Verified bull…

Dump Carl Chipman

In a comment to Carl Chipman vs. Carl Chipman, Steven Fornal ribbed me:

    “…I haven’t read a single word about the discrimination case brought against the town by Manuela and how that turned out.”

I’m sorry, Steven… My bad! I hope that this – and the coming posts – will satisfy your lust for learning…

Background

Carl Chipman: “If Tavi Cilenti resigns, we will advertise and interview applicants for the open seat.”

Calling it the “open and proper way to do this,” Chipman asked the town clerk to publish a notice of the vacancy… Town residents were invited to submit letters of interest. The board interviewed the candidates.

On September 4, 2014, Rochester’s Town Board – Chipman, Chachkin, Drabkin, Spano – unanimously appointed Cindy Fornino to replace Councilman Tavi Cilenti.

(For a play-by-play report see Shhh!… Everybody knows…, posted on August 27, 2014.)

Really, Town Board? Really?

The appointment of Cindy Fornino had the stench of a backroom deal predating Tavi Cilenti’s resignation. After serving four years as Councilwoman, Manuela Michailescu felt that – among the applicants – she was the most qualified to do the job for another four months, the length of the appointment.

If you are not a crook or an idiot, you are bound to agree with Manuela after comparing Cindy Fornino’s 3-line letter of intent with Manuela Michailescu’s 9-page application.

As no valid, objective reasons for appointing Fornino over Michailescu could be thought of – and after hate speech comments posted on this blog linked Fornino’s appointment to our native Romania – Manuela filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, charging the Town Board with unlawful discriminatory practices in relation to employment, because of national origin.

It is important to know that Manuela Michailescu did not ask for one penny.
She just agreed with Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ statement:
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Carl Chipman’s Verified BS

I don’t want to burden you with the whole legalese enchilada, but I’m going to highlight below a few idiocies from Carl Chipman’s ridiculous Verified Response to Manuela’s complaint.

::

    Carl Chipman:
    The complaint signature line is loeft [sic] blank and there is no verification.
    Therefoe [sic] the complaint should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Please take a look below at the last page of the complaint, and decide for yourself if Chipman is blind, stupid, or both:

Dump Carl Chipman

Now, let’s suppose for a second that the signature was missing… You, Carl Chipman, learn that Manuela – with whom you served four years on the Town Board, the person who nominated you at the 2013 Republican Caucus, the person who believed in you and wrote letters to editor in your support – honestly feels discriminated against by you and your ilk, and all you do is ask for dismissal on procedural grounds? Pray tell, why are you wasting your time going to church?

::

    Carl Chipman:
    The Complainant held a position as a member of the Town Board from 2008 to the expiration of term on December 31, 2011, but the Complainant was not an employee of the Town.

Please take a look below at Manuela’s Wage and Tax Statement 2011 W-2 form, then ask yourself if Chipman is playing with a full deck:

Did I mention that Carl Chipman is signing all the payroll checks for almost eight years?
(I know what you’re thinking: EIGHT IS ENOUGH!)

::

    Carl Chipman:
    Another applicant was chosen above the compainant [sic], because during the interview process, the appointed candidate represented a voice that was not represented on the Town Board, exhibited a [sic] excellent knowledge of the role and responsibilities of the Town Board, and the Town board was impressed with her vision for the Town and the Town Board going forward.

Did the Town Board lose its collective mind? Impressed with her vision for the Town?! Articles in the local newspapers discredit Chipman’s enthusiastic description of Cindy Fornino’s interview. Read below, then ask Carl Chipman “Why are you such a freaking liar?”

    SHAWANGUNK JOURNAL – September 4, 2014, page 6
    Three Interviewed For Rochester Board Seat
    by Terence P. Ward

    Fornino, a fifteen-year resident and spouse to the chairman of the town’s Conservative Party, has been an alternate member on the Rochester planning board for the past four months. Soft-spoken, many of her answers were too quiet to hear from the front row, but she told the board that she speaks to many residents about their concerns and believes that stronger families would lead to more children staying in the area as they grow to adulthood.”

    Michailescu has previously been elected to the town board, and has continued to serve on the Youth Commission since, serving what she described as a lifelong passion to help young people. She stepped down to pursue another elected office. She listed among her accomplishments the establishment of the town’s Veterans Park, and described herself as a person who represents all residents of the town, regardless of political affiliation. Her long term hopes for the town include involving more residents in local government and the political process.”

    BLUE STONE PRESS – September 5, 2014, page 9
    Rochester holds interviews for open town board seat
    by Melissa Orozco-McDonough

    “First up was current planning board alternate Cindy Fornino. Fornino is a young mother, who has lived in Rochester for 15 years, and also works in town. She said that she deals with local residents on a daily basis and hears what they have to say; she’d like to be on the town board so she can be there to help them. When asked how she envisions the town 10 years from now, Fornino said she wants the town to be a place that her daughter would be proud to live and raise her own children…”

    “Last to interview was current Youth Commission member and previous town Councilwoman, Manuela Michailescu. Michailescu emigrated from Romania to the U.S. in 1980 for political asylum and quickly built a life for herself here. She has an MA in theatre and film critique, worked with children in Romania, and started her own NYC advertising business, Point Blank Inc. in 1986, which is still in operation today. Michailescu served on the town board for four years, and refers to her time on the board as one of the biggest achievements of her life. She believes she has the training, experience and expertise needed to serve on the town board once again and has adopted a John Adams’ quote as her life motto, “to be good, and to do good, is all we have to do.”

    When asked how she envisions the town 10 years from now, Michailescu stated that she would like to see more involvement from the community, and more trust in our leaders and local government. She feels that people are generally disappointed in their local government and that less and less are prone to participate within their community. She would also like to see more opportunities for children within the town; hence her involvement with the town’s Youth Commission. Michailescu believes the role of the town board is to represent all of the town’s people and to listen to them, be close to them and hear their needs. She sees zoning as a necessity, but believes in balance in zoning, for the general betterment of the community. Communication is key to Michailescu, and she believes this to be the area that the board can and should improve within, as it’s integral to having a strong community.”

::

If you have an itch to see the actual documents, here they are:
Carl Chipman’s Verified Response and Manuela Michailescu’s Rebuttal.

(To be continued)

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Verified bull…

  1. Steven Lance Fornal says:

    Thank you. This fills out your story re the discrimination action brought against the town. Unfortunately, Jon the underlying premise is flawed. You keep insisting the Town Board had to appoint the best qualified person for the job. That’s not the case. They could, in essence, have appointed a ham sandwich. (I could make a joke in this regard vis-a-vis Tavi Cilenti and said sandwich, but I will not…)

    As for the anti-Manuela comments that came in, uncalled for to say the least. But, I’ve learned over decades here that to too many in this town such responses are considered repartee.

    Certainly, though the Town Board had nothing to do with those comments on this blog and didn’t at all discriminate against Manuela as far as procedure goes.

    I’ll be interested in finding out what the next “aria” will be seeing as the Fat Lady has more to sing.

  2. Steven Lance Fornal says:

    Jon, another point that should be clarified re Manuela being an employee of the town. This should explain it:

    EEOC Form 164, State and Local Government Information (EEO-4) Instruction Booklet

    7. ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
    Section 701(f) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 contains an exemption for elected and certain appointed officials that is set forth in the definition of “employee” in Appendix (1). Based on the legislative history of Section 701 (f), the General Counsel of the Commission has ruled that this exemption was intended by the Congress to be construed narrowly. This ruling concluded that only the following persons would be included in the exemption:

    (1) State and local elected officials.

    (2) Such official’s immediate secretary, administrative, legislative or other immediate or first-line aide.

    (3) Such official’s legal advisor.

    (4) Appointed cabinet officials in the case of a Governor, or heads of executive departments in the case of a mayor or County Council. No other persons appointed by an elected official are exempt under this interpretation. In no case is any person exempt who is appointed by an appointed official, whether or not the latter is exempt. Furthermore, as specified in Section 701 (f), the exemption does not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision.

    APPENDIX
    1. DEFINITION APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYERS
    “Commission” refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    b. “Employee” means an individual employed by a political jurisdiction, who is on the payroll of that jurisdiction, regardless of the source of the funds by which the worker is paid. The following is an exception from the definition, subject to the interpretation in Section 7 above these instructions. The term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any state by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office. The exception set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision.

What do you have to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s