eastwickpress

To The Editor:
As a frequent attendee at the Town of Hoosick Board meetings, I wanted to respond to Town Supervisor Keith Cipperly’s letter published in the May 17 edition of your paper.
Mr. Cipperly was responding to Mr. Martinez’s letter, published earlier. Several of Mr. Cipperly’s points did not pertain to Mr. Martinez’s letter or the issues he has been raising at Board meetings.
Point 1: I read the State Audit Mr. Martinez refers to, and Mr. Cipperly’s response to the auditors. Mr. Martinez never questioned where the money was spent. He simply pointed out what was in the State Audit which described how the budget was overspent. The auditors don’t care where the money is spent (unless it’s illegal). They care whether or not you are following the budget that you have put out to the public. They care whether or not you are spending the money as you told the voters you would. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Martinez was right when he said Mr. Cipperly engages in the use of smoke and mirrors.
Point 2: I have confirmed with HAYC3 officials that Mr. Cipperly did, indeed, enter the premises without their permission. They chose not to press charges (and have Mr. Cipperly arrested) because, at this time, they choose to turn the other cheek. Of course, the Town has not yet signed a lease with HAYC3, which may have influenced that decision. However, Mr. Cipperly’s statement that nothing was illegal simply because he wasn’t arrested is inaccurate at best and deceptive and untrue at worst. It sounds like he is confusing being illegal with being arrested or convicted. Again, he appears to be using distracting tactics so people will not know what actually happened.
Point 3: Mr. Martinez never suggested Mr. Cipperly invited a union. He said that Mr. Cipperly’s shoddy treatment of highway employees was the reason they asked for union protection, costing the Town over $10,000 in legal fees. Mr. Cipperly’s comments in the letter about the cost of health insurance are not the issue. Yes, health insurance costs are high and many towns have made efforts to reduce them and have employees share more of the cost. But the issue discussed in Mr. Martinez’s letter, and at two recent Board meetings, was that Mr. Cipperly changed these benefits, increasing the employees’ costs, without anyone else’s knowledge, including the other Board members. No vote was ever taken to make these changes legal, and the budget was never officially adjusted to reflect these changes. Employees were naturally surprised to see the deductions suddenly appear in the paychecks, after having been promised by Mr. Cipperly that no changes would be made. They exercised their right to unionize, something they never felt the need to do before Mr. Cipperly became Supervisor. Now the Town is forced to pay for lawyers to negotiate the benefits with the new union. Mr. Cipperly is again attempting to distract us from the issue about treating employees with integrity, and being honest with the voters.
Point 4: Mr. Cipperly says he had a cordial conversation with Mr. Martinez when he dialed *69. I spoke with Mr. Martinez about that phone call. He said that it was not cordial and the Supervisor never asked Mr. Martinez if there were any questions that he could answer. He stated straight out that Mr. Cipperly was lying about the matter.
The question was raised: fact or gross exaggeration. Since I have been able to verify everything Mr. Martinez said as true, I believe the gross exaggeration is coming from Mr. Cipperly. I urge Hoosick residents to come to a Board meeting on the second Monday of every month at 7 pm in the Armory and see for themselves.
Margaret O. Casey
Rogers Avenue, Hoosick Falls