My May 16, 2026 little blog article diluting Delaware County pink smoke screen of goodness regarding the Senior Meals program and conflicts of interest - and possibly much more in financial dealings - that it hid, blew up quite a cover n a snake pit.
Within a month, Wayne Marshfield lost his seat on the County's Health Committee.
He then was obviously pressured not to re-run as Town of Hamden supervisor - the first time in 30 years.
Coincidentally, the pair of supervisors involved in the "suddenly surfaced" conflict is the same pair of supervisors who gave the County grief in the Decker Advertising lawsuit, leaking to the press contents of executive sessions - for which the County hired a special investigator Hancock Estabrook LLP who AT THE SAME TIME (1) represented Marshfield in MULTIPLE lawsuits, and (2) investigated and prosecuted him - a stark and irreconcilable ethical violation.
That "suddenly surfacing" conflict begs the question - was exposure of the conflict and the impact of that conflict on the vulnerable seniors, the senior meals program - deliberate? Targeting political careers of the stubborn Marshfield and no less stubborn Boukai?
Then came something a lot more dear to the heart of ... yes, of Tina Mole, who was, according to my sources, involved in a significant friendship with the patriarch of the Clark family, to the point of taking care of him when he was sick - as a live-in caretaker friend, and driving his car around town.
That is the same Clark family who repeatedly, over decades, received PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreements) that only this year caused the Town of Delhi to exceed the tax levy in formation of its 2026 budget - for which I am suing the town of Delhi, and they resist discovery.
And, here comes another Clark family PILOT - now they eye the lucrative piece of property in the Town of Delhi, the former E-Center.
The very same piece that the Town of Delhi and the Village of Delhi centered on, seeking to make it their combined town-village facility.
When that clash occurred, apparently, it has become so emotional for Tina Mole that she slipped.
Badly.
When push came to shove, the Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai published in the Reporter an open "letter to the editor" lamenting that, essentially, in the land of kissing cousins that DelCo is, everybody has conflicts of interest, but not every conflict of interest is treated equally.
Boukai's deferential treatment of local conflict of interest should inspire voters at the booth in the future - maybe, just maybe, they can find somebody to vote for who does not revere local conflicts of interest as a God-given right of local governance.
But, here is how Mole responded - and I would FIRE on the spot any legal advisor who prompted her to put out this masterpiece:
The Reporter published it in full; I will intersperse it with my own commentary and highlighting.
"In response to Ms.
Boukais’ Letter to the Editor:
It is true that in our small communities many of our elected
and appointed officials wear multiple hats. At times there are conflicts of
interest that must be carefully weighed and balanced to meet the needs of the
different roles. However, the comparisons drawn in this letter are not even
close to being the same and the conclusions drawn are politically motivated to
undermine Jim Ellis in his reelection campaign in favor of a closely aligned
candidate to Ms. Boukai.
To begin with, Wayne Marshfield has served on many
committees over his years of service to the Town of Hamden and Delaware County. He has successfully fulfilled the demands of each without conflict until now (TN: not true - back in 2015 I wrote about NYS Audit that flagged Marshfield's conflict in the exact same role, combining the role of County Supervisor and member of Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities, Inc.). However, the letter to the editor leads the reader to believe the Board of
Supervisors decided to remove Mr. Marshfield because of divided “loyalties”
without any explanation as to the facts that surrounded that decision.
It is true for many years Mr. Marshfield has served both on
the Delaware Opportunities (DO) Board and as a Board of Supervisor Committee
member for the Office for the Aging and the Department of Social Services (both
of whom have contracts with DO). What was left out of the letter was that up
until now there has not been any reason to believe there was a conflict between
the two roles (TN: translation - he was a good boy, and Mole could simply overlook any of his shenanigans). The programs at DO, OFA and DSS have operated for many years
without issue or concern since it has long been believed that there is some
level of separation (TN: translation - nobody cared, and who did care was not in the club). The board members’ oversight and the day to day operations
by staff are generally defined by the program requirements and board decisions
are often limited to general oversight, budgetary approval and staff support. The programs operate through mutual contracts (often dictated by rules from the
state or other funding agencies) with clearly defined scopes. Programs operate
under the direction of the DO Executive Director and county program managers,
in most cases the Department heads. It was not until we became aware of and
investigated into questionable documentation and the repeated overruns of the
budget for the senior meals program run DO that a conflict became apparent. The
decision to remove Mr. Marshfield from the OFA committee was not because of a
“perceived” conflict but was in fact based on Mr. Marshfield’s own actions.
1. When the Board of Supervisors took
decisive action to address the issues presented by the OFA Director regarding
billing, senior meal donations, lease agreements and lack of compliance with
state and federal granting agencies, Mr. Marshfield came to the defense of DO
and the Executive Director, taking a position to the detriment of the County,
dismissing the concerns of the OFA Director as “a lack of communication” or
“unfortunate banter between the two agencies”, minimizing the issues.
2. Mr. Marshfield never acknowledged or
reviewed the documented and factual information provided by OFA staff regarding
the use of donations, the lack of documentation for reimbursement, and the
refusal to provide accounting for all expenditures or revenues. When he was
asked as the DO treasurer about the discrepancies, he said he doesn’t see those
reports or accounting, denying any accountability for the financial decisions
of DO.
3. Mr. Marshfield’s behavior and
attitude toward the OFA Director led her to become uncomfortable in Mr.
Marshfield’s presence. His unwavering allegiance to DO and its executive
director, undermined the Director’s credibility and her abilities; always dismissive
of the Director’s attempts to bring the issues to light in a way that would
breathe life once again into old female stereotypes and the treatment of women
in the workplace.
4. Mr. Marshfield agreed at an OFA
committee meeting that he had a conflict and said he would not vote on actions
pertaining to the DO senior meals program or the DO contract. However, when it
came time to vote on whether or not to extend DO’s contracts through the end of
the year, he voted against of the other committee members and against the
interests of the county, instead opting to defend DO despite the mounting
evidence of DO’s failure to appropriately manage the program.
5. When confronted in a Board of
Supervisors executive session about the issues with DO and the actions of the
Executive Director, a board member stated to the county supervisors serving on
the DO board, (Mr. Marshfield and Ms. Boukai), that they should put the county
first and recommend an administrative leave for the Executive Director until
such time as these issues could be investigated and resolved. Neither of them
took any action to protect the county, the county employees or the senior meals
program. Instead, they cried foul that they were being singled out and they
didn’t know why.
6. When Mr. Marshfield was asked about
his knowledge regarding the DO Executive Director’s decision to cease senior
meal operations immediately, he said he found out when he saw the county press
release. However, in the paper he was quoted as saying he was called by the
executive director the night before. When confronted with this information and
asked why he didn’t let the board know about the action as soon as he found
out, he denied knowing anything and said he didn’t read the paper.
It became clear after all these incidents Mr. Marshfield
could not wear both hats, and his loyalties were with DO and not the county or
our OFA staff. His removal was necessary to protect our staff, the senior meals
funding and the senior meals program. It is not and was not a “perceived”
conflict it was a clear conflict that required decisive action by the board.
The letter attempts to draw a comparison of this situation
to the current situation surrounding the Jim Thomson Business Center (formerly
the E-Center) and Mr. Ellis as a member of the Catskill Development Foundation
(CDF). This is clearly intended to mislead the reader into believing the Board
of Supervisors’ Vice Chair is doing something unethical or even illegal.
1. Ms. Boukai fails to state in her
letter that she too was a board member of the CDF up until a couple of months
ago when she took a leave of absence after it was publicly stated at an IDA
meeting that she had a conflict of interest.
2. She also fails to share with the
public that as a board member she approached the former Business Alliance
Executive Director, Ray Pucci about Delhi purchasing the building, this is
documented in a February 6, 2026, record of a joint Town and Village Board
meeting (attached).
3. Ms. Boukai was also a CDF board
member at the time the sale of the Business Center was proposed by the current
Business Alliance Executive Director, Todd Pascarella (without CDF Board
consent) and she and the Village Mayor met with him to discuss a sale to the
Town of Delhi. Her letter states “Instead of being offered on the open market,
it is being transferred between organizations whose leadership is closely
connected.” Yet her actions were clearly taken to ensure it would be a direct
transfer to the Delhi community and not put out to the open market. Her
leadership as Town of Delhi Supervisor and as a CDF board member shows she was
the only one with a clear connection to both organizations, not Mr. Ellis.
4. The attached February 6, 2026,
minutes of a joint meeting of the Town and Village of Delhi Boards at the
E-Center clearly states Ms. Boukai had actively been negotiating the purchase
of the building not only with the Business Alliance but also with DCEC who had
expressed interest in the property. This was prior to the CDF board being
notified as the minutes also stated that Mr. Pascarella only notified the CDF
board members that day when there were the beginnings of public discussions
regarding a possible interest in purchasing the building. He didn’t want to
“blindside” the board members by reading about the public meeting instead. The
minutes indicated she was only aware of this opportunity and took advantage of
it due to her insider information as a CDF board member. Her mission was to
gain this property for Delhi prior to any other action by the CDF board
members.
5. Ms. Boukais’ letter states “Jim
Thomson Center is a unique and valuable property that could contribute to the
local tax base”. However, if the property was turned into a joint Town and
Village municipal building it would NOT contribute to the local or county tax
base. As a business incubator it was always intended to help fledgling
businesses grow to better support the tax base across the county.
6. Mr. Ellis, as a CDF board member,
has no affiliation with any organization that either expressed interest in the
E-Center property or participated in any negotiations with the Business
Alliance regarding a potential sale. The conclusion she draws for the reader
about Wayne Oliver being a Meredith Town Council Member and Mr. Ellis as the
Town of Meredith Supervisor is nonsense and politically motivated. Mr. Oliver,
as a Town Council member or as the IDA chair, has no obligation to report to or
advise Mr. Ellis, nor does Mr. Ellis have any authority over Mr. Olivers’
decision making. It is insulting to both men to insinuate they do not make
independent decisions based on their independent roles in government or
pseudo-government operations.
7. Ms. Boukais’ letter states “The
Catskill Development Foundation, which controls the property, includes the Town
of Meredith Supervisor on its board, who also serves on the Delaware County
Board of Supervisors as the County Vice Chair. At the same time, the Delaware
County Industrial Development Agency, which is expected to be given the
property, is chaired by a member of the Meredith Town Board and is also Deputy
to the Meredith Supervisor.” Mr. Ellis is NOT a member of the Economic
Development Committee that oversees the IDA (unlike Mr. Marshfield who sat/sits
on the OFA and DSS committees). Mr. Ellis has no authority over the IDA or
Economic Development and his role as Vice Chair has no bearing on the
discussion. Further, Mr. Oliver is NOT the Deputy Supervisor for the town of
Meredith. This is clearly a deflection regarding Ms. Boukai’s own conflict of
interest as the Delhi Town Supervisor and a CDF board member. The only reason
for making this statement is to damage Mr. Ellis’ and Mr. Oliver’s reputations.
8. The letter also states that the
building is “...moving toward county ownership”. Clearly there is a lack of
understanding regarding the IDA function and their role. The IDA, unlike DO, is
a pseudo-county agency not a not-for-profit with no true county-based ties. The
IDA was created under Article 18-A of the General Municipal Law by the Delaware
County Board of Supervisors as a public benefit corporation, ultimately
established by an act of the New York State Legislature. The board members are
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and the Delaware County Economic
Development Director is the Executive Director of the IDA. This is important
because although the IDA was created by the County and the members are
appointed by the county, they are separate and able to hold properties that are
independent of the County. This allows them to negotiate PILOT agreements,
taxation values and enter into contracts that are separate and independent of
the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has no authority to
direct the IDA to hold properties or conduct business on the county’s behalf.
In fact, in this case the IDA has proposed as part of the property transfer
that they will pay village taxes, putting the property back on the tax rolls.
The same would not be true if Delhi took ownership.
As a brief history I will offer the following information.
The E-Center was first developed as a concept in 2002 as a public/private
venture to create a space for business development, workforce development and
economic support. Initial conversations with the Economic Development
Department, the Planning Department, the IDA and Scott Clark were a result of
several factors. Mr. Clark and his family were looking to help redevelop
Delhi’s Main Street with in-fill businesses that could support his family-owned
businesses and their employees. At the same time Planning and Economic
Development had been working with the local villages across the county on Main
Street Revitalization projects. Economic Development had secured a Main Street
grant to do façade enhancements on store fronts and was working to find
solutions to filling empty store fronts. Economic Development was actively
working with SUNY Delhi to address workforce development in support of small
fledgling businesses as well as the development of a cottage industry economy
in the region. The idea of a business incubator was born out of the needs
identified by similar efforts taking place at the same time. At that time
broadband, fiber optic connectivity and the use of internet services was just
starting to be built out and a space that could offer these services to new or
small business was desirable and even essential.
The premise of the project was that by supporting fledgling
businesses and cottage industries we could help businesses get off the ground
and then relocate to the vacant store fronts, infilling Main Street. Although
the concept was envisioned as part of Main Street Revitalization initiative
surrounding Delhi it was not limited to Delhi and in fact additional incubator
space was created in Margaretville later to do the same thing.
The Clark family was willing to purchase the property from
Agway, develop the site and then deed it back to the County/IDA for this
purpose. However, for the County or the IDA to accept a gift of that value from
a private entity many factors to justify it needed to be considered. This
proposal also would require some level of oversight and commitment that would
best be served by an independent organization. As a result, it was agreed the
Catskill Development Foundation (CDF) would be formed to own and operate the
business incubator at the E-Center and the Chamber of Commerce, under the
Direction of Mary Beth Silano, would manage the property on a day-to-day basis
in return for office space for the Chamber. The CDF board included the Economic
Development Director, a member of the SUNY Delhi administration, local business
leaders and the Chamber President when it was formed in 2002. The mission of
the CDF aligned almost exactly with the IDA since they were closely aligned
with the IDA and were intended to work hand in hand with Economic Development,
the Chamber of Commerce and the IDA for business development and ultimate
business relocations.
The construction of the building was funded through grants
secured by Economic Development and the Clark family oversaw the construction.
Once the building was completed in 2007, it was deeded to the CDF and the
Chamber moved in so businesses could start operating there in the various
suites within the building. It needs to be understood that it was easier for a
private developer to purchase the property and develop it because they were not
bound by the same restrictions as a public entity. For example, the County and
the IDA are limited to Fair Market Value (plus a small percentage) for purchase
and construction requires prevailing wage expenses and procurement rules that
the Clark family did not have to comply with as a private developer. This
allowed the project to be built quicker and more efficiently even though we
were able to secure grants to support the construction. It became a great
example of how a public/private venture could be successful.
At the time the property was deeded over to the CDF it was
fully paid for and free of any mortgages or financial constraints and due to
the not-for-profit status of the CDF it was never established as a taxable
property. Since 2007 the CDF has primarily been run through the Chamber as a
not-for-profit foundation. However, over time the Chamber and the County IDA
had less involvement with each other, ultimately leaving operations of the
incubator to the now defunct Chamber. The new Business Alliance Executive
Director proposed to offer the property for sale at a CDF board meeting with no
definitive action of the CDF to support or challenge that concept initially.
History is important because at no time was this facility on the tax rolls in
Delhi as a business incubator. Over time it has become clear that the incubator
has been mismanaged. Businesses were never intended to make the E-center their
permanent home, and the role of the CDF board has been minimized to what the
Chamber offered to them as reporting. The CDF has not been afforded the
opportunity to review business leases, rent amounts, or costs associated with
operating the facility. There is no public record as to what the two mortgages
on the building are for and under what premise they were sought. There is no
public record of a process for CDF board members to be appointed, what term
limits exist if any, public records of minutes or accounting and no
accountability of the Chamber or the CDF actions pertaining to the incubator
which was paid for with public grants.
The decision of the IDA to seek ownership of the James
Thomson Business Center was due to the continuing need for an incubator that
can support small business development across Delaware County. The management
of the incubator under the IDA and Economic Development will clearly be
different as a public entity. However, the decision regarding this transaction
was NOT a Delaware County Board of Supervisors’ decision nor was it a Town of
Meredith decision.
Delaware County will ultimately benefit from this as we seek
to grow business and tax base across the county, however, the Town of Meredith
directly gains nothing from this action. Ms. Boukai insinuates Mr. Ellis and
Mr. Oliver colluded to make sure the property was transferred to the IDA,
however, as independent members of the Town of Meredith Board neither has
anything to gain from that action. The CDF decision to allow for the transfer
of ownership has nothing to do with Mr. Ellis or Mr. Olivers’ independent roles
as Town of Meredith Board members or in their roles as CDF or IDA members.
However, the actions taken by Ms. Boukai as both a CDF board member and the
Town of Delhi Supervisor had a clear conflict as Delhi was seeking to take
ownership of the property for the sole benefit of Delhi, without the knowledge
of the rest of the CDF board.
Ms. Boukai states “The people of Delaware County deserve
government that is transparent, accountable, and consistent. Multiple hats may
be unavoidable in a small community. Double standards are not.” This statement
has no merit whatsoever. The comparisons between Mr. Marshfield and Mr. Ellis
are completely misrepresented. Ms. Boukais’ failure to disclose her own
involvement and conflicts with the CDF shows she is unwilling to be accountable
and is most definitely not transparent. Lastly, her attempt to undermine Mr.
Ellis and Mr. Oliver is strictly political."
As you see, I have lost interest highlighting anything in the section related to the Clark family. Mole could just as well state up front: the Clark family is MY family, do not touch its interests.
But - as to Marshfield - her multiple slips of the tongue are devastating.
She had the audacity to state up front that
(1) the county went into an executive session in order to PRESSURE a member of the board of a non-profit who "coincidentally" - and for decades - was also the County Supervisor, into violating his fiduciary duties to the nonprofit he was serving;
(2) expected him to be disloyal to Delaware Opportunities, Inc. (DO) he served as a Treasurer and member of Board of Directors in order to "put County interests first";
(3) considered him a "danger to staff" - a direct flashback from how Mole ousted DSS Commissioner Scuderi-Hunter - because of his loyal discharge of his duties as DO Treasurer and member of the board;
and
(4) openly justified his demotion based on his LOYALTY to his STATUTORY DUTIES to the nonprofit he served.
So, Mole has displayed - up front, in the open, in a newspaper, voluntarily - (1) the County policy of planting its high-ranking officers into boards of local non-profits in order to influence non-profits' personnel policy, up to top-ranking officers of non-profits; (2) claiming that "no issues" existed for decades as long as those planted county officials did not take positions in the non-profit governance "to the detriment of the County", and (3) rained hellfire on Marshfield as soon as he did.
Mole earlier hired Marshfield's own attorneys in Decker Advertisement and a couple other lawsuits, to INVESTIGATE and PROSECUTE him - which the greedy law firm (belonging to the brother of Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York) agreed to do, conflict or no conflict, counting that the political back up will allow it to do anything it wants, law or no law.
I am the last person to DEFEND Marshfield - but here Mole is accusing him of having refused to succumb to that extreme pressure.
That was the stick.
Mole did not mention the carrot for Marshfield - a very large one - for that one carrot, evidence is developing and I will publish it when it becomes verifiably available.
It is also interesting that the conflict flared not so much through conflict with Marshfield, but through present-time E-center conflict with Boukai.
Boukai, while not having the courage to point her finger at personal relationships of county top managers with the Clark family that is at the core of the conflict, still fights - and fights strongly. She is not 80, and she is hoping for a long political career in Delhi and Delaware County. Hopefully not, given her take on "wearing many hats".
I bet, this spat between Mole and Boukai is not the last. I wonder whether Boukai is aiming at Mole's position as Chairperson of the Board of County Supervisors. Looks plausible.
No comments:
Post a Comment