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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment