Level 3 sex offender Michael Innello is still on the Woodstock town payroll after a heated meeting of the town board meeting voted 3-0 vote to terminate him. Calling that effort illegal, town supervisor Bill McKenna has instituted a spending freeze, stymieing the board majority’s efforts to use legal counsel to force his hand. In doing so, he exercised the executive prerogative no other member of the town board possessed.
McKenna released a communication on July 26 that started in a contrite tone, and then placed a lot of blame on the other members of the town board. He announced the spending freeze that same day.
A majority of Woodstock’s town board views Innello’s employment as in a probationary period, during which employees can be terminated if their performance or conduct is not satisfactory.
“We attempted multiple times to discuss this in executive session in more detail,” said councilmember Anula Courtis, Democratic nominee for supervisor in November.
Courtis and councilmember Bennet Ratcliff have asked for 17 items, including letters of recommendation and recent job evaluations. McKenna has not yet responded.
“Since these were not provided, we find he cannot complete his probationary period,” Courtis said.
The Romans had a phrase for the top leadership position in their republican form of government: Primus inter pares, translated as first among equals. Early in Roman times, that honor was accorded a senior member who only had the right to speak first in debates. After the fall of the republic, Roman emperors initially referred to themselves only as princeps – first citizen — despite their enormous power. (Donald Trump take note.)
The town boards of Ulster County consist of four councilmembers and a town supervisor. A state-written town law gives the supervisor significant enumerated powers, some of which require approval of the town board, on which the supervisor has but a single vote. The town supervisor is Primus inter pares.
With power comes responsibility.
“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” wrote Will Shakespeare in Henry IV, a portrait of a weak leader who lashed out at his opponents. (Donald Trump take note.)
McKenna strikes back
“To anyone who has been traumatized by an assault, I am deeply sorry that ever happened,” McKenna began his statement.
I have a mother, a wife, three sisters and countless women colleagues and friends,” McKenna said. “I know I might sometimes appear callous or uncaring, but that could not be further from the truth. I love our community and work extremely hard every day to protect it. I would never do anything that might harm residents or employees.”
The supervisor noted how the words peace and love were synonymous with Woodstock. The town had a reputation for “helping those in need, those looking for a fresh start.”
He had acted in that spirit, he wrote. “However, if I am wrong, if this is not how Woodstock feels, if I misjudged my community, then I am sorry.”
McKenna said Innello had answered all questions honestly during the employment interview including those about his criminal history. A background check was completed and references checked, he said.
The board called for Innello’s removal after learning McKenna had withheld information about Innello’s conviction and sex-offender status and amid concerns he was around children. The supervisor put a lot of responsibility on the other members of the town board. “At no time did any town-board member ask any questions about the individual,” he scolded. “In fact, most of the councilpersons have never asked any questions about any hire or any other topics.”
Councilpersons were elected officials who owe it to their constituents to do their due diligences, he said in his statement. “Failure on their part to do so is not withholding information on my part. The failure to do their jobs is in fact the reason I am not seeking re-election. Perhaps the board should consider amending hiring practices.”
McKenna said misinformation was being spread on social media, some by town officials, which may violate Innello’s civil rights.
He also said there was no legal reason to fire Innello, and that the employee could not be terminated based on his past.
Answers not yet provided
A majority of the board views Innello’s employment as in a probationary period, during which employees can be terminated if their performance or conduct is not satisfactory.
Ratcliff said he readily admits the board should have practiced more diligence in approving hires, but said that doesn’t negate the fact McKenna withheld and continues to withhold information pertinent to his hiring and current job performance.
The first condition of Innello’s parole is no contact with minors, but Innello was with maintenance personnel during orientation day for the town’s summer camp filling the pool while children were nearby. McKenna said he has confirmed the one-time incident did not constitute a parole violation. If it did, the supervisor added, Innello would be in jail.
“In a perfect world, that would not have happened,” McKenna conceded of Innello’s work at the pool.
The state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, which monitors parolees, has been contacted but has not yet provided a response.
When a town employee is terminated, a Report of Personnel Change Form 426A or “pink form,” must be filed with the county civil-service office. The appointing officer is the town board, but the form also must be signed by the personnel officer, who is the town supervisor. The town board can get a court to compel McKenna to sign the form, but the spending freeze includes legal counsel, which Ratcliff said had tied the board majority’s hands. The councilmember said he was checking to see whether such a unilateral freeze was permitted.
A betrayal of public trust
Courtis reacted to McKenna’s statement
“Bill McKenna’s recent comments are disappointing and deflective. His personal relationships with women do not qualify him to single-handedly determine what constitutes a risk to public safety,” she said. “Having female relatives does not excuse or erase poor judgment and breaking the law, especially when it comes to decisions that directly impact vulnerable populations in our community.”
While she supports the principle of second chances, Courtis said, public safety must never take a back seat to political convenience.
“As for the hiring process itself, it’s unacceptable to suggest that simply following past practice or completing a background check absolves the supervisor of responsibility. A background check is meaningless if its results are hidden from those who share in the decision-making,” she said. “In this case, the supervisor admits he recruited an individual currently classified by the State of New York as a Level 3 sexually violent offender. He also admits he chose not to inform the town board, our police department, the youth director, or anyone else involved in public oversight. That is not just a failure in leadership, it is a betrayal of public trust.”
She noted that under state law employers had to consider criminal history when making employment decisions. While that requirement didn’t automatically lead to rejection, it ensured decisions are made responsibly and transparently, she said.
“The legality of this employment is still in question, and that investigation must proceed. In the meantime, the supervisor has ignored a lawful vote by the town board to terminate this employee and continues to act outside his authority. That alone is grounds for serious concern.”
Courtis charged McKenna with spending more time empathizing with the registered sex offender than with his constituents. That empathy was misdirected, she said: “His job is not to shield one individual from accountability, it is to protect the residents of Woodstock, uphold the law, and act with integrity. Instead, we see concealment, deflection, and disregard for legal process.”
Ratcliff questioned McKenna’s release of his statement without copying the other members of the town board as was customary.
Blindsided twice?
Council member Laura Ricci, who declined to vote on the resolution, claimed she had been blindsided twice, first by the lack of information on Innello, then by Courtis’ resolution.
“It would have been better if supervisor Bill McKenna had shared whatever he knew about this person’s criminal record with the town board prior to these votes so we could have investigated and discussed the issues and risks associated with this potential hire,” she said (see letters section). “We could have voted to hire or not with eyes wide open. I believe we would have declined to hire this individual, saving our townspeople the stress they feel today.”
The second blindsiding came when Courtis read the resolution, Ricci said.
“Her reading of the resolution — that I saw for the first time when she handed it to me right before she read it — appeared to be a well-orchestrated grandstand moment, with the room filled with people who agreed with her, cheering — and Bennet Ratcliff quick to second her motion.”
Just as McKenna should have shared additional information, Ricci said, Courtis should have done the same. She questioned whether the resolution was legal.
“The state page on this person’s criminal situation says this information cannot be used to harm this individual, and says this individual must seek, attain and maintain employment. Firing him will harm him. Are we causing ourselves a legal problem?” she asked.
Ricci, who backed Courtis as “the best choice” in the Democratic primary, said she was not a rubber stamp for McKenna and wouldn’t be one for Courtis.
“She gathered enough town-board votes to do it her way and plowed forward,” complained Ricci. “That is a steamroller. Not collaboration, not caring or resolving valid concerns that may be held by her colleagues, not open to finding a better solution.”
With power comes responsibility.
Join the family! 
