So much spin, so little time. The Supervisor refers to the Town Board's "obligation to Ms. Mihailescu to protect the confidentiality of Executive Session." The temerity of the Supervisor in making such a statement is astounding! Not only can we guess that the Town Board is trying to protect itself rather than Manuela, we know it for a fact. How? Because the Town Attorney said so in the newspaper!
In an article published on Feb. 7 in the Kingston Freeman, we are told that the Committee on Open Government (which is far more knowledgeable about the Open Government responsibilities of public bodies than any Town Attorney could possibly be) has said that the Town is NOT required to keep the Executive Session confidential:
Board members say they are not allowed to discuss what happened in a closed-door executive session, but Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said they are mistaken.
"There's nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other law that forbids them from discussing it," Freeman said. "What they're really saying is, 'We don't want to talk about it.'"
The response to which was:
Rod Futerfas, the town's attorney, said that, because of potential litigation, the board will not discuss the meeting unless Mihailescu signs a waiver. "There is more than just the executive session that is involved here," Futerfas said.
So where is the legal responsibility to keep the Executive Session confidential? Simple. It doesn't exist. The Town Board does not want Manuela to absolve them of confidentiality, they want her to sign away her rights in order to cover their collective behinds.
"We have honored due process..."
Oh, really? I was under the impression that due process meant everyone was innocent until proven guilty, that we all had the right to face our accusers and that the burden of proof was never on the accused. In point of fact, Manuela Mihailescu was not given the name of the "residents" from whom "the Town Board received information" that "potentially linked Ms. Mihailescu’s name to adult websites." Her right to face her accusers was denied her. The allegations were never proven and, in fact, no one has since been able to find these alleged websites. She was denied her Constitutional right to presumption of innocence. Her application to join the Town Committee of her choice was voted down based on rumor, gossip and innuendo. No, wait, that's not quite accurate. Those are the lame excuses offered for her exile from participation in the life of our Town. The real reason was the ongoing political purge of the Town of Rochester by its Town Board.
The Supervisor states that the Board asked itself three questions:
1. Is the information relevant to her appointment?
2. Is the information reliable? Should it be disregarded or does it require further review?
3. If the information were reliable and true, would it prevent her from carrying out her duties on the commission or would there be any objection to appointing her?
She then goes on to state that:
These are legitimate questions and the only way to answer them was to meet with her to ask for her side of the story.
Not only is this statement more spin, but it is completely transparent! How could meeting with Manuela determine if the information is relevant? How could such a meeting determine if the information is reliable, if it should be disregarded or if it required further review? As to the third question, it did not even need to be asked if the allegations could not be proven. We can now clearly see that the interview process, based not on Manuela Mihailescu's account but on the Supervisor's statement, was nothing but an extended version of the old joke where the policeman asks the suspect, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The questions, rather than searching for the truth, assume guilt. All that's missing is a bright light in Manuela's face and a dark clothed investigator stating "We have ways of making you talk."
"To do anything less would have deprived her right to defend herself against unknown accusations."
Excuse me?!?!?! When, at any point in this process, did Manuela have the right or opportunity to defend herself? For that matter, how on earth can someone defend himself or herself against "unknown accusations"? You have to know what you are being accused of and by whom in order to mount an effective defense. Manuela Mihailescu was accused and found "guilty" by those who wanted her off the Historical Preservation Commission before she even had the chance to make her side known. The fact that the actual vote wasn't taken until March 1 is completely irrelevant. The decision had already been made because this was never about whether or not the accusations were true. It was about one single thing: keeping her off the Commission in order to punish her and her husband and - through them - the entire block of right of center residents of this Town.
"We believe that we acted properly and with sensitivity."
Sensitivity for whom? Not for Manuela. Not for her husband or her friends or her neighbors. Certainly not for the hundred or so townspeople locked out in the freezing night on February 1. Not for the equally large crowd who wished to address the Board but were told "Public Comment is not a right but a privilege" and "The Board is not interested in having a one-sided conversation." The Town Board's "sensitivity" was followed up by a Comment-less Special Meeting, another Meeting that reserved Public Comment until after they held their dirty little vote on Manuela's application, an accusation of her supporters being a "lynch mob" and a letter to the Ulster County Press talking of the "potential for violence". Some sensitivity. Let's be thankful the Town Board and its supporters aren't dentists.
What it all comes down to is that as long as this Town Board sits ensconced in their collective thrones, there will be no fairness, no decency, no due process, no balance in the Town of Rochester Government. Instead, we will see vindictiveness, political purges, a dictatorial attitude, intentional divisiveness and a concerted effort to create and perpetuate two classes of residents. Apparently, this Town Board reigns according to the old saying, 'To the victor belong the spoils." This is anything but democratic and open.
The fault lies in the arrogance of the Town Board and its ultra-liberal supporters. The proof of where the blame lies was supplied by Supervisor Duke in her own statement to the Town. As President Lincoln said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time." Fewer and fewer of our neighbors are allowing the Supervisor and her Board to pull the wool over their eyes. We are a small Town, but proud of our heritage - of the honest, hardworking legacy we've been handed down by those who made this Town one of the best places to live and raise a family in New York State. Underestimating our intelligence will prove to be a mistake the Democrats will not be able to rectify.
Board members say they are not allowed to discuss what happened in a closed-door executive session, but Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said they are mistaken.
"There's nothing in the Open Meetings Law or any other law that forbids them from discussing it," Freeman said. "What they're really saying is, 'We don't want to talk about it.'"
The response to which was:
Rod Futerfas, the town's attorney, said that, because of potential litigation, the board will not discuss the meeting unless Mihailescu signs a waiver. "There is more than just the executive session that is involved here," Futerfas said.
So where is the legal responsibility to keep the Executive Session confidential? Simple. It doesn't exist. The Town Board does not want Manuela to absolve them of confidentiality, they want her to sign away her rights in order to cover their collective behinds.
"We have honored due process..."
Oh, really? I was under the impression that due process meant everyone was innocent until proven guilty, that we all had the right to face our accusers and that the burden of proof was never on the accused. In point of fact, Manuela Mihailescu was not given the name of the "residents" from whom "the Town Board received information" that "potentially linked Ms. Mihailescu’s name to adult websites." Her right to face her accusers was denied her. The allegations were never proven and, in fact, no one has since been able to find these alleged websites. She was denied her Constitutional right to presumption of innocence. Her application to join the Town Committee of her choice was voted down based on rumor, gossip and innuendo. No, wait, that's not quite accurate. Those are the lame excuses offered for her exile from participation in the life of our Town. The real reason was the ongoing political purge of the Town of Rochester by its Town Board.
The Supervisor states that the Board asked itself three questions:
1. Is the information relevant to her appointment?
2. Is the information reliable? Should it be disregarded or does it require further review?
3. If the information were reliable and true, would it prevent her from carrying out her duties on the commission or would there be any objection to appointing her?
She then goes on to state that:
These are legitimate questions and the only way to answer them was to meet with her to ask for her side of the story.
Not only is this statement more spin, but it is completely transparent! How could meeting with Manuela determine if the information is relevant? How could such a meeting determine if the information is reliable, if it should be disregarded or if it required further review? As to the third question, it did not even need to be asked if the allegations could not be proven. We can now clearly see that the interview process, based not on Manuela Mihailescu's account but on the Supervisor's statement, was nothing but an extended version of the old joke where the policeman asks the suspect, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The questions, rather than searching for the truth, assume guilt. All that's missing is a bright light in Manuela's face and a dark clothed investigator stating "We have ways of making you talk."
"To do anything less would have deprived her right to defend herself against unknown accusations."
Excuse me?!?!?! When, at any point in this process, did Manuela have the right or opportunity to defend herself? For that matter, how on earth can someone defend himself or herself against "unknown accusations"? You have to know what you are being accused of and by whom in order to mount an effective defense. Manuela Mihailescu was accused and found "guilty" by those who wanted her off the Historical Preservation Commission before she even had the chance to make her side known. The fact that the actual vote wasn't taken until March 1 is completely irrelevant. The decision had already been made because this was never about whether or not the accusations were true. It was about one single thing: keeping her off the Commission in order to punish her and her husband and - through them - the entire block of right of center residents of this Town.
"We believe that we acted properly and with sensitivity."
Sensitivity for whom? Not for Manuela. Not for her husband or her friends or her neighbors. Certainly not for the hundred or so townspeople locked out in the freezing night on February 1. Not for the equally large crowd who wished to address the Board but were told "Public Comment is not a right but a privilege" and "The Board is not interested in having a one-sided conversation." The Town Board's "sensitivity" was followed up by a Comment-less Special Meeting, another Meeting that reserved Public Comment until after they held their dirty little vote on Manuela's application, an accusation of her supporters being a "lynch mob" and a letter to the Ulster County Press talking of the "potential for violence". Some sensitivity. Let's be thankful the Town Board and its supporters aren't dentists.
What it all comes down to is that as long as this Town Board sits ensconced in their collective thrones, there will be no fairness, no decency, no due process, no balance in the Town of Rochester Government. Instead, we will see vindictiveness, political purges, a dictatorial attitude, intentional divisiveness and a concerted effort to create and perpetuate two classes of residents. Apparently, this Town Board reigns according to the old saying, 'To the victor belong the spoils." This is anything but democratic and open.
The fault lies in the arrogance of the Town Board and its ultra-liberal supporters. The proof of where the blame lies was supplied by Supervisor Duke in her own statement to the Town. As President Lincoln said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time." Fewer and fewer of our neighbors are allowing the Supervisor and her Board to pull the wool over their eyes. We are a small Town, but proud of our heritage - of the honest, hardworking legacy we've been handed down by those who made this Town one of the best places to live and raise a family in New York State. Underestimating our intelligence will prove to be a mistake the Democrats will not be able to rectify.
No comments:
Post a Comment