Every day a Town meeting occurs at this website. The number of commentors is a low percentage of the number of actual visitors who read the articles at this site. There are no harangues and no glaring stare-downs. Consider the possibilities.
“…lets maintain a civil environment within (Woodstock).”
Last night, in Woodstock, we had a town meeting to consider (1) establishing an Ethics Ordinance, rather than having just a Code of Ethics, and (2) establishing the IWWA as an ‘elected’ body, rather than a committee formed by appointment. Both motions failed. As town meetings go, this meeting was well attended. There were at least 117 people present (as evidenced by the number of votes tallied), but I think it was probably closer to 130-145 people in attendance. I marveled at the process and the behavior of the participants, sensing the hard feelings in the room. People in attendance were respectful and the shouting, characteristic of the CPS’ers, was not there.
It was pretty clear from the beginning as the room filled with familiar faces, with long-time ties, that the eventual result would be to keep the status quo. On the face of it, the items on the agenda seemed to be somewhat innocuous. The town already had a ‘Code of Ethics’ as a policy, so it would have been a small step to make this “Code� into an “Ordinance.� Likewise, changing the IWWA from appointed members to elected positions would not have changed very much. One would guess that many of the current members of the IWWA would be elected anyway.
The passion that the attendees felt about the matters before them became very clear. This was not a hypothetical exercise about differing philosophies – it was personal. Some individuals in the room felt some had been attacked, their personal integrity challenged, and their place in the community besmirched. But, there was almost no mention of these unhappy thoughts in the debate of the motions before the assembly. A few comments (unrecognized by the moderator) leapt uncontrollably from the lips of some, revealing how close to the surface the emotions were in the room. There was an undercurrent in the room detectable from the strain in the voices of some participants that spoke volumes about how deeply injured some participants felt. However, the participants support of the status quo was never combative or offensive.
Woodstock is a small town. We are linked to each other through a myriad of connections. I enjoyed watching the attendees work out the issues at hand in a civil manner. In addition, I admired those who brought the issues in question to the fore-front and who spoke in support of changing the status quo. I also respect those who showed up just to be present only as silent witnesses. I understand how people from different backgrounds can see the same issue from opposing perspectives. I can also understand how difficult it must be for those born and bred around Woodstock to accept all of the new people and their new ideas and points of view. Let’s not forget that both groups should be able to contribute to our community. I believe there is an upside to having had the debate that took place last night. All who participated should be commended for their civil passion and commitment to maintaining and/or improving the Town.
Politics has become a blood sport in Woodstock, but Woodstock is not big enough for this level of dissention. We must keep in mind that our children and grandchildren are in school together. So we must interact with each other at Town events and meetings in the civil manner that was demonstrated last night. We need to accept that it’s okay to disagree, but we need to work diligently not to be disagreeable. And, we need to leave each other a little space to save face. There is enough mean-ness in the World outside of Woodstock, so lets maintain a civil environment within.
In the wake of all the tumult over the past several weeks … (see article on the right “Another Citizen Speaks…”, Admin)
I’m glad someone found the meeting enlightening. Personally… (See “Another Citizen with Another Point of View” on the right, Admin)
I agree with Sour Grapes’ first two sentences. The whole thing was clearly a waste of time. We were not there for issues of ethics, fairness, or making the volunteer boards more accountable. It was a simple case of Ken not getting his way and trying to destroy anybody’s reputation who might not agree with his position. If Ken’s accusations had a sliver of truth to them, I think the votes would have gone unanimously in his favor. Are we to believe that over 70 people support unethical boards such that they should continue to benefit from their involvment on these boards. This is rediculous and insulting to the 70+ people who saw through what this was really about. It is also a slap in the face to anyone who gives their time to any volunteer board or position. It is a shame that Ken couldnt use even half the energy he puts into his self serving causes to do something positive for Woodstock. (comment by Admin - “Tired…’Sour Grapes’ is not Ken)
Trying to save a beautiful historic road from a greedy developer, bringing ethics into the spotlight, suggesting that perhaps we need to change the way Boards are appointed to avoid future irresponsible development is not trying to bring something positive to Woodstock? Self-serving? Isn’t everyone with the “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” mentality the ones who are self-serving? If things don’t go your way and you fight it, you are saying that someone is self serving? I say, if things don’t go your way and you don’t fight it, you are a fool.
What’s right IS right. What is unethical is not just human error.
Now in credit to the IWWA and Dan Very, I have to hope that their decisions are based on state mandates and that these mandates are becoming more liberal in the favor of builders as they suggested in the meetings. I have to believe that no one really wants to see Woodstock destroyed by builders. However, everyone has a right to question these beliefs. We have to be careful. Despite good intentions, people do act unethically (surprise, surprise) and when development continues rampantly (Bradford Corners is next) and, with apparent disregard, it is not self-serving to fight it. Paticularly since we are getting to the point where bringing more family homes into this town is self-defeating. The builders are giving it to us from both ends.
Sour Grapes – Indeed, you have a point, or rather, several. There was an obvious bias at the meeting the other night. I also agree with the author of the article, the meeting was definitely personal. It came down to a protective circle of wagons, if you will. People weren’t able to separate their feelings from the objective consideration of the matter at hand. While some may lay fault on Rapoport for what were considered ‘personal attacks’, the other side needs to slow down for a few moments, take a breath, and stop being so hypersensitive.
One cannot equate ‘human error’ with unethical behavior. However, we have all seen ‘unethical behavior’ trivialized as simple human error. A total compendium of ‘unethical behavior’ cannot be described or delineated in a quantum code. Disrespect and intolerance are unethical, but one would be hard pressed to clinically detail all aspects of either. Maybe members of our boards, commissions and agencies need to completely listen to the people before them, outside their personal perspectives and try to see how that other perspective could be valid before the come to their conclusions. When a person feels unheard, they do feel trivialized and dismissed.
Actually, that sounds like an excellent idea for everybody in town. And, I vote to make the length of residency irrelevant when it comes to town discussions, as well. It is another way of trivializing or weighting different points of view..
Hey- Tired of the Lies. The “sliver of truth” will finally be told, since at the town meeting, I was directed to take my issues to court. So, indeed I have.
The 70+ people who were die-hard supporters of the status-quo and business as usual, weren’t really interested in the information I have to share. I have previously tried to speak to the Selectmen (re: conflict of interest concerns with their spouses) and the IWWA (re: on-going Nelson Douglas lawsuit), and both have refused for the above noted reasons. The information I have seems to point to a clear and unambiguous pattern of unethical behavior, not simply “honest mistakes”. I have heard from the some folks – part of the remaining 42 or so at the meeting- who were honestly somewhat appalled that consideration of an ethics ordinance was voted down, particularly since the 1998 initiated Code of Ethics Policy hasn’t been enforced since 2000. No, the entrenched insiders simply want a Woodstock equivalent of a “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy because it serves their on-going interests.
And, Sour Grapes – a couple of points about the IWWA. The reason the CT CEP passed these regulations down to the towns is because the rules are not “black & white”and there is significant bandwidth in how they are interpreted. Obviously, you just had to listen to Dan Very describe the proposed development on Pulpit Rock Road as providing us all “social value”. Democracy suggests we can make and follow our own rules, within some wide boundaries, and the courts will normally uphold our decisions against the wrath of special interests. Today, the IWWA leadership is taking it upon themselves to narrowly define Wetland rules & “negate” our own Woodstock regulations based on recent court cases in other parts of the state (some of which are still under appeal) but without getting an interpretation from Woodstock’s town counsel. Not everyone is concerned about Woodstock. For many, it is only about MONEY and significant personal capital can be at risk if developments don’t get approval.
I would be pleased to share my information with anyone interested- including video, meeting minutes, etc. I am proud to have helped elect some excellent candidates recently to PZC who appear to seriously uphold Woodstock’s regulations. The results have been outstanding; just recently two development proposals have been rejected.
If anyone has been lied to TIRED, it has been me, and defending my rights against embedded special interests has cost me dearly. The fight has not been about Pulpit Rock specifically for some time. It is about creating a system that isn’t unfairly rigged against the individual. I don’t consider fighting for ethics and democracy as a “waste of time”. It is sad that you do.