Finding Ulysses

I first met Dan Segal of The Plantsmen Nursery at the Ithaca Plant Sale last year. I was attracted by the varieties of bushes and trees he had available, easily the most interesting at the whole sale. I got an ironwood tree from him, and planted it near the edge of the young woods in back of my house. I remembered playing with the branches of the ironwood as a teenager - easy to bend, but not to snap. (Unfortunately, the Trumansburg deer found the young ironwood quite easy to browse to death).

Tonight I hope to see Dan Segal again. He will be speaking at the Ulysses Philomathic Library in the Melvin Community Room, tonight at 7:30.

The subject of his talk will be the use of native plants in the landscape. That’s a topic that ought to be of particular interest to those people who are working on the town and village comprehensive plans - integrating native and non-native is a big issue in our town.

One way to think about the value of native plants is in the preservation of biodiversity. I don’t see how the eradication of non-native plants from our local landscape could take place, but it sure would be nice to have some areas in which the original diversity of native plants could be evident. How can that be done in the kind of environment that dominates around the town of Ulysses - relatively small areas of woodland that are less than one hundred years old, next to backyard gardens or surrounded by land used for growing crops?

There’s a lot to talk about, and one thing I’m confident about is that Mr. Segal will offer answers with more depth and interest than we would get from someone at a more typical nursery.

It was a weird experience reading the Trumansburg Free Press last week. Our village’s paper of record ran the top headline: Filiberto: Town Must Listen to the Village, with the subheader, “Trustee says that village does not need to coordinate with town on annexation”.

The article was by Stacey Silliman, someone I haven’t seen writing for the Free Press before. Maybe that explains the tremendous discrepancy between the article’s headline and subheader and the article’s content.

Of the thirteen paragraphs in the article, only the third paragraph discussed anything that Village Trustee David Filiberto said during the meeting of the Trumansburg Village Board of Trustees meeting earlier this month. In the other twelve paragraphs, Filiberto’s name was not mentioned even once. Nor were there any quotations in the article from people reacting to anything that David Filiberto said at the meeting, positively or negatively.

The second half of the article wasn’t even about the issue of annexation. It went on, in a disconnected fashion, to describe what people at the meeting had to say about “nonconforming concrete” in the Main Street Project construction. A more accurate headline for the article would have been Board Discusses Annexation and Concrete. I suppose that isn’t sensational enough to sell papers.

The only part of the article that related in any way to the headline and subheader of the article was that single paragraph, which read, “When asked about the need to coordinate annexation decisions with the Town of Ulysses, Trustee David Filiberto stated, ‘The town needs to hear what the the village says, not vice versa. The village is an entity in the town.’”

That’s it. Nowhere in the article was David Filiberto quoted as saying that the Town of Ulysses must listen to the village. Nowhere in the article was David Filiberto quoted as saying that Trumansburg does not need to coordinate with the town of Ulysses on the issue of annexation.

The top headline of the Trumansburg Free Press, and its subheader, were made completely without substantiation. Why did the Trumansburg Free Press choose to do that?

The plain fact is that David Filiberto said nothing like what the headline and subheader accuse him of saying. He never said that the Town of Ulysses has to listen to Trumansburg. He never said that the village of Trumansburg does not have to coordinate with the Town of Ulysses on the issue of annexation.

Even the one paragraph in the article about David Filiberto’s comment didn’t get the facts right. The quotation isn’t accurate, and Filiberto’s comment was absolutely not made “when asked about the need to coordinate annexation decisions with the Town of Ulysses”. The comment was made as part of a long discussion about whether to have a joint meeting with the town or separate but parallel meetings dealing with the issue of annexation. The selection of the quotation and the distortion of its context places Filiberto’s comment in a light that is not at all reflective of what was actually being discussed.

I know, because tonight I listened to an audio recording of that meeting of the Village Board of Trustees. The transcript of the part of the meeting that includes David Filiberto’s alleged snub to the Town of Ulysses is found below.

I wonder, did the reporters and editors at the Trumansburg Free Press bother to make an audio recording of what was said at the meeting, or to listen to the Village’s recording? Did they just work from memory and scribbles in a notebook? I’m no journalist myself, so maybe I’m not qualified to judge, but after reading the article in the Free Press last week and listening to the recording of what actually happened at the meeting, I’ve got a lot of questions about the accuracy of the other things that the Trumansburg Free Press tells us about what’s going on in Trumansburg and the Town of Ulysses.

If the staff at the Trumansburg Free Press has any professional integrity, they’ll examine this mistake and print a front page retraction. We all know what happens with newspaper headlines. People glancing at the Free Press in the grocery store or at the gas station in Jacksonville, and even many who get the paper in the mail, will only have looked at the headline and muttered something like, “Who the hell does that Filiberto guy think he is, saying that Trumansburg doesn’t need the town, and we need to listen to him?”

An appropriate headline for this week’s Trumansburg Free Press would be: We Got It Wrong About Filiberto or Filiberto Didn’t Say What We Said He Said.

Enough of my words. Go ahead and read for yourself what was actually said during that portion of the meeting of the Village Board of Trustees, and judge whether what the Trumansburg Free Press published was fair and accurate. I apologize for the difficulty in attributing statements to particular people other than Filiberto. The quality of the recording wasn’t great, and I wasn’t present at the meeting, so I can’t be certain of who is actually speaking at many points. Anyone who has heard David Filiberto speak, however, knows that he has a very distinctive voice that is unlike the voice of anyone else in Trumansburg’s village government, or anyone else in Trumansburg, for that matter. The statements I attribute to Filiberto are ones I am certain that he made.

Male voice: Okay, the eleventh, July eleventh, Wednesday.

Clerk: That’s two days after a board meeting, does that matter? That’s two meetings together.

Male voice: That’s a light week.

Male voice: That’s the way it goes.

Male voice: This is a public meeting?

Clerk: That’s my next question. Do we advertise it as a public hearing, as a public meeting? Are we still going to try to cooperate with the town to do a joint?

Male voice: All good questions.

Thomas(?): I think we should have a public meeting in the village. I think that the second joint meeting is really unnecessary, unless the public rises up and says this has to be a meeting of the joint boards and I don’t foresee that happening.

Clerk: Um, okay.

Filiberto: I would tend to agree with that.

Thomas(?): We’re making decisions now of[?] edited reports, and they heard the public at the joint meeting and we each are individual boards with their own constitutents at our meetings.

Filiberto: We’re all here in the village.

Thomas(?): That’s correct, and obviously, people from the town could come to our meeting and comment. Nothing prevents them from doing that.

Someone else: Well, we could, but, ha ha.

Filiberto: The main purpose of this meeting was to give the public [inaudible] from the village?

Thomas(?): Well, to give village residents a forum in the village to have [inaudible] should they…

Third Trustee Voice: Yes, to get us a lot of press, and to get, make sure that…

Thomas(?): [inaudible] should be having them as well.

Third Trustee Voice: They don’t have to, but…

Thomas(?): That was their stated intention.

Hart (?): Essentially we’re addressing the criticism that we didn’t give enough notice, even though we complied with the law.

[board members and clerk talking over each other]

Hart (?): And having the extra public meeting, which I think is necessary, absolutely necessary.

Petrovic (?): Is there an interest in having a joint, I mean Chris [Thomas] is suggesting not having a joint meeting with the town at that point. I mean, we could have another meeting at a further time.

Filiberto: I just don’t know what the whole purpose was in [inaudible] in village residents needed more time.

Hrubos (?): Notification was the big deal, which is why I don’t think that presence in front of the joint board was any more relevant than in front of the individual boards.

Petrovic (?): Okay, I’m going to take a public comment on this.

Other voice: You got ninety days, right?

Correct.

Other voice: [inaudible] and we’re kind of limited right now, summer [supper?] time. A lot of people are [inaudible].

Correct.

Other voice: The first meeting was a public meeting or a public hearing?

Clerk: Hearing.

Others: Hearing.

Other voice: But each one of the boards separately have to make a decision.

Others: Correct.

Other voice: So, [inaudible] is that each of the one of the boards have a public hearing which is an official meeting, and you’re hindered by the summer. That’s a bad thing, but you really, at this forum right here, [inaudible], needs to have that meeting.

Filiberto: Well, the town…

Other voice: Making decisions on a joint hearing.

Filiberto: We don’t even have…

Other trustee: We’re…

Unknown voice, not Filiberto: Other than a, other than a decision, we have to make a funds, we have to, we’re required to have one joint
public hearing,

Other trustee: Which we did.

Other: Right.

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Other voice: All right, but I wouldn’t want to take that, and somebody that’s really disgruntled will take you to court, and that joint meeting is really not, is not what the law says.

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Filiberto: Legally, we don’t, but…

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Other voice: … in a court, sitting up there, [inaudible]

Clerk: Another meeting…

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Female voice: …It’s my understanding as a citizen, attending the public hearing, that each board thought that it was going set its own individual public hearing, the village residents [inaudible] would be making a decision, and that he felt that the town board agreed that they would have their own public meeting, and they thought that the town…

Clerk: See, that’s not what my notes say at all.

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Unknown male voice (Petrovic ?): Well, there was interest at the end to try to see if we could set a time of a joint meeting, but again, because we need to do individual decisions, we can set the course that we want to.

[inaudible, people talking over each other]

Filiberto: I think that we should have our own…Individuals, individuals in the town should be concerned with what the village has to say, I mean, and not vice versa. The village is a component of it. The town board is part of the village, the village as well. They should be interested in hearing what the village residents say. So, in that respect, I would say that there shouldn’t be a joint meeting. But I…

[Other female voice, inaudible]

Other male voice: Well, again, the attorneys and ten board members are probably going to…

Other male voice: I think it’s unrealistic and ultimately unnecessary, if we’re going to have, you know, a second public meeting, um, this
board…

Other male voice: At the town’s individual meeting, there was a lot of [inaudible], if the town wants to we can try to schedule one, but I’ve [inaudible] to hear public comment that we need to do it, I think there was sentiment that the public would love to see us working together, but in this case, the information and the decision is each individual [inaudible].

Other male voice: I think we are working together. I just think that we’re not seeing it from the same frame.

Filiberto: I disagree that we’re not going to hear what’s happening in the town.

Other male voice: I agree. I mean, that’s true. I’m not going to argue with that.

Filiberto: I think the main concern is that that there are going to be arguments from the town that we’re not going to know, and we’ll take them off the record, but at the same time, it’ll be just the sense that…

Other male voice: Well, we can attend [inaudible] too. There’s nothing preventing us from going to this other meeting [inaudible, people talking over each other] It’s not like we’re kept from that.

Other male voice: We should schedule a date that works for us to have a village hearing…

The lawsuit made by Geoffrey Hart against the Trumansburg Village Board of Trustees, attempting to remove John Levine, John Hrubos and Rose Hilbert from the board, has been dismissed.

Essentially, the court found that Mr. Hart failed to produce evidence that the Village Board of Trustees provided inadequate notice of a changed meeting date, and decided that the allegations made by Mr. Hart did not rise above the level of “minor neglect of duties, administrative oversights and violations of law”, and were therefore not impeachable, even if they did take place.

You can read the decision below:

State of New York
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
Decided and Entered: June 14, 2007
502083
________________________________
In the Matter of GEOFFREY J.
HART, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT TRUMANSBURG BOARD OF TRUSTEES et al., Respondents.
________________________________
Calendar Date: May 4, 2007
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
__________
Geoffrey J. Hart, Trumansburg, petitioner pro se. Miller Mayer, L.L.P., Ithaca (John Moss Hinchcliff of counsel), for respondents.
__________
Mercure, J.

Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove certain respondents from various offices in the Village of Trumansburg, Tompkins County. Petitioner, a resident of the Village of Trumansburg, Tompkins County, commenced this proceeding seeking to remove respondents John Levine, John Hrubos and Rose Hilbert (hereinafter collectively referred to as respondents) as Village Trustees. Petitioner’s grievance arises from actions of respondent Trumansburg Board of Trustees (hereinafter the Board) regarding the proposed location of a skateboard park in the Village. Specifically, petitioner takes issue with the Board’s return to open session after going into executive session during its September 2006 meeting and, on the record but in the absence of any members of the public, withdrawing its informal, preliminary approval for the skateboard park at a location discussed with members of the public earlier. Petitioner claims that the Board failed to note its change of position in its minutes or notify the public of a change in the planned date of its next meeting, in October 2006, at which the Board, in open session, formally voted to preliminarily approve another site for the park. (The Board later rescinded this approval at its January
2007 meeting.)

Petitioner alleges that, by this conduct, respondents violated the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law art 7), conspired to withhold information from the public in violation of the public trust, and engaged in a pattern of gross dereliction of duty. Respondents move to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim.

Removal from office under Public Officers Law § 36 is a drastic remedy “‘reserved for malicious and corrupt acts as compared to minor neglect of duties, administrative oversights and violations of law’” (Matter of Chandler v Weir, 30 AD3d 795, 796 [2006], quoting Matter of West v Grant, 243 AD2d 815, 816 [1997]; Matter of Miller v Balland, 7 AD3d 916, 917 [2004]). Here, the misconduct alleged by petitioner essentially consists of the Board returning to open session following executive session and failing to properly notify the public of the changed date of the October 2006 meeting. We note that petitioner presents no evidence in support of the latter allegation. In any event, even assuming that respondents’ conduct constituted a violation of the Open Meetings Law, these allegations do not rise to the level of “unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty . . . [or] connote a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority” justifying removal (Matter of McCarthy v Sanford, 24 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Chandler v Weir, supra at 796; Matter of Miller v Balland, supra at 917; cf. Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1049-1050 [1994]).

Finally, we note that inasmuch as Rose Hilbert’s term expired on March 31, 2007 and she did not seek reelection, this matter is moot with respect to her (see Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, supra at 1048).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss is granted, without
costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:
Michael J. Novack
Clerk of the Court

All right, in the classic sense, populated is not exactly a mood. It’s just the best word that I could think of to describe what I saw today, while peering into Trumansburg Creek.

From up high, on the Main Street bridge near Gimme Coffee, or at the bottom of the Lake Street dip, you can’t see them, but getting down to creek level they’re impossible to miss. Huge numbers of minnows an inch or two long are swimming in ever tighter formations in the creek as, day after day, we go without rain. If this weather continues, it won’t be too long until they survive only in isolated pools. There is no rain in our forecast.

Still, for now they swim in a flowing stream. That’s got me wondering how these little fish stick it out in our changeable creek. In springtime, when the waters surge with seemingly irresistable speed, how do the minnows hang on? Do they, leaving behind only their eggs, sticking to the rocks, with successive generations swept away, never to see their forebearers until they too are flushed by the meltoff?

Anyone more knowledgeable about local stream ecology care to fill me in?

Reminder, everyone: The Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan surveys are due today. Put them in the mail instead of getting them over to the Town of Ulysses offices, because the envelopes are addressed to go up to Cornell University, where they will be processed.

I’m not a frequent traveller down route 96 headed south out of town toward Ithaca, so I don’t know exactly long this sign has been up in front of the campus of the Trumansburg Schools. I saw it for the first time yesterday afternoon, and it’s there still this morning.

I just called the front desk at the high school, and they don’t know who put the sign up. Is it a student group, perhaps, or just an individual wanting to make a statement?

Whatever the case, it speaks well of our community that the sign is there, and that it’s still up. In most communities, this sign would have been defaced or destroyed by now.

The sign’s meaning is pretty clear, although it doesn’t come right out and say it. The idea is to “support love” whether between male and female, between male and male, and between female and female.

That’s often a difficult kind of attitude for young people to arrive at. Middle school and high school students are busy figuring out who they are and what really turns them on, in a social setting that often values conformity above honesty and acceptance of differences. Sexual attraction is difficult to deal with at a young age, even when it’s relatively straightforward and reciprocated.

So, I see it as a positive, helpful thing for someone to place this sign in front of the schools, reminding students and adults alike that the most important thing in our personal relationships is to have the motivation of love.

In Trumansburg, we’ve got gay, lesbian and bisexual students - all schools do. Some of our students come from households where the custodial parents are of the same gender - that’s true in many communities these days. Discrimination according to sexual orientation doesn’t have a healthy place in our community. As this sign suggests, we need to support families of all kinds.

Whoever put the sign up - thanks for the reminder.

The Trumansburg Conservatory of Fine Arts will be having its annual chicken barbecue this Saturday. They’re doing it up a little bigger this year, with a cake wheel, face-painting and music provided by Bill Gregg, who teaches guitar and banjo there. The weather is supposed to be good, so come on over, get your chicken, get your face decorated and take a chance on a cake… and listen to some good music. Festivities start at noon— or maybe it’s one pm. Well, there are signs around with the correct time on them… I’m only providing an estimate. But it should be fun, and as an added bonus you’ll be supporting the premier Tburg arts institution!

Well, I was a little late, but I rolled down to the Fire Hall about 10:15 on Saturday morning for the second Comprehensive Plan meeting. The one last week was cancelled because of lack of attendance when, according to the Free Press, only 3 people showed.
I walked in to see these people: Chris Thomas, village trustee; Deanna Kline, zoning officer; Tammy Morse, village clerk; Deirdre Cunningham, Comp Plan Committee member; and the new person from the County Planning Office who’s working on the project whose name I can’t recall. They told me I was the first resident to show up at the meeting. I asked if that meant I could decide the village’s future (ok, before I get reamed on this blog, I said it in jest, people!) and they rather seriously told me no.
We waited around about 5 or 10 more minutes to see who else would show, and when no one did, they packed up their flip charts and markers and posters and decided to call it a day. On the way out, three more people were coming in, somewhat disappointed that the meeting was cancelled.
You’d think with all the flak the village has been taking lately about not having a comprehensive plan, there would have been more bodies there. True, with the kiddie park construction and Sally Sutcliffe’s memorial, there were probably a lot of people who would have been there had it been some other day. But only 4 people out of a population of 1700?
Where does the village go from here? What’s the number of attendees that would cause a meeting to be held instead of cancelled? Do the opinions of the 4 who showed up Saturday and the 3 who showed up Wednesday May 30th count?

Tonight at 7:00 pm at the Trumansburg Fire Hall, Back to Democracy is showing the documentary Kilowatt Ours, which bills itself as “the film that’s sparked an energy conservation craze across America!” That’s taking a bit too much credit for this one documentary, I think, but it still is well worthwhile a watch. Besides, like all Back to Democracy events, the showing of this film is free to any who want to attend.

There will be a moderated discussion about energy conservation after the documentary is done. With the rapidly increasing costs of energy, and the growing effects of wasteful energy use becoming increasingly apparent, it’s a subject that we all have good reason to think about.

Yet another reason for me to wish that I was home in Trumansburg: There will be a mid-morning special meeting of the Village Board of Trustees today, in order to discuss the progress of the Main Street Project, “and to address other matters that may come before the Village Board”.

How curious. The meeting will be at 10:00 AM, Village Hall.

Will anyone other than the members of the Village Board be able to attend at this hour?

What “other matters” might come before the board?

Anyone care to fill us in today - before or after the meeting takes place?