That one statement has now allowed the Town Board to go way beyond discussing what really happened at the last Town Board meeting, with Mr Feiner repeatedly saying the goal of certain residents is to mainly get attention and possibly arrested to get in the paper. Ken Jones, the Councilman who yelled the vulgarity in anger against a resident, insisted that Mr Samis, whom the Board member’s refused to mention by name, “charged” the dais. ABG knows he approached the dais, got a bit loud at the dais, but did not “charge” up to the dais. He (Samis) then pointed to the members behind the dais and loudly stated they were not paying attention to the speaker, but to their electronic devices. This issue has been a constant complaint of many residents who speak and receive little back from the Board.
Subsequent discussions of future actions on behalf of the Board toward the residents were, frankly, scary. Any government officials attempting to control any forum or speech by it’s residents reminds us of changes that have happened throughout history that have started slowly, like this and progressed to oppressing their people and ultimately changing their form of government. ABG is not saying this will change our government but it is a chilling indictment of Greenburgh Big Brother. One other issue that was discussed was the “presumed” reluctance of residents to come to Town Board meetings. This skewed observation was purely conjecture to allow the Board members an opportunity to posture unencumbered by citizen watchdogs. Residents who speak out or not, as Board members complained about, are supposedly hindered by “these people who sit in the back of the room” creating a hostile environment for other residents, and discouraging participation in public comment. Frankly, this is absurd!
ABG wholeheartedly disagrees that the public has an issue. The Town Board feels attacked because they want their illegal actions (i.e., GameOn 365 lease) to go unopposed and unimpeded. It’s our belief that the negative environment has been created by a non-responsive and non-communicative Town Board. Simply saying you are promoting open government doesn’t make it so. Speaker after speaker have bemoaned the fact that the Board doesn’t respond to their questions, spends more time with their electronic devices than listening to the speakers, and gets handsomely paid to be there and participate. This continues to be an ongoing trend.
The Town Board’s discussion as to imposing restrictions, limitations under the guise of decorum and/or new levels of protocol for resident speakers is a two way street. Just because the Town Board doesn’t like the public’s behavior (read: frustrations) is no reason to try to curtail public involvement for their own self-serving purposes. In fact, retired former Court Justice Herbert Rosenberg of Dobbs Ferry commented in a letter to the Town Board following the Town Board’s disappointing display at the most recent Work Session. We are publishing that letter here with permission:
Sent: 5/14/2013 3:34:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Disruptive behavior
At this morning's Work Session the Board spoke an
incident at the last Board meeting when one member of the audience whose name
they didn’t utter but it was Hal Samis, approached the dais in a disruptive
manner, and then discussed what to do about disruptive behavior.
Now I won’t defend Samis’ behavior or his often offensive
language. I have been a victim of that myself and I know that Ken Jones experienced
that as soon as he was elected. This letter is to object to the Board’s
characterizations and its proposed remedies.
The Board members were quite defensive and even
self-righteous. The Board has done nothing wrong, in their view, except
perhaps by being too good. The Board members criticisms covered not just
Samis but residents who come before the Board and voice anger and
displeasure. The common theme voiced by Francis Sheehan and Kevin Morgan was
that people have stopped coming to meetings because they are put off by
residents who use strong language to the Board when they object to Board
actions and policies. Paul had the amazing notion that all these
residents want to be thrown out of the meeting so that they can have a story on
the EEC website. There was even talk of criminal prosecutions,
which the police chief rightly and quickly dismissed. And the wind-up of
this was a proposal by Kevin, that if anyone is disruptive, then the public
comment portion of the meeting should be immediately terminated and those who
have come to speak will not be able to do so.
Let me start with the last item. I don’t want to get
too specific about the issue of mass punishment for the act of an individual
because that is personal and painful to me. When nations do it it is
considered a human rights violation. I suggest that you drop this idea
immediately. There are already too many restraints on real communication
by and with the residents. The way to deal with a disruptive person is to
remove him from the meeting. If Paul cannot do that, as he claimed at the
work session, then that is the Board’s problem, and terminating the public
comment period is a poor answer to it.
But the real objection is to what Francis, Kevin and Paul
said is the reason that people don’t come to meetings. It is not
that residents object to what other residents say, but rather to what the
Board does and doesn’t say and do. Residents make comments to the Board
and there is no response. Questions are asked week after week and the
Board doesn’t answer them. At the last meeting Bob Bernstein related the
unarguable fact that Mr. Harris had filed false statements with the Board, and
Paul’s response was an outburst in which he accused Bernstein of smearing Mr.
Harris. What do you think a resident thinks about such an insult to
another resident who spoke the obvious truth. I basically stopped
attending meetings a couple of years ago because when I spoke Paul said
publicly that I was a liar, and when I asked him after the meeting what I
supposedly lied about Paul could not answer, because there was no answer.
Bringing facts to the Board is a humiliating experience. Ella Preiser
brings facts all the time and gets almost no answers. It amazes me that
she still bothers. Bob Bernstein brings good law to the Board, but he is
treated as persona non grata.
No, it is not those who object to the Board’s actions and
statements who turn off the public. It is the Board, and its actions and
statements, that have turned off many who have come to the conclusion that
attending meetings is pointless and leaves one angry and frustrated. Village
officials roll their eyes at the mention of a Town Board meeting.
Put simply, the Board needs to show respect to its residents
who come to meetings, even if they strongly disagree with what the Board is
doing. Try answering their questions. Try assuming that the person
who speaks may be quite knowledgeable and be correct. Try allowing that
the Board may have made a mistake in a particular case. Try not treating
a critic as an enemy. Try not walking out when residents speak (and Kevin,
being on the Board is not a volunteer activity -- Board members are paid more
and receive more perks that are provided by any other Town to its Board, and
you are expected to sit through a meeting unless there is an emergency).
Try not playing with your cell phones when a resident is talking to the Board.
Try candor instead of perpetual evasions and exaggerations, principally
by Paul. I am sure that I have not run out of suggestions.
Try those things and you will find that residents will see
you in a much better light and respond accordingly.
Herb
Well said!
No comments:
Post a Comment