In usual Jim Langan fashion, his latest edition is again attempting to influence the readers to buy into his twisted opinion of the Martino administration fueled by the snub he received in February of 2010 when he was voted down of becoming a police commissioner. The celebration of 'transperency' of the Rohr Administration made headlines of his paper this week.

To bring clarity to these issues, the writers here at the HV News Lies would like to present context to the readers that clearly discredit Jim Langan and his paper.

In regards to the Aileen Rohr article, Mr. Langan makes reference based upon his opinion rather than fact. He writes, 'The previous Martino administration had made stone-walling and obscurification  an art form when addressing finances and other issues.'

If this so happens to be the case, then why was an audit of the 2009  finances performed? Throughout the course of the administration, specifically in 2010, many individuals present at the town board meetings made inquiries on the status of the 2009 audit. The status of the audit was provided to them immediately. The information provided is documented and included in the minutes of the town board meetings which are available on the Town of Hyde Park's website. The audit was completed in November 2010 and a presentation given by the auditors in December 2010 explained the difficulties they encountered in the auditing process as well as the reason for the lengthy time to complete the audit. This can hardly substaintiate 'stone-walling' and 'secrecy.' If 'secrecy' was a prerogative of the administration then how could one explain an audit of the town's finances and capital assets being performed AND the results being released to the public? One should also keep in mind, that the author of HV News article, Jim Langan was rather secretive when he committed nine seperate acts of larceny as well his time as a stockbroker though he claimed to be a presidential aide. One who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Claiming to be concerned about the costs to contract with the auditing firm, Aileen & Co. terminated the town's contract for futher services with Sedor. Though she claimed at the 1/9/12 meeting that if proper bookkeeping procedures are followed there will not be a need for audits, the town board is rehiring the previous town bookkeeper, Joanne Lown, who was responsible for the financial errors that the Martino Administration made public. What is more valuable? Paying an auditing firm to identify errors in both the records and practices which allow the town to operate more effectively or claiming to save a few bucks and hiring an individual with a documented poor work performance? It was due to Joanne Lown that the town HAD to hire an accounting firm to perform an audit. 

You the reader should question yourself, is the Rohr Administration's claim to be transparent be valid? And why does Jim Langan continue to fabricate outrageous claims even though his paper is now considered to be a rather unreliable source of news?