Letter: Kuiper Responds to Mills

RFH 2010, Cover Stories, To the Editor

Fri, Nov 04, 2011

In his letter announcing his candidacy and at last Thursday’s Hamilton Forum Scott Mills promised the voters what he would do as Town Supervisor.

When the new Hamilton Town board first met on January 7, 2010, we were briefed by a representative of the State Comptroller on the draft of a 21-page report criticizing the Financial Condition and Internal Controls over Selected Financial Operations of the Town of Hamilton. It was based on an audit of the Town’s finances from January 1, 2008 through July 31, 2009, and prepared by the Division of Local Government and School Accountability. Completed in early October 2009, the results of the audit were shared with town supervisor Walt Jaquay and deputy supervisor Scott Mills. The information was kept from the public when Mills ran for town supervisor two years ago.

The final report was made public in November 2010. It is still available in the Town Office and on-line. It includes the current supervisor’s four-page response that addresses the nine recommendations for corrective action on 17 separate faults identified in the report. Before leaving office on December 31, 2009, neither Jaquay nor Mills had informed the newly elected members of the Town board or begun to take corrective action.

Six missing annual financial reports that had not been completed and submitted to the State, as required by law, was the most serious fault. The recovery of missing and often inaccurate financial data and the completion of six overdue annual reports cost the taxpayers $10,000 over the next half year. The inherited mess, along with the disrupting succession of three assistant bookkeepers who left the area for personal reasons, complicated and delayed getting complete control of the Town’s finances. The other mostly procedural faults detected by the State Comptroller have now been corrected.

Scott Mills mentions his many years of service on the Town board as a qualification for higher office, but he avoids drawing attention to his eight years as deputy supervisor until the end of 2009. It is easy for a candidate to make promises, but more difficult to run away from a record of inaction and lack of transparency.

Bob Kuiper, Town of Hamilton Supervisor

Please login to post your comments.

Comments(8):

Timeline

Friday, November 04, 2011 Sharon

Just one question: If the DRAFT of the report wasn't available until Jan. 7, 2010, how could the previous board have taken any action on it's recommendations in 2009?
answer to first comment

Friday, November 04, 2011 Wanda Warren

Mr. Kuiper says in his letter that representatives of the Comptroller met during the Fall of 2009 with Supervisor Jaquay and Deputy Supervisor Mills (I think this was in September or October). Since I attended a number of the Town Council meetings that year, I believe I would remember if these two officials made any effort to share the fact that an audit had taken place during the summer of 2009 and that problems were identified. It is my understanding that the auditor worked in the Town Office, seeking records, many of which had been taken home by the bookkeeper and/or were missing and unavailable. This is the responsibility of the Supervisor (and his appointed Deputy, who chaired a number of meetings in 2009), since the Supervisor appointed and reappointed the bookkeeper-- and was supposed to SUPERVISE her. It also is the case that those in office during 2009 would have been responsible to see that the Annual Report for that year was prepared and ready to submit by the usual deadline in January. I believe that Report was not done until the 2010 Council had to hire additional bookkeeping help to try to recover the records. As I have said in my response to the letter to the editor by Owen Tallman, the Town Law Manual calls for the Annual Report to be relayed to the Town Council as well as the public by the Town Clerk. So the previous administration of the Town and some current incumbents seem either to have worn blinders or to have participated in a cover up. Wanda Warren Berry
Will Politics Spoil this Town?

Friday, November 04, 2011 John

I have never seen such a blame game in the Town of Hamilton as the last two years.For 20 years i could not tell you who even ran the affairs of this town,I raised my family payed my taxes and the roads were maintained and plowed.I know the Recent council were inexperienced and faced a huge learning curve. The new team were endorsed two years by EveAnn Schwartz and Chris Rossi.Lack of Experience didnt count -they were in the same party.I understand party politics to offer choices but the politics are supposed to end once the new people take office-The politics did not end.I know many of us knew there was something seriousely wrong with the reval. Scott Mills talked to Bob Kuiper and Pete Darby but they refused to even consider that the numbers that were used for the base formula were not analized and applied to the property valuations properly.Because of politics they would not consider it was flawed.So now we are facing a 30 to 60 percent tax increase next year and it wont be public until AFTER election day.So blaming Walt Jaquay and Scott Mills will not wash-within two years of them leaving office the fund balance built up slowley for 12 years is at critical?ohh i forgot something wasnt filed properly by walts bookeeper in what 2004? Wait maybe Walt teleported into the town office and played with your books last week-you have overseen this budget for 2 years.I dont think people are stupid with these smoke and mirrors and will support the candidates that learn from the past but does not dwell on it and moves us into the future.
response to Comment #3

Friday, November 04, 2011 Wanda Warren

It has been interesting to me that there have been expressed concerns about party politics in local elections only since Democrats began to win a few elections. Generation after generation there was single-party Republican government here. Indeed, I am not sure there ever was a Democrat as Supervisor before Bob Kuiper (and he earlier had been a Republican, before recent wars changed his mind.) And does anyone know whether there ever was a Democratic majority on the Council before? Now that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the Town, we might be able to enjoy the advantages of multi-party government in which everyone is kept on his/her toes. I, for one, am trying to correct the record, rather than engage in a "blame game." All of this would not have come up if candidate Mills had not repeatedly claimed that the financial record of the previous administration was without fault. He could have campaigned without those claims. He made those claims in order to criticize the present Town Council and "blame" it. But he is not running against anyone currently on the Council! Is he the one who is encouraging voters to think only in terms of political party? Remember, the final responsibility lies with the voters, who elected the present Council. And responsibility for some of the difficulties with next year's budget must be shared with the citizens who turned out in numbers last December to ask for more money to be moved from the fund balance to alleviate the current tax bill. As to the re-val, the Town council, including Holcomb, voted unanimously for it. While Holcomb expressed some concerns at the meeting where Maxwell's was hired, he joined in the vote to hire. Neither he nor Mills nor the Town assessor offered any advice based on past experience to the new members about what should be considered. Actually, according to the Town Law Manual, Town Councils are supposed to act as a body and not as individuals. Their job is to try to convince the Board to vote for what they think is right. The present Council members were advised by the assessor as well as state officials not to get involved in the re-val process, but to let the grievance process take place. All of the candidates on both sides recognize problems with the last Spring's re-val. Chris Rossi and Eve Ann Shwartz actually organized an attempt to help those who wanted assistance last Spring in the grievance process. They now advocate careful study to see whether the results continue to be unfair and, only if unfairness is found, would they plan toward a new evaluation. Wanda Warren Berry
Saturday, November 05, 2011 Ben

As to the response that this has been a "One Party Town" possibly forever, I ask one question. Did all this political stuff take place in those times? As for Bob Kuiper changing to a Democrat, he did so to become eligible to run. He was a Republican, then an independant/blank, then a Democrat. So if Party affiliation is a problem, I guess this begs the question just what Party affiliation guided Mr. Kuiper while in office this time? And why isn't he running again? As for the issue of a "multi-party government keeping each other on their toes", you have to wonder why the author later states that Councils act as a body, not individuals. Does this imply that ALL Town Board members should vote unanimously on each and every issue or vote? Should every action taken by an elected body be done in lock step? My issue with this election is simple. The Town was in the black and had a significant rainy day fund (by the way, there was a reason for such a sizeable fund) and our taxes were managable. Where are we now? And who do you think will best be able to handle the issues in the future. I love the inference that this was "inherited". Sound familiar? What was inherited is now gone and we in the Town of Hamilton are facing a incredible tax hike. I could go on but I will end with "Will The Last One Out Please Turn Out The Lights". By the way, the previous author I have been refering to, needs to be made aware that I haven't been my Party's Chair since the Petition Filing date for this current election. These are my personal feelings and not those of a Party official or operative.
Response to #5 to correct the record

Saturday, November 05, 2011 Wanda Warren

I would be glad not to turn on the lights again, but there is at least one factual error in the previous comment. When Bob Kuiper left the Republican Party some years ago, he affiliated with the Independence Party. People often confuse that with registering as unaffiliated/"independent"/"Blank". But the Independence Party is an ongoing Party, recognized in NY. with its own platform. Indeed,in 2009, Bob had the Independence Party nomination for the Town of Hamilton Supervisor before he was nominated by the Democratic caucus. When his concern about the leadership of the Town lead him to seek our nomination, he volunteered to change his affiliation to Democrat-- but that could not become official until after the General Election. The local Democratic party has several other times nominated people who were not Democrats, usually Blanks. And, indeed, we have nominated Republicans for Highway Superintendent when they seemed to be qualified and interested and asked for our nomination. This year, when he came to our caucus to be nominated, we asked the Highway Superintendent not to campaign in this election-- since, with our nomination, he did not need to do so. Nevertheless, this year we again have had to deal with the awkwardness of having someone on our ticket who seems to be campaigning with the Republicans. Nevertheless, we nominated him because when he was hired the current Board found him to be the most qualified available candidate. That is the principle that has informed our nominations in every case of which I am aware. We spend a great deal of time trying to convince strong leaders to run for what certainly seem to be thankless jobs. Of course, Ben, of course there was not public political conflict when we had single-party government; but that does not mean that all citizens felt they were represented. During the years when only Republicans were nominated and elected in Hamilton, a lot of talented leaders were never considered. As I have explained before, I believe the work of local parties to seek good candidates and convince them to run is virtually essential. Seldom do our best leaders choose to face the extraordinary demands of campaigning and serving in public offices that pay only a symbolic salary unless they feel the kind of support that a party provides. Most political scientists hold that strong political parties are essential to lasting democracies. And there remains the fact that one cannot get onto the ballot in NY without nomination by a party, albeit petitions can be passed to establish an independent party-- as the local Republican have done for a long time-- and the Democrats have in recent elections. Like you, Ben, I do not write such comments to RFH in an official role-- in order to sign my messages as chair, I would need to run them by my Executive Committee for approval. They did not approve these messages; neither did our highly qualified candidates, of whom I am very proud. They should not have been subjected to some of the mud-slinging that has taken place. How will we be able to convince excellent people to run in the future when they see such things can happen and that such falsifications can be published? Enuf, already! Maybe we should have a conversation about the other matters you raise. Wanda
It's not that surprising, actually.

Sunday, November 06, 2011 Ethan

Wanda, it should not be "interesting to [you] that there have been expressed concerns about party politics in local elections only since Democrats began to win a few elections". People tend to pay closer attention and voice their concerns and opinions when their lives are negatively impacted by negligence, lies, a profound lack of common sense and leadership skills, and/or outright incompetence. The recent democrat victories in Hamilton have provided these in spades. Prepare for more of the same if the voters in Hamilton are foolish enough to elect Eve Ann Schwartz and Chris Rossi.
Clarifying Audit Report............

Monday, November 07, 2011 Carolyn

Sharon (11/4/11)asks a question about the January 7, 2010 meeting of the Town Council, wondering how the 2009 Town Council members could have responded if the information was not released until January 2010. In fact the audit report, an oral report called the "Preliminary Exit Interview" was first released to the former Hamilton Town Council on October 2009. Because there were three new members of the Council taking office on January 1, 2010, newly elected Supervisor Bob Kuiper requested that the state auditor repeat the "Preliminary Exit Interview" in January 2010, a request granted by the auditor. Supervisor Kuiper correctly reports that neither then Deputy Supervisor Scott Mills nor any Council member including David Holcomb, made an effort to report on either the Summer 2009 state audit, or on the October 2009 audit report. Voters are entitled to transparency in government. Why did our elected officials in 2009 choose to withhold this information? When were they planning to inform citizens? Carolyn Todd Hamilton Town Council 2010-present