Friday, April 26, 2013

Shannon O'Keefe Pero Resigning


Won't seek reelection
Resignation effective May 20th

“Many of the campaign activities and other events that are part of the normal election process I would participate in are either restricted or not permitted. Even giving opinions on certain policy topics is prohibited. Because of these limitations, I do not feel I can effectively run the type of campaign that I believe is necessary and that residents deserve.” ~~ Shannon O'Keefe Pero, 1st ward, Greece Town Board

(SOURCE)
 
SCATS ~~ Different year, same Republican game as usual!
  

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is just the beginning of the purge of Auburger board members. Reilich wants his own YES people on the Board. Town hall jobs will see new faces as well. These people believe the election in November is already in the bag. Given the
sad state of the Dumbocrats (correct spelling), it may be a foregone conclusion.

SAME GAME, DIFFERENT PLAYERS!!!!

Anonymous said...

Losing the only voice of reason! Sadly we can expect the return of Mike Barry. Another party puppet.

SCATS said...

To 6:32PM ~~ Voice of reason??? What voice? Has she EVER spoken up and asked questions at a Town Board meeting? Has she EVER voted against Auberger? Has she EVER shown a differing opinion on ANYTHING!?

I find it laughable that her "excuse" for not running has to do with her feeling that "giving opinions on certain policy topics is prohibited" ... LMAO!

Surely she must jest!!

Anonymous said...

Was one of the Hubbard boys on TV this week?. If so, which one and what he have to say??

SCATS said...

To 5:49AM ~~ That's news to me. What did you see and hear?

Anonymous said...

Could it be she is resigning because of the lawsuit?

Anonymous said...

Charlie Hubbard was on 13WHAM. The news station was doing a story on how public employees who are convicted of felonies still get to keep the ridiculously generous pension we paid for. The story named Rahn and Pignato plus other convicted felons who rake in thousands of dollars a yr in pension money.

Charlie basically said that if you are a public employee and get convicted of a felony you LOSE your pension.

Maybe this threat would clean up all the shenanigans in the public employment sector.

SCATS said...

To 4:51PM ~~ I was wondering that too ...

To 7:05PM ~~ I missed that story. TY for bringing it to my attention. Common sense is so rare these days!

Charlie Hubbard said...

To clearify the pension position that I did not do a very good job with on tv.
2 items readers may be interested in. The biggest one is these contracts being approved by local boards and school boards lack any performance (or ethical)expectations on the part of the taxpayer paid employee. I have talked many times about these contracts being nothing but give/aways of taxpayers $$ and they are. NO reason why ethical, and lawfull conduct should not be a part of these contracts.
#2 retirement and there costs are part on these contract costs. My point was if someone commits a felony as we now know happens they still get thier pension BUT we continue to give 'raises' to that pention via the taxpayers. My point was and is from the time they are convicted the amount of that pension should be frozen from the day that felony was committed.
Once again performance and ethical expectations MUST be part of any and all contracts.

Anonymous said...

Somehow the fact that Charlie Hubbard was on TV discussing a totally unrelated topic to this thread, his comment was posted in response to questions about his TV appearance. However, he does raise some interesting concerns regarding Public Employee Pensions, so I would make this comment regarding his recent post on this thread.

Charlie, if I'm reading you right, you are suggesting that contracts contain language in this regard. State Law renders that argument moot. In such cases, State Public Employee Pension Law addresses what happens to the pension of a public employee if found guilty under these conditions. Since State or Federal Laws always supersede any contractual language not in strict compliance with any lawful statute, any such language is unnecessary as State Law will always take precedence over any contract language.

SCATS said...

To 10:42AM ~~ Meaningful change often requires change at different strata. That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done!

Anonymous said...

Of course it can be done!! Get your elected representatives in the state legislature to change the laws. While you're at it, get them to try changing the Taylor Law. Now that will represent meaningful change of epic proportions. Until then, union contracts are a right under the law, not an entitlement, and are
a reality and a part of the cost of services provided by those employed as public servants who provide these costly but necessary services. I know what the answer is. Let's get rid of all the public sector jobs. Now imagine how your life would be impacted by the elimination of these jobs. The consequences are
without end and too horrific to comprehend .

SCATS said...

To 4:02PM ~~ BS!! We can eliminate the unions and make those jobs like all others. Mankind would survive.

Charlie Hubbard said...

to 10:42 (anonymous and part time attorney)
Your right 'ethical conduct' is an unrealistic expectation to be put into a contract by local officials.
Lets just make believe it's not needed.

Anonymous said...

Scats like I said, sure you could eliminate the public and private sector unions. All you have to do is get our law makers both Federal and State to change long standing Labor Laws, Fair Wages and Standards Act, Taylor Law, etc. and unions would be banned. Just talking about it won't make it so and that is the real BS. Call your Congressman and tell him to go for it. I doubt if he will even bother to answer you let alone act on such a request as he understands the futility and political consequences of such action. THAT'S REALITY MY FRIEND!!!
Your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

SCATS, after you have finished LYAO, consider the possibility that she is right, that there is an inherent conflict of interest between her day job and this moonlighting gig.

Alot of us are prohibited by various ethics rules from pursuing elected offices at specific times in our career. For example, I can't run for school board this year, but I might give it a go next year.

If there is anything fishy in this story, I would point in the opposite direction, that given her series of appointments (county ADA, town prosecutor) it may have been inappropriate for her to run already in 2009 and 2011, or even to accept the direct appointment back when Barry left. Someone with specific knowledge of the ethics rules in those offices would be able to clarify that.

SCATS said...

To 4:56AM ~~ First of all, my LMAO remark had to do with the fact she worries (now) about giving her opinion YEARS after she took the job and DESPITE THE FACT SHE NEVER TELLS US WHAT SHE'S THINKING!!! Of course that concept feeds right into your last paragraph.

Am I supposed to believe she would START GIVING HER OPINION NOW??

Or am I supposed to believe she held her thoughts back to avoid conflict of interest?

Either way, SHE SHOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN THIS JOB if her opinions would be at issue.

Anonymous said...

It's not clear, SCATS, we don't know. She's had three different day jobs now during her town board tenure. It may only be the newest job that creates a conflict.

Maybe not. But it is for someone who knows the ethics rules in those departments to answer.

SCATS said...

To 1:20AM ~~ Apparently, you're out of the loop! The article as originally posted stated that she held the SAME position when she first took the job ... thus my remark of 5/3 @11:56AM.