It will be remembered that in July 2021, Colarusso's lawyers submitted a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request for: "All 'records' . . . related to (i) A. Colarusso & Sons, Inc., (ii) the property with an address of 175 South Front Street, Hudson, NY . . . and (iii) the adjacent haul road used to service the Property . . . from January 1, 2015 to the present date, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, public comments, reports, studies, memorandums, resolutions, proposed legislations, meeting minutes, committee meeting minutes, etc." Specifically named in the FOIL request was everyone who has served on the Planning Board in the past five and a half years. What is revealed in the article is that it seems Roberts has been involved in reviewing those FOILed documents.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
1.
ReplyDeleteShe thinks like a crook! In today's Register-Star, Roberts defines an "interest" down to financial interests only.
"Roberts said neither she nor the Greenburger Center will see any financial benefit from the parcel transfer."
Sorry Queen Sophist, but the ends don't justify the means simply because you believe in your own good intentions! Reading in the City Code under "Standards of Conduct," keep in mind that the promised parcel "has not yet been officially transferred." The donors are still dangling it out there.
At section 20-3(A), "[a municipal officer or employee] shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit any gift having a value of $75 or more, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise or any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties, or was intended as a reward for any official action on his part."
Next Roberts treats us to a lesson in sophistry and unctuous dissembling where she condescends to explain why she didn't disclose the matter herself. No doubt she's cleaving to the Code's implied distinction between "legislation" and any other discretionary decision of a City body.
From the Code at 20-3(E). "Disclosure of interest in legislation. To the extent that he knows thereof, a member of the Common Council or any municipal officer or employee, whether paid or unpaid, who participates in the discussion or gives official opinion to the Common Council or any municipal officer or employee, on any legislation before the Common Council or any municipal officer or employee, shall publicly disclose on the official record the nature and extent of any direct or indirect financial or other private interest he has in such legislation."
The Code under "disclosure" should be amended to include decision-making in the broadest sense, in anticipation of the kind of human nature we see on display here.
As Executive Director of an external organization, Roberts first claims that "she was told that it [the parcel] was owned by another party." Yeah, well, nobody believes that.
Her second reason for failing to disclose the gift is that "There is nothing secret about the proposed land donation." Ah, so it's entirely up to the public (with whom she refuses to interact), and to the boards and committees she advises to figure this stuff out? So residents and city agencies are in service to her instead of the other way 'round. Got it.
Lastly, "If there was a conflict, I would have recused myself long ago."
Her last remark requires no comment.
2.
ReplyDeleteBut to understand all of the given reasons for her recusal - and no doubt we'd uncover some more beauts - we need to see Roberts' communication on her recusal to the Common Council. Except that we can't because Council President DePietro is honoring Roberts request by not releasing it! (Attorney-client privilege is established at the request of the client only.)
Why is Tom DePietro protecting Cheryl Roberts?
Release the letter, Tom. Don't get yourself mixed up in Roberts' perpetual confusion about ethics.
Moreover, why is the Council still inviting guest attorneys to pursue Roberts' interests at Roberts' recommendation? What was the point of the recusal then? And what's to prevent a revolving door of such advisors if her recusal means so little to the Aldermen?
I understand that the guest attorney didn't even go into SEQRA matters, though the threat of litigation she was in Hudson to discuss is only pursuant to SEQRA and "public participation" in SEQR reviews.
In other words, the attorney was only here to pursue Roberts' arguments at the request of the Common Council. Meanwhile, the Aldermen who approved of the charade feel chuffed about today's newspaper article. Well they shouldn't. They should feel ashamed they were duped so easily.
Make the letter public, Tom. Stop protecting your colleague or lose the remaining confidence the public has in you.
Reviewing the documents for who ?.
ReplyDeleteAre we really supposed to believe that Roberts was so incurious about which party was donating a parcel of land to her organization that she failed to do a cursory check on the owner? It beggars belief that the executive director of an organization would so completely fail at due diligence. If she’s lying, she should have been fired immediately. If she’s telling the truth and she’s just a failure at the basic functions of her job, she has no business providing legal advice to anyone. At any rate, it's a flimsy excuse that beggars belief.
ReplyDeleteIf Roberts was indeed part of the review for a FOIL request form Colarusso, there was ample opportunity for her to make inappropriate decisions about which documents to release to her benefactor, and her being the gatekeeper for information that was turned over as a prelude to a lawsuit against the City should make everyone very, very uncomfortable.
Questions about Roberts’s ethics have come up for years, and were ignored by the mayor when he hired her as the City attorney. Roberts should have been removed as soon as this was made public. The fact that the mayor and the Common Council President are so blind to serious ethics violations that they continue to shield her is why voters need to step up and force a change.
Please, if you have not voted yet, write in Don Moore for mayor and John Friedman for Common Council President. Integrity matters, and the current regime has shown in just two years how much damage can be done to a City when leaders don’t have it.
What has not been revealed publicly is the widespread talk in town that Roberts and Baker allegedly met privately with Colarusso/Privitera shortly before their appointments, but did not disclose this to the Planning Board.
ReplyDeleteOr that both then tried to manipulate and in some cases insult or threaten members who just want to perform a full, thorough, fair review.
This reportedly includes trying to compel the Common Council to interfere in the review even though it is entirely in the Planning Board’s hands. By law this is to be handled by a quasi-judicial agency (the PB), not by politicians.
What has been driving their hamfisted efforts to ram this application through? What’s their motivation for such highly unprofessional conduct?
All 100% correct, Sam. Hudson, take note.
DeleteIt boggled my mind that Roberts and Baker were hired in the first place. I rememember! 2011 wasn't that long ago.
DeletePeople like Roberts and Baker count on most people's short memories, after which it's less difficult to manage the few who perfectly remember their misdeeds.
DeleteFrankly, I'm not sure they remember their own misdeeds, or even grasped them as such in the first place. I can't remember which one that is, "sociopathic" or "psychopathic."
The Hudson charter specifically names the City Clerk as the officer who is charged with handling FOIL issues. Roberts had no business being involved with this situation in the first place, never mind her conflict of interest given her role at the Greenburger Foundation. I hope that our Mayor comes to the conclusion that he needs better legal counsel in his administration.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth noting that Cheryl Roberts is one of the people responsible for this Colarusso mess in the first place. When the 2011 waterfront zoning was created, there was a huge and definitive wave of public opposition to continued industrial use of the waterfront dock. Yet Roberts crafted the zoning language to favor the industrial interests. On the evening that the zoning was voted upon by the Common Council, 300+ citizens showed up in opposition-- the crowd actually over-flowed onto the sidewalk at the 7th St. Firehouse. Every single person in attendance was in opposition to allowing continued industrial usage of the dock, yet Roberts ignored all the public commentary.
ReplyDeleteAny attorney with a functioning moral compass would have recognized the serious ethical conflict involved in Roberts' role in the Greenburger land donation matter.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget Roberts sits on the board of TSL. Linda Mussman has for years had a pay-to-play relationship with Colarusso. I would strongly encourage 4th Ward voters to consider a vote for Rich Volo for supervisor.
ReplyDeleteRoberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso. Roberts. Mussman. Colarusso…….
DeletePay to play what? What is this supposed Mussmann/Colarusso connection? Are they paying for her useless anti-gravel trucks signs so she'll leave them alone and appear to be concerned about the issue? I don't get it. Please explain.
Delete"Supposed connection"? Did you just arrive in Hudson?
DeleteI thought Holst's was the most astute comment of all.
Unhuman - Excuse me for being so ignorant and arriving to Hudson so late, but how is a list of 3 names repeated 12 times an explanation or sound reasoning? Guilt by association... ON A LIST ON GOSSIPS? YES! GUILTY! How on earth is that "astute?" Are you afraid to actually tell the world what Linda Mussmann's problem is related to Colarusso, even in your anonymity?
DeleteAnd your comment "did you just arrive...?" says it all. If anyone is not as "informed" as you or doesn't understand the history of Hudson politics going back 30 years they are unworthy of your time. I am so sorry that I didn't grow up here or move here early enough for you. You and a few other regulars on gossips, esp related to Colarusso, seem very smug and, as I have opined before, sanctimonious. You are tiring, esp with your long winded comments. What are you actually doing about solving the problems you go on and on about? Do you bother to do anything other than write about them? Let us know so we can all join you in your active efforts.
I used to be fine with being anonymous on Gossips, then realized it was a childish and ignoble thing to do. Not worthy of an adult, for sure, especially an opinionated one. That kind of behavior, hiding on the internet and making accusations, is part of the problem with modern society. And it continues to worsen and make us less friendly and comfortable with one another, even suspicious of one another.
Your pal, BILL HUSTON
It's just too hard to explain the history.
DeleteYou've asked what Norman Mailer used to call "a Cadillac question." You get in the car, then ask the other person who's captured the situation with admirable economy to push.
Ask around and you'll surely find someone to recount the wicked triumvirate from the earliest times (ca. 2006), though you'll have to substitute St. Lawrence Cement, and later Holcim, for Colarusso.
I am supposing based on what I have read, that Linda is justifiably concerned with getting the trucks off of Columbia Street at all costs, where they rumble by her building (TSL). If that means letting Colarusso have their way at the waterfront, widening and paving a road through the wetland, or whatever it is they want, then that's OK. The problem is that the singular goal of getting the trucks off of Columbia Street, while a great goal to have, is not necessarily in the interest of the city as a whole if it is achieved by giving up the rights of the public to a healthy waterfront environment.
DeleteIt seems to many that the trucks could easily go back and forth right now on the one lane gravel road using scheduling and radio or cell phones and that the trucks are being run intentionally through the city for the purpose of harassment and to pressure folks like Linda to support their goals.
There are many options that could be taken, but it requires a determination, perseverance and a backbone that our public officials do not seem to have because they are too busy with other concerns, like building more low income housing and promoting / voting on meaningless resolutions that have absolutely no effect aside from making themselves feel good.
Because Mussman's building (TSL) is on the state truck route, she can only achieve a reduction of trucks there.
DeleteEven then, Colarusso has stated it will continue to use the state road when necessary, which we know means whenever.
P. Winslow, well said.
DeleteIt's infuriating that after so many years of being subject to the same attorney who routinely confounds public participation - especially noticeable in those programs which require it - we now learn that she's combing through the public's participatory emails in search of fantasy infractions.
ReplyDeleteThe only correction needed for Roberts' weird dream that she's committed us to (her self-recusal making not a jot of a difference) is to know that the emails she's scrutinized only ever existed in the context of SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Notice, though, that SEQRA really hasn't been mentioned yet. How come?
Totally lost on someone like Roberts is the description in the DEC's "Citizen's Guide to SEQR," saying that "citizens have an important role in the environmental review of proposed projects. [The public] can offer information about local history, community character or important local resources that could be impacted by a proposed action. [The public] can offer this information as an individual or in cooperation with civic, environmental or other local interest groups."
The only stage of SEQR experienced thus far is the Environmental Assessment Form, and soon the "determination of significance."
Again, the state's Citizen's Guide:
"[In] Determining Significance ... an agency must consider all components/phases of the proposed action (the “whole action”). Determinations of significance must be based on information provided by the project sponsor in an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), other supporting documents and comments from any involved agencies and the public."
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrcitizen.pdf
From the state "SEQR Handbook":
"Courts have held that public participation is a vital component of SEQR review, so failing to meet minimums could leave a lead agency’s SEQR record vulnerable to challenge" [p. 154].
"Affected citizens, interested groups and other involved agencies can monitor lead agencies’ application and implementation of SEQR, including active participation in SEQR proceedings to ensure that the SEQR record contains all relevant information. In fact, if a challenge is brought under Article 78, many courts will look to the SEQR record to see if the parties bringing the challenge participated in the lead agency’s proceedings and are less likely to be sympathetic to the challenge if those parties did not initially raise their concerns within the lead agency’s SEQR process" [p. 165].
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf
You can be sure that, for Roberts, the degree of public interest and participation alone is extremely troubling, the sheer volume of comments confirming the Planning Board's bias to her supercilious mind.
But why is anyone else caught up in her delusions? Why are we even spending time on this?
Just seen in the Wall Street Journal:
Delete"For centuries [in India], feeding monkeys has been considered a religious offering, but this ritual has fueled a certain conviction on the monkeys’ part that humans are in service to them."
"Hudson Mayor Withdraws from November Election," September 5, 2019:
ReplyDelete"With no challenger on the ballot, [Kamal] Johnson already has one foot in the door to city hall. 'That's what I'm most excited about. You know campaigning is a 24-hour day seven-days-a-week job. So now I can really focus on the implementation of a lot of the plans that I have for the city.'”
https://www.wamc.org/hudson-valley-news/2019-09-05/hudson-mayor-withdraws-from-november-election
Omg, Hudson is a small town, less than 7000 people, how in the hell can campaigning be a “24 hour, 7 days a week job”???? LISTEN. I lived upstairs from Kamal Johnson for 3 years. All he ever did was play video games and watch BAD daytime TV, all day every day. Please. I was surprised to learn that he actually had a day job as a youth counselor or some such. HA!!! His “assistants” Michael Chameides and Michael Hoffman know by now that their boss is an utter fraud, a puppet.
DeleteMemo to Michael Chameides and Michael Hoffman: You have apparently worked with our dear Mayor, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US!!!! Tell us all about how HARD your guy is working. What is he doing every day?!?! All I ever heard him doing as his neighbor was listening to Maury and Judge Judy.
DeleteI am waiting for M Chameides' to publish his memoir of his short time at City Hall. The title might be Why I Ran Away From 520 Warren Street. BHuston
DeleteIt just occurred to me that you cannot FOIL documents that are already required to be published, like resolutions and meeting minutes. I hope that the city's Records Access Manager rejected those requests, just as anyone else would have been rejected.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly the FOILer and would-be plaintiff already knows this, which makes its inclusion of these documents pure overkill, a hollowed out effort to intimidate. Boring.
When I write in Don Moore for mayor. Do I use Don or Donald. They can throw out votes, so we must be careful. The rest of the write ins are self evident.
ReplyDeleteI believe either Don Moore or Donald Moore would work. The question is the intent of the voter, so as long as your intent is clear the vote should be counted.
DeleteThat is also my understanding. I am a write-in as Margaret Morris, When I talked to the Board of elections they asked me if I had any nicknames- such as peggy etc. I do not. Don is not a nickname. It is an abbreviation and there is no doubt as to whom you are writing in.
Delete