Town of Rochester Supervisor Carl Chipman (glowing in the dark) waits to be interviewed during the Two-Party Conference, conducted on February 17, 2015 in the New York State Division of Human Rights office in Albany.

::

Present in the conference room:
Lisa DiCocco – HRSI
Manuela Michailescu – Complainant
Mary Lou Christiana – Attorney for Respondent, Town of Rochester

Interview of Town of Rochester Supervisor Car Chipman:
(Didn’t have the heart to interrupt Carl Chipman’s bull masterpiece,
so I kept my comments together at the end of the interview.)

Q: Mr. Chipman, how long have you been Supervisor?
Mr. Chipman: A little over seven years. No other capacity on the board.

Q: What is your political affiliation?
Mr. Chipman: We are in the same party.

Q: Who made the anonymous comments on the political blog you reference in your complaint?
Ms. Michailescu: On my husband’s blog, the most recent comments mention the person who was appointed, Cindy Fornino. I do not know for certain who made those comments; probably Len Bernardo, the Chair of the Independence Party. Gerry Fornino is the Chair of the Conservative Party and they used to be good friends. I believe that Mr. Bernardo posted these comments. They bring up the same thing, that Gerry Fornino, a former FBI agent, knows things about us and our lives in Romania.

Q: Mr. Chipman, do you have any knowledge of this?
Mr. Chipman: I do not know anything about this, but there are lovely comments about me on that blog as well.

Q: When did the board vacancy happen?
Mr. Chipman: The vacancy happened – I have the minutes of the meeting here. The announcement was made on August 7, 2014 – we had accepted Councilman Cilenti’s retirement from the Board. His retirement was effective on August 15. I made the announcement on the 7th and we made the decision to advertise the position, to cast a wider net. We had asked for letters of interest to be sent to us and they were due the Monday before the audit workshop meeting on August 28. They had to be submitted by 11 a.m. on that day; one was submitted late and was rejected. We received three letters of interest: the Complainant, Cindy Fornino and Cliff Mallery. We had set up interviews for them, and I called Ms. Michailescu as a courtesy to tell her when the interviews would occur and if she desired, she could be present there to see what the competition said.

That conversation was a determining factor on how I would vote. I consider Ms. Michailescu a friend and ran with her. But the attitude that day, I cannot control the votes of four other board members. Ms. Michailescu got on the line and chewed me out, and said I had to control my board and tell them how to vote. My secretary and fiance were in my office at the time, I had my phone on speaker so they could hear what was being said.

The attitude that Ms. Michailescu showed me that day indicated to me that she had no idea of how to be part of a board. I try to bring people to consensus but I don’t make them vote a certain way. The following day was a meeting of which we had the interviews. Each applicant was asked the same questions, what do you bring to the board, what is your vision of the future. The only time there was any difference was when an explanation was asked of something that the candidate said.

I was very disappointed in what Ms. Michailescu said, not answering what the town board members’ roles are, and the fiscal oversight. Furthermore, when we were talking about expansion in the town, she was talking about the youth commission in the town, which I don’t know how those two link up. We then met the following week for the regular board meeting. At that board meeting, a nomination was made for Cindy Fornino; no other candidate was nominated, and it was a unanimous vote for Cindy.

If there wasn’t a vote, or a split vote (there were two Republican and two Democrats ), the Governor may appoint a Councilmember. This position was only for four months. A board member gets approximately $ 5,000 a year.

Q: Why was Cindy Fornino appointed?
Mr. Chipman: Number one, I felt that she represented an underrepresented portion of our town. She has a young child and our town has a split between newcomers who are retired and people with young children. I felt that it was a breath of fresh air to want to see the growth of our town. I would like to have my grandchildren around, and for my kids have to have a job, there has to be some sort of economy. I want to see that for our future. We spend about $30,000 to educate our children and then they ship off because there is nothing for them here.

I am a former school board member; I have been involved in my community for most of my life. I see the way they are now, and there has to be a bridge somewhere. With Cindy, that brought some balance to the board. The Republican/Democrat deadlock was another issue – she is a Conservative and there was no issue with any deadlock if she was appointed. I know Cindy, they go to my church, and I think she’s a fine, outstanding citizen.

Q: Ms . Michailescu, why do you believe that you were not selected?
Ms. Michailescu: Because I am Romanian-born. There is no other logical reason. I felt it all the time, since 2007. It was a trend and through the years, I mentioned to him that I felt discriminated against, but he did nothing about it. I was not treated as an equal and I made public statements of it during the years.

Q: Why wasn’t Ms. Michailescu selected?
Mr. Chipman: I can’t tell you. I thought Cindy was a better choice. Cliff Mallery also represented the retired people; he’s a lawyer who retired up here and built his dream home and is not going to give me the things I want for my child. He said during the interview that this is the price you pay, kids are going to leave. This is why I preferred Cindy.

When Ms. Michailescu turned on me like she did that Wednesday before the interview, that’s when I had animosity towards her; there was no animosity before that. No one asked her about her national origin; she’s the one who brought up where she is born. All I want to know is what she will do for my town, and will she get along with everyone. I ran with her back then, and there was some xenophobia back then – everyone is a newcomer, anyone who is different or has an accent. This is a rural community, but she did get elected into office in the first place.

CC: I do not know anything about this, but there are lovely comments about me on that blog as well.

This was Carl Chipman’s answer when asked if he has any knowledge of the hateful anonymous comments against Manuela posted on this blog. You can tell he’s lying by his choice of words: “I don’t know anything about A, but I know about B as well.”

CC: …we made the decision to advertise the position, to cast a wider net.

What a bald–faced lie! The reason for advertising the position was to create the illusion of transparency in order to hide the done deal. Appointing the least qualified applicant – and trying to justify the choice with BS contradicted by the two reporters present at the interviews – does not leave room for any other explanation.

CC: I called Ms. Michailescu as a courtesy to tell her when the interviews would occur…

Really, Chipman? Really? Since when letting an applicant know that you illegally changed the time of an officially scheduled Town Board meeting is an act of courtesy?

CC: Ms. Michailescu got on the line and chewed me out, and said I had to control my board and tell them how to vote. My secretary and fiance were in my office at the time, I had my phone on speaker so they could hear what was being said.

Way before the interviews, Chipman was intent on communicating to Manuela why she is not going to be appointed. On the phone, he continued to hammer it home: “Brian Drabkin hates you, Sherry Chachkin and Tony Spano want to appoint the Democratic applicant (there was no Democratic applicant!), the best qualified applicant doesn’t always get the job…” Of course Manuela exploded: “Are you going to accept that Drabkin’s vote is based on hate?” Manuela never asked anybody to vote for her, she only asked for fairness in the appointing process.

If you have the time and a strong stomach, here is more about the now famous phone conversation: The fiancée and the funny “affidavit”

CC: The attitude that Ms. Michailescu showed me that day indicated to me that she had no idea of how to be part of a board.

Every time Carl Chipman opens his mouth he contradicts himself. Look what he had previously said about Manuela:

Chipman said that the current election period was “bittersweet,” because “Our board will change. We will lose Manuela next year. I want to thank her for all her work.”

Saying “I love her dearly,” Chipman praised Mihailescu’s “dedicated service” on the board, which “has done amazing things in four years.”

As reported in Blue Stone Press by Sherry Chachkin, BSP Reporter
(currently a town board member herself)

CC: I was very disappointed in what Ms. Michailescu said, not answering what the town board members’ roles are, and the fiscal oversight.

Probably this is the best display of Carl Chipman’s hateful stupidity… Can anyone believe that Manuela – a highly intelligent person, holder of two Master Degrees, and winner of a national award in her field – does not know what the town board members’ roles are? After serving a full four-year term as a Town Board member?

Furthermore, when we were talking about expansion in the town, she was talking about the youth commission in the town, which I don’t know how those two link up.

I am sick and tired of Chipman’s lies and misrepresentations… Here are two objective reports on the interviews:

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…”

“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.”

On the other hand, if Supervisor Chipman wants to talk about “expansion in town,” he is more than welcome to point out ANY expansion during his eight years in power (besides his girth and his ego). Eight is enough!

Asked why was Cindy Fornino appointed, Chipman answered:

CC: Number one, I felt that she represented an underrepresented portion of our town. She has a young child and our town has a split between newcomers who are retired and people with young children. I felt that it was a breath of fresh air to want to see the growth of our town. I would like to have my grandchildren around, and for my kids have to have a job, there has to be some sort of economy. I want to see that for our future. We spend about $30,000 to educate our children and then they ship off because there is nothing for them here.

Remember the question: “Why was Cindy Fornino appointed?” Now go ahead, read the blabber again, then tell me with a straight face that Supervisor Carl Chipman is playing with a full deck.

CC: The Republican/Democrat deadlock was another issue – she is a Conservative and there was no issue with any deadlock if she was appointed. I know Cindy, they go to my church, and I think she’s a fine, outstanding citizen.

I dare you to find a more idiotic “reason” for appointing Cindy Fornino. After the appointment the Town Board went back to five members. There is no deadlock with five votes, no matter who the appointee is. Deadlock? No! Brain-dead? You bet!

When the investigator asked: “Why wasn’t Ms. Michailescu selected?,” Carl Chipman forgot all the “reasons” he gave minutes before and put his foot in his mouth again:

CC: I can’t tell you. I thought Cindy was a better choice. Cliff Mallery also represented the retired people; he’s a lawyer who retired up here and built his dream home and is not going to give me the things I want for my child.

He has no idea why Manuela was not selected. He thought Cindy was a better choice. Then, oblivious to the fact that he was called to Albany because of a discrimination claim, he continued to display a discriminatory attitude, this time age-based, against the applicant Cliff Mallery.

See how many gems you can find below:

CC: When Ms. Michailescu turned on me like she did that Wednesday before the interview, that’s when I had animosity towards her; there was no animosity before that. No one asked her about her national origin; she’s the one who brought up where she is born. All I want to know is what she will do for my town, and will she get along with everyone. I ran with her back then, and there was some xenophobia back then – everyone is a newcomer, anyone who is different or has an accent. This is a rural community, but she did get elected into office in the first place.

::

The Rochester Republican Caucus will take place on July 23, 2015, at 7 pm, at the Town Hall. If Supervisor Carl Chipman is not challenged on the Republican line, he gets himself another two-year term, despite the fact that eight is enough!

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco