February 5, 2007
Dear Editor:
On the night of February 1, 2007, the Town Board of the Town of Rochester made it clear to the Town’s residents that its own interests and desire to avoid criticism are more important to them than even token respect for the Townspeople. By adjourning the Town Board meeting within mere minutes of the commencement of Public Comment, they demonstrated an astounding disdain for the very people whom they purport to represent.
Their Media Release dated February 2, 2007 is not only a masterful exercise in rhetoric and propaganda, it is rife with inaccuracies. The Town Board claims to “embrace” the public’s “right to free expression.” Their actions call this claim into question. Prior to any discussion of the controversy at hand, we were told that “Public Comment is not a right, but a privilege granted at the sufferance of the Board.” When the hundred or so residents locked out of the Meeting by the Board’s refusal to move it to a larger venue began sounding their horns, a Town Councilman threatened those inside with suspension of the Meeting if the outside noise did not cease, as if those inside had any control over those outside.
Despite their claims to the contrary, the Town Board did not, in fact, “attempt to move on with other Town business.” There was no motion by the Town Board (seconded, voted on or otherwise) to either limit Public Comment to particular topics or to close it entirely. The Town Supervisor did not even attempt to preside over the Public Comment portion of the Meeting, instead abdicating her authority as Presiding Officer to the Town Attorney, who simply declared that “the Town Board is not interested in having a one-sided conversation.”
The assertion that the Town Board was unable to move into other business due to “interruptions by persons who wish to turn the routine meeting into a political rally” is as absurd as it is untrue. The “person” to whom they are referring is me. I was granted the privilege of the floor to speak during the Public Comment portion of the Meeting. When I began to call into question the manner in which the controversial issue at hand was being handled (or, more properly, ignored) without reference to Executive Session conversations, I was promptly, rudely and repeatedly interrupted by the Town Attorney, who took it upon himself to act as Presiding Officer and determine what could and could not be spoken of in Public Comment. The Town Supervisor did nothing to re-establish herself as the Presiding Officer of the Meeting, preferring to allow the Attorney to act as Official Censor of Public Opinion.
Putting aside the complete lack of propriety shown by the Supervisor in ceding her obligation to preside over the Meeting to one who is not elected and (for all we know) may not even be a Resident of the Town, the statement by the Town Attorney about a “one-sided conversation” was disingenuous at best. Even in the best of times (and even more so when controversies arise), it is ludicrous to present a dialogue between government and the citizens as a conversation between equals. Our Constitution explicitly codifies the citizenry’s “right to petition their elected officials.” Commensurately, that implies an absolute obligation for those same officials to listen to the citizens, whether their Attorney advises them to respond or not.
There is clearly no Constitutional obligation for the citizens to listen to the statements of Government. The reason for this is two-fold: first (and most importantly) Government works for and is answerable to the people, not the other way around. Second, Government has such power over the everyday lives of the people, that we need rights such as that of petitioning Government to counterbalance that power, however imperfectly.
The assertion that the public’s “physical safety” was “threatened” by free expression is laughable. There was ample police presence and not once did any law enforcement official make a move to eject any person from the Town Hall for any reason whatsoever. To the contrary, the only threat to safety was the fact that the Town Hall was filled beyond legal capacity and the Board refused to move to a more spacious location, despite a motion to do so by one Councilman.
Finally, the Media Release refers to the “motivations of those who profess to know what happened without having been there.” With due respect, even in a Court of Law one is allowed and even encouraged to use the testimony of witnesses who were, in fact, present when determining the truth. In the Court of Public Opinion this is all the more important. In a small Town, residents very quickly determine which of their neighbors can be trusted and believed and to what extent. Manuela Mihailescu is known by her friends and neighbors to be eminently honorable and trustworthy. Not only have we no reason to disbelieve her, we have every reason to take her at her word.
The Town Board, on the other hand, has proven to be less than candid and honorable in its dealings with the Public. This most recent incident is just one in a series of events where, despite their claims to champion Open Government, they eschewed its principles for the sake of their own interests. Where we have every reason to believe Ms. Mihailescu, we have no reason at this point to trust the Town Board. Like the boy who cried wolf, it is unlikely that they will be trusted even when they are, in fact, sincere.
While the events of February 1 are certainly regrettable, they were precipitated not by any member of the public, for political reasons or otherwise. If any political motivations can be ascribed as the basis for these events, they are to be attributed to the Town Board, which has undertaken a systematic political purge of Town bodies, exiling (with a few notable exceptions) all who oppose their heavy-handed approach to governance.
The Public wanted one simple thing: to be heard. The Town Government decided that request to be worthy of disdain. Whether they did so out of a desire to avoid criticism or because they felt that the Public had a greater obligation to listen to the Board than the Board did to listen to the Public is immaterial. They failed in their obligation to the residents of the Town of Rochester. While State Law may give them their power, they get their authority and legitimacy from the residents. When they turn their backs on Public Opinion, they no longer have either of those things, being left with simple, raw power. They plainly know how to wield that against their own Town, as they did so that night.
Regardless of the desires of the Town Board, this issue will not die. The residents of Rochester will be at every meeting, demanding to be heard. The advice of the Town Attorney is meaningless, because this is not and will never be about what the Town Board is permitted to say. It is only about our right to be heard, nothing more, nothing less.
And we will be heard.
Respectfully,
Imre Beke, Jr., Chairman
Town of Rochester Conservative Party
Dear Editor:
On the night of February 1, 2007, the Town Board of the Town of Rochester made it clear to the Town’s residents that its own interests and desire to avoid criticism are more important to them than even token respect for the Townspeople. By adjourning the Town Board meeting within mere minutes of the commencement of Public Comment, they demonstrated an astounding disdain for the very people whom they purport to represent.
Their Media Release dated February 2, 2007 is not only a masterful exercise in rhetoric and propaganda, it is rife with inaccuracies. The Town Board claims to “embrace” the public’s “right to free expression.” Their actions call this claim into question. Prior to any discussion of the controversy at hand, we were told that “Public Comment is not a right, but a privilege granted at the sufferance of the Board.” When the hundred or so residents locked out of the Meeting by the Board’s refusal to move it to a larger venue began sounding their horns, a Town Councilman threatened those inside with suspension of the Meeting if the outside noise did not cease, as if those inside had any control over those outside.
Despite their claims to the contrary, the Town Board did not, in fact, “attempt to move on with other Town business.” There was no motion by the Town Board (seconded, voted on or otherwise) to either limit Public Comment to particular topics or to close it entirely. The Town Supervisor did not even attempt to preside over the Public Comment portion of the Meeting, instead abdicating her authority as Presiding Officer to the Town Attorney, who simply declared that “the Town Board is not interested in having a one-sided conversation.”
The assertion that the Town Board was unable to move into other business due to “interruptions by persons who wish to turn the routine meeting into a political rally” is as absurd as it is untrue. The “person” to whom they are referring is me. I was granted the privilege of the floor to speak during the Public Comment portion of the Meeting. When I began to call into question the manner in which the controversial issue at hand was being handled (or, more properly, ignored) without reference to Executive Session conversations, I was promptly, rudely and repeatedly interrupted by the Town Attorney, who took it upon himself to act as Presiding Officer and determine what could and could not be spoken of in Public Comment. The Town Supervisor did nothing to re-establish herself as the Presiding Officer of the Meeting, preferring to allow the Attorney to act as Official Censor of Public Opinion.
Putting aside the complete lack of propriety shown by the Supervisor in ceding her obligation to preside over the Meeting to one who is not elected and (for all we know) may not even be a Resident of the Town, the statement by the Town Attorney about a “one-sided conversation” was disingenuous at best. Even in the best of times (and even more so when controversies arise), it is ludicrous to present a dialogue between government and the citizens as a conversation between equals. Our Constitution explicitly codifies the citizenry’s “right to petition their elected officials.” Commensurately, that implies an absolute obligation for those same officials to listen to the citizens, whether their Attorney advises them to respond or not.
There is clearly no Constitutional obligation for the citizens to listen to the statements of Government. The reason for this is two-fold: first (and most importantly) Government works for and is answerable to the people, not the other way around. Second, Government has such power over the everyday lives of the people, that we need rights such as that of petitioning Government to counterbalance that power, however imperfectly.
The assertion that the public’s “physical safety” was “threatened” by free expression is laughable. There was ample police presence and not once did any law enforcement official make a move to eject any person from the Town Hall for any reason whatsoever. To the contrary, the only threat to safety was the fact that the Town Hall was filled beyond legal capacity and the Board refused to move to a more spacious location, despite a motion to do so by one Councilman.
Finally, the Media Release refers to the “motivations of those who profess to know what happened without having been there.” With due respect, even in a Court of Law one is allowed and even encouraged to use the testimony of witnesses who were, in fact, present when determining the truth. In the Court of Public Opinion this is all the more important. In a small Town, residents very quickly determine which of their neighbors can be trusted and believed and to what extent. Manuela Mihailescu is known by her friends and neighbors to be eminently honorable and trustworthy. Not only have we no reason to disbelieve her, we have every reason to take her at her word.
The Town Board, on the other hand, has proven to be less than candid and honorable in its dealings with the Public. This most recent incident is just one in a series of events where, despite their claims to champion Open Government, they eschewed its principles for the sake of their own interests. Where we have every reason to believe Ms. Mihailescu, we have no reason at this point to trust the Town Board. Like the boy who cried wolf, it is unlikely that they will be trusted even when they are, in fact, sincere.
While the events of February 1 are certainly regrettable, they were precipitated not by any member of the public, for political reasons or otherwise. If any political motivations can be ascribed as the basis for these events, they are to be attributed to the Town Board, which has undertaken a systematic political purge of Town bodies, exiling (with a few notable exceptions) all who oppose their heavy-handed approach to governance.
The Public wanted one simple thing: to be heard. The Town Government decided that request to be worthy of disdain. Whether they did so out of a desire to avoid criticism or because they felt that the Public had a greater obligation to listen to the Board than the Board did to listen to the Public is immaterial. They failed in their obligation to the residents of the Town of Rochester. While State Law may give them their power, they get their authority and legitimacy from the residents. When they turn their backs on Public Opinion, they no longer have either of those things, being left with simple, raw power. They plainly know how to wield that against their own Town, as they did so that night.
Regardless of the desires of the Town Board, this issue will not die. The residents of Rochester will be at every meeting, demanding to be heard. The advice of the Town Attorney is meaningless, because this is not and will never be about what the Town Board is permitted to say. It is only about our right to be heard, nothing more, nothing less.
And we will be heard.
Respectfully,
Imre Beke, Jr., Chairman
Town of Rochester Conservative Party
No comments:
Post a Comment