Wait a minute Strike! I'm not going to let you have the last word on this.
In response to my blog where I said:
Strike, we feel that Supervisor Tyksinski was as transparent as he needed to be given the circumstances; it really is a town board's prerogative to abolish the commission; input from the public is not required.Strike said:
Of course this was prerogative and input from the public is not required. It's not required for a lot of things that the Town does. But just because it's not required does not mean that it is not expected. We were promised transparency. We expected transparency. We did not get transparency.My reply:
Strike, anyone who expects transparency should make a point to be at the town board meetings. That way they can hear first hand what is going on at town board meetings. As long as the discussion is held in the public and the public has a right to speak either in favor or against, I don't feel that the town board is under any other obligation for such a matter as abolishing the commission. There will be other issues where the need to notify the public in advance will be necessary, but this was not one of them. The town board made a decision that had to be made.
We provide a video of each town board meeting; those who cannot attend meetings can watch to see what took place. The public always has the right to contact the town supervisor or their councilman any time to voice their opinion. If there are enough people who voice opposition, the town board can always revisit their decision. I stand by my opinion that the town board did not need to give prior notice to the public!
Supervisor Tyksinski could have discussed the topic during executive session and then merely come out of executive session to adopt the resolution after the public left . . .And Strike replied:
Oh really? And under what provision of the Open Meetings Law would such a discussion in executive session have fallen?My answer:
under section 105-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;
[He] even gave people in attendance a chance to speak. Actually, since this was not a public hearing, he didn't really even need to acknowledge comments from the audience; but he did.Strike's opinion:
Wow! Perhaps we should be impressed with his magnanimity. But what good does it do for the public to have an opportunity to speak when it had almost no notice that this issue was even being considered?My answer:
Strike...even if Pat had sent out personal invitations to all residents, the only people that would have shown up in droves would have been firemen, policeman and dispatch. We already know their opinion...they see it as a threat to their fiefdom. The rest of the people obviously put their faith in Patrick Tyksinski who has shown that he has what it takes to turn this town around. After the last four years, Pat is a breath of fresh air!
Next, Strike commented on my assertion that:
No, Strike, the decision needed to be made last night so the town can move forward.So Strike responded:
No decision "needed to be made last night." The Police Commission was created over 20 years ago for certain reasons. Obviously no one bothered revisit those reasons because there was no time to research them. Since the decision was made this week without knowing those facts, and without time to reflect upon them, the Town Board cannot have known if it is just trading a present problem for a past one. In trying to "move forward," the Town may have stepped back 20 years.My reply to Strike who, by the way, did not attend the town board meeting:
Town Attorney Cully did extensive research and took a great deal of time sharing his findings with the town board as part of the discussion at the meeting. And as Supervisor Tyksinski said, the issue can always be revisited if someone comes forth with a document that provides solid facts and documentation as to why the commission should not have been dissolved. Until then, the town board now has the authority to move the town forward regarding the police department; and that is not a bad thing; enough IS enough!Lastly, Strike quoted me as saying:
Obviously, for too many years, the fox have been guarding the hen house. That came to an end at last night's town board meeting. Now we will truly have transparency when it comes to the Police Department because the people in charge will have to answer to the people that pay the bills.Strike replied:
And on the above, Cathy and I can agree!
Amen, Strike! As for the rest of our discourse, we can always agree to disagree; however, I am right!