My Hiring As Conesville’s CEO

I was hired as the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) around September 2024. At the time, I was enrolled in a six-month certification program administered through the State Education Department. I was working under the certification of the previous CEO, Jim Koop. Jim remained the lead officer but was not being paid, while I was salaried for four hours per week.

The certification classes ran seven hours a day for four days, followed by a test the following Tuesday. Essentially, I had to step away from my regular job for one week each month over a six-month period.

When I was initially hired, I was unaware that the Town expected me to provide a report at each monthly Board meeting.

Here is where things get interesting.

In November, the Board received a letter from Joanne Noone alleging that:

1. I was unqualified to hold the position.
2. I was uncertified, putting the Town at risk of a lawsuit.
3. I was participating in a “no-show” job.
4. I was receiving benefits that I did not deserve.
5. I was corrupt.

The Town Supervisor responded to these allegations in a letter explaining that I had 40 years of experience in the building industry, that I had enrolled in certification classes before being hired, and that I was working under Jim’s certification, which ensured there was no risk to the Town.

State law does not require me to provide monthly reports, and I was dedicating more than 50 hours a week to my classes and the job.

I had also asked the Town whether I could buy into its health insurance plan. I was told that I could, provided I paid the Town one month in advance so it would not have to cover the cost upfront and wait for reimbursement.

As for the allegation of corruption, she never explained what she meant.

These were simple questions with simple answers, but they were framed as accusations suggesting that the Town and I were doing something wrong.

And it didn’t end there.

After receiving the Town Supervisor’s response, she doubled down on the allegation of corruption.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

The Couchman House

Sometime after I was hired, I was told that the Town had purchased the Couchman House and planned to relocate Town Hall there. I was not told that I needed to do anything, only that it was now one of the Town’s properties. At the time, I didn’t give it much thought. Between starting a new job, attending certification classes, and dealing with people building without permits, I was busy.

A few months later, I was told that the judge had received a grant and planned to renovate the new courthouse. Again, I didn’t think much of it until I was asked to issue a building permit. I asked what work was planned and was told they would be painting and installing desks, a bench, and other courtroom furnishings. I responded that a permit was not necessary, but the Town Board wanted to do everything properly, just in case, so I issued one.

When I checked the progress, everything looked good. Temporary ramps had been placed over the entrance stairs, and I was told that a permanent accessibility ramp would be installed.

Over the next few months, I issued several summonses and had three open cases before the court. The judge called to tell me that court would be held in the new building. I said that was great, assuming the courthouse was ready, even though work remained elsewhere in the building.

Later that day, I mentioned the new location to the Town Supervisor. His response was, “No way.”

I said, “Okay, not my problem.”

An hour later, I was told that the Town Board had confirmed that court would not be held in the new building. My response was, “You tell the judge.”

On the day of the proceedings, the judge called me about one of the cases and reminded me that court would be held in the new building. I asked whether she was sure, because I had been told otherwise. She said yes, and that everything was fine.

What no one else knew was that the circumstances surrounding all three cases had already changed.

In the first case, the attorneys had agreed to adjourn the matter until the following month.

In the second case, the defendant was fully compliant with my order, so his presence was no longer required.

In the third case, the defendant had agreed to an action plan following the previous month’s court date but had not started it. I called him every day for three weeks without a response and was eventually told by a neighbor that he was in the hospital.

Therefore, no one should have needed to appear in court that evening.

However, the first defendant had not spoken with his attorney, the second had not read the email informing him that he did not need to attend, and the third, who had been avoiding me, appeared for his case.

When the third defendant arrived at the courthouse, he called me. I met him outside, and he explained that he could not get up the stairs. I told him that he did not need to attend and that we could reschedule his case.

He told me that if I gave him a hand—literally—he could make it up the stairs.

I helped him inside, and he participated in the proceedings. Afterward, we all helped him leave the courthouse.

I told the judge that we could not do this again until the accessibility ramp and several other outstanding items were completed.

As we all learned after the story was sent to the press, the issues surrounding the Couchman House involved more than the certificate of occupancy. Emotions were running high over promises made to the Historical Society and the lack of progress in fulfilling them.

I am currently working with both the Town Board and the Historical Society as a member of the Couchman House Committee. We have reached an agreement that will be presented to the public at an upcoming hearing.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

The Planning Board

I entered into a contract with Eric Dahlberg to purchase the Bailey House at 1289 Route 990V. One condition of the sale was that Eric would retain the garage located on the property I was purchasing. Because Eric owned both properties, he needed a lot-line adjustment to make the garage part of the adjacent property.

The Planning Board had to approve the adjustment. Because Eric was the Board’s chairman, he needed to recuse himself from the proceedings.

The first scheduled meeting was canceled because three members did not attend, and the second was canceled because two members did not attend. At the third meeting, a quorum was finally present, and the application came before the Board.

Joanne Noone asked to speak and told the Board members that they could not hear the case because Eric was not following the proper procedure. She repeatedly referenced Article 78 and claimed that the County was the only entity that could rule on the matter.

One Board member kept saying, “We should listen to her because we are too stupid to know what we are doing.”

At first, I thought he was being sarcastic. To my surprise, he was actually acting on her advice.

While this was happening, I looked up Article 78 and found that it did not apply to the matter before the Board. Instead, Article 78 provided a process that a petitioner could use if the Planning Board ruled against him.

I asked to speak and informed the Board of what I had learned, but no one seemed to know how to proceed.

After a few minutes, I suggested that if the members wanted to verify Joanne’s statements, they could hear the case and make their decision conditional upon the County confirming or denying their ruling.

I reminded them how difficult it had been to obtain a quorum and explained that, if they followed my suggestion and their ruling was correct, they would not need to meet again.

After I finished speaking, Joanne and her husband, Jim, began yelling at me. They called me corrupt and claimed that I had a conflict of interest because of my position as Code Enforcement Officer (CEO).

I explained that I was there as a private citizen with a personal interest in the case.

They continued yelling, brought up the Couchman House, and again called me corrupt.

At that point, I responded in my own defense. I may have said things I should not have said, but Jim Noone also should not have charged toward me as though he wanted to fight.

The garage lot-line adjustment was not the only part of Eric’s application. It also included a right-of-way and one other item.

When the Town Board was informed of what had happened at the meeting, its members felt that the Planning Board should be dissolved and that they should assume its responsibilities to avoid further embarrassment.

While this was unfolding, I reached an agreement with Eric to build him a new garage on his property in exchange for keeping the existing garage on the property I was purchasing. I have a contract documenting this agreement.

Correspondence between Joanne Noone and the County Planning Board is available through other links on this website.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

CEO Attacks

Almost all law-abiding residents who have dealt with my office have had no issues with my job performance. The Town Board has repeatedly thanked me for taking the job seriously and working to bring properties into compliance.

However, since I became a candidate for Town Supervisor, the attacks against me and my office have increased. Some of these individuals post anonymously, but they don’t realize that I can often recognize who they are by how they describe their interactions with me.

Let’s begin.

The Contractor

A prominent general contractor who also works as an excavator and septic installer and owns a gravel pit called me one day to request a framing inspection.

I looked up the property and found no permit for a new house, only a permit for a retaining wall. He said he had filed a permit, but there were no inspection reports, no copy of the permit, and no plans on-site. All I had on record was the retaining wall permit.

I assumed there was a legitimate explanation for the missing paperwork and proceeded with the inspection.

The framing inspection failed. Needless to say, the builder was not happy.

Over the next few weeks, I received some documentation, including a septic design, blueprints for the house, and photographs, but still no permit or inspection reports.

The plans indicated that the house was supposed to have three bedrooms, yet it had seven. The septic system was designed for three bedrooms, not seven, so I contacted the Schoharie County Board of Health.

I suspect my questions were frustrating the builder because our phone conversations became increasingly unpleasant, and friends began telling me that he was complaining about me around town.

I worked with the property owner to correct the paperwork, and the final certificate of occupancy was issued.

This same builder has had numerous projects that did not comply with what was promised to the property owners.

I believe he is one of the anonymous critics.

The Property Management Company

A well-known property management company that oversees several short-term rentals (STRs) in Town is also, in my view, among the anonymous critics.

At the first property I inspected, occupants had only one usable exit, which led through a galley kitchen. Another exterior door, located between the kitchen and living room, was blocked by a baby gate. Beyond that door was a 20-foot drop because the staircase had been removed.

The basement door was locked, and none of the decks had stairs.

I considered the house a serious safety hazard and suspended its STR permit until the problems were corrected.

At another property, I found the required bedroom exit maps confusing. I explained that, at the next inspection, each bedroom would need its own map drawn from the occupant’s perspective.

Because this was my first inspection of an existing permit holder, I allowed the current maps to remain until the next inspection.

Permit holders are responsible for scheduling annual inspections before their permits expire.

In my experience, inspections involving this property manager have been incomplete or have failed. Even so, I have repeatedly allowed her to submit missing documents afterward and given her time to replace nonfunctioning smoke detectors.

During these interactions, she has been combative, stated that she was uncomfortable being alone with me, and offered numerous explanations for the deficiencies.

At the most recent inspection, the permit had been expired for three months, and she needed two weeks to schedule the appointment.

When I arrived, she did not have the water test, insurance certificates, or revised room maps. Additionally, two smoke detectors were not functioning.

I therefore revoked the permit and informed the property owner that allowing guests to stay could result in a fine of $500 per day.

The Property Owner

One property owner has held a building permit since 2008 for a garage, a small house, and a barn.

When he most recently requested a renewal, I asked to inspect the property to determine why the work had taken 18 years.

When I arrived, I asked the homeowner, who was acting as his own contractor, for a set of plans. He refused and asked why I did not have a copy.

I reminded him that building permits require a set of plans to remain on-site at all times.

This led to a years-long claim that the plans had been stolen from my office and that the police should investigate the alleged theft.

During the inspection, he denied me access to all three buildings and, at one point, suggested that I cut the lock on the barn to enter.

I cited him for refusing the inspection, failing to protect the three structures from water infiltration and potential mold growth, and maintaining an unsafe barn whose foundation had collapsed in several places.

We went back and forth in court for more than a year before I finally gained access to inspect the property.

The maintenance and unsafe-structure violations remain unresolved.

The property owner is also focused on runoff from South Mountain. Water from the mountain and a natural stream travels down a private road and floods two properties before reaching his.

Over the past four years, the Town, County, and State have repeatedly told him that this is a private-property matter between neighbors.

The Town has helped arrange reviews by the appropriate County and State agencies to determine the cause of the excess runoff and who may be responsible, but he remains dissatisfied with their responses.

He has since begun what I believe is a campaign to discredit me.

He has posted online articles at the post office and country store about a convicted armed burglar who shares my last name, falsely claiming that the individual is my son and lives at my home.

He has posted my address and repeated this claim.

He has also approached several of my neighbors to disparage me and made a derogatory remark about Italians, using a slur rather than the word “Italians.”

On one occasion, he stopped my partner while she was jogging and pretended to be my friend. She no longer jogs on the street.

I believe this is the individual who anonymously posts that I am unfit for my position.

↑ Back to Table of Contents