Tim McNulty’s conflict of issue is not fictitious. It is real and should be the concern of every Queensbury resident, especially the 60 percent of us who are not Republicans. Mr McNulty’s prepared statement about his First Amendment Rights was a smoke screen. No one who objects to his position on the town council is trampling upon his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What we object to is his position a Chairman of the Warren County Republicans will most likely affect how the other Republican members of the town board vote because he is essentially their boss. As I was listening to his statement, it was obvious that he was taking a page out of the Trump playbook. I sincerely hope that the residents of Queensbury won’t be fooled by such rhetoric . We need to show up at every board meeting and express our concern until something is done about this issue.
No one should know more than the abuses of the political party that Mr. Metivier since he was ostracized for years because he didn't vote for a Republican lawfirm to represent the town.
The shutdown of the Voice of America parallels the dissolution of the (lower case) America's voice as it long addressed the world. Queensbury's ethical quandary seems a consequence of the increasing failure to distinguish right from wrong that we are seeing as a result of Trumpian power. Information suppression, isolationism, assaults on science and education, cruelty and money have vanquished morality. Do we no longer recognize integrity? Time for the Board to rethink.
"McNulty can put this matter to rest by resigning from one of his positions."
Just a thought — if there’s no intent to gain from holding both a local party committee office and a local elected position, then why, given the ethics board ruling and the resultant criticism, would someone work so stubbornly to maintain both positions?
Monday was the first time Ive attended a town board meeting. It surreal having my first one be the middle of this hotseat issue. I didnt go because I heard about any of these issues, I went in blind. All I knew is it was being held on my way off, and figured it would be good to watch and see whats going on.
As I watched this meeting, I watched the members body language and listened to what they didnt say as much as they did say.
John Strough, chairman, was amicable and relaxed, but relaxed in the way that most people who become familiar with a kind of stressful situation become.
Anthony Metivier and Michael Dixon both had things they added to the discussion at various points. Mr.Metivier stood out the least of the five board members- at least, to me. Mr.Dixon read like a shimmering pot with a lid on. He never acted out, but I always got the feeling there was more going on underneath. All the same, he was regularly productive to the meeting and gave regular contributions.
Scott Gushlaw was notable for how much he *didn't* say. He spoke up only once during the entire meeting that I noticed, and it was in response to one of the engineering concerns brought up by an inspector regarding a variance proposal. He was the least engaged board member and it wasnt even close.
Finally, Tim Mcnulty. He presented himself blatantly differently than everyone else. Whereas everyone else wore formalwear, he wore a sweatervest. Where everyone elses posture was upright and towards the audience, he was often slouching, swiveled, or facing his fellow board members. He was, in a simple phrase, aggressively casual. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it did stand out. He also said very little most of the meeting, but once the other public members came to the front and began sharing their statements, his body language shifted. He tried to maintain the casual appearance, but it inevitably melted, leaving only aggressive by the time he gave his "defense". And even to such as myself, it read as a limp-wristed defense. He did not speak to the ethicality of the alleged conflict. He simply said, "well, erm, im allowed to actually." It was bizarre, but his exaggerated lackadaisy suddenly made sense.
I basically jumped into this blind; I didnt know who any of these people were before Monday. My attendance was in part to familiarize myself with my immediate representatives and some of the local polities. None of my observations here are attacks nor defenses for these people. I offer these observations with the caveat that the only context I have is the context given this monday. I hope this has value to somebody.
Thank you so much Elissa for attending the meeting, and for your totally accurate account of both the body language of board members, and verbal content of remarks rendered.
Words matter, along with arrogant dismissive attitudes and sarcastic tones in responses to citizens’ concerns.
Anyone who wants to tune into the Zoom video of that meeting can go to the Town of Queensbury website. The acoustics and sound system in that meeting room have improved dramatically since my last attendance in 2019, related to the proposed Womens’ Drug Detox Center on Glenwood Ave. Mr. Strough and our then Ward 2 rep Catherine Atherden, were instrumental in ensuring our Westwood residents’ concerns over a one year period of town planning board meetings we attended were validated…with subsequent meetings set up so we could speak directly with the Albany Addiction Center’s Executive Director…and offer our constructive suggestions for ensuring the privacy and protection of the women residents, as well as our close proximity condo community.
It was democracy/ citizen- town board partnership at its best. And the ongoing program at this Women’s drug treatment center continues to serve many of the underserved members of several North Country counties.
P.S. I don’t believe we can presume that the proposed ethics workshop will be “open.”
I can understand why the board may be opposed to an open discussion vs executive session to speak about the board's interest in clarifying/amending the current ethics code or to leave it as is. That puts the board members on record.
I did go to the town's website to view the March 12 interviews of planning board candidates, one candidate in particular, a retired professor and chair of the Glen Lake Protective Association was asked by Michael Dixon if an application came before you on the planning board that relates to Glen Lake would you recuse yourself for having a "conflict of interest"? I thought that was an interesting question given the fact that there has been no clear answer from the town board regarding conflicts of interest. BTW, I listened to many excellent candidates for the planning board appointments.
Fascinating detailed account of the body language. I thing when politics is involved those observations can be especially important. And there is lots of politics here since Mr. Dixon will be running against John Strough in the supervisor race in the fall.
Several weeks ago I emailed two of the supervisors, asking what their position on the matter is. Have not yet received a response from either. Perhaps they will be transparent during the “workshop”—which i assume will be open.
Mr. McNulty, like four of the other five town board members, ran unopposed in the last election. He feels he has ethical impunity. Unfortunately, it seems he is right.
a comment made Monday night was that "the appearance of a conflict of interest" does not mean there was an ethics violation... which seemed to be a justification for ignoring the Ethics committee findings.
A rather slippery, but not surprising, attempt at a defense. The appearance of a conflict of interest is plainly contrary to the town’s code of ethics. When the code defines "conflict of interest," it clearly states:
"Town officials, employees, and consultants should avoid even the appearance of conflict."
The silence of complicity---either out of fear of one in power--is epidemic, here in our town or with Republicans in the Senate and House, or with schools or t.v. or the press. Trump and Maga continually threaten any dissenters in their party, many of whom are threatened with a primary challenge or are ostracized or need security to protect family. Many colleges and t.v. stations are fearful of expensive litigation, colleges are fearful of defunding....That is how power works. I was very proud of 60 Minutes (Sunday nights) who has had many programs with facts, truth, and very moving coverage. Last Sunday they focused on a group of young very talented equity musicians who qualified to play at the White House along with a Navy band. Trump cancelled the concert and forbade the Navy to play with them (part of his crusade and vendetta against DEI). 60 Minutes graciously paid for them to come to Washington DC and to perform with retired Navy musicians who were only too happy to join them. The young people of different colors spoke of their love or music, how it opened the heart, allowed them to give voice to deep feelings...The contrast between their dignity and grace and the stupidity and cruelty of those in power was very clear. A million people were able to hear and see the concert rather than 100.
My parents both spoke about the Voice of America during and immediately after World War II as being a source of information and more importantly, hope for them. It is so typically shortsighted of the Trump administration to see it as a waste of money. I guess I should be happy they’re not just turning it into a Trump cheering section, although perhaps they just haven’t thought of that yet.
Tim McNulty’s conflict of issue is not fictitious. It is real and should be the concern of every Queensbury resident, especially the 60 percent of us who are not Republicans. Mr McNulty’s prepared statement about his First Amendment Rights was a smoke screen. No one who objects to his position on the town council is trampling upon his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. What we object to is his position a Chairman of the Warren County Republicans will most likely affect how the other Republican members of the town board vote because he is essentially their boss. As I was listening to his statement, it was obvious that he was taking a page out of the Trump playbook. I sincerely hope that the residents of Queensbury won’t be fooled by such rhetoric . We need to show up at every board meeting and express our concern until something is done about this issue.
Mr. McNulty needs to read the First Amendment.
I'm not surprised by Mr. Metiviers silence.
He was a Facebook *friend* until I posted something he viewed as anti Republican (It was lol)
He then said to me that he hadn't known " I was THAT way" and unfriended me.
No loss to me as I don't really know him.
No one should know more than the abuses of the political party that Mr. Metivier since he was ostracized for years because he didn't vote for a Republican lawfirm to represent the town.
I suppose he “learned his lesson.”
The shutdown of the Voice of America parallels the dissolution of the (lower case) America's voice as it long addressed the world. Queensbury's ethical quandary seems a consequence of the increasing failure to distinguish right from wrong that we are seeing as a result of Trumpian power. Information suppression, isolationism, assaults on science and education, cruelty and money have vanquished morality. Do we no longer recognize integrity? Time for the Board to rethink.
Voters obviously chose to ignore the wrongs of the current president in hopes he could lower price of eggs.
"McNulty can put this matter to rest by resigning from one of his positions."
Just a thought — if there’s no intent to gain from holding both a local party committee office and a local elected position, then why, given the ethics board ruling and the resultant criticism, would someone work so stubbornly to maintain both positions?
It's a good point and the silence of the other Republicans on the board about this issue also speaks volumes.
Monday was the first time Ive attended a town board meeting. It surreal having my first one be the middle of this hotseat issue. I didnt go because I heard about any of these issues, I went in blind. All I knew is it was being held on my way off, and figured it would be good to watch and see whats going on.
As I watched this meeting, I watched the members body language and listened to what they didnt say as much as they did say.
John Strough, chairman, was amicable and relaxed, but relaxed in the way that most people who become familiar with a kind of stressful situation become.
Anthony Metivier and Michael Dixon both had things they added to the discussion at various points. Mr.Metivier stood out the least of the five board members- at least, to me. Mr.Dixon read like a shimmering pot with a lid on. He never acted out, but I always got the feeling there was more going on underneath. All the same, he was regularly productive to the meeting and gave regular contributions.
Scott Gushlaw was notable for how much he *didn't* say. He spoke up only once during the entire meeting that I noticed, and it was in response to one of the engineering concerns brought up by an inspector regarding a variance proposal. He was the least engaged board member and it wasnt even close.
Finally, Tim Mcnulty. He presented himself blatantly differently than everyone else. Whereas everyone else wore formalwear, he wore a sweatervest. Where everyone elses posture was upright and towards the audience, he was often slouching, swiveled, or facing his fellow board members. He was, in a simple phrase, aggressively casual. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it did stand out. He also said very little most of the meeting, but once the other public members came to the front and began sharing their statements, his body language shifted. He tried to maintain the casual appearance, but it inevitably melted, leaving only aggressive by the time he gave his "defense". And even to such as myself, it read as a limp-wristed defense. He did not speak to the ethicality of the alleged conflict. He simply said, "well, erm, im allowed to actually." It was bizarre, but his exaggerated lackadaisy suddenly made sense.
I basically jumped into this blind; I didnt know who any of these people were before Monday. My attendance was in part to familiarize myself with my immediate representatives and some of the local polities. None of my observations here are attacks nor defenses for these people. I offer these observations with the caveat that the only context I have is the context given this monday. I hope this has value to somebody.
Thank you so much Elissa for attending the meeting, and for your totally accurate account of both the body language of board members, and verbal content of remarks rendered.
Words matter, along with arrogant dismissive attitudes and sarcastic tones in responses to citizens’ concerns.
Anyone who wants to tune into the Zoom video of that meeting can go to the Town of Queensbury website. The acoustics and sound system in that meeting room have improved dramatically since my last attendance in 2019, related to the proposed Womens’ Drug Detox Center on Glenwood Ave. Mr. Strough and our then Ward 2 rep Catherine Atherden, were instrumental in ensuring our Westwood residents’ concerns over a one year period of town planning board meetings we attended were validated…with subsequent meetings set up so we could speak directly with the Albany Addiction Center’s Executive Director…and offer our constructive suggestions for ensuring the privacy and protection of the women residents, as well as our close proximity condo community.
It was democracy/ citizen- town board partnership at its best. And the ongoing program at this Women’s drug treatment center continues to serve many of the underserved members of several North Country counties.
P.S. I don’t believe we can presume that the proposed ethics workshop will be “open.”
It should be. Or it will not be advertised very well.
I can understand why the board may be opposed to an open discussion vs executive session to speak about the board's interest in clarifying/amending the current ethics code or to leave it as is. That puts the board members on record.
I did go to the town's website to view the March 12 interviews of planning board candidates, one candidate in particular, a retired professor and chair of the Glen Lake Protective Association was asked by Michael Dixon if an application came before you on the planning board that relates to Glen Lake would you recuse yourself for having a "conflict of interest"? I thought that was an interesting question given the fact that there has been no clear answer from the town board regarding conflicts of interest. BTW, I listened to many excellent candidates for the planning board appointments.
Fascinating detailed account of the body language. I thing when politics is involved those observations can be especially important. And there is lots of politics here since Mr. Dixon will be running against John Strough in the supervisor race in the fall.
Several weeks ago I emailed two of the supervisors, asking what their position on the matter is. Have not yet received a response from either. Perhaps they will be transparent during the “workshop”—which i assume will be open.
Assume nothing....
Thank you so much for reporting on this. I will write a letter to the Board requesting that they address this issue.
Mr. McNulty, like four of the other five town board members, ran unopposed in the last election. He feels he has ethical impunity. Unfortunately, it seems he is right.
It often puzzles me when people hide bad behavior behind the 1st Amendment.
We all have a 1st Amendment right to act ethically.
a comment made Monday night was that "the appearance of a conflict of interest" does not mean there was an ethics violation... which seemed to be a justification for ignoring the Ethics committee findings.
A rather slippery, but not surprising, attempt at a defense. The appearance of a conflict of interest is plainly contrary to the town’s code of ethics. When the code defines "conflict of interest," it clearly states:
"Town officials, employees, and consultants should avoid even the appearance of conflict."
The silence of complicity---either out of fear of one in power--is epidemic, here in our town or with Republicans in the Senate and House, or with schools or t.v. or the press. Trump and Maga continually threaten any dissenters in their party, many of whom are threatened with a primary challenge or are ostracized or need security to protect family. Many colleges and t.v. stations are fearful of expensive litigation, colleges are fearful of defunding....That is how power works. I was very proud of 60 Minutes (Sunday nights) who has had many programs with facts, truth, and very moving coverage. Last Sunday they focused on a group of young very talented equity musicians who qualified to play at the White House along with a Navy band. Trump cancelled the concert and forbade the Navy to play with them (part of his crusade and vendetta against DEI). 60 Minutes graciously paid for them to come to Washington DC and to perform with retired Navy musicians who were only too happy to join them. The young people of different colors spoke of their love or music, how it opened the heart, allowed them to give voice to deep feelings...The contrast between their dignity and grace and the stupidity and cruelty of those in power was very clear. A million people were able to hear and see the concert rather than 100.
Thank you, 60 Minutes...
Just want to let everyone here know about the April 5 national day of action: Hands Off!
https://handsoff2025.com/about
As of today, the nearest scheduled event is in Albany — but I'm hoping someone at Saratoga Indivisible will post one!
My parents both spoke about the Voice of America during and immediately after World War II as being a source of information and more importantly, hope for them. It is so typically shortsighted of the Trump administration to see it as a waste of money. I guess I should be happy they’re not just turning it into a Trump cheering section, although perhaps they just haven’t thought of that yet.