Special Meeting on February 7, 2007

Last night (February 8, 2007), the Town Board of Town of Rochester held a Special Meeting, which is basically a Meeting that had not been scheduled on the annual calendar of the Town. Special Meetings are held when an official body has to address issues prior to the next regular meeting. Usually this is because something unexpected has come up, but it can take place for any of a number of reasons.

What’s unusual about a Special Meeting is that only issues designated in the Official Notice of the Meeting may be addressed. The Town Board, however, chose to address issues not designated at last night’s Meeting. The official notice posted on the Town Hall door not only failed to designate the topics of the Meeting, but also failed to specify that the Meeting was, in fact, a Special Meeting.

Now, the Town Board did not take any earthshaking steps last night. The Board did not vote to secede from the Union or declare the Earth to be flat. They did not declare Global Warming to be caused by Man in the absence of scientific evidence (oh, wait… that’s another discussion). They did not try to impeach the President or invade Canada. They just went about doing Town Business.

All that would have been fine, even though I personally disagreed with the substance of some of their Resolutions (hey, that’s democracy). The problem is not what they did, it’s how they did it. There was no reason whatsoever why these topics could not have been designated as the Business to be undertaken at the Special Meeting. None except the arrogance that says, “We’re in charge. We make the rules. Nobody tells us what to do.”

I was standing in the back, watching quietly (which is a miracle in itself, believe me), when a reporter from one of the local papers came in. She asked me where the Meeting’s Agenda was. Problem was, there were no Agendas made available to the public. Usually, there’s a pocket pinned to the bulletin board in the back that holds Agendas. Not last night. Why? What on Earth does the liberal regime hope to achieve by keeping the topics of discussion secret from the residents?

On Thursday night, State Troopers were called to protect the Board from their neighbors. Last night, Sheriff’s Deputies were present. Amazing. As if the police do not have anything better to do than act as babysitters or referees. Instead of respecting the extremely difficult jobs law enforcement officers have, our Town Board finds it appropriate to have them stand there, just in case the residents of the Town might call the Board to task for their inappropriate, undemocratic actions. I, for one, feel the Town owes the police an apology for dragging them into this.

To top it off, the Deputy Supervisor walked up to one of the Sheriff’s Deputies and introduced himself. According to one of our neighbors who was standing there, he told the Deputy that he called them to the Meeting and proceeded to rail against a certain member of our community, someone who stayed outside for the entirety of Thursday’s meeting, stating that this certain person was the one who was responsible for the entire mess. The childishness of this crowd never ceases to amaze me. “Wah, he hit me! Give him a time out!”

One positive note from last night’s Meeting: At the suggestion of one of the Democratic Councilmen, March’s Meeting has been moved to the Firehouse, to allow everyone who might be interested in what is happening in/to our Town to attend. What was amusing, however, is the obvious stupefaction with which the Deputy Supervisor received this suggestion. It was painfully apparent that he simply could not comprehend why the Meeting would need to be moved. I guess it just goes to show you that not all politicians are created equal.

At any rate, this is far from over. Stay tuned. I’m sure more fun is just around the corner.

Town Board Supporters Threaten to Drag School Board Into Their Mess

When I spoke at Thursday night's meeting, I made a point of informing everyone that I was speaking as the Town's Conservative Party Chairman. I rarely do so, but felt it was necessary to avoid any confusion over the fact that I am also a School Board member. I do not speak as a School Board member in public except at School Board Meetings. That seems only logical to me. However, it never hurts to clarify. Apparently clarification is sometimes not sufficient.

Just before last night's School Board Meeting, the School Board President came up to me to tell me that over the past several days, she had received several phone calls and e-mails complaining about my comments to the Town Board. Many of these were anonymous (big surprise). She informed me that she told the anonymous ones that she wasn't about to speak with anyone who wouldn't even give his or her name. The ones who did were told that School Board business and local politics were two very separate issues.

Some of these callers also told her that they would be attending the School Board Meeting with the intention of disrupting our business. Of course, nobody ever showed up.

Now, just to clarify where this information comes from, the School Board President and I are on opposite sides of the political fence. We have had disagreements in the past, but I have found her to be honorable and someone who works diligently at her responsibilities. The fact that we often have different views on subjects both educational and political does not mean that I cannot recognize and respect her sincerity in her beliefs and the effort she puts into her duties as President.

As to my responsibilities as a Member of the School Board, I likewise take them very seriously. It has always been my position that elected officials are answerable to the voters. They are our "employers", so to speak, and we must be accountable to them for everything we do in their names. Everyone who knows me or has attended School Board Meetings knows that this is a principle I follow with a great deal of gravity in my elected position. It is for this reason that I find the events of Feb. 1 so distasteful. The members of the Town Board seem to have either forgotten that responsibility or chosen to ignore it.

It is our job as citizens to remind them of their jobs as elected officials.

Town of Rochester Supervisor & Democrats on "Open Government"

In a Letter to her "Fellow Residents of the Town of Rochester" on the "State of the Town as of December 31, 2005" (http://www.townofrochester.net), Town Supervisor Pam Duke - who should have been presiding over the controversial Feb. 1 Town Board Meeting but chose to allow the Town Attorney to choose who may be given the floor and under what conditions - says the following about Open Government:

"We worked to improve open government by making meetings of various town entities more accessible..."

Interesting. Accessible to whom? Not to the Townspeople who are told they cannot speak because the "Town Board is not interested in a one-sided conversation." Not to the hundred or so people locked out of the Town Hall (including several who were either elderly or disabled). Not to Manuela Mihailescu, who just wants some justice.

Also, a letter attributed to "Town of Rochester Democrats" on former Democratic Assembly candidate Kelly Keck's website (http://keckforassembly.com) says the following:

"Also, we encourage you to see democratic (small D) open government in action by attending and participating in Town Board meetings. These are held on the first Thursday of each month at 7pm at Town Hall."

We took them at their word. We attended and tried to participate. We were shut down, censored and locked out of the process. Now, they are accusing us of being a "mob", of not wanting to engage in dialogue and discussion. Careful, guys: your hypocrisy is showing.

Apparently the only thing "open" about the Town Government in Rochester is that everything is "open" to interpretation, especially if it is interpreted to benefit the current regime.

Yet Another Link to Comments on the Web

http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=322441

Kingston Freeman Article No. 3

ROCHESTER BOARD MEMBERS STILL MUM ON PRIVATE MEETING DESPITE BEING ALLOWED TO TALK

By Joshua M. Rinaldi, Freeman staff 02/07/2007

ROCHESTER - Town Board members remain mum about their controversial Jan. 24 executive session despite the state's open government watchdog saying they can discuss what went on behind closed doors that evening.

It was at the Jan. 24 meeting that town resident Manuela Mihailescu, in an interview for a seat on the town's Historic Preservation Commission, allegedly was accused of being involved with Internet porn sites. The confrontation between the board and Mihailescu compelled about 100 people to come to, and ultimately make enough noise to shut down, last Thursday's Town Board meeting.

Mihailescu has spoken to the press about the Jan. 24 meeting - during which she says board members showed her pornographic images but offered no evidence that she was associated with the site where they appeared - but board members have refused to comment on the session.

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.'"

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.
Mihailescu has declined to sign a waiver, saying that by speaking to the press, she already has made the matter public.

Futerfas said he was ready to read a statement on behalf of the board on Thursday but decided not to in the absence of a waiver.

Since then, the board's only official comment on the matter has been a prepared statement that said: "Every member of the board interacted with this individual (Mihailescu) with respect and courtesy at all times. We sought to protect and preserve the best interests of the town, fulfilling our responsibility to investigate matters that potentially have a bearing on her appointment, while at the same time being mindful of the individual and proper and ethical due process."

"It might be better for the town to get its side out, but the risk of getting our side out is litigation," Futerfas said. "We feel that, in this particular situation, that we are better off not speaking unless she signs."

Mihailescu said she wasn't comfortable signing away her rights at last week's Town Board meeting and is having her lawyer look over the waiver. The document states Mihailescu gives up the "privilege of confidentiality" and permits "those persons present during the executive session to address the events which occurred therein as well as any other information which may have or have had relevance to the placement."

Mihailescu and her husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, operate several Web sites, including rochesterrepublicans.com and busyrochester.com. They also own the marketing company Point Blank, which designs visual tools for companies, including Web sites, ads and brochures.

Mihailescu believes she is being targeted by the Democratic-controlled Town Board because her husband is active in local Republican politics.

Another link to a short discussion of this topic

http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=322266

Times-Herald Record Editorial Calling for Resignation of "Guilty Parties"

JEERS

RecordOnline.com Feb. 5, 2007

To the Rochester Town Board for compounding a bizarre situation that included pornography, mob behavior and an absence of common sense and decorum. The story starts with some on the board claiming that a local woman who had applied to be on the Historic Preservation Commission was associated with a pornographic Web site. Now, it appears that the Internet abilities of those conducting the interview did not allow them to understand that what comes up in a search is not necessarily linked to the search term. Time for the guilty parties here to apologize, confess and perhaps resign if there is no real explanation.

Critique of the Accord-Kerhonkson.com Editorial

This editorial is one of the more skillful attempts by the apologists for the Town Board to explain away the scandal which is rocking the Town of Rochester. Skill, however, is still insufficient to explain away the crass way in which the meeting was handled by the Board.

First, the author admits that "we have to question" whether or not the allegations made against Ms. Mihailescu are true. That, in itself, is a damning admission. Criminals are given the right to a trial by jury, where the charges against them are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that a supporter of the Town Board says we "have to question" the charges against Manuela, it would seem they cannot be proven against her beyond a reasonable doubt. She should (at the very least) have the benefit of the same burden of proof as a common criminal.

The author goers on in several places to describe the townspeople as a "raucous mob" and an "angry mob". At the same time, he talks of the organization that went into bringing people to the meeting. A well-organized group of people is not, by definition a mob. Were we angry? No doubt, and justifiably so. Perhaps righteous indignation would be a better description of our attitude. Raucous? Not at all.

Our anger at the Town Board was well-justified and stems from the Board's refusal to live up to its Constitutional obligation to allow the people to petition their elected officials. If they had just listened to us, none of this would have happened. Listening would not have precluded a dialogue at a later date and might have given them some idea of what it was that most upset the people present. They chose to not only deny us our rights but to continue on in ignorance of what our complaints against them were. The author says it is "easy to criticize people for things they can’t respond to," but the point is neither criticism nor response. The point is the obligation government has to listen, like it or not, with or without the ability to respond.

The author states that according to the Republican Club's mailer Manuela "twice requested to see the material and was denied." Manuela told me that what she had asked to see was the address and name of the website. That is what, according to her, the Board denied her, not the smutty photos she says they shoved in front of her face. Of course, this is a clever twisting of words and splitting of hairs in order to make her and her defenders seem unreasonable.

"What is troubling is the inability of people with opposing views to discuss their differences in a civil manner." There I have to agree. However, we were not only willing but very much wanted to discuss this issue with the Board, leaving the choice of response up to them. They took that choice from us. They refused to allow us to present our side. They stated that "Public Comment is not a right, but a privilege, granted at the sufferance of the Board." They refused to move the venue of the Meeting to allow all interested residents the opportunity to attend. They did everything in their power to ensure that there was no discussion (civil or otherwise) of the issue at hand.

As for the honking of the horns, those relegated to the parking lot like second class citizens or exiles to the gulags did NOT begin sounding their horns when the Board was presenting its awards but quite a bit earlier. This claim is, in fact, imprecise at the very least. I cannot say for certain if Zali Win was the author of this editorial, as it is unattributed on the website on which it was published. However, I for one do not recall seeing him there last Thursday. No one I have spoken with recalls seeing him. Could he have been there? Sure, there was quite a bit of confusion. On the other hand, when he is present, he is usually fairly prominent. More than likely (assuming he authored the piece) he received information from others who were present, so his inaccuracies can be forgiven. Perhaps he needs to be more careful who his sources are.

Counter-Editorial Published on Accord-Kerhonkson.com

COULD THIS BE THE SAME TOWN [AN EDITORIAL]

Posted on www.accord-kerhonkson.com

Blog Editor's Note: This editorial is not attributed on the site named above to any specific individual. The domain is listed in "Who Is" as being registered by "personal." The administrative contact, however is listed as a Zali Win, who is described in an article in the Ulster County Press last year as being the "vice president of the Rochester Democratic Club." Just so you know.

The editorial follows re-prints of one of the articles found on this blog as well an article about the awards presented the night of the Town Board's censorship of free expression by the public. I am re-printing it because, unlike the Town Board and its supporters, Conservatives and Republicans are not afraid of the views of those who disagree with us. In fact, we cherish free expression and are happy when a contrary viewpoint is presented. It demonstrates that democracy does work. We have nothing to fear from the views of the other side. Can they honestly say the same? After all, actions speak louder than words.

The two preceding articles reflect two very real sides of the Town of Rochester. Yes, the community did come together to assist the family of Nico Peretta after he was struck by a van, and Yes, the Town Board was forced to adjourn a Town Board meeting because of a raucous mob. – both in the span of a few weeks. Residents in our Town have a history of helping people in need. There is also a history of political bullying and intimidation as evidenced by at least three occasions in recent memory when shouting and threats were made at Town meetings.

Let’s look at the facts. Manuela Mihailescu is a demure woman who has been active in many local organizations. She sought appointment to the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission. There had been rumors in Town for several weeks that her name was associated with adult websites and it appears that this information was passed to members of the Town Board. If presented with the information by local residents, the Town Board would have had a legitimate responsibility to look into the matter. Not because such an association, even if proven true (which we question), would necessarily disqualify her, but because the Town Board would have had a duty to make such appointments with full knowledge of the facts in order to protect residents from any potential liability.

The Town Board has full discretion to make or not make such appointments. That’s what the citizens of the Town elected the Town Board to do. By opening up the nominating process, the Town Board has sought to make these appointments equitable and unbiased. The fact that they met with Ms. Mihailescu privately to hear her side of the story rather than dismiss her candidacy outright is a testament to their fairness and respect for the process of government and of the people of our community. As former Republican Club president David O’Halloran wrote, “There are two sides to every story.”

The Republican Club’s recent postcard and a related letter that they circulated stated that the meeting took place in “executive session.” An executive session is a confidential private meeting of a public body in which only personnel and certain other matters can be discussed. None of the Town Board members present are legally able to discuss what happened. As Ms. Mihailescu was not willing to waive her privilege of confidentiality, the Town Board isn’t able to respond in any way to the many charges of misconduct that the Republican Club is alleging. It’s easy to criticize people for things they can’t respond to.

The mailer put out by the Republican Club states that the Town Board “forced pornography” on Ms. Mihailescu. Yet the publication also states that she twice requested to see the material and was denied. It sounds like the Town Board relented only after she asked again. It doesn’t sound like Ms. Mihailescu was forced.

Could the Town Board have handled this any better? Maybe. But in reading the way they handled it quietly with only Ms. Mihailescu present, it sounds like the process was fair. They met Ms. Mihailescu privately and asked her side of the story. They haven’t broken their duty of confidentiality to Ms. Mihailescu and no one would have known about the allegations if the Republican Club, in its perpetual search for a cause, hadn’t published it in their mass emails, letters, and postcards.

Should the Town Board comment on this matter? Yes, absolutely. But they can’t until Ms. Mihailescu waives her right of confidentiality. And she shouldn’t have to waive this confidentiality unless she wants to.

What is troubling is the inability of people with opposing views to discuss their differences in a civil manner. Angry mobs don’t ever bring justice and don’t encourage communities to work out their differences peacefully. In this most recent episode, they have again brought shame and embarrassment to our community. What the newspaper accounts of the February 1st Town Board meeting don’t say is that the raucous noise and horn honking occurred when the Town Board was presenting awards to Tom Bauer and Leon Decker, the two youths who helped Nico Peretti when he was motionless on the pavement. What impression did our community make on Tom and Leon that evening? They were being honored for very mature and adult-like action, yet the real adults in the room and outside the building were acting like children.

There are two sides to our community and we read about both of them. The question is, which one do we want to strive for?

Links to Other Blogs and Websites Discussing Our Scandal

http://www.beckmanandseachrist.com/blog/wild_wacky/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778461/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778460/posts

Bluestone Press Article No. 1

ROCHESTER ROCKED BY POLITICS AND PORN SCANDAL
Board allegedly accuses Commission candidate of being involved in adult Web site
by Melissa Lajara
Blue Stone Press — February 2, 2007

It only lasted about 20 minutes, but that was more than enough time for all hell to break loose at the Town of Rochester Board meeting Thursday night.

Much of the tumult centered around Kerhonkson resident Manuela Mihailescu, an applicant for a position on Rochester's Historic Preservation Commission who says she was accused in an interview with town board members of being associated with a pornographic Web site. The town board has not yet confirmed or denied the accusations because the interview took place in an executive session.

But the Rochester Republican Club quickly rallied around Mihailescu, one of its members, and mailed out about 2,000 glossy fliers asking for residents to attend the board meeting and call for the resignation of its members, who are mostly Democrats.

"I'm guessing 90 percent of the people who came here, came on (Mihailescu's) behalf," said Accord Fire Commissioner Wayne Gray.

Resident Don Dunn was of the minority who attended the meeting, and said he thinks the controversy takes away from the real business of the board: running and improving the Town of Rochester. "Let them just do their job," he said.

Dunn said he received an email asking him to attend the meeting to support the Democrats.

Mihailescu said she was accused of being involved with a pornographic Web site in her second interview for the Commission position on Jan. 24 by board member Francis Gray. She said she asked to see the report and accompanying photographs, and eventually was permitted to look. "Tens of small photos on a page, all showing sexual acts, private parts, ejaculation," Mihailescu said. None of them, she said, involved her in any way.

For many in attendance at the meeting Thursday, the issue quickly evolved into a fight over public participation in the meeting, especially after more than 50 people were locked outside when the small town hall building reached its 78-person capacity. New York State troopers manned the doors at the behest of the town board.

Those kept out of the meeting didn't leave. Instead, a cacophony of blaring horns, booing and shouts began within about five minutes of the start of the meeting, and could be heard clearly within the meeting hail. It persisted, uninterrupted, for about 15 minutes, even after police went outside to investigate.

"If the disruption does not end, I will move to close this meeting and see you next month," said Councilman Alex Miller, a statement which angered some in attendance.

One called out "shame on you" and another pointed out that the disruption was outside, and was not caused by those permitted inside the building. Several people called the meeting "illegal."

Gray was among them. He said he believed the meeting was well over capacity when the police stopped allowing people in, and said that it should have — and could have — been moved to another venue. One councilman, Ron Santosky, did make a motion to move the meeting, but none of the other board members would second it.

Resident Kurt Kortright took a small hand-held camera outside of the building to record the crowd protesting outside, and was barred from re-entering by police. "They were extremely upset out here, believe me," he said. "The trooper told me to turn my camera off."

Several hours before the meeting, the Town of Rochester clerk indicated that the time and place of the meeting had not changed, but said that if it was moved, it would likely be to a large garage adjacent to the town hall building. Other meetings have been held in the local firehouse, according to residents.

Duke did not return calls for comment, and no one answered the phones at town hall after the meeting ended.
Calls to Councilmen Gray and Tony Spano were not returned by press time Thursday; Miller was reached at home but refused to comment.

The meeting ended before the requisite public comment period, but that didn't stop members of the public from commenting before it was adjourned.

Rondout Valley School Board member Imre Beke was the last to speak. He first was addressed by Town Attorney Rod Futerfas, who cautioned Beke not to "get on a soapbox" and said that his points "would be better taken if you knew what the heck went on" in the executive session.

"You, sir, and the rest of the town board answer to us," Beke said, prompting a burst of applause from those in attendance. "We will have our say tonight, whether you like it or not."

Miller made a motion to adjourn the meeting after Beke's comments; this time, it was seconded and the two troopers began clearing the town hall.

"I think it was the chicken way out," said Councilman Ron Santosky late Thursday night. "I think people were more upset. I think we should have moved it, been nice to everyone, let them blast us and get through the meeting."

"I think this is a culmination of a lot of things taking place in this town behind the scenes. People aree fed up," said Accord resident Lisa Chichkov. "The sleeping giant has awoken."

Chichkov said she got upset when elderly residents were not allowed into the meeting until 7 p.m. Some residents began to gather as early as 6:15. "The supervisor was in the building and she knew there were old people out here," said Chichkov, adding that she appealed to a police officer on their behalf "The police officer said it"s not (his) responsibility, it's the town board's," she said.

Mihailescu never got to read a statement she prepared for the public comment session of the meeting, but distributed it to press. She said she wasn't surprised the meeting was adjourned early, "but I didn't expect it to end in two seconds."

"They said 'let us conduct our business,' Mihailescu said. "What they did to me, was that government business?"
As the crowd dispersed, Beke questioned the town board's motives in holding a contentious meeting in such a limited space. "They didn't think the opinion of their neighbors was important enough to move one mile," Beke said. "All we wanted was to be heard."

Ulster County Press Article No. 1

MORE TROUBLE IN A SMALL TOWN
Rochester officials allegedly accuse Historic Preservation Commission applicant of porn link
by Melissa Lajara
Ulster County Press — January 31, 2007

Manuela Mihailescu, an applicant for a position on the Town of Rochester Historic Preservation Commission, said that allegations that she is involved with an adult Web site are being used to keep her off a board she would otherwise be qualified to serve on.

She said that in an interview with town board members and Supervisor Pam Duke last week, she was accused of involvement in online pornography. "lt's nothing further from the truth," Mihailescu said. "I was shocked."

So shocked and distressed, she said, that after the discussion, she ran out of the board meeting, got in her car and smacked into another vehicle in the town hall's parking lot.

Reached late last week, Duke would only confirm that the board set up the interview with Mihailescu. She would not comment further or confirm the chain of events that took place during the interview, saying that it was all in executive session. "Thats the bottom line," Duke said.

No other town board members returned calls requesting comment, but board member Francis Gray said Mihailescu and her husband Jon Dogar-Marinesco, who together own the historic DeWitt Dutch Barn on Route 209 in Kerhonkson, are "liars."

Gray also declined to comment on the details of the interview citing the legal restrictions of executive sessions. "We are doing this job as the people elected us to do it" he said.
Mihailescu and her husband believe the allegations are a personal attack, the result of bad blood and an ongoing political dispute within the town's citizenry that involves a Web site for the Rochester Republicans group. Dogar-Marinesco is the site's Webmaster.

The Rochester Republicans Web site made the news in February when Democratic Councilman Alex Miller and Duke, also a Democrat, found nails in their driveways. In a July meeting of the Town Board, Miller alleged the group incited the attacks, although Rochester Republicans President Carl Chipman has consistently denounced such actions. It was never proven that the group had anything to do with the vandalism. Dogar-Marinesco admits his Web site is aggressive and strongly worded, but said his intent is to "rile people up."

According to Mihailescu, the report alleging her involvement with the pornographic Web site was brought to the board by Gray She said she asked to see the report and accompanying photographs, and eventually was permitted to look. "Tens of small photos on a page, all showing sexual acts, private parts, ejaculation," Mibailescu said. None of them, she said, involved her in any way.

Mihailescu said she then asked that the search be replicated for her, and said Duke was unable to do so on her laptop computer The search engine Gray claimed to have used, Mihailescu said, was Yahoo!

Mihailescu and Dogar-Marinesco, who was not present at his wife's interview, both said they believe that the search may have been hasty. They think their accusers found parts of Mihailescu's name embedded in hidden aspects of adult Web sites, like in meta-tags, but noted that such sites often index thousands of words to help put them at the top of search results for seemingly unrelated terms.

According to Mihailescu, Councilman Miller postponed the vote on het appointment to the Rochester Historic Preservation Commission because the information presented would have resulted in her application being denied.

Mihailescu said she's distraught and having trouble focusing on anything else since the interview.

But whether or not she gets on the Historic Preservation Commission, she said she's going to continue to be a presence. She said its mainly because she is intensely interested in history and believes her marketing background would be useful there. She and her husband live in the old Gazlay Brick House and are now involved in the grant-funded renovation of their Dutch Barn on Route 209 in Kerhonkson.

Conservative Party Chairman's Letter to the Local Papers on Censorship of the Townspeople by the Town Government

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

Town Board's "Media Release" on Why They Censored the Residents of the Town of Rochester

Media Release
For immediate distribution

Comments on February 1, 2007 Meeting
Accord, February 2, 2007

The Town Board of the Town of Rochester regrets the current controversy regarding the potential appointment of an individual to the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission. We would like nothing more than to permit all residents to hear both sides of this issue. However, we are advised by the attorney for the Town that until such time as the individual involved signs a waiver of her right to confidentiality, we are not able to give our account of what took place. The decision to waive confidentiality belongs to the individual involved, she did not do so. We respect her decision, and will not discard her right of privacy.

What we are able to say, however, is that every member of the Board interacted with this individual with respect and courtesy at all times. We sought to protect and preserve the best interests of the Town, fulfilling our responsibility to investigate matters that potentially have a bearing on her appointment, while at the same time being mindful of the rights of the individual and proper and ethical due process.

After it was determined that the Town Board would not be allowed to address the issue at the February 1st meeting, we attempted to move on with other Town business. It soon became apparent that this would be impossible because of interruptions from persons who wished to turn the routine meeting into a political rally. There are times and places for such activities, and we embrace their right to free expression, however, when town business cannot be discussed with mutual respect, and when the public’s physical safety is threatened, the choice to adjourn was an obvious one.

We are confident that fair-minded people understand that an intelligent decision on any issue is impossible without both sides being given an opportunity to be heard. We will not speculate on the motivations of those who profess to know what happened without having been there. Instead, this Town Board will continue to conduct town business as it has in the past: in a professional, businesslike and diligent fashion, mindful of the rights of all of our citizens and cognizant of our responsibility to conduct business with civility.

# # #

For more information contact:
Rod Futerfas, Esq.
Attorney for the Town of Rochester
845-331-0100

Times-Herald Record Article No. 2

PORNO CHARGES CAUSE CHAOS DURING ROCHESTER TOWN BOARD MEETING

By Paul Brooks
February 02, 2007

Accord - The porno showdown with the Rochester Town Board last night dissolved in shouting matches, the blaring horns of pickup trucks and a legal standoff.

The jampacked meeting never got to the demands for the resignation of Supervisor Pam Duke and Councilman Francis Gray. Members of the Rochester Republican Club had mailed 2,000 multi-colored, slick paper fliers to town residents urging them to attend the meeting at Town Hall last night.

“WARNING: Sexually Explicit Material,” the flier blared across the top. The flier said Duke and Gray, among other board members, charged a local woman with being associated with a pornographic Web site. The charge came during an executive session to interview the woman, Manuela Mihailescu, for a position on the town’s Historic Preservation Commission.

“Ridiculous,” Mihailescu said last night. “Absurd. Inconceivable.” That’s one side of the dispute, Town Attorney Rod Futerfas told the crowd of about 80 that jammed Town Hall. Another 50 to 80 people milled in the cold outside and pickup trucks circled in the parking lot, blaring their horns and flashing their headlights. State police were on hand, but made no arrests during the session.

If, Futerfas said, Mihailescu waived her right to confidentiality from the executive session, the Town Board could present its side.‘I have already waived confidentiality,” she told the board. But she refused to sign a written waiver. Instead, she challenged the board members to waive their own confidentiality. Not without a written waiver from her, Futerfas said.

Not good enough for Imre Beke, a Mihailescu supporter. “This is our town. You answer to us,” he shouted in a loud, hoarse voice.

Futerfas said the board refused to hold a one-sided discussion and accused Beke of climbing atop a soapbox. “I and the rest of these people will speak tonight,” Beke said.

That was it for Councilman Alex Miller. His motion to adjourn the meeting passed unanimously. “See you next month,” Miller said, and the board disappeared into a side office.

Times-Herald Record Article No. 1

REPUBLICAN CLUB MEMBERS RALLY TO SUPPORT CANDIDATE, SAY SHE WAS 'AMBUSHED'

By Paul Brooks
January 31, 2007
Accord — Rochester Republican Club members plan to flood the Town Board meeting tomorrow night and call for the resignation of two board members over their treatment of a candidate for the Historic Preservation Commission.

Carl Chipman, president of the club, said he was mailing a letter to 2,000 registered voters in the town urging them to attend the meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. at Town Hall in Accord.

"People have to know what is going on," Chipman said.

Chipman has called for the resignation of Supervisor Pam Duke, a Democrat, and councilman Francis Gray, a Republican, saying they "ambushed" Manuela Mihailescu on Jan. 24 when she interviewed for a position on the town's Historic Preservation Commission.

Chipman and Mihailescu's husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, claimed Gray showed Mihailescu multiple pages of pornographic pictures Town Board members found on a Web site and said it was associated with her name.

Both Mihailescu's husband and Chipman say the pornography has nothing to do with her and she had no knowledge of it. Dogar-Marinesco attributed the allegations to a lack of computer sophistication on the part of the Town Board. Mihailescu could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Gray refused yesterday to discuss the matter, saying whatever had occurred happened in executive session.

Kingston Freeman Article No. 2

RAUCOUS IN ROCHESTER: LARGE, LOUD CROWD SHUTS DOWN MEETING

By Joshua M. Rinaldi, Freeman staff 02/02/2007

ACCORD - A capacity crowd in the Rochester Town Hall - and more people outside honking their horns - became too rowdy for the Town Board to handle Thursday night, and the board's monthly meeting was adjourned after only 20 minutes.

More than 100 people came to the meeting, many to protest what they believe was unfair treatment by the board of town resident Manuela Mihailescu, a candidate for the town's Historic Preservation Commission.

Mihailescu claims that, during an interview with the board last week, she was accused of being associated with a pornographic Web site. She says the allegation - which the board told her was based on an Internet search of her name - is false and that she was targeted by the mostly Democratic body because her husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, is active in town Republican politics.

Carl Chipman, chairman of the Rochester Republican Club, rallied fellow GOP members to come to Thursday's meeting to protest Mihailescu's treatment. The meeting was called for 7 p.m., but people began showing up at the Town Hall on Scenic Road in Accord more than an hour earlier. When the doors opened at 6:30 p.m., more than 30 people had gathered.

At 6:50 p.m., two state troopers shut the doors to the building, saying the meeting room already had exceeded its maximum occupancy of 78 people. When the meeting began at 7 p.m., a few dozen people were standing outside. Some went to their vehicles and began honking their horns, keeping up the noise for about 10 minutes.
Councilman Ronald Santosky, a Republican, motioned that the meeting be moved to a larger venue, but nobody on the board seconded the motion, so no vote was taken.

Councilman Alex Miller, a Democrat, told the crowd to remain orderly and warned that he would motion for the meeting to be adjourned if they did not.

"This is a Town Board, it is not a political rally," he said. "Public comment is a privilege, not a right. We have an agenda we need to follow today."

Rod Futerfas, the town attorney, said the board could not discuss details of the Jan. 24 meeting with Mihailescu unless she signed a waiver, because it happened in an executive session. Mihailescu declined to sign anything, saying she already had made the matter public by talking to newspaper reporters.
Members of the board this week have either declined to comment on Mihailescu's claims or failed to return a Freeman reporter's calls.

Imre Beke Jr., chairman of the Rochester Conservative Party, said the board's actions were disgraceful. Futerfas responded that Beke had only one side of the story.

"Your points would be better taken if you knew what the heck went on," the attorney told Beke.

Beke said the Town Board works for the public, not the other way around. The room then erupted in applause and yelling, prompting Miller to motion for the meeting's adjournment.

Town Supervisor Pamela Duke had to bang her gavel to quiet the room before the motion to adjourn was approved.
The board's next scheduled meeting is in March. Chipman said he will try to rally a similar crowd for that session.
Accord resident Alysse Ricks, who was stuck outside during Thursday's meeting, said the board sidestepped the public's outrage by first refusing to let everyone in and then ending the meeting.

"Isn't the way of America that we can all be in a public meeting?" she asked.

Accord resident Don Dunn thought the display on Thursday was more about politics than moral outrage. And he blamed Republicans, saying they're upset that they hold only two of the five seats on the Town Board.

"If (Mihailescu) has a case, all she had to do was get a lawyer and sue someone," he said.

Kingston Freeman Article No. 1

IS IT PORNOGRAPHY OR POLITICS?

By Joshua M. Rinaldi, Freeman staff 02/01/2007

ACCORD - A Rochester woman who wants a seat on the town's Historic Preservation Commission is upset over an interview with the Town Board during which she says she was accused of being associated with a pornographic Web site.

Manuela Mihailescu believes the allegations were fabricated because of her husband's activity with the Rochester Republicans. The Town Board has a 3-2 Democratic majority.

Mihailescu, a five-year resident of Rochester, said she expected a closed-door session at the Jan. 24 Town Board meeting to be a second interview for her to serve on the commission. But instead, she said, she was told by board members that a Yahoo search of her name turned up an adult Web site.

Mihailescu, 57, said she initially thought the board members were kidding but that they pressed her on the issue. She said she asked for proof and was shown color printouts of pornographic images (of other people, not her). The board did not provide Mihailescu with the name of the Web site, she said.

A Yahoo search of Mihailescu's name by a Freeman reporter and editor turned up no adult Web sites.

"There was not a word, not a letter about preservation," Mihailescu said of the closed-door session. "In my mind, they were just enjoying torturing me."

Mihailescu believes the board is trying to keep her off the Historic Preservation Commission because she and her husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, have been active members of the Rochester Republican Club.
Dogar-Marinesco operates the club's Web site, which has been critical of the Town Board.

Frances Gray and Ronald Santosky, the two Republicans on the Town Board, both declined to discuss the matter because it occurred during an executive session.

"It was an executive session," Gray said. "The Town Board cannot respond outside of that meeting."
Santosky, too, said it would be wrong to discuss what happened in an executive session.

"I don't have any comment at this point," Santosky said. "In time, it will all come out."

The board's three Democrats - Supervisor Pamela Duke and Councilmen Alex Miller and Tony Spano - did not return phone messages Tuesday or Wednesday. Duke was in the Town Hall Wednesday but would not come to the phone when a reporter called, and Miller's wife confirmed her husband had received a reporter's message.

Carl Chipman, president of the Rochester Republican Club, said he will call on Duke and other Town Board members to resign when the board convenes tonight.

"There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with people, and this is almost certainly wrong," Chipman said.
Chipman said there should have been no discussion of adult Web sites during an interview for a commission seat. Also, he said, "I can put anyone's name in (a search engine), and eventually I'm going to pull up a porn site. That's the way the Internet is."

Chipman said he has been rallying people to come to tonight's board meeting and expects a "huge" crowd. Mihailescu said she and her husband will attend.

What is the Conservative Party of New York State?

In a nutshell: because Republican politicians in blue states, like New York, have a tendency to be less conservative than elsewhere and because New York allows third parties considerably greater latitude than other states, the Conservative Party was formed in 1962.

Since that time, the Party has grown to have enough influence that it is widely accepted in political circles that Republicans cannot win a major office in NY without our backing.

We have elected a U.S. Senator from among our members (James L. Buckley; yes, he's William F. Buckley's brother) as well as a Congressman (William Carney).

In short, we are the conscience of New York's right-of-center political forces.

The Story So Far...

I would imagine that some of you have read the newspaper articles which are linked to on various blogs and forums. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea that this is happening in a small town in upstate New York. So, to get everyone up to speed, here's a synopsis of what's going on:

On January 24, Manuela Mihailescu was called to an interview with the Town Board of the Town of Rochester regarding her application to a position on the Historical Preservation Commission. The interview was held in Executive Session, closed to the public. This is standard procedure for such interviews throughout New York State.

What is not standard is what Manuela said happened during the interview. She says she was confronted by the Town Board and told that they found signs during a web search on her name that she was involved with a porn site. She says they then showed her printouts of photos from this site she is alleged to be involved with.

As anyone knows, almost any search you do on the Internet will bring up some porn, somewhere. That is, obviously, not a sign that the person whose name is searched for has anything to do with the site found!

An interesting tidbit is that Manuela's husband was recently denied a position on the Town's Business Development Committee. Rather than first interviewing him in Executive Session, members of the Town Board openly stated that his activities and writings as the Republican Club's Webmaster made him ineligible for this position. They later voted not to appoint him to the Committee.

With a good portion of the Town up in arms over Manuela's treatment, about 200 of us showed up at the Town Meeting Thursday night. That was the start of the festivities. The Town Hall has a legal occupancy of 78. When I counted about 15 minutes prior to the start of the Meeting, there were 75 people in the room with more coming in. The single ideological Republican on the Board moved that Meeting moved to a larger venue. The Town Garage, which is attached to the building, could have held us all as could have the Fire House, which is about a mile away. His motion was not even seconded as a courtesy to allow the motion to be discussed, much less voted on.

Before the actual commencement of any business, the Town Board informed us that "Public Comment is not a right but a privilege granted at the sufferance of the Town Board." The hundred or so people locked out of the Hall began honking their horns rather persistently, to which a Town Councilman reacted by telling us (inside, who had no control over what was happening outside) that if the honking doesn't cease, he would move to adjourn the Meeting.

The Town Board then invited two young men and their families in to give them an award for saving their friend's life. It was a heartwarming tribute and demonstrated what was best about small town America. If only we had been able to continue in that vein.

Manuela asked to make a statement, but the Town Attorney began cross-examining her about whether or not she would waive her rights by signing a waiver that her attorney had not had the opportunity to review. After several minutes of trying to get a yes or no answer from her while she tried to give a broader answer, the Attorney was harshly criticized by the audience and allowed Manuela to read her statement.

At that point, Public Comment was opened, but not until the Town Attorney stated that the Town Board could not speak of what happened in Executive Session until Manuela waived her rights in writing. Furthermore, we were told, the Board "was not interested in having a one-sided conversation".

Being that I am the Chairman of the Town's Conservative Party (I'll explain about the peculiarities of New York's party system in a later post), I often find myself allying with local Republicans against the ultra-liberals who have recently come to power in Town. Usually, I'll speak my mind at a public meeting, forcefully, but with respect for the elected officials of our Town, despite my strenuous disagreements with their policies.

This time, I was given the privilege of the floor and began to criticize the manner in which this issue was being handled that evening at the Town Board Meeting, not the Executive Session. After my first sentence, the Town Attorney (who apparently had taken over the duties of presiding over the meeting from the Town Supervisor), interrupted me and made it clear that I would not be permitted to continue. I replied that Robert's Rules of Order did not permit him to rule me out of order. He shot back that Robert's Rules of Order did not allow discussion of Executive Session materials. (Robert's makes no such reference and I was not discussing Executive Session proceedings.) I then made it clear to the Town Board and Attorney that they answered to the people, we do not answer to them. I further stated that "This is our house and we will be heard."

The Town Board quickly moved to close the meeting.