|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Lamb: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? Private Investigator Alleges Intimidation
after Call from Councilwoman By Jay Beatty |
|
August 2, 2007 After
combining community action with promotion of his credentials as an
investigator and former government employee with his
“FixSmithtown.com” website, James P. Lamb has now claimed
“apprehension” due to a telephone message from Councilwoman Joanne
Gray, alleging that the “tone and content” were intimidating in
nature. In response, he has
filed a complaint with the Smithtown Board of Ethics.
As
noted on his website, Lamb is a self-described “local private
investigator-turned-community-activist” who launched the website (www.fixsmithtown.com)
and a petition drive to spur the town to action.
In response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request by Lamb,
the town released records “to show that about 1,200 residents are
currently on the town’s curb repair list.”
Accordingly, says Lamb’s website welcome message, describes
the “Fix Smithtown” campaign as “dedicated to facilitating the
delivery of overdue services by the Town of Smithtown” and seeking to
“to investigate, expose and address waste and corruption” on behalf of
the town’s residents and taxpayers.
Links are posted to published articles regarding the felony guilty
plea of former Highway Superintendent Edmund Lynch and the Ethics Board
citation of Councilwoman Gray. Now
Lamb has inserted his issue directly into this year’s already bitter
election campaign by claiming he felt threatened by a message from Gray.
Gray is already contesting what she and her attorney husband call a
“sham” decision by the Ethics Board regarding a mailing with town
postage that the Board termed political. Unsurprisingly, her political opponents are broadcasting that
decision at every opportunity. In
addition, Lamb is highly critical of Highway Superintendent Dan Ryan for
the delayed repairs and for Ryan’s reported response to the
“FixSmithtown.com” charges, as well as critical of Town Attorney
Yvonne Lieffrig for her “totally unresponsive” reply to his FOIL
request regarding curb repair records. Intimidating
Call? Lamb
alleged on his website that “The Town Council Representative who called
my home indicated that there might be ‘problems’ for me because my
work email was used in connection with the petition.”
On July 28, Lamb sent a complaint to the Ethics Board and posted
same on his website. In part
it reads, “On or around July 2, 2007, I
received a call at my residence from an individual representing herself to
be “Councilwoman Joanne Gray.” The
caller stated she was calling regarding the online petition.
She indicated she was concerned that I used my work email in
connection with the petition and she advised me that because of this, I
might experience “problems”. She
offered no assistance in resolving the curb repair matter and requested
that I contact her. I
returned her call and left a message that I was not concerned about the
work email issue and that I intended to pursue this matter through the
political process.” “As
a result of Ms. Gray’s call,” Lamb’s complaint continues, “I felt
as though this Town Official’s intent was to intimidate and coerce me in
order to make me cease my petition campaign activities under implied
threat of possible loss of employment.
Although I am not actually in jeopardy of losing my job over the
petition because I am self employed, Ms. Gray was probably not aware of
this. I have experienced apprehension over whether the Councilwoman
intends to interfere with one or more of my lawful business activities
because I have commenced the petition.” Gray
maintains that her call was straightforward and non-threatening.
“I received a flyer from a well-intentioned James
Lamb at my Town Hall office concerning curb repair. The e-mail address on the flyer was ‘james@dotauthority.com,’
explained Councilwoman Gray. “My
offer of advice to Mr. Lamb was simply my observation that his e-mail
address might give the impression of a business or governmental entity,”
she noted. In an exclusive telephone interview with Lamb yesterday, he said he had not been contacted by anyone from the Ethics Board as yet, “nor spoken with Miss Gray ever.” He reiterated his feeling that the call was “disturbing,” describing the matter as “an issue of how this town official addressed a complaint.” “My
perception as a resident and a taxpayer in that this is about two
things,” said Lamb. “First
that the town is not addressing, in a timely fashion, repairs that some
residents have been waiting for…for 20 to 25 years.
The second issue, perhaps a double entendre here with FixSmithtown,
is that there are people in positions of leadership that are not very
receptive to addressing grievances that citizens are expressing under
their rights in the Constitution.” Authority
for DOT? The email address in question (james@DOTauthority.com) was not found on the FixSmithtown.com website as of publication. But a quick Internet search revealed another Lamb-controlled website: www.dotauthority.com. Lamb is listed as the president of this consulting firm which promotes a range or service to motor carriers. The firm apparently recognizes the potential confusion their name might cause, since the bottom line on the website’s home page contains a disclaimer in fine print which reads as follows: Copyright © 2001-2006 DOTAuthority.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved. DOTAuthority.com is a consulting firm. It is not the Department of Transportation. “Rather
than respond about an email address, all I can tell you is this,”
concluded Lamb. “A
voice mail was left on my machine which appeared very intimidating in tone
and content. There was no
offer of assistance. I
don’t know Ms. Gray and I have no personal problem with Ms. Gray.” “I
was expecting a call from officials asking me ‘How can I help?’
That’s not what I got,” said Lamb.
[Lamb offered to play the recording of the telephone message at a
later date since he was traveling when returned calls.] A
Foil for Lieffrig? Despite
Lamb’s serious interpretation of Gray’s telephone phrasing, it appears
he may have a sense of humor, albeit sarcasm, as evidenced by his FOIL
exchange with the town’s top legal official. The
gist of Lamb’s June FOIL request reads thus:
“Dear Town of Smithtown Attorney, Under the provisions of the New
York Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, I
hereby request copies of any and all records pertaining to:
*The total amount of the allocation Smithtown budgeted to repair
residential curbs in fiscals years 2005 & 2006.
*The total amount of funds Smithtown received from the state to
repair curbs in fiscal years 2005 & 2006.
*Each and every Highway Dept. work order for residential curb
repairs conducted during the fiscal years 2005 & 2006.
Please supply these records without informing me of the cost if the
fees are not in excess of $50.” The
Town Attorney’s terse reply read in total as follows: “In
response to your e-mail of June 30, 2007, please be advised that the Town
does not maintain or possess the records you have requested.
(signed) Yvonne Lieffrig, Town Attorney” “So,
let me get this straight,” Lamb retorted.
“You're saying you have no records of how much you have budgeted
for curb repairs and how many repairs you actually do in a year?” He continued without humor and
with the threat of surveillance: “I
think you have the records and you're not complying with the law.
Your own website indicates that you itemize the town budget in
terms of curb repair allocations. This page shows that $500,000 was
allocated for curb repairs in 2004: http://www.smithtowninfo.com/templateproc.cfm?PageID=108.
I therefore find your reply totally unresponsive to my request.
Please advise who is responsible to handle FOIL appeals. It appears, to hold you people accountable for spending
taxpayer money, we may have to commence video surveillance of Town
employees to see what they actually do all day.
I'm sure the press will love that story.” All
kidding aside, he’s right about that. -30- Click
here to add comments or request info
|
