RSS

Monthly Archives: October 2018

New Baltimore’s Halloween “Kripple-a-Kid” Program

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

When trick-or-treating in the National Historic District of New Baltimore, both parents and kids have to move very carefully to prevent injury, thanks to the Town of New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department. They’re the real witches and goblins you have to watch out for, and they’re paid with taxpayer money. That’s the real evil curse.

Better watch your step! The New Baltimore Highway Department is out to catch you!
Be afraid! Very afraid!

Or so the greeting goes. Some towns and villages have library programs, others have community Halloween parties, others still have dunking for apples and cider and doughnuts.In New Baltimore the scene is much grimmer: The Town of New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department features an annual “Kripple-a-Kid” program. Here’s how it works: Each year during the Spring and Summer months, the New Baltimore Highway Department do what they call  “roadwork”, which in reality is a bunch of Neanderthals driving dump trucks and standing leaning on shovels watching the low-man-on-the-totem doing the shoveling, that is, digging holes. Part of the program is to create hazards which apparently are designed to catch adults, cause accidents, and ruin private property.

CAUTION – CUIDADO
Resident on New Street in New Baltimore Hamlet had to cordon off their front entrance to prevent injuries to trick or treaters.

But each Halloween, when the trick-or-treaters are making their rounds, some of the New Baltimore Highway Department’s real masterpieces of grim lurk on the dark streets of the National Historic District. Sharp dropoffs at turns waiting to hang up an unwary driver’s vehicle. Roadside dropoffs waiting to gobble up anyone not watching his step. High built-up humps at the entrances of some residents homes waiting to trip up anyone unaware and breaking limbs. Even deep “catchments” ready to bend a rim or break a leg. Then there’s the deep ditch filled with innocent looking weeds and grass but concealing a deep drainage ditch disguised as a flat area of vegetation. Whether you’re a grown-up or a kid,  theyve set traps for you. And when residents ask the Town of New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department to fix the damage they do, their response is: “Let them sue us!” and they hand the complaints over to their lawyers, who then tell the residents to get a lawyer!

Treats had to be set up at the end of the front entrance sidewalk to prevent injuries.

They do their mischief and when the damage is tallied up, they admit that there’s damage but they refuse to fix it or to adjust the assessment. Then they go into “lawyer mode.”

So it was under Highway Superintendent Denis Jordan and so it continues under acting Highway Superintendent Scott VanWormer and so it will be when Alan VanWormer became, Yes! “became,” because he’s become the new New Baltimore HIghway Superintended without even a single vote being cast.

Sign Explaining Why the Treats are Roadside:
“This Hazard Provided with the Compliments of the New Baltimore Highway Department”

So this Halloween don’t forget to say:
Thank you! Mr VanWormer, Mr Jeff Ruso, Mr Nick Dellisanti, and Ms Shelly vanEtten. And Thank you! too, Mr Pat Linger, Mr Joe Stanzione for all your help and care! Thanks for nothing!

Remember this story on Election Day!

Both Mr Alan VanWormer and Mr Joe Stanzione are unopposed. You have been denied your voice and your vote. Don’t waste your vote and don’t cast a vote for any unopposed candidate!

Don’t waste your vote on

Alan VanWormer running unopposed for New Baltimore Highway Superintendent

Joe Stanzione running unopposed for Greene County District Attorney

Pat Linger (opposed by Jim Eckl) for Greene County Legislature representing New Baltimore

Not one of these ghouls didn’t care enough to keep residents and our kids safe. None of these walking dead deserve a single vote!

 

WARNING: NEW STREET IN THE HAMLET STILL A HAZARDOUS AREA FOR TRICK-OR-TREATERS!

HAMLET HALLOWEEN HAZARDS!!!

New Street is Dangerous
 Town of New Baltimore Doesn’t Care
VanWormer H’way Dept. Ignores Requests

This is a Public Service Announcement in the Interest of Your Safety and the Safety of Trick-or-Treaters on October 31, 2018, who will be on New Street in the Town of New Baltimore.

HARD TO BELIEVE THAT AN ENTIRE YEAR HAS PASSED SINCE OUR LAST SAFETY ALERT AND THE TOWN OF NEW BALTIMORE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND THE TOWN OF NEW BALTIMORE SUPERVISOR JEFF RUSO AND THE NEW BALTIMORE TOWN BOARD HAVE DONE NOTING TO REMOVE THE HAZARDS!!!

County Legislator Pat Linger (seeking re-election on November 6th) and Greene County DA Joe Stanzione (also seeking re-election on November 6th), were also notified and kept informed of the problems but did nothing.
They don’t care.

Dangerous Conditions on New Street in the Hamlet of New Baltimore!!!

Parents, Accompanying Adults, Trick-or-Treaters along New Street in the Hamlet (National Historic District) of New Baltimore are still at serious risk of injury and accident due to the continuing dangerous situations caused by substandard roadwork and paving done over a year ago by the Town of New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department on New Street and other streets in the National Historic District of New Baltimore. Despite numerous requests and notices, the Town of New Baltimore has done NOTHING to ensure YOUR SAFETY and the SAFETY of YOUR CHILDREN.


Please be aware of the following serious hazards along New Street, which will be particularly dangerous after sundown.

At the corner of Madison Avenue East and New Street, there is a dangerous UNMARKED DROP-OFF. The Town of New Baltimore Highway Department has been asked numerous times to mark this hazard but has refused to do so. Please, when making the turn onto New Street from Madison Avenue East, MAKE THE TURN TIGHT!

On the river-side (East) just past the end of the guardrails, there is a dangerous UNMARKED DROPOFF for about 100 feet. The drop-off is about 18-24 inches and poses a real danger if someone steps off the street and falls; there is a steep slope after the street drop-off. The paving operations done in 2017 by the New Baltimore Highway Department supervised by Scott vanWormer, brother of ALAN VANWORMER, who is running unopposed (Thank you, Democrats) for Highway Superintendent, raised the old roadbed about 18-24 inches at this point, creating this hazard. The Town of New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department have been asked several times to mark the hazard or to correct the defects but they have refused. There is also the possibility of a vehicle’s wheels going over the edge and tipping over! Please be careful and watch children very carefully in this area.

This hump in the road at the top of the stairs can cause tripping and falling injuries. Please be careful and step carefully over it. Small children may be especially at risk.

At the front entrance of No. 18 New Street, there is a raised hump of blacktop above the top step. The Town of New Baltimore Highway Department placed a 7-inch high raised hump of blacktop at the top of the steps leading into the main entrance of No. 18 New Street. The hump was created when the Town paved New Street in June 2017, and residents have asked that it be cut down level with the street to avoid accidents or injury. The Town Highway Department and the Town of New Baltimore have done nothing to fix this defect and now it is dangerous to the children and adults trick or treating. Please also be aware that beyond the steps there is a 8-12 inch drop-off created by the Town’s paving operations. This can be dangerous and may cause falls and injuries if you are not careful. There is no really safe way to get to the entrances of No 18 New Street so PLEASE BE CAREFUL and watch children very carefully in this area.

Please be aware of this hole; avoid stepping into it or driving into it!

Farther down New Street, opposite the Green House at No. 11 New Street, there is a deep hole approximately 30 inches across, 30 inches long and 15 inches deep. There is also a sharp-edged vertical grate installed in the hole. This hole was created by the New Baltimore Highway Department for totally unknown reasons (all other drains in the area are horizontal). This large hole presents a serious hazard to pedestrians and to vehicles. A person can break a leg and a vehicle can lose a wheel in this hole. The sharp edges of the grate pose another serious danger. Residents have repeatedly asked that the drain be redone so that it is flat with the road or at least that it be marked so that it is clearly visible. The Town of New Baltimore and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department have refused to mark the hole and so it continues to be a serious danger to persons and vehicles. Please be careful and watch children very carefully in this area.

When driving down New Street this ditch will suddenly appear. Your vehicle’s wheels can end up in it and your vehicle left hanging.

As you approach the end of New Street there is a deep unmarked ditch on the right side of the street.  Because the ditch is invisible and filled with weeds and leaves (failure of the Highway Department to maintain it), it’s particularly hazardous. This ditch will come up on you suddenly if you are driving, and if you’re not real quick, your right wheels will be in the ditch and your vehicle hung up. On Halloween night after sundown, this ditch will be very difficult identify unless you know beforehand that it’s there. Again, the Town of New Baltimore and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department created this hazard when paving the street in August 2016 and in June 2017. They have been asked a number of times to fix this defect or at least to mark it. They have ignored all requests. Please be careful and watch children very carefully in this area.

We are publishing this information at the request of residents who are seriously concerned about the safety of trick-or-treaters, parents and children, on New Street this Halloween. The Town of New Baltimore and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department, Mr Scott VanWormer and Mr ALAN VANWORMER, have been made aware of these hazards a number of times, and have been asked to correct the defects or at least to mark them to ensure safety and to protect the public. They have refused and so now it’s necessary to provide this WARNING to motorists and pedestrians.  Please make your children and other adults aware of these serious hazards along New Street, which will be particularly dangerous after sundown, and be alert for similar hazards in other areas of the Hamlet of New Baltimore, especially in the National Historic District!

This situation has been ongoing for at least 2-3 years and the Town and the Highway Department have been notified numerous times and haven’t lifted a finger to fix the damage they have caused. Now they are asking voters to put the very people in office who created the damage in the first place. They are asking you to vote for ALAN VANWORMER as New Baltimore Highway Superintendent, the same guy who sat by and kept his mouth shut when they were creating the botched up roadwork, and now want to make him Superintendent. The think that’s a done deal because VANWORMER is running UNOPPOSED and you have no choice, no voice, no vote. VANWORMER has won by default! That’s WRONG. THAT’S DIRTY POLITICS

[Editor’s Note: At about 7:30 a.m. on October 30, 2017, the Town of New Baltimore, Supervisor Jeff Ruso and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department, and the Town of New Baltimore Clerk were  AGAIN notified of these hazards and dangerous conditions on New Street, and were provided with the link to this posting.]

Please Watch Your Step on New Street in New Baltimore!!!
Happy Halloween!
The Editor & Friends of the Smalbany Blog


Editor’s Update

At about 10:45 a.m. on October 31, 2017, the following message was sent to New Baltimore Town Supervisor JEFF RUSO, New Baltimore Town Deputy Supervisor NICK DELLISANTI, Town Clerk BARBARA FINKE (for the purpose of records), and Town of New Baltimore Highway Superintendent SCOTT VANWORMER. Copies were sent also the Town Attorney Tal Rappela (Tal Rappelea Esq/RappeleaLaw) and to the attorney for the Town’s insurance company, Crystal R. Peck (Bailey, Johnson, DeLeonardis & Peck P.C., Albany, New York), Greene County Legislator for New Baltimore PATRICK LINGER (running for re-election this November), and Greene County District Attorney JOSEPH STANZIONE (running for re-election in November) to ensure that OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS and their ATTORNEYS are fully informed in the event of accident or injury.

Dear Mr RUSO, Mr DELLISANTI, Mr VANWORMER, Mr LINGER, Mr STANZIONE, Mr Rappelea, Ms Peck:

The Town of New Baltimore and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department have consistently and regularly been notified of the existing and continuing dangerous conditions created on New Street in the Town of New Baltimore, a roadway owned by the Town of New Baltimore. The Town of New Baltimore and the Town of New Baltimore Highway Department and its  acting superintendent, Mr SCOTT VANWORMER, have ignored all notifications and have refused to respond to all requests to correct the existing defects and hazards created by the Town’s operations or at least to mark them in the interest of the public’s safety, and the safety of parents and children on New Street.
Given the above circumstances and the Town’s indifference to the safety of residents and visitors, especially in view of the additonal upcoming Halloween traffic on the streets of the Hamlet, and the lighting conditions in the concerned area, and the approaching snow season, the Smalbany Blog has been considerate enough to publish a Public Safety Warning for Halloween Trick-or-Treaters and their accompanying adults.
You may inform yourselves as to the content of said Public Safety Warning at the blog site, WARNING: NEW STREET IN THE HAMLET STILL A HAZARDOUS AREA FOR TRICK-OR-TREATERS! (the link to the site is provided for your convenience).
Happy Halloween!
The Smalbany Blog and the New Street Community
 

Joe Vitollo Responds by Shooting Himself in Both Feet! Lousy Candidate but a great shot!

Mr. Joseph “Joe” Vitollo is running a second time on the Republican ticket for election to the United States Congress as representative of our area, the 20th Congressional District. Mr. Vitollo ran for the same seat in 2016 and lost. He ran against the same opponent in 2016, Paul Tonko (D), and lost. He thinks he can do better a second time around but we think that he’s delusional. We think the Republicans are running him knowing he’s a loser but running him anyway just to save face; they don’t have anyone who can beat Tonko. Why should they want to beat a man who’s done a good job? Why should voters want to replace someone who has demonstrated competence in government, hasn’t made an ass of himself, and doesn’t step all over himself when responding to questions?

We recently posted an article on Mr. Vitollo in which we publish some excerpts from his Facebook pages. We also publish some hard facts — they’re “hard facts” because they’re true facts and hard because Mr. Vitollo is finding it very hard to distance himself from them. In fact, Mr. Vitollo only digs himself deeper and deeper in the hole he’s already in and which is likely to become his political grave.

Vitollo has already revealed some very disturbing! aspects of his character but in two comments Mr. Vitollo himself made in response to the article, “Joe Vitollo for Congress? NOT!!! Never in this lifetime in this country!!!“, shoots himself in both feet. Here are his comments and our responses:


Joe Vitollo writes:

fjvitollo@gail.com

By the way the photograph of the foreigners making profane gestures are not my supporters which is a further mischaracterization it really discredits any credibility that you could possibly have.

*****

2018/10/27 at 3:54 pm

Principal Editor responds:

rcs.confidential@gmail.com

In reply to Joe Vitollo.

Your comment further supports our observations. You call the individuals in the article “foreigners.” That is a profiling statement, a statement that reveals your deep-seated and dangerous prejudices. Those people, and that’s what and who they are, PEOPLE, may just as easily be a bunch of college students or dishwashers at the Congressional dining room. “Foreigners”?!?! How would you know that they are foreigners? What is a foreigner? Someone who is not American even non-American. You are making your decision about whether those people are Americans or not based on your prejudices and racist stereotypes. How can you judge who or what people are by their color, physical appearance, or even their gestures? Very, very bad statement, Mr Vitollo. It reveals your arrogance and your poor judgment. We don’t need arrogance and poor judgment in Congress!

Thank you for your comment and the further revelation of who you actually are. You do a better job than we could ever do of characterizing yourself!

The Editor

*****

2018/10/28 at 10:12 am

Joe Vitollo writes:

fjvitollo@gail.com

This is a total mischaracterization of me if you want to know the truth why don’t you interview me but instead you use pictures and stories that are not true I have lived up here since 1977 most of my life and I’ve never had apart in Coeymans politics and the scandals have all occurred under democratic leadership so get your facts and your story straight before you start flinging accusations.

*****

2018/10/27 at 3:34 pm

Principal Editor responds:

rcs.confidential@gmail.com

In reply to Joe Vitollo.

“Total mischaracterization”? That is certainly an inaccurate statement. Much of what we published is from your own mouth! And from the mouths of your supporters! How can that be mischaracterization? The facts are historical facts. How can they be mischaracterizations?

Why don’t you just say what’s true: You simply don’t like the fact that we have exposed a side or sides of you that you reaally don’t want to show. Isn’t that true, Mr Vitollo?

We have stated that you live in Coeymans and have lived in Coeymans, and you confirm that fact by revealing that you have lived in Coeymans since 1977. You also state that you “have never had apart [a part] in Coeymans politics and the scandals.” We say that, too, in the article. But we also ask the burning question WHY? if you have lived in Coeymans for so long and think you are some sort of leader, a leader capable of ushering in change at the national level, WHY HAVE YOU BEEN SO SILENT AND IN HIDING SO LONG IN COEYMANS? You impotentily and scurrilously point the finger at “democratic leadership” but we have to ask the question: Where was Republican leadership? Where was YOUR leadership? When all of the trouble and scandals were happening? Is it that you were unaware of what was going on right under your nose? Is it that you were hiding, not making a statement, not drawing attention to yourself? We don’t need a coward in Congress; we have enough of those already. Or, didn’t you care what was going on in Coeymans? You didn’t care until it was time to run for office. Right?

Seems to us that you have a severe case of lack of self-awareness. You don’t even know who you are, Mr Vitollo! You are self-deceptive. How can you tell voters who you are when you don’t even know who or what you are yourself?!?!

We’d be interested in knowing the answers to just a couple questions: First of all, if you have lived in Coeymans since 1977, what have you done to improve Coeymans? If you have never had a part in Coeymans politics, what would qualify you for a seat in Congress? If you can make the statement that all of the problems and scandals occurred under “democratic leadership,” you were aware of the problems and scandals, but did nothing. Why was that Mr Vitollo?

So, rather than just make blanket denials, give us some hard facts in your comments and answers. Enough of your dog-and-pony act, your smoke-and-mirrors politicking. Just some hard facts and straight answers. That’s all.

Thank you for your uninformative rant. It did nothing to help your case.

The Editor


Mr Vitollo has revealed himself to be tainted, tainted with prejudice, profiling, stereotypes, and poor judgment. He’s too quick on the trigger and doesn’t think before he opens his mouth. He condemns himself with his own words and then tries to wiggle out of the corner he’s painted himself into. Vitollo is a pitiable piece of work and really should withdraw from the race before he further embarasses himself and his party.

Vitollo has no experience or education related to government, not even local government. Here’s what we found about him:

Full Name: Francis ‘Joe’ Joseph Vitollo
Birth Date: 02/02/1956
Birth Place: East Orange, NJ (But he lists East Islip, Suffolk County, LI as his origin. Which is it going to be today, Joe?)
Home City: Coeymans, NY
Religion: Christian

Registered Nurse, Vassar Brothers Regional Medical Center, 2017-present
Emergency Room Registered Nurse, White Plains Hospital, 2009-present
Served, United States Air ForceCritical Care Nurse, Saint Peters Hospital, 2002-2008

No organizational membership information on file.

Reason for Seeking Public Office:

“To join with others who desire to Restore America by Reducing the size of Government, Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, Eradicate the NEA, Restore the strength of the middle class, and protect personal property rights”

But what we find that is really interesting, well more disturbing than interesting is his political experience: Vitollo’s only experience is as a candidate and a losing candidate at that!

Candidate, United States House of Representatives, New York, District 20, 2016, 2018

Real original, right? Come on, Vitollo, if you can’t stop talking the stupid talk at least talk some stupid reality talk. You have no clue about what you’re spouting much less how to go about getting it done. But you’ll be a great tool for your keepers. If what you’ve done for your town, Coeymans, is any indicator of what you would do in Washington, we’d rather you just kept on emptying bedpans and wiping butts at wherever you’re working now.

(Source of Information: VoteSmart Facts Matter at https://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/169654/joe-vitollo#.W9XNrXtKhD4, last accessed on October 27, 2018)

 Read the Original articleJoe Vitollo for Congress? NOT!!! Never in this lifetime in this country!!!

 

Joe Vitollo for Congress? NOT!!! Never in this lifetime in this country!!!

Why is it that so many downstaters move to upstate and then try to run for public office. We see this happen so often. These carpetbaggers seem to think that they can’t make it downstate so they move upstate to manage us upstate hicks because they know better. Nick Dellisanti’s, former Town of New Baltimore Supervisor, mother, put it like this, “Vote for him. We’re from New York [City]. We know how to get things done.” Well, he got himself elected for two terms and got nothing done. Now he’s Supervisor Jeff Ruso’s “deputy” Supervisor. Still getting nothing done.

  • Joe Vitollo is ignorant of the Constitution.
  • Joe Vitollo ignores the Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State).
  • Joe Vitollo will bring too much of his “religion” into government.
  • Joe Vitollo Claims to be a Christian but Cherry-picks Holy Scripture; He’s a Pharisee hypocrite.
  • Joe Vitollo has a mean and nasty streak; he’s judgmental.
  • Joe Vitollo denies others their First Amendment rights to free expression.
  • Joe Vitollo ran in 2016 and LOST to Paul Tonko; Joe Vitollo is running again and will lose again to Paul Tonko because Tonko has experience and knows how to behave himself.
  • Joe Vitollo lives in Coyemans but hasn’t been able to clean up Coeymans. If he can’t bring change to Coeymans how does he expect to get anything done in Washington.
  • Joe Vitollo doesn’t recognize his limitations and that’s very dangerous in a wannabe politician.
  • Joe Vitollo is a loser and doesn’t belong in government.

 

What? Vote the Bible?
Separation of Church and State dead?
Vitollo Ignores the Constitution!

Joe Vitollo is ignorant of the Constitution. Now we have another downstater who has moved to Coeymans, and now is running for Congress. He’s a downstate Republican transplanted upstate and now wants locals in the 20th Congressional district to put him in a Washington DC office.

Now, anyone who has been reading the Smalbany blog will know that from Day 1, we have not backed any political party. We are not a political blog in the sense of partisan interests. We are a community blog and when we discuss any politician or candidate, we stress character and values. When we talk about character we emphasize honesty, integrity, intelligence, qualifications, competence, and compassion. That’s all. And YES! we do believe that we have to hold our elected officials and public servants to a higher standard than the average American.

This Joe Vitollo character is a bizarre bag of tricks: First of all, he’s not from this area or even from this part of the state. He’s from East Islip, an affluent suburban town of about 15,000 located in the Long Island county of Suffolk. He lives now in the town of Coeymans, which raises a number of questions on its own.

Is this Joe Vitollo on the inside?

Joe Vitollo appears to have a mean, nasty streak. We know this because a reader has referred us to Vitollo’s Facebook page where we read some very bizarre and nasty stuff from Vitollo. What Vitollo writes on his Facebook page is not what we want or expect to hear from a guy who’s running for public office, much less from a guy who claims to be Christian and who will have to represent all of us, not just his Bible-thumping friends.

Joe Vitollo’s Facebook post features an image of the American Flag and the Cross. Let us just repeat that Joe Vitollo is running for the United States Congress, 20th Congressional District, on the Republican ticket. We’d like to emphasize that we do not wish to make any statement on anyone’s religion or faith but we do have to emphasize that we find it grossly inappropriate for a public figure to make the impression that the Christian cross has any special relationship with the Flag of the United States of America!

Furthermore, Mr. Vitollo seems to want to make the impression that Christianity has a preferential place alongside the US Flag; otherwise, wouldn’t he have also featured the Star of David, a Muslim crescent, or one of the other major faith symbols making up the people of the United States? Is Mr. Vitollo discriminatory in his faith preferences? Will Christians be given preferential treatment over Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Mr. Vitollow, in that Facebook post is broadcasting a very ominous and dangerous message: He’s an exclusivist. But that’s probably because he’s from affluent East Islip, an exclusive community, better than the rest of us.

What’s even more disturbing about Joe Vitollo is the fact that he posts an image and makes a statement by the fact that the image shows the American flag alongside a cross. Mr. Vitollo is either ignorant of the provisions of the “Establishment Clause” in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits any coziness or overinvolvement of religion in government or vice versa. It’s the law of the land and most people know it as the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Wouldn’t you expect a man running for national office to be aware of that fact? After all, it’s not some hidden clause somewhere, it’s one of the best known provisions of the United States Constitution, perhaps second only to freedom of speech.

Image Posted by Joe Vitollo
Faith Discrimination
Intolerance of other Faiths

Religion and faith are private matters and should not be worn on one’s sleeve or used to promote one’s political ambitions. God is not a registered Republican nor a registered Democrat. God has not confessed to be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or an adherent of any other faith or belief tradition. Worship, pray as you like but keep it private. Apparently Mr. Vitollo does not believe that this is the way, even if it is the law of the land.

Vitollo posts the image below with the statement: “God was good to America because America Honored God. In nearly 250 years America sent more Missionaries around the world then the rest of the world’s countries have sent since the Resurrection. Let us Honor God again and return to the tenants that the Founders held so dear.”

If Mr. Vitollo wants to “honor God” and talk about “missionaries” perhaps he should consider a job in ministry and leave the job of law-making to men and women who know something about the Constitution and the laws of this country.

What’s even more troubling when we read Vitollo’s responses to another subscriber. Vitollo’s responses are judgmental, nasty, and demeaning. That reveals something of his personality and character. We don’t need someone with a judgmental attitude, a nasty streak, and a demeaning arrogance in Congress. We have enough of that already and it’s killing the country.

The quote below appeared on Facebook in support of Joe Vitollo. Vitollo’s Facebook posts contradict the lies below:

: “Joe Vitollo is running for Congress in NY State. He’s a Christian that honors God and respects the US Constitution. He was at the prayer meeting we had for our State and Nation tonight. God bless you Joe! See you next week for our next prayer event for the nation! He also has a copy of “How to be Salt and Light; The Christian’s Guide to Voting.” 

If anyone has even a basic knowledge of the Gospels, you’ll probably have already thought of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (also known as the Pharisee and the Publican) [Luke 18:9-14] but let me just repeat it here:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray,one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The Pharisee, Joe Vitollo, is shown to be a hypocrite; the tax collector is shown to be the man of authenticity and true faith. Vitollo wants to broadcast his religiosity like a Pharisee, a hypocrite.

The one subscriber who really brought out the worst in Vitollo writes:

Seriously, have you read what the Founders had to say about religion? Obviously not!!! You might start with James Madison — you DO know who he was, don’t you? — and then the Federalist Papers. You will find that the Colonies, then the “states”, were established by a group of irreligious men. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted by “enlightened” men with the vision of an irreligious republic in mind. While you may comment that the United States is, according to many credible polls, the most religious nation among the industrialized nations today, you cannot possibly want to persuade anyone, at least not in good faith, that the so-called “Founders” meant to honor “God” or that they espoused some kind of “religious” tenets. Get real and read some history!!!

Well, Vitollo obviously didn’t like that and responded, note the attitude of superiority and judgment! Shouldn’t a politician seeking voter approval and election be a little bit gentler, a bit more cautious? Is judgmentalism and arrogance what you want in your representative? Read what Joe Vitollo writes:

Joseph Vitollo: Evidently you have not read American history and you are a cynic and the typical antithesis of the patriot this country was founded for freedom of religion freedom of speech freedom of press because God created all men With and an alienable right To life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Although there were atheistic and godless men as it written in the Founding documents God in his sovereignty intervened in the affairs of men. And the fruit of that was born out with the gospel going to the four corners of the earth and spreading yet today.

Subscriber: Give me a break and stop your exclusionist proselytizing. You obviously know little history and less Scriptural scholarship.

Joseph Vitollo: Actually [name redacted] I have a degree in Biblical theology Greek and Hebrew so let’s be careful about wielding your Liberal haughty high comments of accusation

Joe Vitollo is nothing more than a snotty downstate privileged Long Island brat! If anyone thinks that Vitollo is non-judgmental and tolerant of others’ opinions and beliefs, his statements should persuade you otherwise. Apparently, Mr. Vitollo believes in the right to free speech – HIS OWN – but would curtail free speech in others. Again, Mr. Vitollo appears to be ignorant of some very basic American values.

But Vitollo claims that he has “a degree in Biblical theology Greek and Hebrew” [but not in English grammar]. If Vitollo is not the hypocrite or the buffoon we claim he is, wouldn’t you think he’d be aware of the parable of the Pharasee and the tax collector, and how it could apply to him.

So far, we have exposed Joe Vitollo as a hypocrite and a buffoon with little or no knowledge of the United States Constitution nor of the Bible, a book that he claims to have studied and in which he claims to have a degree. Yes, dear readers, and pigs have wings, too!

Joe Vitollo wants us to believe that pigs have wings., and that he belongs in the US Congress.

But let us remind you that Joe Vitollo is running for national office, for a seat in the United States Congress, one of the houses which in cooperation with the United States Senate makes our laws, presumably laws to serve and protect us. We would expect that Joe Vitollo wants to go to the United States Congress to improve our lives and lifestyles. Wouldn’t that be a fair statement?

Well, as we mentioned above, Mr. Joseph Vitollo, Republican candidate for Congress in the 20th Congressional District in New York state, moved to and lives in the Town of Coeymans. Yes, you heard right, Coeymans. For those of you who might not be familiar with the Town of Coeymans, Albany County, New York, let us just refresh your memories:

  • The Town of Coeymans is economically depressed and has been hemorrhaging businesses for years; there are more boarded up storefronts than there are operating business.
  • The Town of Coeymans has been losing population for decades, and the loss of residents has had a serious impact on the lifestyle and quality of life in Coeymans; it sucks.
  • The Town of Coeymans has had a number of loser Supervisors in the past and it’s not gotten any better: Henry Traver, a former supervisor, burned his own house down, allegedly to collect insurance money, and barely escaped felony charges (he’s now working for the Village of Ravena). The present Town Supervisor is a security guard at a local college and is a former town justice who was disgraced and forced to resign. He later ran for Town Supervisor and won, currently serving in a second term. Crandall is pulling more than $65,000/year in pension from his job with the NYS Dept of Corrections, he’s receiving a salary of $35,000 from the Town of Coeymans as Town Supervisor, and he finds he has to work as a security guard for the College of St Rose in Albany, New York. Talk about greedy!!! But that’s what we have in Coeymans.
  • The Town of Coeymans Police Department has been an embarrassment for years. Several recent law enforcement personnel were forced into retirement for undisclosed but well-known reasons of misconduct and abuse of power, including violation of civil and protected rights. A professional law enforcement officer took over as chief when the former chief, Gregory Darlington, was forced to resign, but got such a hard time from the Town Supervisor, former disgraced town justice, Phil Crandall, that he resigned. That left an acting chief of police who has invited nothing but scandal ever since, Daniel Contento.
  • The Town of Coeymans got negative press a couple of years ago when it renamed itself temporarily as Arbyville for the Arby’s beef sandwich. In return for this stupidity Arbys gave the town several hundred coupons for free sandwiches which disappeared without any record.

SGT Daniel Contento
Acting Chief of Police
Town of Coeymans Police Department

  • The Town of Coeymans got international attention when last year, two Coeymans police officers, one a police investigator, Steven Prokrym, the other a part-time patrolman, harassed, ran over and killed a raccoon in the parking lot of the local shopping mall. They did this while horrified onlookers, some children, witnessed the entire stupidity. Some witnesses videoed the whole gruesome thing and it went viral on YouTube and Facebook, prompting international outrage.
  • Just recently, the New York State Police stopped and ticketed a Coeymans Police Patrolman driving the Coeymans Police SUV. The Coeymans cop was ticketed for speeding and almost hitting a child.

But if we’re wrong about what Vitollo might have done for Coeymans, we’ll be happy to hear from Joe, and we’ll certainly correct any error.

But wait a minute: Doesn’t Joe Vitollo live in the Town of Coeymans? Wouldn’t you expect that living in Coeymans he’d likely have done something to improve the state of affairs there? Well, that would be a reasonable statement and it would be fair to expect that someone who thinks he can contribute to putting an entire country back on track would have at least been able, or at least have tried to do something to get his own town on track.

Well, Joe Vitollo hasn’t done a hell of a lot, in fact he’s done nothing, for the Town of Coeymans. Are we stupid enough to think that this arrogant, nasty, ignorant downstater is going to do much for the 20th Congressional District? Well, if you are gullible enough to believe that one, we have a bridge you might be interested in.

If you believe Vitollo, you might be interested in this bridge. It’s for sale.


Editor’s Note:

If you still think Vitollo is a worthwhile consideration, we really have to say that ‘birds of a feather flock together.” We say that because we were aghast not only at what we read from Vitollo himself but from some of his “friends,” too. Here are some examples from that same Facebook posting:

One friend of Vitollo who came to his defense in the Facebook post was a character calling himself Eric Voellm, who describes himself as employed in sales at GNH Lumber, a former corrections officer at New York State Department of Corrections, Retired. Voelm touts his education as having attended Averill Park High School, Hudson Valley Community College (a 2-year institution) and SUNY Empire State (a bottom-feeder college of the State University of New York). Voelm was particularly nasty and writes:

Eric Voellm; [To the Subscriber}: You suffer from an acute case of invincible ignorance. The prognosis is grim but not hopeless. ” With God all things are possible”. A quote of Jesus from scripture I am quite sure you are unfamiliar with. [The comment continues but isn’t worth repeating.]

Subscriber: [To Eric Voellm] Thank you! There’s not a lot to respond to in that comment, is there. It speaks for itself and its author. Spent time in prison have you? Using your two-year degree?

Eric Voellm; [To the Subscriber}: Your response here can serve as exhibit A in my efforts to confirm my diagnosis of your condition as invincible ignorance. Thank you for your continuing contributions. So I assume you have no familiarity with the scripture I quoted. [Continues idiotically…]

Subscriber:  Facebook is not where I prefer to comment on an ignorant pseudo politician’s silly rants. So you want to be a congressman? Writing such judgemental stupidity as yours is not going to get you far. Probably as far as losing yet another election. More on you later in another well-read forum, a higher level than Facebook.

Another brilliant friend of Joe Vitello who joins Mr. Voellm in “defending” Mr. Vitollo is Mr. Bill Dudek who claims to be from Waterford, NY, and to currently live in Schenectady. He’s obviously a retiree (born in 1949). What struck us as rather comical is Mr. Dudek;s apparent claim to fame is that he is “the author of a devotional Bible” and “teaches a Constitutional class.” He also touts himself to be an expert in English grammar but you’d never know it from his own posts or from his attention to Mr. Vitollo’s terrible English. But despite our extensive research on Mr. Dudek, “devotional Bibles” and “Constitutional classes,” we came up with nothing. Our guess is that Mr. Dudek is as phoney as his “devotional Bible” and his “Constitutional class.” Anyone who claims to be the author of a Bible, devotional or not, has to be a crackpot. As for his teaching a “Constitutional class,” we’re wondering if the class he gives on constitution might not be a class in bowel habits, after all, he doesn’t mention the United States Constution and, as a Bible author up there with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Luke and John, we’d expect him to be a bit more detail oriented.

The best one came from another Vitollo fan who gives Vitollo some advice on how to deal with the subscriber. This fan, Mr. Keith Wiggand, who is such a hero that he doesn’t post any details about himself at all on his Facebook page, suggests to Vitolo, “Joe, whack this troll from your page.”

So there you have it. All you need to know about Joe Vitollo to steer clear from that weirdo and his looney-tune friends. Vitollo has to be crazy to think he’d make it to Congress or at least someone has to be crazy to vote for the fool!


Vitollo supporters sending their candidate’s message to the American voters of 20th Congressional District.

 

 

Our 2018 Election Picks for the Town of New Baltimore and Greene County

Let’s be clear: You don’t “elect” an unopposed candidate! “Elect” in the campaign sign is a LIE!

When you see a campaign sign that asks you to “elect” an unopposed candidate in an uncontested election, think

The legal definition of election is a selection process: In an election voters are presented with at least 2 candidates and choose one of them. Candidates may be “endorsed” by one or more parties but for an election or a selection process to take place, you need at least two candidates. One candidate is not a choice and is not an “election.”

It is the duty of the so-called political parties to present voters with a choice. There has been a disturbing recent trend in our so-called American democratic process — a trend that is becoming very conspicuous in Greene County and the Town of New Baltimore — of presenting voters with a single, unopposed candidate in uncontested “elections.” This is not a new trend and has been concealed from voters in at least 38 states for decades and has been permitted by state election laws, laws that deprive voters of their right to choose who governs them.

As many of our readers know, each election year we study the candidates and make our picks. We share them with you because we have done the research and have asked the questions. When, IF the candidates respond, we let you know what they had to say. Here are our picks and recommendations for November 6, 2018:

First of all, we’d like to start our election choices with a positive:
Peter J. Markou
for
Greene County Treasurer.

Peter Markou is a Five-Star Choice for Greene County Treasurer.
Experience, Integrity, Committed

Peter Markou is a five-star candidate.

Mr Markou is intelligent, a gentleman, honest, and so different from the bottom-feeders that are left on the ballot. Mr Markou has been Greene County Treasurer for several terms and there’s no one who can say anything negative about the man. Vote for Peter Markou for Greene County Treasurer; he’s honest, competent and has proved he can do the job like a real professional, not like a politician.


Greene County Coroners

Bob Gaus (D) and Joshua Lipsman (D)

(Democrats endorsed by the Independence Party)
opposing
Richard Vigilio (R) and Paul Seney (R)

Gaus and Lipsman have kept their Democrat affiliation a bit under wraps, and have touted their endorsement by the Independence Party. That’s a bit sneaky in our opinion but HEY! we are reporting about much, much worse in this article.

Not many voters really understand what a county coroner does but many may at some time in their lives have to deal with one, so we’d like to make certain it’s the right one.

We have written several pieces on coroners in the past and our basic opinion is that it is an outdated office, political, and really should be made obsolete in favor of the medical examiner’s office. That having been said, and already having raised important questions about the ethics of funeral directors or physicians being involved with the politics of death investigations,we object only to the general ethics and the history of the office of coroner, and why it should be done away with and replaced by a competent, qualified and non-political medical examiner.

There are already two incumbent Greene County Coroners: Richard Vigilio has been Greene County Coroner for 24 years and a funeral director (Richards Funeral Home) for 63 years. We think it’s time for Vigilio to retire before he becomes a coroner’s case himself. Paul Seney is the second Greene County Coroner, and is a funeral director at Richards Funeral Home and Brady Funeral home.

As for the two individuals running for Greene County Coroner: Bob Gaus, a funeral director, and Joshua Lipsman, a physician/healthcare policy promoter, we can say but little about them in terms of competence or character. We’d lean more towards Gaus, given the necessary skills of a funeral director and his experience with death and deathcare on a daily basis. Lipsman? Well, he’s more qualified in the politics of healthcare and probably has much less experience with death and deathcare than Gaus. Could they do the job? Our bets would be on Gaus in terms of effectiveness. Given Lipsman’s history and training, we don’t think he’d be the best choice. Death is something physicians try to avoid (unless you’re a pathologist, which Lipsman is not)and you’ll have a tough time changing a physician’s attitude towards death and with it his attitude towards the survivors. Go with Gaus.

 

As for the second candidate, we’d go with Seney for a couple of reasons: First, he’s experienced and has had the benefit of Richard Vigilio, with whom he’s worked for several years. Second, he’s a funeral diretor and, although we still object to the ethics of a funeral director in the coroner’s position, if we must have a coroner, then the funeral director is intimately familiar not only with death but the paperwork and laws concerning death, and how to best deal compassionately with survivors. So, while we wish Richard Vigilio all the best in his retirement after this election, we think that Paul Seney would be a good man to partner up with Bob Gaus.

Gaus and Lipsman are both 61 years old; Lipsman is from downstate. Both are Democrats. It may seem odd putting a Democrat (Gaus) in office and running the risk of adding more corpses to the list of voters registered Democrat but dead, but Hey! Vigilio is getting close to being a corpse and is Republican; Gaus may have a few years of life left in him, and may be able to complete at least one term of office. What about Lipsman? Too political, too full of himself (he’s a Democrat, a doctor, into public health policy, etc. We all know what happens when a Democrat gets involved in health policy; even if only the dead are affected!) Let’s leave him to his interests in public health policy and his overly liberal politics; he’d be too much of a political prima donna in the coroner’s office. Head’s too big. Lipsman’s from downstate and doesn’t know local culture or people. Not a good choice.


Now we’d like to handle the
Real Scoundrels List

We’ll have to wait til next year to go after New Baltimore Town Supervisor Jeff Ruso, but we’ve got enough on him already to put someone else in the Supervisor’s office. He won’t be able to save himself with anything worth mentioning in the coming year. He’s dead in the water already.

But we’d like to concentrate on this year’s failures:

Alan VanWormer

Running UNOPPOSED (Denying Your Voice and Wasting Your Vote)

So Why?!?! did the Republicans spend so much money on so many campaign signs for a guy who is running unopposed. In an uncontested election ONE campaign sign and NO votes would hand the election over to him since he’s already legally considered “elected.” Seems that wasting taxpayers’ money is still the way to go in New Baltimore!

This time he’s running on the Republican ticket, Unqualified, Gutless, No Training, No Education. We’ve already published an article dedicated to the problems we have with Alan VanWormer and you can read that article at The Problem with Alan VanWormer. We also are solidly against giving away a vote to any unopposed candidate and not having a voice in who gets into office. We have written a very well-researched article on the problems of unopposed candidates and uncontested elections and Why! they are a violation of our rights. You can read the article at Unopposed Candidates: The Denial of Your Vote!

Alan VanWormer just stood by and kept his mouth shut while Denis Jordan did his tricks in the New Baltimore Highway Department. Alan VanWormer was part of the corruption and didn’t do a thing to stop it. No Integrity! Alan VanWormer’s brother, Scott VanWormer, was hand-picked by Denis Jordan to be his Deputy Superintendent. No one lifted a finger. Dellisanti, Ruso, vanEtten, no one said a word. But New Baltimore Town Supervisor Jeff Ruso, the chief financial officer of the Town, and the New Baltimore Town Board approved sending Scott VanWormer to Ithaca, New York, for a three-day meeting — the Cornell Local Roads Program — all expenses paid plus his salary. The money and the time was wasted since Scott VanWormer doesn’t have the background or education to have understood what was going on. Furthermore, Alan VanWormer (Scott’s brother!!! And also employed by the New Baltimore Highway Department) is the one who is running unopposed for New Baltimore Highway Superintendent. Unopposed means he’s already got the job, so Why? didn’t they send Alan VanWormer to the Highway Meeting, if anyone? That’s the way Jeff Ruso and the New Baltimore Town Board thinks: They DON’T!!!

Question: Why are we still electing unqualified, dumbasses, with no training to the position of Town Superintendent of Highways. Most of them can’t even read!!! Yet New Baltimore still keeps them in a job and hands them hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, perhaps even millions of taxpayer dollars to play with and squander and no one seems to care. The job should not be up for election in the first place. The position of Town Superintendent of Highways should be a non-political, professional position filled on a competitiive application basis, with the successful hiree having the right qualifications and subject to discipline and even termination! Putting a professional in the position would more than pay for itself because of proper fiscal and human resources management and administration. That’s the Town Board’s job that they’re not doing. They’re a bunch of dumbasses sitting there thinking of ways to keep our Town Hall packed with political dumbasses and friends.

The Alternative: You don’t have one!

Let’s move on…


Patrick “Pat” Linger (R)

Out of Touch (except in an election year), Doesn’t Care, a Political Fixture/Tool, No Accomplishments, a Wasted Vote.

We have already published an earlier article to Pat Linger and Greene County DA, Joe Stanzione. You can read what we had to say to them at Open Letter to County Legislator Patrick Linger and Greene County DA Joseph Stanzione.

Linger just didn’t think it important enough to tell voters what his accomplishments were during his last term — obviously he had none — but now he’s begging New Baltimore voters for another term. Take a hike, Patty! You ran and hid when residents needed you. You refused to respond to questions regarding your performance in office this past term. You handed New Baltimore Highway Superintendent Denis Jordan hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, and Jordan pissed them away, doing more damage than he was worth. Now the balless Republicans on the New Baltimore Town Board and New Baltimore Town Supervisor Jeff Ruso is following in the shite tracks of his mentor and now Deputy Supervisor Nick Dellisanti. We’re sick of the same old-same old and the dog and pony acts in Town Hall and in the County Legislature. Take a walk Patty. Your double-talking friends in Town Hall will be following you out the door!

The Alternative: Jim Eckl


Joseph “Joe” Stanzione (R)

Running for re-election to the Office of the Greene County District Attorney

Joseph “Joe” Stanzione.
Pantywaist or Panty-waste?

Unaccomplished, Avoids Commitment, Violates his Oath of Office

Just like Pat Linger, Joe Stanzione is a dud, a panty waist.  We have enough duds and panty-waists in Greene County and in New Baltimore. Stanzione goes into hiding when the real issues come up. Did he defend New Baltimore taxpayers and residents when they asked for his help to get compensated for damage done to property by former Highway Superintendent Jordan and his gaggle of monkeys? NOT! Did he go after the New Baltimore Town Supervisor Dellisanti or after Jeff Ruso and the Town Board when they ignored residents’ and taxpayers pleas for relief, compensation for damage to their property? NOT! Does Greene County need a panty-waist District Attorney like Stanzione? NOT! 

Back in we published an open letter to Joe Stanzione. It’s worth a read at Open Letter to Greene County District Attorney Joseph Stanzione. Since then he’s done zilch but now wants to continue doing zilch. No way, José Stanzione! It’s the highway for you, dude!

The county district attorney is the county’s chief law enforcement officer. So Why? is Greene County nicknamed “Cold Case?” Because so little is being done by the Greene County District Attorney in terms of keeping local government honest and criminals prosecuted. That’s Why!

The Alternative: ??? We had a tough time finding out who is opposing Stanzione. We’re waiting for a reply from the Greene County BOE.


George Amedore

Republican, Irresponsible, Indifferent, Bullshitter.
You know it’s an election year when you see or hear him.

A pink-eared jackass!

George Amedore shows up every election year to beg for the NYS Senate seat, 46th District, and to appear with his Republican cronies at the New Baltimore Republican Club rally to tell everyone fairy tales of what he’s done for New Baltimore and his district. Of course, the gullible back-woods politicians, committee people, and some misguided voters show up to listen to the mealy-mouthed promises never to be kept. In fact, Amedore was complacent and irresponsible when he was handing out state highway monies to Denis Jordan to burn up. We published an article about his legendary generosity with taxpayer dollars and his total lack of accountability. Denis Jordan is under investigation and had to resign; we think Amedore should do the same. He has some nerve asking for New Baltimore’s votes!

Read our article George Amedore, NY State Senator for 46th District, Needs to do Some Homework to learn more about what we told Amedore about New Baltimore and the New Baltimore Highway Department.

The Alternative: ??? Pat Courtney Strong, another woman-wanting-to-be-a-man from Kingston. OMG! That’s a choice??? (Note: Strong is from Kingston, like Amedore, a businesswoman. Problem: Strong knows about as much as Amedore about what New Baltimore and Greene County needs: both know nothing!)


Antonio Delgado

Democrat, Racist, ex-Rapper, Anti-American.

The Racist Rapper and the Democrat Candidate.
The same face, different outfit.

Is that the best the Democrats can do for Upstate voters? 

Delgado is filth, a racist, ex-rapper whose rapping celebrated sex with porn stars and anti-American, racist lyrics. He might be the hero of give-it-all-away Liberal Democrats. And he might be able to attract votes in mostly minority New York City, but he’s a big dirty ball of crappola to Central and Upstate NY. He might be popular with low-class, inner-city minorities and illegal immigrants with a name like Antonio Delgado, but he’s a clear reject when it comes to people with values and morals. His skin color would get him the downstate minority vote but among people who look deeper than skin color when we vote, he’s a total reject.

We’ve already wasted too many words on a loser like Antonio Delgado. If that’s the best the Democrats can offer New Yorkers, we don’t wonder that they are going to hell in barf bag.

You’ll need this when going to the polls and seeing what the Dems have picked for you.

The Alternative: John Faso


James “Jim” Eckl

A multiple-loser but our only alternative to Patrick “Pat” Linger, a loser and a scoundrel.

Well, the New Baltimore Democratic Committee made up of Janet KashEileen VosburghDoreen DavisBeth Schneck. and district committee members Janet Foley,  Richard GuthrieJudith FelstenAnne Walsh MitchellLee Davis (Yes. That’s the former loser town justice! Another Democrat loser scraped up by the New Baltimore and Greene County Dems!), Jim Eckl (Yes. That’s the same Jim Eckl the Dems are running against Patrick Linger). New Baltimore and Greene County Democrats have not only failed to give voters candidates, they can’t even get people to serve on their district committees! So they have to keep running losers from past elections.

James “Jim” Eckl, Democrat, Recycled Goods, Democrats’ Last Resort. Give him a chance to fly or fail. Anything’s better than Linger!

His party handlers, the New Baltimore Democratic Committee, Janet KashEileen VosburghDoreen DavisBeth Schneck., couldn’t tell us why he should get your vote. We found that a bit odd because normally the political party committee members would be over the moon to tell us why their candidate should be elected. Not the New Baltimore Democraps! They didn’t want to say a word about Jim Eckl. Well, there’s not much to say about Jim Eckl, we guess.

The Alternative: Voters in New Baltimore are in a real predicament. You can chose between the Louse (Linger) and the Loser (Eckl).


In the Town of New Baltimore and in Greene County, we don’t have much to work with. We residents, taxpayers and voters have so much garbage being handed to us You’d think we had a recycling plant or a transfer facility in the neighborhood; we get the dregs from the Republicans and the Democrats can’t even dig up a candidate from the many cemeteries in the area.

New Baltimore & Greene County Elections.
What we have to choose from.
Recycled Garbage.

None of the majority of candidates running are really worth a vote but where there’s at least a choice, that is, when the candidate on the ballot isn’t running unopposed, it would pay to cast a vote for either candidate. They’re garbage but at least you have a choice of which garbage.

When a candidate is running unopposed or in an uncontested race, New York Election Law has already “declared him elected,” and your vote is wasted; you have no voice in who gets the position. As in past elections we say don’t give them the numbers. Don’t cast a vote for that candidate (in New Baltimore, for example, that would be Alan VanWormer) because if you don’t cast a vote, you send the political party and the candidate an important message: You are offended by the fact that you were denied a voice in who to put in that office. If you vote for an unopposed candidate, you are wasting your vote; if you refuse to vote for that candidate, he’s already elected but at least he won’t get the numbers and you will have sent an important message to the parties.

DON’T WASTE YOUR VOTE ON AN UNOPPOSED CANDIDATE!


If you’re trying to figure out who is running for what office, and you’re having a hard time getting the information, you’re not alone.

We are pretty good at getting information but when it comes to our fine Board of Elections and our Political Party Committees, you just can’t get anyone to say anything or cough up some names or information. If you are having the same problem, you might want to give your Greene County Board of Elections a call or send them an email. If you’re really lucky and they’re having a good day, you might actually get a response. Here’s the contact information:

Greene County Board of Elections

411 Main Street, Catskill NY, 12414
Telephone: 518-719-3550
Republican Commissioner: Brent Bogardus, bbogardus@discovergreene.com
Democrat Commissioner: Marie Metzler, mmetzler@discovergreene.com

The Golden Turd Award
For Political Excellence

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 24, 2018 in 19th Congressional District, 19th Congressional District, 2018 Elections, 46th District, Accountability, Alan van Wormer, Alan VanWormer, Antonio Delgado, Beth Schneck, Bob Gaus, Catskill-Hudson Newspapers, CHIPS, Civil Rights, Columbia-Greene Media, Democracy is Dead, Democrap, Democrats, Denied Your Vote, Denis Jordan, Donna Degnen, Doreen Davis, Doreen Davis, Eileen Vosburgh, Eileen Vosburgh, Elected Official, George Amedore, Gordon Bennett, Government, Greene County, Greene County Attorney, Greene County Board of Elections, Greene County Coroner, Greene County Coroner, Greene County District Attorney, Greene County Independence Party, Greene County Legislature, Greene County News, Hudson Valley, Independence Party, Irene Beede, James Eckl, Janet Foley, Janet Kash, Janet Kash, Jean Horne, Jeff Ruso, Jeff Ruso, Jim Eckl, Joe Stanzione, Joe Stanzione, Joe Tanner, John B. Johnson, John Faso, John Faso, Johnson Newspaper Group, Joseph Stanzione, Josh Lipsman, Joshua Lipsman, Lee Davis, Linda LeClair, Lynn Taylor, Mark Vinciguerra, New Baltimore, New Baltimore Assessor, New Baltimore Conservancy, New Baltimore Democratic Committee, New Baltimore Democrats, New Baltimore Elections, New Baltimore Highway Department, New Baltimore Highway Superintendent, New Baltimore Highway Superintendent, New Baltimore Republican Club, New Baltimore Superintendent of Highways, New Baltimore Town Board, New York, New York State, New York State Election Law, Nick Delisanti, Nick Dellisanti, Nick Dellisanti, Pat Linger, Pat Linger, Patrick Linger, Patrick Linger, Protected Rights, Ravena News Herald, RegisterStar, Robert Gaus, Ronna Smith, Scott VanWormer, Shelly van Etten, Smalbany, Tal Rappelea, The Daily Mail, Times Union, Town of New Baltimore, Uncontested Election, Unopposed Candidate

 

Unopposed Candidates: The Denial of Your Vote!

“One Person, No Vote.”[1]

This is a republished excerpt. To read or download the entire article, click One person one vote_Article.

If there is any system that the Guarantee Clause forbids, short of a monarchy or dictatorship or other such totalitarian scenario, it is the system that allows unopposed candidates and uncontested elections to run for public office.


Listen up! New Baltimore voters and any other voters who are confronted with unopposed candidates in uncontested elections! You are being denied your right to vote! How Unopposed candidate statutes cut off the few available avenues by which voters in uncontested races can declare whom they want to govern them and how.

Unopposed Candidate Laws — and the Courts Interpreting those Laws — All Deny People The Right To Vote For The Concerned Offices

Our incumbent legislators and judges, the former making the laws and the latter interpreting them, have let the voter down and have avoided the question of denial or dilution of the legal citizen’s right to vote!

In thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia, laws allow candidates running unopposed for certain offices to be “declared elected,” some without even appearing on the ballot. These “unopposed candidate provisions” come in many varieties, but all deny people the right to vote for the concerned offices.

The New York law reads:

“All persons designated for uncontested offices or positions at a primary election shall be deemed nominated or elected thereto, as the case may be, without ballot.” (N.Y. Election Law, ELN § 6-160(2)) [emphasis provided]

So, the bottom line is this: If one party doesn’t have a candidate or chooses not to run a candidate, or by some backroom agreement the parties agree to run only one candidate, New York law denies YOU your right to vote for the candidate of your choice or not to vote for the candidate. That’s sweet little-known fact that you probably didn’t know about. But your legislators do know about it and so do your political party committees do and your board of elections officials!!!

My analysis views the unopposed candidate situation as an opportunity in which to examine several significant approaches to election law:

  1. Whether the purpose of voting is tabulative, that is, does voting answer the Question “How many?
  2. Does voting merely have a rallying purpose, showing solidarity either in political views or simply group-think?
  3. Or is voting expressive or symbolic, that is, a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, and sending a message or expressing an idea, or support for, opposition against, etc. a candidate, a political agenda, or a party.

Most of my readers do not realize that, buried deep within states’ election codes, a number of states accommodate a bizarre little provision of law, which is a very well-kept secret. That secret is that candidates who run unopposed for certain offices are simply “declared electedwithout having to appear on the ballot,[2] and even if they do appear on a ballot as unopposed, are already in office regardless of what voters say. If you find yourself shrugging your shoulders at this little tidbit of revelation, relax: You’re not alone.

For the past two elections the New Baltimore Democratic Party has been unable to produce an electable candidate, much less a competent public servant. This means that the so-called Democraps are so incompetent they can’t get their act together to provide voters with a choice, and fail to challenge Repukelicans with an opponent . So much for democracy. Not only is the New Baltimore Democrap Party and Committee a failure, they remain true to the Democraps’ history: they’re conniving and destructive!

Here’s an example: We recently contacted the New Baltimore Democrap Committee with some questions about candidates or the fact that the Democraps haven’t been able to come up with any candidates. They refused to answer!

But they sure but the “greed” in democracy when they extend an invitation to meet the candidate (Yes, there’s only one, Jim Eckl, a recycled loser from past elections!) for $30 a head (includes appetizers and a cash bar! Wow!) at the Boathouse Grill in New Baltimore. No, Thank you!

Both Republicans And Democrats Play The Same Game, Pointing The Finger At Each Other, While Screwing The Voters.

 

Each Unopposed Candidate “Is Deemed To Have Voted For Himself Or Herself”

Unopposed Candidate Statutes See Elections Only As A Method Of Outcome-Determination

Unopposed candidate statutes significantly affect the way in which people vote (rather, how they think they vote) in the United States, and how candidates can get into public office. People do not vote only when their vote matters, or only because it matters to the ultimate outcome— or so the great propaganda lie goes. All of the evidence suggests that voting is not a “rational” decision for most people, that is, most people don’t think about Why? they vote, they instead vote mainly because they believe they are expressing their beliefs or because it helps them feel like they are part of a larger community (I’m a Republican! I’m an Independent!).

But the unopposed candidate statutes see elections only as a method of outcome-determination, ignoring the main reasons why people actually vote.

The harm these laws doing is diverse and significant but also insidious, because voters are unaware of the damage they’re doing. These laws are treacherous, crafty, and they do their damage in a gradual, subtle way, their harmful effects barely noticeable at any given time. Like undiagnosed cancer.

Thirteen To Sixteen Percent More Voters Cast Blank Ballots In Uncontested Races (“Unopposed Candidate”) Than In Races With Multiple Candidates.

For those who support an unopposed candidate, the statutes deprive them of their right to cast a vote for their chosen representative. For those who find the sole candidate unacceptable, the statutes likewise deprive them of their right not to vote for that person. Voters should take these deprivations seriously. Studies have shown that thirteen to sixteen percent more voters cast blank ballots in uncontested races than in races with multiple candidates. In the 2017 elections in New Baltimore that figure proved true and then some when more than 30% of voters did not cast votes for the unopposed candidates! All of the unopposed candidates were Republicans because the Democrats couldn’t come up with a challenger!


The Example of New Baltimore, New York

In the last elections in New Baltimore, for example, more than 30% of voters who went to the polls abstained from voting for Jeff Ruso, who ran unopposed for Town Supervisor, and the same figure applies to the other unopposed candidates in that election (the exception was Barbara Finke, who ran for reelection as Town Clerk, and whom we supported, even if unopposed). Local figures support the studies and vice versa. (See our Smalbany blog articles: Congratulations, New Baltimore! You did good!; Complacency is a Bad Thing…Especially in Local Government; No Choice! Unopposed Candidates? Here’s the Plan…; New Baltimore Elections: No Choice. The Sequel. (And Coeymans, too!); Today, Tuesday, November 7, 2017: Your To-Do List… )


Unopposed candidate statutes cut off the few available avenues by which voters in uncontested races can declare whom they want to govern them and how.

Unopposed candidate statutes deny individuals the right to vote for their supposedly “elected” officials, which in turn denies those officials the legitimacy conferred by popular election.

Unopposed candidate statutes deny individuals the right to vote for their supposedly “elected” officials, which in turn denies those officials the legitimacy conferred by popular election. And the parties conveniently do not use the campaign to provide voters with information about themselves or their candidate; the political parties fail to inform voters.

Whether unopposed candidate statutes survive or fall under the so-called Burdick test will likely depend on how judges view the character of the harm they impose on voters. And this inquiry itself depends largely on whether judges analyze voting.[3]

That unopposed candidate statutes could impinge on rights provided by Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment; the one person, one vote doctrine; and the Guarantee Clause.

The Supreme Court has declared that the purpose of voting is solely to whittle down the number of candidates until there is a winner

Unopposed candidate statutes throw this debate into stark relief because they translate lack of competition into a complete denial of the right to vote. The laws are uncontroversial because they appear harmless. But the logic underlying them—that we know who the winner will be, so holding an election for the office would be pointless—has potentially disturbing consequences if applied to uncompetitive elections more broadly. Unopposed candidate statutes also pose a challenge for those who would eschew competitiveness in favor of maximizing voter satisfaction, since creating politically homogenous districts could sound the death knell for elections in many instances.

Voting includes an informational and expressive component and that voters should be able to “participat[e] in . . . elections in a meaningful manner.”

What is the purpose of voting? The Supreme Court has declared that the purpose of voting is solely to whittle down the number of candidates until there is a winner.  Voting includes an informational and expressive component and that voters should be able to “participat[e] in . . . elections in a meaningful manner.” If this conception of voting is correct, then unopposed candidate statutes are more troublesome. The laws prevent voters from expressing their preferences, whether through fusion voting, write-in voting, or simply voting for (or refusing to vote for) the candidate. They also prevent the voters and the candidates from gaining valuable information about one another through the ballot box. By studying these statutes, we can gain insight into the state of American election law.

In Thirty-Eight States And The District Of Columbia, Certain Candidates Who Run Unopposed Can Simply Be “Declared Elected.”

These laws have one thing in common: when they apply, the voters have no say.

Unopposed candidate statutes play an important if underappreciated role, since local or municipal races tend to be even less competitive than partisan state or federal races.

States Update Their Election Codes To Further Entrench The Unique Perks Of Running Unopposed

Unopposed candidate statutes are not merely a set of quirky legal oddities, lying staid and dormant, to be safely ignored. These statutes haunt the legal codes of three-quarters of the states, with the potential to affect thousands of elections. Unopposed candidate statutes remain a dynamic part of the law, as states update their election codes to further entrench the unique perks of running unopposed.

Given the general lack of awareness of the harmful effects of unopposed candidate laws, the average voter and even the average local elected official could be almost forgiven for thinking of the laws as quaint products of a colonial town-meeting-style preference for consensus (New Baltimore, NY), or of ruthless machine politics (Albany County, NY).[4]

The courts are always standing ready to complicate a matter, especially if there’s political capital to be gained.

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear cannot help to admit that there is an obvious adverse effect of the unopposed candidate laws on the fundamental right to vote, and on the freedom to associate with candidates and fellow voters, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Unopposed Candidate Laws Flatly Deny The Constituents Of Unopposed Candidates The Right To Vote For Uncontested Offices

Under the fundamental rights view, we have to focus on the voters whose officials were either directly or indirectly “declared elected,” since those voters would face a disproportionate harm. The unopposed candidate laws flatly deny the constituents of unopposed candidates the right to vote for uncontested offices. The effect is that no voter can cast ballots for anyone but the unopposed candidate(s); they may in some cases not even be able to cast blank ballots, or write in name! In other words, these laws prevent citizens from associating with their preferred candidates and their parties “at the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action.” Furthermore, unopposed candidate laws impose significant burdens on voting rights, and states must demonstrate compelling interests to justify the harm. But our legislators, political party puppets that they are, conveniently keep the situation under wraps. They have a vested interest in the survival of unopposed candidate laws, and there are obvious benefits in keeping the voting public ignorant of the harm these laws do.

Let’s now have a look at the so-called “one person, one vote doctrine.”

At the practical level, the Court’s one person, one vote cases are not actually limited to vote dilution. Rather, the Court has said, the doctrine “requires that each qualified voter must be given an equal opportunity to participate in [each] election.”

Unopposed candidate statutes allow the switch of elective office to be turned on and off based on how many people decide to run for election for a given public office.

Unopposed Candidate Statutes Create Officials Who Are Not Accountable To Anyone For Their Positions

The Guarantee Clause[5] is the next desperate attempt if the one person, one vote doctrine is not effective in voiding an unopposed candidate election law. The clause provides that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”[6]

By almost any definition, a republican form of government includes state and municipal (local) officials who are accountable to the people. But unopposed candidate statutes create officials who are not accountable to anyone for their positions.

I can hopefully simplify an understanding of this scenario by using a fictional example: In the above example of the Florida debacle, over one-third of Florida’s state legislators were not actually elected to their current terms of office. Now, what if, sometime in the future, fifty-one percent of the legislators ran unopposed and were “declared elected?” as is already the reality for the current Louisiana House of Representatives! A majority of the legislature would then hold power without receiving a single vote. What if two-thirds of the legislators were so “elected” (as is already the case for the Arkansas State Legislature)? Seventy-five percent? All of them? At what point do unopposed candidate statutes, by removing voters from the electoral process, transform a state’s government from a republic into something else? Like A NoKo dictatorship or a Stalinist Russia?

As James Madison wrote in Federalist, a republican government requires that “the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people.” Founding-era Americans “clearly believed that ‘the right of representing is conferred by the act of electing’” — that “the elected are not representatives in their own right, but [only] by virtue of their election.” The Founding Generation believed that “the process of voting was not incidental to representation but was at the heart of it.”

It quickly becomes clear that democratically elected state officials and local officials are a requirement for republicanism. The Federalist declared accountability to the people to be the very definition of a republic.

“The right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration” — so that power “is exercised by representatives elected by them” — is “the distinguishing feature of” the republican form.

 “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice,” the Court declared, “is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.”

Put simply, the Guarantee Clause guarantees a government accountable to the people.

Elected officials — even those who are unopposed — ultimately owe their positions to, and are thereby accountable to, the people. Those who are appointed owe their positions to other government actors, who are then accountable for their choices of appointees come Election Day. Those who are “declared elected” thanks to the harmful unopposed candidate laws, on the other hand, are accountable to no one for their offices. If there is any system that the Guarantee Clause forbids, short of a monarchy or other such scenario, it is the system that allows unopposed candidates to run for public office.

Editor’s Afterword

People vote for a number of reasons, some of which traditional psychology would classify as irrational: the desire to participate in the democratic process, the feelings of civic duty and American-ness that voting engenders, and the pleasure of expressing one’s support for or opposition to particular partisan preferences. Voter satisfaction theory, premised on the idea of preexisting, immovable beliefs, denies this reality. Political competition theory, focused on the potential expressive benefits of hard-fought campaigns, ignores it. The Supreme Court’s approach to the electoral process, which limits voting to a winnowing function, rejects it. Regardless of the political and philosophical theories or the opinions of the judges, the act of voting does have meaning independent of the ultimate outcome. It is this fact for which unopposed candidate statutes fail to account—and for which they should be held to account.

If there is any system that the Guarantee Clause forbids, short of a monarchy or dictatorship or other such totalitarian scenario, it is the system that allows unopposed candidates to run for public office.


NOTES

[1] I would like to gratefully acknowledge Mr. Noah B. Lindell, Esq., Law Clerk to the Hon. John D. Bates, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who inspired this article and provided much of the material for it in his own exemplary scholarship evidenced in his 2017 published commentary, “One Person, No Vote.” (Lindell, N.B. “One Person, No Votes: Unopposed Candidate Statutes and the State of Election Law.” Wisconsin Law Review. 2017.5 (2017): 885-954.)

[2] A full list of these laws is as follows can be found in Lidell’s fine article ; I am listing only the NewYork statutes here:; N.Y. Elec. Law § 6-160(2) (McKinney 2017); (See the complete list in Lindell, ibid. fn 1 at 886)

[3] For the sake of simplicity I will simply note that the two approaches are  the fundamental rights strand or the suspect class strand of equal protection.

[4] For example, when Indiana passed an election reform package, into which one legislator slipped a provision that required county clerks to remove unopposed municipal candidates from the ballot, and when state legislative leaders found out about the provision, they raised hell, with the Speaker of the House calling it “terrible public policy.” The sponsor of the law defended it as an efficient measure that would save counties money. Didn’t anyone think of the fact that voters’ rights might have been protected. Of course not. The bottom line was to “save mone

“One Person, No Vote.”[1]

Listen up! New Baltimore voters and any other voters who are confronted with unopposed candidates! You are being denied your right to vote! How Unopposed candidate statutes cut off the few available avenues by which voters in uncontested races can declare whom they want to govern them and how.

Unopposed Candidate Laws — and the Courts Interpreting those Laws — All Deny People The Right To Vote For The Concerned Offices

Our incumbent legislators and judges, the former making the laws and the latter interpreting them, have let the voter down and have avoided the question of denial or dilution of the legal citizen’s right to vote!

In thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia, laws allow candidates running unopposed for certain offices to be “declared elected,” some without even appearing on the ballot. These “unopposed candidate provisions” come in many varieties, but all deny people the right to vote for the concerned offices.

DENIED!!!

The New York law reads:

“All persons designated for uncontested offices or positions at a primary election shall be deemed nominated or elected thereto, as the case may be, without ballot.” (N.Y. Election Law, ELN § 6-160(2)) [emphasis provided]

So, the bottom line is this: If one party doesn’t have a candidate or chooses not to run a candidate, or by some backroom agreement the parties agree to run only one candidate, New York law denies YOU your right to vote for the candidate of your choice or not to vote for the candidate. That’s sweet little-known fact that you probably didn’t know about. But your legislators do know about it and so do your political party committees do and your board of elections officials!!!

My analysis views the unopposed candidate situation as an opportunity in which to examine several significant approaches to election law:

  1. Whether the purpose of voting is tabulative, that is, does voting answer the Question “How many?
  2. Does voting merely have a rallying purpose, showing solidarity either in political views or simply group-think?
  3. Or is voting expressive or symbolic, that is, a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, and sending a message or expressing an idea, or support for, opposition against, etc. a candidate, a political agenda, or a party.

Most of my readers do not realize that, buried deep within states’ election codes, a number of states accommodate a bizarre little provision of law, which is a very well-kept secret. That secret is that candidates who run unopposed for certain offices are simply “declared electedwithout having to appear on the ballot,[2] and even if they do appear on a ballot as unopposed, are already in office regardless of what voters say. If you find yourself shrugging your shoulders at this little tidbit of revelation, relax: You’re not alone.

For the past two elections the New Baltimore Democratic Party has been unable to produce an electable candidate, much less a competent public servant. This means that the so-called Democraps are so incompetent they can’t get their act together to provide voters with a choice, and fail to challenge Repubicans with an opponent . So much for democracy. Not only is the New Baltimore Democrap Party and Committee a failure, they remain true to the Democraps’ history: they’re conniving and destructive!

Here’s an example: We recently contacted the New Baltimore Democrap Committee with some questions about candidates or the fact that the Democraps haven’t been able to come up with any candidates.

But they sure but the “greed” in democracy when they extend an invitation to meet the candidate (Yes, there’s only one, Jim Eckl, a recycled loser from past elections!) for $30 a head (includes appetizers and a cash bar! Wow!) at the Boathouse Grill in New Baltimore. No, Thank you!

Both Republicans And Democrats Play The Same Game, Pointing The Finger At Each Other, While Screwing The Voters.

Each Unopposed Candidate “Is Deemed To Have Voted For Himself Or Herself”

Unopposed Candidate Statutes See Elections Only As A Method Of Outcome-Determination

Unopposed candidate statutes significantly affect the way in which people vote (rather, how they think they vote) in the United States, and how candidates can get into public office. People do not vote only when their vote matters, or only because it matters to the ultimate outcome— or so the great propaganda lie goes. All of the evidence suggests that voting is not a “rational” decision for most people, that is, most people don’t think about Why? they vote, they instead vote mainly because they believe they are expressing their beliefs or because it helps them feel like they are part of a larger community (I’m a Republican! I’m an Independent!).

But the unopposed candidate statutes see elections only as a method of outcome-determination, ignoring the main reasons why people actually vote.

The harm these laws doing is diverse and significant but also insidious, because voters are unaware of the damage they’re doing. These laws are treacherous, crafty, and they do their damage in a gradual, subtle way, their harmful effects barely noticeable at any given time. Like undiagnosed cancer.

Thirteen To Sixteen Percent More Voters Cast Blank Ballots In Uncontested Races (“Unopposed Candidate”) Than In Races With Multiple Candidates.

For those who support an unopposed candidate, the statutes deprive them of their right to cast a vote for their chosen representative. For those who find the sole candidate unacceptable, the statutes likewise deprive them of their right not to vote for that person. Voters should take these deprivations seriously. Studies have shown that thirteen to sixteen percent more voters cast blank ballots in uncontested races than in races with multiple candidates.

In the last elections in New Baltimore, for example, more than 30% of voters who went to the polls abstained from voting for Jeff Ruso, who ran unopposed for Town Supervisor, and the same figure applies to the other unopposed candidates in that election (the exception was Barbara Finke, who ran for reelection as Town Clerk, and whom we supported, even if unopposed). Local figures support the studies and vice versa. (See our Smalbany blog articles: Congratulations, New Baltimore! You did good!; Complacency is a Bad Thing…Especially in Local Government; No Choice! Unopposed Candidates? Here’s the Plan…; New Baltimore Elections: No Choice. The Sequel. (And Coeymans, too!); Today, Tuesday, November 7, 2017: Your To-Do List… )

Unopposed candidate statutes cut off the few available avenues by which voters in uncontested races can declare whom they want to govern them and how.

Unopposed candidate statutes deny individuals the right to vote for their supposedly “elected” officials, which in turn denies those officials the legitimacy conferred by popular election.

Unopposed candidate statutes deny individuals the right to vote for their supposedly “elected” officials, which in turn denies those officials the legitimacy conferred by popular election. And the parties conveniently do not use the campaign to provide voters with information about themselves or their candidate; the political parties fail to inform voters.

Whether unopposed candidate statutes survive or fall under the so-called Burdick test will likely depend on how judges view the character of the harm they impose on voters. And this inquiry itself depends largely on whether judges analyze voting.[3]

That unopposed candidate statutes could impinge on rights provided by Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment; the one person, one vote doctrine; and the Guarantee Clause.

The Supreme Court has declared that the purpose of voting is solely to whittle down the number of candidates until there is a winner

Unopposed candidate statutes throw this debate into stark relief because they translate lack of competition into a complete denial of the right to vote. The laws are uncontroversial because they appear harmless. But the logic underlying them—that we know who the winner will be, so holding an election for the office would be pointless—has potentially disturbing consequences if applied to uncompetitive elections more broadly. Unopposed candidate statutes also pose a challenge for those who would eschew competitiveness in favor of maximizing voter satisfaction, since creating politically homogenous districts could sound the death knell for elections in many instances.

Voting includes an informational and expressive component and that voters should be able to “participat[e] in . . . elections in a meaningful manner.”

What is the purpose of voting? The Supreme Court has declared that the purpose of voting is solely to whittle down the number of candidates until there is a winner.  Voting includes an informational and expressive component and that voters should be able to “participat[e] in . . . elections in a meaningful manner.” If this conception of voting is correct, then unopposed candidate statutes are more troublesome. The laws prevent voters from expressing their preferences, whether through fusion voting, write-in voting, or simply voting for (or refusing to vote for) the candidate. They also prevent the voters and the candidates from gaining valuable information about one another through the ballot box. By studying these statutes, we can gain insight into the state of American election law.

In Thirty-Eight States And The District Of Columbia, Certain Candidates Who Run Unopposed Can Simply Be “Declared Elected.”

These laws have one thing in common: when they apply, the voters have no say.

Unopposed candidate statutes play an important if underappreciated role, since local or municipal races tend to be even less competitive than partisan state or federal races.

States Update Their Election Codes To Further Entrench The Unique Perks Of Running Unopposed

Unopposed candidate statutes are not merely a set of quirky legal oddities, lying staid and dormant, to be safely ignored. These statutes haunt the legal codes of three-quarters of the states, with the potential to affect thousands of elections. Unopposed candidate statutes remain a dynamic part of the law, as states update their election codes to further entrench the unique perks of running unopposed.

Given the general lack of awareness of the harmful effects of unopposed candidate laws, the average voter and even the average local elected official could be almost forgiven for thinking of the laws as quaint products of a colonial town-meeting-style preference for consensus (New Baltimore, NY), or of ruthless machine politics (Albany County, NY).[4]

The courts are always standing ready to complicate a matter, especially if there’s political capital to be gained.

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear cannot help to admit that there is an obvious adverse effect of the unopposed candidate laws on the fundamental right to vote, and on the freedom to associate with candidates and fellow voters, as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Unopposed Candidate Laws Flatly Deny The Constituents Of Unopposed Candidates The Right To Vote For Uncontested Offices

Under the fundamental rights view, we have to focus on the voters whose officials were either directly or indirectly “declared elected,” since those voters would face a disproportionate harm. The unopposed candidate laws flatly deny the constituents of unopposed candidates the right to vote for uncontested offices. The effect is that no voter can cast ballots for anyone but the unopposed candidate(s); they may in some cases not even be able to cast blank ballots, or write in name! In other words, these laws prevent citizens from associating with their preferred candidates and their parties “at the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action.” Furthermore, unopposed candidate laws impose significant burdens on voting rights, and states must demonstrate compelling interests to justify the harm. But our legislators, political party puppets that they are, conveniently keep the situation under wraps. They have a vested interest in the survival of unopposed candidate laws, and there are obvious benefits in keeping the voting public ignorant of the harm these laws do.

Let’s now have a look at the so-called “one person, one vote doctrine.”

At the practical level, the Court’s one person, one vote cases are not actually limited to vote dilution. Rather, the Court has said, the doctrine “requires that each qualified voter must be given an equal opportunity to participate in [each] election.”

Unopposed candidate statutes allow the switch of elective office to be turned on and off based on how many people decide to run for election for a given public office.

Unopposed Candidate Statutes Create Officials Who Are Not Accountable To Anyone For Their Positions

The Guarantee Clause[5] is the next desperate attempt if the one person, one vote doctrine is not effective in voiding an unopposed candidate election law. The clause provides that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”[6]

By almost any definition, a republican form of government includes state and municipal (local) officials who are accountable to the people. But unopposed candidate statutes create officials who are not accountable to anyone for their positions.

I can hopefully simplify an understanding of this scenario by using a fictional example: In the above example of the Florida debacle, over one-third of Florida’s state legislators were not actually elected to their current terms of office. Now, what if, sometime in the future, fifty-one percent of the legislators ran unopposed and were “declared elected?” as is already the reality for the current Louisiana House of Representatives! A majority of the legislature would then hold power without receiving a single vote. What if two-thirds of the legislators were so “elected” (as is already the case for the Arkansas State Legislature)? Seventy-five percent? All of them? At what point do unopposed candidate statutes, by removing voters from the electoral process, transform a state’s government from a republic into something else? Like A NoKo dictatorship or a Stalinist Russia?

As James Madison wrote in Federalist, a republican government requires that “the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people.” Founding-era Americans “clearly believed that ‘the right of representing is conferred by the act of electing’” — that “the elected are not representatives in their own right, but [only] by virtue of their election.” The Founding Generation believed that “the process of voting was not incidental to representation but was at the heart of it.”

It quickly becomes clear that democratically elected state officials and local officials are a requirement for republicanism. The Federalist declared accountability to the people to be the very definition of a republic.

“The right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration” — so that power “is exercised by representatives elected by them” — is “the distinguishing feature of” the republican form.

 “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice,” the Court declared, “is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.”

Put simply, the Guarantee Clause guarantees a government accountable to the people.

Elected officials — even those who are unopposed — ultimately owe their positions to, and are thereby accountable to, the people. Those who are appointed owe their positions to other government actors, who are then accountable for their choices of appointees come Election Day. Those who are “declared elected” thanks to the harmful unopposed candidate laws, on the other hand, are accountable to no one for their offices. If there is any system that the Guarantee Clause forbids, short of a monarchy or other such scenario, it is the system that allows unopposed candidates to run for public office.

Editor’s Afterword

People vote for a number of reasons, some of which traditional psychology would classify as irrational: the desire to participate in the democratic process, the feelings of civic duty and American-ness that voting engenders, and the pleasure of expressing one’s support for or opposition to particular partisan preferences. Voter satisfaction theory, premised on the idea of preexisting, immovable beliefs, denies this reality. Political competition theory, focused on the potential expressive benefits of hard-fought campaigns, ignores it. The Supreme Court’s approach to the electoral process, which limits voting to a winnowing function, rejects it. Regardless of the political and philosophical theories or the opinions of the judges, the act of voting does have meaning independent of the ultimate outcome. It is this fact for which unopposed candidate statutes fail to account—and for which they should be held to account.

If there is any system that the Guarantee Clause forbids, short of a monarchy or dictatorship or other such totalitarian scenario, it is the system that allows unopposed candidates to run for public office.

This is a republished excerpt.
To read or download a PDF of the  entire article, click One person one vote_Article.


Notes

[1] I would like to gratefully acknowledge Mr. Noah B. Lindell, Esq., Law Clerk to the Hon. John D. Bates, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who inspired this article and provided much of the material for it in his own exemplary scholarship evidenced in his 2017 published commentary, “One Person, No Vote.” (Lindell, N.B. “One Person, No Votes: Unopposed Candidate Statutes and the State of Election Law.” Wisconsin Law Review. 2017.5 (2017): 885-954.)

[2] A full list of these laws is as follows can be found in Lidell’s fine article ; I am listing only the NewYork statutes here:; N.Y. Elec. Law § 6-160(2) (McKinney 2017); (See the complete list in Lindell, ibid. fn 1 at 886)

[3] For the sake of simplicity I will simply note that the two approaches are  the fundamental rights strand or the suspect class strand of equal protection.

[4] For example, when Indiana passed an election reform package, into which one legislator slipped a provision that required county clerks to remove unopposed municipal candidates from the ballot, and when state legislative leaders found out about the provision, they raised hell, with the Speaker of the House calling it “terrible public policy.” The sponsor of the law defended it as an efficient measure that would save counties money. Didn’t anyone think of the fact that voters’ rights might have been protected. Of course not. The bottom line was to “save money.”

[5] For an “interpretation” of the Guarantee Clause see https://constitutionallawreporter.com/guarantee-clause/

[6] A republican form of government has nothing to do with the repugnant Republican party as we know it today. Rather, a republican form of government is understood to be associated with the term “republic,” and commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another source.

y.”

[5] For an “interpretation” of the Guarantee Clause see https://constitutionallawreporter.com/guarantee-clause/

[6] A republican form of government has nothing to do with the repugnant Republican party as we know it today. Rather, a republican form of government is understood to be associated with the term “republic,” and commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another source.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 17, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Open Letter to County Legislator Patrick Linger and Greene County DA Joseph Stanzione

Funding for Justice

We’re big enough now to start making a real serious difference in how things are done around here. So far, we’ve just been providing information and facts. Maybe it’s time to start rocking some boats through the courts. Just think of it this way: If we were to ask only 50% of our readers to donate only $1 to a Justice Fund, we’d have enough to send a good number of our elected officials and public servants to the new jail they want to build. (We say only 50% of our readers because the other 50% are readers who say they don’t read this blog but practically live on it. That 50% are the state, county, and town parasites who go on this blog to see if they’ve been mentioned today. We seriously doubt that they’d be willing to contribute to their own prosecution fund. Even if we sent just two or three to jail and a couple were to lose their pension rights, that would send a message to the others that they might be next. Send a couple of public employees to jail, have a couple of judges disbarred, take away a couple of attorney’s license to practice their corrupt law. What do you think, readers, voters, citizens? Does that sound like a plan?)


It’s an election year and in the New Baltimore Town Hall they’re still in “lawyer mode,” according to New Baltimore Sole Assessor, Gordon Bennett.

It’s and election year and County Legislator for New Baltimore, Patrick “Pat” Linger, running on the Republican ticket, is seeking re-election. Joseph “Joe” Stanzione is also seeking re-election to the Greene County District Attorney Office.

Linger’s and Stanzione’s Republican “friends” in New Baltimore Town Hall haven’t done them any favors! In fact, the way New Baltimore Town Hall has conducted the business of government is likely to have hurt Linger, Stanzione and others very badly, and may even cost them the election. We’ll be doing our best to see to that.

These two politicians seeking re-election have two things in common:

  • They have dropped the ball when it comes to ensuring good government and compliance with the law.
  • They have managed to slip under the radar during their past terms in office, to avoid detection of their incompetence.

We haven’t missed the fact that while the New Baltimore Highway Department was squandering taxpayer dollars, Pat Linger and George Amedore were handing him fistfuls of taxpayer money in CHIPS grants and other state and federal support for highway infrastructure. The New Baltimore Highway Department under Denis Jordan and now under Scott van Wormer, had no training or education to qualify them for planning or designing or even for repairing roads and highway infrastructure. The money was squandered, wasted, and Linger and Amedore just were oblivious, never checking or monitoring how the money was being used. The Greene County DA, Joe Stanzione, was aware of what was going on; WE REPORTED IT TO HIM!!! Nick Dellisanti and Jeff Ruso were also aware of what was going on but couldn’t control Jordan!!! Puppet Dellisanti, we recall, defended his choices of appointees by saying, “Republicans appoint Republicans,” and we see where that got New Baltimore! Residents and taxpayers got screwed!!!

Thanks Linger, St anzione, Dellisanti, Ruso, Jordan, van Wormer!!!
You sure know how to kindle a cozy fire for yourselves…using our money!!!

We think that a local resident has hit the nail on the head when he writes in an

Open Letter to
Patrick “Pat” Linger, Greene County Legislator for the Town of New Baltimore
and
Joseph “Joe” Stanzione, Greene County District Attorney

Here’s what the resident has to say:
(Reprinted in its entirety; we have added the graphics.)

Dear Mr. Linger:
Dear Mr. Stanzione:

You have failed us miserably. You have betrayed the trust we invested in you when we stood behind you and elected you to public office. You have violated your oaths of office. You have shown yourselves to be unfit for public office.

I am writing to you regarding a state of affairs in the Town of New Baltimore, County of Greene, which has been ignored by the incumbent Republican Town Supervisors over three terms: Nick Dellisanti during his two terms in office, and Jeff Ruso, the current Town Supervisor.

We cite here as well the state of affairs that has been going on for almost two decades in the New Baltimore Highway Department under former Highway Superintendent Denis Jordan, and which is continuing under the acting Highway Superintendent Scott vanWormer, and will likely continue under the next Highway Superintendent Alan vanWormer, Scott vanWormer’s brother, who is running for that office unopposed and who will be “declared elected,” under New York State ElectionLaw.

Residents and voters, at least those of us who have not been so discouraged by the state of affairs in New Baltimore, and who still go to the polls – for all the good it does and what little difference it makes. New Baltimore voters have for several years now been deprived of their right to choose their elected officials because the Greene County and New Baltimore political party committees are unable to run candidates, and we voters are being force-fed candidates running unopposed; we are being denied our vote. We do not have “elections” in New Baltimore; we may go to the polls but we have a choice of ONE. That’s not democracy.

Business as usual in Greene County and New Baltimore.

Former Town Supervisor Nick Dellisanti chose not to run for office in 2017; instead, his deputy Jeff Ruso (R) ran unopposed and was “declared elected” though not elected, in fact more than a third of those going to the polls abstained from casting a vote for Ruso. But Ruso’s first order of business when assuming office in January 2018 was to appoint Nick Dellisanti as his Deputy Supervisor. Although the fact that Dellisanti accepted the appointment doesn’t make a lot of sense, the bottom line is that we in New Baltimore have two executives, the Supervisor and his Deputy Supervisor, neither of which have been democratically elected.

But what’s worse, is that in Town Hall we have a gaggle of clowns who have no idea why they are there, and are blinded by their political ambitions and have forgotten or never knew what public service is; they are not public servants, they are interested only in cronyism and their simple-minded notions of power.

Here’s an example out of real life in New Baltimore, and an example of how Mr. Dellisanti, Mr. Ruso and their respective Town Boards, appointees, and hirelings have misused taxpayers, and abused their pubic offices.

You, Mr. Linger, and you, Mr. Stanzione, have been personally informed of these situations by those affected but have done NOTHING. It’s an election year, Mr. Linger and Mr. Stanzione, so don’t you think it’s time you grunted or got off the pot? It’s an election year, Mr. Linger and Mr. Stanzione, so don’t you think you should come up with some answers and some actions? You’ve done nothing so far so now might be a great time to show some good faith, even if it is self-serving in an election year.

First of all, for almost two decades, the former New Baltimore Highway Superintendent, Mr. Denis Jordan, was given carte blanche to do what he pleased in the Town of New Baltimore, squandering countless hundreds of thousands, very likely millions of taxpayer dollars doing more damage than improvement. Why? Because he was allowed to do that by past Town administrations, both Democrat and Republican, and because he was not monitored, despite the fact he had no training or education, and was about as qualified as a cabbage to do the job. His recent resignation and the so-called investigations are in reality a smoke and mirrors game. The investigations it seems are nothing more than a pornographic dog and pony act, making fools of voters, taxpayers, and those adversely affected by Jordan’s incompetence and indifference.

Why haven’t we heard anything more about the so-called investigations? What was the outcome? You investigated a public entity and a public figure but the public has been kept in the dark. Is that your idea of good government? It appears to us that it is.

We don’t hear anything from our elected officials in Town Hall about these investigations. In fact, according to local media, New Baltimore Town Officials claimed not to be aware of any “investigations,” or not to have been informed of them. I find that very hard to believe, especially given the fact that the subject of the investigations was a New Baltimore Department head and an elected official, Mr. Denis Jordan, and the New Baltimore Town Clerk’s office was floor-to-ceiling with banker’s boxes all labeled “Highway Department,” during the investigations. But Supervisor Ruso and members of the Town Board were unaware of the investigations. Were you, Mr. Linger, or you, Mr. Stanzione, aware of the investigations? If so, why weren’t New Baltimore residents and taxpayers informed?

The incompetence and negligence of the New Baltimore Town Board under Dellisanti and Ruso, and their indifference and negligence of the damage that Denis Jordan was doing can’t be made up. It’s real, it’s ongoing, and it’s going to haunt them and you for some considerable time to come. Why? Because it’s scandalous!

In 2016, both Dellisanti and Ruso, along with sitting Town Board member Shelly van Etten, made personal inspections of the results of lack of maintenance of New Street in New Baltimore, and the damage to private property as the result of that lack of maintenance of the roadway owned by the Town of New Baltimore and for which the Town of New Baltimore and its Highway Department were legally liable for repair and maintenance. [Editor’s Note: After two years, neither Dellisanti nor Ruso, nor the Highway Department have responded with any proposal to fix the damage they caused.]

Dellisanti and Ruso, and two days later, Mr. Denis Jordan and his Deputy Mr. Scott van Wormer, again visited New Street, and for a second time Dellisanti and Ruso were apprised of the situation and the damage being done.

Dellisanti, Ruso, and Jordan managed to ignore the ongoing damage, Jordan creating new hazards and damage every time he managed to make an appearance.

Notices of Claim were served in which the Town was apprised in detail of the damage, and the associated liabilities. Dellisanti and Ruso did nothing to cure the damage or to take any responsibility; they simply handed the Notices over to their insurance company, who then handed the Notices to their attorneys.

Why is it that bad government seems to think they can avoid liability and responsibility if they hand their incompetence over to a law firm? Town law provides for remedies but the Town of New Baltimore has, and continues to avoid their responsibilities and forces taxpayers and residents into the poor house because the only possibility is court, lawsuits. But the insurance companies have much deeper pockets than residents. Why should a resident have to fight to get local government to accept responsibility for what they have done? Why should it cost local residents, hard-working honest people, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to force elected officials to do what’s right and to comply with the law.

That’s a good question for you, Mr. Stanzione. You’re the chief law enforcement official in the County of Greene, what’s your position on New Baltimore’s liabilities and failure to comply with the law?

Well, the Town of New Baltimore, and you, Mr. Linger, and you, Mr. Stanzione, have been kept updated on the ongoing damage to a private residential structure in the Hamlet of New Baltimore, which you all KNOW has sustained damage due to the failure of the Town to maintain drainage and roadways as required by the law. The structure has been subject to ongoing damage thanks to incompetent roadwork. The Town has been provided with images, videos, and ongoing updates but the Town has so far ignored everything, and has done nothing.

The Highway Department installed a deep so-called “catchment” that’s almost 2 feet deep and 30 inches across, a booby-trap, but when asked to put in a proper grate, they’ve ignored the request for nearly two years. When asked at least to mark the catchment to avoid and accident, they ignored that request, too! Don’t drive down New Street, New Baltimore at night, you’re risking your life. But you, Mr. Linger, you, Mr. Stanzione, you Mr. Dellisanti, and you Mr. Ruso, all know about this. But you have done NOTHING about it. And now Linger and Stanzione, you’re asking New Baltimore for their votes?!?

In fact, Mr. Linger, we’ve read that you were asked to share your accomplishments with a local reporting medium but you refused to respond. Does that mean you have no accomplishments or that you feel you don’t owe the voting public that information or even a response? Which is it Mr. Linger?

Well, the tax bills come out though, with clockwork regularity. A building’s collapsing because of Town negligence but the building inspector/code enforcement officer and the assessor refuse to inspect the building. The owner pays his taxes on a building that he can’t use.

When asked to inspect the site and to adjust the assessment, the New Baltimore Sole Assessor, Gordon Bennett, refuses and tells the owner to take it up on Grievance Day.

The owner presents the case on Grievance day to the Board of Assessment Review, a group of appointees, appointed by the Town Supervisor and approved by the Town Board. Again, facts, just the facts, images, answers were presented to the BAR, who granted 9 out of 11 requests for reduction of assessments but denied the requests made by the New Street property owner. This blog reported on that scandal.

The next step was to go before a hearing officer in a Small Claims Assessment Review proceeding (S.C.A.R.) and ask that an independent hearing officer reconsider the BAR’s determination. This was done and Sole Assessor Bennett appeared to defend his assessment, but claimed that the property was not owner-occupied, and therefore, the owner was not eligible to be heard. But the property was and is “owner-occupied” as defined by the law but the more-than-eighty year old hearing officer stopped listening early in the hearing and, despite volumes of proof, sided with Bennett, although allowing a $1,000 reduction in another affected property.

Does something sound fishy here? Well, it gets even better, because New Baltimore’s Bennett responded to the hearing officer’s question, “Why hasn’t New Baltimore condemned the structure?” Bennett replied that New Baltimore Town Hall was in “lawyer mode,” meaning that they would not respond because of liability. [Editor’s emphasis]

If that wasn’t enough, Bennett shot himself and the Town of New Baltimore in the foot a second time when he stated, and I quote from the hearing officer’s official determination:

But first, a quote from the hearing officer:

“Petitioner representative under oath states that the house is used for storage and that it is uninhabitable and unsafe to use as a residence because of structural failures and water damage. Photographs were presented to support the contention that it was uninhabitable.”  [Editor’s emphasis]

And then the hearing officer states and certifies that:

“The Assessor [Bennett] concurred that the property was uninhabitable because of structural failures. Assessor then moved to disqualify the petition on the ground that the property was not owner-occupied.” [Editor’s emphasis. “Not owner-occupied”? Is Bennett crazy or just stupid? Maybe both! He just admitted that the property was “uninhabitable because of structural failures.”]

Well, if I am reading that correctly, the hearing officer was provided with enough evidence and proof to clearly show that the property is “uninhabitable and unsafe,” and Bennett agreed that “the property was uninhabitable because of structural failures,” I am at a loss Why?  Mr. Bennett and the Town of New Baltimore have not acted in good faith and at least reduced the assessment of the property.

I am also aware that the owner/owner’s representative  has addressed numerous letters and emails to the Town Supervisor, the Town Board, the Office of the Assessor, the Building Inspector, the Highway Department asking what they are going to do, what they propose should be done. The owner/owner’s representative hasn’t received a single response from any of those offices!

Sole Assessor Gordon Bennett explained the reason for this is that Town Hall is in “lawyer mode.”  [Editor’s emphasis]

“Lawyer mode.” I wonder if you, Mr. Linger, or perhaps you, Mr. Stanzione, can explain what exactly “lawyer mode” is and whether there is a provision of Town Law that permits elected, appointed officials and public employees to ignore their responsibilities and claim “lawyer mode?” Is that something like pleading the Fifth? I’d be very grateful if you could get back to me on that one. Yeah! Fat chance? Well, if hell doesn’t freeze over in the meantime, there‎’ll be a very special place there for you, Mr. Linger and you, Mr. Stanzione, as well as Mr. Jordan, Dellisanti, Ruso, and Bennett.

Shame on you all!!! You are hypocrites all!

Even if Mr. Ruso, Mr. Dellisanti, Mr. Bennet, Mr. van Wormer and the others in that den of thieves don’t have any dignity, one would hope that one of you, Mr. Linger or Mr. Stanzione, would have the decency to call New Baltimore to explain, to justify their scandalous treatment of honest taxpayers, or at least to investigate their abuses. Or is that too much to expect, to hope for?

The hypocrisy includes their treatment of veterans. I am a veteran. The property owner of the damaged property is a veteran. I know of others who have suffered at the hands of Mr. Jordan and other public officials in New Baltimore, and those residents are veterans.

I am personally disgusted and affronted by the fact that so many of our county and town officials claim to support and to honor veterans but stab them in the back when push comes to shove. Mealy-mouthed, pabulum-puking hypocrisy is what it really is. Veterans luncheons, monuments, the whole embarrassing hypocritical dog and pony display makes me physically sick.

What’s worse is when you see who’s at those events, it’s a bunch of deluded old men thinking that they are being honored – sometimes they’re even outnumbered by the politicians who all seem to crawl out of the woodwork in time for a photo op, and then exchange a few empty words before making some sort of excuse that they have to be somewhere else.

In recap, we in the town of New Baltimore, the Little North Korea, Greene County, New York, USA, the Third World of the East Coast, are sick and tired of the propaganda and election campaign rhetoric, and the abuse we receive from elected officials who, in reality, are not elected. We are sick of being ignored and subjected to retaliatory or “special” treatment by incompetent public servants, who have their own agendas once they steal our votes. We are sick and tired of public servants and elected officials who breach and violate the contract between the taxpayer and government, the contract that basically says that we’ll elect you, you’ll collect tax paid salaries and pensions, but you have to conduct our business in good faith and fair play.

You have not done that. You have violated our trust. You have violated your oaths of office. You have cheated us. We now demand justice and your heads!

I demand, and I think I can speak not only for the abused property owner on New Street, but the abused residents throughout New Baltimore, for the abused citizens, residents, tax payers and voters who have been cheated and misled by people like you, Mr. Linger, Mr. Stanzione, Mr. Dellisanti, Mr. Ruso, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Jordan, Mr. vanWormer and so many parasites like you, that you make amends for your evil, your piracy, your treasons, your misconduct, your incompetence, your shameful abuse of the trust we gave you on election day.

Fix what you have allowed to happen and make those whose suffering and losses you have caused whole again.

And for those of you who were not elected, who were “declared elected,” but not by voters, you are the worst of the bunch because you have not been approved democratically to lead or to govern.

Shame on you! Shame on you all! And shame on New Baltimore for allowing this to happen at all!

Disgusted,

A Concerned Resident

The Smalbany blog has already published numerous articles on the issues presented in the resident’s letter. They are all true and factual. Supervisor Ruso, Deputy (former supervisor) Dellisanti, Sole Assessor Gordon Bennett, the New Baltimore Highway Department under Denis Jordan and Scott vanWormer,the New Baltimore Town Board are all a disgrace to any concept of decency, much less good competent government.

Veterans?!? The writer mentions an important point that we may have overlooked in the past but now have focused on: veterans and how they’re treated. And Yes! we have noticed the so-called Veterans Luncheon and the Veterans Monument at Town Hall. New Baltimore has a Veterans Committee, too. You have to wonder if that so-called committee works as well as the other New Baltimore “committees,” it’s a wonder we have any living veterans in New Baltimore. Our opinion as veterans: Keep your casseroles and mealy-mouthed speeches and give us the justice we put our lives on the line for!!!  And all you cowardly parasites who never wore a uniform in your lives, don’t give us your bullshit about how you love your veterans!!! Put your policies where you’re foul-smelling mouths are!!

By the way, Mr Linger, Mr Stanzione: Were either of you in the military? We mean other than the boy scouts, girl scouts, or National  Guard or Reserves? How about you, Mr Ruso, Mr Dellisanti: Were you ever in uniform? We mean other than Albany Girls Academy, that is.

Yes, it’s an election year and this is the time to make your voices heard, that is, if you haven’t been deprived of a voice through your vote. It’s uncanny that so many people will put up with having their rights taken away without uttering even a whimper. How can real Americans tolerate “unopposed candidates” or “uncontested elections” without screaming at the top of their voices: NO WAY!

Either do the job or get out of Town Hall! Do the job or get out of County government!

And we’d like to know more about this “lawyer mode” thing Mr Bennett has revealed; is this a new fad in Town and Village government? And what’s the deal with the Town’s refusal to respond to letters and correspondence? Too cowardly to take a position on the questions asked about how you operate the Town? Are the questions about taking responsibility and complying with the law over your heads? Yeah. We can see why you’d try to hide. Confused are you? Look, either do the job or get out of Town Hall! Do the job or get out of County government! And what about the Town of New Baltimore Town Board’s responsibilities in terms of public safety and good stewardship of public resources? Have we turned a blind eye to that, too?

You! Yeah, YOU!
Your ass is grass, dude, and our foot’s a lawnmower!

Mr Ruso, Mr Dellisanti, Mr Bennett, Mr Jordan, Mr vanWormer, Mr Linger, Mr Stanzione, and others can run but they won’t be able to hide.

Letters will be going out soon the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (and the Office of Real Property Services), the Office of the New York State Comptroller, and the Office of the New York State Attorney General, demanding investigations or at least inquiry into what’s going on in New Baltimore (and Ravena/Coeymans, too). We’re going to ask Why? Mr Patrick Linger and Mr Joseph Stanzione have dropped the ball on so many issues, Why? they’re asleep on duty. We’ll also drop Mr Cuomo cc’s of the letters to see what he has to say about his Repukelican friends in Greene County.

We will allege conspiracy to obstruct justice, to deprive citizens of their civil and protected rights, election fraud, violation of oaths of office, unlawful deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the New York State and United States Constitution (3rd, 5th and 14th Amendments), violation of due process rights, breach of contract, among other violations and crimes, tortious negligence, unlawful eviction (constructive eviction), discriminatory practices. The list could go on but rest assured, the evidence and the proof for these allegations and others is clear, conspicuous, and incontestable. Mr Ruso, Mr Dellisanti, Mr Bennett, Mr Jordan, Mr vanWormer, Mr Linger, Mr Stanzione can run but they won’t be able to hide.

How is it possible that New Baltimore, Greene County has such a bunch of irresponsible, despicable morons running the show. How can they get away with destroying private property, avoiding any notions of fair play and good faith, and still sleep at night. Well, when you have no conscience, you can do anything and still get a good night’s sleep. new Baltimore Town hall, Mr Patrick Linger, Mr Joseph Stanzione, Mr Jeff Ruso, Mr Nick Dellisanti, Denis Jordan and Scot vanWormer are living proof of that!

New Baltimore & Greene County Elections.
What we have to choose from..
One Big Garbage Sorting Operation!

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 13, 2018 in 19th Congressional District, 19th Congressional District, 2018 Elections, 20th Congressional District, 20th Congressional District, 46th District, 46th Senate District, Abuse of Public Office, Alan van Wormer, Allan Jourdin, Amedore Homes, Barbara Underwood, Bernie Jones, Beth Schnecke, Bob Ross, Chuck Irving, Civil Right Violation, Civil Rights, Civil Rights, Code Enforcement Officer, Conflict of Interest, Consolidated Highway Improvement Program, Conspiracy, Constitution, Corruption, Crystal R. Peck Esq., D. W. Contento, Daily Mail, Dangerous Conditions, DeLeonardis & Peck P.C., Democrap, Democratic Party Committee, Democrats, Denis Jordan, Department of Taxation and Finance, Deputy Superintendent of Highways, Donna Degnen, Eileen Vosburgh, Eilleen Vosburgh, Elected Official, Election Fraud, Elections and Voting, FaceBook, Felony, Fraud, George Amedore, Gordon Bennett, Greene County, Greene County Attorney, Greene County Board of Elections, Greene County District Attorney, Hudson Valley, Irregularities, Voting, Jeff Ruso, Joan Ross, Joe Stanzione, Joe Tanner, John B. Johnson, John Faso, John Luckacovic, Johnson Newspaper Group, Joseph Stanzione, Joseph Tanner, Linda LeClair, Lisa Benway, Lynn Taylor, Marjorie Loux, Mark Vinciguerra, Marshall & Sterling, Marshall Sterling Insurance, Misuse of Public Office, New Baltimore, New Baltimore Assessor, New Baltimore Democrats, New Baltimore Elections, New Baltimore Elections, New Baltimore Highway Department, New Baltimore Highway Superintendent, New Baltimore Superintendent of Highways, New Baltimore Town Board, New Baltimore Veterans Committee, New York, New York State Constitution, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York State Highway Law, New York State Town Law, Nick Delisanti, Nick Dellisanti, NYS Assembly, NYS Senate, Obstruction of Justice, Office of the Assessor, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Comptroller, Pat Linger, Patrick Linger, Protected Rights, Public Corruption, Public Office, Public Safety, Ravena News Herald, Real Property Tax Law, Republican Party Committee, Retaliation, Robert van Etten, Scott VanWormer, Shelly van Etten, Smalbany, Sole Assessor, Tal Rappelea, The Daily Mail, Times Union, Town of New Baltimore, Trident Insurance, VanEtten