Donnelly resigns as Town of Vestal councilman
VESTAL, N.Y. (WIVT/WBGH) – Amid lawsuits from multiple businesses stemming from his failed construction company Atlas James, Stephen Donnelly has submitted his resignation as a Town of Vestal Board member, Donnelly announced Friday.
Donnelly sent his resignation to Town officials on Friday, March 28, which he shared with News 34.
I am writing to inform you that I wish to resign my position as Town of Vestal councilman effective April 15, 2025. I will be moving out of Vestal and per Town code, I am not allowed to serve as councilman while residing outside of the Town of Vestal. I would like to thank you and the rest of the Town employees for what I consider an honor to have served the people of Vestal. Should you have any additional needs, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Stephen Donnelly
Donnelly, who is a marketing professional, filed for bankruptcy after his construction company Atlas James went out of business in the fall of 2023.
A number of his customers at the time complained that they had made deposits for work that wasn't done, including some made just weeks prior to Donnelly shuttering the business.
Donnelly has expressed remorse for causing financial hardship to customers and suppliers and has pledged to make it right with people who were harmed. Some customers have received refunds while others say they have not.
Witnesses say they saw a moving van outside of Donnelly's Vestal home recently. He told News 34 that it was only there to move items into storage.
In his resignation letter to the Vestal Clerk, Donnelly says he is moving out of town.
His last day on the board will be April 15.
Donnelly writes that it has been an honor to serve the people of Vestal.
The Republican, who was elected in 2021, had already announced that he would not seek re-election this Fall.
You can read the full story behind Donnelly's current legal standing by his own admission here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Utah, other Western states
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, right, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics in 2024. (Photo: Katie McKellar, Utah News Dispatch) Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Nevada, Utah and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of interior and agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto slammed Lee's proposal after it was introduced, saying it was developed without input from Nevadans. Lee's proposal 'ignores provisions for affordable housing and eliminates funding Nevada relies on for our schools and water conservation projects,' Cortez Masto said in a statement. 'Shoving lands sales in a reconciliation bill in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires is not the way forward, and I'll continue to fight against this misguided proposal.' Lee's proposal also didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called it an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. This story was originally published in Utah News Dispatch.
an hour ago
Louisiana AG investigating CVS for sending mass text messages lobbying against legislation
BATON ROUGE, La. -- Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill announced Thursday she is investigating whether pharmaceutical giant CVS improperly used customers' personal information to send out text messages lobbying against a proposed state law. Murrill also said she plans to issue a cease-and-desist letter to the company to stop the messages. As lawmakers debated a now-failed bill on Wednesday they held up screenshots of text messages sent by CVS. 'Last minute legislation in Louisiana threatens to close your CVS Pharmacy — your medication cost may go up and your pharmacist may lose their job,' one such text, obtained by The Associated Press, read. The proposed legislation would have prohibited companies from owning both pharmacy benefit managers and drug stores. The CVS Health Corporation owns retail pharmacies as well as CVS Caremark, one the country's top three pharmacy benefit managers with a market share of more than 100 million members. CVS Caremark and other managers serve as middlemen purchasing prescription drugs from manufacturers and setting the terms for how they are distributed to customers. 'These powerful middlemen may be profiting by inflating drug costs and squeezing Main Street pharmacies,' a 2024 Federal Trade Commission report warned. CVS says on its website that it 'negotiates lower costs for our customers and expands coverage to affordable medications that people need to stay healthy.' The company's text messages to Louisiana residents included a link to a draft letter urging lawmakers to oppose the legislation that someone could sign with their email address and send to legislators. 'The proposed legislation would take away my and other Louisiana patients' ability to get our medications shipped right to our homes,' the letter read. 'They would also ban the pharmacies that serve patients suffering from complex diseases requiring specialty pharmacy care to manage their life-threatening conditions like organ transplants or cancer. These vulnerable patients cannot afford any disruption to their care – the consequences would be dire.' Rep. Dixon McMakin pointed to some of the messages from CVS, saying they were misleading and false. He specifically pointed to ads, that people reported seeing on social media, alleging that lawmakers 'may shut down every CVS pharmacy in the state.' 'No we're not, you liars. Quit being liars. Quit using scare tactics,' McMakin said. Republican Rep. Bryan Fontenot held up his phone, showing that he, too, had received a text message from CVS. 'It's in the same text thread (used) to notify when my prescription is filled,' he said. 'They've now taken that to send me political texts.' CVS sent messages to 'large numbers" of state employees and their families to lobby against proposed legislation involving the company's pharmaceutical benefits manager, Murrill said in an X post. Customers gave CVS their phone numbers to receive pharmaceutical information such as vaccine availability or prescription pick-ups but the company is using this personal information 'for their own personal corporate interests against pending legislation,' Murrill told reporters. 'That's not why anybody gave them their phone number.' Amy Thibault, a spokesperson for CVS, said the texts were the result of a last-minute amendment to the bill Wednesday without an opportunity for a public hearing. The amendment was crafted behind closed-doors by a conference committee — a regular practice utilized in the statehouse when the House and Senate cannot agree on final versions of a bill. 'We believe we have a responsibility to inform our customers of misguided legislation that seeks to shutter their trusted pharmacy, and we acted accordingly,' Thibault said in an email. 'Our communication with our customers, patients and members of our community is consistent with law.' Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has continued to push the bill as the state's legislature concluded Thursday afternoon. The bill, which proponents said would bolster independent pharmacies and reduce the cost of prescription medications, received overwhelming approval in the House, with a vote of 88-4. Among those who voted against the measure was Rep. Mandie Landry. The Democrat said that while she wanted to vote in favor, but she was receiving messages from people in her district urging her not to. She said CVS's lobbying had reached them and as a result they feared that they wouldn't be able to access their medications. 'CVS … you should be so ashamed of this. You are scaring people,' Landry said. The bill ultimately died with the Senate opting not to take it up in the final hour of the 2025 session. Landry said he plans to call a special session in hopes of passing similar legislation. 'Yes we will have a special to lower prescription drugs for our citizens," Landry said a statement. "It's that important.' Brook reported from New Orleans. ___
