Laws? What Laws?

When will leadership wake up in Lewis County and realize that, yes, they too must abide by the rules and laws of New York State?

As you know, I have long opposed the attempts by Lewis County to establish an ATV trail system any old way they want to by ignoring state laws. The April 9, 2011 Watertown Daily Times carried an article about the complaints of the Adirondack Council over how the ATV bar hopping event called the "Snirt Run" has been established. The Adirondack Council points out that no State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) has been done on the massive event that usually results in trespass and a number of environmental atrocities, such as riding in streams and wetlands. Also, the Council mirrors my concerns about the illegal opening of roads pointing out that the County has opened roads for the "Snirt Run" beyond the constraints of Section 2405 of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. This event is about riding on roads and not connecting roads to trails, making the entire event an illegal action, at least if someone is interested in following state law.

Lewis County and a number of its towns have had a long history of illegally opening roads to ATV traffic. Despite an increasing number of Supreme Court cases that have enforced the restrictions in Section 2405 in Vehicle and Traffic Law, Lewis County has continued to flagrantly open roads to ATV use.

This has not happened in a vacuum. County Legislator Rick Lucas, owner of the Montague Inn ATV bar, has pushed the county to open roads even though he was told to recuse himself from involvement in this issue by the Lewis County Ethics Board in 2005. He recently thumbed his nose at the Ethics Board by announcing he would vote on ATV issues, essentially as he sees fit.

Now apparently, Lewis County and/or those with whom it partners in putting on the "Snirt Run", have decided that opening county roads beyond state law is old hat. During the April 9, 2011 event, a short section of New York State Rt. 26 was opened to connect two Town of Turin roads, the Houseville Gulf Road and the Houseville Road. This section of state highway was marked by four signs that said "SNIRT" (see accompanying photos), directing event participants down the state highway from one town road to another. Event organizers apparently felt this was necessary in order to give ATV riders a connection from Tug Hill to the Brantingham area. Unfortunately, according to my source, it seems they neglected to get permission from the State of New York to open this road which is necessary under New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. I contacted the Lewis County Sheriff's Department to see if this road was opened with permission from the state. My contact told me that indeed, no, permission had not been received and that no paperwork was in my contact's possession to indicate that any state permission existed.

Monday morning update: Sources at the New York State DOT in Watertown say that they were never contacted by anyone for permission to open that portion of state highway.

Who dropped the ball on this? Barnes Corners Sno Pals that sponsors this mess? How about our well compensated Lewis County Trail Coordinator? Was this deliberate?

Lewis County... where laws don't matter.

Not Time To Cheer Yet

Last night the Lewis County Board of Legislators demanded further cuts from their beleagured Department heads. This is in an attempt to reduce the tax increase to zero and thwart criticism of their hoarding of 14.6 million dollars (this the correct figure- not the watered down 11 million dollar figure often repeated) of taxpayer's money in the fund balance.
While certainly hard pressed taxpayers will rightfully cheer a halt to property tax increases, we should look at what happened last night before we stand up and applaud.
Steep cuts in department spending were already made before last night. Some of the cuts that have been asked for may involve programs that produce revenue, meaning that cutting them produces no net savings.
A massive cut of nearly 25% was demanded of the Election Board. While I doubt this is possible, if it does occur it will be an illusion. Why? Many of Election's services are mandated, and whether the County budgets for them or not, they still must be performed. The bills will still come in and will still need to be paid for. From where? The contingency fund. Taxpayers savings? Zero. Meanwhile due to these "cuts", the Fund Balance, our taxpayer money, the Legislators slush fund, has grown still larger.
While cuts to reduce taxes can be a good thing, this Board of Legislators is at the point of hurting services to our taxpayers...at the very same time it is hoarding our money.
It appears that too many on the Board of Legislators are too willing to be led by people that have either a grave misunderstanding of who that Fund Balance belongs to, or that have an agenda that causes them to wish to hoard taxpayer's dollars.
Maybe they want to spend more money on consultants to do still yet another Comprehensive Plan, or fund another special interest motel study, or sue the DEC or hire a high priced Syracuse law firm to defend an illegal law from a lawsuit brought by a self represented citizen.
Maybe, they just don't know what the heck they are doing.
Whatever their issues are, the taxpayer issue must remain focused. Lewis County can afford to apply a significant amount of Fund Balance to the budget and reduce our taxes.
It's our money...and we want it in our pockets.

Hey Lewis Legislators... That's our money!!!

The Lewis County Board of Legislators seems intent on passing a budget that includes a property tax hike when people can least afford it. Never mind that the property tax is the most regressive and unfair tax of all. What is most galling is that the Legislators are crowing about not taking as much money out of the Fund Balance as last year. If they would, taxpayers would see a much needed tax decrease.
Why should more money be applied to the budget from the Fund Balance to reduce taxes? Because it's our money and they've (the County) have got lots of it. The County has 11.8 million dollars in its Fund Balance and Lewis County General Hospital has another 2.8 million dollars for a total of a 14.6 million dollar Fund Balance. The hospital's Fund Balance is the County's, just as when the hospital lost money, the loss was made up out of the County's Fund Balance. Further, the hospital has several million dollars in investments from previous positive Fund Balances.
At a minimum, the County should apply the same amount of dollars to this budget as they did last year. The County's Fund Balance has grown substantially since last year and County government can not plead poverty to its hard pressed taxpayers.
Lewis County Legislative Board Chairman Jack Bush has been hiding behind County ownership of the hospital as a reason for maintaining a bloated Fund Balance. That dog doesn't hunt. Bush points to the 1990's when the hospital was losing money as his example. Let's look at the facts.
In the mid-1990's while the County carried an approximate 30 million dollar budget, the hospital
was losing money and the County's Fund Balance was approximately 4.5 million dollars. Now the County budget is at about 42 million dollars, the hospital has made money for the last ten years and the County's Fund balance is at 14.6 million dollars.
Put another way, during a time while the County's budget has increased about 50% and during a time while the hospital has been making money, the County's Fund Balance has tripled. That's our money their hoarding, folks.
As an aside, it is germain to point out that Chairman Bush was a strong supporter of the hospital mangement that managed to lose all that money in the 90's.
I've heard it said that the Board of Legislators is saving that Fund Balance for a rainy day. It's not their money to hang onto. It belongs to us, the taxpayers, that have enough rainy days of our own to contend with. Spend down the Fund Balance . Reduce property taxes.
Let us spend our money on our own rainy days.
Besides, this group has proven itself too self serving to be allowed its own public slush fund. What's next? Buying a railroad track for ATVs?

Is This Darrel's Time?

Times are tough on New York's dairy farms. Dairy farmers are going through another price crisis the type of which has been reappearing every few years since the massive farm crisis of the 1980's. The truth be told, dairy farmers have been living on the edge price wise since the Reagan Administration led the charge to remove the price of farm milk from the Parity Formula leading to where we are today, the price basically dependent on the vagaries of the price of cheese at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange with no relationship to the actual cost of production.
Now along comes a proposed state law that would require that farm workers receive time off every week, over time pay, and the right to collective bargaining. Given what I just stated that would be a bad idea, right? Wrong. It's way overdue to happen.
The cost of financial success for dairy farmers can't be put on the backs of those that work for them. The fact that the price of milk is far below the cost of production is not the fault of farm labor. In the mid 1980's I began what was to be a second unpaid career working to change farm policy so that dairy farmers were treated more fairly in the market place. I, and many others took our concerns to Albany and Washington D.C., lobbying and agitating for change. We worked hard for a system similar to that enjoyed by Canadian dairy farmers, a supply management system coupled with a price based on a cost of production formula. Canadian dairy farmers are doing well, by the way. All too often though, we were met with opposition from within our own ranks by farmers or farm organizations that caused enough division that caused us not to succeed and has prolonged the boom and bust, mostly bust, system that we have today. Among the farm organizations that opposed our efforts were some of the large cooperatives and the Farm Bureau, the same Farm Bureau that is opposing improving conditions for farm workers as being too costly to farmers.Those that opposed us often did so for ideological reasons often calling supply management socialism (sound familiar?) or sadly too often, outright greed thinking that if their neighbor went out of business they could expand their farms and they would be better off. This expansion concept has led to the growth of many large farms, farms often referred to as corporate farms that depend on cheap labor to survive as prices are too low for them also. These large farms are often pointed to as being "more efficient" than the more traditional family farm when in reality they are getting by on cheap labor.
What I'm saying is farmers have met the enemy, and he is us. We have failed to organize to the extent necessary to improve our prices. This is not the fault or responsibility of those that now work on these corporate farms.
By exploiting cheap labor, large farms have competed unfairly against true family run farms, putting more product in the market, lowering prices and putting farms out of business.
At the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, Senator Darrel Aubertine made the point that the purported cost of the bill would amount to about 11 cents per hundred pounds of milk and stated that that was more than many farmers would make this year. He's right. This is a disastrous year for dairy farmers, but again, this is not the fault or the responsibilty of the farm workers. The large farm operators made the decisions to operate like big industry and proclaim their superiority to family agriculture. If they want to be industry, they should play on the same field as industry when it comes to labor.
It must be pointed out that the right to collective bargaining would apply to farm workers on operations with sales over $650,000.00 per year which would rightly exempt many smaller dairy farms but would likewise rightly apply to the larger industrialized operations. The new changes are hardly luxurious,- one day off a week, overtime after 60 hours and the right to collective bargaining. How, in the 21st century, can this be controversial?
There are other reasons this bill should be supported. Most importantly, morally, farm workers should not be treated as a separate class of citizen nearly on a par with slave labor so that someone's bottom line is improved or someone else's wine and cheese party costs a little less. This is truly a moral issue in the realm of women's suffrage and the civil right's movement.
Farmer's need to address their price problem as a price problem- not a labor problem. It is decades past due for farmers to organize and demand new farm policy that gives them prices that allows them a fair return on investment, including the ability to pay competitive wages. I've long held that farmers should be working with labor rather than acting as antagonists. The corporate agriculture mentality won't allow for this as would smaller family agriculture, so in that case I side with the workers.
I know Darrel Aubertine and know he is a good man with a good heart. His type of farming was that of a family farm such as mine. Without putting words in his mouth I'm pretty sure his choice of farm policy would look a lot like mine. But right now Darrel is under pressure in an election year in what is seen as a swing Senate seat. In my opinion I bet he's darned uncomfortable supporting the Farm Bureau position. I'm pretty sure he's trying to figure out how to do what is right and still get re-elected. I hope it works but let me suggest to just do what's right and make your case. In my opinion what is right is passing the Farmworker Fair Labor Practices Act allowing farm workers to take a few steps away from the exploited position they've been in.
Will Rogers once said " Every politician should do one thing in their life just because it is right." Is this Darrel's time?

The Queen Has a King...or Pick Your Pork

Last week I coronated the St. Lawrence County Clerk the"Soap Box Queen". Patty Ritchie, in an apparent attempt to make herself a household name, or at least a Facebook name, has taken on the license plate fee and snowmobile registration fund issues, without offering ideas or solutions as to how she would either cut programs or raise fees and taxes to close New York State's Budget deficit.

Enter State Senator Joe Griffo of the 47th Senate District. He has taken to finding fault with everything Governor Paterson has proposed and has picked up the same cudgle as Ms. Ritchie, the proposed one million dollar sweep of snowmobile trail funds to help reduce the state's budget deficit. Along with the snowmobile clubs and Patty Ritchie, Mr. Griffo has been using the argument that "This money belongs to the snowmobilers. It comes from registration fees and belongs to them and shouldn't be used to balance the budget." That's not a direct quote but a close summary of the argument. I don't buy the argument, because snowmobile registration money is no more sacrosanct than my automobile registration money, but for the fun of it let's give Joe Griffo the chance to be consistent.

State representatives have access to funds to be doled out to pet projects in their district called member items. This is pure pork barrel spending and vote buying with taxpayer dollars. Nearly all, if not all state legislators engage in this practice, the attitude being "it's the name of the game". It does appear that some engage in their pork habit with more gusto than others. The Soap Box King appears to truly have enjoyed his pork while he was in the majority.

Now, back to the snowmobile/soapbox issue. Does Senator Griffo wish to be consistent? Is he really concerned about the state's budget mess? Or... is the snowmobile registration fund issue just a chance to jump on the soapbox and sing for a special interest?

Mr.Griffo has provided $50,000.00 of pork barrel, member item money, taxpayer money,to the Lewis County Area Snowmobile Association during a recent budget year according to the website www.syracuse.com/data/pork-spending/. That $50,000.00 was clearly taxpayer money. It can not be argued that the money belongs to the snowmobilers as with the trail fund. Step down from the soapbox Joe and lose your partisan stripes. You can't complain about the Governor's cuts on the one hand by saying the money isn't taxpayer money and then on the other hand give away taxpayer money as a pork barrel member item all the while complaining about the state's financial mess.

New York is in fiscal crisis (like nearly every other state in the union) because of a severe recession brought about by greedy investment bankers. New York was especially hard hit with Wall Street being "ground zero" for the crisis. New York State was hit hard by the loss of revenues generated by Wall Street. As for any structural budgetary problems, both parties have dirty hands. Joe Griffo has contibuted his share of excess spending through pork barrel member items when times looked rosier.

Right now we have a crisis and politicians can stand on principles and behave like statesmen or they can try to turn every issue into a chance to score points and act like Soap Box Royalty.

Don't grandstand against what the Governor's doing or criticise him for the budget deficit while you've handed out taxpayer money to the same group he just proposed to cut.

This is an election year and I fear based on the evidence thus far the Soap Box Queen and King will continue to make partisan, emotion based appeals without offering alternatives, or in the case of Mr. Griffo, offering hypocrisy.

Soap Box Queen

Nobody disputes that New York State is facing a fiscal crisis. It's also understandable that not everyone will agree on how to address the crisis we face. Disagreement isn't, by itself, a bad thing. Open debate, frank discussion and a forthright exchange of ideas can create the well informed electorate our forefathers spoke of when fostering our fledgling democracy. Hopefully this exchange of fact based ideas will allow voters, ultimately, to elect leaders that will put forth policies that will prevent or repair the type of problems we face today.
Unfortunately, it has become far too prevalent in today's political atmosphere to pretend that facts are the same as opinions and that we are all welcome to our own-in either case. Also, rather than putting forth reasoned discourse or alternative policies, it has become far too easy for political wannabees to jump on the most accessible soap box and throw mud balls at a plan or policy, even one of relative little consequence, as a means of boosting popularity without offering any alternative plans or ideas.
We have a soap box queen here in the north country, St. Lawrence County's County Clerk, Patricia Ritchie. It has been gabbed about in political circles for some time now that Ms. Ritchie is considering taking on State Senator Darrel Aubertine for his seat this fall.
Her first blast into the soap-box-o-sphere came on the heels of an announced plan by New York State to charge an extra $25.00 per license plate as a means to attempt to close, in part, the state's budget deficit. Now, nobody likes paying higher fees or higher taxes, but realistically, it is going to be a combination of increased revenues and cuts in spending that is going to get us out of this mess. Judging from the brou-haha, I was apparently one of the few people that thought raising revenue from license plate fees was a good idea. My reasoning- a lot of people buy license plates, the cost is widely spread and thus it is a relatively fair way to raise revenue.
Enter Ms. Ritchie who takes the not so courageous position that she is opposed to people paying more for license plates. Wow! The thought! The courage! The alternatives! Alternatives? Strike three!
No alternatives... just the Soap Box Queen. How else would Ms. Ritchie rescue the state from fiscal demise? There has been no comprehensive plan put forth by the County Clerk leaving me to wonder if she has asked the most basic of questions. For example, if the state loses the revenue from raising the price of license plates, what is offset in other areas? How many elderly residents will have their EPIC presription benefits cut or teachers lose their jobs or how high will the most unfair tax of all go, the property tax, to make up for cuts in state aid? There are more questions but you get the picture- on Ms. Ritchie's part that doesn't seem important, at least not as important as the soap box.
Now we have another hot button issue that Pattie Ritchie can jump on and try to ride to the state Senate. Governor Paterson has proposed that the state take one million dollars per year from the state's snowmobile fund to put towards deficit reduction. This is one million out of more than five million in the fund. Ms. Ritchie finds this offensive. Really, she finds this to be another opportunity to get on her soapbox (in this case a snowmobile) without offering alternatives. How much safer can you get? First you appeal to a minority (the snowmobilers) that will rabidly oppose the Governor's plan while the majority is mostly uninformed of the facts of the situation. You become the poster girl to this minority, making an issue of a relatively minor amount of money, while other areas including education, the environment and healthcare suffer cuts amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Again, a question goes unanswered. Who will make up the snowmobiler's share of cuts if Ms. Ritchie has her way?
Again, no matter. Ms. Ritchie has become the soap box queen attempting to elevate her status as a political commodity while denigrating the value of the real hard issues that New York State faces.
Hopefully, the County Clerk from St. Lawrence County has greatly under estimated the ability of north country voters to see through the gimmicks that have made her the Soap Box Queen.

In His Own Words

So was Lewis County's ATV trail permit system a success this year?
CountyLegislator Rick Lucas was quoted in a March 15, 2009 article by Steve Virkler in the Watertown Daily Times referring to trail permits as saying "This year, if we could get 4000 or 5000, it would be a success."
This year, Lewis County sold only 2016 trail permits, making it a resounding failure according to Mr. Lucas' own standards. According to this morning's Watertown Daily Times (2/4/10) Lewis County is going to consider reducing the permit fee by half to buyers of multiple permits. So what's up? This will reduce revenue greatly, as it would require a major increase in sales to offset the fee reduction. I believe trail officials are concerned that they may not match last years sales, hence the reduction. Already there's grumbling in some quarters about paying for a "trail system" that consists of County Reforestation Land connected by public highways, with by far most of the riding on public highways for which a fee can not be charged. Also, there are a number of people that are surprised that they will be required to buy a permit again this year and there is resistance to that.
There are other more pernicious problems in my opinion with charging for a trail permit.
Part of the trail system includes some off road areas on private land that is included in the permit fee. I have held from the start that the County can not charge a fee to ride on property it does not own. Also, the County had announced that it would give a free trail permit to landowners that allow ATV trails on their property. It is my position that this free trail permit constitutes a form of payment for use of the property and puts the landowner in the position of losing New York State General Obligations Law protection and makes them open to liabilty problems.
Most importantly in my opinion, the permit system has put all Lewis County taxpayers in jeopardy. By charging for the trail system, Lewis County has lost its protection under the General Obligations Law and taxpayers could be left holding the bag in a serious lawsuit.
County Legislators will be asked at the next meeting to consider reducing trail permit fees. The best thing they could do for the county as a whole would be to scrap the trail fee system entirely and remove the risk from the backs of the taxpayers. We all know who this is benefiting and its not the taxpayers.
The current plan was a miserable failure, but don't take my word for it. Ask Rick Lucas, in his own words......

O'Brien-Dailey vs. Lyonsdale- Lewis County's Trail System Exposed

Lyonsdale Town Councilperson Nancy O'Brien-Dailey felt strongly that her town was acting outside their authority when they voted to open more than ten miles of town roads that allegedly connected to Lewis County Reforestation Land.
The Town of Lyonsdale was encouraged to open these roads to ATV traffic by Lewis County and ATV clubs, ostensibly so that ATV riders could get from one trail to another via town roads.
Lewis County has embarked on creating a countywide ATV trail system that involves connecting some Lewis County Reforestation Land to short sections of private trails to other areas of Reforestation Land all connected with long segments of public roads.
Critics, including this blogger, have long contended that what Lewis County has been doing with cooperation from some of the towns, violates Vehicle and Traffic Law. Short segments of roads can be opened so that ATVs can gain access to "areas or trails" that are "adjacent" to the road where it is "otherwise impossible" for ATVs to do so. Municipalities must prove that both trails are "adjacent" and that it is "otherwise impossible" to gain access before roads may be opened to ATV traffic. Instead, Lewis County has been opening disparate parcels of land and short segments of driveway like private trails as an attempt to justify opening mile after mile of public highway.
Ms. O'Brien-Dailey testified at her Board's public hearing against opening the roads, pointing out the legal problems associated with the action and the accompanying increased liabilty vulnerability the Town of Lyonsdale would be facing. It was all to no avail as the majority on the Board charged ahead, in a rush apparently to please the county fathers and a handful of ATV club officianados- the law and taxpayers be damned. Ms. O'Brien-Dailey pointed out that the town board violated both New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law and State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements and sued the Town of Lyonsdale in New York State Supreme Court in Lowville, N.Y. Supreme Court Judge Joseph McGuire agreed.
In a ruling filed on January 20, 2010 Judge McGuire ruled that the Town of Lyonsdale violated New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law as well as SEQRA requirements.
In her lawsuit Nancy O'Brien-Dailey pointed out that Lewis County wants to make public highways part of the countywide trail system. Judge McGuire agreed saying "At the outset, the County's descriptionof the ATV trail system being evaluated by its GEIS process indicates that it does incude town roadways as part of that trail system."
This ruling should have important ramifications beyond the Town of Lyonsdale and even beyond Lewis County. It should be apparent by now that other towns in Lewis County, as well as the County itself, have far exceeded their authority in allowing ATV traffic on their roads. Even attempting to disguise the road openings as a way to connect to parcels of land has been exposed as the attempt to distort Vehicle and Traffic Law that it is.
Additionally, Jefferson and St Lawrence Counties have undertaken similar laws at the town and county levels and should take note.
The premise of the so called trail system by using public highways as connectors approach here in the north country, when in reality there is more highway than trail involved, is built on violating New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Municpalities should follow the law. There are consequences, sometimes extremely costly consequences when they don't follow the law.
Hopefully, more thoughtful consideration to this issue will be given than what we have seen so far. The costs of doing things wrong far exceed the paltry sales tax generated at an ATV patronized gin mill and the effects felt far more widespread.
Nancy O'Brien-Dailey deserves our gratitude. Her actions may ultimately save the taxpayers of Lyonsdale and others areas a lot of money... but in the meantime isn't it a good idea that local government should operate legally?
Beyond the legalities, O'Brien-Dailey vs. the Town of Lyonsdale exposes the attempts at establishing so called ATV trail systems in the north country for what they are- connecting disparate riding areas or short private trails by using many miles of our public highways- in other words...they are a ruse.

The Shell Game Continues...the County Manager's raise is where and how much?

The shell game involved in giving Lewis County Manager David Pendergast a raise continues. Last night the Lewis County Board of Legislators voted to rescind the $10,000.00 raise they gave him two weeks ago and voted to give what amounts to a $6,500.00 raise instead.
At first glance it would be easy to say good, at least it isn't as much as when we started, but when we look at how this raise is being established and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it, the whole process appears arbitrary and certainly unsubstantiated.
Two weeks ago we were told that the County Manager deserved the raise because of extra duties associated with the IT department and the new Public Transportation Department. The entire $10,000.00 raise was put on the Budget Officer position, even though the Budget Officer work is considered part of the County Manager's duties. Further, both the IT Department and the Public Transportation Department have people that head up those departments.
Now, two weeks later, the County Manager no longer needs $10,000.00, he needs $6,500.00.
Now, two weeks later, the Public Transportation Department is no longer part of the equation.
Now, two weeks later, the County Manager's position is being raised $3,750.00.
Now, two weeks later, the County Manager is getting $2,750.00 more for heading up the IT Department when there is already a person that heads up that department.
Just like two weeks ago, the current $6,500.00 raise is unbudgeted.
Just like two weeks ago, Department Heads are being asked to go without raises this year.
Just like two weeks ago, union employees are being asked to work five hours per week more for the same pay... and just like two weeks ago the rest of us are still facing tough economic pressures.
This whole thing wreaks of either slight of hand or a poorly thought out plan. The slight of hand
is obvious. Don't put it in the budget, wait until the last meeting of the year and hope nobody notices. Oops! Somebody noticed! Now, lower the numbers somewhat, juggle the titles, create a little confusion and hope everybody thinks they've won when we're still getting stiffed for $6,500.00.
When it comes to poorly thought out plans, this board takes the cake. Remember the big 52 job cut budget panic that they reversed themselves on? How about the Mental Health and Alcohol Clinic privatization plans that didn't work out, and of course the planned closing of the Transfer Station in Croghan under false pretenses? These are just the badly thought out plans we've been fortunate enough to have had changed. Other bad plans still exist like our permit based ATV system that has county taxpayers, when it comes to liability, exposed like a colonoscopy patient.
A raise? Folks when we look at the performance of this Board, and the County Manager is their point man, from a citizen's perspective a raise shouldn't even be on the table.
We have a shell game on the table, the hands are moving faster and the taxpayers better be paying close attention.

To Veep or Not To Veep...or run for Assembly?

The votes were barely counted election night and Lewis County Legislator Rick Lucas was making it known that he was seriously considering running for the assembly seat now held by Dede Scozzafava. He even let it be known he'd consider running against Dede in a primary. I suggested in a previous post that perhaps Mr. Rick was a bit full of himself, but after tonight's Lewis County Board of Legislator's meeting perhaps the hubris involved in his ambition will be more evident.
You see, the man that would challenge Dede, the man that would be New York State Assemblyman, could not muster enough votes from his colleagues to regain his position as Vice Chairman of the Lewis County Board of Legislators. After brother-in-law Jack Bush was once again made Chairman of the Board, a resolution was put forth to make Mr. Lucas Vice Chairman.
With six positive votes required to pass any resolution, Mr. Lucas' attempt to once again become Vice Chairman was defeated by a vote of 5-4. With five votes in the affirmative he was one vote shy of regaining the Vice Chairmanship. Legislator Pat Wallace was absent from tonight's meeting and how he would have voted is uncertain.
Later in the meeting, newly sworn in Legislator Paul Stanford, put forward a resolution to make Legislator Jerry King from West Leyden the Vice Chairman. This resolution was defeated 4-5 with King receiving four positive votes.
Perhaps this should be considered a wake up call to Mr. Lucas. It's time to leave the political dream world.

Right In Our Faces

The conversation was brief and actually something of an accident. I had called the Lewis County Treasurer's office to confirm a story I had heard that the Board of Legislators had given the Lewis County Manager a $10,000.00 raise. The Treasurer's office was unsure but thought the information was correct. To confirm, they forwarded me to the Legislative floor. I was expecting to get Clerk of the Board Teresa Clark on the phone. Instead, County Manager David Pendergast answered my call.
At this point a couple of things need to be pointed out. Besides being County Manager, Mr. Pendergast is also Budget Officer. The Budget Officer duties are considered to be part of the Manager's responsibilities, thus the Manager has received a salary of $75,000.00 with no additional money for Budget Officer.
I asked him if it was true that the Board had given him a $10,000.00 raise. He responded that it was, but clarified that the $10,000.00 was being shown as a separate salary now in the Budget Officer salary rather than being added to the County Manager's position. Since no one seemed aware of this possibility, I asked if this raise was budgeted for in the recently passed county budget. He replied that it was not. I then asked if he felt this was proper and after a brief pause he replied "The Board felt it was proper and voted in favor of it."
The excuses given for the raise are the additional duties of the public transportation system and that he is running the IT department.
Folks, this raise should never have happened. At a time when the country is in recession, when the northern New York unemployment rate is rising, and when the State of New York is cutting back state aid to local governments, handing out an unbudgeted raise to an already well paid position is bad judgment.
To use the excuse of additional duties is adding insult to injury; downright rubbing the taxpayer's nose in it. We are living in a time when many, if not most people are working harder for less, assuming you are fortunate enough to be working at all. There are a lot of farmers that will work all year and not clear $10,000.00 this year and the County Manager will receive this as a raise. Yup, we taxpayers get to work longer hours and pay more taxes, but if you're in favor with the Board of Legislators, no worries, we'll take care of you, budgeted or not.
Let's not forget the effect of this on county employees. The department heads will not receive a raise in this year's budget. Now that the legislators have surprised everyone by pulling the County Manager's raise out of their hats, imagine the effect on morale this is likely to have on department heads. This could complicate any union negotiations, also. So much for leading by example.
Mr. Pendergast, when I asked if this unbudgeted raise was proper, you hesitated, if only for a second. I believe it is not proper. The unbudgeted part suggests slight of hand, and otherwise it's just damned tough out here in the real world...and with the state breathing down your neck reality must be starting to set in on the county level...it better be soon.
Do what your board apparently either couldn't or wouldn't do- have the character and show the leadership to turn down this untimely and unbudgeted raise.
It would be refreshing to have someone in this county get something done by showing leadership rather than by how much they can rub in our faces.

Protest To NYSDEC; Opinion BY Sheila Callahan; "THE DECISION- MAKING PROCESS IS ONE -SIDED"

This letter was sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) after the DEC expressed its intention to issue Barrett's Paving a permit to start a quarry. This quarry would be located adjacent to the Village of Port Leyden, potentially exposing residents to environmental hazards including dust, noise, and blasting accidents. Sheila has stated the issue better than I can so here it is.

November 16, 2009 VIA FAX: (315) 785-2242

November 16, 2009


Mr. Mark Wiggins
State Office Building
Watertown, NY 13601

Re: DEC Findings Statement
Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.
Millick Quarry
(T) Leyden, New York

Dear Mr. Wiggins:

I am shocked by the DEC’s intention to issue a mining permit for the above-captioned project. Your allegation “that a balance of project need by the applicant and public safety and environmental concern by the public and interested parties have been met” is, frankly, preposterous and flies in the face of the published DEC Mission Statement. Specifically:

DEC Mission and Issue Priorities
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was created on July 1,1970 to bring together in a single agency all state programs directed toward protecting and enhancing the environment.
Indeed. This project will destroy a rural environment that boasts clean air and peace and quiet.

DEC Mission

"The quality of our environment is fundamental to our concern for the quality of life. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of New York to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being." - Environmental Conservation Law, Article 1

The DEC has been provided with photographs showing uncontrolled dust (on more than one occasion) and pollution at Barrett’s location in Boonville, a blatant violation of its SPDES permit. By their own admission in language contained in the DEIS, these “best management practices” will continue. How such practices will enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of Port Leyden and their overall economic and social well-being is a mystery to me. The DEC has taken no action, as required in Environmental Conservation Law, Article 1.

DEC's goal is to achieve this mission by embracing the elements of sustainability - the simultaneous pursuit of environmental quality, public health, economic prosperity and social well-being, including environmental justice and the empowerment of individuals to participate in environmental decisions that affect their lives.

After the period for Public comment ended on July 10, the DEC published letters from citizens commenting on the proposed project. NOT ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED QUARRY WAS RECEIVED. The empowerment of individuals to participate in environmental decisions that affect their lives?? People attempted to participate and were clearly ignored.


Mr. Mark Wiggins
November 16, 2009
Page Two

In addition to letters from concerned citizens urging that this project not be approved, the DEC received a letter from the Pipeline Safety Trust, a national watchdog organization setting out the possible adverse consequences of allowing this project to move forward. It goes as far as to point out that the DEIS merely copies marketing data from the Iroquois Pipeline brochure. It is chilling in its predictions. The DEC received letters from the American Lung Association, Trout Unlimited, an organization concerned with pollution and wildlife preservation and the NYS Office of Mental Retardation, representing individuals with disabilities of all kinds. Organizations of this magnitude do not lend the credence of their names to causes that are to be taken lightly. Their input for those for whom they advocate was obviously taken lightly by the DEC.

Foster Green and Healthy Communities
· Use DEC's program areas to encourage smart growth
· Clean up contaminated land, especially in urban centers
· Reduce local waste generation and maximize recycling
· Promote community greening and urban forestry
· Preserve open space and working landscapes

Smart growth? How exposing a tiny Village, 365/24/7 to respirable crystalline silica, a named Category I carcinogen, can be equated with smart growth and the promotion of a green and healthy community begs comprehension. Community greening? This project will destroy it. And while open space will be preserved, where there is now community access, the open space will be only for the benefit of Barrett Paving.

Connect New Yorkers to Nature
· Promote environmental education and outdoor experiences for all age groups
· Increase participation in hiking, camping, fishing, hunting and trapping
· Provide state-of-the-art facilities and high-quality and unique outdoor experiences
· Preserve and provide access to green space close to where people live, work and play

The land in question will be lost for the purposes of environmental education and outdoor experiences for all age groups, since it will no longer be appropriate for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting and trapping. There will be no state-of-the-art facilities and certainly no possibility of unique outdoor experiences anywhere around this quarry. And in keeping with its mission statement, that the DEC maintains that this project will preserve and provide access to green space close to where people live, work and play is, actually, absurd.


Mr. Mark Wiggins

Page Three

Promote a Toxic-Free Future
· Reduce waste and use of toxics
· Promote green alternatives and technologies
· Support alternatives to the use of hazardous pesticides
· Promote product stewardship
· Enhance public access to information on toxics

Respirable crystalline silica is toxic. This project can in no way be construed as contributing to reduction of toxics. No agency – not the CDC, not the American Cancer Society, not the American Lung Association, not OSHA, not MSHA – has ever published PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) guidelines for residents who live near mines/quarries.

Lafarge North America is the largest diversified supplier of construction materials in the U.S. and Canada. It publishes Material Safety Data Sheets for all its products. While it has not done a PEL study for those who live near mines/quarries, it sets out explicitly the hazards of respirable crystalline silica which is produced by the extraction of limestone from the earth. What it does set out in its MSDS is the prescribed PEL for miners which, by the way is no more than eight hours, and then only if the worker is wearing protective gear.

The Village of Port Leyden will be exposed to this named Category I carcinogen 365/24/7. We can hardly be expected to live our lives wearing protective gear. The letter written by the American Lung Association to the DEC stresses the need for use of green alternatives and technologies. Neither Barrett nor the DEC has addressed this issue. Shame on you.

Safeguard New York's Unique Natural Assets
· Conserve, protect and restore watersheds and coastal resources
· Apply state-of-the-art management techniques, including ecosystem-based management
· Ensure sufficient water management infrastructure for New York's future
· Promote sound land use and planning
· Add unique and valuable ecosystems to the Forest Preserve
· Protect biodiversity and unique ecosystems across New York


Mr. Mark Wiggins
November 16, 2009
Page Four


Having read the DEIS and the DEC’s Findings Statement, I see no evidence of any of the above-captioned objectives being met by this project, nor the DEC’s insistence that they are. Many area residents have their water supplied by wells. Wells were tested prior to the commencement of the project. Since part of the DEC’s mission statement is “the simultaneous pursuit of environmental quality, public health, economic prosperity and social well-being, including environmental justice and the empowerment of individuals to participate in environmental decisions that affect their lives,” it would seem incumbent on the DEC to ensure they are implemented. The DEC’s intention to issue a mining permit belies your stated commitment.

Work for Environmental Justice
· Reduce environmental and health impacts on communities overburdened by pollution
· Ensure equal access to environmental decision-making
· Promote urban greening, open space access, and other environmental benefits in overburdened areas
· Increase community-based enforcement

A rational person would conclude a rural area such as the Village of Port Leyden that has managed to keep pollution levels low – and not without cost - would be applauded for its efforts.

The DEC’s decision to issue a mining permit in this case tells communities like Port Leyden that their input doesn’t count. Clearly, the decision-making process is one-sided. Barrett Paving Materials is the largest of 14 subsidiaries on Colas North America, based in Canada. The largest shareholder in Colas North America is Bouygues, a corporate giant with its headquarters in Paris, France. Their headquarters are housed in an environmentally tony building that has won no less than 17 prestigious awards for ecological savvy. Clearly, their input matters to the DEC. That they would disrupt our well-being for their own gain has not been taken into consideration on behalf of residents. There has been no equal access to environmental decision-making in this case. And that’s very, very sadly telling.

This project does not promote urban greening, open space access and other environmental benefits. Farming and agricultural activities and the land required for them are disappearing from Lewis County and rural areas throughout the United States. This project will erase still more of it.

And, if the Board of the Town of Leyden approves this project and it is operated with Barrett’s best management practices – which include pollution and blasting accidents - as is the location in Boonville, will the DEC help this community enforce your stated mandates? Given the decision to issue a permit, I truly believe not.

I understand all too well that Barrett has satisfied the minimum requirements of the SEQRA process and that in theory you have no choice but to issue this permit. Had the DEC any corporate conscience, it would have referred this case to a court for decision.

Mr. Mark Wiggins
November 16, 2009
Page Five


I do not understand how the DEC can ignore Barrett’s reputation – amply documented in the DEC’s own files - particularly when it has been provided with compelling evidence that visually verifies, with dates - their carelessness and callousness at all their locations in New York. In this case their refusal to grant an extension of time for public comment, requested because of the death of Carol Lustyik’s mother is, I think an unashamed indication of their disregard for the community they will adversely impact. I liken the DEC’s decision to assigning a child molester community service at a daycare center as a teacher’s aide.

Sincerely,
Sheila Callahan
P.O. Box 116
Port Leyden, NY 13433
(315) 348-4350
beastiesfirst@twcny.rr.com

The Answer Is...No

A few posts back I asked the question "Does Rick Lucas Want To Be A County Legislator?". Well the votes are in and the answer is a resounding NO. In fact barely had the votes been counted in his win over Joe Baruth in the District 8 Lewis County Legislative race when Lucas admitted in the Watertown Daily Times that he is interested in becoming Assemblyman for the122nd district, the seat now held by Dede Scozzafava. I reported that this was likely in my post and it has been reported to me that Lucas scoffed at my suggestion that he really was more interested in being an assemblyman than a county legislator. Watertown Mayor Jeff Graham reported yesterday on his blog that Lucas wants to run for Assembly and that Jefferson County Legislator Ken Blankenbush is also interested.
Lucas must not become an assemblyman. His time on the Lewis County Board of Legislators has been devoted to advancing his own private agendas. In my opinion he has demonstrated not even a remote understanding of ethics nor does he demonstrate any interest in the subject of ethics. He has refused to recuse himself from certain issues, even when the Lewis County Ethics Board has told him he should. He either doesn't understand the difference between abstaining and recusal or he doesn't care.
The cynic in me says, "Wow, he'll fit in with the rest of state government just fine " when I watch him thumb his nose at ethical concerns, but we can''t let cynicism rule our decision making.
Lucas can run if he wants to of course. However, he does need to improve his vocabulary. Run for Assembly or not, Mr. Lucas needs a tutorial on the definitions of "abstain" and "recusal".

Lewis Legislators Protect Themselves-But Not Taxpayers

On Election Night 2009 the Lewis County Board of Legislators announced a Tentative Budget with a 3.5% tax increase. More importantly, the Legislators raided the Fund Blance to the tune of about 2.1 million dollars in order to get the tax increase down to the current tentative level.
By using the high amount of fund balance, your fund balance, your tax dollars, the Legislators are avoiding making any tough decisions on unnecessary or frivolous positions such as the Trail Coordinator or making tough decisions regarding high level staffing salaries or positions.
By avoiding their responsibilities they are hoping to avoid angering certain constituencies, but in taking the safe route they are wasting your hard earned money and just plain aren't doing their jobs.
By releasing their plans at this late date they are hoping to avoid being held responsible for their actions. At this time you still have about another 45 minutes to get out and vote. Make use of that time if you read this and have not yet done so.

Brazen Hoffmanites

Former Lewis County Democratic Committee Chairman Peter Cecconi had both his civic and his religious sensibilities affronted this morning as his family attended church at St. Peter's Catholic Church in Lowville, N. Y.
There in the parking lot of the church was a Hoffman campaigner handing out anti-abortion material to parishioners entering the church parking lot. This raises some questions on a couple of levels. First, while we are well aware of the official position of the Catholic Church concerning abortion, it would seem at a minimum, poor taste for a political campaign to bother people on their way to church in a gratuitous and obvious way to gain political favor for a political candidate.
Perhaps more importantly, at the St. Peter's site, the old parochial school is now a voting site and campaigning is forbidden within 100 feet of a polling place and Mr. Cecconi took real offense to this perceived infringement.
Like an old testament prophet, like Moses come down from the mountain (or if you know Pete, the mountain itself) Mr. Cecconi confronted the interloper and demanded he cease his activities.
Cecconi notified a number of authorities, including media sources but at last report the campaigning in the church parking lot continued.
I am uncertain what, if any actual legal issues may exist here, but this symbolizes the smugness and self rightousness of the Hoffman campaign and supporters. Indeed it symbolizes the dangers of the far right ideology. While reasonable people may disagree over the abortion issue, the true believers at the heart of the Hoffman campaign are far from reasonable people. Only they know what is right concerning abortion, only they know what is right about gay marriage, only they know what God's message is concerning these issues, only they know how to read the Constitution, and on a Sunday morning while taking your family to church they will shove it down your throats in the church parking lot.
The behavior of the Hoffman zealots should send a strong warning to the voters of the 23rd Congressional District. Their ideology is narrow, rigid and uncompromising and that will be the approach of Mr. Hoffman if elected.
While I was typing this I was notified that others were upset and complained about the tactics of the Hoffman camp. Kudos to Pete Cecconi and others that challenged their methods and also to the local priest that, I was just informed, asked the campaigner to leave.

Gerald A.Smith No Longer Write In Candidate

Saying "We can't chance a Hoffman victory" Gerald A. Smith threw his support today to Democrat Bill Owens and urged friends and supporters to do the same. Mr. Smith, who some were going to write in on the ballot in the 23rd Congressional District because of his progressive politics and for being the "real" Democrat feels we no longer have the luxury of a vote on principle's alone and urges all Democrats to vote for Mr. Owens.

Joe Baruth Endorsed By CSEA For Lewis County Legislator in District 8

Trick or Treat

The days are ticking by until election day and no sitting Lewis County Legislators have taken a position on what the Lewis County Budget should look like. Horror stories are emanating from the bowels of the Court House on the size of an alleged budget deficit for this year that will only compound the difficulty of the already difficult budget making efforts that are now under way for next year. From the Board of Legislators we have only silence.
Past practice for budget making was weeks of Legislative meetings, usually with the Legislators meeting as a "Committee of the Whole" to discuss the size and scope of the budget as well as budget priorities. These meetings were open to the public and the budget cards were on the table.
It would appear that this budget year is going to be extremely nasty and with a number of Legislators facing competition the budget process is hidden in the County Manager's office.
Reportedly, even the CountyTreasurer has been told not to talk to the public about the process, to the extent she knows about it.
This is unacceptable. Voters and taxpayers have the right to know and need to know their elected officials thoughts on the budget, especially in a year where the process has reached a critical stage. There is no excuse for any elected official going along with the silence and hiding that is taking place. If a Legislator doesn't know where the budget stands, they have the right and the responsibility to demand answers. Shame on those that remain silent, either because of cynical political posturing or out of cowardice, and in this case, ignorance isn't bliss.
It looks like the Board of Legislators has a belated Halloween gift planned for taxpayers after election day and "it ain't gonna be no treat".

Hiding the Budget While Seeking Re-Election

The Lewis County budget has been located and it resides on the County Manager's desk. County Manager David Pendergast has been acting as the budget "czar", finally unveiling the budget to the Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, October 22, according to this morning's Watertown Daily Times.
While the County Manager is the Budget Officer, it is unusual that there would be so little Legislator involvement with the budget at this late date. Legislators are usually brought into the process in September, listening to budget presentations by departments and asking questions and setting priorities. Now, only two weeks from presenting the Tentative Budget, the Ways and Means Committee made up of only three of the ten Legislators has finally been brought into the process. The Ways and Means Committee is chaired by Legislator Jerry King, famous for attempting to close the Croghan Transfer Site even though it was making money and for turning last year's budget process into a three ring circus. Now, he and his committee appear to be the only Legislators that have had more than a peek at the budget. Why am a grabbing for my wallet?
As it stands now, we're looking at 24% tax increase. The County Manager calls this "unacceptable" and that is an understatement. But what is as galling is the smoke screen process
that seems to be deliberately followed this election year.
What is to be done about reducing this onerous 24% tax increase? What cuts are Legislators going to make? Will it be like last year where vital services such as the Emergency Management Coordinator was proposed to be cut while keeping a luxury like the Trail Coordinator? What are the Legislator's priorities? What other taxes or fees will they attempt to raise?
Oh, we're going to find out early in November...after...yes... the elections. Taxpayers have a right to know what their Legislator's positions on the budget are and to be able to hold them accountable. How convenient that the entire budget process thus far has been kept under wraps in one man's office.
The Legislators were elected to represent the taxpayers and have the fiduciary responsbility of Lewis County as their main charge. They can't do either while willingly or unwillingly being kept in the dark.
The taxpayers and voters need to start demanding answers from their Legislators starting now. This undercover budget process is an affront not only to our pocket books but also to democracy.
It would appear that Board members that have opposition are hoping the clock runs out before having to make their budget opinions known to the public.
Don't allow this to happen. Get on the phone now, but most of all remember the dismal budget track record of each of these people, primarily Lucas, King and Hoch, each exhibiting misplaced priorities. Lucas can't seem to stop spending, the self serving motel study is a case in point.
In this case they can hide, the budget that is, ...and they can run, for office that is,.. but you can
find them and catch them on election day.

Check Out This Site... Outside Looking In

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/section/blogs10
See "A fight to the finish"- an excellent piece on the Baruth vs. Lucas Lewis County Legislative race.