For nearly 20 years, the Batavia Plumbing Board has conducted secret meetings, failed to keep proper minutes, not abided by its own regulations regarding plumbing examinations and administered tests seemingly designed to assure failure.
These are the accusations contained in a report issued by the City Manager's office on Thursday in advance of Monday's city council meeting.
"After researching the Plumbing Board and Plumbing Inspector actions over the past two decades, it has been discovered that there are numerous questionable actions with regard to the conduct of prior Plumbing Boards and the Plumbing Inspector," reads the report.
"Furthermore, when considering the severity of issues revolving around illegal meetings, refusal to review plumbing exam applications, lack of aptitude in creating the exams and answer keys, and blatant disregard for accurate record keeping, it would appear that the actions of the Plumbing Board and Plumbing Inspector have been collusive, self-serving, and not in the best interest of the residents of the City of Batavia.
"These actions further reveal a deliberate abuse of public trust and obvious pursuance of self interest for those involved."
The 18-page report contradicts most of the reporting of the Batavia Daily News on plumbing board issues. The Daily's stories have consistently protrayed city plumbers as protectors of public safety foiled in their public service efforts by an uncooperative City Hall.
In a July 22 article (City plumbers are united in protest), the Daily reports:
The board corrected the tests and all three applicants failed.
It is a difficult test, plumber Doug Diegelman said.
“It absolutely should be. It’s a definite public safety issue,” he said. “I want to try and get this resolved so that everyone is working on the same page. Each and every plumber had to have certain qualifications to pass that test.”
Of course, any test is difficult if the answer key doesn't match the questions. In each of the sets of questions given, the answer keys contained between 4 and 21 incorrect answers. In one case, the answer key contained "false" as the correct answer on a multiple choice question.
City Manager Jason Molino said in an interview with The Batavian on Friday that he isn't even sure the exams are up to date with current plumbing codes. And since the plumbing board has generally failed to keep proper meeting minutes, there is no record of the board adjusting the tests to keep pace with changes in code.
According to the plumbing board's own regulations, the board is required to offer examines three times a year, but until the three applicants were offered the exam in February, no potential plumber has been allowed to take the test since October 2006.
The board received applications in November of 2004, 2006, 2008, March 2009 and June 2009. The plumbing board did not even respond to these applications until January, according to the report.
When the exam was given, as noted, all three applicants failed. One of the applicants has 32 years plumbing experience and is already licensed in six other jurisdictions.
Though issues with the plumbing board have existed for 20 or 30 years or longer, according to the report, much of the current controversy surrounding the board arises from a Jan. 20 meeting and the decision to deny a city employee, Jimmy Ficarella, an opportunity to take the test.
At a previous meeting -- with all five board members present -- Ficarella's application was approved unanimously.
At the Jan. 20 meeting, only three board members were present. Another board member and the chairman were not notified the meeting was taking place, according to Molino.
The next day, Chairman Ricky G. Hale resigned, writing in his resignation letter, "Such a job requires dedication to the trade, a commitment to the citizens of the community and an unprejudiced demeanor between the City and licensed plumbers thereof."
While neither Hale nor another board member knew about the meeting -- and there's no documentation for proper, legal meeting notice -- several local plumbers knew to attend the meeting.
They all signed a petition -- for what, Molino isn't entirely sure, because the writing was, to him, illegible -- that helps document their presence at the meeting.
According to the Daily's stories, the remaining plumbing board members justified their action by saying Ficarella had been practicing plumbing without a license, even though no such concern was raised when his application was approved in December.
In an interview by the Daily with City Attorney George Van Nest, Van Nest raises the same issue, and the Daily's story provides unqualified cover for the plumbing board.
In, Plumbing Board refusing to correct test taken by city DPW employee:
That's not exactly true, Ron Toal said. The board needed time to fully review Ficarella's supporting documentation. Once that was done, board members agreed his experience did not qualify him to go for master plumber.
Which begs the question -- unasked, apparently, by the Daily's reporter: Why didn't the board complete its review before approving Ficarella's application in December?
Board members have claimed that Ficarella was found to have practiced plumbing without a license and without the proper supervision of a master plumber, but Molino said no one has come forward with evidence to support the claim.
"The entire board approved the new application in December, so obviously there’s new information that came in (for the Jan. 20 meeting)," Molino said. "So, let’s see the new information? ‘Well, there is no new information.’ Well, let’s see the investigation? 'There is no investigation.’ There’s no information, no justification, no new information whatsoever (to disqualify Ficarella)."
Even if it were true that Ficarella was practicing plumbing without a license, there's nothing in New York's General Cities Law on plumbing that would prohibit him from qualifying to take the exam.
However, a plumber found guilty of a misdemeanor (like practicing plumbing without a license) would lose his license. There is no claim The Batavian has yet to uncover that Ficarella was ever been charged with a misdemeanor, let alone convicted, to potentially disqualify him from taking the exam.
For months, the board refused to grade Ficarella's test. When it did -- because Van Nest required it to protect the city from litigation -- Ficarella wasn't given a passing grade.
After two of the candidates filed Freedom of Information requests for their tests and the answer keys, they challenged the test's validity.
Matt Worth, superintendent of water and sewer, regraded the test, checking the answer keys against relevant state and city codes. Once the incorrect answers in the answer keys were corrected, the two applicants were found to have achieved passing scores.
In a July 29 story (Recorrected: 2 plumbers pass test), the Daily quotes Larry Toal saying he believes the city “manipulated the codes to fit the answers.”
Former Plumbing Inspector Barb Toal told the Daily that the city's Licensed Plumbers Association plans a legal challenge to the passing grades.
In the same story, the Daily's reporter writes of the meeting that the only master plumber on the board at the time, Al Rosemark, objected to the meeting taking place since there weren't two other plumbers to vote on the regrading process.
General municipal law for cities states that the board is to include two master plumbers, one journeyman plumber, a city engineer and a plumbing inspector.
Ron Toal doesn’t think that Water and Sewer Superintendent Worth should be on the board since he’s not a plumber or an engineer and there is already a city representative on it.
But that's not correct, according to the city's report.
Under Section 40-a of the GCL (General Cities Law) Article 4, the Plumbing Board is to consist of five members: two (2) master plumbers of whom shall be employed as master plumbers of not less than 10 years experience in the business of plumbing, one (1) journeyman plumber of like experience and two (2) city staff members.
As explained above, the GCL provides that "the other members of such board shall be the chief inspector of plumbing and drainage of such city, or officer performing the duties of such inspector, and the chief engineer having charge of sewers in such city, but in the event of there being no such officers in such city, then any two other officers having charge or supervision of the plumbing, drainage or sewerage" may be appointed to fill the Plumbing Board positions.
The Daily's stories have also repeatedly left the impression that the city must employ a person with the job title of "Plumbing Inspector," and that such a person must be a master plumber.
In a June 4 story (Code officer sent for plumbing work), the Daily reports:
Former inspector Barb Toal said that neither of the code officials, Ron Panek nor Doug Randall, has ever taken the city plumbing test to be a certified master plumber. Only certified master plumbers are to do plumbing jobs and inspections in the city.
That's simply not true, according to the city manager's report.
Article 4 of the GCL does not provide that cities shall employ a separate titled position of "Plumbing Inspector," but rather the person inspecting plumbing work shall have a Certificate of Competency issued from the Plumbing Board.
This has been misstated in recent media reports, giving the impression that a city must have a distinct Plumbing Inspector position.
However, the relevant section of the GCL also requires that the inspector be a "practical plumber," whatever that means; however, he or she cannot be engaged in the trade of plumbing while serving as a plumbing inspector.
The plumbing inspector must also be a qualified building-code officer, according to the report.
If no person can be found who meets the qualifications, the Attorney General has ruled that a city cannot be forced to follow the General Cities Law.
"In researching the situation, we learned that the cities of Corning, Geneva and Canandaigua do not have active Plumbing Boards, do not license plumbers and do not employ plumbing inspectors," the report reads. "All three cities employ code enforcement officials (or building inspectors) to issue plumbing permits and conduct plumbing inspections."
Molina's report concludes with nearly a dozen recommendations for restoring public trust and confidence in the plumbing board, including obeying New York's laws on public meetings (publishing agendas and keeping accurate minutes, for example).
It also recommends that objective criteria be established for determining whether a candidate is qualified to take the plumbers' exam, and if a candidate's application is rejected, that detailed records be kept on why the board did not find the candidate qualified.
As for the exam itself, the report recommends hiring a third-party firm to write, administer and grade the tests to ensure complete impartiality.
Recommendation number 11 deals with the plumbing inspector position itself.
The recommendation is twofold. Firstly, try to find a qualified candidate who would then be required to go through the necessary training, within a year of being hired, for the part-time position of code-enforcement officer.
This is required by law. The lack of sufficient plumbing inspection work means the inspector will be required to perform other duties.
Or, secondly, have the Batavia Plumbing Board allow either of the current code-enforcement officers (who are otherwise qualified under New York law to take the exam) to take the plumbing exam and achieve a Certificate of Competency."
The city council is expected to discuss the city manager's report and its recommendations when it meets at 7 p.m., Monday.
If you wish to read the entire report for yourself, The Batavian's news partner, WBTA, has posted the report here.
WOW. Good for you and your
WOW. Good for you and your excellent reporting Howard. What a shame that this board has restricted people from obtaining employment as plumbers in the city. I have met Jimmy Ficarella and he is such a nice guy. I hope this investigation opens some eyes.
Surprise, Suprise! Say it
Surprise, Suprise! Say it ain't so! The answer key doesn't match the questions being asked and the good old boys plumbers club has been sticking it to the city for years!
I guess you don't have to be a Wall Street Exec to work the system to profit yourself. I hope there are criminal charges filed against them all!
sounds like there doing a
sounds like there doing a crapy job
Hot's on the left...Cold's on
Hot's on the left...Cold's on the right...payday's on Thursday...don't bite your nails.
Obviously there's more to it than that, but that's what my brother (a union pipefitter) says that you have to know to be a plumber.
However...if these guys have been scamming the city and it's residents then they deserve everything that comes their way.
Dave, you FUNNY!
Dave, you FUNNY!
Well, I guess this means no
Well, I guess this means no one is getting permits for new plumbing work anytime soon.
Pipes is pipes. I think
Pipes is pipes. I think we're fooling ourselves if we believe that a lot of "plumbing" work isn't being done successfully by homeowners or handymen. And for new construction, the work is going to be inspected anyway - so why the major barrier to entry?
If this trade seriously does rise to the level of requiring professional accreditation, I say let's standardize the curriculum, leverage the state office of professions to handle the credentialing, and then let the local inspectors spread the word about any local variations in code (which likely should be few).
As for the many problems with the local board of plumber-bureaucrats, I can only guess that not enough competent local plumbers have any interest in serving in this capacity. When you start looking for volunteers to mix a get-'er-done type of skilled trade with a bunch of red tape, it doesn't surprise me that the ones who turn up either do so reluctantly or excel at neither aspect.
About time someone looked
About time someone looked into this!! I have heard rumors over the years (unsubtantiated) of some crooked politics from people in the plumbing business trying to get licensed in the city!!
Both parties involved in my
Both parties involved in my experience are now dead, so I'm not going to mention names.
When we bought our house, we had to have some plumbing done. I happen to go down into the basement just as the plumber was opening a brand new tube of something to test the pipe for leaks. He used less than a dab, replaced the screw top, and put it back into his tool chest.
The bill included that brand new tube.
When the plumber inspector came, I showed him the bill and mentioned that I felt I had been gouged. I felt that the plumber inspector should be looking out for my best interest.
Not only did the plumbing inspector ignore my complaint, he never actually went into the basement where the work was done.
He stood at the top of the stairs, looked down, said everything was okay and left.
I like the idea of a third
I like the idea of a third party given and grade exams in the future.
Having first hand experience
Having first hand experience dealing with the City engineering office and knowing what the plumbers when through waaaay back when Jim Holvey(ex- councilman) tried to disban the board and the inspector position, I feel I have to comment.
Mr. Holvey hired an out of town plumber to do work at his home. This person was neither licsenced nor did he bother to have Mr. Holvey get a homeowners permit.Of course, he got caught by the inspector (back then it was city employee Richard Demus) and a stop work order was issued until the proper proceedures were followed.. This so enraged him and his council buddies, that they sued the Plumbers association under the pretense that the board and the inspection system were illegal. At the time it consisted of approx. 12 or so local plumbers. That case was ruled in the City's favor by a local judge( there's a surpise) but later overruled on a State level as being illegal based on State laws regarding Cities and the charter. With all that being said, Howard I find your report to be rather biased and you seem to put a lot of faith in what Molina said. What happen to finding out all three versions of the story. The City's side, the Plumbers side and the truth? Why not look into the City's closet concerning the plumbing issue. What about thier "secret meetings", the old law suit, the constant disregard for the plumbing code, laws, and the hard working peolpe in this field. Did you know that when the law suit was overturned, the City filed a lean against each of the plumbers named in the suit for a whopping $15.00 each. That lean was filed and not made known to these guys untill a few of them tried to get mortgages or loans and were denied. They then had to hire lawyers to clear thier names. If I remember right, the City had to be threatened with a lawsuit in order to get the leans lifted. How's that for sour grapes?
The bottom line here is the City has and always will, do what ever they damn well please. Get in there way and you will get run over.
Molina opinions, your report, the whole plumbers vs. the City and small town politics are all just one steaming pile.
There has bad blood between the City and the plumbers going back to the early seventies and perhaps earlier than that.Neither party is totally inocent here but I will say.. the City started this crap(no pun intended) and I'm glad the plumbers haven't rolled over on thier backs like a beaten dog. The people of this City deserve to know the WHOLE story.And the plumbers should not give up without at least having thier say.
A) The plumbers side has been
A) The plumbers side has been well represented in the Daily's stories, with little or no attention paid to the other side. The Daily's version of the story is well represented in this post. The Daily/Plumbers are quoted on each key point.
B) The City Manager's report is thorough, well documented (well, you can't document the LACK of agendas and minutes, of course) and credible.
While your background on the lawsuit is certainly welcome and interesting, and I don't doubt a word of it, nor your interpretation of events, it's not really relevant to the issues of -- no agendas, no meeting notices, no minutes, doctored and biased tests and game playing on whose tests get graded or not.
It should be an interesting meeting tonight.
So what you're saying Rich is
So what you're saying Rich is that the report is a lie?
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about this town. He said/he said...blah blah blah.
What I see from the city report is an investigation with results. How about the same from the other side?
I have been in business for long enough to know this simple fact. People who just tell third party stories and conspiracy theories are usually nothing more than just friends of an affected party.
When I start seeing proof to battle these accusations then I hold weight into the whole "Council's out to get the Plumbers" line of defense.
One wonders if the city's
One wonders if the city's side was under-represented in The Daily because Molino repeatedly refused to comment on the issue.
I like Rich's point about three sides to this issue, that always seems to be the case when there's an issue involving people who don't seem to like each other very much.
In an effort to contribute to the discussion, I'd like to point out that the City Charter calls for a Plumbing inspector. Mr. Molino is relying on the GCL as his supporting documentation to continue without one. My question is which law supersedes the other?
The charter says that the Plumbing inspector shall be 'qualified.' The definition of 'qualified' here obviously varies depending on who you're talking to.
Chris, For the past year
Chris,
For the past year I've not had any trouble getting an interview with Jason any time I ask.
Also, the plumbers lawsuit referenced by Rich found that state law superseded local law.
Chris, here's what the City
Chris, here's what the City Charter actually says:
"A qualified person shall be appointed by the Manager as Inspector of Plumbing to have, exercise and discharge the functions, powers and duties of that office as provided by Charter, local law or ordinance"
An inspector of plumbing, not a "plumbing inspector."
To me, "inspector of plumbing" is a job description and "plumbing inspector" is a job title.
This is simply a case of
This is simply a case of abuse of power. They created this closed club of plumbers to limit completion and price gouge all of us. Criminals do this on Wall Street all the time. Abusing governmental authority to corner the market for your own personal gain is disgraceful. I would like to see criminal charges filed on those responsible for manipulating the test key.
Yeah Howard, that definition
Yeah Howard, that definition is under Section 9-4 titled 'Plumbing Inspector.'
http://www.batavianewyork.com/documents/ProposedCharter_000.pdf
Howard, Your buddy the City
Howard,
Your buddy the City Manager can do as he pleases, and you believe everything he says.
The city is breaking the law!!
The city told the board, here is all you get to use to make up the plumbing tests, it was a study guide, the city would not allow the board members to even have copies of the code book of the time.
City management is a f*%#?@g JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, how does the Board
So, how does the Board explain this…
“In reviewing the Part I answer keys it was discovered that there were between 4 and 15 incorrect answers on each answer key (out of 72 questions, up to 21% of the answers were incorrect). It was further discovered that one answer key showed an answer of 6 “false” when the question on the exam was multiple choice. In reviewing the essay questions on all exams, another applicant received the following question, “Explain why you want to be a licensed plumber in the City of Batavia. What are your qualifications?” This applicant received 5 of 5 points for answering this question correctly. However, he failed to achieve 70% on the exam.”
So you guys put applications
So you guys put applications in the drawer for 6 years without giving someone the chance of taking the crooked test? What kind of small town crap is that???
Chris, Like Union? Like your
Chris,
Like Union? Like your friend? Like yourself?
I guess that's the whole point, if you don't keep minutes of what is said then how is anyone suppose to brush this off.
There is always three sides to a story, but when one of those sides are just telling stories and the other has facts, I tend to not buy the one.
Ken Toal wrote: "The city
Ken Toal wrote:
"The city told the board, here is all you get to use to make up the plumbing tests, it was a study guide, the city would not allow the board members to even have copies of the code book of the time."
I assume there are meeting minutes to support that accusation?
Oh, wait, the plumbing board wasn't keeping minutes.
And, are you telling me that a plumbing board comprised of two master plumbers with 10 years experience and an experienced plumbing inspector doesn't know its own profession well enough to be able to write an exam without city management's help?
And they aren't savvy enough to get a copy of the code on their own (shouldn't a professional own the relevant codes/professional manuals in his own library?) or Google it?
Ken, just how incompetent are you claiming the plumbing board to be that they needed to rely on the "f*%#?@g JOKE" of city management to be able to write an impartial and honest and accurate exam?
I wonder how much you had to
I wonder how much you had to pay in kickbacks to get your application out of the drawer?
BTW: Ken, what law is the
BTW: Ken, what law is the city breaking? Please cite the relevant code and quote the exact language. If there is something I overlooked in the code, I'd love to know it.
If you're going to come at me with attacks, back it up -- cite facts, not broad brush accusations.
What facts back up your position?
Howard, That's the problem
Howard,
That's the problem with this whole thing. One side is quoting facts, while the other is spiting out accusations and then getting pissed when people agree with the city's report.
This whole thing just smells bad to me.
Howard, are you commenting as
Howard, are you commenting as "Howard-city of Batavia resident" or Howard-publisher of The Batavian"?
I only ask because as a fellow citizen you are entitled to your opinion like anyone else and I respect that.
But as publisher and author of the above article that sparked this debate, I have to ask why you relied on third party reporting to represent the position of the plumbing board when, in your own words, was biased reporting:
"The Daily's stories have consistently protrayed city plumbers as protectors of public safety foiled in their public service efforts by an uncooperative City Hall"
Were you unable to interview members of the plumbing board?
Howards getting teste. You
Howards getting teste. You ain't so bad, you ain't so bad, you ain't nothing. C'mon you bunch of plumbers, hit me in the face! The city is right and your wrong........my mom hits harder than any a you!
Plumbing board control, government by the plumbers, for the plumbers, inspected by the plumbers, to the overall benefit of a select few of "The Plumbers".
JoAnne, What I said was the
JoAnne, What I said was the Daily's story has presented quite thoroughly the plumbers side of the story.
And even as publisher, I'm entitled to my viewpoint.
Just deleted a personal
Just deleted a personal attack post.
Howard, Look it up on line.
Howard,
Look it up on line. New York General city law. Batavia is breaking 10 of 17.
Ken, I looked it up online.
Ken, I looked it up online. I did that last night. If anything in my reading had triggered a thought of a possible violation, I would have reported that.
Facts, please, what specific laws are they breaking. If the facts are on your side and Jason is full of it, you should be able to cite both the specific code section being violated and the specific action of the city that violates the code.
If you can't do that, well, that tells us where you're coming from.
Of course, as publisher you
Of course, as publisher you are entitled to your viewpoint. I just like to know if I am reading an Op-Ed piece or an investigative journalism piece.
I guess I am just surprised that you did not present both sides of the story in your article.
Your above response to Mr. Toal:
"What facts back up your position?"... would have been a great interview question. His response or lack thereof would have made the above article more balanced and impartial.
I too, like Rich's point about three sides to every issue.
We now have:
"The Daily's stories have consistently protrayed city plumbers as protectors of public safety foiled in their public service efforts by an uncooperative City Hall"
and with a slight adjustment we have:
"The Batavian's stories have consistently protrayed the City of Batavia as protectors of public safety foiled in their public service efforts by an uncooperative Plumbing Board"
So, what is the truth?
JoAnne -- first, I wouldn't
JoAnne -- first, I wouldn't call this investigative journalism. I'm merely reporting what is contained in a city report. That, too, you know, is legitimate journalism -- report on what the government is doing. I juxtaposed that against what the Daily has been reporting for the past few months. That, too, is legitimate journalism.
I read the report. I looked at the relevant codes. I read -- some of them multiple times -- the Daily's stories. Then I came to conclusions. That, too, is legitimate journalism.
I structured the story to present the truth as I see it. That, too, is legitimate journalism.
That is the truth.
And the major difference between The Batavian and the Daily: The Daily claims to be the paper of record. We make no such claim. The Daily claims to practice "objective journalism" (within the bounds of what most people believe that means, even though that definition is pretty meaningless). We make no such claim (our definition of objective journalism is the one offered by Walter Lippmann in his 1922 "Liberty and The News.")
Further, because our comments are open and require real names, if Ken Toal wants to offer his version of the truth, he is welcome to do that, so is anybody else who has registered with his or her real name. That's part of the reporting process, too. I don't feel obligated to call every single person associated with a story because anybody can leave a comment. I can just as legitimately ask Ken Toal a question in comments or on the phone. Both are equally valid.
BTW: If any other plumbers
BTW: If any other plumbers want to weigh in and your account hasn't been approved yet -- I'm way behind in approving accounts -- e-mail me (address at the bottom of the page) and I'll approve your account so you can offer your version of the issue.
Anybody can have their say so long as they use real names and don't engage in personal attacks or other nastiness.
Ken, Your claim that the
Ken,
Your claim that the board was denied access to the codes is suspect. Barb Toal was the inspector at the time and was a member of the board. She had full access to the codes. If not, then you are saying she did her job not knowing what they were.
And how do you explain the answer sheet errors?
Lets just ask for exemptions from this law like the cities of Beacon, Elmira, Hornell, Glens Falls and others.
Damn I wish I could ge tto
Damn I wish I could ge tto the Council meeting tonight...should be...interesting. Maybe I'll find a babysitter.
Chris, probably the "can't
Chris, probably the "can't miss" meeting of the year.
I'll just bring my kid, she's
I'll just bring my kid, she's cute enough to befuddle and mollify the whole crowd.
Is the meeting tonight at 6
Is the meeting tonight at 6 or 7pm?
Chris, I recall someone
Chris,
I recall someone earlier saying the meeting is at 7.
EDIT: Last paragraph of the article. "The city council is expected to discuss the city manager's report and its recommendations when it meets at 7 p.m., Monday."
They start at 7.
They start at 7.
I love the line of thinking
I love the line of thinking that has been brought to this thread.
Three sides...
1.) An investigation that has netted a legal public document with facts, dates, times, listed laws, specific examples of violations.
2.) A group of people who have told third party stories, called city officials a "f*%#?@g JOKE", yet have not provided a single ounce of proof.
3.) The truth....as I'm sure that both 1 and 2 have misrepresented fact...?
The more people that talk on this, the worst the Plumber's Board looks. I'm sure all of those involved did nothing wrong...it's too bad that they cant't prove any of that. That's what happens when you don't follow rules, but that must be the city's fault too, right?
I wonder when someone will actually own ANY of their mistakes?
Out here in the boondocks
Out here in the boondocks plumbins a hot issue
would someone just please, I said please
get Rich n Ken a tissue
then we can all buy the beer down at the Amoco
And crank our Kraco speakers with that country radio
It gets wild yeah but that’s the way we get down
Oh Oh We let it rip when we got the money
Let it roll if we got the gas
Its buck wild yeah but that’s the way we get down
In a Hicktown
In a Hicktown
It’s the way we get down
In a Hicktown
You know, even in Dallas, a
You know, even in Dallas, a board accused of not keeping minutes, not publishing meeting notices, not letting people take tests and having faulty tests, would absolutely be the lead story of the Dallas Morning News. And it would lead all the TV broadcasts.
has anyone tried to reach a
has anyone tried to reach a licensed city plumber listed on the City of Batavia's approved list for service recently? you might try to contact Alfred Rosemark at 515 757-9291--but what you will obtain is a message stating that the number is not in service. This guy is the only licensed plumber on the plumbing board and he has a non-functioning telephone!! If this guy did some work for you, and a leak developed, you would have no way to reach him to repair his faulty work except the U.S. Postal Service.
Nobody cares Howard. Don't
Nobody cares Howard. Don't matter. Everyone does their own plumbing regardless of what the Plumbin Board says cause its a joke. No on second thought the licensed plumbers care and so do the small town political hacks so what's the maybe 15 people.
And if anyone on the plumbing board wants to inspect my plumbing, their welcome to it. Just tell em................................
I'm livin on the edge a town
Out in the Backwoods
Down by the holler
suppose all of the licensed
suppose all of the licensed city plumbers had to take an exam written and administered and corrected by an outside agency. how many would be able to pass the exam? Is there such a thing as continuing plumbing education that would be needed on a yearly basis(I have to complete 50 hours every year in order to maintain my affiliations at several institutions)in order to keep the plumbing license that only costs $25 per year to renew? once you pass the plumbing exam, you are in the club for life.
Richard, Is our pretend
Richard,
Is our pretend cowboy back in Texas, or are you still living up here?
If he is back in Texas, I
If he is back in Texas, I hope he paid his bar tab before he left.
He seems to be more obnoxious
He seems to be more obnoxious when he can rant against his hometown from far away.
I have a sister who hates Batavia, but even in her worst rants, she can't compare to Richard.
Why didn't the city who
Why didn't the city who oversees the plumbing board make sure they were recording the meetings..Seems like the city was lax in there duty to the taxpayer not the plumbing board..
Bea, That hurt.
Bea,
That hurt.
Lighten up Bea, I don't hate
Lighten up Bea, I don't hate Batavia by any means. After living away for so many years its just hilarious what gets people so riled up round here.
I don't know what the truth
I don't know what the truth is with regard to the Plumbing Board. But isn't anyone the least bit troubled that this internal report was done by the same individual who oversees the board? Doesn't anyone see at least the appearance of a conflict there? Even slightly? If an independent third party had come to the same conclusions, it would have carried a lot more weight with me. Just my humble opinion.
Richard, it isn't a case of
Richard, it isn't a case of not appreciating humor. I moved away for a long time. Not once, in all that time did I ever feel it necessary to bash Batavia the way you do.
I've been to your neck of the woods and I'll take Batavia, with all it's warts, any day.
Why not pay more attention to the ills of your own community. I bet if you dig a little, you'll find things just as amusing there.
Mark, No plumbing board
Mark,
No plumbing board member seems to be able to dispute the fact no test was offered for 3 1/2 years, when there were people asking to take it.
The test could be foiled by you and the Daily News and the answer key could be also. You could be the 3rd party maybe?
We did attempt to FOIL the
We did attempt to FOIL the questions and answers from the most recent exam and our request was denied.
Maybe you ask tonight at the
Maybe you ask tonight at the Council meeting tonight?
The report and test are, to a point, moot. The Plumbers Assoc., said they might go to court over it the test. That will give both sides a chance to make everything public.
More important, is what now? That idea of the 3rd party giving and scoring the test would resolve most of the problems they had in the past.
Maybe Ken Toal can give us his opinion on that?
Joanne may ask about that. I
Joanne may ask about that. I completely agree that an independent third party should oversee future tests. Accent on the word independent.
Mark, I can't think of a good
Mark, I can't think of a good reason your FOIL would be denied. What was the reason given?
From my perspective, there isn't anything in the report a good reporter couldn't dig out, and I wish I had been the one who did it rather than relying on the city to produce it.
But as I said before, it's a pretty thorough and credible report. I tend to judge things on their merits. Rather than look at who prepared the report (which is a rather ad hominem issue), I look at does the report have internal consistency? Does it stand on its own? It does for me. Others may disagree.
Just got up from a nap thinking -- it would be very interesting to see the plumbers produce their own similar report. I mean, I wonder, if they put in the effort to do an in-depth analysis of the same issues, what their findings would be? Not saying that a third party shouldn't do the same thing, but would just be interesting to see if they could acquit themselves in a credible manner on the same topics.
That said, I'll be listening closely tonight to the statements of any plumbers who speak -- I'll be listening for facts and evidence, not mere conjecture, speculation and accusation.
Thanks for chiming in, Mark.
BTW, Mark, since you raise
BTW, Mark, since you raise the issue of conflict of interest, if I had to speculate as to the deeper issues: For whatever reason, Jason wants to eliminate the plumbing inspector issue. The board opposes that. The whole fight over Jimmy Ficarella's test is about him becoming qualified to do plumbing inspections along with his other duties. It's clear from the report that Jason wants a person who can do both code enforcement and plumbing inspections.
What do you think of that?
Granting, too, that conflict of interest, it doesn't explain away any of the seeming facts -- lack of meeting notices, lack of minutes, problems with the test, the Jan. 20 meeting issues, the lack of tests for more than three years, etc.
Ken can't help it, it's a
Ken can't help it, it's a "family' thing...
was that me? Sorry, Howard, I
was that me? Sorry, Howard, I meant it in jest...somewhat...Ken's the only plumber to respond. Where's Barb and Larry on this topic?
I find it necessary to
I find it necessary to comment on the statements regarding the plumbing board. First, I would like to point out that Alfred Rosemark has only been on the board since May 2010. The insinuations that he has somehow had a hand tied into the dysfunction of the board are without merit. Mr. Rosemark agreed to join the board and continues to sit on the board with one intention: to remedy the current state of affairs and restore the integrity to his trade. While one can make the point that he should update his phone number, it must be pointed out that Mr. Rosemark is not in business for himself and has no reason to make his personal phone number public to those who wish to spout off over rejected permits and the like. Should anyone have a veritable need to communicate with him, I'm certain that City Hall would know exactly how to get in touch with him. I do not give my personal phone number out for anyone to call me at their leisure. I wouldn't expect anyone else to, either. Serving on the Board is a volunteer position; please keep that in mind. That does not lesson the need for integrity by any means, and Mr. Rosemark is aware of that.
Furthermore, for those who like to contend that the plumbing trade (and therefore the "life club" that they have "joined", quoting from a previous post) requires no further updating of skills, I would encourage you to speak with Mr. Rosemark about all of the additional training that he has, on his own accord, engaged in over the past few years, most recently, taking a course himself in June of 2010. Plumbing is a skilled trade, many are professionals that take much pride in their work and will continue to better their skills because they believe in the value of their labor.
While I cannot personally comment on the issues of the City and the Board, I can say that when it becomes a personal attack on one man's integrity, professionalism, and work ethic, I will make a comment. Al Rosemark is, after all, my father. I know that what he is doing as a member of the board is honest and with good intentions. And, just to make one further statement, if he did some work for you and the faucet did leak, he'd come over that same night, no matter how late, to fix it. I remember it happening many times during my childhood, and he would still do it today.
I have a great survey
I have a great survey question for tomorrow...How many know what "ad hominem" means? Such big words, Howard!
There was one thing that kept
There was one thing that kept coming up at the meeting last night when they were discussing the City Manager's report. Mr. Molino and Mr. Van Nest said over and over again that the Plumbing Board has three members now and that constitutes a quorum so business is being conducted.
I'm not disputing that the quorum is achieved with three members but I keep returning to the fact that two of those members work for the City Manager and aren't plumbers. Just food for thought
REPLY TO GRETCHEN ROSALES:
REPLY TO GRETCHEN ROSALES: There are 31 plumbers listed on the roster provided by the city of batavia. Alfred Rosemark is one of them. There is nothing attached to his name stating that he is retired, semi-retired,or only works once in a while. I assumed that he was available for general plumbing services. When I called the number listed in early June, 2010 as his number of contact- the message was "not in service" I called several days later and several weeks later and got the same message. I assumed this was his work number and not his residence number. If Mr. Rosemark is not available for general plumbing services, he should remove his name from the list or specify just what kind of plumbing he does. Otherwise, I have no knowledge of Mr. Rosemark's work history, and the example I gave was a hypothetical scenario.
(pays the board off to take
(pays the board off to take the test) questions What do plumbers do? A) Fix Pluming b) none of the above c) the answer is A d) Pick A E) If you are confused raise your hand and we will give you the answer F)Pick answer A
(doesnt pay the board off)
What do plumbers do? true or false