Amherst Supervisor Mohan faces more fallout over attacks on unions
People tend to believe one of three things about the Amherst supervisor’s pronouncements on unionized public employees and their benefits:
• Satish Mohan speaks in a shorthand that highlights fundamental truths about the influence of unions and how they unfairly squeeze taxpayers.
• Mohan may speak sincerely, but he sometimes skips over facts that fail to fit his personal agenda.
• He lies.
When Mohan took office 2z years ago as a reformer, he clearly specified that he wanted union contracts — a huge financial burden for most municipalities — retooled to pare back rich pay packages and fringe benefits.
“Someone has to speak for the people,” he said at last week’s Town Board meeting, where he opposed a police union contract that ultimately passed with only Mohan voting “no.”
The board drama was the latest in a string of statements about unions that union and town officials repeatedly have disputed.
At last week’s meeting, Mohan denounced the five-year contract with the Amherst Police Club and accused Council Member Guy Marlette of “corruption” in negotiating the agreement.
Mohan claimed that Marlette went easy on the police union, which had endorsed him in last year’s board elections.
“The Council Member Marlette, who was elected as an endorsed candidate of the police, they helped him. They gave him money, whatever,” Mohan said, continuing to speak over Marlette’s objections. “You were a clear candidate, who advertised, who worked with them. . . . To me, there looks to be a very clear conflict, a clear perception of unfair corruption.”
He later described the contract’s approval as rushed and improper, even though Human Resources Director Robert P. McCarthy said the town has followed the same procedure for a decade.
Other board members defended Marlette against Mohan’s character attack — which continued unabated throughout the week — pointing out that Mohan had appointed Marlette to the negotiating team in the first place.
The bigger problem with Mohan’s comments is that, taken at face value, they aren’t true.
A review of seven pieces of campaign literature and a newspaper ad produced by Marlette when he ran for office showed none citing his Amherst Police Club endorsement.
Campaign finance reports also show the union did not contribute to Marlette’s campaign.
“We are not set up to make campaign contributions, and we did not make a campaign contribution,” Police Club President Edward Guzdek said.
Mohan later amended his comments — as he has when previous statements were challenged — saying that he was referring more broadly to union members’ individual contributions and volunteer campaign work.
He also said Marlette boasted about the union’s endorsement.
“You don’t get the endorsement and keep quiet about it,” Mohan said. “You sell it. He let people know he is a police candidate. He let everybody know he is endorsed by the police club, whatever way you do it.”
Marlette responded, “It’s nice that . . . he has the time to change his statements so that they have less impact. What he said was what he said.”
Marlette also said he never mentioned his police endorsement at public forums and union members did not work on his campaign, although Guzdek made a $50 personal contribution.
Finally, Marlette said Mohan had more than a week to raise any contract issue with him, or the town’s personnel director and comptroller.
He didn’t.
Mohan’s willingness to use his supervisor’s seat as a pulpit to challenge costly, taxpayer-supported employee contracts has earned him considerable approval from residents.
But the town’s union leaders describe Mohan’s comments as outrageous, offensive and, in some cases, “outright lies.”
Early this year, for instance, Mohan said taxpayers were getting “ripped off” because town administrators receive 65 paid days off and 300 days sick pay when they retire. He failed to mention that only veteran police officers receive such benefits.
At another meeting, he claimed Amherst employees get more paid holidays “than anyone else.” Actually, most area municipalities give their employees as many paid holidays or more. Mohan later said he was comparing public employee holidays with those in the private sector.
As early as 2006, in refusing to hire more police officers, Mohan claimed that each officer costs taxpayers $22 million over time. Union leaders accused Mohan of “sensationalism.”
They said Mohan based his projections on a 60-year span that doesn’t apply to most officers and that he wrongly rolled in pension, dental and vision costs the town doesn’t pay officers after retirement.
As for Mohan’s latest comments, Guzdek said he wants to review the remarks to see if legal action is warranted.
“His baseless comments and slanderous comments cannot continue to keep going unchecked,” Guzdek said.
