Saturday, January 11, 2014

Picking Macsherry As Cape Vincent Deputy Supervisor. We Should All Be Concerned! You Said A Mouthful!!!


This comment came into my blog and I decided to also post it here.

"What message does this send to the citizens? First Clif, John and especially Brooks not quite good enough to be deputy. It also sends a message that Urban doesn't care that Macsherry is an unelected choice. Yes its legal but it's a slap in the face. We should be concerned he is now the deputy supervisor, on the planning board and on the art x committee, talk about a power vacuum. We worked hard to rid our town of bp and yet Urban's choice is someone who calls himself a negotiator, we should all be concerned. Why is Brooks silent on this issue?"

Yup...and let's take a look at the back story or history.  And yes, as with many things in the wind battle we do  have a precedent.

You see this isn't the 1st time Macsherry have been selected to an important position as the "Big Negotiator" by Hirschey.    Hirschey selected him once before.  So we should look at this like a job interview and see what the record says and how did he do in the job he was appointed to before.  You would think that would be reasonable  since he is appointed to a rather important CV govt, position.  A position that not one single voter  in CV had the ability to elect him to. 

When you see the record you might understand why...and why Urban scammed his supporters and appointed a former Dem. who ran with Rienbeck and gang.

Back in 2008/09 Rienbeck selected a wind law committee, and picked Urban as the leader of WPEG  specifically to represent the supposed "anti wind " side.  However, for personal reasons Urban could not commit to the committee and selected Macsherry to take his place.

I remember meeting with Urban and other WPEG members to fill  Macsherry in on the wind issues up till then.  And just like now, I don't remember Urban consulting with anyone about appointing Macsherry, it was just done and we were told.  How cozy! 

Macsherry was picked to represent WPEG, but here is another odd thing.  During this 1st meeting with Macsherry I distinctly remember becoming uncomfortable with him because he was making noises like he would rather be neutral on the committee and not directly represent WPEG.  So why does Urban after hearing this allow this Macsherry to continue down this road.  Why not say thank you but we need someone who will aggressively fight for WPEG's interests. But he lets Maxsherry go forward anyhow.

And here is the other really odd thing that is much like now.  Why not pick Clif Schneider?  He wasn't a card carrying WPEG member back then , but he was a former CV councilman and been deeply involved in the wind issue since 2005, and had been deeply involved in all the sound issues and zoning by this time.  So why pick Macsherry over him?  To me that made no sense.

So here is job interview point one.

WTF!!!  If you have half a brain how in the hell can you be neutral on the industrial wind issue and impacts  in CV, especially with the rampant conflicts of interest in those days in CV govt.  AND Was he that clueless and out of touch, or did he have his own agenda???  And especially if he did have any clue he would have realized that ANY wind development would have been a terrible gross violation of the existing 2003 CV Comp Plan.  It is basically the same damn plan we have now.

When Macsherry got on the committee he backed away from WPEG, and frankly this did not make a number of WPEG people happy campers!!!

 Macsherry because of his backing away from WPEG, and getting cozy with the Rienbeck gang left WPEG twisting in the wind.  So in 2008 when Rienbeck finally decided to take on a wind law...because of Macsherry's agenda WPEG and the "anti wind" side on the issue was left holding the bag with ZERO official representation on the first real  potentially important wind law attempt.


So here is job interview point two.   You get appointed to do critical job and you leave your clients twisting in the wind???????  Seriously???  WOW that looks good on a resume!

So I start thinking , what's up with this guy???  After watching him at a few wind law  committee meetings it appeared Macsherry was on the committee more for his own agenda...and that appeared in my opinion to be for Macsherry to showcase Macsherry, and show these small town bumpkins how the "Big Negotiator" from he big city operates...so watch out!!!  Problem is if you know the inside story it didn't exactly  turn out so impressive because  it was small town supervisor  Rienbeck who ultimately scammed Macsherry...and Schneider!

I told them over an over, I didn't care where they thought Rienbeck was going or what he had promised them...any wind law such as they wanted with restriction was going no where in the end.
But Rienbeck had them convinced, then refused to pass the law just like I told them he would.  So who scammed who?

So here is job interview point three.

I take a lot of shit for not being a supposed "team player" with the Urban Rep. "team" blah, blah, blah.  But when Macsherry abandoned WPEG in 2008 and leaves them twisting in the wind for his own agenda, and now is appointed Dep. Super...and nobody on the Hirschey team bats an eye about that team player bullshit????

And as long as we are talking about being "team players"  did Urban consult his town board about Macsherry?   Did Urban consult the voters?  Why not pick an elected official like Brooks, Clif, or John from the elected "team"  Like I said so much for that "team" bullshit!!

Don't see much talk over at the Hirschey camp, or on the Hirschey PR blogs about the "team" on this one now do ya???

So when the wind law committee was finished, what happens next with Macsherry?  How was his job performance? 

Well he decides on Rienbeck's invite (since Dick was cozying up to Rienbeck)  to sit down with the two wind developers in a private unannounced meeting apparently not observed by anyone else, to let the wind develops go page by page in detail through the new wind law and list their objections.  Yup you heard it right.  After all this hoopla lately we have heard about secrets meetings, back then Dick Mac and Rienbeck sat down PRIVATELY with the wind developer to give them first crack at objecting to our new wind law.  And this would be blatantly right in the face of a time when our CV govt was already entwined in outrageous conflicts of interest with the wind developers.

Talk about a gross lack of judgment!!!

This would be BEFORE there was any public official public hearing for the public to review the law and make comments on the record.

Job interview point four.

Do you really think it is smart to sit down privately, potentially in violation of ethics laws and open meetings with a major developer and an obviously pro wind town supervisor, when there is already a screaming controversy on the issue.  Exactly what was the point to be achieved here and more importantly why did Macsherry agree with it??


Now when the wind law was finally drafted it needed a vote.  Problem was in order for it to pass and  it would needed at least 2 of the conflicted town board votes to pass and stick.

About this time the WPEG ad in the WDT that I designed came out.  It attacked the blatant conflicts of interest and listed them all in detail according to official records.

BUT...Schneider and Macsherry were pissed because they thought the ad would piss off Rienbeck and the town board and they needed Rienbeck and those conflicted votes to pass what would have been a terrible law anyhow! 

Now think about this in today's context.  Macsherry was so bent on getting this law that he was apparently willing to turn his back on the cesspool of conflicts of interest just to do it.  And it wasn't even a good law!

Job interview point  five.  As Dep. Super. do you have any kind of  grasp on ethics laws even if you can get your agenda by breaking or ignoring them?

Then onto the other major event of this time Macsherry failed to comprehend.  Reinbeck tries to arrest John Byrne because he is videoing town meetings.  The reasoning is the camera is a disturbance now because the board doesn't like how the videos are being used later. 

The original  issue of can a camera be in the meeting (which is perfectly legal) now suddenly becomes a constitutional free speech issue.  If you can arrest Byrne because of what he or someone else does with the video later, and you just don't happen to like it, then what happens if a TV news team with a camera, or a WDT reporter with a tape recorder later does a news story unfavorably to the town board?  Get the picture???

But apparently Mr. Macsherry in all his "Big City Negotiator" wisdom doesn't grasp this fundamental  constitutional  concept because he blurts out right on the video his agreement with Rienbeck and the board while arguing with me.  Even though he and Rienebck and the board are handed their asses by the deputy sheriff who has to explain the obvious to them about not trying to arrest Byrne.  He apparently fails to grasp the critical issue of how Byrne's camera has become a critical and essential equalizer to a govt run amuck with conflicts of interest and how it tells the story to a lot of important people.  Of course this was also apparently about the time Macsherry was cozying up to the Rienbeck gang getting ready to run as a  Dem. with them so I guess once again he had his own agenda.

Now think about this for a minute. Let's say Dick Mac was the Dep. Super. on that critical night.  What would he have done?  Apparently, by his own record of action  he would have agreed with Rienbeck to attempt to arrest Byrne with his camera.

Just contemplate that for a minute.  At some of THE MOST CRITICAL MOMENTS of the wind battle...where was Dick Macsherry standing, and what would his resume show????

Then we have recent events.  Macsherry with a zoning law he was instrumental in formulating, apparently can't read it or apply it correctly.  As a result he is instrumental in creating a major solar zoning fiasco so screwed up that it even  makes the paper and  the town supervisor Hirschey gets embroiled in the middle of it with an illegal solar project of his own he has to take down.

Maybe this is why Richard Macsherry has never won office in CV and has to be appointed by his buddies to grasp at power!  And this is the guy who Hirschey selected over other qualified  Republicans elected by the CV voters to be Dep. Super.

So my question is to Urban Hirschey who has seen all this  first hand...

...WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING!!!!






20 comments:

  1. Well said! Macsherry is out for Macsherry, that is a true statement. Stunning that the board seems to go along this decision, do they really approve? No public discussion ever from this board which in itself is very bothersome. This is a very poor choice for the community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well put Art. I have to answer your "why not Clif Schneider" question. Because most, if not all, have lost all respect for Clif. Besides his betrayal of his wife and family, he does not live in Cape Vincent anymore. How long should he be allowed to keep his town council seat? John and Brooks need to start bringing some of these issues (MacSherry, Schneider) up at an open board meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1:57

    Please don't hold your breath waiting for Brooks or Byrne to bring up anything that might look controversial or challenge the Hirschey / Macsherry team.

    It ain't likely to happen and if it does they will be subject to the same fate as Michelle Oswald...sacrificed!!!

    And now with Macsherry in the Dep. Super. position the loyalty lock down is like to get worse.

    I'm not sure Clif's personal issue are relevant at all here. That is a personal evaluation each person will make outside of politics.

    However, beyond that his place of residency is a matter up for discussion if he doesn't move back to CV in a reasonable time frame.

    Some day more people might wake up to realize the Hirschey camp and their rabid supporters play just as politically dirty as suits their needs.

    Look at what they did to Mary Grogan in the zoning fiasco in an election year. And then voters vote for Urban only to end up with Macsherry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The question is what is a reasonable time period and who decides.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Clif' s personal issues may not be relevant here but he is definitely finished politically! Done! Over! The end!

    ReplyDelete
  6. My comments here are not in reference to Clif's personal issues. Although it is hard to split the political and the personal decisions and choices a person makes. Obviously one can definitely have direct relationships to the other.

    But as I got to know Clif in the wind battle I found some of Clif's wind issue decision making confusing and difficult to comprehend and a bit disturbing for a supposed smart scientist mind set.

    The structure of the law suit he was involved with against the old planning board is just one example. It was a loser from the get go.

    Many many times under significant attack I suggested we ought to be asking some tough questions of these Hirschey candidates and their decision making BEFORE we just goose stepped along with them and elected them without questioning.

    And now we have Clif's unfortunate situation which with his moving from CV has bled directly over to his govt job, and we have Hirschey selecting Macsherry as an unelected dep. super with his questionable record as I explained above.

    So what is next? Maybe people will get the picture of how democratically dangerous it is to blindly fall into the group think without carefully examining what is going on.

    The unfortunate thing is that a severe crisis like our town has been through creates an atmosphere were people grasp at anything or anyone who they think has an answer or can save them and marginalizes other who refuse to go completely along. Thus as I see it the blind allegiance to Hirschey and the sometimes goofy decisions that result.

    I mean...how do you appease a system like Art X after it has removed your fundamental rights, and then call it fair even handed and balanced.

    How do you write a brand new zoning law and tell the community how wonderful it is and how it will save us, and then on nearly the first time out in a big zoning matter the zoning experts who wrote the law can't read the law and completely screw it up, and then embroil the supervisor in the screw up?

    And in their blind stupor the Hirschey supporters like Wiley at JLL sit around as if this is just perfectly normal and acceptable.

    Actually it isn't much different from pro wind desperately grasping at the financial promises and greed of the wind companies and the horrible advice they received from Marion Trieste as if it is an answer for the town and themselves. What sense does it make to destroy a town many levels in the process of thinking you are saving it and yourself. Then strut around in green shirts like a bunch of Jr. High cheerleaders!

    Maybe during the next CV election we won't be so anesthetized!

    There are one or more commenters on the blogs who keep telling us how we must vote in the place we love.

    Well I will say what I have said for several years...just what the hell and exactly what are we voting for????

    Frankly some voters in CV should be ashamed of themselves for some of the choices they have made without question. And recent events seem to be exposing why.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree. Clif's personal issues go straight to character! The actions you take whether is government or in your personal life tell you a lot about a person. It lets you know how their mind thinks when they are making decisions. The citizens deserve to know exactly when he will be moving back to the Cape. I do agree he has lost the respect of many citizens and his ability to win reelection is very doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For me several areas are important in selecting leaders. The first one is their decision making process, how do they arrive at the decisions they make. The next is how do they treat others they disagree with and the last are will they stand up for what is right or will they do what is in their own political interest. Sadly, Macsherry is lacking in all of these.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sadly, from my observation both Macsherry and Schneider...and Brown from the PB will do what is in their personal political best interest first even if it has a severe cost to the citizens. D we actually have any proof of that?.
    Sure do!.

    The prime example of that was what they did to Mary Grogan in the solar zoning fiasco they created last summer.

    Instead of doing what was obviously the right thing to help Mary they chose instead to cover their asses. Even after some of them admitted it was a screwed up process and probably would not hold up in court. And not only these guys but there were a lot of people people keeping the fu$)!@ mouth shut for political expediency and they should be ashamed. The only official I can see that should any integrity on this issue was Hester Chase of the ZBA, and they quickly went to work on her for not sucking up to the Hirschey line.

    That fiasco event really exposed some people as to who they really are and what their agenda is.

    It was disgusting to watch. Sadly many CV voters should have been outraged but also chose to look the other way or defend this bullshit.

    I mean, come on... even the paper figured out what a freakin mess it was and how they screwed up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. anon 1:57 You have this blog confused with the trashy tabloid National Enquirer. Mr. Schneider's personal life is none of your business, and should not be the topic of blog dialogue.

    Mr. Pundt, you would raise the class of your blog if you would not print this sort of intrusion into someone's personal affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I understand your point and I have thought on it myself. But the other commenter has a point as well Because it appears Schneider's personal issues are spilling over into his job on the grounds of his residence.

    In all kinds of politics we see personal things happen to public officials, and the reality is when it happens people are going to examine their judgment. these things don't exist in a vacuum.

    If you think you can completely split the two apart as if they have no relationship, that is unrealistic, and it has nothing to do with the class of my blog.

    You might also have been concerned about all the personal stuff that was slung at many CV candidates, some of which resulted in law suits, and a lot of nasty personal stuff that has been aimed at me and other commenters over time.

    As far as Mr. Schneider people are going to make all the evaluations one way or the other anyhow. That being said I am not interested in the raw details of Schneider's personal life and don't intend to post that here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon 1:57 mentioned Schneider' s behavior in very general terms- not exactly National Inquirer material. Interesting that 5:49 chose to ignore the residency question entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Politics not personal? What? When one enters the political arena one's life is public, period! It is unfortunate but reality and the reason a lot of good people don't run. Of course citizens will ask the why and when of a board member that moves out of town with no date as to their return. If the reason for moving is personal it is of no fault of the citizens who put them in office and have the expectation they will reside in CV.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And to think a new campaign slogan was born, Escape out of the Cape!

    ReplyDelete
  15. anon.4:27 I disagree with the sequence of your logic. The issue of Mr. Schneider's residency may well be the business of the voters and residents of Cape Vincent, but the reasons for his change of status are not. You make spurious claims that he has betrayed his family, which is none of your business, nor should it be the subject of the political damnation you are engaged in.


    Clif has been a contributing member of this community for a long time as well as others. He has done nothing illegal,or questionable,to warrant your consternation and ridicule. Differ with his policies, and even his actions as a councilman, if you will, that is your right. Take him to task for anything he attempts in his capacity as an elected official, but remember he is a fellow resident, acquaintance, and friend to many in town, and deserves the respect any of us would extend to our friends or family.

    Your suppositions about his decision making are grossely misplaced and cannot be qualified, least of all by the innuendos you present. You're defense of dragging a person into the mud, simply because he or she assumes public office, is weak and hardly defendable.

    Why don't you try to campaign on the issues that are relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 3:13 Your comment was removed because it was way off subject and simply a personal attack, and had no relevance to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your suppositions about his decision making are grossely misplaced and cannot be qualified

    He DID move out of town and has not moved back. He DID make THAT decision.

    When one seeks public office of course their decision making comes into question. It is the only way citizens can gage who they are. One looks at several areas, past performance on a board, how they handle their finances, and their personal lives. For example, how a person was raised might well determine how they will make decisions in the future, what was their work ethic, or how they handles their finances. Whether it is fair or unfair their personal lives also come into play. Do they have a drinking problem, how many children do they have, etc. It all goes to the package they present of themselves, the citizens are the ones who will have to decide if the package is a keeper or one they wish to return.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 4:28 You are making rational, reasonable statements. I voted for Clif because I trusted him to represent this community in an honorable way. I look at all candidates for all elected positions in the same way. We are a representative government. I believed wholeheartedly in Mr. Schneider' s character. He certainly has the right to do as he pleases in his private life and I have the right to express my disappointment in him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For the record

    Although I think the above discussion in general terms is relevant and important, my own personal differences with Mr. Schneider are on major policy decisions in the wind issue, not his personal choices although his personal choices have spilled over into the political arena and there is no way for people to not evaluate the entire thing.

    Political figures are judged on a lot of things as the commenter points out above. Not just votes and policies. That is reality and it will be reality in CV as well.

    ReplyDelete