Remember, back in March, I did a blog about a page that was found in the copier at Town Hall? This one.
I finally got a hold of the rest of the pages,
Showing posts with label e-mails. Show all posts
Showing posts with label e-mails. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Fee Foil Fo' Medley
A while ago, I put up a FOI about the attorney and engineering fees associated with the Medley Centre from 2007 to present.
Apparently, there were no documents to show fees
Apparently, there were no documents to show fees
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Day 41 On Fees Related To Medley Foil
I don't know, and I have no explanation for, why it would take 41 days to provide some sort of time frame for when this FOI request would be ready - as within the FOI laws. I also don't know why
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Hand-Outs From Mr. Ament At TB Meeting On 4/16
These were papers that Mr. Ament handed out at the TB meeting on Thursday. There are estimates from him, and e-mails between him and the Supervisor, and Board Members.
To read the rest....please click on "read more below the fold". Thanks!
To read the rest....please click on "read more below the fold". Thanks!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Town Attorney Takes On FOI Requests.......
Wayyyyyyyy back on February 11th, I did a blog about a FOI request regarding e-mails between Tim Poley and the Supervisor and Town Board. It was stated on a couple of invoices that there were e-mail exchanges concerning Kings Park. You can read all of the FOI information (from January) by clicking here. (Please notice that on the documents that are labeled "Purchase Order & Claim Voucher" - "temporary" is xxx'd out. The Senior Center wasn't going to be a "temporary" move.)
The two invoices that mention e-mails are below:
A FOI request was sent in for the e-mails. It was denied because there "are no e-mails from Tim Poley for the time requested."
The resident asked that the Supervisor sign off on this, because the invoice states that there were e-mails, but the denial states that there are no e-mails from Tim Poley.
Apparently, the Town Attorney feels it is necessary to "cover" for the Supervisor, and is taking the blame for not getting back to the resident sooner, and questions why the need for a "sign off" on this denial. It's a pretty simple FOI request. There are invoices. On those invoices are stated general e-mail between Tim Poley and the Supervisor and Town Board. Those are the e-mails that are being foiled.
That is the "scope". Two invoices stating e-mails, those e-mails are being requested. I'm sure if it were three invoices, it would be a hat-trick, and much easier to find them.....right, Mr. Malgieri?
Here are the e-mails on this simple subject. (Guess sunshine week is over?)
The two invoices that mention e-mails are below:
A FOI request was sent in for the e-mails. It was denied because there "are no e-mails from Tim Poley for the time requested."
The resident asked that the Supervisor sign off on this, because the invoice states that there were e-mails, but the denial states that there are no e-mails from Tim Poley.
Apparently, the Town Attorney feels it is necessary to "cover" for the Supervisor, and is taking the blame for not getting back to the resident sooner, and questions why the need for a "sign off" on this denial. It's a pretty simple FOI request. There are invoices. On those invoices are stated general e-mail between Tim Poley and the Supervisor and Town Board. Those are the e-mails that are being foiled.
That is the "scope". Two invoices stating e-mails, those e-mails are being requested. I'm sure if it were three invoices, it would be a hat-trick, and much easier to find them.....right, Mr. Malgieri?
Here are the e-mails on this simple subject. (Guess sunshine week is over?)
Apology?
This was forwarded to me, and I'm not a fan of "forwarded" e-mails only because I don't trust that they are "real". I have it from a good source though, that this is the "real deal".
It is refreshing that a Board Member takes the responsibility of correcting a mistake by apologizing for it. I respect that. I wish more government officials were like that. I wish it was a more "public" apology than an e-mail, but....hey...beggars can't be choosers, right? :)
I find it surprising (not really) that there has been no such apology from the Supervisor, or Councilwoman Aldersley for their public misinformation. Contrary to what the Supervisor states, the Town has not "always claimed" they own 1.89 acres at Pinegrove. I have not seen it in print anywhere but on their Town Website, buried in a paragraph in the middle of more information about CDBG, Senior Center, and Kings Park information. It wasn't stated on the video, that the Supervisor put out (paid for by the taxpayers mind you), in any articles where she was quoted about the room to expand at Pinegrove, or in her "facts sheet".
There have been a few instances where people have incorrectly referenced something during public input, and the Supervisor corrects them. I can click on any of the YouTube links on the right hand side of the page here, and during any given meeting, the Supervisor corrects anyone who states incorrect information.
The Supervisor has never corrected anyone during public input, or Town Board Member Aldersley at a Town Board meeting, when they claimed that the Town only owns 5 ft. around the building. Not once.
I think Supervisor Heyman and Councilwoman Aldersley owe the residents an apology for their misinformation.
I doubt it will happen.
At least one board member "did the right thing". Too bad about being given incorrect information and was never told the correct information until a resident produced the deed to the property, that I'm sure they all had a look at during some point in time the past 3 or 4 years.......
It is refreshing that a Board Member takes the responsibility of correcting a mistake by apologizing for it. I respect that. I wish more government officials were like that. I wish it was a more "public" apology than an e-mail, but....hey...beggars can't be choosers, right? :)
I find it surprising (not really) that there has been no such apology from the Supervisor, or Councilwoman Aldersley for their public misinformation. Contrary to what the Supervisor states, the Town has not "always claimed" they own 1.89 acres at Pinegrove. I have not seen it in print anywhere but on their Town Website, buried in a paragraph in the middle of more information about CDBG, Senior Center, and Kings Park information. It wasn't stated on the video, that the Supervisor put out (paid for by the taxpayers mind you), in any articles where she was quoted about the room to expand at Pinegrove, or in her "facts sheet".
There have been a few instances where people have incorrectly referenced something during public input, and the Supervisor corrects them. I can click on any of the YouTube links on the right hand side of the page here, and during any given meeting, the Supervisor corrects anyone who states incorrect information.
The Supervisor has never corrected anyone during public input, or Town Board Member Aldersley at a Town Board meeting, when they claimed that the Town only owns 5 ft. around the building. Not once.
I think Supervisor Heyman and Councilwoman Aldersley owe the residents an apology for their misinformation.
I doubt it will happen.
At least one board member "did the right thing". Too bad about being given incorrect information and was never told the correct information until a resident produced the deed to the property, that I'm sure they all had a look at during some point in time the past 3 or 4 years.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)