Love/Hate Relationships

It seems that CERTAIN people of the Democrat persuasion, have a love/hate relationship going on within their own heads over the FEPC.

It has to do with playing politics, what they think is good for the town, and the Fair Election Practices Committee.

Playing politics - Aldersley and Perticone (and MJD) complain that there is too much partisanship and political bickering in town, and it's not good for the town. But then, Aldersley (who didn't even sign the fair election practices committee's pledge to adhere to such high standards) filed a complaint against Moore and Nottell.......for the report card ads that Barone puts in the I-Post every year.



Funny, I don't remember anyone complaining when Barone put in ads against Schantz, Dzus and Turner, or MEH, Bello, & Evans.   Why didn't MEH, Bello, & Evans have to repudiate Barone's ads against Schantz?   Why didn't Aldersley and Perticone denounce the attack ads that Barone had against Dzus?   Why didn't MJD say "Hold on here Irondequoit - I repudiate the false ads against MEH, Evans, and Bello!" when Barone had the report cards on them in 2009?

So - why do Moore and Nottell have to do that?

Weren't all the Democrats supposed to boycott the FEPC because Joe Morelle said they were unfair, inconsistent, unorganized, and not bi-partisan? But now, the FEPC is magnificent in their interpretation of an ad that the two Republican candidates had NOTHING to do with?

If that isn't using the FEPC as a tool for playing politics just before Election Day.......I don't know what is. Hence the "love/hate" relationship that the Dems have with the FEPC.

Here is the article that appeared on the D&C website today.

Snippet from the article dealing with the ruling in Irondequoit:

"In the Irondequoit Town Board race, Democratic candidates Stephanie Aldersley and John Perticone complained about an advertisement in the Irondequoit Post paid for by the group Irondequoit Citizens for better Government. Aldersley and Perticone are running against Republicans Robert E. Moore and Robert J. Nottell.

The ad claimed, among other things, that Aldersley and Perticone opposed the right to vote, voted to give away tax dollars to the Sea Breeze Water Authority, voted to close the Irondequoit Senior Center, violated the open meetings law, and voted to spend tax money in a secret meeting.  

The committee found that the ad violated the Fair Campaign Pledge because the pledge calls on candidates to "publically repudiate any individual or group whose activities on my campaign's behalf (directly or indirectly) violate this campaign pledge." 

The committee said the ad also violates the pledge, which prohibits the use of quotations or images out of context to misrepresent the other candidates' message."


 I don't believe that Barone's ad is an "activity on" Moore and Nottell's "campaign behalf". Nowhere in any of the ads does it say to "vote for" Moore and Nottell - it just complains about the job that Aldersley and Perticone have done.

Let's look at the report cards that were in this week's I-Post from Barone:

Let's look at the claims in the ad and compare it to what really happened.

In the "Their Record" ad about Aldersley & Perticone:

Aldersley opposed the right of Town Residents to vote for a choice of candidates. I wouldn't have used the word "opposed", I would have used the word "denied". She did, as did Perticone and MJD, deny the residents of a choice in the election by working a deal with party leaders to run unopposed on a unified slate. Aldersley's actions towards the cross endorsement does not necessarily mean she opposed the right of residents to have a choice - her actions denied the residents a choice. I think denying them a choice is worse than just opposing it. I oppose alcohol - but I don't deny anyone the choice of drinking it.  

Voted to violate NY State Open Meetings Law - Held a meeting closed to the public and voted/discussed/spent public moneys in violation of law based on information from Robert Freeman , Director of NY State official Committee on Open Government. They did vote to go into executive session after Aldersley made the motion to approve the inter fund transfers (which included cash to SBWD) at the 12/21/2010 meeting, it was unanimously approved, and right after that they went into executive session.

You can see that from the meeting minutes here on page 8. After that resolution was unanimously approved - they went into executive session to discuss "concerns of real estate transactions and potential litigation."

You can also see from the December 21, 2010 TB Meeting video, that at the 2:08:10 mark of the video, the resolution is announced to authorize fund loans to cover financial obligations of stated funds in the attachment that the board had in front of them (the attachment is also in the above link to the meeting minutes) - they don't mention that SBWD is one of the funds, and the loan amount they need is $110,000 - but Aldersley makes the motion, Essley seconds it - Annie talks about the loans - there is a small amount of discussion, MJD says "We will all get through this together" - and they all vote "Aye" to approve the fund transfers.

Then, at the 2:10 mark of the video they vote to go into executive session to discuss "real estate transactions and potential litigation" (which may be against the open meetings law, I have to check).......but the point is - they voted on the loan transfers BEFORE the executive session - not during the executive session.

I don't know what was discussed in the executive session at that meeting, but the board voted to spend public money on inter fund transfers BEFORE the executive session.....so I don't know how they violated the Open Meetings Law on that one. 


Voted to give away tax money - money given to a separate corporation with no interest and no obligation/schedule to pay it back.

According to those meeting minutes, they all did - so that is a true statement.  

Voted for $18,000/mo. rent/close senior center and pay $250,000 to improve landlord property - 1,950 residents signed petition and 5,000 residents voted and Aldersley's vote was overturned.

This is all true. Aldersley did vote to move the senior center to Kings Park which would have cost $18,000 a month and they were going to spend $250,000 to improve the landlord's property - this was all voted on and is documented on this blog and in their meeting minutes - and all those residents did sign the petition to FORCE the town board FOR THE RIGHT to vote on the issue (boy, she really likes to deny residents the chance to vote or have choices, doesn't she?) and their vote was overturned by permissive referendum.  

Ignored the Town's Master Plan regarding proposed rezoning Titus Ave residential area to Commercial apartments and allowed the developer a 30 minute special hearing without notice to or allowing Town residents to speak.

True again. The Master Plan does say that area is to remain R1 residential, and the Town Code states that anything less that 5 acres of net buildable area can't be approved for R7 zoning. Aldersley has not brought up that point (Marasco did) about the "less than 5 acres" - and she approved of the Planning Board deciding on whether a rezoning can be done. She sat at the workshop where the developer was able to speak for 30 minutes, and the residents are not allowed to speak at workshops - so she did allow it.  

Failed to properly oversee town finances - NY State Comptrollers audit showed improper transfers of town moneys in the hundreds of thousands of dollars This is true also. The audit covered Aldersley's and Perticone's time on the board, and the illegal activities occurred while they were on the board. The Audit shows it quite clearly.  

False public statements - "We can't expand the Town's Senior Center since we only own a few feet around the building".

Um, Totally true. But, she actually said, "We don't own any more than just the building and five feet of land around it." In reference to expanding, or getting more parking. Which then that statement by her was proven totally false by the deed to the property....you can read about that here, and see the deed.  

"We only discussed the loan/transfer to SBWD in (secret) Executive Session."

I believe this was stated by Aldersley during a board meeting on October 18th, 2011. At the 38:37 mark of the video she asks for some time to reply to some of the comments made during public input....one of which was the SBWD funds. At the 38:57 mark she speaks about how they went into executive session and discussed ONLY the SBWD finances, but this was dealing with the $88,000 that happened in September 2011 - she said "Certainly in the Executive Session prior to forwarding $88,000 to the water authority budget, we discussed ONLY the water authority. No other funds were discussed during that meeting. So the amount of funds that the decision was made in that meeting (*executive session*) was only the water authority budget." 

The "decision was made in that meeting" - to transfer that money to the SBWD budget - which, according to the Committee on Open Government says: they can't have a formal vote during executive session to transfer those funds. They discussed it during executive session, they all decided to transfer the money (which I suppose you could spin to say it was a formal vote)....but then they voted on the resolution in front of the public after executive session to appropriate those funds. MJD even says after executive session that they went into it to discuss the financial situation of a "certain corporation" - you can view the video of the September 8th, 2011 TBM where they unanimously approve the transfer of the funds to the SBWD, by a formal vote in front of the public.

Barone ad claims about Perticone:

The same as Aldersley's except for:  

In Favor of giving special treatment to union contractors on bids for town construction projects.

This is true. He brought the Apprenticeship Law to the Board for a resolution to approve the change in Town Law - to mandate that only shops with apprenticeship programs in place are able to bid on town projects. You can read all about that on this blog under "apprenticeship" label. It would have discriminated against local business owners who have done work for the town in the past, but cannot enroll his company in the apprenticeship program because NYS does not offer one for his line of work - and he had done numerous jobs in town in the past. Perticone lobbied for it, and when MEH wanted to postpone the vote to gather more information, Perticone said he had all the information he needed and didn't need more time. Fact.  

Investigated by Federal Government for violations of Federal Rules for spending the union members' money in the tens of thousands of dollars when Perticone was the business agent for the union.

This is true as well. Read the USDOL's report. Three years ago he was investigated for his shoddy record keeping, and violations.

So, I'm not sure how the ads that Barone paid for with his Citizens For Better Government 501c thingy has ANYTHING at all to do with Moore and Nottell, who do not belong to the CFBG group as far as I know, and had no knowledge of Barone's intentions to put those in the paper.  Also, nowhere in the ads does it say to vote for Moore and Nottell - just that there is a choice with them on the Republican line and no choices for Supervisor, and Judge.  Confusing to me also is that NOW the FEPC is worthy of praise on the IDC website, when their party chairman consistently calls for a boycott of the FEPC - did they all of a sudden become fair, consistent, and bi-partisan? 

Here's another thing I'm confused about - Stephanie Aldersley paying for an ad...when she has not filed anything with the NYSBOE for campaign finance since 2009?

Here's the ad:

Here's a good one: It's Carbone's Ad - but at the bottom is a glowing endorsement from MJD, which means she isn't endorsing Vinnie - who carried petitions for her cross endorsement unified slate - but is now playing politics by endorsing his opponent.

Here is Moore and Nottell's ad - nothing personal against anyone and just plainly stating what they stand for.