|
|
Post by Clipper on May 27, 2011 10:05:40 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/blogs/x1836098934/Comptroller-position-would-take-power-from-New-Hartford-Town-BoardIs this a bad thing?  I have read over the last couple of days about the board's decision not to restore the position of comptroller to the town government. I see that the board's main objection to the plan is that it would take away the spending authority of the board, leaving the comptroller in charge of paying the bills, and auditing the expenditures of other town officials. Duh! Sounds like a wonderful idea to me. I don't live in NH, but there is always turmoil and discontent surrounding the town and it's finances. Sounds like they simply want to protect their ability to spend at THEIR discretion, right or wrong, and with or without political motivation rather than intelligent financial sense. Corruption veiled in, and defended by indignation possibly? How about it New Hartford taxpayers? How does this effect you and what is YOUR opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on May 27, 2011 12:38:22 GMT -5
Its all about checks and balances. If nobody is minding the Comptroller, which had happened before, then who knows where the money goes. Just ask Earle Reed..... But if nobody is watching the Board, same thing. There should be written policies where a comptroller exists in conjunction with the board. Major expenditures and contractual agreements should be up for Board votes and day to day operations left to the Comptroller or other fiscal officer. Transparency is the key here. I don't see a problem with having that position, but there has to be set guidelines on what they can and cannot do without Board approval. Being in a non-profit myself, I can understand this a bit. All of the board members have a duty and obligation to review financial reports and statements regularly. The Board Treasurer especially, to ensure the accuracy of them.
Transparency. This should not be about politics, it should be about the wise use of the public money and being accountable to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lioneljoe on May 28, 2011 4:51:33 GMT -5
I'm glad the motion was defeated. It was just another attempt by Pat Tyksinski to pass the buck of responsibility and to set up an additional layer between the taxpayers and their government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 28, 2011 9:12:47 GMT -5
Well, thanks for the input. I was actually under the impression that it would bring MORE accountability to the board and more transparency to the taxpayers. Reading your posts and remembering Earle Reed, I have a little different opinion. I don't live in NH but I darn sure have read enough about their less than desirable politics, and all about the business park and all the controversy surrounding it. I simply bring it to the forum for the purpose of stimulating discussion by those of you that DO live in that area, and to learn more of what the residents of the area think about their situation. I was under the impression, reading from afar that Tysinski was an improvement over the past players.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 28, 2011 10:08:00 GMT -5
I thought that one of the problems during the Reed administration was that there was no comptroller which eliminated a lot of checks and balances.
|
|
|
|
Post by realist13413 on May 28, 2011 15:45:49 GMT -5
From what I gather, the comptroller's position takes some oversight away from the board. They would no longer be looking over and approving specific bills, just "abstracts." There's been too much hanky panky in general for me - as a tax payer - to feel comfortable with even less transparency and accountability than there is right now.
I don't think Earle and Pat are that far apart - both seem to have their own agenda's and their own "people" to push that agenda forward. I find the town board particularly amusing. They've been there during both administrations, approving it all, and then when new revelations surface they act they're utterly shocked. They ALL need to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 28, 2011 16:37:52 GMT -5
Without getting into individual personalities, we need to have a professional person doing the books, with an independent audit function of that person's work. Look at how badly the town finances got messed up when the comptroller position was eliminated.
The town board should have a funtion of setting budgets & creating accounts, creating policies for disbursements with proper checks & balances, assuring that audits are done in a timely and proper manner. Having them approve individual checks seems over the top.
Would we have to wait for a town board meeting before a new case of copy paper could be purchased or a repair part be ordered for a snowplow?
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on May 28, 2011 20:30:06 GMT -5
What you do not need is a Town Supervisor or a Town Board that want to micromanage everything. At some point, there has to be a delegation of duties. Independent financial audits should always be occuring, moreso with a governing body since it is the taxpayer's money on the line. During the entire Earle Reed administration, I am still scratching my head where were the financials and where was the Board? I mean, who was writing budgets during those years without looking at actual income and expenditures? Was anybody looking at real figures or were they all asleep? Sorry, I am having a hard time buying that NOBODY noticed all the money being lost over close to 4 years. Either nobody was paying attention, which is neglecting one's duties, or somebody was cooking the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 31, 2011 6:47:02 GMT -5
Tysinski wants a comptroller who he can appoint and control to make sure the friends and family he wants paid get paid. He has tried to have town taxpayers pay for overages relating to the failed business park. Twice now, tysinski has proposed the board to pay schumaker's bill for the extra EIS studies that were necessary to complete the business park. Adler is the rightful person to pay these overages as per the agreement he and reed reached. However, Adler does not want to pay it, and since he contributed to tysinski's campaign, it is no surprise tysinski is hellbent on making the tax payers pay for adler's mistakes. By adding the comptroller's office, would add another level of government to conceal this exact type of politicking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 31, 2011 6:51:20 GMT -5
What you do not need is a Town Supervisor or a Town Board that want to micromanage everything. At some point, there has to be a delegation of duties. Independent financial audits should always be occuring, moreso with a governing body since it is the taxpayer's money on the line. During the entire Earle Reed administration, I am still scratching my head where were the financials and where was the Board? I mean, who was writing budgets during those years without looking at actual income and expenditures? Was anybody looking at real figures or were they all asleep? Sorry, I am having a hard time buying that NOBODY noticed all the money being lost over close to 4 years. Either nobody was paying attention, which is neglecting one's duties, or somebody was cooking the books. Enter carol fairbrother, who received an unlawful $72k in overtime that she is not legally entitled to. Make no mistake, it was hush money! |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on May 31, 2011 10:15:27 GMT -5
What you do not need is a Town Supervisor or a Town Board that want to micromanage everything. At some point, there has to be a delegation of duties. Independent financial audits should always be occuring, moreso with a governing body since it is the taxpayer's money on the line. During the entire Earle Reed administration, I am still scratching my head where were the financials and where was the Board? I mean, who was writing budgets during those years without looking at actual income and expenditures? Was anybody looking at real figures or were they all asleep? Sorry, I am having a hard time buying that NOBODY noticed all the money being lost over close to 4 years. Either nobody was paying attention, which is neglecting one's duties, or somebody was cooking the books. Enter carol fairbrother, who received an unlawful $72k in overtime that she is not legally entitled to. Make no mistake, it was hush money! I have to agree with that. Who voted to approve her payout? Something very fishy in NH. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 6, 2011 7:15:10 GMT -5
earl reed, and everyone on the town board, including chrinta krupa and dave reynolds.
|
|
|
|
Post by lioneljoe on Jun 6, 2011 17:43:43 GMT -5
The $72K payout to Fairbrother is one of the reasons why the Concerned Citizens took Earle and the Gang to court. As for Fairbrother, I FOILed the documents from the town and New York State. The documents clearly show, she did not resign when she retired on June 1 , 2007, she did not edn her public employment as required by NY State Retirement Law. The town did not rehire her, nor did they put out a public notice that her position was open.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 6, 2011 17:46:09 GMT -5
Sounds like she is in the same class that the guy in Rome was that was convicted of fraud for pretty much the same offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 7, 2011 6:49:19 GMT -5
It is EXACTLY like that ex-Rome officer. But because fairbrother, reed, and the rest of the nh town board contributed to the da's campaign, no prosecutions will be held.
|
|
