Terry Bernardo campaign: Bad hair days ahead

Dump Terry Bernardo

Terry “On Track For Victory” Bernardo and former Saugerties supervisor Kelly Myers are working hard to unseat the County Executive Mike Hein. It would have been nice to have at least one paid campaign staffer to help Kelly, but that – as anybody familiar with the Board of Elections’ Financial Disclosure Reports knows – it’s not in the cards:

Dump Terry Bernardo

Dump Terry Bernardo
Painfully aware that a closing balance of $286.09 it’s a joke, Terry decided to up the ante by accepting donations in bitcoins:

Dump Terry Bernardo

While the campaign counted the bitcoins, $820 was given to Terry on GiveForward, a website where donors are also able to share words of hope with the very sick people for whom the funds are raised.

Dump Terry Bernardo

Allow me to quote a few lines from the post Bernardo campaign: Fundraisers off limits to press (The Fray / recordonline.com)

    Let it be known: Press are not invited to fundraisers for Ulster County executive candidate Terry Bernardo… Former Saugerties supervisor Kelly Myers, who’s working on Bernardo’s campaign, said Thursday that reporters will not be allowed at campaign fundraisers.

It’s too late to advise Bernardo’s campaign in time for today’s fundraiser at Wawarsing Rod and Gun Club in Napanoch, but please, take the poll below; its results may help Terry Bernardo plan better fundraisers in the future…

Dump Terry Bernardo

To learn more about Terry, please visit terryforulster.com.

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Terry Bernardo’s loved one is… Terry Bernardo!

Dump Carl Chipman
Judging by their advertisements, GiveForward is a website where one can raise money for a loved one…
Dump Carl Chipman


On the GiveForward website there are clear fundraiser guidelines mentioning medical expenses, terminal illness, funeral expenses…

Dump Carl Chipman


In the process of establishing an account, a drop-down menu lists the fundraiser possibilities: Medical Expenses, Pet Medical, Funeral/Memorial, Adoption and IVF Treatment, Fire and Flood…

Dump Carl Chipman


Even a perfunctory reading of the GiveForward website would give a hint to any person of average intelligence:

    Project Amelia has raised $64,912 in an effort organized by the photographer’s friends to help her battle with breast cancer.

    Jen Bulick’s Life Fund raised $57,667 to help her with medical expenses as she battled stage IV lung cancer.

    Two victims of the Boston Marathon bombings, Patrick and Jess rallied the entire nation and raised an astronomical $882,548 to help them with the lifetime costs of their injuries.

    Ashley’s Journey raised $21,690. It was started by Tony Colton to help her battle two cancers and a bone marrow transplant.

    Tony’s Triumph raised $9,269. It was started by Ashley Krueger to thank him for her fundraiser and help him battle Clear Cell Sarcoma.

So, when we see Terry Bernardo – the Pride of Rochester – raising money on the GiveForward website for her campaign to unseat County Executive Mike Hein, we have to consider the alternatives: either she is dumber than a box of hair, or she finally accepted that her quest for power is just the symptom of a sickness…

Dump Carl Chipman

To learn more about Terry, please visit terryforulster.com.

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bernardo signed the petition as a notary… oh, no! not again!

From Daily Freeman article Working Families candidate for Ulster County executive has problems with petition signature and his party’s state leaders:

    “The Working Families Party candidate for Ulster County executive said he didn’t realize he wasn’t a registered Independence Party voter, or a registered voter at all, when he signed an Independence Party petition for Republican candidate Terry Bernardo.

    On June 13, Rasmussen signed Bernardo’s designating petition for the Independence Party line on the November ballot. But according to the Ulster County Board of Elections, Rasmussen wasn’t registered to vote on that date.

    Under state law, the only people who can sign a candidate’s petition are registered voters who are enrolled in the party designated on the petition. Also, a person signing a designating petition must swear under oath that he or she is enrolled in the party and eligible to vote.

    Bernardo signed the petition as a notary, affirming that she swore in the individuals signers.”

I told you so for six years: fraud and perjury are common denominators of whatever Terry Bernardo does. I did my share trying to stop her while local and county politicians either kept mum or kissed her ass for personal gain. See here how Terry Bernardo committed perjury 5 times!

Last but no least:

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Disclaimer

Dump Carl Chipman

I received this email from sunny Florida:

    “Hi Jon. I just wanted to commend you on that brilliant move of buying Terry’s domain name. When I saw last week that it redirected to your blog I howled for five minutes. Mentioned it today on Liberty Coalition. Hope all is well.”

I checked the Liberty Coalition blog. Sure enough, I found the paragraph:

    “And the last laugh goes to the former illustrator of this blog, Jon Dogar Marinesco, who had the insight (if not the dark humor I appreciate) to purchase the terryforulster.com domain name thus preventing her from using it. Even funnier is that it links to his blog when you type it in! Hilarious.”

Hilarious indeed… Even more so since I have nothing to do with the terryforulster.com domain name. Brilliant move? You bet!… and I can see it coming from any of the two places where Terry is not exactly loved.

My first guess is Mike Hein’s campaign. Disciplined, Internet-savvy people. The last few weeks I became aware that something is in the works, just by reading my blog’s stats: all my posts on Terry Bernardo were reviewed.

My runner-up guess is David O’Halloran, but he is a tad sloppy, and would have never thought of registering terryforulster.org and terryforulster.net, on top of terryforulster.com. David’s style is more like sending a surrogate to the Rochester GOP Caucus to nominate an old tool.

I’m not running for anything, and I don’t want any VLTs, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. Believe it or not, I signed Terry Bernardo’s Republican designating petition because I strongly believe that everybody has the right to run, and the voters have the right to choose.

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Smooth operation…

The 2015 Rochester Republican Caucus is behind us. Here is the Republican slate for the November elections:

    Supervisor – Carl Chipman (R) – Incumbent
    Superintendent of Highways – Wayne Kelder (R) – Incumbent
    Town Justice – Albert Babcock II (R) – Incumbent
    Councilperson – Brian Drabkin (R) – Incumbent
    Councilperson – Cindy Fornino (C) – Incumbent

Ron Lapp, Jr. – the District 21 Republican candidate for Ulster County Legislature – was introduced to the audience.

Terry Bernardo, the Republican candidate for Ulster County Executive was absent, but mentioned.

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Supervisor Chipman, aren’t you full of poop?

Dump Carl Chipman
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

Dump Carl Chipman

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.

Dump Carl Chipman

Dump Carl Chipman
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.”

Dump Carl Chipman
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.

Dump Carl Chipman
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?

Dump Carl Chipman
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”

Dump Carl Chipman
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)

Dump Carl Chipman
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?

Dump Carl Chipman
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!

Dump Carl Chipman
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.

Dump Carl Chipman
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!

Dump Carl Chipman
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.

Dump Carl Chipman
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

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Councilwoman Sherry Chachkin: “I was a newbie on all counts…”

Dump Carl Chipman
Town of Rochester Councilwoman Sherry Chachkin (left) waiting for her turn 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

Dump Carl Chipman

Interview of Town of Rochester Councilwoman Sherry Chachkin:
(with my two cents in the narrow column)

Q: How long have you been on the Board?
Ms. Chachkin: I have been on the Board since January 2014. Between 2008 and 2013, I reported on town board meetings and other matters for a little newspaper called Bluestone Press. I knew who she was. I have had a personal relationship with Ms. Michailescu – I am a foreign film fan and I mentioned to her all of these impressive films that are coming from Romania and she really appreciated that and we talked about writing reviews, etc. We had daily emails after that. I actually went to the Romanian Film Festival with her one day.

    At the time of the interview Ms. Chachkin knew Manuela for at least seven years. Reporting on the town board meetings during Manuela Michailescu’s 4-year term as Councilwoman, Ms. Chachkin mentioned often Manuela’s positive public persona (click here, see page 5). After exchanging daily emails, going together to a film festival, and nurturing a friendship, it is only fair to assume that Ms. Chachkin got an inkling of Manuela’s character and personality.

Q: Why was Cindy Fornino appointed?
Ms. Chachkin: I had no nomination. I voted for Cindy Fornino. From the discussions I had with my fellow board members, we were trying to come up with the best appointment for the Board and town’s stability. Since this was a four month appointment and whoever was appointed would have to run for election, I agreed that Ms. Fornino would represent a segment of the community that needed to feel that they had a place at the table, to show the town board being a bona fide representative. There had been a lot of division in 2007, and a lot of healing since the time of those divisions since Carl was elected, and we really wanted to continue that. We tried to find an appointment that would continue the stability. Our communication has fallen off since the appointment. It’s been very personally distressing to me. Her national origin was not a factor for me, and I didn’t get any indication from any of my other board members that this was a factor. Despite what she is saying today, it’s distressing that she would have any belief that I would have any part of any decision based upon a discriminatory bias.

    Discussions with your fellow board members? When and where did those discussions take place? There was no discussion in front of the people at the time of the appointment, as required by the Open Meetings Law. In case you think that I’m biased, here is an opinion I received by email from somebody in Carl Chipman’s amen corner:

      Jon
      I have no idea why Sherry and Tony voted for Cindy. In fact, I have no idea how they seemed to have agreement w/Carl prior to the motion which put forth Cindy first (thereby eliminating any real discussion). I was puzzled to say the least.
    Ms. Chachkin reveals Town Board’s intention to manipulate the coming elections: Two Democratic and two Republican Town Board members made an official business decision tainted by their wish to assure a Conservative candidate’s victory… Only in Rochester!… and only under Carl Chipman supervision!

    It’s a bit disturbing that Ms. Chachkin agreed with the other town board members that “Ms. Fornino would represent a segment of the community that needed to feel that they had a place at the table,” but none of them – none! – was able to define the said “segment of the community.”

    When Ms. Chachkin said “we tried to find an appointment that would continue the stability,” doesn’t she gratuitously imply that Manuela Michailescu was a destabilizing factor, that a lot of healing happened since Carl was elected, despite Manuela being on the same Town Board?

    By the way, speaking of stability in town, here is a quote from the same email mentioned above:

      But, if Cindy wins, next year will be a whole different atmosphere with a lot more going on in order to bring Dems aboard to replace her and Drabkin!!
    The last part of the answer takes the cake: “…I didn’t get any indication from any of my other board members that this [national origin] was a factor.” Apparently, Ms. Chachkin has a clear image of how discrimination works… Something like: “I make a motion to look at a map and see where Manuela was born… If it’s more than 70 miles away from Town Hall, bingo!, we will not appoint her…”

Q: Why wasn’t Ms. Michailescu not selected?
Ms. Chachkin: I was a newbie on all counts to actually sitting on the board, to politics. Unlike the other board members, I had not actually sat on the board with Ms. Michailescu, or been contemporaneously on the board. I had been on the board for less than a year. All the board members had incredible amounts of seniority over me on the board. I respected their political judgments a huge amount… I respected their feelings on who might best carry out all of the goals that we talked about having. I was aware of their phone conversation with Mr. Chipman prior to the interviews and this was very troubling to me. I learned that Ms. Michailescu and her husband would use that kind of language and tactics concerning the appointment. I knew from our communications, once it became pretty likely that Mr. Cilenti was going to resign before his term was up, that Ms. Michailescu greatly desired the seat and had great expectations that it would be hers. Carl told me that Ms. Michailescu expressed that she should have this appointment and then Jon got on the phone and the whole incident just troubled me. It didn’t change my mind. I hadn’t made a decision yet and we didn’t hold the interviews yet. My mind was still open. But this was something I took into consideration. I had no reason to doubt Mr. Chipman’s account. He was obviously very upset.

    Ms. Chachkin took an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office, not to respect the board members’ “incredible amounts of seniority,” their political judgments and their feelings. Candidate Chachkin made the promise – still on the Democratic Committee website – to be fair to all people. Was she fair to Manuela?

    If Ms. Chachkin was troubled after hearing Chipman version of the phone conversation, why didn’t she call Manuela for the other half of the story?

    “No reason to doubt Chipman’s account, because he was obviously very upset?” He was upset because Manuela confronted him with his plan to fake a fair appointment.

    Moreover, Ms. Chachkin had at least one good reason to be suspicious of Chipman’s version of anything. In July 2009, when the Bernardos cooked an idiotic residency issue, the Blue Stone Press screamed on its cover that Manuela must resign, courtesy of the reporter Sherry Chachkin speaking with Supervisor Chipman who decided Manuela’s fate as a Town Board member without even letting her know what the whole brouhaha was about.

    Back to the phone conversation: Manuela never asked Chipman for his vote, she only asked for fairness in the appointing process. Did Manuela ever asked Ms. Chachkin – a friend! – to vote for her? Nope! Then how could Ms. Chachkin believe – based on hearsay – that Manuela asked Chipman for his vote?

    I do not appreciate Ms. Chachkin making this statement: “I learned that Ms. Michailescu and her husband would use that kind of language and tactics concerning the appointment.” A lawyer should not repeat information received from other people that she cannot adequately substantiate.

    Last but not least, I don’t like the insinuation oozing from “Ms. Michailescu greatly desired the seat and had great expectations that it would be hers.” It sounds like Manuela considered herself entitled to the seat. Nothing could be further from the truth. Manuela had great expectations for fairness.

(To be continued)

– Jon Dogar-Marinesco

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment