Quoted Text

“Because the salaries are fixed in the public hearing for the preliminary budget, that says you can’t make an adjustment,” he said Monday.
    But Marco disagreed. In previous years, she said, the board adjusted salaries using the same process.
    “They’ve never done it [by local law] through the eight years I’ve been here,” she said. “Every year, it’s been done by amendment.”

Well....Ms.Marco, I guess the past 8 years have been done illegally, huh? I guess Mr.Godlewski was correcto-o! I can't believe I said that!

The Town Board meeting agenda for tonight has virtually nothing on it...except a resolution to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, New Year's Day for the pay raise.

Public hearing on New Year's Day.  That is plain unbelievable.

Here's what I'd like to see happen.  The 2 new town board members ran (and won) based on the old salary.  They should be opposed, in theory, to the pay raise.  If so, it meets defeat.  I want to see them have to take another vote so these new guys have to go on record or they get to have it both ways (get the raise, but get to blame the last guy for implementing it).

Gathering enough signatures on a petition deemed valid in the time allowed seems virtually impossible...we collected petition signatures to regain our right to vote on a new sewer district recently after the town board got a little cute and tried to end-around...we prevailed but it got dicey...

Why can't these guys just do it correctly?  Just goes to prove they can find money when they want to and they can move at lightning pace when it serves their own interest.  Is anyone else disgusted?

Looks to me that Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore (two guys who voted for a pay raise when the rest of us are forced to tighten our belts) just got even more vunerable next election...

Michael you've seen this type of behavior from elected officials going on for a long time, just look at how long they've put off doing anything about the water problems in the town.

We should be opposed to a local law allowing our elected official to vote themselves in a raise whenever they choose. Getting signatures for a referendum would be key. Since that may not be an option due to a time constraint, I would recommend EVERYONE to call, mail or email ALL of the town board members and state your displeasure with this proposed local law.

We should not want NOW or in the future, our elected officials to have the power to vote themselves in a raise whenever they deem it necessary!!

Don't let this one get by people!! And you have a valid point Michael. It appears to the residents, that once the republicans remained in control of the board, they are appearing greedy by proposing a law that gives them the power to give themselves a raise. They need to be careful since the republican party is loosing ground in this area and state as it is.

And to have a meeting on New Years day is ridiculous. This is beginning to sound like the city council and the county legislatures!

Boxing gloves come in all sizes....are they NUTS OR JUST IGNORANT GREEDY POLITICIANS??????  hhhmmmm they have never eaten pasta dinner at my house....where is MY cup of sugar???? Or anyone else's cup of sugar for that matter....... money is the only thing that spurs a politician out of their hole of pressure by the constituents????......get out of the kitchen then.......

Quoted from JoAnn

And to have a meeting on New Years day is ridiculous. This is beginning to sound like the city council and the county legislatures!

Joann,
Just so you know, if you check back, this is something normal for the Rotterdam Town Board.  While I agree that the time it's at is amazing, right in the middle of the day, it's also used to reappoint people to positions that they haven't given up or are being kept in.  Last year's meeting also included the swearing in of Bob "No Change" Godlewski.

Here's a direct link to 2007's January 1 agenda.
http://rotterdamny.org/calendar1/calendar/eventimages/Board-1-1-07.pdf

Quoted from Michael

The Town Board meeting agenda for tonight has virtually nothing on it...except a resolution to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, New Year's Day for the pay raise.

Public hearing on New Year's Day.  That is plain unbelievable.

The timing for a public hearing regarding a pay raise surely can wait until another day besides New Years Day.

Organizational meetings are nothing new for New Year's Day, as BIGK75 correctly points out.

The problem is conducting controversial business or holding a public hearing during that meeting.  It defies reasonable governance, in my opinion.  In fact, it's simply the wrong day to hold a public hearing of any kind.

I may have to violate my intention to no longer speak at these meetings, assuming they actually passed that resolution last night...what better way to ring in the New Year than to make a little noise?  

Welcome to 2008...where business as usual gets an added twist

Quoted Text

The problem is conducting controversial business or holding a public hearing during that meeting.  It defies reasonable governance, in my opinion.  In fact, it's simply the wrong day to hold a public hearing of any kind.

I have to agree with you on this  Michael. Historically or not, I feel it is the wrong day to hold a public hearing.

I posted an entry to my blog on this topic.  I will be curious to see how it ultimately plays out.

If the Town Board had any sense they would reschedule the meeting for a later date to give residents a chance to attend the meeting if they oppose the raise. Having the meeting on New Years Day looks like they don't want any opposition to the raise and know that most people will be home with their families and won't attend the meeting. What happened to the open government that the Town Board told us about when they were elected?

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS
Justice due over raises in Rotterdam

    Rotterdam Town Board members haven’t had a raise in more than 15 years, so it was not surprising that they voted for an increase last month. What was surprising, and disappointing, was the amount of the raise ($5,000, or 50 percent) and the way they approved it (as an amendment to the town budget). Both issues may now be moot, thanks to an opinion by Town Attorney Gerard Parisi that the raises require passage of a local law.
    What that means, as Schenectady Mayor Brian Stratton knows full well, is that the law is subject to permissive referendum: A petition with the signatures of 10 percent of the town residents who voted in the last statewide election (2006) could put the kibosh on the whole thing.
    That’s what happened in Schenectady two years ago, when Stratton and city council members conspired to raise their salaries weeks after the November election, and weeks after the 2006 budget had been passed, by adopting a pair of local laws. The laws were challenged by local gadfly Pat Zollinger, who mounted a petition drive and ultimately forced the mayor and council to postpone their raises for two years.
    In Rotterdam, the council members’ raises were not part of the initial budget proposal and thus were not subjected to a public hearing. They surfaced out of the blue, and were passed as part of an amended budget one week after last month’s election. To offset the additional $20,000 expenditure (the four regular council members got them, but not Supervisor Steve Tommasone), the board simply increased revenue projections on fines and forfeited bail — easy enough to do, but hardly responsible.
    Obviously, the money isn’t a huge issue; as was the case with Stratton and the Schenectady council, it’s the way the raises were passed. In case elected officials haven’t figured it out, voters don’t like it when their representatives act in such sneaky ways. It will be surprising indeed if some indignant Rotterdam resident doesn’t mount a petition drive to overturn these raises.

You think they would have learned something from Stratton's attempt to do the same thing! If they were up front and honest, it wouldnt be a blip on the radar.  They gave themselves a 50% raise and purposely never included it in the proposed budget.  To add insult to injury, they say they will get the money from fines the judges take in and they take raises away from the judges.  I doubt anyone in town will spend the time and energy like Pat did.  I am just disappointed at the amount of sneakiness of members of the board.  Obviously Steve Tommasone didnt want the raise at all and definitely did not want it to be a campaign issue- so they planned it days after election day.   Very disappointing to me.

First - Someone needs to go to the town hall and request a copy of the proposed local law.

Second - Raises need to be implemented BEFORE the election cycle.

Third - Raises need to be implemented DURING the budget process.

Forth - IF this law is passed, the residents have 45 days to present a petition. (a permissive referendum)

**If this proposed law is passed and  the people choose to go the permissive referendum route, they should start the petition process now.**

(someone experienced in this process shared this information with me)

That sounds like good info JoAnn.  I'm poised to fight but hope opposition to passing the law will prevent the need for the petition.  Looking at the election results, I'm not entirely sure what number to use as the benchmark for procuring 10% though.  Anyway you slice it, it's a ton of signatures in a short period of time.