?"
As to what else we know, in another piece of partisan political propaganda from Michelle, Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott received just before Election Day, we were told this by Michelle, to wit:
Finish Water District 2 - Let's get the project completed before losing $600,000 in funding.
Costing YOU, the tax payers, more money.
end quotes
And then we find out from this same Michelle sixty-five days later that lo and behold, most of that $600,000 has disappeared down the black hole known as Laberge Engineering.
FOR WHAT?
No answer from Michelle!
As to what is really going on here, the situation we are now confronted with is as follows: to obtain approval of a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 through a referendum, the town board colluded with an outside engineer to present the inhabitants with a low estimate of the costs of the system based on a fraudulent engineering report.
After the referendum was approved, the fraud is discovered when the engineer demands more money.
The question confronting us at present is to whom the town board owes a duty - to the inhabitants or to the engineer?
And that answer is really quite simple - under New York State Town Law, the town board, in this case Michelle Garafolo, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass and Michelle's deputy Frank Burzesi with his PE license, owe a fiduciary duty to the inhabitants of the town, not to the engineer with whom they colluded.
So why on 8 January 2026 did we have Michelle Garafolo speaking up for Laberge as opposed to standing up for the inhabitants of Poestenkill trapped in the financial hell of Water District No. 2 by demanding an explanation from Laberge as well as Eric Wohlleber, Frank Burzesi and Dave Hass as to how this negligence was allowed to happen.
Instead, we got this:
MICHELLE: Just trying to be very transparent with you guys and give you guys a little bit of the background of it.
Um, before the other happens, the fourth part is the band, slash, bond and that is what we went out for at $280, $272 is what we went for.
So we have a bond counsel and a, we have discovered that for whatever reason, here nor there, we did not listen to our bond counsel and our advisors as to how to move forward with this project and we only bonded the $272,000 of the project, um, based on some of those numbers we were given.
Well, because of the fluctuations and adjustments, uh, that are out of our control that are based on federal and state regulations.
Um, basically, Laberge just came back saying you're going to be short - you're going to have a gap of $284,000.
end quotes
Michelle is more than a little flip (short for flippant, means behaving in a casual, disrespectful, or impudent manner, often failing to take serious matters seriously which implies a sarcastic or flippant attitude, being rude or shallow when a more professional or respectful demeanor is expected) with that crap about "here nor there" with respect to that major-league screw-up with the bond counsel, for which at least one person here in Poestenkill must be held to account for, along with Laberge.
And Michelle is making it clear that it is not she who is going to hold anyone in Poestenkill accountable, other than the inhabitants of Water District No. 2 who are going to be held responsible by Michelle for ponying up yet more money for Laberge, which takes us back to the concept of fiduciary duty, to wit:
Members of a town board, in this case, Michelle Garafolo, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass, and last but not least, our professional engineer Frank Burzesi, are supposed to act as agents for the municipality and hold a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and inhabitants to act in their best interests, with honesty, and to protect public funds.
Colluding to present fraudulent, low-cost estimates to secure a referendum vote is a direct violation of this duty, as it deceives residents into approving expenditures under false pretenses, and in New York, contracts procured through fraud or collusion are void and unenforceable, and a contract obtained by fraud, especially one involving a public official, is contrary to public policy.
Therefore, the town board owes no duty to honor the engineer's fraudulent demands for more money.
Also, the New York General Municipal Law and state ethical standards prohibit fraud, bribery, and corruption, so that a town board member who colludes with an engineer, especially where it leads to financial gain for the engineer, violates ethics provisions, and such actions can be grounds for removal.
Bottom line, the town board has a duty to act against the engineer's fraudulent claim and protect the inhabitants from the artificial, fraudulent costs.
So why aren't we hearing this from Michelle Garafolo?
Why her silence?
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 23rd 2026 Edition
"WINTER IS OVER, MICHELLE, STOP THE SNOW JOB - WE'RE SICK OF HAVING TO SHOVEL IT - THE MAKINGS OF YET ANOTHER WHITEWASH AND COVER UP!"
And before we go further with debunking this obvious snow job we were getting from Republican Michelle Garafolo at the 8 January 2026 town board meeting (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56), let's go back to the following for a closer examination, to wit:
GARAFOLO: Yes, uh, lot's of meetings behind Water District No. 2.
Um, I don't know what the public knows.
So I am going to try to start at the basics and what we need to talk business-wise about tonight.
end quotes
Now, what Michelle needed to talk about that evening was the fact that Laberge, huge surprise there, wants more money from the pockets of the elderly on fixed incomes trapped inside the boundaries of Water District 2 against our will thanks to the perfidy (deceitfulness; untrustworthiness) of Democrat Tom Russell and Republican Frank Burzesi, and Michelle is trying to figure out a way to get that extra money for them.
As to what the public knows, if we go back to October of 2025, just before Election Day, we have a piece of partisan campaign literature titled "Let's get Poestenkill on the right track!" from the very same Michelle Garafolo, who seems to have a seriously short memory here, never a good sign in a public official, along with Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott, which states as follows:
Revitalizing the stalled Water District 2 project on Route 66, which has had slow progress during the past two years after the Town received significant grant funding.
The project needs to be completed or grant funding will be lost.
We need to get this project moving and water flowing!
end quotes
Now, in a sane and rational world, which Poestenkill clearly is not, a logical person would be forced to have to conclude that since Michelle Garafolo was not only aware of problems with Water District 2 in October of 2025, but took pains in her campaign propaganda to inform the people of Poestenkill, that come 8 January 2026, which is not a very long time after, that Michelle would remember what she told us in October of 2026, and would be there to give us a very lengthy report on how it was that with Republicans Eric Wohlleber, Frank Burzesi, himself a licensed professional engineer with absolutely no excuse for either ignorance or irresponsibility, and Dave Hass on the town board during that period, that this was allowed to happen by them.
But not a peep!
WHY, Michelle?
Because no Republican ever says anything bad about another Republican, especially when they are on her "team?"
As to what else we know, in another piece of partisan political propaganda from Michelle, Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott received just before Election Day, we were told this by Michelle, to wit:
Finish Water District 2 - Let's get the project completed before losing $600,000 in funding.
Costing YOU, the tax payers, more money.
end quotes
And then we find out from this same Michelle sixty-five days later that lo and behold, most of that $600,000 has disappeared down the black hole known as Laberge Engineering.
FOR WHAT?
No answer from Michelle!
As to what is really going on here, the situation we are now confronted with is as follows: to obtain approval of a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 through a referendum, the town board colluded with an outside engineer to present the inhabitants with a low estimate of the costs of the system based on a fraudulent engineering report.
After the referendum was approved, the fraud is discovered when the engineer demands more money.
The question confronting us at present is to whom the town board owes a duty - to the inhabitants or to the engineer?
And that answer is really quite simple - under New York State Town Law, the town board, in this case Michelle Garafolo, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass and Michelle's deputy Frank Burzesi with his PE license, owe a fiduciary duty to the inhabitants of the town, not to the engineer with whom they colluded.
So why on 8 January 2026 did we have Michelle Garafolo speaking up for Laberge as opposed to standing up for the inhabitants of Poestenkill trapped in the financial hell of Water District No. 2 by demanding an explanation from Laberge as well as Eric Wohlleber, Frank Burzesi and Dave Hass as to how this negligence was allowed to happen.
Instead, we got this:
MICHELLE: Just trying to be very transparent with you guys and give you guys a little bit of the background of it.
Um, before the other happens, the fourth part is the band, slash, bond and that is what we went out for at $280, $272 is what we went for.
So we have a bond counsel and a, we have discovered that for whatever reason, here nor there, we did not listen to our bond counsel and our advisors as to how to move forward with this project and we only bonded the $272,000 of the project, um, based on some of those numbers we were given.
Well, because of the fluctuations and adjustments, uh, that are out of our control that are based on federal and state regulations.
Um, basically, Laberge just came back saying you're going to be short - you're going to have a gap of $284,000.
end quotes
Michelle is more than a little flip (short for flippant, means behaving in a casual, disrespectful, or impudent manner, often failing to take serious matters seriously which implies a sarcastic or flippant attitude, being rude or shallow when a more professional or respectful demeanor is expected) with that crap about "here nor there" with respect to that major-league screw-up with the bond counsel, for which at least one person here in Poestenkill must be held to account for, along with Laberge.
And Michelle is making it clear that it is not she who is going to hold anyone in Poestenkill accountable, other than the inhabitants of Water District No. 2 who are going to be held responsible by Michelle for ponying up yet more money for Laberge, which takes us back to the concept of fiduciary duty, to wit:
Members of a town board, in this case, Michelle Garafolo, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass, and last but not least, our professional engineer Frank Burzesi, are supposed to act as agents for the municipality and hold a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and inhabitants to act in their best interests, with honesty, and to protect public funds.
Colluding to present fraudulent, low-cost estimates to secure a referendum vote is a direct violation of this duty, as it deceives residents into approving expenditures under false pretenses, and in New York, contracts procured through fraud or collusion are void and unenforceable, and a contract obtained by fraud, especially one involving a public official, is contrary to public policy.
Therefore, the town board owes no duty to honor the engineer's fraudulent demands for more money.
Also, the New York General Municipal Law and state ethical standards prohibit fraud, bribery, and corruption, so that a town board member who colludes with an engineer, especially where it leads to financial gain for the engineer, violates ethics provisions, and such actions can be grounds for removal.
Bottom line, the town board has a duty to act against the engineer's fraudulent claim and protect the inhabitants from the artificial, fraudulent costs.
So why aren't we hearing this from Michelle Garafolo?
Why her silence?
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 24th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - AND AS ALWAYS, THE OBVIOUS IS RIGHT OUT IN PLAIN SIGHT FOR ALL TO SEE!"
And what is the obvious in this present case of Water District No. 2 and the demand of Laberge for yet more money from the pockets of the Poestenkill tax payers unlucky enough to have been stuck into Water District No. 2 to serve as cash cows for Laberge, or a "known known," as Donald Rumsfeld would have called it?
What is patently obvious from the partisan political propaganda sent out to the inhabitants of the municipal corporation known as Poestenkill by Republican Michelle Garafolo in October of 2025 is that Michelle was very much aware of all the problems with Water District No. 2 long before she was elected, but instead of speaking out intelligently at that time, a task I fear is a bridge too far for Michelle, Michelle instead chose silence as the most politically expedient path for her to follow, given the political clout of Laberge here in Rensselaer County.
And instead of speaking out, what Michelle did was to get together with Dave Hass before the November 2025 elections to make Water District No. 2 a political issue so she could get elected.
That's it!
More silly, infantile, childish political games which are all these hack Republicans have to offer us!
And then our Michelle has the gall to come before us on 8 January 2026, a mere 65 days after Election Day, to tell us "Just trying to be very transparent with you guys and give you guys a little bit of the background of it," when Michelle wasn't transparent, at all!
Quite to the contrary, in fact - all the transparency of a thick sheet of lead!
And then she hands us this on 8 January 2026:
MICHELLE: So, those are big numbers and I and the reason I wanted to kind of start from the ground up is I don't know who knows what here, and so I'm assuming that nobody knows anything so I can just give you all the information.
And that was a very foolish and actually quite witless as well as an insulting assumption for Michelle to make, assuming that because she knows nothing, none of the rest of us do either!
Wrong, Michelle - very wrong!
But let us go to here on 8 January 2026, to wit:
MICHELLE: Um, so it is an estimated $5.5 million project, um, that we have been working with our engineering firm Laberge on, um, starting from ground zero so you guys can kind of understand where I am headed with this.
Uh, okay.
Where did my note go?
Hold on one second.
Lots of notes up here from meeting with them.
end quotes
Lots of notes from Laberge, indeed, as they provide Michelle with the dialogue they wish Michelle to feed us on their behalf, as they are Michelle's engineering firm, or really Michelle''s handlers and controllers if she knows what's politically good for her.
But are they "our" engineering firm, meaning those of us Laberge unilaterally and arbitrarily stuck inside the boundaries of Water District 2 so they can feed off us monetarily?
And that question brings us back to Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 01:02:01 PM EDT, when I as a New York State licensed professional engineer sent the following to Republican Poestenkill councilman, now Michelle's deputy, Frank Burzesi, himself a licensed professional engineer, which missive began as follows, to wit:
Frank, these are my questions for Laberge at the hearing on Thursday, and I expect to be afforded the opportunity to ask each and every one of them as written without a three-minute time limit being imposed on me, and without me being shouted down by Tom Russell or any other member of the town board:
Let the record show that Paul R. Plante, NYSPE 062600, presently on disabled retired status, also qualified by examination to give evidence and testimony in public hearings involving public health matters as is the case here in the capacity of an associate level public health engineer, has just come to the podium to question Mr. Ronald Laberge of the Laberge Group concerning an engineering report titled TOWN OF POESTENKILL RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 AUGUST 2022 that he affixed his engineering stamp and seal to on August 29, 2022.
Good evening, Mr. Laberge, and are you PE #065464?
And for the record, sir, could you tell us what those in initials PE stand for?
And is that a political title, something awarded to you by say, the Rensselaer County Executive, or is that a title you had to earn from the state of New York by examination after proving moral fitness to be trusted with safeguarding life, health and property in New York state to include Poestenkill?
And besides the PE, do you have any other professional qualifications, such as public health engineer?
And as a PE, pursuant to Section 29.1 of the Rules of the New York State Board of Regents, the General provisions for the licensed professions including PE's, would you say you were bound to comply with substantial provisions of Federal, State or local laws, rules or regulations governing the practice of the profession, as for instance, when designing a public water supply for a town like Poestenkill, or changing their comprehensive plan to allow cluster development of some 180 acres of land along Route 66 on both sides to the Algonquin Beach Road?
Now, to your knowledge, did there come a time, sir, back in December of 21, that Laberge Croup was retained by Poestenkill to prepare an engineering report or map of proposed water district no. 2?
And who did Laberge negotiate that contract with here in Poestenkill?
And to your knowledge, sir, was that retainer in December of 21 approved by the Poestenkill town board at the December 16, 2021 Poestenkill town board meeting in the form of a written contract for specific professional services to be delivered to Poestenkill by Laberge?
And is that contract in the record here before us tonight?
And thank you for your patience, sir, and we only have a couple more matters to dispose of here and we will be done, do you recall coming to the August 11, 2022 Poestenkill town board meeting where Councilwoman Butler, Councilman Van Slyke and Supervisor Hammond were present and standing up during the public comment period to declare on the record that you, Ron Laberge, P.E., Executive VP - Laberge Group were working on obtaining NYS funding?
Was that in your contract with Poestenkill that you would somehow obtain state funding for them for something not yet specified at that time?
And do you recall at the August 11, 2022 Poestenkill town board meeting suppling the Poestenkill town board with a resolution you had prepared for them establishing the Town of Poestenkill as the “Lead Agency” for whatever project it was that you were working on at that time as Poestenkill's professional consultant?
end quotes
So there, people, is some of the real background here, and an important part of that real background Michelle either pretends doesn't exist, or she is totally unaware of, is that her deputy Frank Burzesi did his part for Laberge back in 2024 by making sure those questions were never asked in public in Poestenkill, and consequently, were never addressed by Laberge.
So where is the contract that would serve to make Laberge Michelle's "engineering firm?"
Why isn't it posted on the town website?
What are its contractual details, like how it is that Laberge was entitled to that $600,000 in Rensselaer County taxpayer dollars from Republican "Believe in Steve" McLaughlin?
What exactly is it that we are paying Laberge for?
And these are not idle questions as I sit here with a book (and oh, how the anti-intellectuals here in Poestenkill will scream "book smart, book smart" at that) in front of me entitled "Engineering Contracts and Specifications" wherein at p.7, it states as follows, and believe me, people, you do not need a PE license to understand any of this because I took "Contracts and Specifications" at HVCC as a construction technology student long before I became a professional engineer, so Frank Burzesi at the very minimum would be also well aware of this, to wit:
Development of Construction Projects
When the need for a construction project is indicated, preliminary engineering studies are required to determine the feasibility and scope of the project which can be justified by the public need or by the economic benefits which would be derived.
The results of these studies are prepared in the form of a preliminary engineering report which serves as the basis for the authorization and financing of the project in the case of private works.
For public works, the preliminary report provides the information needed by legislative bodies to judge the merits of the project, to authorize the work, and to appropriate public funds to cover its cost.
end quotes
So here is a pertinent question for Frank, Michelle, Rodney, Eric and Dave and everybody else here in Poestenkill:
IN WHAT YEAR DID LABERGE FINALLY MAKE AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE DEPTH TO ROCK ALL ALONG THE PROPOSED PATH OF THE PIPE FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 24th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - AND AS ALWAYS, THE OBVIOUS IS RIGHT OUT IN PLAIN SIGHT FOR ALL TO SEE!"
And what is the obvious in this present case of Water District No. 2 and the demand of Laberge for yet more money from the pockets of the Poestenkill tax payers unlucky enough to have been stuck into Water District No. 2 to serve as cash cows for Laberge, or a "known known," as Donald Rumsfeld would have called it?
What is patently obvious from the partisan political propaganda sent out to the inhabitants of the municipal corporation known as Poestenkill by Republican Michelle Garafolo in October of 2025 is that Michelle was very much aware of all the problems with Water District No. 2 long before she was elected, but instead of speaking out intelligently at that time, a task I fear is a bridge too far for Michelle, Michelle instead chose silence as the most politically expedient path for her to follow, given the political clout of Laberge here in Rensselaer County.
And instead of speaking out, what Michelle did was to get together with Dave Hass before the November 2025 elections to make Water District No. 2 a political issue so she could get elected.
That's it!
More silly, infantile, childish political games which are all these hack Republicans have to offer us!
And then our Michelle has the gall to come before us on 8 January 2026, a mere 65 days after Election Day, to tell us "Just trying to be very transparent with you guys and give you guys a little bit of the background of it," when Michelle wasn't transparent, at all!
Quite to the contrary, in fact - all the transparency of a thick sheet of lead!
And then she hands us this on 8 January 2026:
MICHELLE: So, those are big numbers and I and the reason I wanted to kind of start from the ground up is I don't know who knows what here, and so I'm assuming that nobody knows anything so I can just give you all the information.
And that was a very foolish and actually quite witless as well as an insulting assumption for Michelle to make, assuming that because she knows nothing, none of the rest of us do either!
Wrong, Michelle - very wrong!
But let us go to here on 8 January 2026, to wit:
MICHELLE: Um, so it is an estimated $5.5 million project, um, that we have been working with our engineering firm Laberge on, um, starting from ground zero so you guys can kind of understand where I am headed with this.
Uh, okay.
Where did my note go?
Hold on one second.
Lots of notes up here from meeting with them.
end quotes
Lots of notes from Laberge, indeed, as they provide Michelle with the dialogue they wish Michelle to feed us on their behalf, as they are Michelle's engineering firm, or really Michelle''s handlers and controllers if she knows what's politically good for her.
But are they "our" engineering firm, meaning those of us Laberge unilaterally and arbitrarily stuck inside the boundaries of Water District 2 so they can feed off us monetarily?
And that question brings us back to Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 01:02:01 PM EDT, when I as a New York State licensed professional engineer sent the following to Republican Poestenkill councilman, now Michelle's deputy, Frank Burzesi, himself a licensed professional engineer, which missive began as follows, to wit:
Frank, these are my questions for Laberge at the hearing on Thursday, and I expect to be afforded the opportunity to ask each and every one of them as written without a three-minute time limit being imposed on me, and without me being shouted down by Tom Russell or any other member of the town board:
Let the record show that Paul R. Plante, NYSPE 062600, presently on disabled retired status, also qualified by examination to give evidence and testimony in public hearings involving public health matters as is the case here in the capacity of an associate level public health engineer, has just come to the podium to question Mr. Ronald Laberge of the Laberge Group concerning an engineering report titled TOWN OF POESTENKILL RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 AUGUST 2022 that he affixed his engineering stamp and seal to on August 29, 2022.
Good evening, Mr. Laberge, and are you PE #065464?
And for the record, sir, could you tell us what those in initials PE stand for?
And is that a political title, something awarded to you by say, the Rensselaer County Executive, or is that a title you had to earn from the state of New York by examination after proving moral fitness to be trusted with safeguarding life, health and property in New York state to include Poestenkill?
And besides the PE, do you have any other professional qualifications, such as public health engineer?
And as a PE, pursuant to Section 29.1 of the Rules of the New York State Board of Regents, the General provisions for the licensed professions including PE's, would you say you were bound to comply with substantial provisions of Federal, State or local laws, rules or regulations governing the practice of the profession, as for instance, when designing a public water supply for a town like Poestenkill, or changing their comprehensive plan to allow cluster development of some 180 acres of land along Route 66 on both sides to the Algonquin Beach Road?
Now, to your knowledge, did there come a time, sir, back in December of 21, that Laberge Croup was retained by Poestenkill to prepare an engineering report or map of proposed water district no. 2?
And who did Laberge negotiate that contract with here in Poestenkill?
And to your knowledge, sir, was that retainer in December of 21 approved by the Poestenkill town board at the December 16, 2021 Poestenkill town board meeting in the form of a written contract for specific professional services to be delivered to Poestenkill by Laberge?
And is that contract in the record here before us tonight?
And thank you for your patience, sir, and we only have a couple more matters to dispose of here and we will be done, do you recall coming to the August 11, 2022 Poestenkill town board meeting where Councilwoman Butler, Councilman Van Slyke and Supervisor Hammond were present and standing up during the public comment period to declare on the record that you, Ron Laberge, P.E., Executive VP - Laberge Group were working on obtaining NYS funding?
Was that in your contract with Poestenkill that you would somehow obtain state funding for them for something not yet specified at that time?
And do you recall at the August 11, 2022 Poestenkill town board meeting suppling the Poestenkill town board with a resolution you had prepared for them establishing the Town of Poestenkill as the “Lead Agency” for whatever project it was that you were working on at that time as Poestenkill's professional consultant?
end quotes
So there, people, is some of the real background here, and an important part of that real background Michelle either pretends doesn't exist, or she is totally unaware of, is that her deputy Frank Burzesi did his part for Laberge back in 2024 by making sure those questions were never asked in public in Poestenkill, and consequently, were never addressed by Laberge.
So where is the contract that would serve to make Laberge Michelle's "engineering firm?"
Why isn't it posted on the town website?
What are its contractual details, like how it is that Laberge was entitled to that $600,000 in Rensselaer County taxpayer dollars from Republican "Believe in Steve" McLaughlin?
What exactly is it that we are paying Laberge for?
And these are not idle questions as I sit here with a book (and oh, how the anti-intellectuals here in Poestenkill will scream "book smart, book smart" at that) in front of me entitled "Engineering Contracts and Specifications" wherein at p.7, it states as follows, and believe me, people, you do not need a PE license to understand any of this because I took "Contracts and Specifications" at HVCC as a construction technology student long before I became a professional engineer, so Frank Burzesi at the very minimum would be also well aware of this, to wit:
Development of Construction Projects
When the need for a construction project is indicated, preliminary engineering studies are required to determine the feasibility and scope of the project which can be justified by the public need or by the economic benefits which would be derived.
The results of these studies are prepared in the form of a preliminary engineering report which serves as the basis for the authorization and financing of the project in the case of private works.
For public works, the preliminary report provides the information needed by legislative bodies to judge the merits of the project, to authorize the work, and to appropriate public funds to cover its cost.
end quotes
So here is a pertinent question for Frank, Michelle, Rodney, Eric and Dave and everybody else here in Poestenkill:
IN WHAT YEAR DID LABERGE FINALLY MAKE AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE DEPTH TO ROCK ALL ALONG THE PROPOSED PATH OF THE PIPE FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 24th 2026 Supplemental Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IS PRESENTED FOR MICHELLE'S BENEFIT WHILE SHE STILL HAS TIME TO CORRECT THE RECORD IF SHE HAS THE SENSE IN HER HEAD TO DO SO - SOMETHING HOPED FOR BUT NOT IN HER CASE GUARANTEED!"
Speaking as a licensed professional engineer who has resided in this town far longer than anyone sitting at that high table, and who received his early "civics" or citizenship lessons right here in Poestenkill from the women who held Poestenkill together during WWII, let us take a purely and strictly hypothetical situation that may or may not resemble Poestenkill in its particulars, it being this, to wit:
Where for a municipal corporation pursuant to NY Town Law 2 to obtain approval of a water district within the bounds of the municipal corporation through a referendum, the town board colluded with an outside engineer to present the inhabitants with a low estimate of the costs of the system based on a fraudulent engineering report and after the referendum was approved, the fraud is discovered when the engineer demands more money.
end quote
The question raised, and of course it too is very much hypothetical, is in that situation presented, can the chief executive officer of a town of the second class use her authority as a constitutional officer to alter the facts in the record to absolve the engineer of responsibility?
Said another way, here in Poestenkill, can Michelle Garafolo as supervisor feed us a cock-and-bull story that she and Dave Hass and perhaps Rodney Rescott have been working on and polishing up since at least October of 2025 to protect Laberge from charges of gross negligence in putting together that water district plan, and thereby remain in his favor as politicians, which for them a very important consideration, given what it takes anymore in funding to obtain a public office like supervisor of Poestenkill?
And that answer, of course, is so long as the people of Poestenkill allow her to do so, as was the case here in Poestenkill (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) on 8 January 2026, she can and has!
As to reality in the civilized world outside Poestenkill where Rule of Law still exists, the actual answer to that question of Michelle being able to protect Laberge by feeding us a cock-and-bull story is no, the chief executive officer (Town Supervisor) of a New York town of the second class has no legal authority to alter official records to absolve an engineer of responsibility for fraudulent cost estimates, as in the outside world, as opposed to Poestenkill, where everything seems a distorted mirror image of reality with up as down and left is right, such action would be illegal, which makes it therefore legal in Poestenkill, which has its own way of doing things with no help from books.
For the record, people, altering public records such as the actual history of this Water District No. 2 FLIM-FLAM, especially to conceal fraud or collusion, is criminal under New York State Law, and our Michelle would be classed an ignorant fool by some if she chooses to disregard that.
As to Michelle, while a town supervisor may be a constitutional officer, they, and she have to act within the constraints of New York State Town Law, which requires accurate, honest reporting regarding municipal projects and financial expenditures.
And accurate, honest reporting regarding municipal projects and financial expenditures was not what we were getting from Michelle on 8 January 2026.
Now, getting back to the hypothetical which may or may not resemble Poestenkill, if a water district was approved based on fraudulent cost estimates in a report, like say, there was no data on true depth to rock, just surmisals based on soil conditions in another town, like, say, Schodack, the approvals and contracts related to that project may be voidable, and the engineer, along with any colluding officials, could face severe legal liability.
Now, of course, people, that is hypothetical at this point.
Where it goes from here is now a ball in Michelle's court!
What will she do with it?
Will she see sense?
Or will she think this is all a bluff because everybody knows politicians and public officials here in Rensselaer County are immune from the law?
Stay tuned is all I can say!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 24th 2026 Supplemental Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IS PRESENTED FOR MICHELLE'S BENEFIT WHILE SHE STILL HAS TIME TO CORRECT THE RECORD IF SHE HAS THE SENSE IN HER HEAD TO DO SO - SOMETHING HOPED FOR BUT NOT IN HER CASE GUARANTEED!"
Speaking as a licensed professional engineer who has resided in this town far longer than anyone sitting at that high table, and who received his early "civics" or citizenship lessons right here in Poestenkill from the women who held Poestenkill together during WWII, let us take a purely and strictly hypothetical situation that may or may not resemble Poestenkill in its particulars, it being this, to wit:
Where for a municipal corporation pursuant to NY Town Law 2 to obtain approval of a water district within the bounds of the municipal corporation through a referendum, the town board colluded with an outside engineer to present the inhabitants with a low estimate of the costs of the system based on a fraudulent engineering report and after the referendum was approved, the fraud is discovered when the engineer demands more money.
end quote
The question raised, and of course it too is very much hypothetical, is in that situation presented, can the chief executive officer of a town of the second class use her authority as a constitutional officer to alter the facts in the record to absolve the engineer of responsibility?
Said another way, here in Poestenkill, can Michelle Garafolo as supervisor feed us a cock-and-bull story that she and Dave Hass and perhaps Rodney Rescott have been working on and polishing up since at least October of 2025 to protect Laberge from charges of gross negligence in putting together that water district plan, and thereby remain in his favor as politicians, which for them a very important consideration, given what it takes anymore in funding to obtain a public office like supervisor of Poestenkill?
And that answer, of course, is so long as the people of Poestenkill allow her to do so, as was the case here in Poestenkill (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) on 8 January 2026, she can and has!
As to reality in the civilized world outside Poestenkill where Rule of Law still exists, the actual answer to that question of Michelle being able to protect Laberge by feeding us a cock-and-bull story is no, the chief executive officer (Town Supervisor) of a New York town of the second class has no legal authority to alter official records to absolve an engineer of responsibility for fraudulent cost estimates, as in the outside world, as opposed to Poestenkill, where everything seems a distorted mirror image of reality with up as down and left is right, such action would be illegal, which makes it therefore legal in Poestenkill, which has its own way of doing things with no help from books.
For the record, people, altering public records such as the actual history of this Water District No. 2 FLIM-FLAM, especially to conceal fraud or collusion, is criminal under New York State Law, and our Michelle would be classed an ignorant fool by some if she chooses to disregard that.
As to Michelle, while a town supervisor may be a constitutional officer, they, and she have to act within the constraints of New York State Town Law, which requires accurate, honest reporting regarding municipal projects and financial expenditures.
And accurate, honest reporting regarding municipal projects and financial expenditures was not what we were getting from Michelle on 8 January 2026.
Now, getting back to the hypothetical which may or may not resemble Poestenkill, if a water district was approved based on fraudulent cost estimates in a report, like say, there was no data on true depth to rock, just surmisals based on soil conditions in another town, like, say, Schodack, the approvals and contracts related to that project may be voidable, and the engineer, along with any colluding officials, could face severe legal liability.
Now, of course, people, that is hypothetical at this point.
Where it goes from here is now a ball in Michelle's court!
What will she do with it?
Will she see sense?
Or will she think this is all a bluff because everybody knows politicians and public officials here in Rensselaer County are immune from the law?
Stay tuned is all I can say!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 25th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - WHAT STARTS OUT WRONG LIKE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 CAN NEVER END RIGHT - THE SIMPLE AND ELEGANT SOLUTION FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IS DISSOLUTION - LET'S GET IT DONE!"
Going back to the Poestenkill town board meeting on 8 January 2026 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) we had as follows from Michelle on the official record, to wit:
GARAFOLO: Yes, uh, lot's of meetings behind Water District No. 2.
Um, I don't know what the public knows.
So I am going to try to start at the basics and what we need to talk business-wise about tonight.
Now, I am not sure what the "public" knows, whoever and wherever they may be, but I do know what the inhabitants of the municipal corporation known as Poestenkill know, and that is as follows, to wit:
12/23/21 PFOA UPDATE: BY Bob Brunet, Water Manager/Public Health Coordinator
Many positive accomplishments have occurred since my last update and this notification covers many of those; as always, if you have any questions or would like more information please call or email me.
Some of these items are:
At the December 16th Town Board meeting the Board approved engaging the LaBerge Group to work on expanding our Water District and likely establishing a second Water District #2.
We believe that we can obtain very significant grant monies to help accomplish this.
Our preliminary work has focused on the details of an expansion to our existing system and contemplates providing municipal water to the affected area near the school.
As Supervisor Hammond stated at the meeting “This can be a very good thing for Poestenkill!”.
The Algonquin Middle School is in the final testing phases of the newly installed GAC systems (by the DEC) and expect to be operational with the new systems in January 2022.
end quotes
There, people, is the first mention we have regarding Laberge coming to Poestenkill, and when we go to the agenda for the 16 December 2021 Poestenkill town board meeting, we find listed as attendees at the high table as follows: Keith Hammond, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass, Harold Van Slyke and June Butler, and under the head VI. Action Items, as item A., we find "Approval of Laberge Group for Water District Expansion."
And how long ago now is 16 December 2021?
And from that we see that both Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass have been involved with Laberge since 2021!
So when Michelle tells us on 8 January 2026 that she was going to try to start at the basics and that she was trying to be very transparent with "you guys" and give "you guys" a little bit of the background of it. there is where Michelle should have started, back on 16 December 2021.
So why didn't she?
Because she doesn't know any of that history?
Or is it because she doesn't want us to remember it, because remembering it would lead to awkward questions for at least Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass, and since they are on Michelle's Republican team, we can't allow that to happen, lest we begin to expect and demand accountability from our Poestenkill town officials who are right now accountable to nothing and no one!
Moving forward from there, the next time we find mention of Laberge showing up here in Poestenkill is in a NEWS10 ABC article titled "Proposed $5.5 million water district for Poestenkill" by James De La Fuente on May 11, 2023, where we had as follows on the subject, to wit:
POESTENKILL, N.Y. (NEWS10) – It has been more than two years since PFAS were found in Poestenkill drinking water and tonight NEWS10 was at a public meeting where a new water district is being presented followed by public comment.
Dozens filled the Poestenkill fire house as the Laberge group presented a $5.5 million solution to the unhealthy water supply.
Nearly 60% of that bill would be covered by grants, but that still leaves the town and residents on the hook for the rest.
It’s now causing sticker shock for many in this small community.
“People you are being flim flammed."
"You want to be flim flammed, go along with these people,” said Paul Plante.
end quotes
Which of course brings us forward in time to this present moment, and when Michelle Garafolo tells us today that she wants to be very transparent with "us guys" and take us back to the basics, here is where the only basics she can take us to are, to wit:
The situation presented is as follows: to obtain approval of a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to town law 2 through a referendum, the town board hires a politically connected outside engineer to present the inhabitants with an estimate of the costs of the system based on an engineering report, the accuracy and veracity of which is then challenged by an inhabitant of the municipal corporation who is a PE further qualified as a public health engineer.
Rather than have the politically-connected engineer address the concerns, the supervisor, a non-licensed person on the town board, prior to the referendum, informs the inhabitant that he has no problems with the report and accepts it into the record while leaving the concerns of the PE out.
Have constitutional provisions or laws been violated?
end quotes
That, people, is exactly what happened here in Poestenkill with regard to the approval of Water District No. 2, which in a January 15, 2026 "Dear Neighbors" letter, Michelle told us that residents within the proposed Water District #2 overwhelmingly approved the creation of the district on June 27, 2024.
So where does that take us to, then?
How about this: based on the scenario described above, the actions taken by the town supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, and the board, that being Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass potentially violate New York Town Law, specifically regarding the procedures for establishing water districts, and they raise issues of administrative due process, for each and every inhabitant of this municipal corporation who are within the bounds of Water District No. 2, and for the record, denial of administrative due process to the inhabitants of a town in NY is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and is actionable in federal court.
As to an analysis of the laws and provisions involved, and perhaps Michelle could have Phil discourse on this subject a bit from her perspective, we have facing us as a result of the perfidy of Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi in connection with what transpired in this matter back in 2024, we have possible violation of the Town Law Procedures in Article 12/12-A of the Town Law in that Town Law §§ 202-b and 209-e require the town board to determine the "public interest" and base the project on a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer.
In this case, that wasn't done and couldn't be done precisely because in 2024, the town did not have a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer, nor did they even care!
And they did not have a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer, because Laberge did not bother to go out and find depth to rock until a year later, in 2025.
So all we and the town board had to base any judgments on back in 2024 were what professional engineers call "bull crap" numbers, which are numbers pulled out of thin air with no underlying justification.
So Tom Russell's referendum was a FRAUD!
As to suppressing testimony, which again is exactly what happened during Tom Russell's bogus public referendum in 2024, when approving a water district, the town board has a duty to review evidence, not conceal or exclude evidence as Tom Russell and Frank Buirzesis did, so that the town board must hold a public hearing to hear "all persons interested" and make a determination "upon the evidence given thereat," and by ignoring or excluding the critical engineering analysis from a qualified Professional Engineer (PE) from the record, the Poestenkill town board failed utterly and completely to perform its duty to "examine" the plans and "make such modifications and changes therein as shall seem necessary and desirable".
And by accepting a flawed report as Poestenkill clearly did at Tom Russell's bogus public referendum in 2024, a year before Poestenkill knew the depth to rock, with both Dominic Jacangelo and Greg Pattenaude being "Johnny-on-the-spot" at the podium to support the flawed Laberge Report, with the flaws being dismissed by Dom and Greg as "typos" and "clerical errors," without addressing expert testimony, that can be seen as an arbitrary and capricious decision, violating the procedural requirements of Town Law.
Further, with respect to due process for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and arbitrary decision-making by the Poestenkill town board, the board has a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to ensure the accuracy of cost estimates before a referendum.
And not only did they make no effort to do that, but they (Russell and Burzesi at the minimum) took great pains to ensure that no contrary opinions and evidence would see the light of day in that hearing, which brings us to this, to wit:
A supervisor (a non-licensed individual) unilaterally deciding to ignore the challenge to a report by a PE and not providing a mechanism for the hired engineer to defend the report or acknowledge the error is a violation of the procedural due process expected in local government land-use and engineering decisions.
The board’s refusal to include the expert challenge in the record of the hearing, which is supposed to be based on evidence, is legally improper.
end quotes
Which in turn not only renders approval of Water District No. 2 improper, but further, the submittal of an inaccurate or unsubstantiated engineering report to the State Comptroller and the public for approval, while ignoring a valid PE challenge, violates the requirement that the report accurately represents the cost and engineering validity of the project.
As to the consequences, while the PE who challenged the report can sue in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board's action as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking a rational basis, that ends up being a waste of time because an Article 78 means nothing to Poestenkill for the reason that they know it can't be enforced against them, which makes it a worthless piece of paper.
No, the way to go here is with a federal declaratory judgment action on constitutional grounds.
As to the bogus referendum, it too can be challenged on the grounds that voters were presented with misleading or inaccurate cost estimates, violating the informed consent of the residents.
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 25th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - WHAT STARTS OUT WRONG LIKE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 CAN NEVER END RIGHT - THE SIMPLE AND ELEGANT SOLUTION FOR WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IS DISSOLUTION - LET'S GET IT DONE!"
Going back to the Poestenkill town board meeting on 8 January 2026 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) we had as follows from Michelle on the official record, to wit:
GARAFOLO: Yes, uh, lot's of meetings behind Water District No. 2.
Um, I don't know what the public knows.
So I am going to try to start at the basics and what we need to talk business-wise about tonight.
Now, I am not sure what the "public" knows, whoever and wherever they may be, but I do know what the inhabitants of the municipal corporation known as Poestenkill know, and that is as follows, to wit:
12/23/21 PFOA UPDATE: BY Bob Brunet, Water Manager/Public Health Coordinator
Many positive accomplishments have occurred since my last update and this notification covers many of those; as always, if you have any questions or would like more information please call or email me.
Some of these items are:
At the December 16th Town Board meeting the Board approved engaging the LaBerge Group to work on expanding our Water District and likely establishing a second Water District #2.
We believe that we can obtain very significant grant monies to help accomplish this.
Our preliminary work has focused on the details of an expansion to our existing system and contemplates providing municipal water to the affected area near the school.
As Supervisor Hammond stated at the meeting “This can be a very good thing for Poestenkill!”.
The Algonquin Middle School is in the final testing phases of the newly installed GAC systems (by the DEC) and expect to be operational with the new systems in January 2022.
end quotes
There, people, is the first mention we have regarding Laberge coming to Poestenkill, and when we go to the agenda for the 16 December 2021 Poestenkill town board meeting, we find listed as attendees at the high table as follows: Keith Hammond, Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass, Harold Van Slyke and June Butler, and under the head VI. Action Items, as item A., we find "Approval of Laberge Group for Water District Expansion."
And how long ago now is 16 December 2021?
And from that we see that both Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass have been involved with Laberge since 2021!
So when Michelle tells us on 8 January 2026 that she was going to try to start at the basics and that she was trying to be very transparent with "you guys" and give "you guys" a little bit of the background of it. there is where Michelle should have started, back on 16 December 2021.
So why didn't she?
Because she doesn't know any of that history?
Or is it because she doesn't want us to remember it, because remembering it would lead to awkward questions for at least Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass, and since they are on Michelle's Republican team, we can't allow that to happen, lest we begin to expect and demand accountability from our Poestenkill town officials who are right now accountable to nothing and no one!
Moving forward from there, the next time we find mention of Laberge showing up here in Poestenkill is in a NEWS10 ABC article titled "Proposed $5.5 million water district for Poestenkill" by James De La Fuente on May 11, 2023, where we had as follows on the subject, to wit:
POESTENKILL, N.Y. (NEWS10) – It has been more than two years since PFAS were found in Poestenkill drinking water and tonight NEWS10 was at a public meeting where a new water district is being presented followed by public comment.
Dozens filled the Poestenkill fire house as the Laberge group presented a $5.5 million solution to the unhealthy water supply.
Nearly 60% of that bill would be covered by grants, but that still leaves the town and residents on the hook for the rest.
It’s now causing sticker shock for many in this small community.
“People you are being flim flammed."
"You want to be flim flammed, go along with these people,” said Paul Plante.
end quotes
Which of course brings us forward in time to this present moment, and when Michelle Garafolo tells us today that she wants to be very transparent with "us guys" and take us back to the basics, here is where the only basics she can take us to are, to wit:
The situation presented is as follows: to obtain approval of a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to town law 2 through a referendum, the town board hires a politically connected outside engineer to present the inhabitants with an estimate of the costs of the system based on an engineering report, the accuracy and veracity of which is then challenged by an inhabitant of the municipal corporation who is a PE further qualified as a public health engineer.
Rather than have the politically-connected engineer address the concerns, the supervisor, a non-licensed person on the town board, prior to the referendum, informs the inhabitant that he has no problems with the report and accepts it into the record while leaving the concerns of the PE out.
Have constitutional provisions or laws been violated?
end quotes
That, people, is exactly what happened here in Poestenkill with regard to the approval of Water District No. 2, which in a January 15, 2026 "Dear Neighbors" letter, Michelle told us that residents within the proposed Water District #2 overwhelmingly approved the creation of the district on June 27, 2024.
So where does that take us to, then?
How about this: based on the scenario described above, the actions taken by the town supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, and the board, that being Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass potentially violate New York Town Law, specifically regarding the procedures for establishing water districts, and they raise issues of administrative due process, for each and every inhabitant of this municipal corporation who are within the bounds of Water District No. 2, and for the record, denial of administrative due process to the inhabitants of a town in NY is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and is actionable in federal court.
As to an analysis of the laws and provisions involved, and perhaps Michelle could have Phil discourse on this subject a bit from her perspective, we have facing us as a result of the perfidy of Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi in connection with what transpired in this matter back in 2024, we have possible violation of the Town Law Procedures in Article 12/12-A of the Town Law in that Town Law §§ 202-b and 209-e require the town board to determine the "public interest" and base the project on a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer.
In this case, that wasn't done and couldn't be done precisely because in 2024, the town did not have a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer, nor did they even care!
And they did not have a "careful estimate of the expense" prepared by an engineer, because Laberge did not bother to go out and find depth to rock until a year later, in 2025.
So all we and the town board had to base any judgments on back in 2024 were what professional engineers call "bull crap" numbers, which are numbers pulled out of thin air with no underlying justification.
So Tom Russell's referendum was a FRAUD!
As to suppressing testimony, which again is exactly what happened during Tom Russell's bogus public referendum in 2024, when approving a water district, the town board has a duty to review evidence, not conceal or exclude evidence as Tom Russell and Frank Buirzesis did, so that the town board must hold a public hearing to hear "all persons interested" and make a determination "upon the evidence given thereat," and by ignoring or excluding the critical engineering analysis from a qualified Professional Engineer (PE) from the record, the Poestenkill town board failed utterly and completely to perform its duty to "examine" the plans and "make such modifications and changes therein as shall seem necessary and desirable".
And by accepting a flawed report as Poestenkill clearly did at Tom Russell's bogus public referendum in 2024, a year before Poestenkill knew the depth to rock, with both Dominic Jacangelo and Greg Pattenaude being "Johnny-on-the-spot" at the podium to support the flawed Laberge Report, with the flaws being dismissed by Dom and Greg as "typos" and "clerical errors," without addressing expert testimony, that can be seen as an arbitrary and capricious decision, violating the procedural requirements of Town Law.
Further, with respect to due process for the inhabitants of Poestenkill and arbitrary decision-making by the Poestenkill town board, the board has a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to ensure the accuracy of cost estimates before a referendum.
And not only did they make no effort to do that, but they (Russell and Burzesi at the minimum) took great pains to ensure that no contrary opinions and evidence would see the light of day in that hearing, which brings us to this, to wit:
A supervisor (a non-licensed individual) unilaterally deciding to ignore the challenge to a report by a PE and not providing a mechanism for the hired engineer to defend the report or acknowledge the error is a violation of the procedural due process expected in local government land-use and engineering decisions.
The board’s refusal to include the expert challenge in the record of the hearing, which is supposed to be based on evidence, is legally improper.
end quotes
Which in turn not only renders approval of Water District No. 2 improper, but further, the submittal of an inaccurate or unsubstantiated engineering report to the State Comptroller and the public for approval, while ignoring a valid PE challenge, violates the requirement that the report accurately represents the cost and engineering validity of the project.
As to the consequences, while the PE who challenged the report can sue in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board's action as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking a rational basis, that ends up being a waste of time because an Article 78 means nothing to Poestenkill for the reason that they know it can't be enforced against them, which makes it a worthless piece of paper.
No, the way to go here is with a federal declaratory judgment action on constitutional grounds.
As to the bogus referendum, it too can be challenged on the grounds that voters were presented with misleading or inaccurate cost estimates, violating the informed consent of the residents.
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 26th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - HOW MICHELLE STARTED SO WRONG - HER FATAL MISTAKE WAS IN ASSUMING EVERYONE IN POESTENKILL IS STUPID AND UNINFORMED WHEN NOT ALL ARE - ONCE TRUST HAS BEEN SQUANDERED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, IT CANNOT BE RESTORED - GETTING LAWYER PHIL OFF THE BENCH AND INTO THE GAME!"
To see where newly-elected Republican Poestenkill town supervisor Michelle Garafolo jumped the tracks and careened off into the weeds after being barely installed in office, a new first for a Poestenkill supervisor, all we need do is go back to the January 15, 2026 "Dear Neighbors" letter Michelle sent out to all town residents where in the first sentence, Michelle informed us as follows, to wit:
Prior to taking office, I began working closely with my Deputy-Supervisor, Frank Burzesi, to understand the status of Water.District#2, including the'progress ofthe-project, the funding challenges, and the path forward.
end quotes
And here, we must go to § 2-16, "Town Board," at p. 19 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns, which manual contains answers to many of the day-to-day questions and problems facing town boards and supervisors, as town supervisors and board members elect to take on great responsibilities, which have grown more instrumental as the issues facing towns and society as a whole have grown more complex, wherein is stated as follows in section B(1), to wit:
The town board, as a group, is the executive head of the town and must function as a body.
There is no true executive in town government like the mayor of a city or village.
Thus, an individual board member or town supervisor may not unilaterally act on behalf of the town board and each town board member has the same authority as any other board member.
end quotes
So why on earth was Michelle deferring to Frank Burzesi, of all people in town, or on the planet, for that matter, for that information, when it was Frank Burzesi who was colluding with Tom Russell and Laberge back in 2024 to present the tax payers of Poestenkill with a rigged cost estimate in order to "get it done" for Laberge on April 3, 2024 (cue, Youtube, 4.11.24 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting @ 7:38, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0BOo3NIa4 ) at what was an off-the-record "Water District No. 2 Informational Hearing" starring Ben Seiden, a vice president of Laberge Engineering who was not only Tom Russell's handler and controller, but Frank Burzesi's, as well, at the Poestenkill Fire House that evening to successfully gull the people of Poestenkill, while Tom Russell told Poestenkill engineer Paul Plante some seven times to shut his mouth while he let Seiden tell his prevarications to the unwitting people of Poestenkill to intentionally mislead them into approving water district no. 2?
Going back to the TOWN LAW MANUAL at p.20 in § 2-17(A), "Supervisor Responsibilities," we have as follows:
As a member of the town board, the supervisor has no more authority than any other individual town board member (see § 2-16(B)(1) infra).
This means that the supervisor’s vote has no more weight than any other town board member, nor does the supervisor’s vote count as a tiebreaker.
end quotes
So, once again, why was Michelle seeking all of her guidance on how to proceed with Water District No. 2 from Frank Burzesi?
Going back to the TOWN LAW MANUAL at p.21 in § 2-18, "Deputy Supervisor." we have as follows:
The town board may establish the office of deputy supervisor (see Town Law § 42).
The town supervisor appoints the deputy supervisor, but if he or she fails to do so within five days of there being a vacancy in the office of deputy town supervisor, the town board may make the appointment (id.).
However, the deputy supervisor serves at the pleasure of the town supervisor (id.); thus, even if the town board appoints someone as deputy supervisor, the town supervisor may remove that person without town board approval.
Furthermore, the town supervisor does not forfeit the authority to appoint a deputy should he or she fail to do so within five days (see 655 p 133). 33 Opns St Comp, 1977 No. 77
When a town supervisor is absent or unable to act, the deputy supervisor may perform the supervisor’s duties.
The definition of “absence” must be reasonable because, as the Attorney General’s Office stated “clearly, not every momentary unavailability of the supervisor will constitute an absence within [Town Law § 42]” (1992 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 1103).
Finally, although the deputy supervisor may act instead of the supervisor, unless the deputy supervisor is a member of the town board, he or she has no authority to vote on matters before the town board (see Town Law § 42).
end quotes
So when on January 15, 2026 in her "Dear Neighbors" letter, Michelle informed us that prior to her taking office, that she began working closely with her Deputy-Supervisor, Frank Burzesi, to understand the status of Water District No.2, including the progress of the project, the funding challenges, and the path forward, given Frank's involvement with the matter, including whitewashing the flaws in the Laberge "piece-of-crap" (a legitimate professional engineer's term) engineering report for Water District No. 2, how was that not yet more collusion?
Frank Burzesi is not the law!
Frank Burzesi is not the official source of the facts!
So instead of going to the official record which goes back to 2021 and getting her facts straight, a chore or task that was apparently too much for Michelle to handle, why did she go to Frank Burzesi, instead?
Because Frank was already in good with Laberge and Michelle wanted to also ride that gravy train?
As to getting Phil off the bench and into the game, here is the scenario Phil now finds himself in, whether or not he is cognizant of it, to wit:
An officer of the court in the state of New York finds himself in the position of town attorney for a municipal corporation pursuant to town law where to gain approval from the taxpayers in a referendum, false financial figures are given to the taxpayers, and once the referendum is approved, the supervisor informs the taxpayers that she is going to unilaterally raise the budget amount.
end quotes
Which then presents both us as town taxpayers and Phil as the town's lawyer with the following question:
Does Michelle Garafolo have lawful authority to do so?
And this follow-up: If not, what position must the town attorney take?
As to the answers to those questions, we have as follows:
First of all, an most importantly in this situation we have been forced into here in Poestenkill, where Rule of Law isn't even a dim memory, anymore, based on New York State Town Law, Michelle Garafolo as town supervisor does not have the lawful authority to unilaterally raise a budget amount that was approved by taxpayers in a referendum that based on false financial figures, regardless of what crap Frank Burzesi is feeding her, as such an action would constitute an illegal expenditure, and as the Town Attorney and as an officer of the court, our Phil has a duty to act.
For the record, and why Michelle and Frank are ignorant of this is a mystery, in New York, when a budget or expenditure is approved via referendum, it is binding, and municipal funds cannot be expended differently than what was approved, and as town supervisor, Michelle Garafolo has no authority to unilaterally increase that budget that has been approved by taxpayers.
As to providing false financial figures to obtain approval of Water District No. 2, that is a violation of financial regulations and is potentially criminal, and as supervisor, Michelle Garafolo cannot "cure" a fraudulently obtained budget by simply increasing it further.
Now, as an officer of the court, Phil as town attorney has an ethical and professional obligation to prevent illegal activity, so that in this case, the attorney, in our case Phil Danaher, must advise the supervisor, in writing, that the proposed unilateral increase is illegal and that acting on it could subject the town and the supervisor to personal liability, including potential civil and criminal sanctions under Article 18 of the General Municipal Law.
Wiil Phil actually do so?
We'll have to wait and see.
Going back to Phil, as the town attorney, Phil represents the town as a municipal corporation, not Michelle Garafolo as supervisor personally.
Thus, where Rule of Law prevails, the attorney must inform the town board of the illegal act, the fraudulent financials, and the risk to the municipality.
And if Michelle as supervisor ignores the advice and proceeds, the attorney should consider withdrawing from representation in that matter, and in extreme cases, report the misconduct to appropriate state authorities, such as the New York State Attorney General or the Comptroller's Office, as a municipal attorney’s duty is to uphold the law, even if it conflicts with a superior's directive.
The attorney must ensure the municipality does not act in a way that “seriously and substantially violates the spirit and intent of ethics regulations”.
So Phil is in the hot seat here!
How will he handle it?
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 26th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - HOW MICHELLE STARTED SO WRONG - HER FATAL MISTAKE WAS IN ASSUMING EVERYONE IN POESTENKILL IS STUPID AND UNINFORMED WHEN NOT ALL ARE - ONCE TRUST HAS BEEN SQUANDERED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, IT CANNOT BE RESTORED - GETTING LAWYER PHIL OFF THE BENCH AND INTO THE GAME!"
To see where newly-elected Republican Poestenkill town supervisor Michelle Garafolo jumped the tracks and careened off into the weeds after being barely installed in office, a new first for a Poestenkill supervisor, all we need do is go back to the January 15, 2026 "Dear Neighbors" letter Michelle sent out to all town residents where in the first sentence, Michelle informed us as follows, to wit:
Prior to taking office, I began working closely with my Deputy-Supervisor, Frank Burzesi, to understand the status of Water.District#2, including the'progress ofthe-project, the funding challenges, and the path forward.
end quotes
And here, we must go to § 2-16, "Town Board," at p. 19 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns, which manual contains answers to many of the day-to-day questions and problems facing town boards and supervisors, as town supervisors and board members elect to take on great responsibilities, which have grown more instrumental as the issues facing towns and society as a whole have grown more complex, wherein is stated as follows in section B(1), to wit:
The town board, as a group, is the executive head of the town and must function as a body.
There is no true executive in town government like the mayor of a city or village.
Thus, an individual board member or town supervisor may not unilaterally act on behalf of the town board and each town board member has the same authority as any other board member.
end quotes
So why on earth was Michelle deferring to Frank Burzesi, of all people in town, or on the planet, for that matter, for that information, when it was Frank Burzesi who was colluding with Tom Russell and Laberge back in 2024 to present the tax payers of Poestenkill with a rigged cost estimate in order to "get it done" for Laberge on April 3, 2024 (cue, Youtube, 4.11.24 Poestenkill Town Board Meeting @ 7:38, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc0BOo3NIa4 ) at what was an off-the-record "Water District No. 2 Informational Hearing" starring Ben Seiden, a vice president of Laberge Engineering who was not only Tom Russell's handler and controller, but Frank Burzesi's, as well, at the Poestenkill Fire House that evening to successfully gull the people of Poestenkill, while Tom Russell told Poestenkill engineer Paul Plante some seven times to shut his mouth while he let Seiden tell his prevarications to the unwitting people of Poestenkill to intentionally mislead them into approving water district no. 2?
Going back to the TOWN LAW MANUAL at p.20 in § 2-17(A), "Supervisor Responsibilities," we have as follows:
As a member of the town board, the supervisor has no more authority than any other individual town board member (see § 2-16(B)(1) infra).
This means that the supervisor’s vote has no more weight than any other town board member, nor does the supervisor’s vote count as a tiebreaker.
end quotes
So, once again, why was Michelle seeking all of her guidance on how to proceed with Water District No. 2 from Frank Burzesi?
Going back to the TOWN LAW MANUAL at p.21 in § 2-18, "Deputy Supervisor." we have as follows:
The town board may establish the office of deputy supervisor (see Town Law § 42).
The town supervisor appoints the deputy supervisor, but if he or she fails to do so within five days of there being a vacancy in the office of deputy town supervisor, the town board may make the appointment (id.).
However, the deputy supervisor serves at the pleasure of the town supervisor (id.); thus, even if the town board appoints someone as deputy supervisor, the town supervisor may remove that person without town board approval.
Furthermore, the town supervisor does not forfeit the authority to appoint a deputy should he or she fail to do so within five days (see 655 p 133). 33 Opns St Comp, 1977 No. 77
When a town supervisor is absent or unable to act, the deputy supervisor may perform the supervisor’s duties.
The definition of “absence” must be reasonable because, as the Attorney General’s Office stated “clearly, not every momentary unavailability of the supervisor will constitute an absence within [Town Law § 42]” (1992 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 1103).
Finally, although the deputy supervisor may act instead of the supervisor, unless the deputy supervisor is a member of the town board, he or she has no authority to vote on matters before the town board (see Town Law § 42).
end quotes
So when on January 15, 2026 in her "Dear Neighbors" letter, Michelle informed us that prior to her taking office, that she began working closely with her Deputy-Supervisor, Frank Burzesi, to understand the status of Water District No.2, including the progress of the project, the funding challenges, and the path forward, given Frank's involvement with the matter, including whitewashing the flaws in the Laberge "piece-of-crap" (a legitimate professional engineer's term) engineering report for Water District No. 2, how was that not yet more collusion?
Frank Burzesi is not the law!
Frank Burzesi is not the official source of the facts!
So instead of going to the official record which goes back to 2021 and getting her facts straight, a chore or task that was apparently too much for Michelle to handle, why did she go to Frank Burzesi, instead?
Because Frank was already in good with Laberge and Michelle wanted to also ride that gravy train?
As to getting Phil off the bench and into the game, here is the scenario Phil now finds himself in, whether or not he is cognizant of it, to wit:
An officer of the court in the state of New York finds himself in the position of town attorney for a municipal corporation pursuant to town law where to gain approval from the taxpayers in a referendum, false financial figures are given to the taxpayers, and once the referendum is approved, the supervisor informs the taxpayers that she is going to unilaterally raise the budget amount.
end quotes
Which then presents both us as town taxpayers and Phil as the town's lawyer with the following question:
Does Michelle Garafolo have lawful authority to do so?
And this follow-up: If not, what position must the town attorney take?
As to the answers to those questions, we have as follows:
First of all, an most importantly in this situation we have been forced into here in Poestenkill, where Rule of Law isn't even a dim memory, anymore, based on New York State Town Law, Michelle Garafolo as town supervisor does not have the lawful authority to unilaterally raise a budget amount that was approved by taxpayers in a referendum that based on false financial figures, regardless of what crap Frank Burzesi is feeding her, as such an action would constitute an illegal expenditure, and as the Town Attorney and as an officer of the court, our Phil has a duty to act.
For the record, and why Michelle and Frank are ignorant of this is a mystery, in New York, when a budget or expenditure is approved via referendum, it is binding, and municipal funds cannot be expended differently than what was approved, and as town supervisor, Michelle Garafolo has no authority to unilaterally increase that budget that has been approved by taxpayers.
As to providing false financial figures to obtain approval of Water District No. 2, that is a violation of financial regulations and is potentially criminal, and as supervisor, Michelle Garafolo cannot "cure" a fraudulently obtained budget by simply increasing it further.
Now, as an officer of the court, Phil as town attorney has an ethical and professional obligation to prevent illegal activity, so that in this case, the attorney, in our case Phil Danaher, must advise the supervisor, in writing, that the proposed unilateral increase is illegal and that acting on it could subject the town and the supervisor to personal liability, including potential civil and criminal sanctions under Article 18 of the General Municipal Law.
Wiil Phil actually do so?
We'll have to wait and see.
Going back to Phil, as the town attorney, Phil represents the town as a municipal corporation, not Michelle Garafolo as supervisor personally.
Thus, where Rule of Law prevails, the attorney must inform the town board of the illegal act, the fraudulent financials, and the risk to the municipality.
And if Michelle as supervisor ignores the advice and proceeds, the attorney should consider withdrawing from representation in that matter, and in extreme cases, report the misconduct to appropriate state authorities, such as the New York State Attorney General or the Comptroller's Office, as a municipal attorney’s duty is to uphold the law, even if it conflicts with a superior's directive.
The attorney must ensure the municipality does not act in a way that “seriously and substantially violates the spirit and intent of ethics regulations”.
So Phil is in the hot seat here!
How will he handle it?
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 27th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - MICHELLE IN THE HOT SEAT AS NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP SPOTLIGHTS ON LIBERTY LANE BLAZE BACK INTO GLORY IN RETALIATION IN ATTEMPT TO FORCE SUPPRESSION OF STORY THROUGH INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT - AND TAXPAYERS WONDER, WHAT SIDE WILL OUR PHIL DANAHER BE ON!"
Here in tiny Poestenkill, we taxpayers stuck in Water District No. 2 as cash cows for Laberge now find ourselves, thanks to the chicanery and duplicity of Poestenkill, in this following situation, to wit:
In order to gain approval from the taxpayers in a referendum for a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to town law 2 known as Poestenkill, the supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, presents the tax payers with false financial figures for the cost of the project.
After the referendum was approved, a new supervisor, that being Republicanh Michelle Garafolo, discovers the cost figures given the tax payers prior to the referendum were fraudulent and unrealistic, with the actual cost of the project more than what was budgeted.
The questions now presented to we, the taxpayers of this town, by that scenario, are these, to wit:
What lawful recourse does Michelle now have?
What lawful action must Michelle now take?
Searching out the answers to those very important questions, and Phil can step in here at any time and give us his scholarly and lawyerly take on the subject, which we would dearly love to hear, this is where we now find ourselves, and Michelle, of course, to wit:
The new supervisor must immediately halt the project and report the fraudulent figures to the NYS Comptroller and District Attorney, as fraudulent inducement can invalidate a referendum.
And that fraudulent inducement by Tom Russell in this specific case should invalidate that bogus and rigged referendum in 2024.
The question is what Michelle will now do.
Will she do her duty, or will she try another cover-up and whitewash?
And here I must remark that all eyes are going to be on Phil Danaher as an officer of the Court to see what side he is going to position himself on - will Phil choose to be Michelle's personal attorney?
Or will Phil be the lawyer for the municipal corporation that Michelle Garafolo is an officer of?
As to the lawful recourse facing Michelle, if she has the intelligence to see that path before her, that includes initiating a forensic audit, filing a lawsuit for fraud/official misconduct, and seeking a court order to rescind the referendum approval due to fraudulent misrepresentation, and Michelle, on behalf of those of us who do not appreciate being the victims of a slick con job done on the gullible Poestenkill taxpayers by Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi on behalf of Laberge, get that last done, post haste.
Get the referendum approval rescinded, and then report your findings immediately to the NYS Comptroller's Division of Investigations (1-888-672-4555 or investigations@osc.ny.gov).
And Michelle should also report the former supervisor, Tom Russell, to the Rensselaer County District Attorney and potentially the NY State Attorney General regarding potential criminal fraud and violation of public trust.
Ands since federal money is involved, Michelle should also refer the matter to the US Attorney's Office for investigation.
As to Laberge, Michelle must immediately freeze all expenditures related to the water district project to prevent further financial waste, which is a required step when "red flags" of fraud are identified.
Then Michelle needs to engage an independent forensic accounting firm to document the discrepancies between the presented figures and actual costs.
And then we come to Michelle having Phil bring an action for fraudulent inducement/rescission in NY State Supreme Court to invalidate the referendum results on the grounds that the approval was gained through fraud, making the resulting authorization invalid.
And Phil, on behalf of the town, can and should sue Tom Russell, the former supervisor, for breach of fiduciary duty and official misconduct.
And I am sure that a lawyer as astute and downright brilliant as Phil is reputed to be can see an incipient Declaratory Judgment action against Poestenkill brewing here like storm clouds on Michelle's political horizon should Michelle choose to double down to protect the fruits of Tom and Frank's con job on the people of Poestenkill that resulted in the residents of Algonquin Estates approving Water District No. 2 and getting the rest of us caught up in this financial mess that will now never end!
As to Michelle's proper path now, since Michelle has deemed the project unviable due to the true costs, the town must now dissolve the district under NY Town Law § 202-c, or legally restructure the financing if the original bond resolution is deemed void.
That is all of what Michelle should do.
As to what Michelle did do, in her own words, we go back to the 8 January 2026 Poestenkill town board meeting 6 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) where we have as follows:
We don't have the cash flow to make the project happen very timely.
Um, traditionally, how every other town that I have talked to and senators and assemblymen is that the town should have probably listened to the bond counsel and bonded, or I guess ban it would have it would have been a bond resolution what you do first.
The bond resolution should have been for the full project amount of the $5.5 million, not the $280 - $272,000.
So, um, what that means is we don't have cash flow for the project right now.
Um, we have been recommended after meeting with our elected officials and our engineering firm two things to do.
end quotes
Traditionally, how every other town that Michelle talked to did things?
Why is Michelle asking other towns what to do when she should be consulting the law as written?
And why is Michelle getting her recommendations on how to proceed from Laberge, who stands to profit from Michelle's actions if she can gull enough people here in Poestenkill into overpowering the rest of us in Water District No. 2 by having them unilaterally approve Michelle raising the budget however much Laberge wants her to raise it, this time, so that Greg Pattenuade can have a fire hydrant in front of his house at somebody else's expense?
Many questions!
No answers!
No transparency!
Must be Poestenkill!
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 27th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - MICHELLE IN THE HOT SEAT AS NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP SPOTLIGHTS ON LIBERTY LANE BLAZE BACK INTO GLORY IN RETALIATION IN ATTEMPT TO FORCE SUPPRESSION OF STORY THROUGH INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT - AND TAXPAYERS WONDER, WHAT SIDE WILL OUR PHIL DANAHER BE ON!"
Here in tiny Poestenkill, we taxpayers stuck in Water District No. 2 as cash cows for Laberge now find ourselves, thanks to the chicanery and duplicity of Poestenkill, in this following situation, to wit:
In order to gain approval from the taxpayers in a referendum for a water district in a municipal corporation pursuant to town law 2 known as Poestenkill, the supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, presents the tax payers with false financial figures for the cost of the project.
After the referendum was approved, a new supervisor, that being Republicanh Michelle Garafolo, discovers the cost figures given the tax payers prior to the referendum were fraudulent and unrealistic, with the actual cost of the project more than what was budgeted.
The questions now presented to we, the taxpayers of this town, by that scenario, are these, to wit:
What lawful recourse does Michelle now have?
What lawful action must Michelle now take?
Searching out the answers to those very important questions, and Phil can step in here at any time and give us his scholarly and lawyerly take on the subject, which we would dearly love to hear, this is where we now find ourselves, and Michelle, of course, to wit:
The new supervisor must immediately halt the project and report the fraudulent figures to the NYS Comptroller and District Attorney, as fraudulent inducement can invalidate a referendum.
And that fraudulent inducement by Tom Russell in this specific case should invalidate that bogus and rigged referendum in 2024.
The question is what Michelle will now do.
Will she do her duty, or will she try another cover-up and whitewash?
And here I must remark that all eyes are going to be on Phil Danaher as an officer of the Court to see what side he is going to position himself on - will Phil choose to be Michelle's personal attorney?
Or will Phil be the lawyer for the municipal corporation that Michelle Garafolo is an officer of?
As to the lawful recourse facing Michelle, if she has the intelligence to see that path before her, that includes initiating a forensic audit, filing a lawsuit for fraud/official misconduct, and seeking a court order to rescind the referendum approval due to fraudulent misrepresentation, and Michelle, on behalf of those of us who do not appreciate being the victims of a slick con job done on the gullible Poestenkill taxpayers by Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi on behalf of Laberge, get that last done, post haste.
Get the referendum approval rescinded, and then report your findings immediately to the NYS Comptroller's Division of Investigations (1-888-672-4555 or investigations@osc.ny.gov).
And Michelle should also report the former supervisor, Tom Russell, to the Rensselaer County District Attorney and potentially the NY State Attorney General regarding potential criminal fraud and violation of public trust.
Ands since federal money is involved, Michelle should also refer the matter to the US Attorney's Office for investigation.
As to Laberge, Michelle must immediately freeze all expenditures related to the water district project to prevent further financial waste, which is a required step when "red flags" of fraud are identified.
Then Michelle needs to engage an independent forensic accounting firm to document the discrepancies between the presented figures and actual costs.
And then we come to Michelle having Phil bring an action for fraudulent inducement/rescission in NY State Supreme Court to invalidate the referendum results on the grounds that the approval was gained through fraud, making the resulting authorization invalid.
And Phil, on behalf of the town, can and should sue Tom Russell, the former supervisor, for breach of fiduciary duty and official misconduct.
And I am sure that a lawyer as astute and downright brilliant as Phil is reputed to be can see an incipient Declaratory Judgment action against Poestenkill brewing here like storm clouds on Michelle's political horizon should Michelle choose to double down to protect the fruits of Tom and Frank's con job on the people of Poestenkill that resulted in the residents of Algonquin Estates approving Water District No. 2 and getting the rest of us caught up in this financial mess that will now never end!
As to Michelle's proper path now, since Michelle has deemed the project unviable due to the true costs, the town must now dissolve the district under NY Town Law § 202-c, or legally restructure the financing if the original bond resolution is deemed void.
That is all of what Michelle should do.
As to what Michelle did do, in her own words, we go back to the 8 January 2026 Poestenkill town board meeting 6 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) where we have as follows:
We don't have the cash flow to make the project happen very timely.
Um, traditionally, how every other town that I have talked to and senators and assemblymen is that the town should have probably listened to the bond counsel and bonded, or I guess ban it would have it would have been a bond resolution what you do first.
The bond resolution should have been for the full project amount of the $5.5 million, not the $280 - $272,000.
So, um, what that means is we don't have cash flow for the project right now.
Um, we have been recommended after meeting with our elected officials and our engineering firm two things to do.
end quotes
Traditionally, how every other town that Michelle talked to did things?
Why is Michelle asking other towns what to do when she should be consulting the law as written?
And why is Michelle getting her recommendations on how to proceed from Laberge, who stands to profit from Michelle's actions if she can gull enough people here in Poestenkill into overpowering the rest of us in Water District No. 2 by having them unilaterally approve Michelle raising the budget however much Laberge wants her to raise it, this time, so that Greg Pattenuade can have a fire hydrant in front of his house at somebody else's expense?
Many questions!
No answers!
No transparency!
Must be Poestenkill!
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 28th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON THE INTERSECTION OF OBSCENE IMBECILITY WITH GROSS INCOMPETENCE IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
As it is used in a political sense by professional engineers who are forensic analysts, which is the case herein, the term imbecility, with such synonyms as folly, silliness, absurdity, foolishness, senselessness, and witlessness, refers to the same kind of extreme stupidity, folly, or weak-minded behavior, which term is derived from Latin for "weakness," indicating severe intellectual feebleness, foolishness, or an instance of absurd behavior, that we saw with Republican Frank Burzesi and Democrat Tom Russell believing they could actually get away with pulling off their Water District No. 2 CON JOB on the people of Poestenkill trapped in Water District No. 2 as cash cows for Laberge to feed off of with impunity, on the belief that they held the power and are untouchables unaccountable to law or anything else, for that matter.
Which brings us to this pertinent question with regard to the relationship of such political notables in Poestenkill as Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo, along with Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott, to the rest of us, to wit:
In New York, are elected town officials like Frank Burzesi and Tom Russell somehow in a higher social class than ordinary citizens in the town by virtue of them holding public office?
end quote
Researching an answer to that pertinent question, we have as follows that in New York State, elected town officials like Frank Burzesi are not considered a higher social class than ordinary citizens by virtue of holding public office.
And that is because under New York State law and the principles of American democracy, something I started learning about on the first day of kindergarten in then then-brand new Poestenkill elementary school, back when we were still being taught to be responsible citizens, elected officials are public servants who occupy a position of public trust, rather than a superior social station.
And public trust is exactly what is missing here in Poestenkill with regard to our elected officials on the Poestenkill town board.
In New York state, municipal officers and employees are responsible for ensuring that public resources are used in the best interests of the public, not Laberge or "Believe in Steve" McLaughlin and the Rensselaer Couty Republican Party.
And here in Poestenkill, that is exactly what has transpired here in Poestenkill with respect to the CON GAME Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi were playing along with Laberge in order to get Water District No. 2 approved, so the cost overruns could begin.
Simply stated, the role of elected officials here in Poestenkill, starting with Republican Michelle Garafolo, is to serve, not to hold a superior social status.
For the record, elected officials like Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo must take an oath of office, filing an undertaking to perform their duties faithfully, which is supposed to make them accountable to the residents, not separate from them, and "whoever is elected answers to the people and only to the people".
Except here in Poestenkill where our elected officials answer to Laberge!
And here we come to the gist of the matter with respect to this Water District No. 2 SCAM - while not a higher class than any of the rest of us, no matter what they might think, and ultimately, if necessary, these are questions for a Supreme Court Justice to address in a Declaratory Judgment action to define our rights versus the obligations and duties of elected Poestenkill town officials like Michelle Garafolo should that prove necessary, elected officials in Poestenkill like Michelle Garafolo are held to a higher moral standard and must avoid conflicts of interest, as mandated by the General Municipal Law.
As to conflicts of interest by public officials like Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo, let's go to p. 27 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns that Michelle Garafolo was supposed to read before she took her office, where we have as follows on that subject:
ARTICLE IV. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.
§ 2-31. Overview. Public officials and employees are held to certain standards of behavior; municipal “ethics” refers to principles found in law that define behavior as proper.
Ethics laws are both a sword and a shield designed “to protect the public from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers, [and] to protect innocent public officers from unwarranted assaults on their integrity.”
State laws on ethics are found in General Municipal Law Article 18 and common law, which is law created by courts.
In addition, towns must have their own ethics code, which should be reviewed whenever confronted with an ethics or conflict of interest question.
end quotes
Which takes us to p.31 of that same manual, as follows:
F. Is there an appearance of impropriety?
Even if there is no violation under General Municipal Law Article 18, courts have found conflicts of interest when actions raise an appearance of impropriety.
There is no standard test to apply to determine if there is an appearance of impropriety; however, courts have stated that the potential conflict should be more than speculative.
end quotes
So there is where we are right now, people:
Is this a case of the Poestenkill Gazette acting to protect the public in Poestenkill from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers?
Or is it more a matter of the need to suppress publication of the Poestenkill Gazette, to protect alleged innocent public officers like Frank Burzesi from alleged unwarranted assaults on his integrity?
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 28th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON THE INTERSECTION OF OBSCENE IMBECILITY WITH GROSS INCOMPETENCE IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
As it is used in a political sense by professional engineers who are forensic analysts, which is the case herein, the term imbecility, with such synonyms as folly, silliness, absurdity, foolishness, senselessness, and witlessness, refers to the same kind of extreme stupidity, folly, or weak-minded behavior, which term is derived from Latin for "weakness," indicating severe intellectual feebleness, foolishness, or an instance of absurd behavior, that we saw with Republican Frank Burzesi and Democrat Tom Russell believing they could actually get away with pulling off their Water District No. 2 CON JOB on the people of Poestenkill trapped in Water District No. 2 as cash cows for Laberge to feed off of with impunity, on the belief that they held the power and are untouchables unaccountable to law or anything else, for that matter.
Which brings us to this pertinent question with regard to the relationship of such political notables in Poestenkill as Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo, along with Eric Wohlleber, Dave Hass and Rodney Rescott, to the rest of us, to wit:
In New York, are elected town officials like Frank Burzesi and Tom Russell somehow in a higher social class than ordinary citizens in the town by virtue of them holding public office?
end quote
Researching an answer to that pertinent question, we have as follows that in New York State, elected town officials like Frank Burzesi are not considered a higher social class than ordinary citizens by virtue of holding public office.
And that is because under New York State law and the principles of American democracy, something I started learning about on the first day of kindergarten in then then-brand new Poestenkill elementary school, back when we were still being taught to be responsible citizens, elected officials are public servants who occupy a position of public trust, rather than a superior social station.
And public trust is exactly what is missing here in Poestenkill with regard to our elected officials on the Poestenkill town board.
In New York state, municipal officers and employees are responsible for ensuring that public resources are used in the best interests of the public, not Laberge or "Believe in Steve" McLaughlin and the Rensselaer Couty Republican Party.
And here in Poestenkill, that is exactly what has transpired here in Poestenkill with respect to the CON GAME Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi were playing along with Laberge in order to get Water District No. 2 approved, so the cost overruns could begin.
Simply stated, the role of elected officials here in Poestenkill, starting with Republican Michelle Garafolo, is to serve, not to hold a superior social status.
For the record, elected officials like Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo must take an oath of office, filing an undertaking to perform their duties faithfully, which is supposed to make them accountable to the residents, not separate from them, and "whoever is elected answers to the people and only to the people".
Except here in Poestenkill where our elected officials answer to Laberge!
And here we come to the gist of the matter with respect to this Water District No. 2 SCAM - while not a higher class than any of the rest of us, no matter what they might think, and ultimately, if necessary, these are questions for a Supreme Court Justice to address in a Declaratory Judgment action to define our rights versus the obligations and duties of elected Poestenkill town officials like Michelle Garafolo should that prove necessary, elected officials in Poestenkill like Michelle Garafolo are held to a higher moral standard and must avoid conflicts of interest, as mandated by the General Municipal Law.
As to conflicts of interest by public officials like Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo, let's go to p. 27 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns that Michelle Garafolo was supposed to read before she took her office, where we have as follows on that subject:
ARTICLE IV. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.
§ 2-31. Overview. Public officials and employees are held to certain standards of behavior; municipal “ethics” refers to principles found in law that define behavior as proper.
Ethics laws are both a sword and a shield designed “to protect the public from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers, [and] to protect innocent public officers from unwarranted assaults on their integrity.”
State laws on ethics are found in General Municipal Law Article 18 and common law, which is law created by courts.
In addition, towns must have their own ethics code, which should be reviewed whenever confronted with an ethics or conflict of interest question.
end quotes
Which takes us to p.31 of that same manual, as follows:
F. Is there an appearance of impropriety?
Even if there is no violation under General Municipal Law Article 18, courts have found conflicts of interest when actions raise an appearance of impropriety.
There is no standard test to apply to determine if there is an appearance of impropriety; however, courts have stated that the potential conflict should be more than speculative.
end quotes
So there is where we are right now, people:
Is this a case of the Poestenkill Gazette acting to protect the public in Poestenkill from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers?
Or is it more a matter of the need to suppress publication of the Poestenkill Gazette, to protect alleged innocent public officers like Frank Burzesi from alleged unwarranted assaults on his integrity?
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 29th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON THE ETHICS DEFICIT IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
Going back for the moment to p. 27 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns, which manual is supposed to be in town hall, and which manual Michelle Garafolo was supposed to have read before she took her office, but clearly didn't, preferring instead to go by what other towns do, and what Laberge tells her to do like a good puppet, we find ourselves confronted by the following, to wit:
ARTICLE IV. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.
§ 2-31. Overview. Public officials and employees are held to certain standards of behavior; municipal “ethics” refers to principles found in law that define behavior as proper.
Ethics laws are both a sword and a shield designed “to protect the public from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers, [and] to protect innocent public officers from unwarranted assaults on their integrity.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to these two competing questions, because it has to be one or the other, to wit:
Is this a case of the Poestenkill Gazette acting to protect the public in Poestenkill from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers?
Or is it more a matter of the need to suppress publication of the Poestenkill Gazette, to protect alleged innocent public officers like Frank Burzesi from alleged unwarranted assaults on his integrity?
Which takes us to p.31 of that same manual, as follows:
F. Is there an appearance of impropriety?
Even if there is no violation under General Municipal Law Article 18, courts have found conflicts of interest when actions raise an appearance of impropriety.
end quotes
And there is our test, people, as we consider whether the actions of Michelle Garafolo and Franki Burzesi in connection with this well-orchestrated Water District No. 2 SCAM raise an appearance of impropriety.
But before we move on from the ethical requirements of our town's lawyer, or at least Michelle's lawyer, in this present situation of where Michelle has discovered that in order to gain approval from the Poestenkill taxpayers in a referendum for Water District in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 known as Poestenkill, the prior supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, had presented the tax payers with false financial figures for the cost of the project, and after the referendum was approved, the new supervisor, that being Republican Michelle Garafolo, discovered the cost figures given the tax payers prior to the referendum were fraudulent and unrealistic, with the actual cost of the project more than what was budgeted, let's deal with is pertinent question first, to wit:
Q: A professional engineer who is resident of a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 who is not a lawyer publishes his views to his fellow residents on how a referendum for a public water supply was corrupted by town officials and how to take legal action against the corrupt local government.
Has the resident committed a felony by discussing the law without having a lawyer's license?
For that answer, we have as follows:
Based on New York State law, the resident has not likely committed a felony simply by discussing the law and advising fellow residents on how to take legal action against a local government, provided they did not hold themselves out as a licensed attorney, represent others in a court of record, or charge for their services.
And here we go back to circa 1986, when a gentleman in Troy named Ned Pattison, who was a lawyer and congressman, accused then Rensselaer County Associate Public health Engineer Paul Plante, PE, of illegally playing at being a lawyer, a very serious crime from the perspective of the lawyers who are very jealous and protective of their cash flow, because Plante had sent his client a "chapter and verse" letter quoting from the New York State Public Health Law and Sanitary Code.
Plante's response, which earned him an apology from Congressman Pattison, proof that he was indeed a gentleman, was essentially as follows:
"In these troubled times we find ourselves in, it is important to not only know who you are, but more importantly, to know who you are not, and in this case, who I know I am not is a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one!"
"Who I know I am is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York with a duty to safeguard life, health and property, who is further charged with enforcement of the state Public Health Law in the Rensselaer County Health District, and as such, those laws and regulations that I cite are the TOOLS that I use as a professional engineer to fulfill my duties!"
end quotes
So I quite clearly am not holding myself out in here as a licensed attorney, as if only attorneys are allowed to know and speak to the law here in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County or New York state, which brings us to this pertinent question, to wit:
Q: In New York, to know the law and to follow the law, must one be a lawyer?
And that answer, as I learned the first day on kindergarten in the then brand-new Poestenkill Elementary School, is as follows, to wit:
No, you do not need to be a lawyer to know and follow the law in New York.
While only licensed attorneys can provide legal advice or represent others in court, all residents are expected to understand and abide by state laws.
The law is public information available for anyone to read and follow.
Ignorance of the law is generally not a defense for breaking it.
Residents can access New York laws via official government websites and public legal resources.
end quotes
So why don't Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo know the law, then?
What, pray tell, is their excuse?
Stay tuned!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 29th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON THE ETHICS DEFICIT IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
Going back for the moment to p. 27 of the TOWN LAW MANUAL For Town Supervisors and Town Board Members published by the New York State Association of Towns, which manual is supposed to be in town hall, and which manual Michelle Garafolo was supposed to have read before she took her office, but clearly didn't, preferring instead to go by what other towns do, and what Laberge tells her to do like a good puppet, we find ourselves confronted by the following, to wit:
ARTICLE IV. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.
§ 2-31. Overview. Public officials and employees are held to certain standards of behavior; municipal “ethics” refers to principles found in law that define behavior as proper.
Ethics laws are both a sword and a shield designed “to protect the public from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers, [and] to protect innocent public officers from unwarranted assaults on their integrity.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to these two competing questions, because it has to be one or the other, to wit:
Is this a case of the Poestenkill Gazette acting to protect the public in Poestenkill from municipal contracts influenced by avaricious officers?
Or is it more a matter of the need to suppress publication of the Poestenkill Gazette, to protect alleged innocent public officers like Frank Burzesi from alleged unwarranted assaults on his integrity?
Which takes us to p.31 of that same manual, as follows:
F. Is there an appearance of impropriety?
Even if there is no violation under General Municipal Law Article 18, courts have found conflicts of interest when actions raise an appearance of impropriety.
end quotes
And there is our test, people, as we consider whether the actions of Michelle Garafolo and Franki Burzesi in connection with this well-orchestrated Water District No. 2 SCAM raise an appearance of impropriety.
But before we move on from the ethical requirements of our town's lawyer, or at least Michelle's lawyer, in this present situation of where Michelle has discovered that in order to gain approval from the Poestenkill taxpayers in a referendum for Water District in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 known as Poestenkill, the prior supervisor, that being Democrat Tom Russell, had presented the tax payers with false financial figures for the cost of the project, and after the referendum was approved, the new supervisor, that being Republican Michelle Garafolo, discovered the cost figures given the tax payers prior to the referendum were fraudulent and unrealistic, with the actual cost of the project more than what was budgeted, let's deal with is pertinent question first, to wit:
Q: A professional engineer who is resident of a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 who is not a lawyer publishes his views to his fellow residents on how a referendum for a public water supply was corrupted by town officials and how to take legal action against the corrupt local government.
Has the resident committed a felony by discussing the law without having a lawyer's license?
For that answer, we have as follows:
Based on New York State law, the resident has not likely committed a felony simply by discussing the law and advising fellow residents on how to take legal action against a local government, provided they did not hold themselves out as a licensed attorney, represent others in a court of record, or charge for their services.
And here we go back to circa 1986, when a gentleman in Troy named Ned Pattison, who was a lawyer and congressman, accused then Rensselaer County Associate Public health Engineer Paul Plante, PE, of illegally playing at being a lawyer, a very serious crime from the perspective of the lawyers who are very jealous and protective of their cash flow, because Plante had sent his client a "chapter and verse" letter quoting from the New York State Public Health Law and Sanitary Code.
Plante's response, which earned him an apology from Congressman Pattison, proof that he was indeed a gentleman, was essentially as follows:
"In these troubled times we find ourselves in, it is important to not only know who you are, but more importantly, to know who you are not, and in this case, who I know I am not is a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one!"
"Who I know I am is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York with a duty to safeguard life, health and property, who is further charged with enforcement of the state Public Health Law in the Rensselaer County Health District, and as such, those laws and regulations that I cite are the TOOLS that I use as a professional engineer to fulfill my duties!"
end quotes
So I quite clearly am not holding myself out in here as a licensed attorney, as if only attorneys are allowed to know and speak to the law here in Poestenkill, Rensselaer County or New York state, which brings us to this pertinent question, to wit:
Q: In New York, to know the law and to follow the law, must one be a lawyer?
And that answer, as I learned the first day on kindergarten in the then brand-new Poestenkill Elementary School, is as follows, to wit:
No, you do not need to be a lawyer to know and follow the law in New York.
While only licensed attorneys can provide legal advice or represent others in court, all residents are expected to understand and abide by state laws.
The law is public information available for anyone to read and follow.
Ignorance of the law is generally not a defense for breaking it.
Residents can access New York laws via official government websites and public legal resources.
end quotes
So why don't Frank Burzesi and Michelle Garafolo know the law, then?
What, pray tell, is their excuse?
Stay tuned!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 30th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON OBSCENE IMBECILITY AS A FATAL AND INCURABLE FLAW IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
In our language, those of us from the last century who still speak English, anyway, as opposed to the gibberish of "TWEETERESE," the new American language for those who cannot handle too many vowels, consonants and syllables at one time, the word "obscene" means "offensive to moral principles," or "repugnant," while the term imbecility, with such synonyms as folly, silliness, absurdity, foolishness, senselessness, and witlessness, refers to the same kind of extreme stupidity, folly, or weak-minded behavior, which term is derived from Latin for "weakness," indicating severe intellectual feebleness, and for a prima facie example of obscene imbecility in Poestenkill town government today, we need got no farther than Michelle Garafolo telling us on 8 January 2026 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) as follows:
We don't have the cash flow to make the project happen very timely.
Um, traditionally, how every other town that I have talked to and senators and assemblymen is that the town should have probably listened to the bond counsel and bonded, or I guess ban it would have it would have been a bond resolution what you do first.
end quote
It is that tradition of doing what people in other towns are doing instead of following the letter of the law, which is actually so easy a child could do it, that has imported corruption into Poestenkill, and what does Michelle Garafolo, who came here from Florida, and has never bothered to learn anything about new York, and especially Poestenkill, know about "tradition," other than the tradition of corruption as a main stay of Poestenkill town government, which brings us to this question which pertains to Michelle Garafolo, Frank Burzesi, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass as well as Greg Pattenaude, and Dominic Jacangelo and everybody else in Poestenkill, to wit:
Q: For a citizen of New York state, say, Frank Burzesi or Michelle Garafolo to know and understand the law, must they be a lawyer?
And that answer is clearly no, a citizen of New York State does not need to be a lawyer to know and understand the law, but they are legally presumed to know it.
While the law is complex and written in "legalese," it is publicly accessible, and individuals are expected to understand their rights and responsibilities to remain in compliance.
Ignorance is not a defense, people, under New York Penal Law, not knowing that a law exists or that an action is criminal is generally not a valid defense.
As to accessibility of law, especially today, the New York State constitution and statutes are public records available online, designed to be read by the general public.
And that takes us back to the October 29th 2024 Edition of the Gazette, titled "FOR WHAT DID FRANK BURZESI NEED A LAWYER," where we had more obscene imbecility Poestenkill-style involving Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi, to wit:
No one in Poestenkill who regularly watches the antics of the Poestenkill Town Board as it goes about "governing" Poestenkill like the Keystone Cops would ever be foolish enough to try and claim that what goes on in Poestenkill Town Hall when the Town Board is in session makes a lick of sense to a sane and rational person, and case in point was an exchange that took place in Poestenkill Town Hall on October 10, 2024 between Poestenkill resident Lee King and Democrat supervisor Tom Russell concerning the Poestenkill town park, which exchange began with Mr. King asking a very simple question of councilman Frank Burzesi at 56:24 of the official record (cue, Youtube, October 10, 2024 meeting of the Poestenkill Town Board https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MvxQjuiepY at 56:24), to wit:
LEE KING: There is a need for an official resolution to be brought before the Town Board for a vote, yes or no, to adopt the resolution or to not.
Now, I'm going to go back to you, councilman Burzesi, do you favor that there would be a resolution drafted in legal form brought before the Town Board for a yes or no vote?
end quotes
Now, before going further, here it must be said that in addition to being a Poestenkill councilperson, Frank Burzesi is also licensed in the state of New York as a professional engineer, and to obtain that license, councilman Burzesi was required to have a minimum of four years of college education, which education would have supplied councilman Burzesi with a working vocabulary more that sufficient to provide him with words adequate to the purpose of responding to that simple question, which required nothing more than a simple yes or no answer, something Mr. Burzesi's engineering education would have supplied him with the necessary intellectual horsepower to be able to do.
But before councilman Burzesi could respond to that simple question, Poestenkill town supervisor Russell jumped in as follows to quash the line of inquiry put forth to councilman Burzesi by Mr. King, which is where the proceedings turned distinctly bizarre and weird, to wit:
RUSSELL: I respect - we do not have legal representation tonight, Lee, I understand your point but I respectfully ask that you not continue with that particular questioning here on this matter.
end quote
Now, what makes that truly bizarre in Poestenkill fashion is that this same Frank Burzesi had only just finished publicly excoriating Poestenkill town resident Patrick Wing in that same meeting, without legal representation being present, calling down anathema on Mr. Wing in a jeremiad Frank Burzesi had no trouble finding words for on his own, because Mr. Wing had dared to publish an informative town newsletter titled "Poestenkill Spotlight" without prior permission and approval from the Poestenkill town board, and all the time that excoriation went on, supervisor Russell sat there mute and let it happen, despite there being no legal representation present.
So why then, after allowing Frank Burzesi to publicly attack Patrick Wing for exercising his Constitutional right to engage in protected political speech in Poestenkill did supervisor Russell feel it necessary to step in and shield Frank Burzesi, as if Tom Russell were pleading the Fifth Amendment for him, lest Mr. Burzesi, who had already incriminated himself with his attack on Patrick Wing, somehow incriminate himself answering Mr. King's simple question?
See what I am saying about obscene imbecility here in Poestenkill on steroids?
Which brings us to this pertinent question as necessary background before we go further, so that when the taxpayers of Poestenkill find themselves having to pony up yet more money to buy the services of yet more fancy-grade Albany lawyers to defend our public officials from charges of corruption, they will understand why, to wit:
Q: A candidate for public office in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 campaigns promise to be corrupt and is subsequently elected by a majority.
Does that then constitute a mandate for the elected official to be corrupt to fulfill the campaign promise?
end quotes
And that answer again is no, a campaign promise to be corrupt does not constitute a legal mandate for an elected official to be corrupt, regardless of whether they were elected by a majority.
In New York State, as in the United States generally, campaign promises cannot legalize actions that are defined as criminal or unlawful by statute, the constitution, or public policy.
A "mandate" in a democratic system is a mandate to serve the public interest within the bounds of the law.
A candidate cannot promise to violate their oath of office, and if they do, that promise is void as against public policy.
And acting on a promise of corruption would likely violate New York Penal Law, such as NY Penal Law § 496.04 (Corrupting the Government), which is a class C felony, and other statutes related to bribery or receiving unlawful gratuities.
And then we have NY Election Law § 17-152, where conspiring to promote an election by unlawful means is a misdemeanor, indicating that the campaign process itself must be lawful.
So even if a candidate campaigns on a promise to be corrupt, actually acting on that promise by being corrupt makes the official liable to criminal prosecution, removal from office, and potential civil penalties, as an official who promises corruption, even if elected, does not gain immunity from the duties and restrictions placed upon them by law.
In summary, a promise to commit a crime cannot be transformed into a legal authorization by an election result.
But stay tuned, for more is yet to come!
Dedicated to egalitarianism over pettifoggery and snobbery, and the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill for Democracy in Poestenkill dies in Darkness, while in Darkness, Corruption in Poestenkill Flourishes
"It is when authority in Poestenkill is abused that authority in Poestenkill becomes contemptable!"
"The law is far too precious a thing to be left in the hands of lawyers!"
"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything!"
"The press is the scourge of tyrants and the grand palladium of liberty."
March 30th 2026 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FIASCO, CONTINUED - ON OBSCENE IMBECILITY AS A FATAL AND INCURABLE FLAW IN POESTENKILL TOWN GOVERNMENT TODAY!"
In our language, those of us from the last century who still speak English, anyway, as opposed to the gibberish of "TWEETERESE," the new American language for those who cannot handle too many vowels, consonants and syllables at one time, the word "obscene" means "offensive to moral principles," or "repugnant," while the term imbecility, with such synonyms as folly, silliness, absurdity, foolishness, senselessness, and witlessness, refers to the same kind of extreme stupidity, folly, or weak-minded behavior, which term is derived from Latin for "weakness," indicating severe intellectual feebleness, and for a prima facie example of obscene imbecility in Poestenkill town government today, we need got no farther than Michelle Garafolo telling us on 8 January 2026 (cue, Youtube, Poestenkill Town Board meeting, 1-8-2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d23g4jURUy4 @ 42:56) as follows:
We don't have the cash flow to make the project happen very timely.
Um, traditionally, how every other town that I have talked to and senators and assemblymen is that the town should have probably listened to the bond counsel and bonded, or I guess ban it would have it would have been a bond resolution what you do first.
end quote
It is that tradition of doing what people in other towns are doing instead of following the letter of the law, which is actually so easy a child could do it, that has imported corruption into Poestenkill, and what does Michelle Garafolo, who came here from Florida, and has never bothered to learn anything about new York, and especially Poestenkill, know about "tradition," other than the tradition of corruption as a main stay of Poestenkill town government, which brings us to this question which pertains to Michelle Garafolo, Frank Burzesi, Rodney Rescott, Eric Wohlleber and Dave Hass as well as Greg Pattenaude, and Dominic Jacangelo and everybody else in Poestenkill, to wit:
Q: For a citizen of New York state, say, Frank Burzesi or Michelle Garafolo to know and understand the law, must they be a lawyer?
And that answer is clearly no, a citizen of New York State does not need to be a lawyer to know and understand the law, but they are legally presumed to know it.
While the law is complex and written in "legalese," it is publicly accessible, and individuals are expected to understand their rights and responsibilities to remain in compliance.
Ignorance is not a defense, people, under New York Penal Law, not knowing that a law exists or that an action is criminal is generally not a valid defense.
As to accessibility of law, especially today, the New York State constitution and statutes are public records available online, designed to be read by the general public.
And that takes us back to the October 29th 2024 Edition of the Gazette, titled "FOR WHAT DID FRANK BURZESI NEED A LAWYER," where we had more obscene imbecility Poestenkill-style involving Tom Russell and Frank Burzesi, to wit:
No one in Poestenkill who regularly watches the antics of the Poestenkill Town Board as it goes about "governing" Poestenkill like the Keystone Cops would ever be foolish enough to try and claim that what goes on in Poestenkill Town Hall when the Town Board is in session makes a lick of sense to a sane and rational person, and case in point was an exchange that took place in Poestenkill Town Hall on October 10, 2024 between Poestenkill resident Lee King and Democrat supervisor Tom Russell concerning the Poestenkill town park, which exchange began with Mr. King asking a very simple question of councilman Frank Burzesi at 56:24 of the official record (cue, Youtube, October 10, 2024 meeting of the Poestenkill Town Board https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MvxQjuiepY at 56:24), to wit:
LEE KING: There is a need for an official resolution to be brought before the Town Board for a vote, yes or no, to adopt the resolution or to not.
Now, I'm going to go back to you, councilman Burzesi, do you favor that there would be a resolution drafted in legal form brought before the Town Board for a yes or no vote?
end quotes
Now, before going further, here it must be said that in addition to being a Poestenkill councilperson, Frank Burzesi is also licensed in the state of New York as a professional engineer, and to obtain that license, councilman Burzesi was required to have a minimum of four years of college education, which education would have supplied councilman Burzesi with a working vocabulary more that sufficient to provide him with words adequate to the purpose of responding to that simple question, which required nothing more than a simple yes or no answer, something Mr. Burzesi's engineering education would have supplied him with the necessary intellectual horsepower to be able to do.
But before councilman Burzesi could respond to that simple question, Poestenkill town supervisor Russell jumped in as follows to quash the line of inquiry put forth to councilman Burzesi by Mr. King, which is where the proceedings turned distinctly bizarre and weird, to wit:
RUSSELL: I respect - we do not have legal representation tonight, Lee, I understand your point but I respectfully ask that you not continue with that particular questioning here on this matter.
end quote
Now, what makes that truly bizarre in Poestenkill fashion is that this same Frank Burzesi had only just finished publicly excoriating Poestenkill town resident Patrick Wing in that same meeting, without legal representation being present, calling down anathema on Mr. Wing in a jeremiad Frank Burzesi had no trouble finding words for on his own, because Mr. Wing had dared to publish an informative town newsletter titled "Poestenkill Spotlight" without prior permission and approval from the Poestenkill town board, and all the time that excoriation went on, supervisor Russell sat there mute and let it happen, despite there being no legal representation present.
So why then, after allowing Frank Burzesi to publicly attack Patrick Wing for exercising his Constitutional right to engage in protected political speech in Poestenkill did supervisor Russell feel it necessary to step in and shield Frank Burzesi, as if Tom Russell were pleading the Fifth Amendment for him, lest Mr. Burzesi, who had already incriminated himself with his attack on Patrick Wing, somehow incriminate himself answering Mr. King's simple question?
See what I am saying about obscene imbecility here in Poestenkill on steroids?
Which brings us to this pertinent question as necessary background before we go further, so that when the taxpayers of Poestenkill find themselves having to pony up yet more money to buy the services of yet more fancy-grade Albany lawyers to defend our public officials from charges of corruption, they will understand why, to wit:
Q: A candidate for public office in a municipal corporation pursuant to Town Law 2 campaigns promise to be corrupt and is subsequently elected by a majority.
Does that then constitute a mandate for the elected official to be corrupt to fulfill the campaign promise?
end quotes
And that answer again is no, a campaign promise to be corrupt does not constitute a legal mandate for an elected official to be corrupt, regardless of whether they were elected by a majority.
In New York State, as in the United States generally, campaign promises cannot legalize actions that are defined as criminal or unlawful by statute, the constitution, or public policy.
A "mandate" in a democratic system is a mandate to serve the public interest within the bounds of the law.
A candidate cannot promise to violate their oath of office, and if they do, that promise is void as against public policy.
And acting on a promise of corruption would likely violate New York Penal Law, such as NY Penal Law § 496.04 (Corrupting the Government), which is a class C felony, and other statutes related to bribery or receiving unlawful gratuities.
And then we have NY Election Law § 17-152, where conspiring to promote an election by unlawful means is a misdemeanor, indicating that the campaign process itself must be lawful.
So even if a candidate campaigns on a promise to be corrupt, actually acting on that promise by being corrupt makes the official liable to criminal prosecution, removal from office, and potential civil penalties, as an official who promises corruption, even if elected, does not gain immunity from the duties and restrictions placed upon them by law.
In summary, a promise to commit a crime cannot be transformed into a legal authorization by an election result.
But stay tuned, for more is yet to come!