Thursday, May 15, 2008

The wit of Woodstock councilman Chris Collins

Opinion published in the Townsman, May 8 2008 edition


Sometimes it’s best to let our political leaders explain the important issues to us in their own words. Councilman Chris Collins, who has labored mightily for two and a half years on the Comprehensive Plan, has also undertaken updating the town board’s Rules of Order. On April 30, 2008 councilwoman Terrie Rosenblum e-mailed Chris Collins the following:

“The Rules of Order, as they exist now, are still in effect since, to my knowledge, the TB has not rescinded them. I would appreciate knowing why they appear to have such importance and were they ever applied or enforced since their inception in Jan. 2000.
I would appreciate any information you can share with me. Thank you, Terrie”

[EDITOR’S NOTE: In January 2000 the rules of order from the Kellogg administration were simply re-adopted by the new administration.]

Councilman Collins on the same day made a reply, which is faithfully reproduced:

“Evidently the Rules of Order were were meant to be used as guidelines by the old board to help maintain order (thus the title, Rules of Order). They are important in this way: Rules of Order help both the board and the public run meetings with a degree of civility that some members of the former town board periodically abused as they saw fit. As a result civil discourse often broke down. Rules, whether used as guidelines or rules per se, help maintain order, a degree of civility and efficiency. They act as a guide both to the members of the board and especially to the public and are recommended by many groups, organizations, institutions to protect everyone's interests. They can be referred to when problems about procedures, points-of-order etc. arise.

“The point is Terri, that a number of board members have requested that the Rules be put on the agenda for about three months. They were scheduled for a meeting which we all cancelled due to fatigue from a long arduous evening. We agreed to follow up on them and I stated at that meeting that we should do so. My intention was to learn why they are so important so that I can try and understand their previous source and usage, prior to it coming up for a vote. I did not anticipate that such questioning would be responded to with anything other than the information I requested, nor would such challenging accusastions be read into my email.

“Many items come before the board that have utmost importance. Other items have little importance. Nevertheless, we try to address what we can. As for importance all I can say is that we should honor each other's requests to the best of our ability providing they are reasonable. But importance is not the matter here. The major point is that a number of board members asked for the Rules to be put on the agenda more than once (which means in answer to your question about importance that the Rules must be important to them). The Rules finally went on and were then delayed for another meeting by mutual consent (as noted above). They are not on the next agenda in May, so I made another request that they be put there. This request has not been honored. Nowhere in my email do I question whether or not we should address it. I simply wanted to know if it had been utilized in the past and whether or not they had played a prominent or important role in the past. I do not believe the issue should be put off and I did believe that it would be OK to ask questions of previous members. No offense was intended.

“Again as for the question of importance and this is my big question -. Let me reverse it by asking you what is so important about making sure that these requests are not honored? "making sure that these requests are not honored" is a conclusion based on your perception, not my words or even my intent. On a final note: I, like other board members, am working on important issues. We are also working on small issues. Who is to judge the importance of any of these and ask yourself the question that actually determines what goes on the agenda? Once again, I did not refer to the Agenda or if should or should not be included. Your inference is wrong. Remember your request to sqeeze in the resolution about health insurance for domestic partners? That was honored immediately and unanimously passed by the board - no hesitation, no waiting, no tabling. Was it important? Yes If so to whom? Those employees who are in need of such coverage. If not why not? If not is that relevant? What I am saying is that requests in good faith are simply that, good faith requests and nothing more. We agree on this.

“I would appreciate an explanation from you as to why you question the importance of these requests regarding the Rules and why these should not be put on the agenda after many requests by your colleagues. I repeat...I am not implying that they should not be on the agenda. I have not said that and I believe that I have addressed this above. One request should be sufficient. As for your question about whether they were ever applied or enforced - yes they were applied but you could also check with the other board members who adopted them. Enforcement - that is a strong word. By "enforcement" my intent is to understand their usage and how and if they worked. But, yes there were times when Jeremy called the police on some members of the public. There were also times when some members of the board abused those rules themselves. Hope this answers your questions. Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards, Chris”

Did you get all that? I did not alter or edit a word of it.

On February of this year, councilman Collins in a bizarre e-mail to the supervisor stated, “…Emerson said: ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of mankind.’”

Collins, who claims to teach at a college, must know that what Emerson actually said was, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen…” The town board better get cracking on his rules, or Chris might be quoting Rodney Dangerfield.

2 comments:

Blueheart2 said...

Did you get all that? I did not alter or edit a word of it.>>>

I got your point, Mr. Wilber. For myself, and others perhaps, I'd like your blog more if people were actually responding to and discussing your posts, and the issues they bring up, even remotely. Or maybe you could have another columnist.
Should the readers write something like "Letters to the Editor" ? But, then, you ARE the editor, I presume...
Your visitors now add up to 300-something. Not 1 comment - until now.

I don't mean to discount you or your service to Woodstock in any way, I just wonder "what's it all about, Alfie?"

Woodstock said...

Dear Ms Blueheart2,

I hope you have started something!

What it is all about? Fun? Post-political separation? Goofy old guy looking for something to do? All the material appeared originally in the Townsman, available at Woodstock Meats, Rite Aid, Houst's, Cumberland Farms, to name some of the local venders.

Of the 300 hits, probably 299 are mine.

Bleak House (Mrs Gamp!!!)and House of Mirth are among my favorites.
Thank you for posting.

Sincerely,
Jeremy (Mr. Wilber was my father)