Fee stays in race for supervisor
By JESSICA COLLIER, Enterprise Staff WriterArticle Photos
TUPPER LAKE - Village police Chief Tom Fee said today he will continue his run for town supervisor, after talking with the federal investigator who was looking into whether his run would constitute a violation of federal law.
"There's no violation," Fee said. "I am running for town office."
Following an anonymous complaint, the federal attorney from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel contacted Fee last week to tell him he would be investigating both his candidacy and village Water and Sewer Superintendent Bob Fuller's candidacy for town council to see if they were running in violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits local officials who apply for or disperse federal grant money from running for office.
Fuller dropped out of the race over the weekend, but Fee decided to wait and see what the investigator turned up. Talks with the attorney this week alleviated concerns Fee had about any possible conflict of interest.
"(The attorney) really explained it to me," Fee said. "It doesn't affect the village in any way; it doesn't affect me."
The investigator showed concern for Fee's constitutional right to run for office, Fee said.
Fee said he didn't hold a grudge against whomever it was who made the complaint, since it was his or her right as an American citizen.
"My only concern now is to get my opinions out and why I'm running for office," Fee said. "I'm very confident that hopefully we'll have a good race."
As the ballots were already printed when the issue came up, both Fee and Fuller's names will be on the ballot.
Fee is running on the Republican and Pine Tree tickets, challenging incumbent Supervisor Roger Amell, who is running on the Democratic and Maple Leaf tickets.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
contrary1
|
|
|---|---|
|
10-22-09 8:46 AM
|
A Press Republican article said he spoke to someone on the phone who informed him he had been cleared. They don't have fax machines, e-mail, or any other method to send formal documents? Formal written complaints require formal written responses. Until the ADE see's proof Mr. Fee has been cleared, I think it's irresponsible to promote it as fact. Phone calls aren't worth the paper they're written on. As a police chief, it seems like Mr. Fee would have a better understanding of the rules of evidence. It seems our area newspapers could use a little re-education regarding these rules too. If Mr. Fee believed other accused scofflaws as readily as he expects the ADE to believe him, nobody would ever be convicted. Trust but verify. If he refuses to provide verification, he probably can't be trusted.
|
|
AdkBuddy
|
|
|
10-21-09 10:48 PM
|
Tom Fee was 'talking' with a federal investigator. Well tell us, what is his/her name and why isn't there a written report. And there is no conflict of interest when the federal government is paying for DWI arrests? Give me a break!!
|
|
deedeejr
|
|
|
10-21-09 7:07 PM
|
I agree it is not about whether Tom is a "good guy or not" and I also don't have issues with Hatch act violations. What is troubling for me is that these jobs by nature will overlap and how will his salary be accounted for. A positve note if he stays in is that ulimately the voters will decide.
|
|
YouKnowImRight
|
|
|
10-21-09 5:11 PM
|
I respect Mr. Fee. But as I've stated previously, I think it's a bad idea to hold both positions. The fact that it's legally fuzzy and may present conflicts of interests, should in an of itself be enough to drop out, as did Mr. Fuller. As far as the more speed traps comment goes-if you don't speed you don't get pulled over!
|
|
AdkBuddy
|
|
|
10-21-09 2:57 PM
|
Fee's position is more speed traps to drive tourists away.
|
|
NativeTransplant
|
|
|
10-21-09 2:15 PM
|
Did I miss an article? Last time I read something about Fee, he said he hadn't established his opinions. Now he says he just wants to make his opinions heard. What's his platform... besides the soapbox?
|
|
AdkBuddy
|
|
|
10-21-09 12:53 PM
|
Who says Tom Fee is honest? I know better, and I am sure I am not alone.
|
|
contrary1
|
|
|
10-21-09 11:25 AM
|
This would have been a much more balanced article, if we didn't have to take Mr. Fee's word that he had been fully cleared of all improprieties. Given the current state of ethics in America, we've grown accustomed to people like Mr. Fee saying not guilty, not guilty, not guilty...guilty. I know the concerned citizen who questioned the GOP's interpretation of the law should remain anonymous, but what about the federal investigator? Did anyone even attempt to contact this person to see if Mr. Fee was accurately representing the outcome of the investigation? How do we know this "investigator" wasn't Mr. Fee or Mr. Maroun's brother-in-law? This is the North Country...that's how we roll. Proclaiming "I has spoke!", doesn't work anymore. The public deserves a lot more than that, especially from a member of law enforcement.
|
|
impartiallyobservant
|
|
|
10-21-09 10:35 AM
|
So Tom, tell us... What are you going to do when there's a conflict between the town you would govern and the village that would still be paying your salary and approving/disapproving your department's budget requests? It's not that you're a bad guy. It's that no one can serve two political masters. Your decisions as both supervisor and chief will be compromised by holding both positions. And it doesn't matter how much you protest and say "But hey, I'm a good, honest guy". It's not about honesty. It's about the decisions you'd make when stuck between a rock and a hard place, and whether such a situation would give the taxpayers of both governments the kind of independent leadership and decision-making they deserve. Drop out, Tom.
|