Dear Editor:
When I spoke at the December meeting of the Copake Town Board in favor of retaining the position of fulltime Town Court Clerk, Councilman Danny Tompkins noted that doing so would greatly reduce the hours and compensation of the Assistant Clerk, who had served in that position for several years, and so had seniority. In addition to expressing his view that seniority should be one of the factors considered in appointment, Danny Tompkins was reminding me and others that designs for administra-tive structure have an effect on individual lives, in many cases the lives of Copake citizens who have served their town well.
I would like to see that important concern for the people of Copake extended. The Town Court Clerk case is typical of many that the Town Board will face in this new year. Officials have recommended, and the Board originally adopted, a procedure well designed to serve Copake and its citizens. Negative impact on a town employee led to opposition and conflict. Following an all-too-familiar pattern, the Town Board considered the issue in isolation, clarified competing positions, chose sides, and set out to have a vote that would determine winners and losers.
It is time to recognize that being on the winning side of a vote that denies our town the most beneficial procedure and outcome is not a success; it is a failure. Similarly, to be on the winning side of a vote that unjustly harms a citizen of our town is not to succeed, but to fail. Such failures may, on some occasions, be necessary; however, like war on an international level, which is also an ethical failure of relation, they should be an option of last resort. For too long, they have been and they remain an accepted norm.
It is time for the people of Copake to require of their Town Board that they be better served. Faced with good and well intentioned choices in tension with each other, those responsible to determine the best outcome should work together to find win-win solutions. To do that, they may have to consider the issue in a broader context. Can, for instance, a person harmed by a decision that is otherwise beneficial be compensated in a different way?
Whatever the issues under consideration, it is by finding win-win solutions that the Town Board will succeed in serving their town and its citizens. The members of our Town Board will have at least eleven more occasions in 2010 to come together to conduct the town’s business. Each member will, on each occasion, have to decide whether to come with a purpose to win in conflict, or to succeed in concert. Their choice will affect all of us.
Clark M. (Mac) Simms
Saturday, January 2, 2010
A Bad Day For The Citizens of Copake
Today was one of the really bad days for citizens of Copake. Our Republican dominated Town Board imposed its will upon the citizens of the Town without regard for their concerns or democracy.
The first order of business was for Supervisor Crowley to state that there would be NO public comment on any of the important year long assignments that were to be made. As a result, along with necessary decisions, the Republican majority broke an agreement made with the two Democrats on the Board regarding appointment of the Town Attorney, and without notice to them, selected a different attorney, basically unknown to the Democrats because one of the Republicans felt that I spoke with them for twenty minutes and believed that they are qualified to do the job.
That was just the beginning. After appointing Barbara Filipovits as Chief assessor, they disregarded her opinion regarding an interim assessor appointment and instead appointed a political hack and admitted thief to the position because he had "prior experience". That experience consisted of one course in the past not related to day to day assessing and a firm commitment not to run for the office later in the year. Thus, the revolving door of three republican assessors in one year continues.
Today's meeting was a sham and a shame. We have nothing to look forward to but mean spirited politics at its worst.
Citizens of Copake can and will remember these attitudes and decisions when elections come around over the next few years.
Morris Ordover
The first order of business was for Supervisor Crowley to state that there would be NO public comment on any of the important year long assignments that were to be made. As a result, along with necessary decisions, the Republican majority broke an agreement made with the two Democrats on the Board regarding appointment of the Town Attorney, and without notice to them, selected a different attorney, basically unknown to the Democrats because one of the Republicans felt that I spoke with them for twenty minutes and believed that they are qualified to do the job.
That was just the beginning. After appointing Barbara Filipovits as Chief assessor, they disregarded her opinion regarding an interim assessor appointment and instead appointed a political hack and admitted thief to the position because he had "prior experience". That experience consisted of one course in the past not related to day to day assessing and a firm commitment not to run for the office later in the year. Thus, the revolving door of three republican assessors in one year continues.
Today's meeting was a sham and a shame. We have nothing to look forward to but mean spirited politics at its worst.
Citizens of Copake can and will remember these attitudes and decisions when elections come around over the next few years.
Morris Ordover
An Open Letter to the Copake Town Board
An Open Letter to the Copake Town Board
I urge the town board to open up the Copake Ethics Committee and its deliberations to public scrutiny.
At least in some ways, the committee is functioning as a means of protecting actual and potential legal and/or ethical violations by town employees and official appointees. Part of the reason for this is the lack of requirement that the committee's deliberations and even its conclusions are hidden from the public. In other words in a crucial area of government there is no transparency.
Late last spring, a town appointee, Karen Hallenbeck, deliberately misrepresented herself on the telephone as speaking to a town resident on a matter of so-called "official business." In fact, Ms. Hallenbeck was speaking to that town resident on behalf of a friend who was also an elected town official, in regard to a private disagreement that the town resident and town official had recently had.
After the Copake resident submitted a complaint to the Copake town ethics committee, and after the committee met in October, it took two full months before the resident learned that the committee had made its findings. But because the committee works in secrecy, she could not even find out what those findings were.
Ms. Hallenbeck was originally appointed to her position, that of town ombudsman, at the urging of town supervisor Reggie Crowley. So it was no surprise when the Ethics Committee sent Mr. Crowley its findings, which apparently confirmed the validity of the complaint, that he sat on them for two months instead of sharing them with his town board colleagues as the committee had requested him to do.
In another situation, a year or two ago, a complaint about an illegal and unconstitutional sign which in effect was being used to prohibit free speech in the town park was referred to the ethics committee. The town attorney was present at the town board meeting when the complaint was made and the matter should have been referred to him; there was no attorney on the ethics committee and the effect was simply to slow down the complaint.
The lack of government transparency in Copake compares quite unfavorably to, for example, Westchester County whose Board of Ethics operates in the open and whose findings are public. (Columbia County has no such board.)
Good government requires transparency, timely responsiveness from government officials and procedures designed to enhance resolution of complaints and/or produce answers to citizen’s inquiries.
Ms. Hallenbeck has now applied to be reappointed as ombudsman. The current procedure has been used to try to shelter her from public scrutiny. Because of this case, and any similar complaints that might be made against town officials or appointees, regardless of their party, the town board needs to turn the ethics board into one which can properly service the public.
Sincerely,
Howard Blue
I urge the town board to open up the Copake Ethics Committee and its deliberations to public scrutiny.
At least in some ways, the committee is functioning as a means of protecting actual and potential legal and/or ethical violations by town employees and official appointees. Part of the reason for this is the lack of requirement that the committee's deliberations and even its conclusions are hidden from the public. In other words in a crucial area of government there is no transparency.
Late last spring, a town appointee, Karen Hallenbeck, deliberately misrepresented herself on the telephone as speaking to a town resident on a matter of so-called "official business." In fact, Ms. Hallenbeck was speaking to that town resident on behalf of a friend who was also an elected town official, in regard to a private disagreement that the town resident and town official had recently had.
After the Copake resident submitted a complaint to the Copake town ethics committee, and after the committee met in October, it took two full months before the resident learned that the committee had made its findings. But because the committee works in secrecy, she could not even find out what those findings were.
Ms. Hallenbeck was originally appointed to her position, that of town ombudsman, at the urging of town supervisor Reggie Crowley. So it was no surprise when the Ethics Committee sent Mr. Crowley its findings, which apparently confirmed the validity of the complaint, that he sat on them for two months instead of sharing them with his town board colleagues as the committee had requested him to do.
In another situation, a year or two ago, a complaint about an illegal and unconstitutional sign which in effect was being used to prohibit free speech in the town park was referred to the ethics committee. The town attorney was present at the town board meeting when the complaint was made and the matter should have been referred to him; there was no attorney on the ethics committee and the effect was simply to slow down the complaint.
The lack of government transparency in Copake compares quite unfavorably to, for example, Westchester County whose Board of Ethics operates in the open and whose findings are public. (Columbia County has no such board.)
Good government requires transparency, timely responsiveness from government officials and procedures designed to enhance resolution of complaints and/or produce answers to citizen’s inquiries.
Ms. Hallenbeck has now applied to be reappointed as ombudsman. The current procedure has been used to try to shelter her from public scrutiny. Because of this case, and any similar complaints that might be made against town officials or appointees, regardless of their party, the town board needs to turn the ethics board into one which can properly service the public.
Sincerely,
Howard Blue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)