Warning: If you are a student or a minor, please leave this blog NOW!
Some People Just Can’t Help Making Absolute Asses Of Themselves and Don’t Know When to Keep Their Cake Holes Flapped. Jerry Deluca is One of Those Stupid Bastids. Jerry: You Really Should Not be Quoting Anything on Ethics Nor Should You, Who Have A Glass Swimming Pool Fiasco To Your Credit, Be Throwing Stones! (Did you think about ethics when you pulled that one on the RCS residents?)
Dirty-Hands Deluca! Yuck!
You Eat With Those Hands?
That explains a lot!
If you don’t think that Jerry “Dirty-Hands” Deluca and his spouse, Cathy Long Deluca, Ms “Dirty-Hands,” have an agenda–actually, it’s the same conspiracy they were involved in before the voting–we should ask “Dirty-Hands” two questions: Jerry if you’re such an expert on “conflict of interest,” and you should be if your own record has anything to say about it, where were you when:
- Josephine O’Connor, a sitting board of education member at the time, voted to grant her husband, her spouse, tenure in the RCS CSC?
- Josephine O’Connor, a sitting board of education member at the time, voted to approve the 2012-13 budget at the 11th hour, a vote that benefitted her husband and her directly!?!
- Where were you when Josephine O’Connor, known to be a very good friend of yours, and her lackey father, Joe Tracey, were plotting to attempt to fraudulently disgrace the sitting board of education president? (No need to answer, we all know!)
- We won”t even bring up the swimming pool disaster or your possible involvement in the sale of certain town properties (see our previous article).
Well, “Dirty-Hands,” we know what your agenda was and still is: power with no accountability. You have a syndrome known as selective projection vision: You and Cathy and your mob of Coeymanazis see your own evil in everyone else, but cast a blind eye on your own criminal behavior and the despicable behavior of your fellow Coeymanazis!
We’ll call him “Dirty-Hands Deluca” for now. We’re convinced much more than his hands are dirty but for now we’ll stick to his hands, because they are really unsanitary.
Deluca made an ass of himself at the June 19th board of education meeting when he gave one of his famous open-mouth-and-insert-both-hooves, when he attempted to spread more misinformation–the guy’s non-stop–by misinterpreting Article 18 of the New York State Municipal Law, which sets forth certain baseline conflicts of interest standards that apply in every municipality in the State (except, of course, New York City). Deluca tried to read from a text explaining the notion of conflict of interest but didn’t appear to understand it entirely. Well, Betsy, perhaps in that $41 million dollar school district budget you can find some money for “Dirty-Hands” Deluca to get some remedial reading comprehension help?
We know how you must be feeling, “Dirty-Hands.” There’s $41 million dollars out there being contested–your shenanigans at the voting and your plotting and conspiracies might all fall apart if the NYSED decides there was some hanky-panky–then where will you and your Coeymanazis be? It’s understandable you’re gettting desperate and are trying anything now to get rid of the opposition and get a majority that can make all of the decisions on spending and policy that the Coeymanazis want. But Dang it! You couldn’t get rid of RK, JL, or JV…but you’re still trying! The very residents you managed to deceive are now coming out and asking, “I voted but I didn’t vote for this!” You’re certainly not going to take the blame, are you? Hell No! Fraud! (We’ll be discussing conflicts of interest and Cathy Long Deluca’s and R.J. D’Esposito’s smear campaign and disinformation on FaceBook (the Coeymanazi’s private PTO account) in Part II: Dirty-Hands! Yes, Cathy, we have copies of your messages. Stay tuned!)
Has Jerry “Dirty-Hands” Deluca opened up the door for renewed attention to his conflicts of interest and wierd operations from his so-called Deluca Public Affairs or his relationships with the Department of Environmental Conservation, or the Automotive Recyclers Association of New York (ARANY), or the Main Street Small Business Coalition, and others, which may be connected with no difficulty to his employment as a so-called “police investigator” with the Coeymans Police Department and some interesting connections with a certain local family that has been ruling the RCS community for more than 30 years! Jerry “Dirty-Hands” Deluca doesn’t have the good sense or the brains to keep the ole cake hole shut or the can of worms he opens might just be flesh eaters and he’s on the menu! (But I don’t think even the worms would accept an invitation to dine on toxic pork belly!) But, Jerry, don’t you want to come clean on your own conflicts of interest?
Careful, Jerry, Which Can You Open!
We’ll answer any questions on the real interpretation of the conflict of interest laws but first we’ll make really short work of “Dirty-Hands” Deluca’s misinformation: All the board member has to do is recuse himself from any decision-making process involving potential conflict of interest relating to a contract (a notice of claim is nota contract, stupid, and even a judicial complaint would be hard to define as being a “contract”. Dorkus maximus!). Recusal is the appropriate action . Period, Jerry!
Maybe if we didn’t have such a tainted and corrupt county district attorney’s office someone would be looking at Deluca. But we expect that the State Attorney General and, we know the Assembly, after our inquires, have been keeping tabs. You wanna explain “conflict of interest” one more time for us, Jerry? And what’s Cathy Long Deluca been up to lately? Any contracts? What’s that you were saying about “conflict of interest” and contracts and, didn’t you mention “spouse.” You are married to Cathy Long Deluca, aren’t you? That would make her your “spouse,” right? Glass swimming pools and throwing stones again? Won’t you two ever learn?
Careful with those stones, Jerry!
Now back to your leach field, Jerry…and wash your hands!
P.s. Why not help thoses two cows get a life instead of fouling the Internet with their putrid comments? Yeah! You! Comment-Trollettes.
| Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance! |
Albany NY a.k.a. Smalbany 
cookie
June 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm
I will try this again!!
Constant interference with Board actions distracts from the work that is at hand. Those causing the distractions then complain that the board isn’t getting things done! How distorted. These people were elected, they got the most votes, let them do their jobs that the majority voted them to do. Don’t like it, vote them out at the next election. In the meantime get out of the way!
Also, I watched the video of the last meeting. Not counting the public comment period and some of the dialogue between board members, when it came down to resolutions, the meeting went fairly well. When they need to get down to business, they can do it.
All of the board members need to stick it out. I am against throwing them all out, besides, what makes us think we’d have an improvement. I still respect the board of education, I am not alone. Don’t let the howling baboons bother you.
LikeLike
Fides qua Creditur
June 21, 2012 at 7:20 am
Thank you, Cookie! Well said and reality oriented. Too many people are projecting their own distorted reality, their anger, their frustration on the board and its members. While it is true that there are a couple of pervs on the board, by and large if people stop trying to trip them up and sabotage their work, they generally do a good job. Who are we, after all, to demand that they be perfect and act perfectly together.
Thanks again!
Peace!
LikeLike
Jane Doen't
June 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Fides —
Long-time reader, first time poster. 😉
To dredge up that 6-3-0 reimbursement vote of last fall… I don’t begrudge Vadney his $1700. The man was only trying to complete a project that was a long time coming. What I take issue with is he is a policy-setter. Why would he make any purchases without a purchase order? Why would he have failed to look at the approved state-contract list before making a purchase? He should know the rules because he makes the rules. Not recusing himself was a mis-step on his part.
Frankly, I’d be happy to get rid of the entire lot of the board and start fresh. Between Vadney and O’Connor’s tet-a-tet, Rodney’s failure to make any productive contributions, Luken’s questionable grasp on the english language (stiffends? funnest?) and Robbins who seems to either want to be the head of buildings/grounds or an SED rep (that guy can’t seem to get through a meeting without talking about his latest call with SED) it’s untter nonsense. While you clearly support one side, I offer that both camps have made serious errors in judgment. With repetition.
Ousting one clique will do nothing to bring the community back together. I say we get rid of them all in an attempt to get back to business.
TTFN
*Jane
LikeLike
Fides qua Creditur
June 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Welcome, Jane, and thank you for your comment!
As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, at face value, the example of the reimbursement was totally licit and fair. The circumstances surrounding the purchase and the reimbursement are not, I don’t believe, public knowledge, and I’m not fully informed so I won’t comment on those circumstances.
I do note that you attempt to be balanced in your opinion and I’m grateful to see that. But I must again say that that particular issue on the background of all else that is playing out is really picayune; it’s really so small, it should be invisible. The fact that Vadney did not recuse himself on that issue is also something that, I would agree, was a misstep, but hardly compares to some of the other rubbish that’s been played out on the pretext that “it’s for the kids.” That’s just pure undiluted bullsh-t. I hope you agree.
Vadney, from my point of view and my observations of his conduct in his official capacity is untainted. I have it from good sources that Josephine O’Connor has problems and went nutzo in terms of what she thought was said. Getting her father to escalate something to where it is now is totally bizarro! But O’Connor chose her clique and they used her and she used her father. Now where has that gotten anyone?
I’ve recieved dirt on Lukens, Robbins, Vadney, Rodney K., including from the Delucas, the Bartletts, Donna Leput-Hommel, and unamed Coeymanazis, as well as the Times Useless but have never once heard–at least to my knowledge–from Lukens, Robbins, Vadney, Rodney K. with any dirt on the Delucas, the Bartletts, Hommel, or the Coeymanazis. Why do you think that would be? Has Lukkens, Robbins, Vadney, Rodney K. publicly demanded a colleague’s resignation in public session? I’ve never heard it. They’ve been completely collaborative and civil. Now I’m not calling them saints or perfect, and I’m only telling what I have observed in the many videos of the BoE proceedings. But that’s all I have to go on at this point.
In my honest opinion, Vadney’s been set up by O’Connor is what I can clearly see to be a conspiracy. Deluca is a ringleader and tends to rally his “friends” and other misfits around him. He’s a fake and a fraud as is his paramour, Cathy Long Deluca. I found his diatribe on conflict of interest to be profoundly disgusting and you’ll get more on that on the blog. But to cite Rodney K. for not making a contribution is unfair. I’ve heard him speak up and make very good sense and he knows the community. I’m looking at Lukken’s heart not his grammar; compared to some on the board and some who were not reelected to the board, I’ll take his true heart before I’d trust their good grammar and deceitful eloquence. Robbins is a successful independent businessman, young, ambitious, and has vision. To take those gifts and to reject them because of his energy and outspokeness would be a big mistake.
Jane, there is conflict of interest and it’s coming from the very ones that are pointing the fingers. As for taking the entire BoE and lumping them together as candidates for ostracizing and banishment, that is clearly not the way to go. We have to separate the rotten apples from the good apples. We have to discern the bullsh-t from the truth and keep the latter.
What we have to do is inspire the courage in the long-time readers to become first-time commenters. Right?
Thanks again for your comment! Do it more often 😉
Peace!
LikeLike
Simon
June 20, 2012 at 10:29 am
Finally, we’re starting to agree! RECUSAL is the appropriate plan of attack here.
I refer you to page 12 of the BoE meeting minutes from September 20, 2011: http://rcscsd.org/BOE/Minutes/2011-12/110920_BOE_Minutes.pdf
In item 11.10, Mr. Vadney voted to give HIMSELF a reimbursement for supplies related to the greenhouse. Using the same measuring stick you’re trying to apply above, RECUSAL was the appropriate action for him to take, *especially* if you look at the vote count – his vote was NOT NECESSARY to pass the motion. Abstention was the appropriate action for him to take.
[Redacted]
The real crime here is that in the eventual lawsuit, the 3 employees will be indemnified. The $15M will come out of the school coffers, which if I do the math properly will amount to a 37% tax increase. Doesn’t seem like a way to keep taxes down… what will the 0%-ers cut in order to make that budget work out?
Eyes will be on whether he participates in the Executive Sessions that will be necessary to discuss this issue.
S
LikeLike
Fides qua Creditur
June 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm
First of all, Simon, you’re comparing goat turds with diamonds!
For anyone to advance an amount of money and then request reimbursement for good faith expenditures is only natural. The simple act of submitting a request for reimbursement is ipso facto a vote in favor of reimbursement! Moreover, there is no contract involved and no one is profiting from the transaction so there’s no conflict of interest. Vadney’s vote in favor of his own interest is not a conflict; moreover, whether Vadney voted in favor of the district satisfying its obligations was subject to the approval of the BoE. As the vote suggests, the Coeymanazis voted NOT to reimburse Vadney. As a father and working person, the amount is not peanuts and I see no reason why he should not have asserted his right to reimbursement. In view of the actual vote and the history of the “teachers clique” on the board, I would probably have voated in favor of my own reimbursement rather than leave it to the good will of the Coeymanazies and end up with nothing. Makes good sense in my mind. We are talking “reimbursement” here, not compensation or payment for services rendered in the sense of a contractual meeting of minds, “I’ll do this for you if you pay me this amount.” There is quite a difference. And I’d wager there would be an even greater difference if we were to know the whole story behinde the reimbursement request. No doubt and very likely it was Vadney doing an act of kindness for the district.
For the benefit of our readers, I am reproducting the text to which you refer in your comment:
“11.10 Be it resolved that upon the recommendation of the Interim Superintendent of Schools that the Board of Education approves the reimbursement in the amount of $1851.34 to John Vadney for expenses associated with the Greenhouse Project.
Motion by: Mr. Latter, seconded: Mr. Robbins
Vadney – Y Latter – N O’ Connor – N Lukens – Y Robbins – Y
Krzykowski – Y Traver – N Engel – Y Whalen – Y
Motion Approved: 6-3-0”
As you can see above, the Coeymanazis Latter, O’Connor, and Traver all voted NO. All others voted YES. (You could just as easily have pointed out Latter’s, O’Connor’s and Traver’s conduct then and their more recent conduct, rather than pointing out Vadney’s.) The motion was not brought by Vadney, in fact.
Furthermore, the Superintendent of the RCS central school district is charged with ensuring that all laws, regulations, polices, and procedures are implemented in the school district. She does this in concert with the community’s elected representatives, the members of the board of education. Furthermore, the principals at each of the schools are charged with the health, safety, and welfare of the students given into their custodianship while at school and on school grounds during the normal hours of operation. There are policies and procedures, duties and responsibilities, liabilities and authorities that go with the crowns of superintendence and principalship. Failure to satisfy those requirements in some instances amounts to negligence.
In the cases you present in your message, the school administration failed in their responsibilities and put young people at risk; in fact, one young man was attacked and injured.
The agravating circumstance was that the parent of the young person who was injured actually called to advise the administrators that she felt that extraordinary vigilance would be in order owing to the extraordinary circumstances at the time. The school apparently was negligent and the result was assault and battery and injury of the student. Substantiall preventable had the school administration not been negligent.
You’re also missing the point in any lawsuit. A lawsuit is brought because there is not a meeting of minds (hence no contract), there is loss or injury as the result of one of the parties’ negligence or misconduct, called fault, or there is a question of law that needs to be clarified. A lawsuit does not necessarily mean money will change hands; in fact, $1 is sometimes awarded to symbolize that the plaintiff made his or her point and the court agrees.
You appear to be lamenting the fact that the school administrators, who were in immediate and direct control of the situation and had the power and authority to prevent not only the assault and battery but also the alleged urging by irresponsible teachers like Matt “the Mutt” Miller, who allegedly pointed out a student as being somehow connected with the notorious blogger, are being called to answer for their negligence.
The residents of the RCS central school district hired those people to do specific jobs and they let the residents down. This is not the only time it has happened. There are numerous other complaints and settlements that have been brought. Other lawsuits, too. It’s about time the residents woke up and smelled the leach field in their backyard!
And whose fault is it that the negligent bastards are indemnified? (Similar to the case of the police who can do anything with impunity because they don’t have to shoulder the consequences.) They must be made accountable and being made accountable means that they have to share some of the cost of their misconduct and negligence. If the taxpayers don’t like paying for their teachers’ and administrators’ misconduct and negligence, let them change the system. It can be done quite easily.
It will all come out when the training and policy/procedures are subpoenaed and someone has to answer why people were not trained and why policies and procedures were not implemented.
But any parent who would do any less under these circumstances would be unworthy to have custody of an infant!
Moreover, what was done to Vadney by the Coeymanazis through that sociopath Josephine O’Connor and her drug-riddled father was nothing less than a conspiracy! My take on that is simple: Sue the crap out of them and send O’Connor and Tracey to county jails for fraud, false instrument; put those Coeymans cops and the part-timers from the Albany County Sheriff’s department out of business (talk about conflict of interest!) and sue the crap out of the Town of Coeymans!
It’s about time someone had the balls to take all of those incompetents and crooks to task!
Peace!
LikeLike
Simon
June 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I don’t want to being up old issues. My point is not if he should have been reimbursed. The entire point was moot when the BoE approved the reimbursement as dictated by their overpriced attorney.
My point is if we’re going to start criticizing conflicts of interest and morality, we have to also pay attention to the *IMAGE* that there MAY be impropriety going on. Sometimes the inkling that something may be going on is in fact worse than if someone just went and took money.
I have no issues with holding professionals accountable.
There are other items which I would take issue with (such as “act of kindness” – – if I go mow the schools lawn as an “act of kindness”, that in itself doesn’t enable me to put in for compensation unless I had *prior approval* to mow said lawn), but most are an issue of semantics and point of view.
LikeLike
Fides qua Creditur
June 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm
I would point out that it was you, Simon, who brought up an old issue in the first place. We merely responded to your example.
And yes, things are frequently not as they appear; that’s the entire point of this blog. You have the Coeymanazis who “appear” to be interested in the common good but are lunatics at best and criminals by nature. Then you have the appearances that are created for the benefit of the unwashed masses who would rather have you spoon feed them kitty litter and believe they’re getting chocolate mousse! That’s what we’re dealing with, too. With well stage-managed smoke screens and the bells and whistles, and good make-up and costumes, even a turd can be made to look like a French pastry! That’s what we’re dealing with here. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear if they use those sense organs in conjuction with a brain that’s even half functional can tell or even already knows there’s impropriety; most people can smell cat shit and don’t need to be told it’s cat shit. But many need you to draw them a picture. The point I feel that needs to be made is that the picture must be accurate in its details and not abstract or misrepresentative of nature.
What I do object to, however, is the stupidity and the scapegoating. The board of education is made up of 9 persons, not one or two! The president is a one-point-contact for organizational purposes and has the same power and authority as each of the others has. So why does one member catch all the crap? Tell me that? Tell me why one member who is uniformly courteous and civil has to be disrespected, falsely accused, lambasted, abused while the real villains and scoundrels are allowed to smirk and to gloat?
Everyone has the right to make a public statement, Simon, but some really should keep their cake holes shut. Or they should be booed off the floor and then lynched! Just like they lynch others.
While you may feel it’s merely a matter of semantics when I use the phrase “act of kindness.” It’s not. You are describing a volunteer, charitable service in mowing the school lawn–something that would likely be compensated–so I’d like to change the locale to the church lawn, if you don’t mind. An “act of kindness” my also be a charitable act done without compensation but can also be an act like picking up the groceries for the senior citizen down the street. You don’t buy the groceries for the geezer, he pays for them, but you pick them up for him. Another instance would be to purchase necessary materials for a job and being reimbursed for the materials but doing the job for free. I hope that clarifies it for you.
Peace!
LikeLike
Simon
June 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm
One is lamented because one is the selected representative, and has not done anything other than read a canned disclaimer before public comments to attempt to restore order.
This circumstance is not his alone; many BoE presidents have suffered the same situation. The only difference is he’s there now; we’ll have the same issue with whomever is after him.
S
LikeLike
Fides qua Creditur
June 20, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Yes. He is the selected representative and people should be able to deal with that fact.
A second point is, whether the disclaimer is canned or not, it’s truly a shame that the public has to be formally reminded to be civil and respectful at each and every meeting. It’s truly disturbing to note that even after being reminded formally before each meeting how quickly they forget, and relapse into their old savage ways!
DUH!
LikeLike