Quoted from bumblethru

I am dead serious!! We have to do something!!!!

In the scope of things, rotterdam is just a little itty bitty town. For decades, we have become accustomed to a question/answer session during the privilege of the floor. That is part of quaintness of small town living. ALL small towns do it! Just because they don't have an obvious clue about 'anything', does not warrant a 'stay', suggested by the 'non elected' town attorney, for the town board. What does our 'super' have to say about this? Isn't it he that should be running the show?

It appears that THE GREAT OZ has turned on the mute button behind that big green curtain! But ya know what....they are OUR employees. We pay their salary! We call the shots!  We foot the bill! Don't let them get away with this.

When anyone goes to a town board meeting with concerns about their ambulance service, damn it...they are entitled to an answer. That's the TB's job.

If they are unqualified, unprepared, undereducated...(which they are).....then step down while they can still save themselves! It don't look good folks!!!

it's more akin to Obama needing a teleprompter - he doesn't wanna act stupid and say something he really means - he'd rather have it spelled out for him the way his handlers THINK it should be said.

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Ambulance corps cuts deal with IRS Agreement includes unfreezing accounts
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

    Negotiators with the Internal Revenue Service agreed to a payment plan that will allow the financially embattled Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services Inc. to repay long-standing debts owed to the federal government.
    Under the terms of the deal, the ambulance company agreed to pay the IRS $6,500 per month until 2011 and then $8,000 per month until the full balance of the debt is paid off. In return, the IRS agreed to waive roughly $100,000 in penalties and unfreeze all of the ambulance company’s accounts, including its contract with Rotterdam.
    Joe Vanderwerker, the presi- dent of REMS’ board of directors, characterized the deal with the IRS as one of the final steps the ambulance company needed to take to achieve fiscal solvency. He said the deal will allow REMS to sign a contract with Princetown and continue building upon the successes the company has realized over the past year.
    “This is the last big hurdle,” he said Thursday. “Really, it’s full speed ahead from here.”
    Gerard Parisi, the attorney who helped negotiate the deal for REMS, said the ambulance company should have no problem adhering to the terms of the agreement. He said the willingness of the IRS to reduce the debt should ensure that the remaining balance is paid in full.
    “It’s finally feasible,” he said. “They shouldn’t have any trouble keeping up now.”
    The deal is in stark contrast to the IRS actions last week, when the agency moved to freeze a number of the ambulance company’s accounts and place liens on its property. The move meant most of Rotterdam’s $10,000-per-month contract with REMS would go directly to the federal government to pay off the company’s outstanding debt of roughly $315,000. .................>>>>......................>>>>..............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00904&AppName=1

I am no smart lawyer person but could someone explain this to me in simple english

Meanwhile, town officials are investigating when a referendum can be conducted on a proposed tax district to support REMS. Supervisor Frank Del Gallo pledged to send the issue to a town vote shortly after taking office last month, but there are a number of details that still need to be worked out.
    Initially, board members had discussed conducting the referendum during the election in the fall. But Town Attorney Michael Godlewski said they have since decided against pairing the two because of legal concerns.
    “We don’t think it’s legally feasibly to hold it in conjunction with the election because it’s a different class of voters,” he said.

It would appear that the town board is going to try to sneak the referendum thru when people are busy during the summer because they know a lot of people vote on election day and the referendum would be voted down.

Quoted from littlesal

I am no smart lawyer person but could someone explain this to me in simple english

Meanwhile, town officials are investigating when a referendum can be conducted on a proposed tax district to support REMS. Supervisor Frank Del Gallo pledged to send the issue to a town vote shortly after taking office last month, but there are a number of details that still need to be worked out.
    Initially, board members had discussed conducting the referendum during the election in the fall. But Town Attorney Michael Godlewski said they have since decided against pairing the two because of legal concerns.
    “We don’t think it’s legally feasibly to hold it in conjunction with the election because it’s a different class of voters,” he said.

I'm no lawyer either, but I believe the "class" to which he refers is home/property owners. This was an issue in past referendums
(the Highbridge/Time Warner sewer, e.g.). They use it as an excuse to have mid-summer "special" referendums at a cost of around
$40,000 to taxpayers, which basically amounts to a publicly funded "rigged" vote where only the interested parties will turn out...
especially since neither the previous administration nor the current one is making any effort to educate the public about other,
more fiscally responsible options.

This could still be done in November, if it has to take place at all. They could simply lock the levers on the referendum for those
who do not own property, just as they do in Primaries for more than one party. That can be done simply by providing a
corresponding list of eligible voters on the issue...the same list they would use in a "special" referendum.

1. I find it bizarre to say the least that we the taxpayers are FORCED to pay for REMS breaking the IRS laws. REMS clearly was and is fiscally irresponsible and yet our elected officials are too stupid to see that.

2. To complicate issues....Were these taxes actually withheld by REMS from payroll checks? If so...what did REMS do with this almost one quarter of a million dollars? OR was this money never even withheld at all? Are there individual income tax records available to actually see if these employees claimed this money?

I am very surprised at Parisi for working out this 'deal' for REMS. Although why should I, since the last administration (reps) clearly supported a taxing district for REMS. And apparently so does the present (dems).

As far as providing a referendum....in the best interest of the taxpayers, it should be on the ballot in NOV.

Like stated before.....if FDG is the 'savy businessman' that he and his 'leaders' painted him to be....than REMS will have to bid and compete in the private sector. It should become a solvent, healthy secure business just like the others in the private sector. The question is.....do they have the brains and fortitude to compete in the private sector? Or will our elected officials allow them to continue to feed off of the taxpayer's tit?

I personally will always call MOHAWK! They just bill per call. REMS will bill per call AND take our tax dollars. Please tell me how that makes any sense!

Quoted from bumblethru

1. I find it bizarre to say the least that we the taxpayers are FORCED to pay for REMS breaking the IRS laws. REMS clearly was and is fiscally irresponsible and yet our elected officials are too stupid to see that.

2. To complicate issues....Were these taxes actually withheld by REMS from payroll checks? If so...what did REMS do with this almost one quarter of a million dollars? OR was this money never even withheld at all? Are there individual income tax records available to actually see if these employees claimed this money?

I am very surprised at Parisi for working out this 'deal' for REMS. Although why should I, since the last administration (reps) clearly supported a taxing district for REMS. And apparently so does the present (dems).

As far as providing a referendum....in the best interest of the taxpayers, it should be on the ballot in NOV.

Like stated before.....if FDG is the 'savy businessman' that he and his 'leaders' painted him to be....than REMS will have to bid and compete in the private sector. It should become a solvent, healthy secure business just like the others in the private sector. The question is.....do they have the brains and fortitude to compete in the private sector? Or will our elected officials allow them to continue to feed off of the taxpayer's tit?

It's pretty clear FDG hasn't taken the reins of this town yet.. will he ever is the question.

Quoted from 147

it's more akin to Obama needing a teleprompter - he doesn't wanna act stupid and say something he really means - he'd rather have it spelled out for him the way his handlers THINK it should be said.

"Yesterday, you made note of my -- the lack of my talent when it came to dancing. But nevertheless, I want you to know I danced with joy. And no question Liberia has gone through very difficult times." --George W. Bush, speaking with the president of Liberia, Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2008
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
"Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
"Should the Iranian regime-do they have the sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask me. And the answer is, yes, they do." --George W. Bush, talking to reporters in Washington, D.C., July 2, 2008

Quoted from Vaedur

It's pretty clear FDG hasn't taken the reins of this town yet.. will he ever is the question.

NO! I predict he will not even finish out his term. He will resign and the 'rambling no change' will take over. And you won't be able to shut him up! Although  now we have TWO ramblers.....'no change' and 'principle raucci'! OH NO!! IMHO

I think I predicted that before the election. Along with the early meeting end times.

Quoted from 147

I think I predicted that before the election. Along with the early meeting end times.

That remark actually came from the dem camp. It was the plan all along. This was talked about BEFORE FDG was elected. Nice how they bullsh!t the people, huh? Ya vote for one, while another is waiting in the wings to take over!

Quoted from littlesal

I am no smart lawyer person but could someone explain this to me in simple english

Meanwhile, town officials are investigating when a referendum can be conducted on a proposed tax district to support REMS. Supervisor Frank Del Gallo pledged to send the issue to a town vote shortly after taking office last month, but there are a number of details that still need to be worked out.
    Initially, board members had discussed conducting the referendum during the election in the fall. But Town Attorney Michael Godlewski said they have since decided against pairing the two because of legal concerns.
    “We don’t think it’s legally feasibly to hold it in conjunction with the election because it’s a different class of voters,” he said.

NO ONE IS MORE EQUAL THAN ANOTHER......here's the deal......Mayberry is OVER..........there ARE other choices for a ride to the hospital and emergency care........

Fire/Police/Private ambulance/small volunteer force........GET OFF MY BACK...........

a person NOT wanting taxes is NOT a different class----how about this----they ARE smarter.........GET OFF MY BACK.....

Quoted from 147

I think I predicted that before the election. Along with the early meeting end times.

Ending early?  They are in for a long meeting on the 24th.  The Dolan Drive residents will certainly give them an earful...they are relentless and have every right to be!  

Will he or won't he doesn't make much difference. It looks to me that he doesn't have any say in policy decisions. Just another nod for the majority. Who really is running the show and calling the shots? Does anyone know the answer? Is it Godlewski, the county dems?

Quoted from 592

Will he or won't he doesn't make much difference. It looks to me that he doesn't have any say in policy decisions. Just another nod for the majority. Who really is running the show and calling the shots? Does anyone know the answer? Is it Godlewski, the county dems?

It appears that the attorney is calling the shots and speaking in place of the supervisor which is an elected position. Is this the role of a town attorney? Furthermore .....  is this legal? Does the attorney have the 'legal' right to state a change in rules/policies such as the privilege of the floor issue? Is that not the role of the supervisor 1st, followed up by the other elected town board members? Isn't it the town attorney's job to 'suggest' to the supervisor/town board what he can and can not do or say legally? Then the supervisor/leader verbally makes the declaration.....not the attorney.

DO  YOUR HOMEWORK FOLKS!!!!!