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.
No comments:
Post a Comment