“Minor screw ups probably get blown way out of proportion when you have people running to the attorneys and the paper”
Having watched the Pulpit Rock Road situation rather closely, I am stunned by the apparent result that “he who yells the loudest must be correct.” There are so many things wrong or only partially right with the Villager’s coverage of the Pulpit Rock Road/Douglas Builders question that it is really hard to know where to begin. Let me try to establish some things that I believe to be true, both factually, and subjectively, based on my conversations with many of the principal parties (town officials, elected officials, board members, the Douglases, and Ken Rapoport):
1) There was no way for the Town to win this issue going in. If the Boards denied the application, Douglas was going to sue (as he did). If they approved the application, Rapoport was going to sue. He promised that. The Town will be defending their decision either way. They, I hope, tried to follow the rules and do things the right way. They haven’t really been pushed on this stuff before, the stakes and the scrutiny haven’t been this high before. Minor screw ups probably get blown way out of proportion when you have people running to the attorneys and the paper with every move of the boards.
2) It is my understanding that the “incomplete” portions of the latest IWWA application were not actually required. According to the IWWA and the Town’s attorney, the details “missing” according to Rapoport are not part of the application. They are required where there is a presumption of “significant impact to the wetlands.” There was no presumption made in this case and therefore no additional detail requirement. The hearing was delayed by mutual agreement of all attorneys and all parties to keep everything above-board. It was not out of incompleteness. Please note the Villager article. Where is the quote from the IWWA chairman? From the Wetlands Officer? From the Town Attorney? There is none. A bit one sided? Ummm…Ok. Let’s ask this question. Who may have endeared himself to the Villager by purchasing the largest ad in their short history? A $1300 ad from who? Oh yes, Ken Rapoport. Anyone else thinks that he might have purchased himself a seat on their editorial board with that ad?
3) The issue of “nepotism” is so laughable it’s crazy. When has Mr. Rapoport, or any of the other complainers, ever volunteer for a Town board to make things better from the inside. We know that Mr. Rapoport has some free time, as his attendance at IWWA and PZC meetings was better than many members. He’s done a fair amount of homework, why not put that work to use to make the town better? Run for PZC or get appointed to IWWA! If he doesn’t, what right does he have, or you, or anyone, to complain about who is appointed? It’s not nepotism if one board member is related to another- it’s just a reflection of an involved family. If you’re on a town political committee, you know how hard it is to find intelligent, able candidates for positions in town. These are volunteer, unpaid positions with limited authority and a substantial time commitment. Are there people who don’t pay enough attention or miss too many meetings? Sure. Of course. But do you think that Ken Rapoport’s personal war against town officials and board members is going to make it EASIER to recruit the best and the brightest for these positions? Guess again.
4) The Board of Selectmen has NOTHING to say about the Wetlands Agency. Aside from appointment of members, the Wetlands Agency runs under the authority of the State Statutes and the DEP. It’s a complicated business that the Selectmen can’t control even if they understood it, which I guarantee you they do not.
Before you pick up the torch or pitchfork and start in with Ken Rapoport on his angry chanting about the “systematic exclusion of the citizenry,” ask yourself what have you actually tried to do, or find out, or be informed about, that you were shut out of. I’m guessing it’s not too much. Step up. Get involved. Work for change instead of complaining. I’m not saying you have to agree with the decisions or the appointments or even parts of the process. But if you’re not in there participating, I don’t want to hear it.
Debunker, Would the Town by-laws shed light on the authority of the Selectman? How would one obtain a copy of the by-laws?
I don’t know Rapoport personally. If you read his statements in the Villager, you come away with the impression that he is intelligent, articulate, arrogant, and angry. I took a look at his company, Electronic Environments, and I was quite impressed. His success in building that company doesn’t mean that he is always right, and I know nothing about the culture that he has created within the company. A lot of what he has said in his two statements in the Villager rings true in varying degrees. His pre-election diatribe may have contributed to Delpha’s loss of the election since everyone in Woodstock received the paper and perhaps read his compelling statement. To dismiss Rapoport because “he who yells the loudest must be correctâ€? ignores the issues he has raised and stated clearly – but whether he is on target is still up in the air. When the dust settles we will know more. Rapoport obviously felt that he needed a public forum to express his viewpoint – it’s too bad that the Villager did not seize the opportunity to do some real reporting.
In the mid-1990’s, I was threatened (literally) by the IRS – I faced as much as $30,000 in back taxes if the penalties were heaped on (the threat). I was astonished by their underhandedness. I read the same law that they did and came up with the opposite conclusion, so did the judge. I’m glad I did not cave. I don’t think Rapoport will either.
I am impressed with your access to the key players in this story. I hope that Rapoport finds this site and responds to your comments, since he and you have interacted over this issue.
There is systematic exclusion of the Town citizenry by the Town committees. Speaking for myself and perhaps a majority of the employed Woodstockians, putting in a 11-hour workday and dealing with family matters, then attending a Selectmen’s meeting only to find the meeting adjourning into closed session, after a protracted period of vacuous discussions, is not my cup of tea.
More sophisticated Town governments put city council meetings and the meetings of other town committees on local TV. An alternative, but less attractive approach would be for the Town to post the audio of their meetings on the Town website. Take a look at http://www.townofwoodstock.com. There is nothing of real value there – for example, very basic information like a listing of town committee members, consultants, minutes of meetings, and even the names of the current selectman. To get minutes you have to go to City Hall, pay for the copying, and accept the perception that you are invading ‘their privacy’. If you click on “Town Officesâ€? at the Web site you quickly learn the City Hall Office hours and that’s it – otherwise you end up with a lot of blank pages, I guess, intended for ‘information’. There are no minutes, no listing of staff members and committee/agency appointments, and no description of hired consultants even though the citizens of Woodstock pay for these functions and activities. There is also no way to communicate directly with any leaders of the Town through this Web site – the only way to communicate with them is to attend the meetings and shout very loadly as a handful of citizens did years ago over the mis-management of the schools. This website serves as a testament to the unwillingness of the Town leadership to communicate EFFECTIVELY. If public TV were to be utilized, I think “The Marge and Delpha Showâ€? would compete well in our Town with “Will and Graceâ€? or “Desperate Housewivesâ€?.
Oh there’s no question that the town’s website should be updated more frequently. Can’t we get someone to just do even weekly postings? Is that too hefty a budget item?
As for the public TV bit- I’d really be in favor of that, as well. Perhaps the local celebrity generated by the TV cameras would encourage more people to get involved…
It astounds me that the Selectmen CAN appoint members of the committees and agencies but they are NOT responsible for oversight of these groups. This sounds like ‘royalty’ performing ceremonial functions, or policial appointments. Remember Michael Brown of FEMA?
Now we learn that Nelson Douglas is ON the Planning and Zoning Committee. What’s wrong with this picture? I’m not very smart, but I am learning.
Interesting reading, and many, though not all, of the “facts” are correct. As in most issues, the details can get rather complex and distorted. My initial goal was to simply hold Douglas Builder’s accountable to the regulations required for his development…but what I uncovered was systematic cronyism and nepotism in Woodstock government…which ignored the rules of fairness and simply granted regulatory favors based your relationships…without concern for the rule of law.
I have utilized the Woodstock Villager to “get the word” out about obvious ethical violations, and hope to engage other in the same process of holding our representatives accountable. The Villager isn’t perfect, but at least some information is making its way to the public.
For your readers information, Woodstock Inland Wetlands, which has two spouses of Woodstock’s current selectmen, was established by town ordinance…and evidently the positions were desginated to be “appointed” by the selectman. In other CT towns, the IWWA members are elected with PZC, and are a very powerful force, rather than a “routine stamp” on the way to PZC. I believe Woodstock should make this change…it promotes openness, the best candidates, and is one more cog in the wheel to make Woodstock a more democratic environment.
Another clarification, Nelson Douglas is an “appointed” member of Zoning Board of Appeals (not PZC)…yup..you guessed it…selected and approved by our Selectmen.
Ken, Nice to hear from you. If there are new developments, don’t hesitate to keep us informed. You can email an article to woodstock@woodstockctcafe.com or just post a comment. The purpose of this site is to provide clarity to the issues facing Woodstock through exchange of points of views and debate of the issues. Any statements posted at this site are open to correction and criticism.
Are we really going to get upset about a businessman being on the Zoning Board of Appeals? ZBA has an extremely narrow, limited scope of authority. Their only job is to review variances of the Zoning Regulations. They have nothing, zero, nada, to do with the subdivision approval process. I don’t think it’s surprising that a prominent business person should be on a commission, do you? We’ve had lawyers on various commissions- Ed Higgins and Steve Adams are two recent examples on PZC. And now we have Ken Goldsmith, who’s not a lawyer but plays one They make money on development and real estate deals. We’ve had realtors (Roger Gale, for one) serve on the Board of Selectmen. I believe that even Doug Porter served on Planning and Zoning, didn’t he? In a small town with active landowners (farmers as well), it’s difficult to find someone who wouldn’t profit in one way or another from the development of land.
It’s really not a problem to have businesspeople, attorneys, or large landowners on commissions. In most cases, it’s very beneficial, as they bring years of specific expertise and experience to these issues. It IS a problem if there is clear favoritism or unacknowledged conflicts of interest. Just Nelson Douglas’ presence on ZBA doesn’t present a problem, unless he doesn’t recuse himself on an application before ZBA that he was directly or indirectly involved with. Does anyone have the faintest shred of proof that Nelson ignored a conflict of interest? Or the spouses of the Selectmen for that matter?
I would also just point out that Dan Very, a highly knowledgable and useful member of IWWA, was a member of that Agency prior to his wife being elected First Selectmen. Clearly the plurality of the Town didn’t have a problem with that relationship.
To answer Debunker’s comment- the town has grown significantly enough to allow impartial people to serve on boards- rather than expect people to “recuse” themselves when conflict arises.
I also have “proof positive” that IWWA meeting minutes were altered during th Nelson Douglas review to assist Douglas in his planned lawsuit… (see featured article on “Conflict of Interest”)
A question: Was Nelson Douglas appointed by the present Board of Selectmen or the previous one? What was the vote? This will tell much about how democracy is really working in Woodstock. And to characterize Nelson Douglas as “a businessman” is I believe a shade deceptive given the fact that he is suing Woodstock and has made much money from his development of the town and careful involvement in politics.
I agree with Ken that there are many able people who can serve on Woodstock’s boards who will not have to face conflicts of interest. In in fact, I met more people serving on boards who were in this position than not. Unfortunately we have recently had more people put on boards with vested interests because their has been no real opposite parties set up (Republicans and Delphacrats were the same until a cute split this last fall, which will probably not hold for another election). The public oversight is a crucial element in institutionalized democracy working for the general good.
ZBA members are elected, just to keep things straight.
I don’t see a conflict of interest in spouses serving on separate boards. How does Delpha benefit financially from her husband serving on IWWA? That is the definition of conflict of interest. Some families in this town have a tradition of public service and apparently others have a tradition of complaining and still others of apathy. Having served on a Town Committee, I know how hard it is to get people to stand for office. Sometimes convincing a spouse is the only way to fill an empty slot on a ballot or on an appointed board.
It is never more true than in a small town that the world is run by those who show up. So instead of petitioning and complaining, I would suggest that people who are unhappy with the status quo consider running for office.
Interesting comment from a “liberal democrat” 17 months after the original post. I just had to respond…(see new article by Ken. Admin)