PEOPLES' COURT DATE POSTPONED
The September 11, 2008 court date for
Benderson versus the people has been postponed until October 23rd. It
was adjourned at the request of the attorney for the Town of Amherst. He
is unavailable on Thursday, September 11th, and the Administrative
Record on which the case is based is not yet printed for the court
review.The Fairways Group
SCHRATZ REINVENTS REALITY AT SEPT. 2 TOWN HALL
MEETING
The Town Hall meeting September 2 was surreal.
Deputy Supervisor
Schratz stated with conviction that she was NOT on Campbell Blvd. the
day of the Rubino vote, July 7. She instead stated that she was there on
June 27th, undermining her own previous statements that are in the
public record. People at the meeting were stunned, especially those
living on Campbell Blvd. who confirmed her presence on Campbell Blvd.,
July 7th. The truth factor is remarkably non-existent in her world.
It was revealed that residents in the area holding the supermajority
status were offered large sums of money to remove their names from the
protest petition. Anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000. All had declined, but
one. What part did our Deputy Supervisor play in this process? Why was
she on Campbell Blvd. talking with targeted residents promoting a
developer's project on July 7, (day of expected
vote) that resulted in removal of names from the supermajority petition?
It was also revealed that our Deputy Supervisor is not cooperating
with the Ethics Board. She was outraged that the Ethics Board would
even consider questioning her. We have recommended that an independent
investigation be initiated.
It is critical that the citizens of Amherst stay abreast of this
situation and not allow the investigation to be dismissed or swept under
the rug by her supporters.
Amherst residents deserve better. She was elected to serve us not
herself or special interest groups.
The Fairways Group
SCHRATZ AND MOHAN DIVERT PUBLICS' ATTENTION
The public was cast into a
fool’s role by Supervisor Mohan's deliberate diversionary tactic to
cover up Deputy Supervisor Schratz recent unethical and unlawful actions
that renders her unfit for public office.
During deliberations on
Schratz ethics (recorded public meeting, August 4th), Councilmember
Manna told Schratz: "The perception is you conspired somehow to talk to
people who signed the protest petition to convince them to get off."
Manna asked: "Did you specifically target people who signed the protest
petition? Did you coordinate in any way with the activities of the
petitioners?" Schratz disjointed responses included a remark about
"Schumer" and "Hillary".
On Monday, August 11th, we
released an open and shut case, substantiated by public recordings,
records on file, six witness accounts and Schratz admitted behavior, in
an interview with the Amherst Times, August 3. All that was necessary
was a review and a roll call for unethical and unlawful actions by our
Deputy Supervisor. Instead of reviewing the incriminating, self evident
argument and acting swiftly on it, Supervisor Mohan conjured up a
charade.
MEDIA DIVERSION, FACTS AND
OUTRAGE:
1). Dr. Mohan knowingly
selected a very hot public issue and called a press conference
August 11th, regarding the condominium loophole. He said the Town
Board was “seriously thinking of adopting the homestead option". The
Amherst Bee responded, August 13th: "Why the big announcement? Why
now? ...Came out of nowhere." ....Too many unanswered questions...."
".....Causes panic." "If the town needs further review and more
detailed plans, why get the residents involved and cause more unease
and confusion?'
Why, indeed?? We claim that
this was a political ploy. Supervisor Mohan stirred and manipulated the
voters, at large, as a means of diversion from the unethical and
unlawful behavior of Deputy Supervisor Schratz. This ploy did cause
"unease and confusion". (See recorded meeting August 18).
A response from someone not
familiar with the timing of the ethics investigation, posed this
perspective: "Even after being advised by the Town Attorney, Assessor,
etc. about the need for the state to change the law, the likes of the TS
(Town Supervisor) and his deputy decided to place their own resolutions
on the agenda. So once the Town Board meeting had started the TS gave a
half-hearted apology to the crowd and stated 'that he never attended
(sic) it to affect existing condo owners'." (Speak Up Western New York,
August 20).
This confirms Supervisor
Mohan knowingly brought forth, in a public forum, a resolution that was
truly non-sensical. The question is: Were we participating in a comedy
or tragedy? This deception was at the expense of the taxpayers of
Amherst.
2). Mr. Rubino, defended Schratz and himself in an Amherst Bee story
August 13. Clearly, the link continues between the developer and
Schratz, who came on the scene July 7th, lobbying for him, the day of
the expected vote. The facts are: The sequence of events
follows recorded dates, substantiated by recordings, filed records and
admitted testimony by Schratz. - - “Shelly said she did speak to four of
the people whose names were on the petition voting "no" to the Rubino
project." "Interestingly, the four people she spoke with did remove
their names from the petition sheets." (Amherst Times, Aug. 3)
"Shelly Schratz should be
removed from office if she refuses to resign...." (Speak up WNY, Aug.
11)
Deputy Supervisor Schratz
has violated her public office and public trust and should step down.
3). The STENCH gets WORSE.
Opposed petition count: Foxberry Village 95, residential homeowners 85.
The Supermajority (takes only one opposed) was NOT broken on August 4,
as was announced and we were lead to believe. The Town's legal council,
in full knowledge, rendered the decision to negate the Foxberry Village
count. This granted Shelly Schratz the power to lead and swing the vote.
Crucial Note: These
petitions are the only documents missing from the Clerk's file. They
provide the evidence to the discovery of this unlawful act.
On August 4, the opponents
were left with no other recourse than to utilize the suspension of rules
to turn the planned vote. They presented and exposed an ethical
quagmire. This left no alternative but to vote 7-0. (Camera recorded,
August 4).
This common practice of
interfering with the local democratic process, demonstrates the
arrogance of power to serve those involved and a selected few in our
community. It is NOT in the service of the constituency at large and is
inconsistent with the Town's vision.
We are confident that there
are many voices in our community that want to be heard on this
outrageous, disturbing and offensive finding. An independent special
investigation is in order.
The
Fairways Group
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON 212-688-6262
Department of Constituent Affairs
780 Third Avenue, Suite 2601
New York, New York 10017-2024
FAX: 212-688-7444
SENATOR SCHUMER
130 South Elmwood Ave #660
Buffalo, New York 14202
846-4111
Fax: 716-856-4113
COUNCILMEMBER SHELLY SCHRATZ VERSION
DEFIES FACTS AND ORDINARY COMMON SENSE
Grass-roots constituencies are trying to challenge the abuse of power
by our elected officials where laws, procedures and fundamental rights
of homeowners are being denied. Discussions are commencing among the
coalitions to unify and mobilize for common purpose. No longer will we
tolerate divide-and-conquer.
On July 7th, the day of the expected vote on the Rubino rezoning, Deputy
Supervisor Shelly Schratz and John Rubino visited the homes of four
targeted, SENIOR citizens that were CRUCIAL to getting the proposal
passed. These SENIORS had held to the petition for months, despite
calls, letters and visits but WITHDREW on the SAME DAY of their visit,
thereby breaking the SUPERMAJORITY.
DAMAGE CONTROL, CONTAINMENT, COVER-UP & PUBLIC OUTCRY:
1. One of the senior withdrawals submitted a written statement that John
Rubino and Shelly Schratz visited her home. All parties knew, she was a
proxy representative entered into the Clerk's record. She was revisited
by the proxy representative and revealed the facts of what occurred.
So-called ethical investigation: Pressure for retraction commenced on
witness. She is afraid and intimidated. Her son fears for his mother's
welfare.
2. Councilmember Schratz made a phone call to Ms. Marando (Foxberry
resident), from Canada, the evening Ms. Marando's statements went
public, July 28. Marando had stated: " The perceived influence of the
Councilperson lends credibility and was effective with these seniors." "
Isn't this a conflict of interest for an elected official who serves in
a fiduciary role to be visiting homes of petitioners who opposed this
project?" Conversation consisted of political spin. "She made no
negative comments about this project, however, she did make positive
comments." "Why is there this appearance of comradery?"
3. M. Washer, 480 Campbell Blvd., also received a phone call from
Schratz on July 28. Washer was told she went to her home but no one was
home. Schratz is now saying she saw someone in the yard but missed him.
Washer stated: "It is wrong an elected representative would use their
position to aid a developer in removing names from a petition." "One has
to wonder, what was in it for Ms. Schratz." " Is Democracy for sale?"
4. Stender, 480 Campbell Blvd., stated at the recorded, August 4, 2008
meeting: "My neighbors on both sides of me made deals with Rubino,
taking money and took their names off the petition." He said he did not
receive a visit from Ms. Schratz on July 7, even though he was home. He
was told she was across the street talking with Rubino. When she got
done talking with two other residents, she went across the street and
talked with Stender's neighbor. All three of the residents, she
mentioned, took their names off the petition, that day.
5. 465 Campbell Blvd. , another staunchly opposed homeowner who lives
ACROSS from Stender and NEXT DOOR to the property was not visited by
Rubino/Shelly Schratz either, at the time and place of question. States:
" It was wrong to show up at anyone's door to help a developer." "She
has lost credibility and trustworthiness." (Favata)
6. J. Ferraro presented witness note at August 4 meeting and said: "We
did not elect any of you to LOBBY for ANY DEVELOPER."
7. Cover-up: " A petition with the signatures of people against the
Rubino development has vanished." " I have never seen a more scrambled
mess." ..... several important papers were missing." "It would take
Einstein to figure out what everything meant ....."
"This type of bookkeeping was not the standard of Mrs. Jaros or her
staff." "I have to question what the people signed at their homes when
the Rubino brothers/Shelly Schratz visited them."
(Aug. 6, Amherst Times). RECORDS CAN COME UP MISSING BUT EYE WITNESSES
CANNOT. Public meeting recordings, written records and witnesses
substantiates the evidence.
8. "Shelly said she did speak to four of the people whose names were on
the petition voting "no" to the Rubino project." "Interestingly the four
people she spoke with did remove their names from the petition sheets."
(Aug. 3, Amherst Times). This substantiates the four, targeted seniors
that were crucial for maintaining the Supermajority and getting the
proposal passed. (see record)
Recall vote took place Aug. 4. Councilmember Schratz continued, at the
least, to exercise poor judgment. She did not remove herself from the
vote as conflict of interest.
"She said her purpose in going out to the area was to help some people
who were having trouble with their land." (Aug. 3 Amherst Times). For
the record, the two referenced by Schratz with drainage concerns (Lieber,
541 Campbell, Zebrowski 537 Campbell), were publicly opposed until July
7, the day in question (see public recordings June 16, July 7). These
too, were now in favor as entered into the closing argument submitted by
Rubino's attorney on JULY 8. (see record).
9. Public comment (Aug. 3, Amherst Times ). " What Shelly did was sell
out her name to help a developer. She should be removed from the Town
Board now."
Our elected officials are held to a higher standard, ethically and
legally. They are entrusted to act in the best interest of the
constitutency, at large. Deputy Supervisor has violated the fiduciary
role that she
was elected to do. Her action is a dereliction of duty. ON PERCEPTION
ALONE, the honorable measure for Ms. Schratz would be to step down. For
every day she presides in office, she taints all honest politicians in
the duly rank and file of our elected officials. In this Presidential
election year, constituencies at large are crucial to the vote.
A SWIFT RESOLUTION IS NECESSARY.
|
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 Amherst, NY Lifestyle Center Vote Put On Hold
Ah, good ol' Republican Town Board Member
Shelley Schratz. She came out in favor of a
controversial residential, retail, theater,
hotel, carpooling, bicycling, town park, and
never seen before in Western New York State a
Benderson Development Corp "Lifestyle Center" at
the seemingly too good to be true surprisingly
low cost of $44 million. But, she is not willing
to vote on it right now.
So, people like me, a crowded TB Board meeting
room and a spill over hallway crowd of around
100, went home without seeing any fireworks.
The proposed center is aggressively supported by
residents of the town that do not live in the
area of the proposed construction. The people in
opposition, the Fairways Group, are being bashed
as NIMBYs (for the uninitiated - Not In My Back
Yard).
Also in the audience was a large number of
residents from around the town who were so moved
at the thought that this development would be
such a wonderful project for the town that they
took time out from their normally busy life to
show up wearing "Vote Yes" stickers. Now really.
How many people do you know who would come out
to demonstrate at a town board meeting in favor
of a construction project that would not not
give them a tax break, a job, or, personally
improved lifestyle. Like me, I figure your
answer is zero. So, who were these people?
Benderson employees?
But, I digress. The Town Board consists of
Supervisor Satish Mohan (R now D), Dr. Deborah
Bucki (D), Daniel Ward (D), Mark Manna (D),
Barry Weinstein (R), and Guy Marlette (R). I
know that Dan Ward and Debbie Bucki will vote
against. Mark Manna, I think will, but I have
not had a chance to specifically ask him. Barry
Weinstein, Guy Marlette and Shelley Schratz will
vote in favor. That's what brings us to Town
Supervisor Satish Mohan.
Mr. Mohan, a former Conservative Republican has
registered as a Democrat. I sense that he will
vote in favor of this development in spite of
the concerns of the area residents and the
anticipated traffic problems. Not a good move
for a new Democrat.
So come June 2nd. The town board will finally
vote. This is a project that should be DOA for
the simple reason that the recent town master
development plan calls for no new commercial
construction on Maple Rd. east of Millersport
Hwy. But in a town like Amherst. The developers,
like Benderson,get their way. The Republicans,
who make up the majority of the town voters,
will give him what he wants. He is worth a hell
of a lot of campaign contributions.
So it comes down to 3 Democrats vs 3 Republicans
and a Town Supervisor tiebreaker.
Which way will the new Democrat vote and how
will he be accepted at the first Democratic
Party meeting he decides to attend?
Progressive Democrats WNY wny.blogspot.com
|