Skip to main content

Council members say Bialkowski used his own printer to provide copies of complaint

By Howard B. Owens

Bob Bialkowski's active role in pushing forward the complaint against City Manager Jason Molino became a little clearer tonight. His participation is at the center of the current kerfuffle over breached confidence at Batavia City Hall.

Weeks ago, when Bialkowski produced a manila envelope with copies of the complaint letter, he told City Councilwoman Marianne Clattenburg that he received the complaint via email and printed it out for the complainant because that person's printer was broken, Clattenberg said.

Clattenburg said she didn't open the envelope and had no knowledge about the specific contents of the letter before handing it over to Council President Charlie Mallow.

However, the fact that this particular person filed the complaint wasn't a surprise to Clattenburg, because the person first asked Clattenburg how to handle the complaint. Clattenburg said she told the person the proper procedure was to take the complaint to the City Council President (Charlie Mallow). She indicated she was surprised when Bialkowski showed up with an envelope full of copies of the letter.

Mallow confirmed that he received the envelope from Clattenburg.

Both Mallow and Clattenburg say that the existence of the letter was revealed during the Council's next closed session, which had been called previously in order to conduct the contractually mandated performance review of the city manager. 

The council agreed to take the complaint up at its next closed session, since the council was obligated to continue with the performance review and vote on Molino's raise.

That next meeting was Sept. 14, which Bialkowski did not attend, and is central to the breach-of-confidence charge by members of the council. The council discussed the complaint against Molino and agreed that the person who made the complaint should be interviewed by the council and that Molino -- who was out of town -- should be given a chance to respond.

When the council came out of executive session, it voted 7-1 to give Molino a 2.8 percent raise. Councilman Bill Cox cast the lone no vote and after the meeting cited a "personnel" matter, which he wouldn't discuss further, as the reason for his "no" vote.

After that meeting, Mallow, Clattenburg and council members Rose Mary Christian and Kathy Briggs received phone calls from the person who filed the complaint. That person had just enough details of the closed discussion to make it clear to council members, Mallow and Clattenburg said, that somebody on the council spoke freely, either directly to the person who filed the complaint or to another party who then spoke to the complainant immediately after the meeting.

But not all of the details were right. There were also misrepresentations and exaggerations.

"I don't think the public understands," said Clattenburg, "that one of the reasons the council is so upset is that the person was feeding back a lot of misinformation about what was said and we didn't like how the council was being portrayed. This wasn't just a breach of trust. This person (the leaker) was making stuff up, saying stuff that was never said."

Mallow didn't speak directly to the complainant that night (he only received a voice mail), but after he spoke to the other council members, it was clear to him that whoever called the complainant got enough of the facts right that a council person had to be the leaker.

"It was enough of the truth to see that it was somebody who was in the room," Mallow said. "There were enough tidbits of truth, but it wasn't the whole truth. It was just twisted and it was exaggerated."

Neither Mallow nor Clattenburg could say whether the letter as produced by Bialkowski was actually signed by the person making the complaint. The Batavian's news partner WBTA asked Mallow yesterday if the letter was signed, and Mallow said he thought it was. Tonight, The Batavian pointed out that it didn't seem likely that a letter that Bialkowski provided several copies of -- all coming from his printer -- would be signed. Mallow admitted that maybe it wasn't and said City Attorney George Van Nest had his only copy and he would have to check with Van Nest.

Clattenburg also couldn't remember if it was signed and didn't have her copy available.

If the letter wasn't signed, it would call into doubt, at least partially, the veracity of the letter because it would suggest the letter wasn't reviewed by the complainant before it was presented to council.

Mallow was quick to point out that there is no doubt the complainant is a real person and that this person has a complaint he or she considers legitimate. Mallow said that based on an email exchange with the complainant, he's sure the writing styles are the same, but admitted he can't be sure the letter is entirely written by the complainant.

"We don't know that the end-result that we got was the same end-result that Bob got," Mallow said. "I don't know and I can't say for sure."

He then added, almost under his breath, "That would be really devious."

"I can't say for certain that it's the same letter, but I believe the person wanted the council to have the letter," Mallow said.

As we noted in our previous story, The Batavian has offered Bialkowski several opportunities to comment on this matter and he has yet to respond. Mr. Bialkowski has several options available to him to tell his side of the story: He can call us; he can email us a statement which we will post without editing; he can post his own post; he can make a video and post it to YouTube; or he can leave a comment on this or any other post. The Batavian is an open forum and Mr. Bialkowski has all the freedom in the world to tell his story without editorial interference. The same goes for any other council member who has additional information to share on this or any other matter.

Previously:

John Roach

Bob Bialkowski,
"Come out, come out, where ever you are".

Bob, this needs to be ended so council can get back on track. This is coming all back to you, so clear it up.

Why not call Howard?

Oct 1, 2009, 7:01am Permalink
Vicki Newton

I am confused. Is this high school or city government? If Bialkowski is responsible for this mess, he needs to come clean. He is supposed to be a representative of the people who voted for him. Instead, he appears to be acting out of his own warped agenda. What a disappointment to all of the people who hoped he would be their voice on the council.

I am reminded of a quote by Sir Walter Scott:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Oct 1, 2009, 7:17am Permalink
Rich Martin

Sir Walters words were never truer than in this case. Great post Ms Newton.

I got an idea...lets add to the mix a little gratuitous sex ...some amnesia and perhaps a a kidknapping and we got a blockbuster soap opera!

On second thought... I've seen most of the council members in person....forget the sex no one would watch!

Oct 1, 2009, 8:12am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Vicki's comment reminds me of this quote from Clattenburg that got left on the cutting room floor: "(The leak of closed session) was like a little child tattling on some one else. It was just ridiculous. And I deal with children everyday, so I guess I recognize it when I see it."

Oct 1, 2009, 9:02am Permalink
Karen Miconi

John, maybe he would contact you. Offer that option to him. He's not a bad guy, just made a few errors when bringing the complaint to light. We dont know why he did it this way, but beating him up isnt going to help. I hope council can resolve its issues with Bob, then they can focus on the Complaint. Bob you can call me too, if you like, not that I would be able to help. I could type up a statement, or do a video for you. Pookytaka@yahoo.com

Oct 1, 2009, 9:08am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Note: Nobody has gone so far as to say Bob is the source of the leaks. The point is, he's deeply involved in this. He should answer some direct questions, honestly, about his involvement. I'm sure Dan Fischer at WBTA would be happy to interview him, as well.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:15am Permalink
Kelly Hansen

Sounds like a good old fashioned case of calumny. I have no problem with executive sessions. It would be improper to bring forth an allegation about someone until the information and informant is properly vetted by the elected council. If the allegations were proven to be false, or at the very least, a case of 'he said, he said', it would not need to go further. If the allegations were proven to be true, the public would rightly be notified and any actions taken.

What took place following the meeting was gossip, unprofessional and served only to harm an individual's reputation. Kind of hard to undo certain things once they've been done. Dump the contents of a feather pillow off a cliff and just try to collect all of the feathers from the ground. Impossible. Now reputations have been put in a precarious light, and all of it because of something which may or may not be true.

Despicable.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:25am Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
If, and it is an if right now, he said to vote no on a pay rasie or he would release a letter, then he has to go.

He should have released the letter when he got it. He should have used the forward option on his email, no need to make copies and carry them around.

He should sign a release with the Daily News also now.

The leak is less imporatant to me than the idea that somebosy might have tried to blackmail other council members. That should be the real issue now.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:24am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Karen, it can't be more private than him sitting on the phone from the location of his choice and talking with me or Dan, nor just writing up his own statement and submitting it.

Kelly, one of the problems now is that the leak is such a big deal that it makes the actual allegations look like some sort of major transgression. From what little I can piece together, it's really not something major. I'm not going to say more because I have nothing confirmed nor on the record.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:28am Permalink
Karen Miconi

John theres got to be a way to solve this delema. Bob did bring it to council, and hand it to Charlie. Isnt that what he was suppose to do? This can be resolved Bob. Lets do it today, so we can all enjoy the weekend. I dont know what its going to take.
John isnt the blackmail thing just rumor? Whomever stated that Bob said that, should also, come out and face the music. Unless, that too is Bullcutty.
Council should unite, and should always be working TOGETHER. There are reasons they dont. Lets get this out and solve it. Bob, come on. You and everyone else will feel better. Also the complaint writer should make himself known. If you took all the effort to involve a member of council(big mistake) instead of delivering it to the meeting monday, than you should help a brother out(Bob). He stuck his neck out for you, and now is paying for it. You too need to face the music. Lets solve it today. Please>:
CALL HOWARD, at this point you have no more to loose.
We are all human, and make mistakes.
Geez I dont know, call Bea, do something
Bob, say a prayer, and contact someone

Oct 1, 2009, 9:54am Permalink
Bea McManis

Isn't anyone wondering why Councilman Cox felt that "It appears some members of council are overreacting and are on an emotional roller coaster. The tragic thing is they are deflecting (intentionally or unintentionally) the real issue and turned it into a second issue. "

It would appear that there is good reason to react to this. Why would he try to turn the story to the people who have come forward?

Sad, sad, sad.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:39am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

John, I disagree that he should have released the letter when he got it. He should have notified Charlie and the City Attorney and asked for advice while simultaneously advising the complainant to contact Charlie or the City Attorney. Since this is a personnel issue, he had an obligation to ensure the matter was kept private until such a time as the entire council made it public.

Also, I don't get why the leaker, whomever it is, doesn't just come forward and say: "I did it and this is why." Hell, I bet half the people in town would support him if he said he felt he was afraid the issue might get swept under the rug. Or he'd get a lot of support if he said he realizes now he made a mistake. Either way, why not just come forward? If it's Bob, he should come forward. If it's not Bob, the leaker should take personal responsibility.

BTW: I'm not against leaks, per se -- obviously, I'm a journalist -- but the issue here was it was a personnel matter. Leaks are an important part helping to keep the public informed and insiders who provide such information are doing a good public service and they know it. This leaker might view the leak as a public service, but personnel issues are something different than a contract negotiation or some concern over some serious financial issue or any other number of other issues where ensuring public business isn't kept secret are revealed.

Oct 1, 2009, 9:45am Permalink
Kelly Hansen

Howard, I agree. I have no knowledge of the information other than what I have read here and in the Daily. The mess that has followed could not possibly be as big as the initial allegation. Someone has gone out of his/her way to damage the reputation of another and made it personal - far from professional. The morale of the Council has most likely been damaged as you can not have a bright outlook when you must work under the shadow of mistrust, constantly wondering if people will be able to leave personal prejudice outside of the meetings.

You have done your best to report the facts and certainly that is your obligation. It is the leaking of information which could do irreparable harm to many individuals that I find most offensive. Like Mr. Molino, or not - there is no reason to ever pass information discussed in an executive session around like cigars in the maternity ward.

<b>The telephone game, no matter how carefully it is played, always results in the wrong message being passed on. Always.</b>

Imagine being a city employee and having a private matter (needing extended leave due to a grave illness perhaps) discussed at a future executive session? I would quit before I would trust the Council to keep the information confidential.

Sadly, when the information is finally out for everyone to ogle, the damage will have been done. And like many criminals, the individual with loose lips will probably be remorseful for being caught - not for disseminating gossip.

<b>Merriam-Webster</b>: Entry Word: <b>gossip</b>
Function: verb
Meaning: <b?to relate sometimes questionable or secret information of a personal nature</b> <likes to gossip with others about our neighbors' arguments>
Synonyms: <b>blab, talk, tattle</b>

Related Words: <b>bandy (about), circulate, noise (about), rumor; disclose, divulge, reveal, tell; hint, imply, insinuate, intimate, let on, suggest; inform, report, snitch, squeal, tip (off); babble, spill; confide</b>

Phrases <b>spill the beans</b>

<b>Near Antonyms: clam up, shut up</b>

Oct 1, 2009, 9:47am Permalink
Vicki Newton

Wow, Kelly. That is a powerful and insightful post. I wholeheartedly concur. This is certainly a most serious ethical issue and should be treated as such. We must demand that the involved parties admit their role(s) and stand the consequences. Nothing less can resolve this matter.

Oct 1, 2009, 10:02am Permalink
John Roach

Howard,
Good point on the letter, but since the letter writer had already contacted another council member before emailing it to Bob, I would have done it different.

This also makes clear that council will now have to some up with a set rule to take care of this type of thing in the future.

If nobody hears from Bob before hand, the next council meeting should have a good turn out. I can only guess you, YNN and WBTA, along with the Daily News will be there to publically ask questions.

Oct 1, 2009, 10:04am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kelly, you have summed up this issue precisely.

Howard, I have found that if a person feels they are justified to act, they are not afraid to speak up no matter what others think. Conversely, if a person knows from the outset that they are doing wrong, they hide and deny involvement. The intent of this was to hurt another person while hiding behind another. There was no greater good that can be drawn from this action; it was an act of a hateful coward.

It is also important to understand that the person who brought this allegation to council is also innocent and truly just wanted their government to help them. This person was used by this coward as well.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:01am Permalink
Richard Gahagan

This is not a serious ethical issue, its trivial childish crap meaningless hick town politics perpetuated by a bunch of small time narcissistic clowns that like seeing their names in the news. Boss Hog and Buford T. Justice would fit right in.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:01am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Richard do you seriously believe that if something happened similar to this in Texas that there would not be similar outrage? There is probably a law on the books down there to hang someone for doing this.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:25am Permalink
Karen Miconi

Charlie, be nice, and remember, Your "The leader Of The Pack"(council). What you say about this, has to be openminded, not one sided. Stop protecting Jason, hes a big boy. Let him take care of himself. You are still a public leader. Im just saying... You have to hear both sides, and then determine what to do about it. Its your job. Embrase it. If I was head of council, this would have already been solved. They would have had, No Choice, but to do what I say!

Oct 1, 2009, 11:29am Permalink
Bea McManis

Richard,
For someone who has no respect for the citizens of Batavia; it's government; or just about anything else, I can't imagine why you would continue to bother with us 'hicks'.
The ironic thing is that we "hicks" are proud of our people who have made it good somewhere else. Many of them are still proud of the city, and those who live here. They still call Batavia "home" even though they have been away many years.
It is more than apparent that you have no love for the city or the 'hicks'. That is your choice.
This situation is neither small town or meaningless politics. It is a matter of ethics. There would be outrage regardless of where it went on.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:39am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Karen, I will try to be nicer. It's very hard right now to do. I feel very bad for the people involved and I'm not talking about Council.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:53am Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
Nobody is protecting Jason.

This thing would have been delt with last Monday if it was not leaked.

As far as we know, the person who wrote the lette has not even been asked for more information and Jason has not even had a chance to defend himself. We don't even know if Jason has seen the letter Bob has, do we?

While you might not like it, Jason might have done nothing wrong. Of course, maybe he did, but unitl the coward comes forward, we'll never know.

Here's a question. How long before the name of the letter writer gets out now?

Oct 1, 2009, 11:53am Permalink
Daniel Jones

This clearly unethical violation of the public trust has now caused the council to be focused on this issue and prevents them from going into executive session, and frankly, I can't blame them for not wanting to do so. It's a shame that one public official on Council couldn't act like an adult and bring up the complain in a fair and ethical manner. Instead, that person opted for the middle-school route.

Honestly, it's why so many people my age look at local politics and shrug their shoulders. Hopefully whoever "done-it" can be found out so they can be removed.

Oct 1, 2009, 11:59am Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Who? Who could be that stupid?
Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg: My third cousin, twice removed, Cletus Hogg!
Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane: Uh, Cletus, C-Cletus Hogg?
Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg: Yeah, Cousin Cletus Hogg!
Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane: Oh, he is stupid! I mean, I mean even the dipsticks call him a dipstick!

Oct 1, 2009, 12:03pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

My interests lie at trying to understand why everyone has to be so pathetically petty about seemingly trivial matters.What the hell is the world coming to? You sum-bitches couldn't close an umbrella. What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.

Oct 1, 2009, 1:21pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

I cant help getting the picture out of my head of a torch wielding mob of angry people heading to the court house demanding a hanging !

I think "ethically" its important to investigate and take proper action, but I do feel like consistent, worthless to the outcome; updates help fester(antagonize) an already inflamed boil(subject)! The cause of this will result in a massive explosion(climax) when it is finally lanced (solved).

Oct 1, 2009, 2:05pm Permalink
Gary Spencer

I think the next city counsel meeting needs to be attended by a record number of concerned citizens and that they need to demand answers, remember the people of the city of Batavia voted the counsel in and you can vote them out! (I would attend but I don't live in the city and this nonsense really doesn't affect me directly).

Oct 1, 2009, 2:46pm Permalink
Ken Toal

Karen, maybe the person that made the complaint is FEMALE.

Howard, maybe council wants to make the leak the main issue so the original complaint does get lost in the shuffle, and people forget.

Kelly, maybe it is SHE said he said.

Seems to me a few years back, a couple of people in Washington would rather have not had their story in the news either, but it leaked out. They are all doing fine now. Come on air the dirty laundry, let it all out, YOU WILL SURVIVE, MAYBE !!!!!!!!!1

Oct 1, 2009, 10:50pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Richard Gahagan - I didn't realize there were two.
The Richard Gahagan, who appears to revile the city; it's people and government, and now lives in Texas.
I confused Richard Gahagan (Texas) and Richard Gahagan, Florida - who is, indeed, the stellar Batavian athlete.
My apologies.

Oct 2, 2009, 12:54pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Bea, come on you know half the city should be knocked down, the people are nosey gossipers, and government officials act like children. And who on earth decided to attach city hall to the mall? Brilliant piece of architectural planning and design there. Oh yeah and Rick can beat Dick in race.

Oct 2, 2009, 2:21pm Permalink
Bea McManis

That is where we differ. We went the 'knock down' route, and we ended up with a mess.
Now, we should start rennovating and rebuilding.
The "people", my neighbors - those "hicks" - are good folks. We are a microcosism of America...some well to do, others just getting by; some keep to themselves, others occupy their time by talking. No different than any other city, town or village across our country.
The difference between the Texas Gahagan and the Florida Gahagan, is that the Florida Gahagan is proud of his hometown. nuff said!

Oct 2, 2009, 5:12pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Dave Olsen on October 2, 2009 - 1:58pm
Hick that I am, I am happy to have learned 2 new words from all this: Calumny and Kerfuffel. Thanks Kelly and Howard.

Drats, if I knew you were keeping track of words, I would have used my favorite one "bumfuzzled", a state in which I find myself quite often.

Oct 2, 2009, 5:13pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I can't think of too much in the city that needs to be knocked down, outside of City Centre. There's a lot that needs revitalized, restored and revamped, but knocked down -- Batavia tried that once and look what it got.

Oct 2, 2009, 6:09pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Maybe he went on Vacation with Jason. teeheehee I had to say it.. Just kidding John. Good morning yall!! and what a beautiful morning it is.

Oct 3, 2009, 9:32am Permalink
Beth Kinsley

I think Bob's hoping it will just all blow over and we'll forget all about it. And yes Karen, what a beautiful morning finally. I need to get some cornstalks and other fall decorations. I love that place on Route 19 in LeRoy. Huge selection and reasonable prices.

Oct 3, 2009, 10:42am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

NYCOM is not a ruling body. They do not get involved in these matters. If anything their attorney will provide the same information our attorney already has.

That was nothing but a smoke screen.

Oct 3, 2009, 11:49am Permalink
Bea McManis

I realize that, but since they referred to NYCOM I would imagine they are hoping that we all will sit on our hands waiting for NYCOM to reply to them.

Oct 3, 2009, 1:13pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

The aligations against Jason are either really bad, or made to much of, by all involved. It shouldn't matter what gender the complaintant is either. What does that matter? *hit or get off the pot! Like this whole scandle was handled "BY THE BOOK" anyways(what a joke).
Why wouldn't he or she come forward? Why would he or she even bother to start this if they weren't going to finish it. Unless what he or she said is a lie, and blackmail??
I think we all need to put 2and 2 together. There are 2 possible senarios. I still am waiting to here the acusations. If Jason did the crime, than do the time!
Did he take a bribe? Is it sexual? Did he juggle the books? OR- Is this all drummed up Bull*hit by Bob and the complaintant? Either way someone is in BIG TROUBLE!
We Need To Know, and End This Childish Farse!!

There should be an(unbias, impartial) lawyer on this. Not the city attorney. He is friends with all involved, I would assume. Im talking FBI, and Government regulators. Thats how they handled it in Buffalo. They went right into the mayors office.
Dont Shoot, and crusify, the Messenger.
Find out the real acusations.
I cant believe this is taking so long....

Oct 4, 2009, 9:54am Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
Day 5 and Bob is still not hiding from Howard.

The leap that Jason might have committed a "crime" is just that, a leap of logic. A crime would have been given to the police by the leaker, right? The leaker seems to hate Jason and would have exposed a "crime".

This is a “complaint”, and they have been made agaisnt council members in the past, but taken care of in private.

But you’re right, why bother making the complaint if you are not willing to come forward?

Oct 5, 2009, 7:27am Permalink
Karen Miconi

I dont know John. I have tryed everything to get Bob to step forward and clear the air. Cant the city Subpoena all involved to court. By this time you cant tell me that you dont know what the letter said. Im no poitician but if I were, some heads would be rolling. I think this whole scandal is deeper than we think. Many senario's have come to mind, like is he or she getting payed off to shut up? Is Bob ok? (kinda scary), I even left him a comment in his guest book with my number(not that I would have any pull). All I know is somthing is ari. Like someone said above Curiouser, and Curiouser....

Oct 5, 2009, 8:26am Permalink
Karen Miconi

All of the persons involved. Didn't council members get a copy of the alligations? Why are they all so closed liped about the whole thing? This is the most rediculious thing Ive seen yet. Maybe someone should put the presure on. Go to the other news channels and turn on the heat. Its all fun and games till someone gets hurt, or the feds show up. LOL

Oct 5, 2009, 8:27am Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
There has been no "crime".

One person sent a letter about something Jason did that they didn't like or approve of.

The letter came up at a council meeting when Jason was not even there, so Council said they would wait one more meeting, so that Jason could see the letter.

Did you know Jason had not even seen the letter at that time?

The big mistake here is that somebody trusted this letter to Bob. Councilwoman Clattenburg told he/her to send it to the Council President, but they didn't. I hope they learned a lesson from that.

Oct 5, 2009, 11:33am Permalink
Karen Miconi

John, Who determined that there was no crime? Was there misconduct? How is it that its already been determined that no investigation was deemed neccesary? How does that work? Says Who? I dont know John, just curiouser.......I think if a lesson should be learned, it would be that conducting business behind close doors, is Bad Business.

Oct 5, 2009, 12:12pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Karen,
Executive session is for matters just like this.
People have a habit of believing the worst. Dealing with personnel matters in closed session is a way to get to the bottom without airing it in public.
What if the allegation isn't true. Do you know that there are people, who if this was discussed in a public forum, would believe it anyway even if proven false. A person's reputation is tarnished because the public feels that have a RIGHT to hear the gossip.
Don't you think that Mr. Molina should have the right to answer the allegation? He wasn't even there that evening.
Heads should roll? I'm still wondering exactly which heads? Molino's for not being there? Charlie's for being forthright and stating that due to an atmosphere of distrust, there can't be another executive session to clear this up?
You keep insinuating that there is something "curious" about this. There really isn't. Someone breached the confidence of the executive session. Is that the person who's head should roll?
Who said an investigation wasn't necessary. They can't have an investigation until all of the facts are presented. They can't do that because they can't go into executive session.
Where did you find that there wouldn't be an investigation?

Oct 5, 2009, 12:25pm Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
Council wanted to investigate the complaint.

Try to remember, that Jason was not at the meeting this letter came up at.

Remember the phrase, "fair play". Council only wanted to put the whole thing off for just ONE (1) meeting, so that Jason could give his side of the story, if there is one.

Also, Bob had this letter and held on to it for awhile, so it could not have been too serious, right?

And if the other council member is correct, and Bob offered not to bring the letter forward if everyone voted no to Jason getting a raise, how serious could it be?

More important, the letter writer still does not seem to think it is seriuos, or they would have come forward by now and told us all what took place, right?

Now, Karen, do you think Jason has a right to be there when this is talked about? Yes or No.

Oct 5, 2009, 1:38pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

So if i had a complaint about the city manager what is the procedure..Doesn't seem like there is one..Is it in the city charter,John..Isn't part of the city managers job to be at all council meetings..

Oct 5, 2009, 1:46pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

John, yes, Jason has a right to be there. Has he now, read the letter? If not, Why? Why is this so cut and dry. The accuser hasnt come forward, Bob is in hiding, (red Flag),it seems like the letter itself, has been brushed under the rug. It also seems everyone in council, including Bob, is closed liped about the whole thing. What happened to procedure? Mark, Jason was on Vacation when council met.(remember he just got his raise and a huge retro check). That brings up another interesting thought. Why was the letter even released while council had their Monday nite meeting (Bob, and who knows how many others),and I assume, knew Jason was on Vaca?

Oct 5, 2009, 2:22pm Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
You ask why the letter was released? Because one Council member did not want Jason to have a fair hearing. That person seems not only to dislike Jason, but a bit more.

As for procedure, they didn't have one. That is one of the things that Frank Ferrando and Marianne Clattenburg said will have to be corrected. I also hope that they make a rule that compalints have to be made public, along with the name of the perosn who makes the complaint.

Oct 5, 2009, 2:53pm Permalink
John Roach

Mark,
The city manager is to be at council meetings, but if he is out of town, then the Asst. City Manager is there.

This happens once or twice a year at the most.

Oct 5, 2009, 3:07pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

Richard you crack me up. Halarious!! Im not that old though(:, and I dont spell it that way, and I dont own a horse. LOL You have to be awefully bored. If you dont like what I comment why do you read them. My hubby told me your a wisecracker. He is right. Your Abner Kravitz Teeheehee ABBBBNNAAAAAAAAA!! Ha, you should talk, down in Texas with Barney Fyfe. I lived in Houston, and Friendswood. And yes there are tumbleweeds, and hicks(like you say live here) Please...At least the hicks you speak of in Ny have brains. Will the real Richard Gahagan please stand up (>:

Oct 5, 2009, 3:20pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Ain't none dem tumble weeds in east texas Gladys, just blue sky, sunshine, piney woods, big bass, fast boats and sweet country ladies that don't complain about nuthin. I'll be one standin with the dark brown tan, blue eyes and big texas *^%$ eatin grin.

Oct 5, 2009, 4:29pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

Thanks John,,,I didn't know..Was the asst manger at the meeting..did she go into the closed meeting..I still don't see why the just didn't wait to give the raise until they could clear the air and get to the bottom of all this..

Oct 5, 2009, 4:31pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, no.

This is the exact reason private information should not have been released. This was also the leakers’ intent, to harm another person’s reputation without even a hearing. The rumor is growing far past the accusations at this point. There was nothing criminal, if there was I can assure you that someone would be in jail tonight. Pull back guys, you are speculating far past the point you should be. People file complaints or make assertions all the time, even about Council people.

Oct 5, 2009, 4:49pm Permalink
John Roach

Mark,
Nine people (council members) have now seen the letter. If there was anything really wrong or criminal, one of them would have made that public.

Charlie is right, this was just somebody who hates Jason and didn't want him to be able to defend himslef before the next meeting. They leaked it to make him look bad, but misjudged how it was going to come out. Now we have one councilman who seems to be ducking Howard.

Oct 5, 2009, 5:21pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by John Roach on October 5, 2009 - 5:21pm
Mark,
They leaked it to make him look bad.

Unfortunately, there are already people who have found Jason guilty without any information. The leak was a success in that case.

Oct 5, 2009, 6:50pm Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
Correct. The dislike for Jason by two or three councilmen has hurt. As a result, even if the letter was nothing more than Jason was not polite or didn't wear a tie, some will now believe forever there was a criminal coverup.

Oct 5, 2009, 6:54pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Karen, from what I've been able to piece together -- and it's far too sketchy to do a post about or offer up any specfics -- what Jason is accused of is nothing like some of the things you say above. It's nothing that rises at all to criminal conduct. If it were, I'm pretty sure the council would act on it as a matter far more serious than a leak. In my estimation, the leak is a far more serious matter than anything Jason is accused of.

And the chain and timing of events make it pretty clear the leaker's main goal was to do maximum damage to Jason and the council members who voted for the raise, which he apparently opposed.

There's no cover up here, I don't believe, except the one being foisted on the community by the leaker, who has so far not shown the backbone to step forward and explain his actions.

Oct 5, 2009, 8:59pm Permalink
Karen Miconi

John I dont think anyone "Hates" Jason thats a little strong. I would be interested though to hear why members of council dislike him. Maybe their reasons are legit. Who are we to judge them for voting NO to Jasons raise. The persons on council are adults, with maybe some questions on his decision making. I never accused Jason of anything, just trying to put 2and 2 together. I think if the public was told of the contents of the letter, than we could too determine, as adults the validity of his or her complaints. Im just saying.

Oct 6, 2009, 8:05am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Maybe some Council people have a hard time with Jason because he isn’t a push over. No one is going to walk into Jason’s office and tell him to fix their buddies sidewalk or give friend a job. We have a non-partisan City Manager form of government for a reason. If you are trying to put things together, I would tell you to trust the paid administrator over any small town Boss Hogg.

Oct 6, 2009, 9:19am Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Come on Charlie, it may not be up to Jason, but everyone knows, you need to know some Boss Hogg to "get you in" to one them gravy city jobs.

Oct 6, 2009, 10:37am Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Karen Miconi on October 6, 2009 - 8:05am
I never accused Jason of anything,

Yet, in her plea to Bob B to come forward, she writes:
"Please think of something you can do, so Jason doesn't get away with what he did."

Karen, what did he do?

Oct 6, 2009, 10:23am Permalink
John Roach

Karen,
Voting no to a raise is not the same as the dislike two or three have for Jason. Seperate issues. This leak has more to do with their dislike than the raise.

Oct 6, 2009, 10:56am Permalink
Timothy Paine

Charlie, will any of this be discussed in public by the Council in their next meeting? Will it be part of the agenda? If it is please let us know. That would make it a real "must attend" meeting. Maybe the leaker will finally show a backbone and admit what he did if the forum is available.

Oct 6, 2009, 12:02pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Tim, we cannot discuss personnel issues in public. A majority of Council has told me that they will not vote to enter another executive session about this topic until this man steps up and admits to his betrayal of trust.

Oct 6, 2009, 2:41pm Permalink
Timothy Paine

Someone betraying their Council oath should be public knowledge. I'm not saying the letter or Jason should be on the agenda, but I would think betraying the Council, which in reality is betraying the public that voted him in, should be part of a public discussion. The subject can stay secret, the betrayer can't. That's what I'm saying.

Oct 6, 2009, 3:00pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Alright enough is enough of the drama queen crap. Act like adults and stop playing games. All y'all look like a bunch fools. The anonymous leaker, the anonymous letter, the executive clown session, the over reaction, the drama, the games, the local tabloid style media coverage, its all ridiculous. So everyone just cut it out.

Oct 6, 2009, 4:02pm Permalink

Authentically Local