SamPratt.com

Benson skips New Leb meeting on open government

Bob Freeman (Source: NYS DOS)

The Chatham Courier has an eye-opening account of a recent trip to New Lebanon by Robert Freeman, head of the New York State Committee on Open Government. As he has all over the State, Freeman was invited to give a run-down on how New York’s laws are intended to guarantee open meetings and  freedom of access to public documents via FOIL.

Missing from the well-attended meeting? Town Supervisor Michael Benson, who similarly missed some 70% of his County Airport Committee meetings.

One infers from the account by reporter Katie Kocijanski that there have been many complaints in New Leb about Benson’s willingness to comply with the spirit, if not the letter, of these long-standing laws.

Expanded gas pipeline would pass through Chatham, New Lebanon, Canaan

LINE EXPECTED TO CARRY FRACKING GASES

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., intends to add a new and larger gas pipeline through northern Columbia County as part of a Northeast Expansion Project. So far the proposal to expand Tennessee Gas Pipeline has received only cursory attention from the local media and public officials, even as neighbors in a nearby county have started organizing their responses.

According to revised maps issued without fanfare by the company, the pipeline would follow existing rights-of-way through Chatham, New Lebanon and Canaan. The route (depicted above) is not set in stone, according to some reports, but would run roughly midway between I-90 and Route 20.

The company projects that construction would begin in April 2017.

The project is understood by some, including supporters, as a boost to the fracking industry. Industry trade publications have gushed about the possibility. In February, Capital New York reported that “The pipeline would mark a significant expansion of fracked gas to the Boston region,” while indicating that some use of eminent domain to obtain additional land for the expanded pipeline.

Public officials in at least one town outside Columbia County received letters about the pipeline expansion in January. One such letter read:

“Tennessee anticipates that it will be able to locate a significant portion of the pipeline adjacent, or generally parallel, to existing pipeline and electric utility corridors…”

The letter further indicates that

“Tennessee plans to explore this effort with interested stakeholders, including landowners, elected officials, and local governments and their residents, as well as the appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies. Tennessee will begin to contact landowners along the proposed project route in the coming weeks.”

However, though that letter went out in early January of this year, scant attention has been paid to the expansion in the Columbia County media. The following brief note was buried in a Chatham Courier article whose headline concerned two unrelated Chatham issues on Janaury 23rd:

Each board member received a letter from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company concerning an expansion project. The letter provided an overview of the project, stating that approximately 250 miles of new pipeline would be installed.

“The pipeline was all new to us. I’m thinking our current approach is to follow along with developments on the proposed expansion project and see what transpires,” DeGroodt later stated.

The board plans to get more information about the project and will remain informed in terms of what impact this will have on the town.

Even less prominently, the Columbia Paper included only a bland, one-paragraph note at the very end of a long report on the same meeting.

By contrast, a story in today’s Berkshire Eagle by Clarence Fanto reports on citizen concerns in Richmond and Lenox, and indicates that Berskhire officials are monitoring the proposal closely. A group called No Fracked Gas in Mass has put up an extensive website detailing its goals, including the overall reduction of reliance on fossil fuels.

The pipeline’s Route 66 Compressor Station (#254) in Chatham near Riders Mills was the subject of a 50-year PCB cleanup project which ended in 2012.

No response has been received as of press time to an inquiry sent Monday morning to Kinder Morgan p.r. rep Allen Fore, asking about the status of the project, the extent of the work which it would entail, and what contacts the company has had with officials in our area.

Residents with questions might want to try contacting Mr. Fore directly as well, by phone at (630) 725-3044 or by email.

Attorney blasts Reg-Star airport coverage

IMAGE: LinkedIn

Ken Dow, the former Columbia County Democratic Elections Commissioner and attorney representing neighbors of the airport in Ghent, has joined the ranks of those publicly criticizing the Register-Star’s incomplete and often slanted coverage of the issue.

Dow sent the following commentary to the Register this morning, regarding Joe Gentile’s latest stenography article, erasing most statements which would challenge the “official” storyline: 

This article gives an extremely misleading picture of what went on at the meeting. The article dutifully recites Mr. Benson's claims and talking points, but barely notes that the bulk of the meeting was one speaker after another—both members of the public and Supervisor members of the Airport Committee—questioning, criticizing, or downright ridiculing Mr. Benson's eleventh hour “proposals.”

The article does not mention that Mr. Benson's plan would require the elimination of the Meadowgreens Golf Course. That omission may be understandable, since Mr. Benson failed to mention that very undesirable aspect of his proposals, and it only came to light when raised by an audience member.

The article does not mention that meeting attendees sharply questioned Mr. Benson's remarkable feat of creating a plan that nearly copied a plan that has long been discussed and estimated by the Airport's long-time engineering firm to cost $3.38 million, except that Mr. Benson's two fantasy plans both called for buying more land than the $3.38 million plan and INCREASING the land acquisition costs by approximately $700,000 and $1,000,000, yet magically DECREASING the total costs to about $600,000 to $1,000,000 below the long-considered $3.38 million plan. What really had everyone rolling their eyes, however, was Mr. Benson's complete inability to explain how he was able to come up with these magical savings.

What really happened yesterday? Mr. Benson made a last-second attempt to derail the Airport Committee's work by offering fantasy "proposals" using made-up numbers that have the side effect of eliminating Meadowgreens, a local resource that is used and valued by hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents. Mr. Benson has had a pathetic attendance record at these Airport Committee meetings, blowing off his duties as a member and skipping all but one or two. It would have been far better if he had extended his record of absence for one more meeting and spared the Committee and public the nonsense he spewed to everyone at yesterday's meeting.

KENNETH J. DOW, ESQ.
Mellenville (NY)

At prior meetings, the Register-Star’s coverage was specifically called out by residents such as Ghent’s Mark Johnson, who pointed out that their coverage of a previous meeting “made it seem like no one in the audience was here.

This site met with the paper’s new publisher and managing editor earlier this year to discuss its institutional habit of promoting and protecting officialdom, while minimizing contrary information—especially when it comes from well-informed but independent-minded members of the public.

Indeed, Gentile’s article omits numerous statements critical of Benson’s proposal from residents such as Peter Coan, Patti Matheney, Michael Singer, and myself, as well as stern questioning from Supervisors such as Mike Benvenuto (Ghent) and John Porreca (Greenport). Even officials previously supportive of other options, such as Hillsdale’s Art Baer, were poking holes in Benson’s presentation. But Gentile omits these in favor of a long description of Benson’s point of view. Some of those omitted statements can be found in Carole Osterink’s more balanced report for The Gossips of Rivertown, for instance:

Many at the meeting--both members of the audience and members of the committee--were not enthusiastic about Benson's eleventh hour proposals. Attorney Ken Dow questioned Benson's motivation. “If this were a serious effort,” said Dow, “it would have been made months ago. This, on its face, is ridiculous.” He went on to characterize Benson's proposals as “just an attempt to muck up the gears.” Supervisor John Porreca (Greenport), who had originally suggested the solution the committee was poised to recommend, dismissed Benson's proposals as “eleventh hour crap.”

Particularly sticky for Benson was a contretemps about the authorship of his proposal, another lengthy exchanged erased by Gentile’s piece. Research by this site indicated that the metadata on a key document circulated by Benson was not authored by him as he claimed, but by Christopher D. Brubach—representative of C&S, the firm which has been consulting to the County on the airport. Benson has stated in emails that his own firm, BCI Construction, has done extensive work with C&S.

Questions were raised about why the County’s own consultants would appear to be collaborating with a lone Supervisor to undermine the Committee’s hard-won compromise solution. Despite the evidence presented below, an uncomfortable-looking Benson continued to insist that he was the author of this document:

Document circulated by New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson as his own

Baghdad Benson still fighting Airport war

New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson missed 70% of  Airport Committee meetings, but now expects to dictate the Committee’s decision.

Six Columbia County Supervisors were appointed last Fall to a new Airport Committee. Months of intense debate and research finally produced a compromise solution for the Ghent facility, slightly reducing the runway’s length while reducing costs to address potential hazards. The Columbia Paper editorialized last week that the so-called Porreca Plan presented “relevant facts, precise goals and a reasonable, affordable plan for making the airport safer.” Even Richmor president Mahlon Richards favors the plan.

But now, the Committee member with the worst attendance record is trying to re-wage the County Airport battle, well after it has reached the mopping-up stage.

New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson attended just two of the seven public meetings organized by chair Art Bassin. The following chart, assembled from Airport Committee minutes, tells the tale:

An eighth private meeting was also held with the FAA in November, with all Committee members in attendance—except, reportedly, Benson.

DPW chief David Robinson and County economic development czar Ken Flood are included in this chart, though they were not official committee members. Yet their attendance still exceeded that of Benson, who has not uttered a word in public on the topic since a less-than-stellar performance on December 11th. 

In his single previous appearance, Benson called for the Committee to enter a secret Executive Session. At an informational session held on the 12th of this month for the Committee to brief the full Board of Supervisors, Benson made and appearance, but declined to comment when asked to do so.

But this lack of attendance and public silence has not stopped the New Lebanon Super (and BCI construction boss) from trying at the last minute to derail the outcome behind the scenes. Nor has a potential conflict-of-interest caused Benson to recuse himself from the deliberations, or given him qualms about trying to shut down the Airport Committee prematurely.

In a January 29th email to the Committee, Benson boasted that his firm has “worked with C&S ... on multiple projects.” C&S is the County’s controversial consulting firm which has reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, as it has encouraged the constant expansion of the airport. Like Benson, C&S representative Chris Brubach has bent over backward to argue against the Porreca Plan in favor of more expensive options.

Most recently, an 11th-hour proposal from Meadowgreens owner Carmen Nero to the Airport Committee, aimed at throwing a monkey wrench into a planned vote on the Porreca Plan, curiously was addressed to Benson rather than the Committee’s chair, Bassin.

Nero says it was a simple mistake. But the error has only fueled existing speculation that Benson has had a role in instigating the ploy. (Bassin generously treated the proposals as something new to consider, though in fact the County has known for many years that Nero would prefer to sell the whole property.)

Meanwhile, in emails circulated to the Committee and other County officials, Benson has been on the warpath against the Porreca Plan, favoring instead Nero’s preferred option: for the County to buy the entire property, while allowing Nero to retain development rights. (Nice deal if you can get it.) 

Benson’s lack of participation in the Committee’s detailed deliberations has not deterred him from  charging others with ignorance, and using fear tactics to try to cow fellow Supervisors into submission. 

In a new email this past Sunday to fellow Supervisors, Benson attempted to wade into the Committee’s long-running debate about avigation easements over neighboring properties, as if he had just discovered the issue. His comments take a bullying tone which seeks to intimidate fellow Supervisors and public with the specter of “embarrassment” if the Porreca Plan is adopted:

I truly hope that there is a presence (on the committee) or otherwise that realizes; in any possible scenario, there is a need for additional easements and/or land to the north of the airport. I believe that there is. Not dealing with this reality would be a significant mistake and will ultimately be very embarrassing for the County and those caught up in the denial of that very simple fact. Unless I am missing something (and please tell me if I am) this is a reality that there doesn’t currently seem to be a plan for?

Yes, Supervisor Benson “missed something.” He missed over 70% of the Airport Committee’s meetings. Benson had the time and energy to raise spurious complaints about the Committee’s email cc: lists, but not so much for showing up.

Had he been present more often, he would know that many issues about the number, location and cost of known and potential aviation easements were debated at length, over several meetings.

Likewise, the way in which such easements could shift, depending on which plan gets chosen, was another frequent topic of discussion—at meetings Benson skipped.

For the record, Patti Matheney, Michael Schrom, Kevin Delahanty, and Ken Dow were primarily responsible for bringing easementissues to the fore -- in spite of much obstruction by the County Attorney’s office in releasing the paperwork which fleshed the issue out. For example, Bassin’s notes for the 12/27 meeting, read as follows.

3. Dow/Schrom Conclusions -  Mr. Dow and Mr. Schrom concluded that they supported a "modified Porreca  Plan", which would reduce the runway to 5000 feet, but expand on the southern end and shorten on the northern end to achieve both the 5000 feet or runway and the needed 1000 foot safety zones on both ends. While avigation easements would still be necessary, Dow and Schrom believe they would be less intrusive and disruptive from a "modified Porreca" 5000 foot runway than from the proposed 1000 foot expansion of the northern safety zone from the current 5350 foot runway, using adjacent Meadowgreens land. […]

In short, not only was the issue “raised” by Benson an old one, it is one whose exploration revealed that the Porreca Plan would be significantly less complicated and cheaper than Benson’s apparent goal of a spendthrift purchase from CN Productions.

Benson’s Sunday email also discloses that he will be absent yet again from this afternoon’s 3 pm meeting of the Airport Committee at 401 State Street.

A big week for backing down (Part II)

 

Last Wednesday’s meeting of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors’ airport committee played out a bit like an episode of the ’80s sitcom Benson, only with the lead character eliciting groans and retorts, instead of canned applause and laughter. As if following a TV script, the New Lebanon Supervisor of the same name did his utmost to assist the Richmor “household.” But in the end even his apparent “boss” Mahlon Richards spurned his help.

The committee’s work would seem primed for comedic misunderstandings, if only because of the confusing names of its members. Out of five appointees, there are two guys named Art, two named Mike, and three with similar last names: Bassin, Benson, Benvenuto. The studio audience may be forgiven if they have some trouble keeping the players straight.

At the end of a tumultuous 90 minutes, Mike Benson finally backed off his threat to motion for an executive session, and to end the committee’s deliberations. For a moment, it looked like peace might reign again. Unfortunately, the reasons for the construction-magnate-turned politico’s decision seemed to arise from a calculation that he did not (yet) have enough votes to steamroll the process. So there was no neat resolution of any comedic malentendu.

The meeting was standing room only, with at least 45 members of the public crammed into the first floor conference room at 401 State Street in Hudson. Attired in an off-the-rack suit and power tie (and for some reason repeatedly leaning down to tie and retie his leather shoes), Benson came spoiling for a fight. But he was immediately deflated by the absence of both County engineer David Robinson and economic development tsar Ken Flood, whom he seemed to have been counting on for backup.

Benson’s goal was to wrap up the Committee’s discussion of whether to use eminent domain (and $629,000) to seize land from Meadowgreens owner Carmen Nero, who feels his property adjoining the airport is worth more like $3 million. But one after another, the premises undergirding Benson’s argument were knocked down:

• FAA: Over and over, Benson applied pressure for a decision by asserting that the Federal Aviation Administration had “required” or “mandated” that the County acquire the land for a safety zone. Each time, either a fellow committee member, or a member of the audience, or the County attorney reminded him that the FAA’s suggestions regarding the safety zone were only just that—suggestions. He was reminded of the Committee’s letters and meetings in which the FAA acknowledged that expansion was just one of several options.
  
  At one point, almost the entire room burst out correcting Benson’s fifth or sixth attempt to portray his preferred option as a requirement.
• INSURANCE: Stymied on the FAA front, Benson tried a fear tactic instead. Raising the horrendous possibility of an accident at the airport—maybe that very night!—he argued that if the land were not taken from Nero right away, the County’s insurance would not cover it. Calling upon County attorney Rob Fitzsimmons to back him up, Benson did not get the answer he expected: Fitzsimmons indicated that their policy is adequate.
• CONTRACT: Already seeming exasperated, Benson turned to yet another line of argument. The County, he said, had a contractual obligation to Richmor Aviation to take the eminent domain action. Feeling on solid ground, he read out a portion of the contract which he thought would justify this position, though the actual text was ambiguous. Unfortunately for the hapless Benson, he was again on quicksand: a member of the audience had read the entire contract, and read out the very next paragraph—which clearly stated that the County had the right to do as it saw fit, and modify the contract when necessary. That fuller reading was again supported by Fitzsimmons.
  
  Hudson alderman and attorney John Friedman also pointed out that the contract itself might be void to begin with, as it does not appear that the County has ever bid out the lease of the airport. Terms, the discussion revealed, were offered exclusively to Richmor over the past 40 years. As Friedman sought to ask a question of company president Mahlon Richards, Benson kept interrupting and trying to answer for him, prompting Friedman to note “how much your voice sounds like Mr. Richards’.”
  
  This attendee then asked Richards (who sat stoically throughout the meeting, answering briefly in tones much softer than Benson’s) whether Richmor had any problem with the contract or the County’s delivery of services. Again Benson interjected several times as if to speak on Richards’ behalf. But when the Richmor chief finally got a chance to speak, he said that he had no problem with the contract, no intention of suing the County, and was satisfied with the relationship. Benson seemed chagrined, yet still undaunted in making an adversarial case against his own side’s defense (that of the County) in favor of a position for a theoretical plaintiff (Richmor) who evinced no interest in pursuing his theoretical dispute.
• TIMING: Throughout, Benson also tried to suggest that time was of the essence, believing that the County could not risk of deliberating a moment longer. But committee chair Art Bassin noted that even if they voted to move ahead on Benson’s motion right away, the eminent domain and construction process for expanding the zone would take a very long time, maybe 3 years.
  
  The only “quick” option, Bassin reminded him, was the one Benson likes least— that of immediately shortening the runway from 5,350 to 4,500 feet, obviating the need for seizing more land on the north end.
  
  It was also pointed out from the audience that the County had been aware of the FAA’s gentle suggestion since 2001, yet had not taken any action to prevent what Benson portrayed as a virtual emergency. The lack of urgency over the past 12 years, coupled with the assurances on insurance and timing, severely undercut this fourth Benson line of attack.
• PROPERTY RIGHTS: Benson furthermore attempted to position himself as a champion of property rights and the freedom of business to do whatever it wants. The effort seemed limited to one business, which happens to be a renter not a property owner.
  
  “No one here is a bigger defender of property rights than me,” Benson thundered, all but thumping his chest. However, Michael Schrom of Ghent pointed out that there were at least a dozen neighboring residents and business people (including himself) in addition to Carmen Nero whose property would have to be seized to enact Benson’s preferred plan. Where, then, was his concern for those people’s and businesses’ rights? Benson could offer no coherent explanation.
  
  It was also pointed out (by this attendee) that the dozen other impacted neighbors’ parcels had been specified in a County-commissioned report for tree removal and clearing. Nevertheless, none of those neighbrs apppear to have ever been contacted by the County to alert them about government’s plans for their private land.
  
  Benson soldiered on, again coming to the unsolicited defense of Richmor and its business interests as paramount. But again, a voice emanated from the audience to chop the legs out from under this phalanx. A local mechanic and pilot who formely worked for Richmor related his experience trying to do business at the airport, describing how he was squeezed out and prevented from setting up his own operation there. If this were all about promoting activity at the airport, why had healthy competition or complementary business been so consistently discouraged in favor of one company?
• OPTIONS: Greenport Supervisor John Porreca tried to turn the debate in a constructive direction by presenting a new alternative: shortening the runway slightly on the North end, while lengthening it to the South.
  
  The Porreca solution would result in only a slightly shorter runway (5,000 feet), and would not require the eminent domain against Nero the north, as the County already owns land to the South. The rest of the Committee seemed eager to analyze this alongside the other two options; but Benson seemed fit to be tied, viewing this less as a positive new idea and more as a threat to his promised motion. Yet again, Richards undercut his would-be advocate in saying that he thought the idea was promising and something Richmor could probably live with.
  
  In this context, there was also extensive back-and-forth about the number and type of planes taking off an landing at the airport. As the committee and the public started to drill down on Richmor’s claims, it became more apparent that the number of jets which would be adversely affected by a shortened runway were surpassingly small. Indeed, the main concern according to Richards was his company’s preference for taking off fully loaded, so that it could buy more fuel from itself and less from other vendors. No dollar figure was put on this added cost. But it hardly seemed to justify a public expenditure of as much as $13 million for upgrades which would follow the six-figure eminent domain process.

As the meeting drew to a close, Ghent supervisor-elect Mike Benvenuto sought to calm the churned-up waters, sensing a growing consensus that the Committee now had a wider range of options and a better idea of what research was needed to complete. Bassin felt that analysis could be completed in a matter of months, not years, and would if anything result in a speedier resolution than jumping straight to eminent domain.

This brief moment of harmony, so much like warm-n-fuzzy final minute of a Benson episode, was spoiled by New Lebanon’s Supervisor. Asked if he wished to make his motion after all that, Benson hemmed and hawed. Then, causing audible exasperation among the audience, he proceeded to reiterate all the arguments that had just been thoroughly discredited.

As if having not heard any of the previous discussion, Benson returned to all of his original talking points: The FAA is requiring it; the County has an insurance risk; the County is in breach of contract; the Committee has no more time to spare; Richmor’s property rights and business interests must come first. This prompted howls of protest that all of these had already been raised and debunked.

Without acknowledging that he had heard any of the prior debate, Benson did seem to have wised up to one thing: that he did not have the votes to carry his motion that day. Of the five present, only commitee member David Crawford (an engineer, who spent much of the meeting whispering to Benson while others spoke), seemed at all likely to agree to end the discussion and move it to the full Board. So Benson instead retreated to a plea that the Committee needs to come to a decision “soon,” to which Bassin again replied that he did not think more than a couple of more months would be necessary to arrive at a sound recommendation.

The incipient harmony was then smashed again with further discord from Benson, who unexpectedly tore into an unnamed citizen for making what he believed were intemperate or even slanderous remarks in an email. Resident Patti Matheney countered that as a public official, Benson had standards of decency to adhere to himself, and wondered aloud if he were prepared for his own emails to be read out at a future meeting. This attendee inquired whether the County had a policy governing the private use of government-issued email accounts, which Fitzsimmons indicated it did.

The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, December 27th (time and venue TBD) at which Michael Schrom is expected to make a presentation based on the results of the Freedom of Information Law request he made with another resident, Kevin Delahanty.

 

A big week for backing down (Part I)

Last week was a big one for Columbia County politicians to back down from  indefensible, controversial positions.

In Claverack, two outgoing officials—Supervisor Robin Andrews and Town Board member Bob Preusser—made a 180˚ change of course in deciding not to remove Churchtown firefighter Nathan Chess from the Planning Board. They were joined by Board member Katie Cashen to override two Republicans still in favor of punishing Chess for refusing to just “go along to get along.”

A collector’s item still available on Zazzle.com

The reversal came as a huge surprise to many. Andrews herself had signed and pushed for the tendentious complaint against Chess, with the unanimous support of Preusser, Cashen and the two GOP members. Allies and foes of Chess alike expected that despite the thinness of the case against him (plus the evaporation of the Town’s attorney almost immediately after a less-than-impressive Star Chamberish prosecution), the Board would again vote unanimously for removal.

What explains the change of mind? One would like to think that the three came around due to the (lack of) evidence and the obviously subjective nature of the complaint. Chess made a strong, concise case the Town Code did not support the allegations. And as the intensely personal of the dispute came into focus at last Fall’s hearing dragged on for several excruciating hours, the ongoing prosecution seemed to become a costly embarrassment for all involved.

One would like to think that this was a case of cooler heads prevailing. But given the pettiness of what preceded the final outcome (including the non-hanging offense of Planning Board meetings “not being fun anymore”), the change from a 5-0 to 2-3 vote likely derived from less noble sentiments.

As Supervisor, Andrews had bent over backwards to ingratiate herself to the Claverack Republicans—much too far backwards for many Democrats’ taste. She became a huge booster of the Pine Haven nursing home boondoggle-in-the-making, a pet cause of Tea Party elements such as Albert Wassenhove. She refused to take a courageous stand on key issues which crept into Claverack from neighboring Ghent, such as the TCI fire, or the County airport expansion.

Likewise, in her failed attempt to vault from one-term Supervisor to the State legislature, Andrews opposed common sense gun regulations just before the Sandy Hook tragedy, and opposed increasing the State minimum wage.

Thus the attempt to nail Chess to the cross had every appearance of yet another move rightward by Andrews. Yet despite all her accommodations and cop-outs, the incumbent Supervisor lost not only her State Senate campaign, but her local re-election bid. Any of the above issues could have cost her the 20 votes by which she trailed winner Kippy Weigelt. (In a bitter and undignifiied email circulated by Andrews’ partner, the candidate’s other half blamed weekenders for not mailing in their absentee ballots, though absentees cut her deficit from 80 to 20.)

In this context, the changed votes look less like listening to reason, than a departing middle finger to the GOP: We played nice and knuckled under to the GOP agenda for four years, but didn’t get any credit. So here’s something for you Republicans to remember us by. (Chess’s term runs through 2016.) Had Andrews shown that spirit earlier, galvanizing her base rather than demoralizing it, she might be getting sworn back in on January 1st, 2014.

The second instance of backing down last week came from New Lebanon Supervisor Mike Benson, who grudgingly declined to make his threatened motion to suspend the County Airport Committee’s work before it had begun.

Like the end of the Chess game in Claverack, Benson’s retreat seemed based more in calculation than reason: by the end of last Wednesday’s standing-room-only meeting, he must have realized he did not have the votes to carry such a motion. But unlike the Claverack situation, one did not get the sense that Benson had heard the public’s concerns, or recognized any error in his ways, and so his push to use eminent domain against Carmen Nero may well come back at a future meeting.

A more detailed run-down of Wednesday’s illuminating airport meeting will follow in the next day or two.

Benson inserts foot back in mouth

New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson appears to be having a bit of trouble adjusting to the world of public governance—perhaps being more used to running his own private show as a construction magnate. 

Last week, Benson was exposed for trying to close down the County’s newly-formed airport committee before it gets a headwind behind it. In a widely-circulated email, Benson not only sought to end the committee’s fact-finding mission, but do do so in a secret executive session. (According to New Lebanon sources, Benson routinely takes his Town Board into Executive Session, regardless of whether the topic qualifies for such secrecy under State Law.) Committee chair has sent concerned residents email assurances that its work will continue.

Following that counterproductive episode, Benson tried a new tactic to distract from the substantive work of the committee. Showing little interest in anything pertaining to actual airport operations, Benson trained his sites on a much more important meta-question: the airport committee’s email list. Who was on the cc: list, he demanded to know over the weekend—and why?

Benson chose to lead off his tirade about this vital matter with an example that blew up in his face.

“I see Cindy Hall’s name, but I don’t see Greg Fingar’s name,” Benson thundered, referring respectively to the County Democratic and Republican chairs—in an apparent effort to imply that Bassin had some partisan agenda in forming the email list.

“This just doesn’t look good,” Benson concluded, wringing his hands: “In fact, I am deeply concerned.”

Unfortunately, Bassin had a ready answer for Benson.  “The names on the list at this point,” Bassin patiently explained, “are all people who have voluntarily expressed an interest in being on the list.”

Then came the kicker: “I actually asked Greg Finger if he wanted to be on the list last week, and he said no.”

In other words: Benson was whining about Fingar being left out—but Bassin had gone out of his way to try to include Fingar, but he refused to be included in the discussion.

Oops. Sometimes what is allowed in private business just doesn’t translate to public debate.

 

Public participation panics Supervisor

New Lebanon’s Mike Benson calls for secret session to shut down airport debate

The Columbia County Board of Supervisors has taken over a decade—more than 120 months—to get around to addressing alleged safety issues with the County airport in Ghent.

But apparently even a single month of research and public participation is too much for one Republican supervisor to bear.

In a typo-filled email sent early this morning to the newly-formed airport committee, Benson calls for a secret session to end debate after just two meetings. He then goes on to vent his spleen at unnamed “groups” who have attended meetings, and to argue Richmor Aviation’s case against that of the County itself.

Benson rants about his impatience to “put this matter behind us.” The New Leb super and BCI Construction magnate then “strongly” urges chair Art Bassin of Ancram “to hold and [sic] Executive Session (of the Airport Committee) next week, so we can consider making a recommendation (on that same night) to the full board.”

His demand would appear to be illegal under the State’s Open Meetings law. That law only allows a limited number of specific reasons for going into executive session, a practice often abused by local and County agencies.

Not satisfied with ending the conversation before the committee has completed its tasks—which Benson did not object to when they were set forth—he then proceeds to become Richmor’s advocate against the public, and even against the County’s own legal interests.

Richmor, Benson thunders, must not “be subjected to too many more parades in front of groups looking to drive [them] from Columbia County. This group, which it appears at times that we are ‘reporting to’ is intent on doing just that; driving business from Columbia County and I do not support that and furthermore I do not want to be a part of it. I would go so far as to say; I am embarrassed by these actions.”

Clear statements have been made by the public at meetings that no one wants to shut down the airport; indeed, attendees have expressed support for the continued operation by Richmor at existing, manageable levels. At an earlier information session, Hudson 5th Ward supervisor Rick Scalera called for a show of hands of anyone who wanted the airport shut down; no hands were raised. (Perhaps Benson missed that meeting.) Richmor’s owner Maylon Richards himself has publicly claimed that he does not wish or expect to expand operations.

Nevertheless, Benson throws a tantrum on behalf of “Richmore”—the airport operator whose interests he’s decided to champion, but whose name he cannot be bothered to spell correctly.

Bassin’s agenda for the upcoming meeting includes a list of yet-to-be-settled questions for Richmor to address as part of the committee’s ongoing research into options to bring the airport into compliance.

Benson then attempts a fear tactic, arguing against the County’s own legal interest in favor of a private corporation. He tries to claim that the County “may be walking dangerously close to a breach of that contract if we do not facilitate the terms and conditions of it.” Benson apparently is not concerned with evidence which has come forward suggesting that the County is not enforcing its end of the contract as far as collecting its full share of fees from Richmor for landings by turbined planes. (More on that in a future post.)

“We need to move on to many other issues,” Benson concludes, without specifying either what issues he deems more pressing, or why he believes his fellow Supervisors are incapable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

In a polite and sober reponse, Bassin agrees to put Benson’s motion on the agenda, but points out that such a decision should not be taken in executive session. More importantly, Bassin asserts that the only way to move forward speedily and cost-efficiently on the runway issues is to shorten it, rather than expanding it.

Bassin’s full reply is below. 

Mike,
 
Thanks for your note.
 
I think its premature to decide this now, but I am happy to put this issue on the Agenda for Wednesday.  We should have this discussion in open session, not executive session.
 
If we wanted to make a decision or recommendation next week, common sense and logic would suggest we recommend shortening the runway to 4500 feet.  That decision would immediately put us in compliance with the FAA safety zone guidelines & standards, eliminate any insurance risk, and not have any impact on the Richmor business. And we can continue to explore the logic and rationale for expanding the safety zone as has been proposed.  
 
 If we were to do this, one runway will still be 5350 feet with a 1000 foot safety zone, and the other would be 4500 feet, with a 1000 foot safety zone.  
 
And the FAA has told us that the 4500 foot runway can still accommodate class C and D jets as long as they are not "fully loaded". It is unlikely anyone will be flying into or out of the airport "fully loaded".   
 
Not shortening the runway immediately leaves us exposed us to being out of compliance with the FAA guidelines & standards and to possible insurance risks for another 3 years.  This seems like an unnecessary set of risks to continue to take.
 
I think we all share your concern for Richmor, and I am looking forward to hearing how they feel about this set of issues. I suspect there may be investments in the airport that would be more valuable to Richmor's business than adding a 1000 foot safety zone by buying the adjacent land...like additional hangar space or an ILS. 
 
And I am not sure what the need to rush is...we have been working on this for 10 years already...another couple of months is not going to matter. 
 
Even if we decide to recommend that we immediately shorten the runway to 4500 feet to immediately comply with the FAA's safety zone guidelines and standards, we can still explore the benefit and logic supporting buying the adjacent land and adding the 1000  safety zone.  If we can make that case, we can always implement that plan down the road.
 
Art

A Tale of Two Cases

 

New Lebanon Town Justice Jessica Byrne-York (Source: GCN News)

Last week, Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka drew applause from pro-gun quarters for declining to prosecute the first man arrested under New York’s new SAFE Act.

Gregory Dean of Hopewell Junction had faced charges for having nine bullets in his .40-caliber pistol, two more than the new legal limit of seven. Published reports gave no indication of any objection from Town Justice Jessica Byrne-York to Czajka’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Meanwhile, less than an hour to the north, an Albany judge took a very different view of another exercise of such discretion. Assistant District Attorney David Rossi declined to call witnesses against members of the Occupy movement who had camped last summer in a local park.

But the judge in that case, William Carter, did not look so impassively on Rossi’s decision as Byrne-York did on Czajka’s. Instead, Judge Carter warned the Assistant D.A. that he could be charged with contempt of court. (Note that Rossi was understood to be carrying out the wishes of his boss, the progressive Albany County D.A. David Soares, who has refused to prosecute other trespassing cases against Occupy.)

Why the difference in handling? No doubt some legal expert can find some way in which the two situations are “distinguishable,” and don’t present a contradiction. But to a layperson, the principle in play appears to be the same: Does a prosecutor have the right not to press a case following an arrest—whether for ideological, budgetary or other reasons?

In these two cases, it looks a lot like the difference in judicial approach has less to do with differing interpretations of the law, and more to do with either politics or control, or both.

In the gun case, one suspects that the New Lebanon Town Justice shared Czajka’s position on the SAFE Act, and thus did not view the D.A.’s exercise of discretion through a hostile lens. (Byrne-York was in the news early last year after recusing herself from the case of 28 teenagers found drinking at the home of Republican Town Supervisor Michael Benson.) In the Albany case, there is no obvious evidence of any hostility to the Occupy movement from Carter. But the Judge may view the repeat declinations by the D.A.’s office as a threat to his authority.

For Czajka, the issue of prosecutorial discretion is also not a new one. In December, Judge Jonathan Nichols (another Republican, though one generally considered moderate) sided with the Columbia D.A. in his dispute with Kinderhook Justice David Dellehunt, ruling (per The Columbia Paper) that “unfettered discretion to determine whether or not to prosecute an individual and the Courts may not and should not interfere with that discretion.”

UPDATE: A reader points to this editorial a couple days ago in The Albsny Times-Union, which raises the same disconnect between the two cases, and posits another explanation. The paper alleges that Judge Carter has a close affiliation with a candidate that was beaten out by Soares for the D.A. slot, and who still bears him some animosity.

Changing of the GOP guard?

Greg Fingar may vacate the Columbia County Republican chairman’s seat, and New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson may covet his seat cushion, according to three separate (and ideologically-distinct) sources. 

GOP chair Greg Fingar with election law attorney James Walsh (Source: CC Scoop)

Fingar remains in the position for the moment, according to a fourth source familiar with the situation. It is not clear whether Fingar would step down voluntarily, or is coming under pressure to do so.

In addition to serving as the New Leb Supervisor, Benson is president of BCI, one of the Capital Region’s largest and most influential construction firms. The company is known for its uncanny knack for winning bidding wars on public projects, and has done extensive work for government within the County. For example, BCI completed renovations for the Chatham Central School District, and also construction on the City of Hudson’s new wastewater treatment plant.

In addition, BCI built A. Colarusso & Sons’ corporate offices, suggesting that if elevated to Republican chair, Benson perhaps would be sympathetic to mining interests which have been the source of some local controversy in the past.

Benson’s profile picture at BCI’s website

Earlier this year, a small controversy erupted after nearly 30 underage students were arrested in relation to a drinking party at a New Lebanon home while the parents were traveling. Initial State Police reports didn’t disclose the party details. But it eventually leaked out that it took place at the Bensons’ home—becoming the subject of reports in the Times-Union and elsewhere—after the Town Justice had to recuse herself.

Benson contributed $250 to lobbyist, County powerbroker and former Assembly Minority Leader John Faso’s political action committee in 2001, and has donated similar amounts in the past two years to the Columbia County Republican Committee and Conservative Party. In November 2011, he donated $5,000 the State Republican Committee. All of these donations were made via BCI’s Loudonville Road address in Albany.

BCI Construction itself has donated a total of $17,890 to various political candidates over the past decade, according to New York State campaign finance records. Most of these donations were to Republicans, but a few were to Democrats in places such as Albany and New York City where the politics are heavily Democratic.

Though not necessarily over yet, Fingar’s tenure was colored early on by the intense controversy surrounding his party’s heavyhanded 2009 attempt to disenfrancise absentee voters in the hotly-contested Congressional race between Scott Murphy and Jim Tedisco. At the time, Fingar and Faso joined forces to sic lawyers John Ciampoli Jim Walsh (plus a gumshoe private detective) on second home owners who had legally cast absentee ballots. More recent primaries have brought to light various fissures among factions of the County GOP, which usually presents a monolithic front.

The ballot fracas, which was decided strongly in favor of the voters by fellow Republican judge John Nichols, focused heavily on the small Town of Taghkanic. Their challenges appeared to be backed in part by donations from racetrack developer Alan Wilzig—whose chef and manager Eric Tyree was on the ballot. Funds for the disenfranchisement effort came in part from the County Republican Housekeeping fund (to which Wilzig and a corporation he controlled had donated), a type of political action committee which is not supposed to be used for such purposes according to New York State election law.

At the time, numerous residents who were longtime customers of Fingar Insurance decamped to other insurers in protest, after noticing one of its key partners’ involvement. Ironically, the company’s Columbia County Chamber of Commerce blurb touted its work helping to insure second homes.

Primary turnout in Columbia County

As first reported here, voter turnout for Tuesday’s Democratic Congressional primary contest between Julian Schreibman and Joel Tyner was dismal. Fewer than 1 in 10 registered Democrats bothered to participate in the new 11-county 19th District.

That sub-10% figure also applied to Democrats here in Columbia County. Below is a town-by-town chart of how each municipality in the County did, turnout-wise, correlating  Board of Elections tallies and voter registration data obtained last March:

Remarkably, County Democratic Chair Cyndy Hall characterized these numbers as a “tremendous victory” for her party committee... If 9 out of 10 voters staying home is a tremendous victory, one wonders what a tremendous failure would look like.

UPDATE: Primaries 0f course tend to attract fewer voters than general elections. However, as a point of reference showing how poor Tuesday’s turnout was: More than 550 Democrats voted in the 2011 primary between Nick Haddad and Linda Mussmann; but this week, fewer than 150 voters cast ballots in Hudson.

Making the rounds (7/4)

ANNANDALE » Roberta Smith files an extensive review of two shows—the Eisenberg collection, and a Philippe Parreno retrospective—at Bard’s Center for Curatorial Studies. 

CLAVERACK » Speaking of music, local resident Melora Creager of Rasputina was profiled in The Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago.

HUDSON » And speaking of reviews, a big New York City publication is said to be readying a piece on the Hudson music “scene,” with Dan Bunny among the reluctantly-featured scenemakers.

NEW LEBANON » June 25th » A minor accident caused some local law enforcement to discover some unusual cookies in a Nassau man’s car.

MARYLAND & HUDSON » June 28th » Cumberland, Maryland forestry expert Bernie Zlomek compares the views from Green Ridge along the Potomac to those overlooking the river in his hometown of Hudson.

TEXAS & HUDSON » July 3rd » An obituary for NASA engineer and Hudson native William Dayton Dodge, Jr., appeared in a San Antonio newspaper.

HILLSDALE & HUDSON July 4th » A horticultural piece in The Wall Street Journal by Hillsdale resident Bart Ziegler features bearded irises in the garden of his neighbor Peter Cipkowski, plantings which have been handed down to him all the way from his grandmother’s Hudson garden.

ATHENS & HUDSON » July 10th » Public tours of the Hudson-Athens Lighthouse will also take place Saturday, as well as on August 14th, September 11th, and October 9th. Details are pending at the Society’s website. The annual Athens street fest is also next Saturday, with fireworks at 10 pm (easily visible from Promenade Park in Hudson); the raindate is Sunday.

RHINEBECK » July 31st » Chelsea Clinton will get married at the former Astor estate off River Road.

COLUMBIA COUNTY » July 1st » Ken Flood, the Planning Director for the County, tells Mid-Hudson News that “a large portion of the jobs in his county are in the tourism industry,” pegging the number at 6.5%, which actually sounds like an underestimate. But Flood says this “percentage is much higher than any of the other counties in the Hudson Valley.” Wonder how those numbers are put together.