Reviewing the Review - Part 1

I've given a great deal of thought to whether or not I should respond to the so-called "Rochester Review." With consideration for the fact that one of the most outrageous statements in that propaganda sheet was aimed directly at me by way of quoting one of my remarks, I wondered whether or not I should be the one to take that so-called "newspaper" apart piece by piece.

In the end, I decided that the "Review" could not be left unanswered. Given the fact that the Democrats have given us so much material with which to work (by the way, if any Democrats are reading this, thanks so much, it was really thoughtful of you to put your feet in your collective mouths yet again), my review of the "Review" will come in several parts.

Instead of going page by page, I'm going to start with the mudslinging attack leveled by the Democrats at me. The Nameless Editor and Reporters of the Review have seen fit to claim that the statement "The Tea Party begins tonight" is a call to violence. The fact is, the Tea Party quote came from me. Furthermore, the Democrats know - for a fact! - that I would never call anyone to violence. I was one of the few people who called Supervisor Duke and Councilman Miller following the "nails in the driveway" incidents at their homes and expressed my outrage and condemnation of those acts.

This statement in their propaganda publication is an unarguable indicator of the fact that Liberal Democrats will not hesitate to stoop to twisting (and, at times, falsifying) the truth in order to achieve their goals. Not only did they interpret a statement by someone who has always condemned the use of force in politics as a call to violence, they have shown an astounding lack of understanding for American History.

What is commonly referred to as the "Boston Tea Party" was anything but violent. The events leading to the Tea Party began with the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Act of 1767, which decreed a tax on tea to be paid to the British Government despite the lack of colonial representation in Parliament ("No taxation without representation.") John Hancock (who later became the first signer of the Declaration of Independence) was arrested for tea smuggling and was defended by John Adams (who was later the President of the United States as well as the father of President John Quincy Adams). The charges were eventually dropped.

Hancock then organized a boycott of Chinese tea imported by the British East India Company, which resulted in their tea sales dropping from 320,000 pounds to 520 pounds. In response, the British Parliament passed the Tea Act allowing the Company to sell directly to colonists, which it could not do previously.

In November of 1773, the first ship filled with direct sale tea, the HMS Dartmouth, arrived in Boston Harbor. The boycotters organized a series of protest meetings, each larger than the previous. Over 8,000 people attended the protest meeting of December 16, 1773. That night, 30 protesters dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded the Dartmouth and her sister ships - the HMS Beaver and the HMS Eleanour and quickly moved 45 tons of tea to the deck and dumped it into Boston Harbor.

According to Wikipedia, "Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter."

The Boston Tea Party was not violent by any stretch of the imagination. It was the first in a long line of honorable acts of the civil disobedience which has long served as a check on Government power run amok. Its moral successors included the Underground Railroad and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Invoking the memory of the Boston Tea Party has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with finding ways in which to refuse the edicts of a power mad Town Government. By doing so, by finding the laws which are unjust and anti-freedom and refusing to obey them, we will make the Town Board irrelevant. That, by the way, is one of their greatest fears.

The fact of the matter is, not only do we realize that violence is unacceptable, we know that it is unnecessary. The real power already belongs to the people. No Town laws will have any force if half of the Town view them as having no authority over our lives.

That is not violence, it is simply democracy.

Edelweiss

The other night, I was flipping through the channels on TV. As usual, I was having difficulty finding anything worth watching. Just as I was about to give up, I happened to come upon a rerun of "The Sound of Music." That particular movie had always been one of my parents' favorites and it became a family tradition in my childhood to watch it whenever it was on.

As I was watching that night, I realized that what I had thought (as a child) was a nice little story about a man and a woman and a bunch of kids was really a cautionary tale about freedom and the choices we make to preserve it. I'm not talking about Maria's choices to follow her heart rather than staying in the convent or the regimented manner in which the von Trapp children were being raised. I'm talking about the life and death, good vs. evil struggle of World War II and how the choices made in those days influenced not only the world at the time but the world of today, as well.

At one point in the movie, Captain von Trapp is lost in thought, looking out into the distance. The Baroness whom he is courting asks him where he is. He replies, "In a world that is quickly disappearing." Not long after, the Captain ends up marrying Maria. While on their honeymoon, the Anschluss takes place and they rush back to Salzburg, which is now officially part of Nazi Germany.

The Anschluss was the event in 1938 wherein Austria "chose" to peacefully become part of Germany. The Austrian people actually had the opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether or not to do so. The official results were 99.73% in favor. In point of fact, there was no freedom of choice in the matter. The outcome of the plebiscite was predetermined.

What is worth noting, however, is that there were Austrians at the time who truly favored union with Germany. Some of them saw the Germans as being the ethnic brethren of Austria. Some were attracted by the fact that Hitler was actually Austrian and not German. Some had relatives in Germany. Some actually believed Hitler's inhuman and abhorrent philosophies.

Many, on the other hand, were simply afraid of conflict with Germany. These people would be the 1930s equivalent of those Americans who drive around with bumper stickers saying "War is never the answer." There are people in every era of history who view conflict as inherently wrong, regardless of the purpose or who is the aggressor or even who is being victimized prior to the commencement of hostilities.

This would be a lovely philosophy, were it true. The fact is that war freed us from the tyranny of Great Britain. War freed Texas from Mexico, allowing it to become a sovereign nation and later a member State of our Union. War freed the slaves not just in the South but throughout the U.S. War ended the Holocaust (not soon enough for the millions upon millions who became the victims of Hitler's evil). War freed China and Korea and most of the Pacific from Japanese domination and dictatorship. War forced North Korea back across its border with the South. A series of smaller conflicts and America's preparedness to fight a major war against the U.S.S.R. ended the barbarism that was Marxist-Leninist Communism in Europe when we won the Cold War. War evicted Saddam's goons from Kuwait. War freed Afghanistan from the monstrosities perpetrated by the Taliban regime. War toppled Saddam from power and is allowing Kurdish Iraq to flourish while bringing true democracy to the whole of Iraq. The current World War against Islamo-fascist terrorism will make Islamic extremism a footnote in history and allow the majority of Muslims to take back their religion from the fundamentalists who have hijacked it.

The point is not that war is good. It isn't. The point is that when no other choice is left, to reject conflict as a way of defending our rights and those of others is to commit suicide and to contribute to the murders of the victims.

On a local scale, political conflict seems to be unavoidable. We, too, are living in a world which is quickly disappearing. We are not the only community which is faced with a local government whose selfish agenda requires the subjugation of the rights and freedoms of the townspeople. It is happening all over the U.S., but especially in the so-called "blue states."

The America I was taught to love and cherish was a nation where people of goodwill could agree to disagree without those in power trashing the rights of those who were not. It was not a nation of "empty mantras." Words and phrases like "tolerance," "freedom of speech," "civil rights" and "open government" would have meant something in that America. That America, however, is rapidly fading into the mists of memory. If the Liberal Establishment has its way, the true meaning of our rights and freedoms will not even be found in history books, lest someone develop unwelcome ideas about resurrecting American liberty.

If we shy away from conflict, if we decide that political peace with those who would turn us into an underclass is preferable to taking a stand and consistently speaking out against the terrible deeds of those who would rob us of our liberty, the future of our community, our families and even our nation as a whole will be lost.

Anyone who has seen "The Sound of Music" will certainly remember Captain von Trapp singing:

Edelweiss, Edelweiss
Every morning you greet me
Small and white, clean and bright
You look happy to meet me

Blossom of snow
May you bloom and grow
Bloom and grow forever

Edelweiss, Edelweiss
Bless my homeland forever

Our Edelweiss, that clean and bright flower which greets us each day and makes it possible to live our lives, is our Constitution and the freedoms it embodies. Let us pray that our homeland, the greatest Nation in human history, will be forever blessed by its liberties and let us take a stand to ensure that blessing for ourselves and our posterity.

Open Government Attacked by Town Board

Well, it seems that the Town Board has decided yet again that its own public commitments to Open Government are to be thrown on the rubbish heap. Not one, but TWO articles in the Kingston Daily Freeman today shed light on the fact that the Town Board has nothing but disdain for the people of the Town of Rochester when it comes to letting us know what is going on in our Town.

In one case, the Board decided that it was going to go into Executive Session to discuss the terms of a contract to be negotiated with Homeland Towers, the company who has been anointed by royal decree to construct two cell towers in our Town. Now, Executive Sessions are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They have their legitimate place in Government. The problem with this Executive Session is that it did not live up to the legal requirements imposed on governmental bodies under Article VII of the Public Meetings Law (commonly referred to as the Open Government Law).

This interpretation is not mine alone. It comes from none other than the Chairman of the New York State Committee on Open Government, Robert Freeman. Mr. Freeman is held by most people who deal with Open Government related legal issues to be the foremost authority on the subject in New York and one of the great experts nationwide.

The fact is, however, that it doesn't take an expert to realize that something is rotten in Denmark (or just off Granite Road) when it comes to this last Executive Session. All you have to do is read the Open Meetings Law. It's not written in legalese (well, not too much) and is plain to see, in black and white, for anyone who is interested.

Section 105 of the Law sets forth the ONLY conditions under which an Executive Session may be convened:

a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;

b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;

c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;

d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;

e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;

f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;

g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and

h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.

So, let's take a look at the cell tower issue:

Would disclosing negotiations "imperil the public safety"? NO
Would the Board be disclosing the identity of a law enforcement officer? NO
Would they be impeding the investigation or prosecution of a crime? NO
Is anyone planning on suing the Town or is the Town planning on suing someone else? We can't know for certain, but that was not the reason they gave for going into Executive Session, so we can assume for the time being that the answer here, too, is NO.
Are they negotiating with a union to build these towers? NO
Are they dealing with any of the specific personnel issues listed in the law? NO
Are they preparing, grading or administering examinations? NO
Are they proposing to sell, purchase or lease public land, and (if so) would public discussion substantially effect its value? NO
Are they proposing to buy, sell or exchange securities, and (if so) would public discussion substantially effect its value? NO

If none of the above are true, the facts are crystal clear: they had no legally acceptable reason for going into Executive Session.

Of course, the Town Attorney told the press that the State Opinion was not correct. With due respect to the Town Attorney, there's probably a very good reason why Robert Freeman is the head of the Committee on Open Government, that reason being the fact that he is the quintessential expert on the subject. Mr. Freeman breathes, sleeps and eats Open Government. We shouldn't be surprised at the Town Attorney's reaction. I, for one, am unable to recall a single instance when the Town Attorney told the Board that what they were doing is wrong or illegal. I'm not saying it never happened, but if it did, it was an exceedingly rare instance.

The Town Attorney's job should be to represent the Town, as a whole. In reality, all Town Attorneys actually represent the political powers that be in a Town: the Town Board and other municipal departments and agencies. He is simply doing his job when he states that the Town is correct in doing what they did. Keeping in mind, however, what his job actually is, we have very little reason to place any faith in his statements as unbiased interpretations of the Law. Robert Freeman, however, has no dog in this fight. His opinions are far more likely to be accurate and fair.

By the way Councilman Ron Santosky deserves recognition and congratulations for have the courage to refuse to participate in this Executive Session. Kudos, Ron.

The second Freeman article today points to the fact that there are some DEC related problems at the Transfer Station regarding the disposal of petroleum products. OK, fine. Many of us have serious misgivings about DEC interference in local affairs. Problems happen all the time and many of them are not the fault of the governing body.

So, what's the difficulty here? When the reporter asked the Town Supervisor if the list of problems would be made available under a State Freedom of Information Law request, Supervisor Duke responded that the list is something "...I really don't want in the paper because we haven't really discussed this, and I have not even discussed this with the employees or anything." She further went on to say, "I'm not going to send that copy to anybody right now... The reason being is that we have to sit down and discuss what we're doing. This is not in stone... That was the first time the board has seen anything. We have not had a discussion about it. I don't feel comfortable sending it out."

Come again? Now, I'm not going to reproduce the entire Freedom of Information Law here. Even the Executive Session discussion above was probably overkill. Links to both laws may be found at the end of this post, for all who might be interested.

Suffice it to say, that neither the Town Supervisor nor the Town Board have any authority to deny a request for information based on the fact that she (or they) "don't feel comfortable sending it out." In fact, nothing the Supervisor is quoted to have said in the newspaper even comes close to constituting acceptable grounds for refusing to provide the public or the press with a particular piece of requested information.

Of course, it is entirely possible that they will come up with some other explanation for the refusal, after the fact. They've done it before. When Robert Freeman stated that they have no Open Government Law related reason for refusing to discuss the infamous "Porn Interview," the Town Attorney decided that they would keep quiet because it could lead to litigation. This Town Government changes direction more often than a weather vane in the Spring.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Supervisor and the majority of the Town Board were elected on promises of bringing Open Government to the Town of Rochester. To say that they have failed in this commitment would be a severe understatement. The truth is that the Town Board and the Supervisor are the most serious violators of the principles of Open Government in my memory. They have been far more secretive than any previous Town Board. They perceive the people of the Town as their enemies and turn every act into an exercise in counterintelligence. In short, they have not simply failed, they have betrayed the people of this Town and have completely decimated any semblance of Open Government they may have started off with.

They do not deserve our continued trust. They do not deserve to be believed. They do not deserve to be re-elected.

We do not deserve this Town Government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Government Law
Freedom of Information Law

Rochester Supervisor Withholds Details on Transfer Station Problem (from the Daily Freeman)

ROCHESTER SUPERVISOR WITHHOLDS DETAILS ON TRANSFER STATION PROBLEM
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
04/10/2007

ACCORD - The Town Board has been told that new procedures are needed at the town transfer station for disposal of petroleum products, but town Supervisor Pam Duke isn't giving details of problems.

Duke said during a Town Board meeting last week that the problem was part of a list of corrections needed at the facility.

"We are really not in compliance with quite a lot of things so we have a laundry list that is quite lengthy," she said.

The comments by Duke were made when taking a bid resolution off the agenda for improvements to a storage building for oil and batteries.

"The biggest thing that we've got to do is we've got to get those tanks registered that are out at the transfer station," she said. "It has a lot to do with DEC (state Department of Environmental Conservation) and to be in DEC compliance."

Information discussed during the session included learning of a buried oil and apparent commingling oil with other types of liquids.

Duke on Monday declined a reporter's request for the list of problems. Asked if it would be available under the state Freedom of Information Law she said, "Sure, but you know it's just a list of things that we need to look at I really don't want in the paper because we haven't really discussed this, and I have not even discussed this with the employees or anything."

Duke added that town Councilman Tony Spano, liaison to the transfer station, had not been given the list because he was absent from the Town Board meeting.

"I'm not going to send that copy to anybody right now," she said. "The reason being is that we have to sit down and discuss what we're doing. This is not in stone."

Duke said the information came from Conklin Construction as a free study of municipal waste oil disposal practices.

"That was the first time the board has seen anything. We have not had a discussion about it. I don't feel comfortable sending it out," she said.

Town Attorney Defends Executive Session (from the Daily Freeman)

TOWN ATTORNEY DEFENDS EXECUTIVE SESSION
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
04/10/2007

ACCORD - Three members of the Rochester Town Board went into executive session last week to discuss proposed terms of lease for two 150-foot towers on town of Rochester properties, but a fourth Town Board member declined to join in the session.

The closed-door session was conducted for about 20 minutes last week, as Town Attorney Rod Futerfas contended state opinions regarding executive sessions were wrong and said negotiations were covered by laws governing contract negotiations.

The session included town Supervisor Pam Duke, and Councilmen Francis Gray, and Alex Miller, while Councilman Ronald Santosky declined to participate and left the meeting. Councilman Tony Spano was absent.

During a telephone interview following the meeting, Futerfas said the session was also covered by state Open Meetings Law governing the effect on property value but declined to explain how it would meet the criteria for "substantially" affecting the value.

"This is a negotiation over whether or not we are doing this, and how we're doing it, and what we are doing it for," he said.


"There are two locations where cell towers are going," Futerfas said. "They are both on public property. One is near the transfer station ... the specific locations I'm not that familiar with."

Town officials have scheduled a 4:30 p.m. April 25 meeting with the owner of Homeland Towers to provide public details of the project.

"We are going to ask for the principal of Homeland to come in and go through the entire project and what they are proposing to do and how they are proposing to do it," Futerfas said.

State Committee on Open Government Executive Director Robert Freeman said the law is intended to cover land value and not equipment or tower costs.

"Since we're talking about town-owned property that is not being sold or purchased I don't see there would have been a basis for going into executive session," he said.

During public comment period, Santosky's wife Kandi Santosky chided board members for discussing the lease privately. Following the session, she said discussions have included details about tower setbacks and construction issues without any basis for secrecy.

"My contention is that they're sidestepping the law," she said. "When the law has to apply to (town Supervisor Pam Duke) she wants to waive it, and they are going to waive a whole lot to put these cell towers in because she wants money the coming in."

More of the Same

What can I say about last night's Town Board meeting other than "More of the same." The meeting started with a Public Hearing about the new Building Code Enforcement law (Chapter 111 of the Town Code, if you ever need to look it up). In general, there would be no major problem with the law if it had actually been implemented as the State mandated it to be.

The problem is that our Town Politburo feels an uncontrollable urge (almost like a political Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) to add language anywhere and everywhere that whittles away at the rights of property owners. In this case, they added language allowing themselves to toss permitting requirements all over the Town Code, anywhere they felt like it, making it all but impossible for the average person to figure out what they need to do in order to get a permit.

Why is it so difficult to simply put all the permitting requirements in the Building and Zoning Codes? Simple. They want to be able to slip new requirements in places where no one will think to look because they have no business being there. This is not an assumption or a guess. This is a well-founded prediction based on what they have done in the past. Look at all the nonsense they tried to insert into the Historical Preservation Law last year.

In the section about Complaints, I requested one simple addition: that we not put weapons in the hands of those cowardly individuals who love to make anonymous attacks on our neighbors. Specifically, I asked that the name of the person or persons filing a complaint be made a part of the record, so that a homeowner against whom a complaint is filed can mount a proper defense. The answer given was that no, we cannot do that. The privacy of the Complainant must be respected. His rights must be upheld. He might be subject to retribution.

Not a single mention was made of the fact that the complaints themselves could become a form of retribution for unrelated acts. No one on the Left stood up to say that in the interests of fairness, the property owner's rights should be upheld. The complaint process was viewed in a skewed, one-sided manner completely devoid of any sense of justice or fair play.

The Town Board and its supporters are hell bent on doing as much damage to property rights as humanly possible before being kicked out of office by the voters this coming November. Then, when the new Town Board changes things to ensure our protection as property and homeowners, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will go to Court over each and every change that is made. The Liberal Left lambastes anyone who criticizes the current Board as being "anti-democratic" but they will (mark my words!) have zero respect for a Town Board dominated by those who respect property rights. That lack of respect will be characterized by two years of delaying tactics (lawsuits, complaints to State and Federal agencies, etc.) to keep any favorable changes from going into effect until they can re-take the Town Government.

Nothing in the way they act towards a new Town Board will reflect the principles they claim to espouse pertaining to respect for the democratic decision made by the Town. Just as they have allowed the ideals of Open Government to be thrown out in the trash as soon as they became inconvenient to them, so will their much vaunted love of democracy become so much rubbish once they have lost the power which they enjoy so very much.

When speaking out last night, I made mention of the fact that the Town Government works for us, not the other way around. Immediately, my comments were greeted by remarks of "Here we go again." Well, yes. Here we go again. And we will keep on going, month after month because that simple principle, the ideal of Government working for the People, is what democracy is. Without that ideal, there is no democracy.

To me and, I am convinced, to all of us who understand just how precious the centuries of traditions of our Town and Nation are, the basic American ideal of true public service is something that is sacrosanct. There is never a good reason for a public official to act in a manner which breaches that ideal.

There is a little known rock musician named Steve Vai. One of his songs reflects precisely what I feel about public service and true leadership:

I'm not a savior
I'm not a king
The power lies in your hands
But I feel your anger
I speak your peace
Freedom time is here

No public official should think of themselves as being "in charge," of being a king or boss. They should always keep in mind that true authority comes from those we serve, not from those who pass laws in Albany or Washington. What we say should reflect the passions, ideals, concerns and desires of those we represent. And, above all, freedom should be what we strive to achieve for those we serve. The people dictate, the officials serve. That is what democracy really is all about.

Those who prefer to be Residents instead of Neighbors, however, don't truly care about principles like democracy, representation, fair play, justice or - in point of fact - any other principle. They are concerned with one thing: getting what they want. Like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because mommy didn't buy him the toy he wanted, the Liberal Left in Town lashes out at anyone and everyone who stands in the way of their goals.

Well, they are about to get a very unpleasant surprise when the voters of the Town of Rochester give them a Time Out in November. Maybe a few years sitting in the corner thinking about what they have done will teach them how to play nice with their peers.

Maybe, but I'm not too optimistic. Bullies never learn from their own mistakes.