Say What?!? Janet Kash Squirms

To share this article with friends and family, just cut and paste the link below. You can also paste it into a Facebook post.
https://wp.me/p2jPFe-4WN

It seems everyone involved or connected with the Kash case, not only Kash herself but Eileen Vosburgh, chair of the New Baltimore Democratic Committee, and even the New Baltimore Town Board Republican majority, seems to be unable to understand that the main point of the complaint is NOT that Kash made an “honest mistake” — which is pure rubbish — and later corrected it — more like squirmed like hell to try to cover it up.

 

The point is that Kash had past experience and knowledge and a belief that she was prohibited from participating in certain activities which are the work and main activities of the Town Board. It doesn’t matter that she started to get antsy once she was elected and it doesn’t matter that she claims she contacted the Legislative Ethics Commission some time in December 2023 for some reason relating to “paperwork” she received. The fact remains that she had experience, knew and believed even before she was nominated to be a candidate that her Senate employment, that is, as a so-called legislative employee, she would be prohibited by law (her words) from certain activities, activities normally part of the Town Board’s work.

A second point is that she expects the pubic to believe that in the 40 years she spent as a legislative employee, she was never aware that she could or could not participate in certain activities as an elected official. She apparently spent 40 years in Legislative La-La Land!

Kash does state that some 30 years ago, as a legislative employee, she was caught in some prohibited activity and was warned; the burned child shies away from fire, as the saying goes. That incident had to sensitize Kash to the potential of discipline if she were to participate in political activities even in elected office. The fact that she has mentioned that incident multiple times in the past two weeks, must be understood to mean that she had that information on her mind for the past 30 years! What all this means is that she was aware that she might not be able to do the work of a Town Board member but she campaigned and ran anyway, while concealing her knowledge and belief from voters.

Kash was again challenged by a New Baltimore resident at the March 11, 2024, public meeting of the New Baltimore Town Board.

In her response to a New Baltimore resident’s public comment at the regular public meeting of the New Baltimore Town Board on March 11, 2024, Kash’s response is far from convincing.

Here’s what she had to say (all quotes are Kash’s):

I would like to make my response now. If that is fine with the Board and with the public who are here tonite. Questions have been raised about my competency, my honesty, my integrity, and my legitimacy to serve as a Town council member.

Kash continues:

All of the allegations raised against me in the 18-page complaint prepared by a New Baltimore resident and this evening are inaccurate. All of the allegations center around the fact that I am a New York state employee, and I wanted to make sure that my service as a town council member and the votes that I would take would not violate any ethics laws. They will not.

Kash doesn’t even get the number of pages in the complaint right. Actually, the allegations of the complaint do not center around the fact that Kash is a state employee. The allegations center and clearly focus on the fact that Kash knew in advance of her nomination, campaign, and election that she was prohibited from certain actions that would or could adversely affect her representation of the people of New Baltimore as a Town Board member. The complaint has nothing to do with Kash’s very late attempt to cover herself when challenged on February 29, 2024, to explain why she felt she had to abstain from voting on a resolution before the Town Board. Everything else that Kash says is pure flotsam and jetsam; in a word, bullsh*t.

Continuing, Kash tries to pass the buck:

I received unclear guidance regarding the language of section 66-a of the New York State Legislative Law, which prohibits me, as a Senate employee, and a private citizen from taking a public position supporting or opposing legislation being considered by the state Senate or Assembly. It was not clear to me that there was an exception to the law for local government elected officials voting on Town resolutions urging the Legislature to consider and act upon Senate or Assembly legislation.

Kash admits that she has been a legislative employee, an active Senate employee for more than 30 years. She also states that she worked closely with legislation and legislative language. She tries to spin things when she now says she received “unclear guidance regarding the language of [Legislative Law] section 66-a.”

Well, (1) if the guidance she received was “unclear,” we have to ask why she didn’t’ get clarification? (2) We also have to ask what is so unclear about the wording:

“…a legislative employee [Kash] who serves as an elected…member [member of the Town Board] of a governing body of a municipal corporation [the Town of New Baltimore] shall be authorized to participate while carrying out the official duties of such office [Town Board Member] in the discussion, drafting, preparation, voting and dispatch of a resolution, message or proclamation addressed to either house [the NYS Senate or Assembly].” (NYS Legislative Law 66-a)

Kash then admits:

I knew back in December, before taking office, that there was a reasonable chance [that a] resolution would come before me calling for an audit of the 2022 voter registration rolls of the New York State Board of Elections, and discussing related legislation, which would need to go before the Senate and the Assembly for action.

Kash is referring to a resolution template that was to be provided by the New York Citizens Audit for requesting the New York State Board of Elections to conduct an audit of the voter registration rolls and very vague suggestions for legislation to ensure integrity of elections. There was nothing addressing, much less “discussing related legislation, which would need to go before the Senate and Assembly for action. Nothing about the Assembly or Senate. Now, get this: Kash is referring to her believing that there was a “reasonable chance,” of a resolution but had no information about a resolution because she never attended any of the meetings, particularly a presentation on December 6, 2024, about contacting the NYS BOE! Now, in March, she’s coming up with this crapola!

Here’s where the clown act starts:

Out of an abundance of caution, and want to make sure that I complied with the law, I contacted the New York State Legislative Ethics Commission. I was advised to abstain from the resolution, which was an honest mistake on their part and mine. I followed this advice on February 26th, when the resolution came before me.

So, now we have an “abundance of caution,” and she contacts the “New York State Legislative Ethics Commission” who she says told her to “abstain from [voting on] the resolution.” The problem with Kash’s story is this: she says she contacted the Commission in December 2023 on the mere suspicion that a resolution would come before the board, but had no idea of what the resolution would be. It’s absolutely stupid to think that without knowing the contents of the resolution that the Commission would just tell her, “abstain.”

Two months later, a resolution does come before the board, a resolution reviewed and passed by the Town Attorney, and presumably seen by Town Board members, since Kash’s running mate, Debra Sottolano had already prepared a list of amendments she wanted to be made to the resolution. Aren’t your bullsh*t alarms going off big time just about now?

So Kash now says that the Legislative Ethics Commission made “an honest mistake,” and so she, too, made an “honest mistake.”

Aren’t your bullsh*t alarms going off big time just about now?

Kash now makes an absolute fool of herself when she states:

I have never hidden the fact that I am a Senate employee over the last 40 years. I know that probably 99% of the Town resolutions that come before me make no reference to state actions. I have been voting on all resolutions in this Town since taking office but following advice from the Ethics Commission, I erred on the side of caution on this one resolution, and also by [unclear] my appointed liaison position as Town Court Committee chair, since the court receives state grants, would in any way violate the law. It does not.

No one is claiming that Kash hid the fact of her state employment. That’s not in question. In fact, it actually goes against Kash. She confirms that she has been a Senate employee for 40 years. Wouldn’t you think she’d know something about what she could do and couldn’t do after 40 years as a legislative employee, especially given the fact that she had already been warned about prohibited activities? Well, maybe not.

What’s really over the top is that Kash, a rookie Town Board member for all of two months (that’s no more than about 4 town board meetings), claims to know how many resolutions come before the board that have to do with state actions! She must have a direct line to God!

But she does state that she has been voting on “all resolutions,” which is not true. Whether or not she voted on some resolutions, the point remains that she knew and believed that she could not vote on some resolutions, and those resolutions, if they required state action, would likely be some of the most important resolutions affecting the Town of New Baltimore and the people of this Town!

To be very honest, we have no idea whatsoever what her point is regarding Town Court liaison and whether the Town Court receives state grants. She’s all over the place trying desperately to wiggle out of this tight spot and trying to pass blame even on to the NYS Legislative Ethics Commission!

Kash now strangely moves on to the “2023 Town election results.”

This lengthy statement against me also questions the legitimacy of the overall 2023 Town election results. Well I wish, along with AnnMarie and everybody else here, that the Board of Elections would respond to our request to come here and publicly explain the reasons for the mechanical and human error behavior of the voting machines on Election Day. All votes had a vote recount and were certified as accurate, and [unclear] legitimate. Councilperson Debra Sottolano and Supervisor Ruso.

Kash gets this one point almost right. The Complaint does mention the problems that occurred on November 7, 2023, when at least two polling places in New Baltimore experienced serious voting machine malfunctions. And yes, it is common knowledge that the Greene County Board of Elections commissioners’ responses were outrageous. So what’s the point Kash is making? Who knows?

What should irk anyone involved in working the polls, is that Kash mentions “human error” in her statement. What “human error?” Is Kash somehow suggesting that the poll workers were at fault? Maybe the poll workers should ask Kash about this at the next Town Board meeting.

It’s Kash’s concluding remarks that provide the finale extravaganza to her bizarre clown act. There are a couple of points:

In the final analysis, I am being accused of malfeasance because I tried too hard to follow the law. I think most reasonable people would consider anyone’s efforts to comply with the law the right thing to do, whether in public or private life.

Really? No, Ms Kash, your misconduct and dishonest conduct has more to do with your concealment and your fraud. You only “tried too hard to follow the law,” only once you were caught red handed, with your hand in the cookie jar. If you were not challenged on February 29, 2024, all of this would not have come out and you would still be abstaining! And the people of New Baltimore would not be getting what they bargained for when they voted for you: a fully functioning and competent representative on the Town Board!

Kash’s shameless arrogance comes to light when she makes a worthless offer to correct the record, as if that will make everything squeaky clean. It won’t.

With that said, I am more than happy to amend the record of my February 26th vote abstention, which did not prevent the Board from approving the resolution by a majority vote. I would have voted to table the legislation for a thoughtful  discussion in consideration of amendments to the resolution, since no one at the meeting, when asked, could truly understand the content or language which no one seemed to be able to explain.

What planet did she parachute down from? Gee! She’s “more than happy” to finally get honest and “amend the record,” but she can’t do that. The record is what it is and Kash can’t change anything. She’s only a member of the Board and a very controversial member at that, whose time may be very limited. She can’t amend anything so we have to wonder at the arrogance when she makes a statement like that.

What she could have done was apologize and state her regret. Maybe show a little humility and perhaps get a little sympathy. But NO! She’s arrogant and dishonest as ever. She certainly learned a lot during her 40 years as a Senate employee!

She is correct that her misinformed abstention didn’t stop the Board from voting and passing the Resolution. Why on earth would it? Does the fact that the majority of board members voted and passed a resolution without her mean that all of her deceit and fraud doesn’t matter? Can she be that stupid? That arrogant? That clueless?

Looks like she is…all of the above.

For a person who claims she did not understand the plain English of the section of law she claims she did not understand (see above), her statement that

since no one at the meeting, when asked, could truly understand the content or language, which no one seemed to be able to explain.

We have the audio of the meeting and we can find nothing in that audio that even comes close to what Kash is saying here. In fact, if anyone requests a copy of Resolution 53-2024, they would see that the resolution is very clear and the average reader really wouldn’t have any problem understanding the contend or the language. Seems odd that a legislative employee with the Senate for some 40 years would have a problem with plain language. But Kash does.

And there were amendments that were going to be proposed and weren’t able to discuss all of them, and the Board decided to go ahead and vote and pass the resolution by a majority vote. My so-called impairment did not stop that from happening.  So Thank you, all, and that’s my comment for the record.

Yes, Ms Kash, the Board did go ahead and vote to pass the resolution. You might not be aware of it but it’s called the democratic process, in which the majority decides, with or without you, Ms Kash. So what’s the beef? You abstained. You abstained of your own free will. So now it’s sour grapes?

So that was Kash’s response to the New Baltimore resident’s public comment. But it didn’t stop there, because the resident, in the second public comment period at the end of the meeting, pointed out why Kash’s excuse of “honest mistake,” just doesn’t hold water.

Editor’s Note: We are preparing an article on the resident’s points why “honest mistake” just doesn’t work for Kash.

If Kash hadn’t already made a complete fool of herself in her first comments, she did so in her second response.

Kash confirms that she was disciplined earlier for misconduct:

[T]he error or misconduct that you refer to 30 years ago [giggles] I started in the Senate in 1983. I was 25 years old, um, and several years into my employment, I signed a petition in favor of a piece of animal welfare legislation that went to my own senator.  I did not know at that point that I couldn’t even lobby my own senator, so the Senate counsel said “Don’t do that anymore.”  So, yes, I am … I’m still bound by section 66-a of the New York State Legislative Law as a private citizen and a Senate employee.

But Kash again derails, goes completely off track when she starts talking about “lobbying.”

I still cannot lobby my own legislator or, as a private citizen, instead of employee ask for a piece of Senate or Assembly legislation to be approved or denied. Section 66-a, which I now know, allows me to vote on resolutions that call on the Senate or Assembly to take action [unclear].

It’s unclear and will have to remain unclear because it’s not the subject of the Complaint or of the public comment by the resident. Why Kash is talking about lobbying here is totally off the wall.[1] But Hey! What isn’t in this Kash thing?

Once again, to be clear, the problem is not about the NYS Legislative Ethics Commission, nor about Legislative Law section 66-a, nor about lobbying law, it’s about a candidate for public office concealing essential and vital information in order to get elected. Period. Everything else that Kash throws into the sew is pure and stinking red herring.

I tried too hard to follow the law and when I found out that I had made an honest mistake I corrected the record. And as to your allegations that I did not give you the booklet, you had already written your 18-page complaint letter. [unclear] So let’s end it here.

No, you are trying too hard to get out of the corner you painted yourself in. It doesn’t seem to be working out for you, does it?

We’ve already discussed how hard Kash tried to follow the law and we will be talking more about her “honest mistake.”

Again, Kash seems to have some supernatural clairvoyance power she didn’t mention during her tainted campaign: She not only knows about future resolutions, future work coming before the Town Board, she now knows when the resident wrote the complaint letter. How Kash could possibly know that is certainly in the realm of some Twilight Zone episode yet to be written. Suffice it to say that Kash does not know when the complaint letter was written.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t end here, as Kash again, mistakenly, seems to think.

Sorry, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings…or the Board member resigns.

[1] “Lobbying” means influencing or attempting to influence legislative action or nonaction through oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain the goodwill of a member or employee of the Legislature. States generally define lobbying as an attempt to influence government action through either written or oral communication. New York law defines lobbying and lobbying activities in N.Y. Legis. Law § 1-c.