Little Town Life

Dear Editor:

I was shocked by the what happened last Thursday night at the Town Board meeting for a couple of reasons — and share everyone’s concern that current Copake town government will be perceived as “unchanged” as ever. And, as one of the five members of the Town Board, I bear responsibility in part for what occurs at our meetings. It’s my hope the following will at least help change that perception, if nothing else.

Firstly – until the day of the meeting – I had every reason to believe the resolution we passed had bi-partisan support (the reasons for the resolution itself I’ll outline further). Resolutions are required to be given to board members 5 days in advance. We are legally prevented from meeting as a group unless the public is notified and present. But board members have every right — and I personally take it as a responsibility — to communicate with each other individually. We are 5 very different people. Keeping in regular contact helps me understand differences and similarities in opinions, reduces conflict and builds consensus. In the case of this particular resolution (with the exception of one board member who was out of town for several days), I thought I had a good sense of how we all felt and the reasons why. I am not faulting anyone for changing their minds. I’m certain they believed they had good reason to do so, and it’s my prerogative to exercise as well. However, the 3-2 partisan vote further escalated the level of distress which — secondly — I never anticipated this decision would cause.

In both my personal and professional life, I am typically skilled in dealing with misunderstandings and bad feelings. Obviously, though, the strategies I normally employ for effective communication did NOT work on Thursday. I totally failed in this regard. I listened, but I did not make myself understood, and I did not aid in diffusing anger. For that I apologize, and I’m going to attempt to correct this with what I’ve written below.

Here are my reasons for supporting the resolution (I am speaking only for myself, and offering only my opinions): the formation of the Zoning Review Committee was faulty and improper in several ways, not just one. The failure to interview 3 applicants – which was the sole focus on Thursday night – is, frankly, the least problematic for me. I truly want this committee to be effective and useful for the town. Whether inadvertent or not, the previous administration, in their haste to constitute this committee, also established impediments to its success. Interviewing and appointing members BEFORE having a defined mission statement is comparable in my mind to hiring employees without a job description – I would never do it this way. Additionally, though it’s true a paid recording secretary was never considered, this committee is supposed to be funded — it wasn’t. (Because of the highly technical nature of some of the issues this committee should be addressing, the Comprehensive Plan recommends hiring a consultant — you can find this in the implementation plan matrix on page 61.) This is obviously an issue the new board can deal with in the 2013 budget. But tasking members now without providing additional expertise and guidance seems very unfair. It is my belief constituting a new committee, clearly defining responsibilities and expectations (and probably, without a paid consultant, reducing what’s expected at this point), and interviewing all the previous members plus any others who are interested in serving will better serve the town and its volunteers. 

Susan Winchell-Sweeney