To the Editor:

At one of the budget workshops where all Town Board members compile ideas for the upcoming budget, Supervisor Parker Snead tried to suppress one of the Board members from speaking.

Charles Scott started to address the board members, but when Parker figured the point Charles was making, Parker tried to silence him.

Charles actually had to say to Parker, words to the effect of, “Do you want to hear what I have to say or are you just going to bully me?”

When I have asked questions at public Board and Budget meetings, Parker at times has had similar responses when he tries to belittle me or anyone else who disagrees with him.

At the Town Board Meeting on October 15, I asked Parker if he was going to take responsibility for the fact that he had town employees take Town property (reported to be pipe, pipe fittings, and valves that had a scrap value of approximately $750) to Parker’s privately owned land and drop it off.

The Town property was then supposedly stolen, and the taxpayers are out the value of the materials not the scrap value.

The value of the materials is many times more than its scrap value.

I also wanted to know if he had filed an insurance claim for the stolen town property.

He said he had not and indicated he was not going to. I again asked if he was going to take responsibility for town property coming up missing from his property.

He refused to answer and displayed another bullying tactic by stating that my whole goal in life was to be a thorn in his side.

Why would anyone not attempt to recover money for stolen property from an insurance company?

I also asked a question about Ritter Lawn Care. We all know that the entire Board must vote to approve payment of every voucher from the General Fund.

Well, that’s not so with Parker Snead as Supervisor. Parker himself authorized another payment to Ritter Lawn Care, in advance of the board meeting.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I was able to get proof to which Parker confirmed. Regardless of town law, Parker said he should have that authority as supervisor.

I then asked the other four board members if they had any knowledge of this payment to Ritter Lawn Care.

Ron Scouten, Charles Scott and Nancy Kardash said they had no Idea. Joann Kwasniew-ski/Ritter said, “Oh ya, I remember.”

This group of questions led Joann Kwasniewski/Ritter to make a statement to Parker, while the Board meeting was in session.

She requested that Parker not let me speak at the meetings.

Parker indicated that he was quite sure he could ban me from speaking and or coming to the board meetings.

There is a name for government that silences opposition. What ever happened to Parker’s promise of transparency in his administration?

He didn’t volunteer any of the information about the stolen property or the police report, not even to the board members.

If Nancy Kardash hadn’t asked at the very end of the September board meeting (as the meeting was being adjourned) why the police were at the Town Hall, no one would know.

No transparency here, Parker never reports on things like this.

Parker does not even tell the board members what he is doing and excludes them from many decisions.

In talking to board member Ron Scouten, Ron said he knew nothing of the Parker plan to dig a trench that led to the damage of the high voltage wires until it was too late.

He said if he had been involved as a board member, he would have known better, called 811 and stopped the incident before $10,994 in damages were assessed to the Town.

By the way, this incident was not addressed at the board meeting until I forced the issue. Why, is this not significant enough? No transparency here.

The kinds of things he reports on at board meetings; that spending $737 for three sheets of plywood is a great idea ($245 for each piece of plywood), as are purchases of toys and park benches.

Incidentally the two ping pong tables and the two croquet sets cost the taxpayers $1,251.

So the four toys and three sheets of plywood cost the taxpayers about $2,000.

I got this information from Town records that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. Parker said that the expenditures are okay because it’s for the taxpayers.

Well, I think that if a few people want toys, let them have them, but buy them for themselves.

The majority of people didn’t even know the toys existed, let alone use them.

As for $245 per sheet of plywood that is painted white, this is so wrong on so many levels.

Parker is trying to eliminate jobs and employees’ benefits to cut costs.

I am not against cutting the budget as I believe some cutting is necessary, but to cut jobs and employee benefits and then spend the savings foolishly on non-vital expenses is being fiscally irresponsible.

These types of expenditures should be stopped with the savings put toward keeping a “zero” Town tax for all taxpayers, like the previous administrations have done.

Parker’s expenses over a certain amount should be board approved (say $100), have his budget trimmed, and limit his ability to spend money freely.

Additionally take his credit card away, no Supervisor needed one before.

The list of additional expenses since Parker took office is long and will be a topic for an upcoming editorial.

Parker has on more than one occasion talked about a revaluation of town property tax as a method to raise more money.

A revaluation to raise taxes to allow him to keep spending is not the answer.

What he fails to see is that spending taxpayers’ money on non-vital expenses is not doing anything for the majority of town people except make the taxpayers dip deeper into their pockets as taxes increase.

He needs to realize that the town elected four other board members.

He has shown no respect for their opinions and circumvents the board members at every opportunity.

Parker went on to say in open session that I do nothing to help the town.

It is my opinion that exposing the truth about his tactics and his manipulation, while it may not help Parker, I think it’s doing a service for the taxpayers.

I believe Supervisor Parker Snead is being reckless with town assets to the detriment of the Forestport taxpayers.

Dave Ultsch,

Forestport