Link Red-StaterWisdoms

Red-StaterWisdoms explores the differences between the Red and Blue states on social, personal and political issues.

My Photo
Name:
Location: New York

Monday, May 16, 2005

Town Board Meeting-May 10, 2005

TOWN OF LINDLEY REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 10TH, 2005

CALL TO ORDER: HAROLD SEMPLE 7:05 PM
PRESENT: SUPERVISOR-HAROLD SEMPLE
COUNCILMAN- PAUL STERMER
COUNCILMAN-PAUL MORTZHEIM
COUNCILMAN-GERRY SIMCOE
COUNCILMAN-JAKE GROSS
TOWN CLERK- DIANA L. HILL
HIGHWAY SUPT. - RICHARD JOHNSON
DAVE FULLER- CODE ENFORCEMENT


PUBLIC COMMENT

JOHN KUEHN FROM SPRAGUE INSURANCE – EXPLAINED IN DETAIL, THE INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR 2005-2006 WITH THE TOWN BOARD. THE PREMIUM TOTAL IS $15,866.50; IT IS UP $406.48 FROM LAST YEAR. (NYMIR).

A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE 2005-2006 NYMIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
MOTIONED BY: PAUL MORTZHEIM 2ND BY: PAUL STERMER
PAUL S-YES, GERRY-YES, JAKE-YES, PAUL M-YES CARRIED

REPORTS:

IT IS NOTED THAT A MONTHLY REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN SUPERVISOR, & THE TOWN CLERK, & HIGHWAY DEPT. & TOWN HISTORIAN & CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2005: COPIES ARE ON FILE IN THE TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE.

COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD:

DAVID FULLER-CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- TOLD THE TOWN BOARD, MR. MATTISON’S CAR WAS REMOVED. HAVE BEEN WORKING ON JUNK CARS IN TOWN.
ALSO MUST HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT WHEN YOU GIVE A TICKET TO ANYONE, SO THE NEXT STEP CAN BE TO GET, A WARRANT FOR THE PERSON ARREST. (IF THEY FAIL TO SHOW FOR A TICKET).

JAKE ASKED ABOUT GARDINER’S PLACE. (NO ONE IS ANSWERING THE DOOR).

ALVIN SCHOONOVER: ASKED ABOUT MICKEY HEFFNER’S PLACE, AS IT STILL LOOKS THE SAME AS IT DID, WHEN HE LEFT FOR FLORDIA IN NOVEMBER 2004.
WERE ANY TICKETS ISSUED? DAVE REPLIED YES, BUT THEY DIDN’T APPEAR FOR THERE COURT DATE.
MUST WORK TOGETHER WITH THE TOWN OF CATON’S CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND THEIR JUSTICE, TO GET SOMETHING DONE. AS OF RIGHT NOW THE JOB IS NOT GETTING DONE.


HAROLD INFORMED THE TOWN BOARD THERE IS A WORKSHOP TUEDSAY MAY 17TH, HERE AT THE TOWN HALL. FOR THE SALT BUILDING (HAGER’S ENGINEERING).

HAROLD GAVE DICK A HIGHWAY SCHEDULE FOR THE MEN TO KEEP TRACK OF THEIR SICK DAYS, PERSONAL DAYS, VACATIONS, AND TIME OFF. SO THAT THE TOWN BOARD VAN HAVE SOME IDEA OF THE SCHEDULING.

JAKE GROSS- LOOKED AT THE GANG MILLS SALT SHED. JAKE PRESENTED THE TOWN BOARD WITH A WORK SHEET OF THE COST & SIZE. SO THE TOWN BOARD CAN REVIEW BEFORE THE WORK SHOP ON TUESDAY MAY 17TH.

COMMUNICATIONS:

DOT- SENT A NOTICE OF ORDER- TO CHANGE THE SPEED TO 35 MPH ON WELTY HILL ROAD FROM THE SCOTT RD. TO POINT 0.3+/- MILES EAST. (IMMEDIATLEY) &
30 MPH ON SCOTT RD. FROM COUNTY ROUTE 73 TO THE TOWN LINE, A DISTANCE OF 0.73 +/- MILES. (IMMEDIATLEY) & 45 MPH ON WELTY HILL ROAD FROM A POINT 0.3+/- MILES EAST OF THE SCOTT ROAD/WELTY HILL ROAD INTERSECTION TO RYERS CREEK ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 2.34 +/- MILES. (IMMDEIATELY).
2. HAKES GRAVEL (SAVONA SAND & GRAVEL INC.) MUST FIND OUT WHICH IS FOR TRUCKING THE GRAVEL?
3. PUBLIC SERVICE: THE MATTER OF RULES & REGUALTIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSSION REGARDING CABLE.
4. TELECONFRENCE: MAY 23RD, ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SEE HAROLD IF WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND.
5. LINDLEY-PRESHO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAS INVITED THE TOWN BOARD TO ATTEND A MEMORIAL DEDICATION CEREMONY. IN CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF AMMON TITUS. DATE IS MAY 26, 2005; TIME IS 10:00AM.

VOUCHERS

VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED AS FOLLOWS:

HIGHWAY FUND ABSTRACT # 5 VOUCHERS
GENERAL FUND ABSTRACT#5 VOUCHERS

A MOTION TO PAY BILLS:
MOTIONED BY PAUL STERMER SECONED BY: GERRY SIMCOE
PAUL M-YES, JAKE-UES, GERRY-YES, PAUL S-YES CARRIED

AUDITED THE SUPERVISOR’S BOOK

ADJOURMENT

MOTION FOR ADJOURMENT OF THE LINDLEY TOWN BOARD MEETING AT 8:45PM.
MOTIONED BY PAUL MORTZHEIM SECONDED BY: GERRY
PAUL S-YES, GERRY-YES, JAKE-YES, PAUL M-YES CARRIED


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,


DIANA L HILL
LINDLEY TOWN CLERK DATED: MAY 13, 2005

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:26 PM  
Anonymous Sallyann said...

To anonymous: I bleeped your comment, even though your point was legitimate, because you targeted a specific individual who does not hold public office. Those in public office are “fair game” so to speak when it comes to “pithy” comments on this blog. Public officials should be held accountable for the decisions they make in office, an ordinary citizen should not, for he/she is practicing the First Amendment…freedom of speech. Any citizen has the right to go before a government body and express his or her opinions. If the governing body decides in favor of said citizen’s appeal, and you oppose that decision, then your beef should be with the governing body for obliging the individual’s request. I am not suppressing your right of freedom of speech on this blog. I am, however, suggesting you re-write your comment, but this time, frame your points of contention around “the decision made by the governing body” rather than with a specific citizen who is only exercising their constitutional rights.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Old Professor said...

I read anonymouses comment before you bleeped it and I agree with what he or she said. I also agree with your reasons for bleeping the comment. In a small town we must respect each othre's activism if it generally benefits the town as a whole. I'm not sure in this case that it did and thats why I agreed with anonymous.I'm assuming you would rather have comments directed at issues or the town board's desicions rather than individuals. Would there ever be a case where you would allow readers to comment on an individuals actions?

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Sallyann said...

Regarding the question “Would there ever be a case when you would allow readers to comment on an individual's actions?"

I thought long and hard on how to answer this question and came up with a “policy” when I would allow readers to comment about specific individuals. An example: A few years ago I was involved in a “dog problem” here in town. A Lindley citizen’s dog/s were getting out and terrorizing a neighborhood. I was asked by a town official to “oversee” the problem and try to resolve it according to Town Law. This required me working with the Dog Warden. Had the blog been up and running at that time, I would have allowed readers to comment specifically on all parties involved, myself included, because the issue centered on two factors: one being the fact that town officials were involved, and secondly, the fact that there was a “good neighbor” ethic at the heart of the problem.

The dog situation gave rise to many issues and points of view that were worth discussing. Generally, it would have been an opportunity to discuss Town Law and neighbor responsibility.

If an individual‘s actions or lack of, impact the town, and are specifically related to “official town business” as in the case of zoning issues and Town Law, then I would allow a discussion on the blog as long as the comments were respectful and didn’t resort to “name calling.” To simplify it: If a person’s name can be mentioned in a Town Board meeting or a Planning Board meeting, “the ISSUE that caused their name to come up can be discussed on the blog.”

I hope this answers the question. Please let me know what you think concerning this matter.

11:09 AM  
Anonymous generic cialis 20mg said...

In principle, a good happen, support the views of the author

2:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home