Letters & Comments

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

To the Editor:
In a recent Letter to the Editor in the Eastwick Press on May 3, 2013, Jim Martinez highlighted four main points that he would like readers to believe are facts instead of the gross exaggerations that they actually are.
Point One: He mentioned in his letter to the Editor (Eastwick Press) that I, as Supervisor have overspent the Highway Fund by the tune of $377,268 – per State Audit.
Did he read the entire report? In December 2009 a wheeled trackhoe was purchased after being rented during that summer for a grand total of $156,000. A vibrating roller was also purchased in December of 2009 for $13,000. The rest of the money was designated in that very same month (2009) to purchase a dump truck which the Town did in the summer of 2010. Let me take a second to clarify something for him. I did not designate the money for the dump truck, nor buy the trackhoe, nor buy the roller in 2009. As a matter of fact none of the current Board Members were even in office in 2009 except for Mr. Surdam.
Point Two: He stated that I likely trespassed or illegally entered an area not leased by the Town per a local police report.
There were no illegal actions. If there were, why weren’t there any arrests made and charges filed? All the residents have to do is to read the recent article in the Eastwick Press, and it will be clear what actually happened.
Point Three: He mentioned because of the shoddy treatment towards our highway employees expenditures for negotiations have increased from $0 to $10,000 to $15,000.
Doesn’t he know that Town Boards cannot stop a union from forming? Did I sign a card inviting the union to come? Would you or he sit back and give your employees the world and at the same time punish the taxpayers? Do you or he think it’s cruel and unusual punishment making an employee pay only $56 every two weeks along with receiving a $2,500 debit card to cover prescriptions and co-pays for a family plan? How many of our hardworking taxpayers only pay this much towards their healthcare and get a $2,500 debit card to cover the medical co-pays? If this is unreasonable treatment how come the entire Board, (minus one), agree with me? Does he really feel this Board’s intentions are to harm the employees or their families? Companies around NYS are looking for creative ways to reduce health insurance costs, usually forcing employees to contribute more. Are these companies wrong too? As a public servant, I work for the taxpayers and not just our employees.
Point Four: He stated I used *69 to harass the Credit Union.
At the time, the Town Clerk had just hung up her phone and told me that Jim Martinez had called inquiring if there was a meeting that night. Wanting to see if I could answer any questions he may have had, I used Verizon’s *69 callback feature instead of waiting for the Town Clerk to finish what she was working on so I could use her phonebook. He and I had a very cordial short conversation. Nothing like he described in his Letter to the Editor where he said I made a follow up call to harass a local business, the Credit Union. In fact, there was never any harassment during our call on my part.
It’s ironic that Mr. Martinez accuses me of “smoke and mirrors” in his letter, when that is the exact tactic he uses to try to discredit me. Why he would take facts and turn them into gross exaggerations is anyone’s guess. I can only attribute it to the fact that it’s spring and it’s an election year, something I have grown accustomed to in my position as Town Supervisor.
Keith Cipperly
Hoosick Town Supervisor