index.html

NEW! CLICK THIS LINK TO THE NEW PAGE AND POST YOUR OWN COMMENTS:

*No registration is required

*Click on a Post title to read all comments

*Click on an Archive topic on the right side to jump to any post and its comments

*At the end of the comments is a link to "post a comment. Choose "other" if you want to use a name; choose "anonymous" if that's your preference.

=========================================================================

11-7-07: Gambino A Big Loser: Other than in the Mayoral race, former Mayor Bobby Gambino got the least number of votes in the entire election. He even got fewer votes than the other two candidates for BOF in every District including his own, Northville, where he is a Director of the Northville Residents Association.

11-7-07: NMF Spam...School Leak Revisited; Investigation Necessary: On November 5, I posted a piece about a campaign-related e-mail that was sent by NMF to many people who had never given their e-mail addresses to anyone but the School Administration. Several parents who received this political spam wrote that they created new e-mail addresses just for school purposes. Thus it seemed readily apparent that there was a possibility of a leak of a School mailing list or lists.   Now that possibility is morphing into a likelihood.

The following is an e-mail exchange that sheds a great deal more light. I supplied the highlighting:

DATE:   11/04/2007 7:21 PM
FROM: NewMilfordFirst@aol.com
TO:        undisclosed-recipients
SUBJECT: Election Day is Tuesday

As Election Day approaches, here are a few things you should know:
Your vote counts. Democracy is based on maximum participation. Your vote will influence the future of New Milford.
You do not have to vote for everyone. For example, the instructions for Town Council tell you to "Vote for any nine." You do not have to do this. You should vote only for those you really want to be elected.   The polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday. If you are not sure where to vote, visit www.NewMilfordFirst.org for a street-by-street listing of who votes where. If you would like more information about the New Milford First candidates, please download the sample ballot. If you would like to be removed from this mailing list, please reply with the word "remove."
-------------------------------------------------
To New Milford First;

How dare you invade my private e-mail address to promote your desperate political agenda. This despicable tactic is tantamount to telemarketing your poor product. New low (of many) in your history.
I further hope New Milford's Public Schools system did not stoop so low as to betray parents' trust by divulging their list of e-mail addresses. That clearly was not the intended purpose of providing the school with the addresses.

Julian Munoz
------------------------------------------------
To: shugrueg@newmilfordps.org (Principal)

I sincerely hope the High School administration was not the source of e-mail addresses used by the below mentioned political party. I do not want to believe such pandering occurred.

Julian Munoz
------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Monaghan, New Milford First
To :      Julian Munoz

Thanks for your message.
The list was provided by a fellow parent.
The email message itself was generic, encouraging your participation in the democratic process. Any New Milford First information was contained in an optional download. New Milford First understands your comments, but appreciates the fact 24 percent of New Milford's voters believe New Milford First offers something positive for the town.
-- Jerry Monaghan
-----------------------------------------------
To: Dr JeanAnn C. Paddyfote
From: Julian Munoz

Who is this "fellow parent"?
How/from where did this fellow parent secure the address list? Does this "fellow" parent know me? Does this fellow parent have my consent to divulge my e-mail address for soliciting purposes? Is this fellow parent an employee of the NMPS system?

Regards,
Julian Munoz
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Munoz,
Please be advised that the New Milford Public Schools does not intentionally release parent email addresses. If a school or teacher is sending an email to several individuals, they have been told to put the parent email addresses in the "Blind Copy" field.

Sincererly,
JeanAnn C. Paddyfote
Superintendent of Schools
New Milford Public Schools
------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Munoz,

I have no idea who the New Milford First organization is talking about with respect to "parent". I have spoken with one person from New Milford First about your concern, and I was told they were given the email addresses from friends of NM First members. No one employed in the school district is authorized to give out email addresses of parents.

My suggestion is that you pursue the matter with the New Milford First organization.

Sincerely,
JeanAnn C. Paddyfote
-------------------------------------------------

I just have to use some straight street talk here because it so aptly describes the foregoing responses: there's some shuckin' and jivin' here at its best.

Let's first look at Jerry Monaghan's NMF e-mail. It would take a complete fool to not know that it was an NMF pitch. Pure and simple. Yet he claims that the e-mail "was generic" and "any New Milford First information was contained in an optional download." That's pure hogwash from a guy who considers himself to be the spinmeister of all spinmeisters but is really very little more than a hack who has been rejected by New Milford's major Parties and voters (including two days ago), who violated the Zoning Regs while on the Planning Commission and, together with a couple of other cronies including old ethics-challenged Davey Hubbard, is responsible for the Route 7 construction debacle that we suffer through day after day, month after month, year after year.   "Generic," Jerry? Do you really think we and Mr. Munoz are that stupid?

In addition, the self-proclaimed great media guru ought to get a web lesson from Kostes. Ask him to explain to you the difference between files "as attachments" versus "in-line."   Depending upon computer preferences, the "optional download" was anything but and the NMF pitch appeared on-screen with the body of the e-mail.

Now JeanAnn enters the picture but does not satisfactorily address the issue. I'm sure that mailing lists aren't "intentionally released" and that no one is "authorized to release them" but who has access to them? What safeguards are in place to make sure that they can only be accessed appropriately? Does every person who uses the list know how to "bcc?" JeanAnn wrote that she had "spoken with one person" from NMF and was told that it got the list "from friends" of NMF but Monaghan wrote that it came from "a fellow parent." Did he lie? JeanAnn told Mr. Munoz to "pursue the matter with" NMF. Did her investigation end there or is she looking at the School's e-mail records to find a leak? The "friends" of NMF got the list from somewhere!

Last but certainly not least is the law.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) at 34 CFR 99 set forth the rules about what is called "directory information" and the disclosure thereof. It came as no surprise to me that the School's own Policy at 6141.324, I believe, are not in strict compliance with FERPA and are also internally inconsistent.   Both are grounds for a FERPA complaint to the United States Department of Education.

There should be a comprehensive investigation of this matter by the Superintendent; she has more than enough information to move forward.

11-7-07: Problem With Votes For O'Brien, Diamond, Alexander, Francis and Rush: Head Moderator Jay Umbarger confirmed this morning that there is a problem with the count for the five who appeared on the ballot twice. The problem is being addressed as this is being written. Stay tuned.

11-6-07: Runaway Found: It is my understanding that Megan Roberts, the 17 year old New Milford runaway, was found in New Jersey and is home and safe. I have no further information.

11-6-07: It's Mayor Murphy In a Landslide Victory: The unofficial vote is 3570 Murphy, 1125 Stillman, 1475 Kostes. The winners in other races are:

Council: Szendy, Bass, Guendelsberger, Volinski, O'Brien, Mullen, Lillis, Lundgren, Bayer
Finance: Gutman, Sherry, Alexander, Wargo
BOE: Lawson, Diamond, Thomas, Llerena, Finney
Assessment Appeals: Brant, Burcaw
Planning: Francis, Morey, Rush, Volinski
Zoning: Tito, Florio, Ward
ZBA: Bogie, Alexander, Bayers

Two surprises: Town Clerk, George Buckbee and Tax Collector, Cathy Reynolds.

Notes:

1) Disenfranchised, unendorsed and "once powerful" (as Nanci Hutson wrote) Republican George McLaughlin lost his bid for Council and got fewer votes than Democratic newcomer Mary Issavi!

2) Kostes got more votes than Stillman. I have to hand it to Kostes...he ran the most professional campaign that I've seen here in years;

3) There is something wrong with the vote count for those candidates that ran on two tickets: O'Brien, Diamond, Alexander, Francis and Rush. Their vote totals were astronomically high as if their votes on the NMF ticket were counted twice.

4) If Kostes was in the race to obtain a mayoral line for NMF, then he succeeded.

11-5-07: Ex Personnel Director Responds to Union VP: Again, I find myself coming from a different perspective from that of the Union Vice President. There is nothing professional when name calling occurs, which is easy to do behind the “power of the pen” or in this case email. Unfortunately, there are levels of decorum that cannot be found in a dictionary, levels of ethics that cannot be spelled out in black and white. Collaboration, when done well, usually produces positive results. It does not always mean that someone wins and someone loses, but for the most part there is a compromise in which a greater good gets met. Negotiations should never be in the spirit of the union versus management. That is old school thinking and never promotes a business strategy. Since I no longer live in New Milford, the elections are not of much interest to me, but having my professional name bounced around on a well-read email is most unpleasant. Every day, we all get up and go to our professions. We work, and we work hard. We do what we think is right, we make decisions based on our education, background, training and experiences. Sarcasm and pointing fingers simply isn’t part of my professional life.

I concur that the negotiations were amicable. I concur that they went smoothly for the most part. And under the circumstances, I stayed until one day before I moved away, in the hopes they would go smoothly after I left. The new Personnel Director had what he needed to GO FORWARD in continuing to work with the union. It is laughable to say “I was the team”. I was part of a team, but there is no “I” in team. My final draft is simply that, MY final draft. It is not the Mayor’s final draft, and she certainly has the final say. It is not Mr. Chapin’s final draft. Certainly he could have had input. It was not a final draft reviewed by the Town Attorney. It was simply the end of the line for me. I was moving, and I left a document for my predecessor. Whatever the Mayor, the new Personnel Director or the Town Council chose to do upon my departure was up to them, but it seems like AFTER I left is when the mess occurred. Who was in charge of organizing things then? At my deposition neither the union attorney nor the union business manager bothered to show. I went out of my way to be available, as did the Town Attorney. Certainly if the union had issues or questions, they could have been present then.

Again, if you read the previous email from Mrs. Sanford, she restates what an “incompetent and disorganized person I ALWAYS was”. I am no longer disorganized just for this negotiation, but now it has escalated to “always”. Then I am accused of this being A TACTIC “in case things got screwed up”. So does this mean I would deliberately look bad, to cover something up, for later, when I’m not around? I’m not sure what all that blather means, but I don’t think that’s what the Town paid me “big bucks” to do. Martha, are you familiar with the term LIBEL. I suggest you look it up.

There is a mention of Sick Leave Caps in Mrs. Sanford’s latest writing. I am guessing this is the big issue. And as I read further, “I put the blame where I believe it should be, on your shoulders and the shoulders of the Town Council”. I guess I am in good company, since all of us are to blame.

I am, however, going to draw a line in the sand with this last comment. The email reads, “You wrote up the most pertinent parts to bring to a vote. You worked with the President to make sure we were ready for the vote.” This is an outright lie. The final day that I was present for the negotiations, there were I believe, four items that the Mayor wished to review. I believe they were wages, medical insurance, tuition reimbursement, maybe civic duty day…I am not sure exactly but these were the last of the items. The Town and the Union came to terms on these items in that the Union stated they could agree to the terms the Mayor was requesting. At the end of that meeting, in which we all thanked each other for a good session and shared our goodbyes since it was my last meeting, I stated point blank that I would take this information back to the Mayor (and try to get it typed) and that going forward the Mayor would review the draft with the new Personnel Director, schedule time with the Town Council to review it and that the new Personnel Director could finish up the other items THAT WERE STILL OUTSTANDING (ie some appendix work, pay grade issues, and those insidious “typos” that needed some fixing”. The next document could be completed by the new Director, the Mayor and review by the Town Attorney. I NEVER had any discussions or meetings with the President to “make sure we were ready for the vote”. Have you forgotten, Martha, I am supposed to be on the management side, not the Union’s, as you so eloquently stated in your email. I am not holding the President responsible for that statement since it is the Vice President making the comment, but those discussions did not occur.

And, you can bet your bottom dollar, if you continue to libel me, I will write back.

Paula Kelly
Florida

11-05-07: And The NMF Big Money Winner Is.....John Kane!: Yessireee. The King of the Hypocrites made a lot of money this election season. The NMF October 30 filing discloses that Kane, also a NMF candidate for Council, was paid $4,637.62 for web services, art work and handouts. Also interesting is a $1,000.00 contribution from Paul Garlasco, who may be hoping to be Town Attorney in the unlikely event that Kostes wins tomorrow.

11-05-07: NMF Spam...A School Leak?:   Some of you may have received unsolicited campaign-related e-mail from the NMF group. Some who received it have never given out their addresses except to the School system.   These mailing lists are extremely valuable (read, big $$) and are solicited aggressively. I wonder what measures the School Administration has taken to protect these lists and if there is a leak.

11-5-07: Reward: A $1,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who damaged hundreds of trees belonging to Barbara Chappuis on her property on Geiger Road. Please respond by contacting Officer Robert Kirschner at the NMPD (355-3133) or by sending e-mail to chappuisfamily@gmail.com

11-3-07: Now It's Stillman Who's Violating the Campaign Law: Democratic Mayoral Candidate Larry Stillman paid for a large ad on page 5 of this week's New Milford Times. Promoting the "Democratic Team," the ad is "Paid for by 'The Committee to Elect Larry Stillman,' Tom McSherry, Treasurer." On page 7 is an ad, paid for similarly, promoting the Democratic BOE Members. All nicely done but....

Section 9-601(4) of the Connecticut General Statutes defines a "Candidate Committee" [the Committee to Elect Larry Stillman] as any committee designated by a single candidate, or established with the consent, authorization or cooperation of a candidate, for the purpose of a single primary or election and to aid or promote such candidate's candidacy ALONE for a particular public office or the position of town committee member, but does not mean a political committee or a party committee.

Thus, ads paid for by Stillman's Committee to promote the candidacy of others is improper.

11-3-07: AFSCME Responds: I know you are annoyed that I feel you are unorganized but you have to remember the first meetings when you were shuffling papers around and jumping from section to section. I would come out of those first sessions shaking my head. That was when I put everything in black and white so we had a process to follow. This I thought would have come from your office.

I only noted the dismay of Union members, in regards to my comments, because I understand the rules about confidentiality but I wanted to address the process not the specifics of issues, so I continued with free speech. I didn't think, and still don't think, that this should be a political basketball during election time. Maybe this is why your letter is written so close to elections to get it on the front burner.

I do have to ask Why were you at the meetings if not for negotiating for the Town?    My handy Webster defines negotiate as:

1. to discuss with a view to reaching agreement;

2. to settle a transaction

I know this is hard but does it say reaching an agreement to bring back to discuss with all parties involved. No! You were the team. That's why you got paid the big bucks.

Do you remember setting dates for further negotiations! Do you remember commenting on how glad we were it went so smoothly? Do you remember saying at least it's done before your final days? Do you remember writing the Final Draft? Again Mr. Webster defines Final as:

1. end;

2. conclusive

3. last

Any logical person would have taken your final draft to mean the end of all drafts; no more; this is the last one; over; done. No more DRAFTS in the future.

I'm sure you know that the Town Council has forty-five days to act upon a contract. They did not, so AFSCME had an article done to nudge them a little. That was the article you spoke about. It was after the time limit, we made sure of that. Confidentiality ended when it went before the Union members for a vote and before the Town Council to act upon. After the forty five days we could have printed our own paper with it, if we wanted to.

The only meeting we attended after you left was to bring the Director up to speed with your Final Draft. Done; over! Again if the Town thought we had to meet again then meetings should have been scheduled. Nothing, from the new Director.

You were right; I would not ever call Tammy Reardon, Marla Scribner or Monika Roberts disorganized.    They run an exceptionally well organized office for the Mayor, so that she can work for the good of the Town.

To be perfectly honest Paula, I do think you are incompetent because of the disorganizing state you seem to always be in. Of course that was probably your tactic in case things got screwed up. I'm happy you have a great position in Fl. (you can never contemplate how happy I am) but I'm sure you now have an office with capable employees under you to keep things going on an even track and focused. Maybe they also make sure your office has papers in the files instead of the on your desk, chairs etc.

I was here fifteen years when the lay-offs started how did you gave me a break? Would you throw away all the money the taxpayers spent on educating me to be in this position, just so I could go to another Town and possibly be their Assessor? In a Town that understands where the money comes from and pays their Assessor accordingly. It was bad enough we lost one employee that was almost finished with her certification to Brookfield. The Assessor's Office is still feeling the affects trying to get employees educated in the Assessing field. What a gain!!! Even as the lay-offs happened we all knew it would never work but they attack only the AFSCME employees. Most of those employees are back at their previous job and others hired to replace the ones that were lost. What did we gain? The only thing that was gained is the knowledge that the Town Council and Board of Finance, at that time, really knew how to screw things up. Some members still sit on the Boards, with their out dated thinking, but I always feel better when I vote.

The Union is not screaming. We have no dissention, we are firm. The Union is not running up legal bills but think really hard and try to remember the number of times the Union President contacted you to say you were missing the cap on sick leave accumulation in all the drafts and then the Final Draft. Would we be in this position if you did the first draft right?

Yes, Chris, Marilee and I do know how to negotiate but I'm not sure what it is that we personally are getting out of it. Promotions..no; upgrades..no..maybe more money than the other members..no. What self serving agenda did we have?

About the Mayor:

We did not kick her in the teeth. She not only treated us fairly, she TREATS us fairly. None of this has ever been about the Mayor. If she stays here another ten years I hope that I would be able to be part of the wonderful things she will accomplish. I have never, in my twenty years, worked with an administrator who has treated us with the respect that she has. Probably the last was Stubby Chapin. We are not always employees but at times friends. She knows how to be an administrator for the people.

I put the blame where I believe it should be, on your shoulders and the shoulders of the Town Council that did not have the gumption to take a vote the night the Mayor put it on the agenda. They should have said something...anything. They should have asked that we negotiate some sticking points a little more. I personally don't think the Union would have disagreed. They choose to be silent. Now they can blame us.

As for the vote at our meeting, you wrote up the most pertinent parts to bring to a vote. You worked with the President to make sure we were ready for the vote. You can make it appear as though all this is because the Union jumped the gun but in reality those of us that negotiated know the truth...and I for one feel that is what counts. Everyone can say and print what they want but in the end we are the ones that really know. That is the last to be said about this.

I believe that this was the right idea to negotiate without the expense of Attorneys. Maybe your right, the next one should have the Mayor, a Town Council Member and a Board of Finance Member and of course Personnel Committee. Maybe then someone, other than the Mayor, would actually know what we do here. I welcome George to the table anytime because as taxpayers ourselves we are not trying to increase the tax burden. The Mayor was right..."we" really could have accomplished this.

You can answer this if you like but I will not write again. It's over..your gone..and now we will pick up the pieces.

11-2-07: Mayoral Debate Air Dates: Channel 21 on Saturday, November 3 at 10 p.m.; Sunday, November 4 at 1 p.m. and Monday, November 5 at 5:00 p.m.

11-2-07: Kostes Wants Jet-Capable Airport Near Merryall; How To Make Your Buddies Into Enemies: In a widely distributed e-mail, Mayor wannabe Kostes wrote that he "was a little disappointed that there was no mention of air travel" at the Planning Commission's Meeting about the Plan of Conservation and Development. "Very light jets" are very quiet, he wrote, and suggested that there ought to be an airport in New Milford capable of handling such jet traffic. One of the spots to look at, he says, may be "The quarry near Boardman." Yep, right on the Merryall border. That'll go over real big.

11-2-07: Former Personnel Director Comments on AFSCME Issue: On Friday mornings, as I always do, I take a look at the week via newspapers and various websites, just to get a nice picture of both the world, and local news. I still look at the New Milford Times and your Web Page. In scrolling down, I read two different entries from Martha Sanford, AFSCME Vice President, regarding her take on the stalled union negotiations. One goes back to September 8, and one to September 10. I cannot help but “scratch my head” when I read certain things. Let us begin with Martha’s comment, “Probably to the dismay of fellow Union members”. Martha made the decision to present her opinion of the process with disregard for her fellow union members, which certainly reflects on the continuing disregard for fellow union members who would like to see the issues resolved and move on with life. The next comment that stands out is “the Mayor and the Personnel Director negotiated for the Town” and that “we were not to discuss the issues until the time of voting”. I for one, and I can vouch for the Mayor, did not “negotiate for the Town” without regard for the employees as well. Without the employees, the Town would certainly have difficulty running itself, and the Mayor has always respected and valued her employees. Negotiations are done with an eye toward what is fair and reasonable with respect to the budget, what provides for the retention and recruitment of good employees, and what makes for the promotion of strategic initiatives going forward in accomplishing Town business.

We never discussed the issues outside of the negotiating arena while I was there, but I know for a fact that the union did because information became public in the newspapers. I don’t remember the dates, but I do remember reading an article in the paper with quotes from Christine Thomas referencing bargaining issues. It may have been missed by the general public, but it didn’t pass by me. As I move on I see Martha’s comment, “This is the Process:” and she goes on to describe the process except that she leaves out the very first, important step….are we done? I firmly believe that the members of the negotiating team took advantage of the fact that I was leaving, knew there would be a gap and a learning curve for the next Personnel Director, and rushed off to “take a vote”. I cannot speak to what happened after I left, but I can assure you WE WERE NOT DONE. I explicitly said that I would try to type everything up, get it into my last draft (i.e. my “final draft”) and then would pass this along to the next Personnel Director, who would have to hit the ground running and play catch up. There were labor pay grades that required finalizing, the Facilities Maintainer’s pay scales that needed some corrections, the appendix wasn’t done, and the Town Attorney still needed to review the document. It had not been to an Executive Session yet, and all of these processes are consistent with how negotiations have always been done at Town Hall. I know because I served on the negotiating team twice in six years for five different contracts. In addition, there were no TA’s, which the Mayor always does when she is firm on an issue. So, for the union negotiating team to say “it’s done” is an out and out falsification.

Martha goes on to say, “the sad part is the taxpayers have to pay for the Town Council’s inability to complete the process” and “if the Mayor had a more organized associate to work with, then none of this would have been a problem. It was always the Union with the help of the Mayor trying to make the process easier to flow and understand”. That’s quite a mouthful, wouldn’t you say? Let’s see in two sentences she has basically called everyone on the Town Council incompetent, and I assume that I am “the associate”, unless she is referring to Marla Scribner, Tammy Reardon or Monika Roberts which I don’t think she is. Again, this speaks volumes. Don’t you think it’s a good tactic in labor negotiations to put into writing that the other side is incompetent and apparently disorganized and that the only competent members are the union? Can you imagine what is being said “behind our backs”. How I ever got through life I’ll never know. How I have managed to move to Florida, find a great job as a Human Resource Director, complete an entire negotiation here, signed sealed and delivered and life has moved on, I’ll just never know.

There was a comment about a “leaked email” and a pizza party. The union is not to use Town equipment, which includes emails, for union business. If it was a private email that was leaked my apologies. If it was on the Town’s equipment, another rule violation. But who’s counting. There was also reference to the layoffs when Gambino was Mayor and Martha’s position that was again the Town’s horrible treatment of them. Layoff’s occurred because the Board of Finance made huge cuts to personnel. Then Mayor Gambino had no choice.He went to his Directors for input, as he should have, and then had to make the cuts based on how best to move the town forward. Unfortunately, due to the UNION’s bumping clause, which lets the most senior employees bump those under them, a waterfall occurred that was truly horrendous for the employees. No one within AFSCME had any security at the time due to their bumping clause. That clause hasn’t changed if anyone wants to look. Seniority, a cornerstone in the unions…obviously not competency, will prevail. Actually at the time, Martha Sanford was in a probationary period, because she was in a new position. The union contract said that employees “on probation” would be the first bumped. I contacted Katherine Thomas, our labor attorney at the time, and we reviewed that and we determined that it probably did not mean those employees on “probation” as promotions. I GAVE MARTHA SANFORD A BREAK. Thanks Martha for a vote of confidence. (You can go check the personnel records on that)

Martha’s final comment references “120 sick days”, as though the Mayor wanted to eliminate that. Carrying 120 sick days in the bank, with a payout upon retirement is a nice benefit. HOWEVER, let us remember that AFSCME also has a short term disability package, which allows after one year of employment, to get up to 26 weeks short term disability, and another 26 weeks long term if need be. All AFSCME employees have this benefit after one year of employment, which is a huge benefit. The Mayor and I wanted to amend the prior agreement which put a cap on the bank when they got this benefit, since there were so many complaints about it. We said we would go back to original past practice, which was the ability to accrue 120 days in the bank AND still have the short term disability benefit. Check the other union contracts….Teamsters and UPSEU, they don’t have it, or at least they didn’t when I was there. So what is the union screaming about and ringing up those legal fees, fueling dissention….all over the number of hours accruable in the bank? Ask the non-union Directors and supervisors, who cannot accrue overtime, if they get this benefit?

In closing, I would like to say that there are two forms of bargaining, distributive, and positional. I am sure Martha and Christine are familiar with both, since they are so much more organized and professional than I am. Distributive bargaining presents the position that there is one issue in which the two bargaining teams are at conflict with, and one of the parties will lose and the other will gain. The two try to come to terms to compromise so there can be a win-win.

The other form of bargaining is Interest Based Bargaining versus Positional Bargaining. In interest based bargaining one looks for a common ground. In positional bargaining, negotiators lock themselves into their positions and find it difficult to move away from these positions. They lose sight of the underlying problems to be resolved and place the emphasis on winning their point. There is a duty of fair representation when negotiations occur. This requires that the unions act fairly on behalf of their membership. You decide which position is being taken. Frankly, I think the union, under the leadership of Christine Thomas and Martha Sanford, have kicked the Mayor squarely in the teeth and put their self promotion before the needs of their membership. She was good to them, she went to bat for them, her door was always open to them and they know it. As the old phrase goes, “no good deed goes unpunished”. And obviously, all of the times I went before the Town Council to get them pay increases (much to the consternation of the council) and to better their work conditions, carry no water. I am apparently still an unorganized “associate” and the Mayor is a callous leader who, if the union met with her, “would provide them nothing to gain but the feeling of giving in again”. Maybe we should put George McLaughlin on the next negotiating team for the Town. I read Tom DiCandido’s comment about having George on the Town Council. Might be interesting to have him on the negotiating team.

Paula Kelly
Florida

11-1-07: Kostes Team Violating Campaign Law: At the Mayoral debate, Kostes couldn't name any of the candidates for President of the United States because he's so focused on his campaign for Mayor of the Town of New Milford. Not quite focused enough.

You see, Section 9-606(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes prohibits a candidate from acting as the treasurer of any committee (candidate, slate, or party committee) that is designated as the authorized funding vehicle for that candidate's campaign. Howard Lapidus is New Milford First's Treasurer and is himself a candidate for ZBA.

A Staff Attorney at the State Elections Enforcement Commission confirmed that there's a problem and the prohibition is fully explained in the February, 2007 Edition of the Commission's Publication entitled, Understanding the Connecticut Campaign Finance Laws, A Guide For Municipal Candidates.

Kostes, at the top of the ticket, is ultimately responsible for this. If this is what we get from him now, I can only imagine the disaster we'd get later. Another good reason not to vote for him.

11-1-07: Spectrum Endorses Murphy:   "Mayor Murphy has shown in her first four years to be a strong, proactive and enthusiastic leader." It also endorsed 5 Dems and 4 Republicans for Town Council, only two NMF candidates, Marion Schomp and Alex Thomas, and not even a passing mention of Gambino, Kane or McLaughlin.

10-31-07: Candidate Lisa Diamond...YOU Be The Judge: Dr. Lisa Diamond is a Member of the Board of Education and is the Chairman of its Operations Sub-Committee. One of the functions of the Operations Sub-Committee is to review purchase orders and make recommendations with regard thereto to the full BOE.

Dr. Diamond is the Director of Psychiatric Services at New Milford Hospital and the Director of an entity named Behavioral Health Services located at 21 Elm Street, a building that is owned by the Hospital and a location of outpatient health services.

On March 6, 2007, “Purchase Resolution D-598” was on the Sub-Committee's Agenda. That item included a number of purchase orders, one of which was Purchase Order Number 19787 for $10,000 to be paid to an entity entitled “New Milford Behavioral Services,” located at 21 Elm Street, to provide a High School counselor. Diamond participated in the discussion. According to the Minutes of the Meeting:

    “Dr. Diamond explained the history behind this purchase order and the quality of the counselor that is providing the necessary, skilled services. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find someone of this caliber and experience to provide these services at the rate the district is currently paying.”

     “Dr. Diamond stated that the counselor is assigned to the high school for the entire school year and actually puts in more than 20 hours a week.”

Fellow Sub-Committee Member David Lawson made a motion “that the Operations Committee bring the monthly financial reports to the full Board for approval.” Purchase Order Number 19787 was part of the “monthly financial reports” and Diamond voted in favor of the Motion which passed 5-0-1.

Should Lisa Diamond have voted to give money to her employer? YOU be the judge and issue your ruling on Election Day.

10-29-07: McLaughlin To 'Aggravate and Torment': I almost forgot the most important benefit of electing GM to the TC; to aggravate and torment the entrenched members of the TC for the next two years... Not only will that be very compelling theatre, but it may even compel the TC to have shorter meetings resulting in less legislation, less regulation and more money in the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. A potential win-win situation for the citizens of New Milford!

Tom DiCandido
New Milford

10-27-07: A Piece of History Lost Forever; the Voting Machines Are Dumped At the Recycling Center:

Will we miss them?

10-25-07: The November Ballot

10-25-07:   Information About Monday's Mayoral Debate

10-25-07: The Kostes "Vote": I have read the provisions of CGS Title 9 ("Elections') including Section 9-261 very carefully and, more importantly, I have discussed the Kostes "vote" with Arthur Champagne from the Secretary of State's Office. No changes to voting records may be made -- including the record of who voted or, more properly, who checked in with a checker -- without an order to do so from the Superior Court. Not by the Town Clerk, not by a Registrar, not by a checker, not by anyone. Until such order is made, the Bob Kostes "vote" does not exist.

10-23-07: Morey Critical of Voting System: Having worked as checker several years ago, it amazes me how screwed up and antiquated the Connecticut voting process has been and continues to be.

I thought, like most people, that we were getting new state-of-the-art voting computers that would automate and streamline the voting process. It appears, however, that we've gone backwards.   It reminds me of being back in grade school minus the #2 pencils.

Take a look at the back of your drivers license and you'll find a secure USPC strip. Why couldn't the state implement a scanner to log you in before you vote. This would be verified against the registrar's database and unlock the voting computer before you can even use it. Once you've voted, the same system could lock you out so you couldn't vote twice. The voting terminals could be wirelessly connected to the main computer that could give an instant analysis of exactly who voted where and at what time, etc.
Now, some have said that there needs to be a paper trail, so why not have printers at different phases of the process that logs only pertinent information needed at that phase of the process. Think about it, less paid checkers fumbling with voter lists and maybe crossing off the wrong name. The old need for runners to bring back voting stats to party headquarters could be eliminated by allowing party officials secure wireless access to voting stats.

Pipe dreaming? No I'm not. It is, after all, 2007 not the 50's and we are adults not in grade school anymore. We should all revolt and seek an up-to-date system that's not the junk that we've been required to buy and fool around with.

Tom Morey
New Milford

10-23-07: 'Stop Whining About It And Take Action': This is an e-mail that was sent to New Milford First by former Planning Alternate Pete Helmus:

New Milford First is probably right about the need to update the POCD, but so what?
How about this? NMF seems to be able to raise some cash. Why not raise the cash necessary to hire an organization that can update the POCD and seems to have the education, certification, experience and expertise to do it correctly? A company that isn't front loaded with a vocal minority that will skew a POCD to their own agendas. A company like Planimetrics.(http://www.planimetrics.net/).
Now that would be a first, and exactly what the Town needs!
Yeah a transfer of the funds to the Town would probably be complicated but work on that too.
Stop whining about it and take action!

10-23-07: Trujillo Corrects Publius: I agree with Publius, however, there is a slight inaccuracy in the details.

In 1948, Strom Thurmond as Governor of South Carolina ran as a 3rd party (Dixiecrat) against the Truman / Democratic plank of Civil Rights and integration. Thurmond and many southerners where still seething over the integration of the armed forces by the Truman administration.

That said, Thurmond won 39 electoral votes, however, incumbent Truman did eventually win a close election against Republican Dewey.

Tom Trujillo
New Milford

10-23-07: 'What is the appeal of third parties like New Milford First?': What is the appeal of third parties like New Milford First? When disenfranchised voters see no difference between the two major parties, a vote for a third party candidate is essentially a vote of "no confidence" in the two party system. When the block of disenfranchised (third party) voters is large enough, their "protest votes" can and do effect the outcome of elections. Some 20^th century examples are the "Bull Moose Party" in 1912, the "Dixiecrats" in 1948, Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000. In each of these examples, third party "spoilers" cost the incumbent president's party the White House. This is possible on the state or local level as well, depending on the extent of voter dissatisfaction with the status quo. In other words, New Milford First voters may not be casting their ballot for Bob Kostes et al. They may simply be voting against all the other choices...

Publius
New Milford

10-20-07: Add BOE Candidates Lisa Diamond and Alex Thomas to the Referendum No-Show List

10-18-06: Kostes, Kane Fail to Vote In Ambulance Barn Referendum: I guess it just wasn't important enough for them. Kostes, the wannabe Mayor, was probably too busy looking at himself in the mirror, looking for his socks or looking at his money. As for Council wannabe Kane, well, I don't want to go there.

It's always interesting to see who has the biggest mouth and then's a no-show. At the Rotary, Kostes went on and on about how the press has failed to help get out the vote. How the Town should use the internet to get out the vote. How there's too much voter apathy. And then what does he do?

And these people want us to vote for them? Think again.

10-18-07: McLaughlin Joins the Ranks of New Milford Hypocrites: Council wannabe George McLaughlin, shunned by the Republicans, has joined the New Milford Kanes and Gambinos by speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's quoted in Nanci Hutson's story today in the News-Times about the funds to preserve Hunt Hill Farm: "Finance board member George McLaughlin said he would vote in favor, but said he had something of a problem with 'pushing the envelope' on the use of Waste Management settlement funds."

Now wait a gosh-darned second. Isn't this the same George Mclaughlin who proposed using the Waste Management funds to pay for the ambulance barn, a use that's not permitted under the Ordinance? Who is he to be accusing someone else of "pushing the envelope?"

10-17-07: News-Times Coverage Of KC Groundbreaking: I have to step back sometimes and wonder about the News-Times. KC, a Town staple for decades, makes a $50,000,000 investment (that's 50 MILLION dollars!) in its plant and the story gets buried somewhere near the back of the Paper. But shoeless-Joe Kostes rants on about his so-called vision with no specifics and no substance and he gets front page. And Med-Instill? Similar placement. Go figure.

10-16-07: New Ambulance Barn On The Way: 869 yes; 614 no. A total of 1483 votes or 9% of the 16354 electors.

10-16-07: Kostes Proposes New Form of Government: In today's News Times, Nanci Hutson quotes Mayoral candidate Bob Kostes. "He will rely on his directors and an administrative aide to assist him with routine duties." Wow! Now that's creative. A Board of Directors in the Mayor's office! Let's see who'll serve on the "Board." Gambino, Monaghan. Greenspan, Kane? Oooooh, it's the "boo" season. This must be meant to scare.

Kostes made an appearance today at the Rotary and members of the audience were heard giggling. And why shouldn't they? Kostes knows no facts and never has any specifics.

10-15-07: Facts Mean Nothing to New Milford First: The facts never get in the way of the group of political rejects and has-beens that got together and call themselves New Milford First.   Destined for what is certain to be his third strike, Kostes assembled his group on Route 7 to hold a press conference about the unsightliness of a used car business and the alleged failure of the Murphy Administration to address the Town's aquifer.   The people in the line-up looked more like they were waiting for the Hart bus to take them out of Town. I can wish, can't I?

Kostes, My Boy, when you call around Town scraping at the bottom of the barrel for issues, why don't you listen to what you're told? You pay attention just long enough to enable you to say what you want to say but never get the whole picture or all the facts. Then you misquote and anger the people you just spoke to. That's not a good thing and is a sure-fire way to make enemies, not friends.

Here are some facts:

As to your alleged water-pollution danger, State records show that the owner of the car lot got a clean bill of health from the State many years ago, having been forced to clean up a huge mess that was left there by his predecessor.   It's all a matter of public record.

No aquifer protection agency? Town records show that the Sewer Commission passed a resolution so that the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority) has jurisdiction over aquifer protection. This is what is required by the State Regulation. It's all a matter of public record.

Mapping of the aquifer has been on-going for some time.   It's all a matter of public record.

And what else do I find in this press conference? As usual, not a small dose of genuine New Milford hypocrisy. Look at some of the players, from left to right. Larry Greenspan, former Zoner and Council Member, did absolutely nothing about these issues when he was there. Jerry Monaghan, former Planning Chair, did absolutely nothing aboout these issues when he was in office. Finally, former Mayor Bobby Gambino. What the heck did he do about these issues when he was Mayor? Nada, like everything else.   And then there's New Milford's Chief Hypocrite, Zoning violator John Kane who has finally applied for a Zoning Permit to legalize the use of his barn for his business purposes. Who is he to be complaining about the used car lot?

Kostes, My Boy, I expect you to ignore the facts but did you stop to think that it might be a bit embarassing to hold a press conference and surround yourself with the very do-nothings who themselves failed to address the issues that you are complaining about? From your haughty perch above, do you think New Milford voters are so stupid? You'd do yourself a great service to think again.

The moral of the tale? Don't go in half-cocked.   As the Kid From Brooklyn says, "Tink About it!"

10-15-07: NMF Puts Schomp on Ballot: Rejected by her own Party, Democratic Planning Member Marian Schomp was put on the November ballot today by New Milford First for the 2-year Planning seat.   Marian is a voice of reason, does her homework and makes a valuable contribution to this very important Commission.

10-12-07: Kostes Newspaper Article REMOVED

10-12-07: Izzo Post 'Disingenuous': REMOVED

10-12-07: Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk: REMOVED

10-12-07: Adult Ed Kids Should Be Allowed In School Athletics: I read in The New Milford Times this morning that Lance Pliego left. I would make a big suggestion to the new Athletic Director at NMHS. They need to figure out a way to include kids who are in adult ed, who may be 18 or under, into school athletics. I don’t know what they do now but when my son was in adult ed, he was 17. He wanted to try out for the varsity soccer team, and the AD at the time (the one before Pliego) said no. I asked why not? He said, “I don’t know, we’ve just never allowed it, they’re usually too old”. I said, “My son is 17”. It was still no. There was a definite bias against adult ed kids. With all the problems with the kids in New Milford and the permissiveness of the parents, I don’t see why a kid who’s in adult ed can’t participate. This particularly holds true for those kids who take the 7-9 classes, which do not conflict with practice. Hopefully the new AD could do something about this??

Former Soccer Mom
Florida

10-11-07: 'Gambino Running for Board of Finance Is A Joke': New Milford Town government is predominantly guided by a group of great volunteers so when they say or do something objectionable, we tend to forgive and forget . But here’s one for the record books.

Former Mayor Bob Gambino is running for a seat on the Board of Finance. Bob advocated to the Charter Revision Commission that they consider eliminating the BOF but now he wants to be elected to it. I’d say Bob is confused. Very confused. But no more so than when he was Mayor and completely out to lunch about the Town’s money.   Him running for the Board of Finance is a big joke.

When I read about it in the newspaper, I nearly fell out of my recliner. Maybe I should go buy a new one from Art Peiler who's selling furniture in Macy's in Waterbury. Gambino's term will expire before he even begins to get a clue about municipal finance.

Scarlet Fever
New Milford

10-9-07: Spatola 1, Town 0: Many remember the frivolous Ethics Complaint that Council wannabe John Kane filed against then Board of Finance Member John Spatola. It was eventually dismissed but not before protracted proceedings. Some also remember that Mayor wannabe Bob Kostes sat at Kane's side, helping him with his case.

Spatola asked the Town to reimburse him for his legal fees under the provisions of a State Statute that require reimbursement if a "claim, demand or suit" against a Town official is dismissed but the Town and its insurer refused to do so. Spatola then sued the Town and the insurer, on the Town's behalf, tried to get the case thrown out. It argued that the words "claim, demand or suit...do not include an ethics complaint which does not expose the plaintiff to liability for money damages."

In the first case to address the issue, on September 26, 2007, Superior Court Judge John W. Pickard held that "the plain meaning of the words 'claim' or 'demand' could encompass an ethics complaint." Citing dictionary definitions, Judge Pickard wrote, "A complaint to a local ethics commission falls within both definitions. There is nothing in either definition which would imply that the complaint must seek monetary relief."

So the $150,000 question is, will this substantial determination in Spatola's favor result in a settlement of the case?

10-5-07: Council Candidate Kane Violates Zoning Regs: It's just another classic story of New Milford hubris and hypocrisy. As you may remember, John Kane renovated his barn on Crossman Road and started using it for his photography business after he moved it from West Street.   Totally illegal. I discussed it with then Mayor Bobby Gambino but, being the good buddies that they were, he did nothing. What a surprise. Then a Zoning Reg was proposed that would legalize this use. Of course, Kane was its biggest proponent, talking about how great this would be for New Milford. So here we are, years later, and Kane hasn't even complied with that Zoning Reg. It requires him to get a Special Permit from the Zoning Commission and he has been told to do so. And this is a guy who wants to be on the Town Council? Stay tuned.

10-4-07: Morey 'Outraged' by Monaghan on POCD, Says Kostes Ignorant: As an elected Member of the Planning Commission, I am outraged at the attempt by former Planning Chair Jerry Monaghan to deceive the public. I am not at all surprised by the comments by mayor-wannabe and land schemer Bob Kostes who has again advertised that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Last week, they complained that the Town isn’t spending enough money on consultants to update the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, the POCD.

Let me explain.

The POCD is an inventory and road map of the Town’s land-use policies, development patterns and preservation, recreation and future municipal needs. The legal plan, about which they both appear to be ignorant, is the Zoning Map. They don’t get that the Zoning Map evolved from the strategies outlined in the POCD.   Contrary to Kostes’ assertion, the POCD is obviously not a “business plan.” If Kostes hasn’t gotten this basic information by now, he’s too long a study and ought to quit the Mayoral race immediately. The Town can’t afford on-the-job training.

What the Town must do soon is review the POCD, not re-write it and there is plenty of time to get the job done. Spending huge sums of taxpayer money to review the POCD isn’t going to get better results. The Planning Commission interviewed various planning consultants and chose Planimetrics for its demonstrated expertise.

Should you pay any attention to Jerry Monaghan? You be the judge and then decide if you should vote for him in November. I won’t.

During the Peitler administration, Monaghan served with ethics-challenged David Hubbard on the Route 7 advisory committee that acted as liaison between the Town and the State. What you see and experience today is, to a great extent, its work product including the traffic light where Hubbard owns property that resulted in an ethics complaint against him and his subsequent resignation.

Now we are experiencing the hazards of the design. Thank you, Jerry Monaghan.

I’ve written before about hypocrisy in New Milford and Jerry Monaghan is a superstar in this regard.

Monaghan was the Chairman of the Planning Commission in the late 90s when the POCD was updated. Now he and Kostes are complaining about strip malls on Route 7. It was Monaghan who then helped engineer the Plan and now he’s complaining. That’s the ultimate hypocrisy. If Kostes doesn’t like strip malls, blame it on his friend Jerry. If Kostes wants to try to do something about it, run for Zoning instead of for Mayor.

Route 7 is the largest commercial corridor that the Town has for a tax base. The Route 7 North and Route 202 corridors are limited for commercial use and they should be. All this was established 36 years ago when Zoning was adopted and Kostes was in grade school. Any further commercial expansion along those northern corridors will only intrude into residential areas.

Due to Monaghan’s failure to understand State Statutes, New Milford residents hold him accountable for what became an embarrassing moment in the planning Commission’s history that a subdivision off the Carmen Hill area was awarded automatic approval.

Also, ask Monaghan about a passbook bond that was lost along with several letters of credit that had expired leaving the Town exposed to financial liabilities with various subdivision improvements.

You want more? Ask him about his zoning violation. How could a Town Official violate zoning regulations? And the list goes on.

These are some of the reasons why he was rejected by both major political parties.   Those parties rejected Kostes also.   Now the Kostes-Monaghan Team, promoted by their spokesman and thankfully short-termed former Mayor Bob Gambino who created chaos and confusion, are back as a minority party called New Milford First consisting of political malcontents, neophytes and rejects. It endorses people for re-election who have deplorable attendance records.

Bob Kostes’ claim to fame was running a computer software business with a 5 million dollar budget. The Town’s municipal budget is almost 35 million. It seems to me that Bob Kostes needs more experience...he’s only 15% of the way there. Taxpayers cannot afford on-the-job training.

The whole group should be “first” to take the Hart Bus to Danbury.

Please get out and vote on November 6.

Tom Morey
New Milford

10-4-07: Planner Schultz Withdraws From Race: Democratic Planning Member Jeremy Schultz has withdrawn his name from the November ballot.

10-3-07: Former Mayors...Where Are They Now?

                Stuart Halpine (87-89) retired
                Walter Rogg (89-91) retired
                Liba Furhman (91-95) HVA, Director of Operations
                Art Peitler (95-01) Furniture Salesman, Macy's, Waterbury
                Bobby Gambino (01-03) Flower Grower

10-3-07: 'Thank You, Mayor Murphy, For Route 7/Still River Passing Lane':   As every commuter knows, driving on Route 7 has been a nightmare. I know that the Mayor can't control what's going on since it's a State Road but I took a chance a couple of weeks ago and called her to see if she could do something about the intersection of Route 7 and Still River Road. Driving south, there was always a frustrating backup waiting for cars to make a left turn at the light. The problem was caused by the contractor who dug up the road and left no shoulder for cars could get by on the right.   She solved the problem! An engineer at the State told me that she was in Hartford talking to them and demanded that something be done. Traffic is moving much better. Thank you, Mayor Murphy!

Commuter Mom
New Milford

9-24-07: My Response to Kostes: "Leave the Pension Fund Alone": After reading Lynda Wellman’s article in the Spectrum, I now understand what mayoral hopeful Bob Kostes meant when he said that he is a “fiscal conservative but a social liberal.” It means that he will watch his own money very carefully but spend yours loosey-goosey.

This one-issue candidate’s comments about the pension fund show that he is uninformed, ill-advised and knows nothing about the history of the Town’s pension investments.

In the mid-1960s, the Town established a Pension Plan with John Hancock with the help of the late Clarence Mitchell, a resident who was a Hancock representative.

In 1994, during the Furhman administration, former Councilman Tom Pilla encouraged the Town Council to form a Pension Committee to examine the Town’s investment strategy and the possible lowering of the actuarial cost to the Town. The motivation was that pension funding had about a 2 mil tax impact. The budgeted actuarial was about $1,500,000 when one mil was equal to about $800,000.   This Council Committee consisted of Finance Director Ray Jankowski, Tom Pilla, Guy Peterson, Charles Barlow and others.

During the Peitler administration, Committee Member Bob Sherry brought in a consultant -- an experienced risk manager -- who advised the Committee and thereafter made a presentation to the Council.

The Pension Committee investigated changing to a new fund manager but could only do so if it agreed to pay an exit fee in excess of $500,000. Instead, the Committee opted for a new investment strategy, electing a 60/40 ratio of securities to bonds. Approximately $6,000,000 was placed into fixed assets with a guaranteed and consistent return to secure the existing pensions.

The following year, the actuarial cost dropped from the $1,500,000 to about $800,000 and in the second year it dropped to $600,000, a great savings to the taxpayers. Since then, there has been exponential growth, saving millions of taxpayer-dollars in pension funding. As Lynda Wellman reported, the Fund has experienced growth of almost $12,000,000 since Mayor Murphy took office, rising from $22,000,000 then to $33,860,000 this past July. And Kostes’criticism doesn’t take into account the pension betterments that have also affected performance.

The best news is that, unlike those of many states and municipalities, New Milford’s Pension Fund is fully funded. Why? The Town invested conservatively, thereby avoiding market volatility. It rejected the push into hedge funds and other non-traditional investments that led to the huge losses that other funds have suffered. Obviously, this is great news for everyone: our retired municipal workers who are depending on their pensions to pay for their golden years, those who will retire and the taxpayers who fund the system.

Readers should note that New Milford First’s own Bob Gambino didn’t even address the pension plan during his entire tenure as Mayor. Although himself the recipient of a pension, I’m not sure he knew that the Town has a Pension Fund.

Mr. Kostes is free to chase down another Enron for his own investments but it scares me to think that he’d like to do the same for those who now participate in the Town’s pension plan and those who will be.   Leave the Pension Fund alone.

9-22-07: Harvest Moon Over New Milford: Saturday, October 6 is the date. 6 p.m. is the time. Candlewood Valley Country Club is the place.   Featuring a dinner buffet, live music, dancing, wine and beer, this Tri-Centennial event is sure to be a winner. Contact Katy Francis at 354-7137 or kafrancis@earthlink.net. Tickets are $30 each.

9-22-07: Honored Glory; A Tribute To New Milford Veterans: This excellent book is available in the Mayor's Office and other locations around Town. Thanks to the efforts of dozens including our own Flagman, Pierre Orenski, the book contains many thoughtful,insightful and stirring recollections and comments.

9-22-07: Mayor Seeks Waste Management Money For Open Space: Monday night's Town Council Agenda contains the following item: "Discussion and possible action on request for $190,000.00 to be appropriated from Fund 97 (Waste Management Account) to secure matching grant for Hunt Hill Farm Trust from the State D.E.P. for the preservation of 40.7 acres that are linked to the 83 acres preserved in 2003." It appears that this money is needed to manage and sustain this property that abuts the Hunt Hill Farm. This is a wise use of the Fund.

9-20-07: Name Location On Ballot For November Election: The absence of exit-polls and other politically important data in New Milford such as sufficient and accurate demographics makes it very hard to know the signficance of the location of a candidate's name on a ballot.   But there are a couple of obvious givens. First, the "primacy effect" described by political science experts as the voter's selection of the first name that appears on the ballot.   They explain that this happens because a voter is uninformed, ambivalent or even rushed by the people on line behind him or her.   Those same voters may attach significance to the appearance of a name above or below another. For example, in a multi-candidate race like Town Council the voter thinks that Mary Republican is running against Joe Democrat because the latter's name happens to appear right above or below the former.   These phenomena can and do have a significant impact on races. Many states, such as California and Ohio, have rules that mandate rotation among voting districts or precincts which I think is a great idea.   Other states, such as Florida, require that the Governor's party gets first place on the ballot. I wonder if New Milford could lawfully adopt the rotation system.

9-18-07: Marandola Registers as Dem: As reported in today's News-Times, BOE Member Dian Traisci-Marandola is now a Democrat. Well, not exactly. She will be a Democrat 90 days from the September 14 date that she signed up with her new Party. She was rejected by the Republicans because of their concerns about her performance and apparent lack of support for conservative values. I've heard her called a RINO more than once.

9-12-07: Walk-Out At Board of Ed: Not happy that they lost the vote a few weeks ago on plans for replacing retiring Director of Operations Tom Corbett, School Superintendent JeanAnn Paddyfote and BOE Chairman Wendy Faulenbach put the matter back on last night's Agenda when they could be sure that two cooperators -- Lisa Diamond and Diane Marandola -- were in attendance. After an extended discussion about Robert's Rules and insistence by the Chair to continue the course, the five Members who voted against the plan on the first vote got up and left the Meeting in a brilliant show of solidarity. Kudos to Joe Failla, Julie Turk, Robin Ruggiero, Bill McLachlan and Joey Vita for having the gumption to stand up for what they believe in, against the odds and the "bullying" as one Member calls it.

It should also be noted that Chairman Faulenbach announced that she met with the Mayor yesterday to talk about the combining of the BOE and Town Finance Departments. There are also discussions about combining the maintenance departments. Stay tuned.

9-11-07: McLaughlin's Faux Pas: In what may be the faux pas of the election season, disenfranchised Republican Member of the BOF George McLaughlin recommended that any new ambulance barn be named after former Zoning Chair George Doring (RIP).   This is totally weird since the Georges had, shall I say mildly, absolutely no love for ane another. While the memory of George Doring should be memorialized in some way, this isn't it. Wouldn't Andy Armstrong be a far better recipient of this recognition for his 30+ years as President of New Milford Community Ambulance?

9-11-07: AFSCME: The Town's AFSCME Members showed up in force last night at the Town Council Meeting. Their President, Chris Thomas, spoke during Public Participation. No issues were added to the Agenda; no action was taken. It appears that the matter will proceed to litigation.

9-11-07: AFSCME V. P. Responds Again : Jay, what can we lose...well, let me tell you. The Town doesn't want us to have THEIR PROPOSAL. You can bet that going into a meeting we ARE the ones that will lose. They wish for us to give in as usual. As in the budget crunch - lay off the AFSCME Employees!!

The only fact that has to be decided is "Were the negotiations over?" That's all. If we prove they were done we gain the ability to supplement our our short term sick leave with banked time. The contract will have to be implemented as it stands. No more meetings. I am one of the few who have 120 sick days that I can use but the newer employees have none and it's a very reassuring benefit. I don't make out one way or the other but I negotiate for the good of my fellow Union members and I would like them to have the security that I feel, especially those with children. If they get sick and have to recieve partial pay it could be the difference of having a place to live or losing it.

The other questions is what do we gain by meeting with the Mayor nothing but the good feeling of giving up again.

Martha Sanford
AFSCME Vice-President
New Milford

9-11-07: 'BOE Must Resolve Teacher Keir Hansen Matter': When is the BOE going to address this issue with the teacher who is still on the payroll who doesn't have to work for us?

My perusing of the minutes of the last 2 BOE meeting minutes showed nothing related. Not only are we paying HIM, we're paying his replacement in addition.

Let's get the job done! Can him or reinstate him. I really don't care which way it goes, just get it resolved!, and quit pissing my taxdollars away.

J. Brian Keene
New Milford

9-10-07: AFSCME v. Town (More): Labor law was a second year elective and I have had very little contact with labor issues since. But I have seen the inside of a courtroom once or twice and know that it's to the principals' benefit to try to resolve issues before their lawyers stand up and introduce themselves to the person in the black robe.

Martha, there is absolutely no labor law or practice that prevents the parties from sitting down before the Hearing date to try to resolve your differences.   For legal reasons, the request must come from the Union and, given the history, it seems like the best thing to do would be for the meeting to take place without the lawyers. What can either side lose? I'm sure that you have a confidentiality agreement and settlement discussions are never admissable. Even if you just sit with the Mayor and listen to what she has to say. Isn't there a benefit in that? The entire Town -- including the AFSCME Members -- will benefit from resolving this matter ASAP.

"Dear Mayor Murphy: Without prejudice to any claims, we would like to meet with you to discuss and perhaps resolve pending issues. We would like to do this without the attorneys." How about it?

9-8-07: AFSCME V.P. Responds:   I will address this article, probably to the dismay of fellow Union members. The negotiation team was made up of three Union member, the Personnel Director and the Mayor. It was probably the most cordial negotiation I have ever experienced. The civility, the give and take on both sides was amazing. The Union negotiated "for" their fellow members and the Mayor and Personnel director negotiated "for" the Town. All signed a confidentiality statement at the beginning. We were not to discuss the issues until the time of voting. The Union reviewed the "final draft" and voted unanimously for the contract. The Mayor put it on the agenda to be discussed and to take action,but when the time came to discuss the issue the Town Council went into Executive Session - that was the end of the contract which we worked so hard on. In the following days the Mayor informed us that the negotiations were not over because she had to bring it forward to the Personnel Committee and the Town Council.

This is the process:
The Union votes and approves the contract.
The Mayor brings it forward to the Town Council to be discussed, approved or rejected. This is where the contract stalled. Either the Town Council or the Mayor dropped their responsibility. No further discussion on either side resumed. The Town had forty-five days to make their decision which they failed to do. Under the confidentiality statement the Town's Negotiators cannot go to the various committees to poll how they would vote and then decide if we were done. Maybe the Town should have appointed all the Town Council and Personnel Committee Members as negotiators that way they would have had a say in the agreement. The Union does not poll their members, we present the contract as negotiated, hold discussion and vote.

I realize that the best thing for the Union to do is to go to the Mayor and request the Article, that seems to be the contention, revised. This has nothing to do with salary, insurance etc. This is a proposal that the Town made to the Union - we were asking for FAR less but when the opportunity arose of course we agreed with the Towns proposal. If the Personnel Director had scutinized our proposals she would have known their side should not counter propose. The Union has voted on this contract from that point it was the Towns job to follow procedures - they did not.

We CANNOT REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS ON A VOTED CONTRACT.

I firmly believe that the Union presented far more evidence showing that the negotiations were over and was put into the Town's hands. The Town presented no documents. Our first court date is October 1st & I for one feel.
right or wrong, that this is the procedure to be followed.

The sad part is that the taxpayers have to pay for the Town Council's inability to complete the process.

I also want to applaud the Mayor for her part in negotiations. If she had a more organized associate to work with, then none of this would have been a problem. It was always the Union with the help of the Mayor trying to make the process easier to flow and understand.

You could think of this problem the same as the citizens voting on a budget, then the Town Council saying oops, we want to revise it. Then back to be revoted on. It cannot be done.

Jay, if you were on the negotiation committe and final votes had been taken would you then stand by the procedure which are in place to follow or break the rules and renegotiate?

Martha Sanford
AFSCME Vice-President
New Milford

9-8-07: AFSCME v. Town; Leaked E-Mail Leads to Larger Story: AFSCME contract negotiations over salary increases and benefits ended months ago without success and the commencement by the Union of a State claim against the Town.

The leaked e-mail was an invitation to Union Members to go to a pizza party on Monday and then attend Monday's Town Council Meeting to urge that their contract be signed. I think this en masse move is ill-advised and would create unwanted ill-will but there are indications that the principals may sit down one more time to try to resolve all issues. Obviously, such resolution would save legal fees and restore the emotional status quo ante.

The parties appear to be mired in a factual dispute caused by a lack of communication among the rank and file.   According to former Personnel Director Paula Kelly and confirmed by public documents, the dispute concerns whether or not the negotiations had been concluded. The Union claims that they were, the Town claims that they were not. The contents of a certified copy of Paula's deposition discloses unequivocally that the negotiations had not been finalized and that the Mayor intended to discuss the Union's demands with the Town Council. It also discloses that the Union's attorney opted not to attend the deposition.

No one wants to deprive the AFSCME Members of a raise. I urge the parties to meet, put all the facts on the table and resolve the outstanding issues.

9-7-07: 'Ethics Commissions Are Inherently Dysfunctional': It's naive to think that members of a government Ethics Commission will somehow "rise above politics" and conduct themselves more ethically than the politicians who appointed them.

Even Randy Cohen, who writes the column "The Ethicist" for The New York Times, is not immune from unethical behavior. Mr. Cohen gave $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004, despite the Times' strict prohibition against all employee political activity (aside from voting). Mr. Cohen rationalized his violation of the Times' policy by saying his contribution to MoveOn.org was no different than a journalist "donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church"...

My point is that no one has a corner on ethics, not even government Ethics Commissioners. This certainty pertains to all levels of government - local, regional, state and federal. Such commissions are inherently dysfunctional and are easily manipulated as a means to harass one's political rivals. Despite all good intentions, a regional ethics board will not be any more ethical or less dysfunctional than a local board, just more powerful.

Tom DiCandido
New Milford

9-5-07: Problems With Our Ethics Code and Commission: As a Member of a Council Subcomittee, I spent a lot of time drafting changes to the Town's Code of Ethics. The revised Code was adopted and will soon be available in pamphlet form in the Town Clerk's Office. After all that work and more, it is clearer to me now than ever before that not only do we have a system that is dysfunctional but that we need a regional solution to the problem.

A poster wrote that the Town Ethics Commission cannot be effective because it is too inbred. I agree 100% but the problems don't end there.

How in this Town can you find people to serve who aren't in some way connected to an accused? And how can you expect people to serve without training in ethics matters? Even some attorneys on the Commission are confused about ethics issues and some are incapable of following the procedures required by the Code. Some haven't enough education or real-world experience with terms like "probable cause" to know its meaning. Without recourse, both complainants and respondents are left in the cold, rendering the entire process a farce. "Sue me if I didn't follow the proper procedure," could be the Commission's wholly unacceptable position. This is a winning argument in Court since it is hard to prove any impropriety without a record but it is a certain loser in the court of public opinion and perception.

In addition, given the difficulty of finding members who are completely at arms' length with respondents, there must be clear rules about recusal. Should a member recuse himself if he has represented a respondent? If she is a member of his congregation? If he has consulted her professionally or if there is a familial connection or friendship?

A regional ethics board would allow members who have no contact with New Milford to hear complaints. I believe that all the Members of the Subcommittee support the idea.

There must be substantive as well as procedural changes.

For example, is it acceptable for a public official to vote on a purchase order that provides money to her employer? Does it matter if she scrubs the floors for that employer or is the head of a department?

The Code's preamble provides, "Having the trust of the public is essential for government to function effectively." Our present system fails to ensure that certain improprieties can be adequately addressed and it doesn't have the trust of this member of the public.

Proposed changes are on the way.

8-28-07: Please try the new link. I made some changes so you don't even have to register!

8-28-07: Kostes' Makes Unfounded Attack On Pension Investments: Mayoral candidate Bob Kostes must have been Professor Irwin Corey's brightest student. In a recent Spectrum article, Kostes said, "I have a vision for New Milford." "What's the vision?" reporter Lynda Wellman asked. "That everyone has a vision," was his response. Quite illuminating.

Watch Kostes in action. He never knows the facts. At last week's Meeting of the Pension Committee, former Mayor Bobby Gambino read a letter from Kostes that attacked the Mayor for not investing the Town's pension money overseas. He said that he was told that such investment would be illegal but I cannot find anyone who said that to him.   First, I know of no Mayor in the history of the Town who has given instructions about where that money is to be invested. And neither does Ray Jankowski, the Director of Finance. You see, Kostes has a way of hearing what he wants to hear and then twisting other peoples' words to support his position. Ray said that he told Kostes not that it was illegal but that there are rules that suggest where the investments are to be made. Kostes is an expert at ignoring the facts and the truth to make and support his point.

8-24-07: Let's Try Something New: I created a New Milford blog so that you can post your own comments. The link is right below my logo. The blog is hosted by Webpress, a very reliable and popular site. It's really simple to use and I hope that it will be fun. I welcome your comments and suggestions about this work-in-progress.

8-23-07: 'Check Your Car Tax': IS THE TOWN'S OVER ASSESSMENT OF YOUR VEHICLE(S) COSTING YOU HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS THIS YEAR?

The Town's 2007 "Gross Assessment" of motor vehicles is based on the "Average Retail Value" listed in the NADA Guide ("Gold Book") published in October 2006. However, anyone who's ever sold or traded-in a car knows that it's virtually impossible to get anyone to pay retail value for a used car, even if it's in perfect condition. (The NADA "Gold Book" is available for reference in the New Milford Public Library).

A few easy steps to determine if the Town of New Milford is overtaxing you:

Take a look at your July 2007 Town of New Milford Motor Vehicle Tax Bill.
Find the box titled "Gross Assessment".
Divide the dollar amount in the "Gross Assessment" box by 0.7 (or 70%).
This is what the Town of New Milford claims your vehicle is worth.

If your car has ever been in an accident, has high mileage, needs bodywork and/or mechanical repairs, then it's probably worth considerably less than the NADA "Average Retail Value".

New Milford taxpayers wishing to appeal their July 2007 "Motor Vehicle Tax Bill" must do so during the month of September 2007.

If you think your car has been over assessed by the town of New Milford, YOU MAY BE DUE A TAX REFUND! Please call the Board of Assessment Appeals (Tax Assessor's Office) @ 860-355-6070 to schedule an appointment.

Your appeal will have a much better chance of success if you bring along some sort of documentation to support your case such as:

Photos showing the condition of the vehicle.
Repair estimates from a mechanic.
Accident records (police report/insurance claim).
If the vehicle has been sold, bring a Bill of Sale showing that you sold the vehicle for less than what is was assessed at.

We hope these suggestions will assist you in lowering your tax burden this year.

Best regards,

Tom DiCandido, Vice President
The New Milford Taxpayers Association

8-22-07: Fire Marshal Leaving Town: Fire Marshal Bill May is moving to Florida. Good Luck, Bill!

8-21-07: School Administration Out On Lunch: Let me get this straight. Just a short while ago, it announced that it had a $900,000 surplus. Now it has to raise the cost of lunch by 25 cents a day? What happened to the surplus? It's my understanding that the 900 has dwindled down to less than 200. What's going on?

8-21-07: Council Sends Ambulance Question to Referendum: In a very brief Special Meeting tonight, the Town Council reversed its prior decision and decided by a 5-1 vote to send the issue of a new $3.7M Ambulance facility to a referendum. This means that the issue will not be decided at the Town Meeting and that the Town Meeting will now be an informational session only. Councilmen Ray O'Brien and Bob Guendelsberger were absent.

8-21-07: Mary Jane Lundgren A Class Act: Yes, folks, it's election-season.   I was waiting to pull into one of the few parking spaces on Church Street when it was stolen by Councilman Mary Jane Lundgren who had a snotty look on her puss when she got out of her car. Now that's a class act. Where I grew up, that move is not just rude, it's a punishable offense.

8-14-07: Kostes Land Deal: Update Soon: I have, once again, been asked to explain his land dealings and I will do so soon. Re-read these prior posts while I prepare what I think you'll find to be amazing update in this on-going saga:

            4-20-07 Kostes' Did Not 'Donate' Land to Weantinoge : There is a very big error in the Spectrum headline that accompanies Lynda Wellman's very accurate story about the Kostes "donation." As she wrote in her lead paragraph, the Kostes' gave the Land Trust a conservation easement. Not land. Hopefully, Editor Norm Cummings will print a correction next week. By the way, they live on this 70 acres or so of land and I believe that they had an engineer draw a subdivision plan -- never filed -- for 17 lots.   The conservation easement now gives the Kostes a great tax write-off based upon the value of the abandoned (but unapproved) 17 lots. In addition, they can now have the property re-appraised by the Assessor's office and have their taxes reduced significantly. Combined, these benefits may reduce the price they paid for the property to 0! All perfectly legal. I never said Mrs. Kostes was dumb....

8-19-04: Commissioner Morey Explains the Kostes/Peterson Deal - 'Conservation for Profit': *
*Ed Note: The censored version of this Letter to the Editor is printed in tomorrow's Spectrum

I just marvel at the nerve of Bob Kostes. This arrogant youngster who refers to himself as “Mr. Kostes” on his web page moves here from Brooklyn three years ago, fails to get a Republican endorsement for a Town Council seat, fails to get a Democratic endorsement for a Town Council seat then suffers an embarrassing defeat when he fails as an independent. A sore loser to this day, any time he gets a chance he vilifies Town officials in the local media or on his bizarre web page. And he never seems to get his facts right preferring, instead, to recount history as he wanted it to be rather than as it really was.

The true story behind the property he and the Petersons and Planning Member Jeremy Schultz bought last year is one of deceit, manipulation and obfuscation. Their claim that the land was purchased for conservation purposes is ridiculous and that’s why they refused to put anything on the land records so indicating.

I am an elected member of the Planning Commission. I know the Rules. I know that it was an illegal subdivision. Here’s the story. Here are the facts.

Kostes/Peterson filed map number 2840 that show four distinct parcels of land. One of those parcels had an existing dwelling on it that was sold to Planning Commissioner Jeremy Schultz for $250,000. Kostes/Peterson paid $600,000 for the remaining three parcels shown on that map. This map shows an earlier “free split” clearly making the new Schultz parcel an unlawful, impermissible new “split.”

When the Tax Assessor looked at the map, he thought it was a subdivision and he taxed it as such. A resident then brought this issue to the attention of the Planning Commission, claiming that there was an illegal subdivision. The problem with these maps is that years down the road, unwitting purchasers buy these lots and think that they have been approved for building. Not the case.

The Planning Commission, doing its duty to those future purchasers, put the matter on its agenda. The record shows that at least a dozen times Peterson, sometimes screaming and yelling and always interrupting me, said, “This isn’t a subdivision. It’s for conservation purposes and thus isn’t a subdivision under 8-18!” But – and here’s the key to the whole thing -- when asked to place a statement to this effect in the land records, Kostes/Peterson responded with a resounding, “NO!” This, in my opinion, puts the lie to their “conservation” claim.

Kostes/Peterson tried to sidestep the process. They think that they should be exempt from the same permit chores that everyone else has to go through. No Planning approval. No Wetlands approval. Simply, they didn’t want to pay the fees to hire the necessary professionals that are needed to go through the subdivision process. They tried to circumvent it to save an enormous amount of money.

What’s this all about? Folks, it’s called “conservation for profit” and here’s how it works.

You file a map showing various parcels of land and you claim it isn’t a subdivision of land because it’s done for conservation or preservation. Then this theoretical subdivision plan, although not approved by the Town, is appraised giving the plan an enormous value. Then this unapproved plan is further deed-restricted and gifted to a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) land trust. This creates a large tax credit for the donor. Then the unrestricted portion of the unapproved parcels of land are sold at market value. This is a quadruple hit to taxpayers. First, no fees are received by the Town. Second, large undeserved tax credits are obtained by the transferor of the gift. Third, the profits obtained from the sale of the unrestricted land are offset by the tax credits on the value lost on the restricted portion. Fourth, no Town taxes are assessed on the restricted portion gifted to the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt land trust.

Thus this “conservation for profit” game is a financial scheme used to fool the taxpayers out of money at the Federal, State and Town levels. While Kostes is a newcomer, rest assured that his partner Peterson is no neophyte in this charade. After all, he and his wife own land that is mostly exempt from taxation under Public Act 490. The real estate game is not new to Mrs. Peterson either. Her father was a real estate broker; her first doll house was likely purchased with a commission he earned on a house sale.

In the end, the Planning Commission did exactly what it should do; it rightfully adopted a procedure that will be used in the future when similar matters are brought to its attention. It filed a very simple statement in the land records memorializing the Kostes/Peterson claim that their property is for conservation purposes and that no subdivision approval had been granted. Totally innocuous statements of fact that give notice to future purchasers that they are not buying approved building lots. The Planning Commission fulfilled its responsibility to the present and future residents of New Milford.

Lastly, while there are differences of opinion about the value and content of the legal opinion that the Planning Commission got from its lawyer, he and the Commission all agree on one thing. The lot that Commission Member Jeremy Schultz bought doesn’t conform to Zoning, Health and other Town Ordinances. As a Planning Commissioner, he should restore his credibility by resolving these issues as soon as possible.

Tom Morey
New Milford

            6-2-04: Kostes Tried to Pull A Fast One, Now He and His Cohorts Need A Lawyer: A land use lawyer...a really good land use lawyer! Kostes and his group ILLEGALLY subdivided their property. But now they've been caught and will have to get subdivision approval from the Planning Commission just like anyone else. They also violated the Zoning Regulations and the Public Health Code. Read on.

I'm not at all surprised by Kostes' shenanigans but Mary Jane and Guy Peterson? I consider them to be extremely honest members of the Community (tho' I don't agree with them on a single topic) so I can't explain their role in this. And Jeremy Schultz? I hardly know him except that he's a staunch Dem and is planning to be married in June and will soon have a baby.   I'm surprised because he's been an Alternate and is now a full Member of the Planning Commission so he should have known better.

Here's what's going on.

The Ramsey family owned a large piece of property across the street from the Petersons on Cherniske Road. Years ago, they sold one piece of it; for subdivision purposes that's called a "free split." You get one of those and that's it. Last year the Ramsey family wanted to sell the remaining acreage. Kostes and the Petersons decided to buy the bulk of the land together and Planning Member Jeremy Schultz wanted to buy a house on the property that has an address of 108 Squire Hill Road. There was a closing. At the closing, Kostes and the Petersons took title to the entire property minus the house and 2 acres that was sold to Schultz as a separate lot.

Problem 1:   Piecing off the third lot to Schultz is a subdivision because the "free split" had already been made by the Ramsey family years ago. It required subdivision approval.

Problem 2:   Piecing off the lot to Schultz violates the Zoning Regs because without taking the Temple Amendment into account it makes a conforming lot non-conforming.

Problem 3:   Piecing off the lot to Schultz violates the Public Health Code because no determination has been made that the 2 acres can support both the primary and reserve septic systems.

Now let's look at the larger acreage.   On September 15, 2003, a map (#2840) was filed in the Clerk's Office. The map is from 1982 updated in 2003 "soils and contours." The map shows various parcels and lots but does not contain any notation of subdivision approval. From this map, the Assessor's Office created 4 new field cards (3 lots + the Schultz lot) as if there had been subdivision approval. These are the four cards to which Kostes referred in his 6-2-04 e-mail to me (see below). On December 5, 2003, another map (#2896) was filed in the Clerk's Office. This time, the map shows 2 parcels + the Schultz parcel.

Problem 4: This is a subdivision as clear as day. And the owners -- Kostes, Petersons and Schultz -- must get subdivision approval from the Planning Commission and Schultz must comply not only with the Planning Regs but the Zoning Regs and the Health Code as well.

Without that approval, the property must revert back to a single lot that includes the Schultz property which, as of this writing, now has a cloud on its title.

Their actions totally violated State Law.

8-13-07: Error: Town Clerk George Buckbee advised a few moments ago that only four Dems have so far said "no" to NMF.

8-11-07: Error in Prior Post? : I relied on two sources for the story that I posted yesterday about the Dems who said "no" to NMF. They both told me that nine had done so but that may be inaccurate. A very reliable third source told me today that, as of Thursday, the number was four. I will check on Monday and post a follow-up.

8-10-07: Dems Say 'Thanks But No Thanks' To NMF: Nine of the eleven Democrats whose names were to appear on the NMF ballot have signed formal documents in the Clerk's Office declaring their wish to be removed.   The two who refused were Planning's Bob Rush and BOF Member Gail Alexander.   They must think that they need all the help they can get even if it causes confusion and evidences their lack of political savvy.

8-9-07: Frey Did 'Slack Job': "We're incredibly disappointed," said developer Karl Frey of Vespera Investments in Stamford. "The resolution (of denial) doesn't reflect the work that went into this project at all."

Yes it does Mr. Frey....you did a slack job trying to sell this to the Town based on facts and engineering data. We don't approve things based on how much work you put in to a project; it is based on the merits of the work.

This guy has been spinning this project from the start. He has been trying to shove this project down our throats; he has nobody to blame but himself for its denial.

He may be stating what HE believes, but he is far from accurate. He has been given more opportunity and time than anyone other applicant that I know of, and still couldn't do it properly.

This, in and of itself, demonstrates that this project would never have been executed properly.

This is a proper decision by our Town boards.

A little advice....don't spend over $15MM on a project that hasn't been COMPLETELY thought-out and planned.

J. Brian Keene
New Milford

8-8-07:   Council Candidate Kane Off and Running (Backwards): Crossman Road's most infamous resident, apologist and Council wannabe John Kane, is off to a running start. In the wrong direction. You may remember that Kane rough-handed his way into turning his barn into a business use. Now he posted a sign on his property without a permit. Will Kane handle the Town's business with similar disregard for the law? Scary.

8-8-07:   Ballot Answers: 1) Kostes' name will appear on the NMF line. 2) Additional NMF Council candidates do not need to petition.

8-8-07:   Ballot Questions: Since placement on the ballot is very important, there are at least two interesting, signficiant questions.

First, will the name of New Milford First's Mayoral Candidate appear on the ballot on the New Milford First line or will it be placed on the bottom of the ballot as a petitioning candidate? The reason this comes up is because NMF got enough votes to qualify as a "party" for certain offices but since it didn't run a candidate for mayor -- it endorsed Pat Murphy -- it had to use the petition route to get its candidate's name on the ballot.

Second, NMF is running more candidates for Town Council than it did in the last election. Did it earn "party" status for the whole Town Council race or just the number of seats that it ran the last time, requiring the additional candidates to petition to get on the ballot?

The answers should be forthcoming from the Secretary of State today.

8-5-07:    Three Way Contest For Mayor; New Milford First Gives It A Whirl: At its caucus today, the New Milford First Party announced its candidates and endorsements.   Leading its ticket is Bob Kostes for Mayor. Other selections include John Kane for Town Council, Eileen Monaghan and former Mayor Bobby Gambino for Board of Finance, Larry Greenspan for Zoning, returnee Alex Thomas for BOE and Gerry Monaghan for Planning. This campaign season could turn out to be a real circus.

7-25-07: Mayoral "Race" Will Be A Contest, Anyway: At its caucus last night, the Democrats voted to run retired podiatrist Larry Stillman for Mayor. Dr. Stillman is presently a Member of the BOE. I'm surprised that his fellow BOE Member Diane Marandola isn't on the Dems ticket. I thought for sure that the Party would pick her up after she was rejected by the Republicans.   Last to the scene will be New Milford First whose Member Bob Kostes has been hanging around the Post Office for a number of Saturdays "surveying."   Will it be a three-way contest?

7-20-07: Weather-Related Nightmare For DPW: As you know, there were weather-related problems all over Town yesterday. Trees were down, there were rockslides and mudslides. From Gaylordsville to Lanesville, you name it, it happened. I had an opportunity to listen to a scanner while it was going on and I was extremely impressed by DPW's response. Road boss Jerry Hollins was on it all. He and the DPW crew were dispatched to all locations with chain saws and heavy equipment. "I want to get the main arteries open first," Jerry said, "then we'll get the lesser roads." He did a fantastic job of triage and dispatch. It's really easy to look out your window and complain that there's a problem on your road that's not fixed. What I heard on the scanner was a good reminder that there's a larger picture and that someone really is on the job. Thank you, Jerry, and the entire DPW staff.

7-17-07: Republicans Nominate Shelley Pitser For BOE: At tonight's Republican Town Committee caucus, its Nominating Committee will recommend that Shelley Pitser be put on the ballot to run in November for a seat on the Board of Ed.   Shelley is an outspoken, detail-oriented, fiscal conservative who understands education and the needs of the Town's children and is anxious to fill those needs but to do so in a way that is mindful of waste and the taxpayers' ability and willingness to pay for the system.   She knows the right questions to ask and will demand proper answers. Most importantly, she thoroughly understands the statutory obligations of the Board of Ed and its members. She will be no one's puppet.

7-17-07: $3.2 MIllion For New Ambulance Facility 'Way Over Top': I agree that we are in need of a new ambulance location and updated building but I really think $3.2 million is way over the top. Maybe just one Town Councilman could ask the question about how many volunteers in the Association are getting an abatement on taxes? There may be 60 members but how many are actually active members? Are we spending millions for very few.....has the active roll changed with the incentive of $1,000 off taxes? if not, then why would they expect to increase their numbers with a new building? It has not heped get new members for the firehouses so why will this be any different?

Ambulance Woe
New Milford

7-11-05: Mayor Murphy Announces She'll Seek Third Term: Mayor Pat Murphy announced yesterday that she will seek re-election in November. Will there be any opposition?

6-25-07: Judge Leaves Judge Hanging In His Suit About His Suit: In a smart and well-written decision issued today, Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson was hung out to dry. He lost. Big time. And he may have to pay the defendants' legal fees. Here's the last paragraph of the Opinion:

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever on his claims under the CPPA, Counts One and Four of his Amended Complaint.

The Court’s analysis of the plaintiff’s CPPA claims applies as well to his claims of common law fraud in Count Two of the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff acknowledges that he is required to prove those claims by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. He has not proven those claims by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone by that higher standard.

Judgment therefore will be awarded to the defendants, as well as their costs. A separate judgment is being entered, together with these findings. The issue of the defendants’ claim for attorney’s fees against the plaintiff will be addressed after the defendant’s motions for sanctions and for attorney’s fees have been filed and briefed by the parties.

Judge Judith Bartnoff
Signed in Chambers
June 25, 2007

Copies to
Roy L. Pearson, Jr., Esq.
3012 Pineview Court, NE
Washington, DC 20018
Counsel for Plaintiff

Christopher C.S. Manning, Esq.
Manning & Sossamon, PLLC
1532 – 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Counsel for Defendant

6-22-07: Peitler Disciplined For Failure To Pay Court Judgment: The Statewide Grievance Committee, the State entity that handles complaints about lawyers, reprimanded attorney and former Mayor, Art Peitler, for failing to pay a $8,574.00 court judgment that was rendered against him for non-payment of the rent for his former office on Main Street. The Committee's letter may be viewed here.

6-15-07: Frustrated and Gone: We tried to get the Town of New Milford and the Zoning Commission to enforce all of the zoning rules regarding a neighboring property for well over 20 years. We spoke to Roger Szendy (and Doring, Castegnetta, Brickley and ALL the mayors) off the record numerous times over the decades trying to enlist his aid and received the same BS lines that you alluded to.    We put up a fence to block the view (Brooks Temple didn't like it, too bad) until we were able to leave, took the hit on the value of our property when we sold and moved. We also closed our business, let the employees go and sold the business property. People like Roger Szendy enable scofflaws, contribute to poor governance and to the decline in the quality of life in New Milford. Unfortunately, the situation is that you have laws which the wicked do not obey and the righteous do not enforce (credit Abba Eban).

Mark Mazer and Fredrika Mazer
Hertford, NC

6-15-07: Larson Pictures Tell It All: Indeed a must-see! I am glad it's way past dinner time as I would have surely lost my appetite for it. Good grief, this is not an eyesore this is a pit with too many hazards to count. I should have informed myself about this property prior to giving it the benefit of the doubt. Lesson learned!

Susanna
New Milford

6-14-07: Larson Property: I am remiss for not posting some details about this problem sooner. Judging from the responses -- both posted and not -- this seems to be an issue of Constitutional proportion that has touched a nerve. The issue reminds me of Roger Szendy's oft repeated "Constitutional protection" that "people have a right to be stupid."   Perhaps he'd also argue that people have a right to let their properties turn into a dangerous mess like this, too. I don't think so. Not with a straight face, anyway. I wholly support a person's right to make any lawful use of his property and to do whatever he pleases on it...so long as those uses don't affect me or cause a public nuisance. The Larson property is a danger