The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Action delayed on Glenville job change

Board to vote Dec. 18 on full-time supervisor

Glenville town Supervisor Chris Koetzle, left, and Highway Superintendent Tom Coppola survey flooding in the Freemans Bridge Road area in August 2011.
Photographer: Patrick Dodson
Glenville town Supervisor Chris Koetzle, left, and Highway Superintendent Tom Coppola survey flooding in the Freemans Bridge Road area in August 2011.
Text Size: A | A

The vote to make the Glenville town supervisor’s office a full-time position has been postponed two weeks to accommodate any more residents who want to have their say on the topic. The Town Board was originally scheduled to take a vote Wednesday on the issue, which has become contentious in recent weeks after the public felt the restructuring of the supervisor’s office was being rushed without their input. The board voted two weeks ago to ...

You Must or Subscribe to Continue
subscribe to the Daily Gazette
Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Enjoy this story? Share it!

Advertisement

comments

mlamendola
December 5, 2013
5:50 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

well folks, the plot thickens. we learned today that Mr. K is on "leave of absence" from his job. It is unclear it if is paid leave or permanent leave, but it is still a leave. This raises the question as to when he was put on leave [before or after the election] and whether his leave triggered Jamie to "consider" retirement after 27 years [which seems to be an odd number of years to retire]. So folks, would be nice to known when Mr. K went on "leave," when Jamie decided to actually retire [as opposed to informing the board] and whether Mr. K asked Jamie to retire. I also wonder if Jamie was working under contract or year to year, and if he was working under contract, what were the terms. food for thought.

TellCathySteve
December 5, 2013
6:53 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"The date and time were inadvertently left out" my foot. You mean to tell me that after six years in elected office, Supervisor Koetzle doesn't know how to submit a proper public hearing notice? And apparently neither does the town clerk who has been in her post longer. This is all very interesting, especially when a legal notice for another Glenville public hearing was published a few days later and it contained all the correct information. So, ladies and gentlemen, a notice is correct when Supervisor Koetzle and the Town Board want it to be correct, and it isn't correct when they don't want it to be correct.

551
December 5, 2013
7:39 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

First let me state that I am a supporter of the current Town Board and the current Town Supervisor. It is with that statement that I express my concerns about how the "public notice" was handled. On Monday December 2nd, the editorial in the Gazette stated that the public hearing was being held "tonight at 7pm". Upon arriving at 6:50 pm, I noticed only 3-4 cars in the lot. Upon waiting until 7:05 and observing only 3-4 people walking into the building, I assumed the wrong night or time and went home. So now we are told that the "public notice" inadvertently left out the date and time. At best, even if it were inadvertent, it certainly does not speak well for Mr. Koetzle's oversight of Town operations. At worst, it promotes the perception of continued improprieties on the part of the Town Board and the Town Supervisor. In the private sector, a mistake of this magnitude whether inadvertent or not would be met with some sort of disciplinary action. My naive assumption is that the Town Clerk should have the competence to correctly post a public hearing and the supervisor should have the competence to review and approve it before it is posted; especially when there has been so much controversy. Very disappointing.

Cortsmom87
December 5, 2013
7:56 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Wow As I was reading today's article I was composing in my mind what I wanted to say- I don't even need to type anything - all of you said it for me!!

editorial
December 5, 2013
9:49 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

mlamendola: The Gazette actually reported on Koetzle's leave from his private-sector job in its original Nov. 14 article on the supervisor proposal. Here is the link: http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2013/no... and here is the section that mentions the leave: "If the board approves the promotion, Koetzle would step down from his job at Baker Public Relations in Albany, where he works as a public relations executive. He took a leave from that post in early October to focus on his re-election campaign, he said, with the intention of returning once the election was over. But on Nov. 6, MacFarland announced his intention to retire."

551: I believe you're confusing Monday's community forum on the topic with Wednesday's public hearing on the topic. The public notice that this article references is the official notice that went out about Wednesday's public hearing, which is required by law before a town board votes to adopt a local law. The Monday forum was held as a Q&A with residents. Again, these distinctions were all previously covered by the Gazette: http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2013/no...

-- Bethany Bump

editorial
December 5, 2013
9:57 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

mlamendola: The Gazette also spoke with Koetzle's employer last month to confirm his employment status and when he took a leave... in case, as a former skeptical journo, that was your next question :)

--Bethany Bump

mlamendola
December 5, 2013
10:43 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Ty. I stand corrected. Good job on covering this issue, btw. Was the question ever answered as to when Jamie filed his retirement papers? Just wondering.

Advertisement