Quick Reminder

Just a quick reminder to everyone: tomorrow night (Thursday, March 1, 2007) at 7 PM, the Town Board will be holding its March regular meeting at the Accord Firehouse. The Firehouse holds about twice as many people as the Town Hall (165, if memory serves), however we hope to have many more than that in attendance.

I have heard that the first of the two customary Public Comment Periods has been removed from the Agenda. I cannot vouch for this as I have not seen an Agenda myself, but it would not surprise me if the Board wanted to finish their business prior to listening to the people they work for. If, for any reason, we are not permitted to make our dissatisfaction with the actions of this Town Board heard inside, before the Board, we will find other ways in which to make ourselves heard. One idea is to have our own "Public Comment Rally" outside Town Board Meetings from now until Election Day. Other ways of communicating to the Board and each other are in the works.

Please come and join the fun Thursday. And remember: this issue will not die. This is our Town and we will be heard!

Views On Government

Several months ago, at a Town Public Hearing, Conservatives and Republicans were derided for mistrusting government. In point of fact, we do not mistrust the institution of government as much as we recognize from an analytical examination of history that, as British historian Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The greater the power granted to a person or body, the longer that person or body wields that power, the greater the likelihood and degree of corruption.

By corruption, we are not necessarily speaking of bribery or influence peddling. Far more likely is the slow, unnoticed self-corruption a public official experiences simply through the ability to affect the lives of others. Public officials tend to feel that they are above the people they should be serving. A sense of self-importance develops and this sense grows stronger over time evolving into arrogance and even abusiveness without the official even realizing it.

The abuse of power fostered by self-corruption becomes self-perpetuating. Abusive public officials congregate with other like minded people and exclude those who disagree. They find ways to sanction and punish those whose views are in opposition to theirs. eventually, if left unfettered, their abusiveness rises to the level of tyranny and dictatorship.

History holds out many examples of such abuse:

• Augusto Pinochet's late night abductions of the political opposition
• The Myanamar (Burmese) government's placement of Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest
• Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega's drug empire
• Hugo Chavez's continuing nationalization of Venezuelan industry
• Fidel Castro's torture and execution of those he found to be less than loyal to him
• Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China
• The persecution of religion throughout the former Soviet bloc and into Vietnam and other, more distant Communist satellite states
• The attempted genocidal elimination of large groups of people who threaten the power base in places like Cambodia, Sudan, Tibet and Iraq, to just name a few.
• Polish dictator Wojciech Jaruzelski's clampdown on the Solidarity trade union

And the list goes on.

Trust government? Not me. There are things that government must do, it certainly has its proper place in society. However, we must be the ones to keep a watchful eye and make sure it never, ever steps beyond that very minimal role. Otherwise, we end up with a monster at our door, one which it will be all but impossible to vanquish. With proper pressure, applied steadily, constantly and judiciously, government need not become such a monster. That pressure is ours to apply.

What Rochester Democrats Stand For

On the Rochester Democratic Party website, there is a page dedicated to the Democratic Party's campaign platform (http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/platform.htm). It's an eye-opening document, to say the least. Let's take a quick peek at some of what the Democratic Party purports to believe in:

"Foster open, accountable and participatory Town Government."

"Open" meaning the Town Board holds Special Meetings, telling us they will be discussing two issues and piling on whatever else they feel like.

"Accountable" meaning they will answer no questions posed to them by the townspeople unless one of the residents signs away all her rights.

"Participatory" meaning don't move the Town Board Meeting, even if it means locking out 100 residents (including some who are elderly and disabled). Also meaning hold a tight grip on Public Comment, adjourn the meeting if the opinions expressed happen to criticize the Town Board, re-schedule a Special Meeting with no Public Comment period and eliminate the first of two traditional Public Comment periods from the next regular Meeting.

"Involve public citizens in town committees and determining Town direction."

This one apparently left out the phrase "except for those who disagree with us" when describing "public citizens".

"Promote positive actions – focus on the positive and working together, not the negative."

Yes, let's do that. Let's focus on the positive, such as adult websites which seem to have disappeared before the public could ascertain their existence. Or the fact that writing for an opposition website disqualifies you from joining committees. It is certainly admirable how the Democrats have decided to avoid negative politics. We could learn a thing or two from them.

"Continue to play an active role in running the Town Government to meet the needs of our residents."<br>

This one is perhaps the most onerous of all. Since when does a political party have a role in "running" Town Government? A Party's role is to help elect the Town Government. After that, the Government owes its allegiance to the people of the Town, not to any of the political parties. It's apparent from this statement that a Democratic oligarchy has formed which dictates to our elected officials what they may and may not do, regardless of the will or interests of the residents of Town.

In Hungary (from where my parents fled) and Romania (Manuela Mihailescu and Jon Dogar-Marinesco's birth country) and the rest of the former Soviet bloc, this was known as a "Politburo". The system in which the Politburo operated was known as "socialism" or, sometimes the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It proved to be a complete and utter failure.

I wonder if history is repeating itself in the Town of Rochester.

If you want to see what else the Democrats claim to espouse, visit http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/platform.htm.

Short Article From The "Rochester Reporter" (Official Town Newsletter)

The following article was published in the 'Rochester Reporter," which apparently is the official newsletter of the Town.

I'm not going to critique this in any great detail other than to say that there was NO audience disruption. I was given the floor to speak during Public Comment. The Town attorney decided I did not have the right to say what I wanted to say. I refused to allow him to censor me. Plain and simple.

As to the ridiculous assertion that "Part of the outcry came from residents who could not be admitted to the Town Hall since it was at full capacity," that's certainly true. However, the article makes it seem as if that was a reason for adjournment. That is a complete distortion. The honking of the horns outside had ended by the time Public Comment came around. The actions of those outside had nothing to do with the adjournment of the Meeting.

More proof that the facts do not support the Town Board, so what really happened is ignored in favor of fairy tales.

**********************************

FEBRUARY TOWN BOARD MEETING ENDS ABRUPTLY

The regularly scheduled Town Board meeting of February 1, was abruptly adjourned due to audience disruptions to the proceedings related to a potential appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Board voted to end the meeting when it became apparent the meeting agenda could not be followed in an orderly fashion. Part of the outcry came from residents who could not be admitted to the Town Hall since it was at full capacity.

Following the meeting, an alternate date of Feb 7 was announced for the Board to be able to complete its unfinished business.

At the Feb. 7 meeting, the Board decided to hold its March meeting at the Accord Fire Hall in order for more participants to be accommodated.

Critique of Margaret Bonner's Letter

The Rochester Town Board Cheering Section is at it again. Margaret Bonner's letter to the Accord-Kerhonkson.com website (reprinted below) is a prime example of narrow minded liberalism being promoted through imprecision and misdirection. Like an illusionist directing the audience's attention elsewhere to hide her sleight of hand, Ms. Bonner's letter tries to make us look at issues which do nothing to address the deep problems caused by the Town Board under the Supervisor's leadership.

Ms. Bonner refers to the Republican Club as a "splinter group", stating that it is "NOT the Rochester Republican Committee." This statement is disingenuous and unworthy of someone like Ms. Bonner. On the Rochester Democrats' website, Ms. Bonner is listed as a member of the Town's Democratic Committee (http://www.rochesterdemocrats.org/contactus.htm) along with six other people. Applying her standard, every registered Democrat in Town who engages in grassroots activities is a "splinter group." Let's be fair and honest, local political parties throughout the country have clubs to build their members' enthusiasm and focus their energy. Those same parties have Committees which are akin to Boards of Directors. Clubs and Committees have different functions, but neither is a "splinter" of the other.

Ms. Bonner states, "When former Supervisor Lipton was Supervisor it was very simple to keep orderly meetings….he allowed limited opportunity for Public Comment periods, nothing was publicized and nothing was happening (at least that benefited the Town in general)." When Mr. Lipton was Supervisor, never did he abdicate control of Town Board Meetings to the Town Attorney. I know of no cases when someone wished to speak at a Town Board Meeting but was denied the opportunity. The fact that Public Comment was handled in a less formal manner was actually a plus: the Residents spoke to issues as they were brought up rather than lumping all Public Comment together. Of course, a vital part of Mr. Lipton's leadership is that those who did speak up were not simply cut off by the Town Attorney or anyone else for daring to criticize the Town Government. Doing so makes Public Comment a valueless, censored and sanitized shadow of true, free expression of ideas and opinions.

"Also since nothing was happening (which is why we still had a Town Plan from 1969!!!)" The question is not how long the Plan was in place, but did it work. The old adage tells us, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Neighbors can have honest differences of opinion about whether the Plan needed to be revised, replaced or left alone and what direction any changes should go. To simply state, however, that the Plan is old and that age alone should decide its disposition is silly. Our Constitution was ratified almost 220 years ago. It has been amended several times to refine it and to take into account new circumstances. It was never amended because it was old.

"Present Supervisor Duke and the present Town Board have been extremely proactive in moving the Town forward." That, Ms. Bonner, is a matter of opinion. No one doubts the amount of work they have put into their positions, but "forward" is a relative term. Has a community which has been shattered through the divisive acts of the Town Board moved "forward"? Has a Town in which one group is apparently doing its best to chase out its more traditional opponents moving "forward"? Is a municipality which is undermining the civil rights of free expression, right to petition government officials and private property rights moving "forward"? Ms. Bonner, our Town is moving neither forward nor backward. It is sinking deeper and deeper into a pit of mud which was dug, filled and watered by our Town Board.

Ms. Bonner refers to an "open hearing" on the budget which raised the Supervisor's salary by an exorbitant amount. She questions why critics of the Supervisor's raise did not show up. She talks of those opponents manipulating statistics. I know Ms. Bonner was at many of the same Hearings and Meetings throughout the past year that I have attended. Perhaps she missed the fact that public opinion, as expressed at these Hearings and Meetings was nothing more than a formality. The Town Board simply refuses to act in accordance with that which is expressed by the vast majority in attendance. Ms. Bonner herself termed some of that public opinion "pontificating". At one recent Town Board Meeting (I'm sure she recalls which one) we were censored and the Meeting was adjourned. In short, we are either ignored, insulted or gagged. To state that, under such circumstances, one should not criticize an unreasonable fiscal act of the Town Board is insulting. As to anyone's intent to "manipulate the statistics," 42% is 42%. Presenting a fact is not manipulation. In fact, the manipulation I see is the Town Board and its Fan Club attempting to manipulate the truth and public opinion.

Having shown how little Margaret Bonner really said, let me point out what she didn't say. She didn't offer any excuse for the Town Board's disgraceful treatment of Manuela Mihailescu. She didn't tell us why the Town Board was justified in censoring Public Comment. She didn't offer an explanation for why Jon Dogar-Marinesco was excluded from a Town Committee for his political writings. She didn't clarify the necessity or ethics behind the systematic political purge of non-liberals we are witnessing in the Town of Rochester.

She also did not stand up and say that these actions by the Town Government were wrong. Many Democrats have, in fact, done so. Usually, when one fails to defend something done by one's compatriots, it is because those acts cannot be legitimately defended. Conversely, one when refuses to condemn acts which cannot be defended, what does that say about one's commitment to principles and ideals beyond one's own, personal interests? The Good Book says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Maybe we should just let their consciences speak to such issues.

Margaret Bonner's Letter to Accord-Kerhonkson.com

The following letter was published on Accord-Kerhonkson.com. It was written by Democratic Committee member and Town Webmaster Margaret Bonner.

*************************************************

Dear Editor:

Former Supervisor Lipton is right….GET SMART Rochester Residents

Harold Lipton’s letter to the editor of the Daily Freeman is right on… it’s time to GET SMART residents! You do that by knowing the full facts, not just what a disgruntled, boisterous spin off group (the Rochester Republican Club---note this is NOT, I repeat NOT the Rochester Republican Committee; this is a splinter group…) wants you to believe.

So let’s just address the issues presented by former Supervisor Lipton. Harold Lipton questions the recent raise for our Town Supervisor and lack of orderly meetings. When former Supervisor Lipton was Supervisor it was very simple to keep orderly meetings….he allowed limited opportunity for Public Comment periods, nothing was publicized and nothing was happening (at least that benefited the Town in general). Order is easy if you don’t do anything or allow any public dissent.

Also since nothing was happening (which is why we still had a Town Plan from 1969!!!), it was easy to run the Town on a part-time basis. Present Supervisor Duke and the present Town Board have been extremely proactive in moving the Town forward. Want the facts? Take a look at the Town’s website – www.townofrochester.net (which came about during Duke’s administration) and read her State of the Town reports for the past few years. This work can’t be accomplished on a part-time basis.

For three years the Supervisor continued to work with part-time pay. In 2007 her salary was increased to partially makeup for this inequity. Working 50 hours a week rather than 20, deserves a raise doesn’t it? While you’re at the website, take a look at the January 2007 minutes and the salaries of Town officials. Even with the increases, Supervisor Duke still makes less than the Highway Superintendent and Town Clerk (elected Republicans).

The budget that provides for the salary increase for the Supervisor was approved unanimously by the Town Board, including Republican Town Board member, Ron Santosky. There was also an open hearing on the budget, prior to its passage. It was available on the website and at the Town Clerk’s office for all to view before that hearing. Funny, Mr. Chipman, chair of the Rochester Republican Club, didn’t raise any questions at that point---I don’t even remember him being there. He waited until the budget was passed to raise the issue. Why? So he could manipulate the statistics and preach one side of the story.

Supervisor Lipton is right…GET SMART Rochester Residents. Get all the facts and stop listening to one side of the story.

Margaret Bonner (Rochester Resident)

Judicial Abuse Cases

I just read that the County Democratic Party has submitted its recommendations to Gov. Spitzer for persons qualified to fill the late Judge Bradley's seat on the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, both the Town of Rochester's Town Attorney and the current Democratic Town Justice are on the list. While I'm not going to comment on that one way or the other (I can see both pros and cons with regard to his being appointed to the bench), the entire process of appointing a Judge got me to thinking about all the abuses ordinary people suffer at the hands of a Judicial Branch gone out of control. I found some cases of ridiculous lawsuits on the web I thought I would share with you.

Keep in mind that, although I have seen these cases elsewhere on the Internet, I can't possibly vouch for their accuracy to a 100% degree of certainty, therefore I have edited the names out of the descriptions. However, even if one or more of these is not accurate, there are hundreds of similar cases where Americans have been given a raw deal by our Courts.

I, for one, hope that our next Supreme Court Judge will choose common sense over absurd precedents when deciding cases.

*******************************

1. ***** ***** of *****, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while ***** was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

2. ***** ***** of *****, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next-door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by ***** who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3. A 19-year-old ***** ***** of *****, California won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. ***** apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.

4. A. ***** restaurant was ordered to pay ***** ***** of *****, Pennsylvania, $113,500 a! after she slipped on a soft drink spill and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because ***** had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

5. ***** ***** of *****, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and ***** found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

6. A jury of her peers awarded ***** ***** of *****, Texas, $780,000 after breaking her ankle by tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was the plaintiff's son.

7. This year's favorite could easily be ***** ***** of *****, Oklahoma. ***** purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. ***** sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.

Critique of Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Anonymous' Silly Letter

Wow, where do I even start? Generally speaking, I refrain from commenting on the internal affairs of the Republican Party and its grassroots organization, the Republican Club. However, when this type of rubbish is sent out willy-nilly all over Town by mean spirited people, I think it is important for us all to stand up and say "Enough." I would do the same if someone were to mail out something this vitriolic about the Democrats, too. Especially if it was mailed out anonymously. It's been a very long time since I've seen such a hateful pile of trash in letter form. Thankfully, it's the first time I've seen it in our Town. I might as well start from the beginning.

The letter's writer or writers start out by attributing the letter to more than one writer ("we"). However, as the writer or writers refuse to take credit or responsibility, how can anyone be sure that it is not written by a single individual, posing as a multitude? For simplicity's sake and for the purposes of this critique, I'll take them at their word (always a risky thing to do with the Town Board's supporters, but I like to live dangerously).

They speak of unfair and disruptive tactics and then go on to describing "shouting, screaming and general disruption at town meetings." I have personally been to all of the most controversial Town Board Meetings and Public Hearings in the past year and not once has anyone - Republican, Democrat, Conservative or otherwise - screamed or shouted prior to the February 1 Town Board Meeting. At that Meeting, the only two people to raise their voices were the Town Attorney (because censorship often requires that you make it impossible for the other party to be heard) and myself (because I had the floor and only I had any legitimate right to speak; I refused to allow anyone to trample on my right to petition my elected officials).

"They've resorted to using sexually explicit language in their recent postcard." Really? That's funny. I've read the postcard. It's not my own style of handling issues, but to each his own. The point, however, is that there is no sexually explicit language in that postcard anywhere. Do the writers think everyone is so stupid that no one will notice that the postcard has no such language? The closest thing to sexually explicit language is the word "genitalia" which is a biological and medical term. Unless physicians and marine biologists are to be considered smut peddlers, the writers are truly grasping at straws with this claim.

"David O'Halloran and Shane Ricks, the so called leaders of the Republican Club." I was under the impression that Carl Chipman was the Club's President. Every Republican Club member with whom I've spoken has assured me in no uncertain terms that Carl is firmly in the driver's seat. My own impression confirms that. Apparently, the only people according to whom David and Shane are the "so called leaders of the Republican Club" are the letter's writers. No one else does, in fact, call them that.

"What can truly be a mob" is how the writers describe those callously locked out of their own Town Government's Meeting by the Town Board, despite a motion by Councilman Santosky to move the Meeting to a more spacious venue. That "mob" included elderly and disabled neighbors of ours, who stood in the freezing cold awaiting the outcome of the Meeting. I've been told by several of those locked out that they specifically asked the State Police if they could honk their horns and were told that the job of the Police was to ensure safety and non-violence inside, not silence outside. The police did NOT call in backup cars over the honking of the horns and the Sheriff's Department was called, I am told, by that same "mob" to which the writers refer.

"Why do these characters continue to say they represent Rochester Republicans when, in fact, they don't?" I and the Conservative Party have had our own conflicts with the Republican Club and I am sure we'll have differing viewpoints in the future. That having been said, never once have I heard any of their leaders purport to represent the entire Republican Party. What they have said to me is that they represent their Club's members and that they will work on behalf of the Republican Party's candidates.

Now comes a series of accusations which I will not repeat or dignify with an answer other than to ask, 'Where's your evidence?" If you know it to be true, you must have some way of proving it.

"Finally, we wish we could sign our names but we, like many of our town's residents, we're afraid they'll come after us next." Now this one is just absurd. As I said before, the Conservative Party and the Republican Club had some serious differences during the last election. Never once was I concerned that the Club would come after me, my candidate or any member of my Party. There can only be two possible reasons to make such an outlandish claim: (1) the writers know it's ridiculous but hope to use it to cause damage to their opponents - this is known as "lack of honor", or (2) they have forgotten to wear their aluminum foil hats and the CIA's attempts to read their minds have caused permanent brain damage (no doubt because of the difficulty the CIA would have homing in on and reading something so infinitesimal).

In all seriousness, there are only two conclusions to be drawn from this letter. First, the writers are cowards who lack the intestinal fortitude to take credit for this piece of trash. Second, they knowingly are trying to poison Republican against Republican in our Town by sending out something that is utterly false and vile.

Assuming the writers are, in fact, Republicans (who knows for sure?), this is a perfect example of why NY State needs a Conservative Party. Liberals are all too likely to infiltrate the Republican Party and do their best to pull it to the Left. Luckily, we Conservatives are here to provide a balancing influence and act as the conscience of New York's Political Right.

Anonymous Coward Mails Rochester Republicans

The following letter (grammatical mistakes and all) was sent out - anonymously - to many (if not all) Republicans in our Town. A detailed critique will follow shortly, but just one quick observation: anyone who sends out an attack against another individual anonymously is a coward. If you feel your opinion is important enough to disseminate throughout the Town, have the decency, the honor and the guts to sign your name to it. If you don't, your opinion has no value.

*************************************************

CONCERNED REPUBLICANS IN ROCHESTER

Dear Fellow Republicans,

We're writing to express our deep dismay and disgust over the recent actions of the Rochester Republican Club and to ask you to join us in speaking out against these unfair and disruptive tactics.

They've embarrassed us many times in the past by their bullying and their shouting, screaming, and general disruption at town meetings. Now. they're resorted to using sexually explicit language in their recent postcard to bring attention to their vicious campaign against those who disagree with them.

At the last town board meeting, David O'Halloran and Shane Ricks, the so called leaders of the Republican Club, encouraged what can truly be called a mob to honk their horns, disrupting the meeting and eventually forcing the board to adjourn. What is most disgraceful is that David O'Halloran drove his Mercedes up onto the walkway into town hall to lead this childish car horn honking behavior. Not only did the state police have to call in back up cars, the sheriff's department also was required to stop the disruption.

Why do these characters continue to say they represent Rochester Republicans when, in fact, they don't? They are a small minority of our party, but they are giving us all a bad name.

Their real agenda has always been making money for themselves, plain and simple. David O'Halloran is also large landowner with 1,000 acre ranch ready for development into rows and rows of houses. Honest people of (underlined) both parties in our town government will no longer let him have his way to do whatever he please (sic!). David O'Halloran has often bragged that he's the largest employer in town but he never mentions that he laid off almost all his employees a few days before Christmas. Now, we taxpayers are paying them as many of them are foced to collect welfare benefits.

These actions, especially, the pornographic language used in their postcard mailer do not represent Republican family values. Send them the enclosed postcard and tell them to stop theses counterproductive and disgraceful tactics.

Finally, we wish we could sign our names but we, like many of our town's residents, we're afraid they'll come after us next.

Statement by the Conservative Party's Town Chairman

STATEMENT BY THE TOWN CHAIRMAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Following last week’s article in the Ulster County Press covering the recent Special Meeting of the Rochester Town Board, I have been the subject of some criticism, criticism which may be – to some extent – warranted. The objections to my statement seem to be twofold. First, it is being said that I am purporting to represent the Rondout Valley Board of Education. Second, the factual basis of the subject matter of my statement is being criticized.

With regard to the concern that I may have been speaking as if to represent the Board of Education, my recollection of the conversation I had with the author of the article seems to differ from hers (judging by the content of the article). As I recall, I was responding to a question she asked about the Board of Education and did not state that “I am a member of the school board.” Be that as it may, I recognize that it is my responsibility to make clear in my public statements about Town issues that I am representing neither the Board nor the District. In point of fact, not only do I recognize but embrace the principle that no School Board member may act or speak on the Board’s behalf as an individual. Our proper authority to act rests in the fact that we act as a single body, not nine individuals. Of course, we remain nine individuals with our own distinct opinions and values and will vote according to our own perceptions of what our priorities should be. At the end of the day, however, the official acts of the Board of Education are that of a body, not of the individuals of whom that body consists.

Wearing several hats, I do realize that it is sometimes difficult for others to know in which role I am speaking and it is, naturally, my duty to ensure that such misunderstandings be clarified before they ever occur. Rest assured that, in the future, I will do whatever is in my power to avoid such misunderstandings. To clarify the present and the past, let me state unequivocally that – when speaking of Town issues – at no time was I speaking as a representative of the Rondout Valley School District or of the District’s Board of Education. Furthermore, it was never my intention to lead anyone to believe that I was.

As to the question of whether or not my remarks were accurate, there I must confess to having a faulty memory as to the source of my understanding that Notices of Special Meetings must include the purpose of the Meeting being convened. It is not, in fact, a statutory requirement, but one set forth as a Policy of the School District. Policy 1520 states that when a Special Meeting of the Board of Education is called, every member of the Board should be given “twenty-four hours' notice of the time, place and purpose of the meeting,” and that “Public notice of the time and place shall be given, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior to the meeting.” In quoting the relevant portions of School District Policy, I am simply clarifying the source of my recollection of the notice requirement. I am not speaking as a Board Member.

It does, however, strike me as odd that under New York State Law both Business Corporations and Not-for-Profit Corporations are required to include the purpose for which a special meeting is to be held in their notice of such Meetings. In fact, under the State’s Religious Corporations law, those religious bodies which have Special Meetings are required to do the same. Many organizations in our State have even included such requirements in their own By-Laws (New York State Bar Association, New York State Association of City and Village Clerks, Science Teachers’ Association of New York State, National Organization of Women New York State and the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, among others). Yet, our State Legislature did not see fit to require Governmental Bodies to do so, as well. It certainly does not seem reasonable that businesses, charities and churches should be required to grant this basic protection to their shareholders and members, but governmental bodies are under no obligation to protect their constituents in the same manner. Given the inordinate influence Government has over our lives, shouldn’t we be just as protected as shareholders in a corporation are?

In particular, the current Town Board in the Town of Rochester should be far more responsible in this regard. Our Supervisor and her co-candidates campaigned on a platform of Open Government in the last two elections and yet the Town Board chose not to let the residents of the Town know exactly what would be discussed at their Special Meeting. This failure on their part is all the more glaring because they actually did include a partial disclosure of what was to be discussed on the Notice placed on their website. There was not a single subject discussed that night that would have caused them the slightest discomfort, had they disclosed it ahead of time (all the more so because there was no Public Comment segment). They had nothing to gain by omitting the topics to be discussed from the Notice.

I cannot know if their failure to disclose completely the topics they were to have before them that evening was an intentional assertion of their own power or merely an accidental oversight. I would hope that it was simply an accidental oversight, because if certain topics were intentionally left out that would imply an attempt by our Town Board to deceive its own constituents. Either way, this only serves to compound the distrust which is growing in Rochester for our own Town Government.

As for me, I stand by my statement that, as far as our Town Board is concerned, Open Government seems to mean that everything is open to interpretation. Many with whom I have spoken feel the same way. It is now up to the Town Board to prove us wrong.

On a final note, I am actually glad to have been the subject of such criticism. Whenever anyone involved in public service, whether elected or appointed, paid or volunteer, is criticized by the public, it shows that the system works, that we can have confidence in our ability and freedom to both express our opinions and validate our rights. Such criticism begins the process of change and opens a dialogue between persons of opposing viewpoints.

It is just such an open exchange of ideas and free expression of opinions for which I have stood consistently. Last year, when our Supervisor and several of her supporters were the victims of vandalism in the form of nails being thrown in their driveways, I called her and one of the Town Board members to express my own outrage that anyone would attempt to stifle free speech through the use of force. Likewise, on February 1 of this year, I stood up and expressed my strong opposition to the use of official force to censor that same right of free speech. Force is force, whether exercised through throwing nails onto one’s private property or through the gavel at a Town Board Meeting. Neither form of censorship can be tolerated by persons of good will. As Gerald K. O’Neill said, “Don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression.”


Imre Beke, Jr.

Town Chairman

Robert Heinlein Quotes

The other day, when I was researching quotes for ione of my previous posts, I found that a very high number of quotes regarding freedom, individualism and self-sufficiency came from an author named Robert Heinlein. You or I may disagree with some or all of them, but they certainly make you think. I'd like to share some of them with you:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as "bad luck.".

A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law.

Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor.

It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired.

Man can be chained, but he cannot be domesticated.

No matter where or what, there are makers, takers, and fakers.

But goodness alone is never enough. A hard cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.

When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, this you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motive.

A committee is a creature with three or more legs and no brain.

There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk "his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor" on an outcome dubious. Those who fail the challenge are merely overgrown children, and can never be anything else.

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.

Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

In a mature society, 'civil servant' is sematically equal to 'civil master'.

Examples of Liberal Censorship Attempts Around the Country

Liberals have been utilizing the tactics of censorship for years. Here are a few examples:

Connecticut abortion supporters attempt to censor Pro-Life license plates (May 26, 2006 - http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2006/05/)

Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, Sr. was forbidden from speaking at the Democratic National Convention in 1992 due to his strong pro-life stance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Casey)

The Democrats tried to censor "The Path to 9/11" because it showed the Clintons in a very unfavorable light (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/
democrat-party-piles-on-calls-abcs-911-broadcast-despicable/)

Weather Channel climatologist Dr. Heidi Cullen has called to have meteorologists who question global warming have their certifications pulled (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/01/
weather_channel_issues_ultimat.html)

Not long ago, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19463)

A former NY Times correspondent wrote a book calling for the censorship o the religious right in America (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18996&keywords=censorship)

The ACLU censored the Constitution itself by claiming that the "freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment" when the first freedom mentioned is that of religion. They further went on to quote the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," replacing the Freedom of Religion with ellipses (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6387&keywords=censored)

The truth of the matter is that liberal politicians and "leaders", for all their talk of "civil liberties" and "civil rights" do not, in fact, believe in "liberty and justice for all." They prefer to live by the tenet set forth in George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Now, if that's what they want to believe, that's fine. We all have the right to believe what we want. The problem is their hypocrisy. If you believe in something and you act upon it, don't pretend you believe the opposite. People aren't stupid. They'll figure out that you;re pulling the wool over their eyes pretty quickly.

Crisis in Rochester: End of Week 2

For the past two weeks, I have been trying to understand, to comprehend why the Town Board did what they did. Then, it hit me: I have been ignoring my own understanding of Government. Government does what it does because it can. As simple as that may sound, it's the truth.

That may not seem to be a particularly useful philosophy, but it really is, if you think about it. You see, if Government acts because it can, what we need to do is make sure that it cannot do what it wants. Thomas Jefferson tells us our rights are inalienable because they come from our Creator. Our Constitution spells out what the most important of those Rights are.

So, just what is a Right? Well, if a Right is inalienable and the Town Board can keep us from exercising it, it's obviously not the actual ability to do so something. We retain the Right even if we are forbidden from acting on it.

Is it a limitation imposed on Government? Again, Government is not actually restrained from acting in a particular way by the existence of a Right of the People.

Is it a legal privilege bestowed upon us by law? Then it would not be inalienable.

In my humble opinion, a Right is when Government should be restrained from acting in a certain way, it is the moral and ethical ability to do something. Most importantly, it is that which, when infringed upon by Government for any reason, demonstrates that Government's lack of legitimacy and authority.

When Government treads upon our Rights, and thereby casts its own legitimacy on the garbage heap, our moral obligation to obey its strictures evaporates. It is in just such situations that civil disobedience becomes an ethically justified course of action.

What is important to remember is that the extent to which Government has defiled our Rights is unimportant, only that its has done so. Whereas motivations and circumstances may be taken into consideration when judging the actions of an individual, the overwhelming power Government brings to bear upon us leaves no room to detour from the straight and narrow in the slightest.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson tells us that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The entire reason for the existence of Government is to make sure our Rights remain unimpeded. When Government itself becomes the instrument by which our Rights are trampled upon, it loses any legitimate reason for existence.

Unfortunately, Government's proper role in society comes into conflict with a basic law of human behavior. As the British historian Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." When Government is given the power to do its job, the road to self-corruption begins. Eventually, that corruption leads to acts which controvert the Rights of the People, at which point Government abdicates its original role and begins to exist for the sole purpose of retaining power, which serves to further corrupt itself. A vicious circle commences which can only be stopped by those who are the subjects of Government's abuse.

This process is, naturally, slowed when Government is made up of those who fear the power of the very institution to which they belong. Conversely, it is sped up when Government consists of those who believe in utilizing the power of Government on a far wider basis.

Where does all this leave the Town of Rochester? Sad as it may seem, we are left with two choices: endure the increasing abuse of power of our own Town Government or remove from office all who have misused that power and lost our trust, our confidence and the authority we have bestowed upon them.

Thanks be the Creator who has granted us our Rights, we live in a nation where removing those unsuited for public service is possible. The ability to wield the ballot absolves us of the need to resort to the bullet, as in other parts of the world. Indeed, when one has the peaceful means to effect change, force and violence become unpardonable.

The fact that we are able ot bring about a peaceful, electoral revolution, however, brings with it the need to work towards that goal. Victory on the part of the People on Election Day is by no means guaranteed because we are fighting on the side of that which is right and good and true. We must be resolute, we must act, we must be on our guard. We have everything to gain and those in power have everything to lose. The Regime will not go quietly. Every one of us must make sure that those of our neighbors who are of good will and recognize that our Town Government is habitually abusive get out and vote. We must educate our neighbors, get the word out and, above all, continue to shine the light on the repeated acts of infirngement upon our civil rights and freedoms perpetrated by our Town Government.

We will prevail because we must. To prevail, we must work. And work we shall.

Ellenville Journal Article No. 1

The Politics Of Pornography Town Divides As Local Group Calls For Rochester Board’s Resignation Among Allegations Of Harassment
By Stefan Spezio

Though the meeting lasted only twenty minutes, the gathering at the Town of Rochester’s board meeting was an event featuring a packed house, town citizens forced to remain outside of the building, blaring horns, flashing lights, shouting, threats, tears and a number of New York State Police.

The reason for all of this was due to an incident that occurred on January 24 when Manuela Mihailescu, a 57-year old resident of the town, attended a board meeting for an interview to decide whether or not she would be allowed on the municipality’s Historic Preservation Committee.

Husband and wife at the center of controversy,Jon Dogar-Marinesco and Manuela Mihailescu.

As has been reported in other area publications and as Ms. Mihailescu has repeatedly alleged, she was questioned if she was aware that an internet search using her name yielded pornographic websites among the results. She was then questioned whether she had any association with these websites. Mihailescu responded that she had no connection with the websites and asked to see the printed pages that the town board had printed out. What she saw on those pages, Mihailescu claims, was a series of graphic images. Surprised and distraught at the line of questioning, Mihailescu left the meeting, got into her car and promptly hit another car in the town’s parking lot.

Rochester’s town board, citing that the meeting took place in executive session, will not speak about the interview other than to confirm that it took place.

* * * Within days 2,000 fliers were sent out by a local citizen’s group called Rochester Republicans asking for a large contingent of supporters to come to the town’s board meeting held last Thursday, February 1 and demand the board’s resignation (in particular Supervisor Pam Duke, and Councilpersons Alex Miller, Francis Gray, Tony Spano). The group, which has been very critical of the current town board, felt that the events of January 24 were politically motivated due to the fact that Mihailescu’s husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, is the administrator for its website (see for yourself at www.rochesterrepublicans.com).

On the evening of the board meeting concerned Rochester residents started arriving just before 6pm for the 7pm meeting for fear that the number of people attending the meeting would force a “first-come, first-serve” chance at actually getting into the town’s small meeting room.

Their concerns were justified as two New York State Troopers arrived on the scene at the request of the town board to assist with crowd control. When the doors opened, residents who had been standing on line for over an hour in the cold rushed into the 78-person capacity meeting room. The room, with seating for thirty-six, was filled to the point that a crowd of two or three deep surrounded the seating area on three sides. Residents who came late to the meeting were forced to remain outside by order of the police at the meeting. If anyone who was in the room went outside he or she was not allowed back in. Throughout most of the meeting the citizens that were left outside sounded their car horns and flashed their headlights into the building in protest.v As the meeting began, there were shouts by the audience that the meeting was being held illegally as the town board was not in compliance with occupancy standards. There were also loud suggestions that the board should adjourn the meeting to the nearby firehouse to accommodate the mass of people now literally left out in the cold. Councilperson Ron Santosky made a motion to do just that but could find no one to second it. In fact, there is precedent for the town to move the meeting on occasions with larger than normal attendance.

After some other town business, the issue of Ms. Mihailescu was broached. At that point, the town’s attorney, Rod Futerfas, read a statement to the effect that the Rochester town board would be legally unable to respond to any accusations that would be made by the audience due to the fact that the interview occurred during an executive session. Futerfas then asked Mihailescu if she would sign a release at that time, waiving the confidentiality agreement that an executive session implies. Ms. Mihailescu responded by saying that she would not sign anything without advice of counsel and proceeded to read a statement where she argued that because she had spoken to a number of local news agencies that she had already waived confidentiality. The town’s counsel disagreed and said that there could be no comments from the audience about this subject during the public comment session: “This board is not a punching bag. If you want to take shots at something I would suggest taking up a different sport.”

At that point, Councilman Alex Miller told the audience that, “Public comment is a privilege at these meetings, not a right.”

In fact one resident, Imre Beke, the chairperson of the town’s Conservative Party, did speak and chastised the board and the town attorney saying, “You sir answer to us! We will have our say whether you like it or not!”

Mr. Beke’s outburst drew a loud round of applause from the group as well as others that responded, “You don’t speak for me, Beke!”

And with that, the board made a motion to close the meeting and reconvene for a special meeting on Thursday, February 8, 2007.

As the audience began to move out of the meeting area they began to relay the evening’s events to the dozens of people who had been left outside. At this point, three more State Troopers had arrived (bringing the number to five) to control the crowd. Speaking with a number of residents, their responses were either shame or anger.

Carl Chipman, president of the Rochester Republicans, was angered when Town Supervisor Pam Duke did not recognize him. To a supporter he commented, “Who am I? Who am I? I am the person that’s going to take her damn job!”

Imre Beke said, “The fact of the matter is that the town board has been doing this for a year. They stifle criticism instead of facing it. There is no excuse for this. It is very unprofessional and I am ashamed. You might as well have Pinochet running things!”

Rochester resident Tommy Bober said that he has noticed a change in the town over the last few years, saying that, “There have been some rumblings before but this is my first time being excluded from a meeting. It [the town] has gone down hill.”

Mark Rubertone, a ten year resident of the town, said he, “moved up here from New York City to get away from all of this. I guess it followed me.

One female town resident described Town Supervisor Pam Duke and her board as, “a control freak and they are all her flunkies.”

As for Ms. Mihailescu, she was in tears after the meeting disbanded and said that the evening’s events reminded her, a Romanian immigrant, of her “totalitarian experience. This was very well orchestrated and all it does is throw dirt on my name.” Mihailescu went on to say that she would be seeking legal counsel before making any decisions.

Quotes About Freedom

As our Town undergoes an epiphany, as we begin to understand that our freedom is being systematically stolen from us, step by step day by day, it occurred to me that we might find it instructive to read what others have said about liberty and freedom throughout history.

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

-Voltaire

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression.

-Gerard K. O'Neill

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

-Abraham Lincoln

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.

-Author Unknown

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.

-Woodrow Wilson

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

-Louis D. Brandeis

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

- William Pitt

The basis of a democratic state is liberty.

-Aristotle

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

-Thomas Jefferson

The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.

-William Hazlitt

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

-James Madison

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

-Thomas Jefferson

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

-Potter Stewart

The test of democracy is freedom of criticism.

-David Ben-Gurion

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

-John Stuart Mill

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

-John F. Kennedy

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

-Noam Chomsky

The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.

-George Bernard Shaw

“Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.”

-Nadine Gordimer

“By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.”

-Harry A. Blackmun

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

-Ayn Rand

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

-Ayn Rand

A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

-Ayn Rand

Freeman Editorial - Rochester Has No Open Government

RIDICULOUS IN ROCHESTER

Editorial in Daily Freeman — February 10, 2007

The Rochester Town Board, duly elected to office by town residents, needs to take control of the reins of government and refresh its understanding of what democratic governance is all about.

That means recognizing that democratic government is nothing of the sort unless it is open government. It also means that the town attorney's proper role is to give legal counsel — not call the shots about when town officials may speak or about what.

The board has created an untenable situation for itself by choosing to err on what it mistakenly defined as the side of caution, allowing legalism to triumph over democratic process. When the board had questions to ask Manuela Mihailescu, a candidate for the town's Historic Preservation Commission, it chose to do so behind closed doors.

Ridiculous. Interviewing candidates for a town's Historic Preservation Commission should be a public act in open session. If the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee can interview candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United State in open session, surely the Rochester Town Board can interview candidates for a volunteer Historic Preservation Commission in open session.

Now that the whole thing has blown up into a huge brouhaha, the board has compounded its first error by asserting it cannot give its side of the story. This is false. Robert Freeman, the executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, puts it plainly: "There's nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other law that forbids them from discussing it. What they're really saying is 'We don't want to talk about it.'

This is the public's business, after all. If there is a question of propriety regarding an alleged pornographic Web site, as Mihailescu says there was posed to her, who, exactly, was protected from what by posing a legitimate question behind closed doors? If Mihailescu were so involved, then she ought to be expected to explain herself. If she were not so involved, then she should be able to explain it and, thank you very much, our mistake, let's move on. And anything in between is OK, too.

But even if there is more here than has been revealed by Mihailescu, there is no question known to jurisprudence that cannot be legally asked publicly in good faith. Journalists do it all the time. As far as we know, no one has ever been successfully sued for asking questions. It is the reckless assertion of the defamatory as fact that is illegal.

The way out for the Town Board is simple. Reconvene for the purpose of completing the interview of Mihailescu, if she will consent to reappear. Do so in public session. Demand that the audience behave itself and be prepared to remove anyone who breaches decorum. Then pose whatever questions board members feel are pertinent. Hear the responses. Let the public decide for itself what it thinks of the matter. And vote however you will to fill the spots on the Historic Preservation Commission, with or without reference, as individual members see fit, to particular qualifications — or dis-qualifications — of candidates chosen or rejected.

The whole episode points out something all too common in the Mid-Hudson Valley. The presumption by local governing boards that democracy well tolerates a caution on the side of secrecy. That is exactly backwards. The presumption — the caution, if you will — should be in favor of openness, for it is democratic rule that always should be given the highest value by democratic boards when principles collide.

A Week Has Past - A Town Has Changed

It's now been just over seven days since the Rochester Town Board took a potshot at free speech. What's even more amazing is that - in that time - the Board has yet to issue an official apology. During the past week, several newspapers published articles about the scandal, some lambasted the Board in their editorials (even calling for resignations) and even had political cartoons drawn to make fun of the extremely poor way in which the Town Board handled themselves last Thursday. The Committee on Open Government stated that they could, in fact, have discussed the Executive Session in public, so they found another excuse (possible litigation) to keep quiet.

Has this had any effect on the Board? Apparently not much. Instead of admitting their mistake, apologizing and taking their medicine, the Board's Deputy Supervisor called the Sheriff's Department for police presence at Wednesday's Special Meeting. The Board discussed matters that don't seem to have been in the Meeting Notice (at least not the one posted on the Town Hall door.) The only member of the majority who seems to have some inkling of how much damage they did to their reputation is Alex Miller, who pushed the Board into moving March's regular meeting to the Fire House in order to prepare for the crowd which will undoubtedly show up.

What's worse is that whenever you speak to any of the Board's supporters, they either try to defend the Board's actions or, at best, tell us that the Board needs to mend fences with the public. They never, ever admit that what the Board did was just pure wrong. This isn't just about perception and reputation. It's about right and wrong for public officials. It is ALWAYS WRONG to tell the public they can't have their say. Its is ALWAYS WRONG to refuse to move a meeting to accomodate the public. It is ALWAYS WRONG to refuse to acknowledge that the public are the employers of public officials. It is ALWAYS WRONG to act as if the public serves the Board and to order them around.

The problem is the old saying: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This rule affects conservatives as well as liberals. However, those who believe that government is - by nature - incompetent, corrupt and dangerous are less likely to fall into this trap than those who look to government for solutions. That's why Thomas Jefferson told us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

And vigilant we shall be.

Ulster County Press Article No. 2

FLUSTERED DEMOCRATS RUSH TO QUELL CONTROVERSY
Chairman says concern exists "about the issues raised... and the way it was handled"
by Melissa Lajara - Ulster County Press Feb.7, 2007

The Town of Rochester's Democratic Committee, flustered by a continuing controversy and publicity nightmare for its supervisor and town board, held a hastily called unofficial meeting on Super Bowl Sunday to discuss its options — one of which, said two sources, was to offer Manuela Mihailescu a public apology and a seat on the town's Historic Preservation Commission.

Mihailescu, a member of the Rochester Republican Club and an applicant for a spot on the Commission, said last week that during a second interview for the position she was accused by members of the town board of being involved in a pornographic Web site and was shown sexually graphic photos. A day after the story first broke in the Jan. 31 edition of the Ulster County Press, the town of Rochester was scheduled to hold its regular monthly meeting. The Democrat-controlled board refused to move the meeting site after an overflow crowd swarmed Town Hall, and then abruptly adjourned the meeting after only 20 minutes, leaving residents angry and frustrated.

Sources told the Ulster County Press the Democratic Committee rushed to put together the Feb. 4 meeting at the Accord home of active Democrat Zali Win after the Feb. 1 town board meeting debacle. An e-mailed invitation to Win's home for coffee, obtained by the Ulster County Press, referred to "the recent controversy" and encouraged residents to come and "discuss some of the issues and ways that we can strengthen our community."

Democratic Committee Chairman Max Finestone confirmed that an "unofficial meeting" took place, and that residents who attended were "concerned about the issues raised by this controversy and the way it was handled, and so forth."
Neither Rochester Supervisor Pam Duke nor the five members of the town board attended the meeting.

When asked whether the Democratic Committee would ask Duke to issue an apology, Finestone said "it would be incorrect to say this is what we plan to do, or not to do... There were no conclusions reached (at the meeting). People voiced differences of opinion."

Duke is on vacation and was unavailable for comment. Messages left for Win at two different numbers were not returned by press time Tuesday. Democratic Town Councilman Tony Spano said he was unaware that any meeting had taken place.

Reached Tuesday, Mihailescu said that she would still accept the Commission position if it is offered to her, but said an apology would be "too little, too late."

"I totally lost my trust in them as leaders," she said. "Even in a relationship or a marriage, when you lose the trust you lose everything."

Mihailescu has received a groundswell of support from local residents, most of whom are Republicans. However, the board of the Kerhonkson-Accord Chamber of Commerce, led by President Lolly Chase, also drafted a letter supporting Mihailescu and her husband, who are both local business owners.

"The fabric of our community can only be one of harmony if all voices are allowed to sit at the table," reads the letter. "Not to do so only fuels mistrust in the town board."

Prior to the Feb. 1 town board meeting, Republican Club President Carl Chipman mailed out 2,000 glossy fliers asking residents to come and respond to the allegations and call for the resignations of the town's largely Democratic board members.

About 200 people showed up and the building quickly exceeded its 78-person capacity. State troopers manned the doors at the behest of the town board and kept more than 50 people outside, many of whom shouted and honked car horns. Ron Santosky, the only Republican on the town board, made a motion to move the meeting to a larger venue, but it was not seconded. He said later that members of the board and Duke made a decision earlier that day not to move the meeting. Other capacity meetings have historically been moved to the local firehouse or a large municipal garage.

The town did issue a release saying it is not able to give its account of what happened until Mihailescu signs a document waving her right to confidentiality, which she said she will not do. The town also said in its release that conducting the Feb. 1 meeting became impossible "because of interruptions from persons who wished to turn the routine meeting into a political rally: There are times and places for such activities, and we embrace their right to free expression, however, when town business cannot be discussed with mutual respect, and when the public's physical safety is threatened, the choice to adjourn was an obvious one."

Chipman said he has filed a request with the New York State Committee on Open Government to determine whether it was acceptable for the board to refuse to move the meeting.

Kurt Kortright, a resident who attended the town board meeting, brought a hand-held camera outside to record the protests but was told by state police to turn his camera off. Although protests and blaring horns could be heard for well over 10 minutes, there were no arrests at the meeting.

But it was adjourned following commentary from Rondout Valley School Board member Imre Beke, who said the board would have to answer to its citizens. "They didn't think the opinion of their neighbors was important enough to move one mile" he said later.

"I'm guessing 90 percent of the people who came here, came on (Mihailescu's) behalf," said Accord Fire Commissioner Wayne Gray, who attended the meeting.

Resident Don Dunn, a Democrat, was also there, and said he thinks the controversy takes away from the real business of the board running and improving the Town of Rochester. "Let them just do their job," he said.

Finestone agrees, and said he's hoping the controversy will be soon laid to rest. "This is an unfortunate and divisive situation," he said, "which I hope can be resolved quickly so that the town board can move on with the important work it has to do."

He said that at a meeting of the Democratic Committee set for this coming Sunday, the Committee will "discuss what happened and the input and ideas expressed."