First thing I'd like to point out in the article is this:
"Perticone said more public input will be welcome at the board’s meeting next week — at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 18 in the Broderick room at Town Hall, 1280 Titus Ave. — and the board still may not vote on the matter."
You can bring it up at Public Input....but they aren't voting on it, supposedly. It's not on the agenda.
More discussion to take place before a vote. That is awesome.
But, Uh-oh! I see something.....conflicting!
Quote from Perticone in today's MPNnow:
"“We want it keep it (the hearing) open as long as we can and listen to both sides,” Perticone said. “We’re not going to bring something up, discuss it one time and vote on it.”"
VS.
Perticone's own words at the meeting on July 21st:
"Um, I, you know, I, I personally, uh, do have enough information on what I need, but if the Board thinks that they need more information, I don't really know...but...I personally don't need more information."
The Supervisor, at the 76:00 mark of the video, votes to leave the public hearing open for the next 30 days to share more information that they do have, and come back next month before they decide. She asks for a second on that motion....and everyone but Perticone gives their vote.....then she tells Perticone "I'm going to need a vote today"
Perticone says "Abstain" from voting to leave the public hearing open.
Supervisor says "Abstain? Are you going to abstain?"
Perticone says "I don't think...that I have to....do I?"
Supervisor says "But, are you going to vote to continue the public hearing for the month?"
And, after this, at the 76:37 mark of the video, is when Perticone says that he has enough information and doesn't need more time.
Link to TBM of 7/21/09.
He abstained from voting to keep the public hearing open another 30 days.....which totally contradicts his quote to MPNnow in the article.
HE had all the information HE needed (of course).....but the residents didn't.
More quotes from the article:
"“These kind of requirements tilt the playing field in favor of union contractors,” Meinking said.
"To date, 55 municipalities in the state have the apprenticeship requirement, Perticone said, including — in this area — the city of Rochester and Rochester Institute of Technology; and in upstate New York, the cities of Elmira, Hornell, Ithaca and Buffalo, and the towns of Amherst and Hamburg in Erie County."
Nobody else in Monroe County, with the exception of the City of Rochester and R.I.T. have an apprenticeship requirement for public works projects.
If this was such a great idea, why haven't any other towns amended their laws to mandate apprenticeship programs?
Again.....how many of those Town Boards have a Union guy sitting on the board?
"Perticone said in his experience, most contractors — whether union or not — have apprenticeship programs"
"As an example, he points to the board’s recent award of a bid for a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system at the Pinegrove senior center building. There were six bids for the project, Perticone said, and five of the contractors who bid have approved apprenticeship programs."
So, why do you have to mandate a law about it then? If the contractors bidding already are sponsoring apprenticeship programs......why mandate it?
How will this law cut costs and create diversity?
I want numbers!!!!
Please, if you do research on it....don't let Mr. Perticone crunch the numbers....I've seen the investigation/audit from the USDOL on his accounting skills.
