WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
carpetman, hamptons, flooring
27east.com

355 Comments by Publius

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  >>  

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

Besides being the campaign manager, who is Alfred Hobbs?

Obviously the rule that the candidate not be permitted to handle the campaign contributions arises from a concern that the candidate could abuse his current position of authority in order to raise funds.

Having the money handled by Mr. Hobbs only works if there is an assurance that the identity of the donors either will not, or can not, be disclosed to the candidate prior to the election.

Then you have the problem that the electorate also would not know who is supporting a particular candidate as can be viewed on the county boe website.

Bottom line, retirement should be effective before nomination can be made to run for public office, otherwise there is a huge risk of abuse of power. " Feb 3, 10 2:04 PM

Suffolk County judge overturns East Quogue marina application approval

Your contention boils down to a Trustees' position of "I don't have to, and you can't make me."

But somebody else will have to, so why pass the buck, particularly when the cost of rendering the SEQRA decision is the developer's ?

Yes, throw away the Dongan Patent, and I won't be paying taxes to England either." Feb 3, 10 3:14 PM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

No one ever abuses power right ?

When we can avoid the potential for abuse, we avoid the abuse.

You may like the candidate, you may personally trust him. That is fine for you. You can make that choice for you, not for me. I don't say he is a bad guy, only that I don't know him, and should not have to trust in either your judgment or his judgment.

Avoid the potential for abuse and it isn't even a question.

Who is Alfred Hobbs ?" Feb 3, 10 3:17 PM

I didn't suggest that any particular person would, or would not, abuse their power as a police officer. Powers, that are pretty extraordinary when you consider them.

I only stated that there is no reason for our community to accept a risk that can plainly be avoided in its entirety.

Who is Alfred Hobbs ?" Feb 3, 10 3:31 PM

Steak knives have an obvious utility.

Permitting police officers to campaign while on the job has no such utility, at least not for the public." Feb 3, 10 3:33 PM

As raised in the firs post here "Besides being the campaign manager, who is Alfred Hobbs?"" Feb 3, 10 3:46 PM

Alfred Hobbs seems like he might be a nice guy." Feb 3, 10 5:26 PM

I checked out the website identified by DJII13, and it doesn't seem to be up and going. Yes some pictures of candidate Hughes, but on the tab Issues, it doesn't have anything.

Well, maybe there will be some significant positions taken on the webpage in time for the election." Feb 3, 10 5:35 PM

Did you write that with a straight face ?

Mail the checks to the candidate's home, don't worry he won't look?

Are you going to write on the outside of the envelope, "campaign check enclosed no peeking?"" Feb 3, 10 5:59 PM

Are you suggesting that contributors to any candidate don't gain favor with that candidate ?

Are you really suggesting that candidate Hughes will not open his mail ?

The problem is that a police officer currently employed by the Town should not be permitted to run for office while still employed.

The potential for abuse is obvious, and unnecessary.

Who needs it ? " Feb 3, 10 6:11 PM

I didn't, not once, not ever say that a police officer is presently ineligible to run as a candidate for public office.

I didn't, not once, not ever say that candidate Hughes was a bad guy, or crooked, or had ever abused his authority as a police officer.

I did say, that the potential for abuse by a police officer as a candidate is obvious and unnecessary.

I did say who needs it ?

I do say: Why not run after he is in fact retired, then the public need only wonder whether his allegiance will be to those with whom he worked with for decades, or the public.
" Feb 3, 10 6:29 PM

Why is the election of police officers to the Riverhead Town Board relevant ?

Is that an endorsement of the management of Riverhead, or a warning about what can happen ?" Feb 3, 10 7:58 PM

"years of leave he is entitled to."

God bless the power of unions, and their ability to score vacation leave in excess of what the employees will even use on an annual basis.

" Feb 3, 10 8:01 PM

highhat's questions to the candidates are worth repeating:

1) Where do you stand on the question of requiring STPD cops to retire after their twentieth year of service, as required by the Town code?

2) Are you aware that the Town is paying more than a million dollars every year in salaries to cops who should have been retired rather than kept on the payroll?

3) Do you favor an addition to the Town code that prohibits STPD officers from appearing in uniform when off duty without the express permission of the Chief of Police and/or the Town Council?

Right now the candidates are relying on their past record of accomplishments, but have not specifically stated their position on important issues." Feb 4, 10 7:49 AM

Knew that, didn't forget that, I don't have a choice to vote for her any time soon.

The question is for the candidates in the ballot in March. Given ATH's position, you might suspect Fleming would be a go along. I don't know.

I also don't know what Candidate Hughes would say.

Don't you think that these questions should be answered on their web sites ?

Don't you think the candidates, or someone that knows them is aware of this question ?" Feb 4, 10 11:25 AM

Westhampton Beach mayor plans to stick to his guns regarding two Village Police officers

Regulations by the Police Chief (in this case a Police Chief from back in 1964) are offered to dictate to the Trustees, who by law are the Commissioners of Police, how the Trustees are to handle a disciplinary case.

Somebody has it backwards.

Regulations are serve the purpose to put into effect what the Trustees want to have done. The regulations do not trump the State Legislature which granted this authority to the Trustees to act as the Commissioners of Police. They do not trump the Trustees.

People may agree or disagree with the Board of Trustees decision to drop the charges and reinstate the officers instead of having a hearing.

But, but the Chief, or in this case the Ghost of the Chief of '64 can not direct that the Board of Trustees have a hearing.

This kerfuffle is a product of a leak to the Press of confidential information, and further leaks by whatever loose lips do not understand the law.

The result is that partisans are running with a story which may be complete and accurate, or only half the story, and are trying to make political hay.

" Feb 4, 10 2:42 PM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

Terry,

we have an electorate that is as feed up with police unions as it is feed up with teacher's unions. Both unions are populated by many people (not all) who are overpaid, and fail to aspire to be the best at their chosen profession.

In difficult economic times, the exasperation with such unions is even greater.

This is why there is resistance to putting Candidate Hughes in a position of more authority, including the authority to vote on police contracts." Feb 4, 10 3:40 PM

Westhampton Beach mayor plans to stick to his guns regarding two Village Police officers

Nope.

There is a hierarchy of law.

In New York State supremacy is given to the State Constitution, followed laws enacted by the State Legislature, followed by local laws enacted by local government.

Subordinate to such laws are regulations that are promulgated to give effect to the laws that have been made by the legislative bodies.

Here, you don't even have regulations adopted by the Trustees (see the Westhampton Beach Village Code); and if there was such a resolution in the past, a majority of the Trustees today could alter them.

What you have is a case of the tail trying to wag the dog. Neither the Mayor nor the Chief of Police is legally authorized to mandate a hearing, and they are not authorized to punish officers in any manner without a hearing.

Again, agree or disagree with the decision of the Trustees, but it was their call to make." Feb 4, 10 4:03 PM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

There is not a dishonest thing i have written, and because you don't agree with me does not make me unfair." Feb 4, 10 4:08 PM

Westhampton Beach mayor plans to stick to his guns regarding two Village Police officers

His extensive experience includes costing the Village about 1 Million dollars on the Verbeek matter in the mid 90's.

He was stubborn then, stubborn now, to a fault.

He has no wisdom, he is no genius" Feb 4, 10 7:24 PM

Pedro, this Police Department has never functioned properly. Not when Teller was the Chief, and not with Dean as the Chief of Police.

I do not rely upon any of the Trustees, or the Chief or the Mayor to make my assessment.

No one was "found guilty" of anything. That is defamatory and you are plainly attempting to mislead anyone who might read these posts.

We have a Chief of Police who got a sweetheart contract years ago from his buddies, the then mayor Strebel and the Chief's friends on the Board of Trustees. What does the Chief spend time doing now? He spends his time threatening the Village with legal action, because he claims he has a right to comp time in excess of that permitted by his generous contract.

Remember, the Chief filed a notice of claim to start a legal action, and then withdrew that notice of claim. That is an audacity of hope that no one is watching. He was being watched, he withdrew the notice of claim.

The present Board of Trustees is negotiating the next contract with both the PD and the Chief, and the Trustees have determined that the Mayor is NOT the negotiator of the Chief's contract. The Mayor secretly refused to follow that protocol which the Trustees had a legal right to set, and the Mayor met behind closed doors with the Chief to discuss the Chief's contract.

So, you have a Mayor who is privy to the Trustees discussions about the Chief's contract, privy to the confidential advice the Trustees received from labor counsel, and he secretly meets with the Chief to talk about the Chief's contract. The Mayor breached his duty to this community when he did that.

Now, there is an in-house fight between officers. A clear demonstration of how dysfunctional the PD is, and we are spending time and money to sort out that intramural squabble. So, while we have a PD that actually refuses to investigate crimes, and doesn't know how to investigate crimes, the Chief is spending time refereeing fights between officers (some of the officers enjoy his favor, some are out of his favor, a natural human problem exacerbated in a dysfunctional department).

If you want to get rid of the deadwood, start at the top. We need a Chief who insists his force is trained, that it knows how to investigate, knows how to preserve evidence, knows how to do its job.

The Trustees have attempted to put an end to the infighting and directed the Chief to restore the officers to their duties. In other words, boys: everyone get to work stop being a@#holes.

What does the Mayor do ? Directs the officers to be put on restricted duty. The Mayor has no legal right to do that. Does the Village Attorney say he does ? NO. Does the village labor counsel issue an opinion stating that the Mayor has the right to do this ? NO.

The Mayor gets a fig leaf and says some lawyer gave him advice, at his private request, and told him he can do what he wants. If the Mayor can't get Bo Bishop, the Village Attorney, to declare the Mayor has the right to go against the express vote of the Trustees, then you KNOW there isn't even twisted legal reasoning that can support the Mayor on this one.

The stubborn Mayor with the fig leaf then directs the Chief to put the officers on restricted duty. The Chief is more than happy to oblige, he is being given his own fig leaf by the Mayor, and now he exacts a punishment that is illegal. You can't punish officers without a hearing.

The Mayor's coterie of loudmouths howl about the money the Trustees are wasting with officers on restricted duty. There it is again, that audacity of hope that no one is paying attention.

We know the Trustees told everyone to get back to work. It is the Mayor and the Chief who are interfering with the operation of this village, and causing legal fees to get out of control. It is an insult to the taxpayers. These two fig leaf fellas aren't fooling anyone.

The Mayor who likes to claim his legal right to preside over the meetings of the Board of Trustees claims that right to put matters on the agenda that have already been addressed by the Board of Trustees. That is his stubbornness in action.

As the presiding officer he is failing to preside over a meeting, and instead runs an "open mike" night where Dean Speir, the guy who ran unsuccessfully for Trustee, takes pot shots at the lady that beat him in the election. Speir is complemented by Mr. Bean, a $73,000-a-year municipal employee with a government car, who can be a pretty funny guy, but is basically rude to others as he plays the joker. (Source for salary info See Through NY http://www.seethroughny.net/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx )

There is part of me that says disband the PD and contract it out, but that only increases the power of the Town PD, and we lose local control. Well, if we don't exercise local control we have lost nothing. First step, reassert local control and make sure the PD is trained and works. The truth is people, including our local police officers, want to do a good job when led properly and when properly trained. It is a matter of personal pride.

The Mayor and the Chief have feathered their nest at the public trough, and now to them it is just a game at taxpayers expense. Too bad they are destroying the reputation of the Village, and their own reputation in the process. At least the Village's reputation, with some work, can be restored." Feb 5, 10 9:38 AM

Westhampton Beach School Board poised to appoint architect

"The State Constitution imposes duty on legislature to ensure availability of sound basic education to all children of state." Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State (1995) 86 NY2d 307

Oh, and if you pay taxes for education in the Westhampton Beach School District, you will also pay 1.6 Million for astro-turf.

The illustrious President of the Board of Education, Aram Terchunian, tells us in his Viewpoint published this week in the Press, that we should save money by spending money. Okay, that works sometimes.

But, he says fake-turf lasts for 10 years. At 1.6 million depreciated over ten years, that is $160,000 per year (that is without any cleaning or maintenance of the turf). He says we will save $25,000 per year in the costs of maintaining a natural grass field that is 360 feet x 160 feet. Hmmm, $160,000 as compared to $25,000 (thats accepting his lawn care costs). He also says we will be able to play more games (the kids I mean).

That is bad economics, and bad educational policy.

Educational policy ? Oh yes, that is what schools are supposed to be about. An education funded at taxpayer expense is supposed to be about education.

How are we supposed to pay for this, particularly at a time like this?

Board President says: well the NY State Comptroller told us that we taxed you guys too much in the past; we made a mistake and put aside too much taxpayer money to pay for sick leave and vacation leave that needs to be paid out sometimes; and THE COMPTROLLER SAYS WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDUCE YOUR TAXES, HE SAYS WE MUST SPEND THAT MONEY WE TOOK.

Really... do you think the Comptroller said that? Do you think we are that stupid ?

Reduce the tax levy, play extracurricular sports on natural grass, educate students. That is the job." Feb 5, 10 12:21 PM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

? "decorated warrior" ? Is that a job qualification? We can thank him for his service to his country and respect that, but it is not a reason to elect someone to office. If surviving a difficult, life threatening event is a job qualification, then a car crash survivor should stand for election.

Thanks for service to this country. Lets look at credentials, examine long time friendships and affiliations, and decide who will serve the interests of the entire town the best. " Feb 5, 10 12:33 PM

Oh, yeah your candidate is retired, and Punxsutawney Phil did see his shadow. Guess he is going to phone it in." Feb 5, 10 1:51 PM

Westhampton Beach expects to make decision soon on synagogue application

RLUIPA prohibits the government from imposing or implementing a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

"[T]he Supreme Court has held that generally applicable burdens, neutrally imposed, are not "substantial." See Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378, 389-91, 110 S. Ct. 688, 107 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1990).

The question is: If the local government were to deny this application, would it be unfairly imposing zoning law on the synagogue ? The Village can not single out the synagogue for unfair treatment, but it still has the obligation to protect all of its residents from unneighborly intrusions. Amplification, flies on garbage dumpsters, traffic without parking accommodations? Sounds like the neighbors need better representation on this. " Feb 5, 10 2:32 PM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

No, just said it does not make someone qualified for the job.

Thanks for the service, but it is not a job qualification. Stop wrapping candidates in the flag. Take a position on important issues (both candidates should do this and haven't) and see who is the better candidate.

Neither has earned a vote yet. He is a vet, she is pretty... Neither have anything to do with serving us. Stand up for something.

I bet Candidate Hughes would win hands down if he were to take some significant stands and Fleming failed to do the same." Feb 5, 10 2:56 PM

Still looking at that empty website, that is nothing but pictures." Feb 5, 10 3:51 PM

I am interested in him making his position on matters public. Private telephone conversations really don't serve that purpose at all.

Both candidates need to take written, published positions. Only then will candidates be accountable." Feb 5, 10 5:43 PM

NO, the questions that have been put forth to not assume that Candidate Hughes beats his wife.

It is a question of whether Candidate Hughes will prevent the police union from beating the taxpayer." Feb 5, 10 6:43 PM

Too much. Way too much.

No I don't like my school tax bill either.

Both the police union and the teacher's union are albatrosses that are grossly over funded and grossly overpaid." Feb 5, 10 7:06 PM

Bayman1 has asked me several times how much the police are costing:

In Price Tag Order

Southampton Overton, James $166,366 2009
Southampton Tenaglia, Anthony $162,129 2009
Southampton Hughes Jr, William $153,912 2009
Southampton Iberger, Robert $153,523 2009
Southampton Molloy, Bruce $151,241 2009
Southampton Hintze, Randolph $147,054 2009
Southampton Pearce, Robert $146,456 2009
Southampton Scott, Lewis $143,394 2009
Southampton Schurek Jr, Lawrence $140,277 2009
Southampton Miller, Steven $139,760 2009
Southampton Foster, Scott $139,121 2009
Southampton Bennett, Todd $137,693 2009
Southampton Wilson, Timothy $136,919 2009
Southampton Kiernan, James $136,823 2009
Southampton Sommer, William $136,172 2009
Southampton Britton, Walter $134,828 2009
Southampton Mazzio, James $134,738 2009
Southampton Zarro, Michael $134,089 2009
Southampton Stabile, Robert $132,593 2009
Southampton Tully, Thomas $131,794 2009
Southampton Boden, John $131,460 2009
Southampton Sharkey Jr, Charles $130,745 2009
Southampton Joyce, Michael $129,277 2009
Southampton Johnson, Herbert $128,410 2009
Southampton Ficurilli, Andrew $128,200 2009
Southampton Kuey, John $126,097 2009
Southampton Smith, Michael $124,974 2009
Southampton Gwinn, Kevin $124,914 2009
Southampton Ralph, Susan $123,743 2009
Southampton Burns, Michael $122,800 2009
Southampton Cavanagh, James $122,389 2009
Southampton Foos, Michael $122,138 2009
Southampton Wicklund, Robert $121,714 2009
Southampton Spencer, Todd $120,961 2009
Southampton Cavanagh, James $120,742 2009
Southampton Gorman, Thomas $120,732 2009
Southampton Gates, Richard $120,611 2009
Southampton Oliver, Kenneth $120,331 2009
Southampton Costa, Lisa $120,057 2009
Southampton Hawkins, Patrick $119,864 2009
Southampton De Luca, Brian $119,602 2009
Southampton Cagno, Vincent $119,334 2009
Southampton Boese, Frederick $117,908 2009
Southampton Mujsce, Kenneth $117,579 2009
Southampton Plum, Eric $117,377 2009
Southampton Peters, David $117,357 2009
Southampton Helmsteadt, Matthew $117,305 2009
Southampton Vecchio, Anthony $116,327 2009
Southampton Sickles, Eric $116,262 2009
Southampton Harrigan, Jane $115,506 2009
Southampton Carey Jr, Bartholomew $115,393 2009
Southampton Aube, Patrick $115,275 2009
Southampton Tedesco, Theresa $114,722 2009
Southampton Frankenbach, Steven $113,925 2009
Southampton Cantrell, Frederick $113,037 2009
Southampton Brown, Robert $112,774 2009
Southampton Mc Creedy-Drew, Maureen $112,339 2009
Southampton Lo Russo, Kristian $111,925 2009
Southampton Platt IV, William $111,835 2009
Southampton Gonzalez, Nelson $111,739 2009
Southampton O'Brien, Stephen $111,399 2009
Southampton Neuendorf, Eric $111,203 2009
Southampton Joseph, Doris $109,682 2009
Southampton Parker, Sherekhan $109,582 2009
Southampton Loper I I I, Herbert $109,338 2009
Southampton Kalb, Howard $109,038 2009
Southampton De Marco, Steven $107,444 2009
Southampton Giambone, John $105,976 2009
Southampton Attanasio, Michael $105,499 2009
Southampton Badagliacca, Nicholas $105,189 2009
Southampton Giardina, James $105,079 2009
Southampton Smith, Lois $101,929 2009
Southampton Manzello, Edward $99,305 2009
Southampton Nemes, Michael $96,286 2009
Southampton Smith, Lyle $95,672 2009
Southampton Arnzen, Robert $95,424 2009
Southampton Schmidt Jr, Thomas $92,830 2009
Southampton Breitwieser, Erik $87,832 2009
Southampton Slovensky, Craig $86,477 2009
Southampton Elliston, Melissa $85,829 2009
Southampton Garafola, Richard $85,135 2009
Southampton Santora, David $84,086 2009
Southampton Driscoll, David $82,264 2009
Southampton La Ferrera, Gina $77,246 2009
Southampton Burst, Christine $69,244 2009
Southampton O'Flaherty, Timothy $67,996 2009
Southampton D'arce, Joseph $66,240 2009
Southampton Kiernan, William $65,825 2009
Southampton Berini, John $64,562 2009
Southampton Davin, Jason $63,144 2009
Southampton Montalbano, Gaspar $59,246 2009
Southampton Blodorn, Andrew $51,378 2009
Southampton Henderson, Edward $51,296 2009
Southampton Jasinski, Theodore $39,855 2009
Southampton Phillips, Keith $33,521 2009
Southampton Kiernan, Wm $30,391 2009
Southampton Walsh, Michael $23,093 2009
Southampton Hughes, Ryan $22,763 2009
Southampton Spera, Richard $20,325 2009
Southampton Schottenhamel, Carl $20,063 2009
Southampton Collins, Daniel $20,063 2009
Southampton Cobb, Bryan $20,063 2009
Southampton Metcalf Jr, Donald $20,063 2009
Southampton Coleman, Carter $20,063 2009
Southampton Landrio, Jonathan $17,899 2009
Southampton Jacobsen, Thomas $17,329 2009
Southampton Hartman, Daniel $12,827 2009
Southampton Hochstrasser, Elyse $10,477 2009
Southampton Benkov, Richard $9,055 2009
Southampton Schmidt, Anthony $8,528 2009
Southampton Concannon, Daniel $8,419 2009
Southampton Petroski, Jude $5,705 2009
Southampton Padeletti, William $3,220 2009
Southampton Chiappone, Michael $2,880 2009
Southampton Mc Cormick, John $2,240 2009

In Alphabetical Order


Southampton Arnzen, Robert $95,424 2009
Southampton Attanasio, Michael $105,499 2009
Southampton Aube, Patrick $115,275 2009
Southampton Badagliacca, Nicholas $105,189 2009
Southampton Benkov, Richard $9,055 2009
Southampton Bennett, Todd $137,693 2009
Southampton Berini, John $64,562 2009
Southampton Blodorn, Andrew $51,378 2009
Southampton Boden, John $131,460 2009
Southampton Boese, Frederick $117,908 2009
Southampton Breitwieser, Erik $87,832 2009
Southampton Britton, Walter $134,828 2009
Southampton Brown, Robert $112,774 2009
Southampton Burns, Michael $122,800 2009
Southampton Burst, Christine $69,244 2009
Southampton Cagno, Vincent $119,334 2009
Southampton Cantrell, Frederick $113,037 2009
Southampton Carey Jr, Bartholomew $115,393 2009
Southampton Cavanagh, James $122,389 2009
Southampton Cavanagh, James $120,742 2009
Southampton Chiappone, Michael $2,880 2009
Southampton Cobb, Bryan $20,063 2009
Southampton Coleman, Carter $20,063 2009
Southampton Collins, Daniel $20,063 2009
Southampton Concannon, Daniel $8,419 2009
Southampton Costa, Lisa $120,057 2009
Southampton D'arce, Joseph $66,240 2009
Southampton Davin, Jason $63,144 2009
Southampton De Luca, Brian $119,602 2009
Southampton De Marco, Steven $107,444 2009
Southampton Driscoll, David $82,264 2009
Southampton Elliston, Melissa $85,829 2009
Southampton Ficurilli, Andrew $128,200 2009
Southampton Foos, Michael $122,138 2009
Southampton Foster, Scott $139,121 2009
Southampton Frankenbach, Steven $113,925 2009
Southampton Garafola, Richard $85,135 2009
Southampton Gates, Richard $120,611 2009
Southampton Giambone, John $105,976 2009
Southampton Giardina, James $105,079 2009
Southampton Gonzalez, Nelson $111,739 2009
Southampton Gorman, Thomas $120,732 2009
Southampton Gwinn, Kevin $124,914 2009
Southampton Harrigan, Jane $115,506 2009
Southampton Hartman, Daniel $12,827 2009
Southampton Hawkins, Patrick $119,864 2009
Southampton Helmsteadt, Matthew $117,305 2009
Southampton Henderson, Edward $51,296 2009
Southampton Hintze, Randolph $147,054 2009
Southampton Hochstrasser, Elyse $10,477 2009
Southampton Hughes Jr, William $153,912 2009
Southampton Hughes, Ryan $22,763 2009
Southampton Iberger, Robert $153,523 2009
Southampton Jacobsen, Thomas $17,329 2009
Southampton Jasinski, Theodore $39,855 2009
Southampton Johnson, Herbert $128,410 2009
Southampton Joseph, Doris $109,682 2009
Southampton Joyce, Michael $129,277 2009
Southampton Kalb, Howard $109,038 2009
Southampton Kiernan, James $136,823 2009
Southampton Kiernan, William $65,825 2009
Southampton Kiernan, Wm $30,391 2009
Southampton Kuey, John $126,097 2009
Southampton La Ferrera, Gina $77,246 2009
Southampton Landrio, Jonathan $17,899 2009
Southampton Lo Russo, Kristian $111,925 2009
Southampton Loper I I I, Herbert $109,338 2009
Southampton Manzello, Edward $99,305 2009
Southampton Mazzio, James $134,738 2009
Southampton Mc Cormick, John $2,240 2009
Southampton Mc Creedy-Drew, Maureen $112,339 2009
Southampton Metcalf Jr, Donald $20,063 2009
Southampton Miller, Steven $139,760 2009
Southampton Molloy, Bruce $151,241 2009
Southampton Montalbano, Gaspar $59,246 2009
Southampton Mujsce, Kenneth $117,579 2009
Southampton Nemes, Michael $96,286 2009
Southampton Neuendorf, Eric $111,203 2009
Southampton O'Brien, Stephen $111,399 2009
Southampton O'Flaherty, Timothy $67,996 2009
Southampton Oliver, Kenneth $120,331 2009
Southampton Overton, James $166,366 2009
Southampton Padeletti, William $3,220 2009
Southampton Parker, Sherekhan $109,582 2009
Southampton Pearce, Robert $146,456 2009
Southampton Peters, David $117,357 2009
Southampton Petroski, Jude $5,705 2009
Southampton Phillips, Keith $33,521 2009
Southampton Platt IV, William $111,835 2009
Southampton Plum, Eric $117,377 2009
Southampton Ralph, Susan $123,743 2009
Southampton Santora, David $84,086 2009
Southampton Schmidt Jr, Thomas $92,830 2009
Southampton Schmidt, Anthony $8,528 2009
Southampton Schottenhamel, Carl $20,063 2009
Southampton Schurek Jr, Lawrence $140,277 2009
Southampton Scott, Lewis $143,394 2009
Southampton Sharkey Jr, Charles $130,745 2009
Southampton Sickles, Eric $116,262 2009
Southampton Slovensky, Craig $86,477 2009
Southampton Smith, Lois $101,929 2009
Southampton Smith, Lyle $95,672 2009
Southampton Smith, Michael $124,974 2009
Southampton Sommer, William $136,172 2009
Southampton Spencer, Todd $120,961 2009
Southampton Spera, Richard $20,325 2009
Southampton Stabile, Robert $132,593 2009
Southampton Tedesco, Theresa $114,722 2009
Southampton Tenaglia, Anthony $162,129 2009
Southampton Tully, Thomas $131,794 2009
Southampton Vecchio, Anthony $116,327 2009
Southampton Walsh, Michael $23,093 2009
Southampton Wicklund, Robert $121,714 2009
Southampton Wilson, Timothy $136,919 2009
Southampton Zarro, Michael $134,089 2009

That was for last year.

The preliminary budget for 2010 provides for total compensation and benefits in the amount of $ 15,769,597" Feb 7, 10 8:47 AM

Median FAMILY Income in Suffolk County is $97,100.

Obviously, the wages reported in the previous post are for individual wage earners, and you can't really compare that to what an entire family earns annually.

This is the distorting effect of unions on wages. Good for unions, bad for everyone else." Feb 7, 10 9:36 AM

The form of the answer you demand is irrelevant.

What does it matter what percentage it is of my town tax, state tax, national tax, sales tax forked over annually, or various fees imposed as hidden taxes? That is not a measure of whether we are receiving value for the actual dollars we are paying to the PD.

Even an aggregate budget number is largely meaningless. It is when we look at the individual salaries that a taxpayer can get a true sense of the cost.

The form of the answer you demand is designed to obfuscate the issue. I won't be accommodating you effort in that regard.

PD services cost too much, and Candidate Hughes has not made a commitment to reduce those costs." Feb 7, 10 2:37 PM

http://www.seethroughny.net/" Feb 7, 10 2:38 PM

The link I just put up was taken down (probably an automated thing) So, google the phrase See Through NY and you will get the website." Feb 7, 10 2:48 PM

You are quite right. That is why there has to be published expression of intent by either candidate. Absent that, I have to go with the Candidate that was not a member of that union at any time." Feb 7, 10 3:20 PM

Yes, the how is the questions posted by highhat." Feb 7, 10 3:21 PM

Don't mention it my inscrutable friend." Feb 7, 10 4:18 PM

Westhampton Beach mayor plans to stick to his guns regarding two Village Police officers

Property values would go UP because taxes and potential civil liability would go down. (It has to be cheaper to run a couple of sector cars, than to pay for a Chief of P, and other ranking officers in the village PD.)

Lets not pretend their would be an absence of police surveillance protecting the village. The village would contract with another municipality, Southampton Town or Quogue.

Maybe it would be the first time there would be a presence of of police surveillance protecting the village (save for those who have contracted for private security all along.)
" Feb 8, 10 7:57 AM

Questions are raised over Town Board candidate's fund-raising restrictions

You are quite right !

It is amazing how many contributors there are from the State of Virginia. I guess Mrs. Fleming made quite an impression on her law school classmates. So much so that they would support her present endeavors.

It is not so amazing that there are some from NYC where she worked in the office of the District Attorney, and from where many of our Southampton residents have 1st or 2nd homes (depending on who is numbering the primacy of the residence).

And your point is ?

Oh yes, it is that local thing. Unless your grand daddy's daddy dropped out of the birth canal her in the Town of Southampton, you ain't a local (one of us) and you have nothing of value to contribute.

I guess that's what Candidate Hughes means by having roots long and deep. He understands and is willing to play upon the bias of some, Nellie.
" Feb 8, 10 8:12 AM

Westhampton Beach mayor plans to stick to his guns regarding two Village Police officers

That is a silly remark. Greenport had crime problems both with and without its PD. If you are suggesting the self promoting posse of red berets that appeared in Greenport somehow advances your defense of the WHB PD,

I will leave it to others who read these posts to decide whether that argument has any validity at all. It could be a good measure of intelligence, or lack of it." Feb 8, 10 9:34 PM

Westhampton Beach Village Board rejects all seven resolutions pertaining to two police officers

The authority rests with the Board of Trustees to hear, or not hear, the charges. If in their discretion the allegations as presented do not merit a hearing, then it is the Board's right to dismiss the charges outright.

It makes no sense to say a Board must hear charges that it deems facially unworthy of consideration so that, in the end, it would dismiss the charges. By analogy, courts can dismiss charges, as insufficient on their face, or dismiss them in the interests of justice.

Highhat is correct, the public has not seen the written charges and has not read any report. It is therefore difficult to assess whether the Trustees are exercising good judgment or poor. That is the result of statutory right to privacy on such matters. Disclosure of the charges or the report is not an option for this Board to defend itself, or for the Mayor to justify his position.

It is true that the decision is an implicit repudiation of the Chief of Police's decision on this particular issue, but that alone does not make the Board's decision right or wrong. Similarly, for all of the reasons above the public can not discern whether the Chief was acting properly, or injudiciously.

This leaves the public only with speculation.

The Mayor's directive that the officer's not be restored to full duty and the Board's resolution passed in Dec. that directed the officers to be restored to full duty is the legal stand off that must be resolved.

The Village Attorney should issue a written opinion concerning the respective authority of the Trustees and the Mayor on this issue, and if that opinion is respected the parties should proceed in accordance.

If, the Village Attorney, as the appointee of the Mayor, renders an opinion that does not carry everyone's respect, then it is an important question which demands resolution from a court.
" Feb 10, 10 6:43 AM

The privacy right under NY Civil Right's Law belongs to the officers and can be waived by them. It would certainly shed light on this for the public, but perhaps they were acting foolishly, in a manner that doesn't warrant action, but embarrassing, nonetheless. That would be a strong course of action if the officers chose to do that." Feb 10, 10 4:10 PM

What is the Press' position on releasing the report to the public. With print limitations of the past, the decision not to publish the document was understandable.

Will the old standard for reporting persist in the internet age when a website such as this has, in effect, unlimited space ?

Why not post the full report as a link for this story as a pdf ?

The Press reported on Parts of the report, and it even editorialized on what to do about the report ?

Has that report even been given to the officers so that they can defend themselves ?

There is a pernicious aspect to partial disclosure. As you can see, some posts seem to think that the report has been substantiated. BUT, what you have is the very body that made the accusations, is saying that their own accusations have been substantiated. That should not be satisfying to anyone.

From your reporting, there was never a resolution concerning the question of how the uncharged officer lost his gun and then later found it. So this isn't about the problems that did or did not occur in the WHB PD, it was an accusation by an investigating agency that it was making on its own accord.

Please publish the full document, don't just take the position that the community must trust you editorial skills when page constraints no longer weigh in favor of that request.


" Feb 11, 10 12:57 PM

Jean, you have assumed that the lost weapon was a prank, and not just a lost weapon. The report from Suffolk County did not reach any conclusions on whether that officer negligently lost his weapon, or whether he was the victim of a theft.

If theft, charge the officers with the theft. Mr. Spota would prosecute a petit larceny, if there was such proof.

You have agreed in the past that the report should be released, lets insist on the release of the report before we draw any conclusions about who is right and who is wrong." Feb 11, 10 1:22 PM

As reported in the press, there was no resolution of the manner in which the gun came to be lost.

As reported in the press, the report stated that the 2 officers lied to those who made the report, then those who wrote the report that their own allegations of lying were substantiated by their own report. THAT is what I say should be unsatisfactory. The report claims to be self-proving.

I have repeatedly requested that the report be released so that this community can judge for itself whether the report mandates further inquiry which the Board of Trustees has declined to do. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Right now people are making serious judgments and are acting with less information than the Trustees.

If this community could see the report it could make its own assessment of whether the Trustees have a duty to inquire further. Maybe it is loaded with illogical junk, maybe it is compelling. I know that I don't know.

I know that I have repeated requested in be published here.

" Feb 12, 10 8:03 AM

The introduction of this matter into the public when it is legally privileged has created a quandary.

1. If the Trustees were to have a hearing (whether by themselves or a hearing officer) the final determination remains the Trustees. A Trustee determination rejecting the charges would carry no weight now.

2. If the Trustees were to find the officers guilty some or all of the charges, then any punishment less than dismissal would be privileged and the public would never know that there had been any punishment at all and would not know that there had even been a determination that the officers were or were not guilty.

3. The only result of a hearing, of which the public could become aware is a determination of guilt together with the punishment of either dismissal, or at least a suspension that was long enough so that fellow officers would know the result by the absence of the two officers.

4. A determination of guilt and a reprimand, or docking pay, would be an unknown result.

That is a quandary, when action is demanded of the Trustees, yet if they were to act in accordance with the demand, there is only one result of the action of which the public would become aware.

This is a product of the statutory secrecy that has been obtained by police, firefighters', and teachers' unions.

The only way the Trustees get off the hook is for both of the the officers to waive their privacy rights and get it in the open.


" Feb 12, 10 9:24 AM

The Trustees could, but they have apparently decided that the charges that were preferred by the Chief of Police, do not merit further prosecution.

Can it be that when the IAB report is read, it just does not support action ?

Can it be that there was clear in-fighting in the Department and while 2 officers may have been guilty of some infraction, that the Trustees see that charges are being preferred against some select few, while others get a complete pass ?

We have a pretty good idea that the Chief of Police does not enjoy the confidence of the Board of Trustees, he filed a notice of claim against the village last summer.

What we don't know, and unfortunately probably won't know, is why the Trustees have chosen this course.

Ordering a hearing at this time, when the Trustees have effectively declared there is some impediment to punishing these officers, can not be reversed simply because the Mayor is intransigent." Feb 12, 10 3:59 PM

From NY State Village Law:

§ 8-804. Discipline and charges

1. Except as otherwise provided by law, a member of such police force or department shall continue in office unless suspended or dismissed.

***
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES or municipal board shall have power and is authorized to adopt and make rules and regulations for the examination, hearing, investigation and determination of charges, made or preferred against any member or members of such police force or department. ***

Except as otherwise provided, no member or members of such police force or department shall be fined, reprimanded, suspended, removed or dismissed until written charges shall have been examined, heard and investigated in such manner or procedure, practice, examination and investigation as the board may by rules and regulations from time to time prescribe.

Any member of such police force or department at the time of the hearing or trial of such charges shall have the right to a public hearing and trial and to be represented by counsel at any such hearing or trial, and ANY PERSON WHO SHALL HAVE PREFERRED SUCH CHARGES OR ANY PART OF THE SAME SHALL NOT SIT AS JUDGE UPON SUCH HEARING OR TRIAL...

***Such BOARD shall have the power to SUSPEND, without pay for a period not to exceed thirty days, PENDING THE TRIAL OF CHARGES, any member of such police force or department. If any member of such police force or department so suspended shall not be convicted by such board of the charges so preferred, he shall be entitled to full pay from the date of suspension, notwithstanding such charges and suspension.


Here the Mayor suspended the two officers in the first place. Yet Village law vests suspension authority in the BOARD OF TRUSTEES !


The very Board with the duty to make the final determination concerning the charges preferred by Chief Dean, has voted against advancing the charges - whatever they are- and the Mayor insists on a new type of punishment, desk duty.

The Mayor plainly judged the officers without a hearing because he suspended the officers when he had no legal authority under the Village Law to suspend the officers.

Is it surprising that the Mayor persists in punishing the officers without a hearing?

Whether the Mayor is correct and the officers are guilty of some offense, that has not been determined, and it was not within his authority to punish the officers without that determination.

The initial mayoral suspension, which cost the taxpayers a nice buck, has been followed by more punishment without a hearing, and that too is costly.

We can't judge the Trustees from what is in the public record. We can judge the Mayor, look at the law.

Ask the Mayor where he got his authority to suspend the officers in the first place.

Ask the Mayor where he gets the right to order desk duty for the officers when the Trustees ordered that the officers be restored to full duty.

Ask the Village Attorney both of those questions." Feb 12, 10 4:07 PM

The Press says it receive a copy." Feb 12, 10 9:26 PM

If there was such a crime committed, the officers would be looking for bail on an indictment. If there was proof of any crime, then the allegations would have made it out of the privacy of the Civil Rights Law.

No criminal charges, including no charge of perjury should give people pause." Feb 12, 10 9:28 PM

If you were a professional conducting an investigation wouldn't the first thing you do when speaking to Police Officers is first put them under oath ?

If that were the case, the lying would be perjury, and it would be off to the DA.

This all seems it may be a little loosey-goosey as the basis for punishment.

Of course that remains hard to discern when the Press has not published the report which it said it possesses.

Come on Press guys/gals, you read the comments posted.

If you won't post it, at least state the policy reason behind that decision. This is particularly important when the Press wrote an editorial taking the Trustees to task." Feb 12, 10 10:16 PM

Next to last paragraph in the print edition on this story, indicates Mayor made this decision.

If the Chief did it, he could be charged himself with insubordination. As it stands, it is the Mayor causing a stand off." Feb 14, 10 8:33 PM

Still, no report published, and numerous people here have concluded that a particular action must be taken on a report they have not seen.

Note to Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Birk said "I want these guys cleared." It is evident she thinks the report is junk, and only wants a hearing for political cover to reach that conclusion.." Feb 14, 10 8:34 PM

Mr. Wheeler, my repeated comments on the unpublished report are both to call for its publication, and to

Remind those who post here that conclusions about the Trustees' actions, made in the absence of the publication of that report, are conclusions without foundation.

I don't claim to know whether the Trustees acted with great judiciousness or otherwise. Many post here act as if they know." Feb 14, 10 9:26 PM

"What is most interesting is that after initial actions had been undertaken -- mostly by the majority Trustees -- that everyone has NOW researched the applicable laws and the Mayor and his private counsel have concluded that earlier actions were illegal, a conclusion the majority faction aren't debating so much as they are taking a hard line in resisting."

The Village Attorney was appointed by the Mayor. He has never failed to do everything within his ability to serve his master. Yet, the Village Attorney does not declare that the Trustees have done anything illegal here.

The Village Attorney, who should be well versed in Village Law, and completely conversant with the facts has not support the Mayor-master on this one.

Frank, it is plain you are shilling for the Mayor-Chief (yes they are as one, remember the Mayor undertook his own, unauthorized and secret "negotiations" with the Chief on the Chief's contract when the Trustees did not authorize it.

If that is not violating his fiduciary duty to the Trustees and the people of this village, I don't know what is. You and Jean will defend him at all costs.

I supported Tucker and Levan in the last election over a cop who was out on a claimed disability. As of this writing, without the report published, they have not lost the respect they are due.

The Mayor is another story.

" Feb 15, 10 10:20 AM

Thank you Mr. Shaw for posting the Press' position on this issue.

I will not get into a back-and-forth on the subject; I only encourage you to be robust in your reporting and take every advantage of the internet resources at your command. It is a remarkable new age for reporters and citizens alike and we are all trying to figure it out.


For those interested in this topic the following is New York State's shield law, which protects both confidential information and confidential sources.

NY CLS Civ R § 79-h (2010)

§ 79-h. Special provisions relating to persons employed by, or connected with, news media

(a) Definitions. As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) "Newspaper" shall mean a paper that is printed and distributed ordinarily not less frequently than once a week, and has done so for at least one year, and that contains news, articles of opinion (as editorials), features, advertising, or other matter regarded as of current interest, has a paid circulation and has been entered at United States post-office as second-class matter.

(2) "Magazine" shall mean a publication containing news which is published and distributed periodically, and has done so for at least one year, has a paid circulation and has been entered at a United States post-office as second-class matter.

(3) "News agency" shall mean a commercial organization that collects and supplies news to subscribing newspapers, magazines, periodicals and news broadcasters.

(4) "Press association" shall mean an association of newspapers and/or magazines formed to gather and distribute news to its members.

(5) "Wire service" shall mean a news agency that sends out syndicated news copy by wire to subscribing newspapers, magazines, periodicals or news broadcasters.

(6) "Professional journalist" shall mean one who, for gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, preparing, collecting, writing, editing, filming, taping or photographing of news intended for a newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association or wire service or other professional medium or agency which has as one of its regular functions the processing and researching of news intended for dissemination to the public; such person shall be someone performing said function either as a regular employee or as one otherwise professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication.

(7) "Newscaster" shall mean a person who, for gain or livelihood, is engaged in analyzing, commenting on or broadcasting, news by radio or television transmission.

(8) "News" shall mean written, oral, pictorial photographic, or electronically recorded information or communication concerning local, national or worldwide events or other matters of public concern or public interest or affecting the public welfare.

(b) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters from contempt: Absolute protection for confidential news. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, no professional journalist or newscaster presently or having previously been employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television transmission station or network or other professional medium of communicating news or information to the public shall be adjudged in contempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding, or by the legislature or other body having contempt powers, nor shall a grand jury seek to have a journalist or newscaster held in contempt by any court, legislature or other body having contempt powers for refusing or failing to disclose any news obtained or received in confidence or the identity of the source of any such news coming into such person's possession in the course of gathering or obtaining news for publication or to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or for broadcast by a radio or television transmission station or network or for public dissemination by any other professional medium or agency which has as one of its main functions the dissemination of news to the public, by which such person is professionally employed or otherwise associated in a news gathering capacity notwithstanding that the material or identity of a source of such material or related material gathered by a person described above performing a function described above is or is not highly relevant to a particular inquiry of government and notwithstanding that the information was not solicited by the journalist or newscaster prior to disclosure to such person.

(c) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters from contempt: Qualified protection for nonconfidential news. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, no professional journalist or newscaster presently or having previously been employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television transmission station or network or other professional medium of communicating news to the public shall be adjudged in contempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding, or by the legislature or other body having contempt powers, nor shall a grand jury seek to have a journalist or newscaster held in contempt by any court, legislature, or other body having contempt powers for refusing or failing to disclose any unpublished news obtained or prepared by a journalist or newscaster in the course of gathering or obtaining news as provided in subdivision (b) of this section, or the source of any such news, where such news was not obtained or received in confidence, unless the party seeking such news has made a clear and specific showing that the news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical or necessary to the maintenance of a party's claim, defense or proof of an issue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternative source. A court shall order disclosure only of such portion, or portions, of the news sought as to which the above-described showing has been made and shall support such order with clear and specific findings made after a hearing. The provisions of this subdivision shall not affect the availability, under appropriate circumstances, of sanctions under section thirty-one hundred twenty-six of the civil practice law and rules.

(d) Any information obtained in violation of the provisions of this section shall be inadmissible in any action or proceeding or hearing before any agency.

(e) No fine or imprisonment may be imposed against a person for any refusal to disclose information privileged by the provisions of this section.

(f) The privilege contained within this section shall apply to supervisory or employer third person or organization having authority over the person described in this section.

(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a person entitled to claim the exemption provided under subdivision (b) or (c) of this section waives such exemption if such person voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of the specific information sought to be disclosed to any person not otherwise entitled to claim the exemptions provided by this section.

Thank you Mr. Shaw" Feb 15, 10 2:00 PM

Two construction workers injured in fall after scaffolding collapse in Water Mill

Hope that they were not seriously injured.

It is because of the dangerous nature of doing work at a elevation that NY passed its scaffold law:


§ 240. Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees

1. All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.

No liability pursuant to this subdivision for the failure to provide protection to a person so employed shall be imposed on professional engineers as provided for in article one hundred forty-five of the education law, architects as provided for in article one hundred forty-seven of such law or landscape architects as provided for in article one hundred forty-eight of such law who do not direct or control the work for activities other than planning and design. This exception shall not diminish or extinguish any liability of professional engineers or architects or landscape architects arising under the common law or any other provision of law.

2. Scaffolding or staging more than twenty feet from the ground or floor, swung or suspended from an overhead support or erected with stationary supports, except scaffolding wholly within the interior of a building and covering the entire floor space of any room therein, shall have a safety rail of suitable material properly attached, bolted, braced or otherwise secured, rising at least thirty-four inches above the floor or main portions of such scaffolding or staging and extending along the entire length of the outside and the ends thereof, with only such openings as may be necessary for the delivery of materials. Such scaffolding or staging shall be so fastened as to prevent it from swaying from the building or structure.

3. All scaffolding shall be so constructed as to bear four times the maximum weight required to be dependent therefrom or placed thereon when in use." Feb 15, 10 3:53 PM

Westhampton Beach School Board expects to approve artificial turf resolution soon

It looks like it is time for a Tea Party

School Board Seats that are up this year: Bryan Dean and Clint Greenbaum are up for election, if they run again.

The turf question will be on the ballot in one form or another. Taxpayers need to know tax rate will go down if it is not spent on turf. In spite of what Mr. Terchunian says.

Taxpayers should go to the State Comptroller's website and read about school budgeting.

Be informed, Be engaged." Feb 15, 10 4:50 PM

Two construction workers injured in fall after scaffolding collapse in Water Mill

At a fall from 13.8 feet, with acceleration due to gravity, a body at the time of impact is travelling at a speed of 20 mph. Not as bad as a fall from 20 to 25 feet, but still really hurts, and depends how you land." Feb 16, 10 9:58 AM

Glad to hear that, and glad to read in the paper that we have resources to give great care." Feb 16, 10 10:28 AM

Westhampton Beach Village Board rejects all seven resolutions pertaining to two police officers

Maybe Ms Martin can check to see whether the Trustees ever changed their December resolution from restore to full duty to return to restricted duty. The story seems to be in error on this point. If order to restricted duty came from Mayor, as it appears from the print article, it is important to know if this will continue indefinitely until the Trustees capitulate and order a hearing, and know what this is costing the Village" Feb 16, 10 7:18 PM

Disciplinary charges were preferred by the Chief of Police already. The Trustees directed him to withdraw them, I think they really meant they were dismissed and it is a matter of semantics.

" Feb 16, 10 10:13 PM

Mr. Wheeler, your reference to "Westhampton Beach Village Law" as a font of authority for the Chief of Police is mistaken.

My citations have been to New York State Village Law which vests authority to suspend an officer pending a hearing, to hold disciplinary hearings, and to punish after a disciplinary hearing in the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees serves as a Board of Police Commissioners, and the Mayor is but one of the Commissioners.

The Mayor has cited section 30 of some 1964 regulation adopted by the Board of Trustees to support his argument that he is in control now.

However, it is the Board of Trustees that has the authority to make and amend those regulations as circumstances dictate. Whether those circumstances are present here remains an open question.

The Press has told us it will not post the full report. I have a great deal of respect for the men and women at the Press, they do a difficult job. However, I know that there are people in our community who can bring a very different skill set to the critical examination of such a report.

As a result, it is not a fully informed public opinion that has been, or will be, weighing in on these issues.

The Trustees and the Mayor will have to sort out their respective rights and duties and seek a resolution of who has the authority to punish the two officers in the absence of a hearing (No One) and whether the Chief of Police or the Mayor can mandate that a hearing be held (Doubtful).
" Feb 17, 10 1:25 PM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  >>