Three Superiors

The following opinion piece appeared in the March 26 edition of the Townsman.

It is said that a sign of superior intelligence is the ability to entertain two opposing thoughts or ideas at the same time. We recently saw a demonstration of this by three members of the Woodstock Town Board, who with one hand held as sacred the right of free speech, and with the other tore down signs calling for their impeachment.

It is nowhere said that possession of superior intelligence implies modesty – one might think it should, but it doesn’t – so it can be expected when those so gifted insist on press conferences for demonstration of their wit that we respond with some sense of awe. The subtlety of three elected officials together engaged in an act of petty vandalism will never be compassed by the inferior mind, certainly not this one, so awe, although I agree perhaps vaguely inappropriate, is the only word to describe the residue of my impressions of such display and – more to the point – ostentation.

The inferior mind, however, does not imply a lack of curiosity – one might think it should, but it doesn’t – and after councilman Jay Wenk removed twice the sign calling for his impeachment (he had to do it again for the tardy camera), with councilman Chris Collins steadying the ladder, and councilwoman Liz Simonson carrying to the scene additional tatters of the First Amendment, my extremely stunted mental capacity began to wonder about a matter that has the true interest of our community, namely, RUPCO.

It is generally known that the three Superiors are less than enthusiastic about the RUPCO application to build 53 units of affordable housing. Unfortunately for them, their hands are tied by that controlled and ordered force we call ‘Law,’ in this case the zoning law, in this case the zoning law that was written by His Worship in 1989 and which specifically allows for such development in the proposed location.

Recent extensive reporting has clarified the following:

1) Last year the Ethics Board received a complaint from someone alleging a conflict of interest on the part of two Planning Board members, a conflict the complainant felt egregious enough to force the two members to recuse from RUPCO discussions and determinations. With one member already recused, this would have left the RUPCO application to be determined by the remaining four members of the PB, including one that had made public statements against the project and who was nevertheless appointed PB chairman by the three Superiors of the Town Board. It would require four votes to approve the RUPCO application. Do the math.

2) The Ethics Board in late 2008 returned a decision that the two members did not have a conflict, and so they have remained in the mix.

3) In December of last year the three Superiors suddenly yanked two members off the Ethics Board, and declined to re-appoint a third.

4) In February recent, the Ethics Board, its five members stocked with three new faces selected by the Superiors, in an action comparable to the sudden and arbitrary protuberance of a plumbing mishap, issued a determination that the two PB members in question should recuse.

[UPDATE: After a discussion with the attorney for the Town the Ethics Board declared the new determination to be a mistake.]

Here’s the quiz: Is there a connection from all this to the three Superiors?

There is no definite answer. We can rely only on past practice, and the example of the three Superiors saying one thing and doing another.

In this instance they have spoken against, but have practically guaranteed the approval of the RUPCO application.

How?

The most casual observer knows the RUPCO case will end up in court. If RUPCO is approved, then it will be up to SAGE (the society opposing the RUPCO application) to prove to a judge that the PB failed either to consider the environmental impacts, or failed to properly apply the law, or both. I will not guess this outcome, but I will recall for you that the Woodstock Planning Board has been upheld in all its past controversial decisions (KTD, Highway Garage, Cell Tower).

If RUPCO is denied, then it will be up to RUPCO to prove to a judge that the PB did not base its determination on facts or the law but rather on arbitrary and capricious motives.

So the judge will look for facts. The judge will need a forensic linguist to sort through it, but eventually will decipher Councilman Chris Collins’ February 12 written statement to the PB as derogatory to the RUPCO application. The judge will wonder over the three-vote appointment to the PB chairmanship one who had spoken against the project. The judge will ponder the strange circumstances of the unceremonious dumping of two members of the Ethics Board. The judge will ring up the courthouse maintenance man for a plunger when he/she stumbles upon the odd, sudden eruption of last February’s decision of the new Ethics Board. The judge will think about the backlog of cases piled up on the desk…

This RUPCO is so done.

Those who have hoped for more from the three Superiors will be left with the full implication of electing superior minds.

* * *

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT! The New York chapter of the ANTI - ANGST LEAGUE is proud to announce the opening of its new Sign Therapy service in Woodstock. Sign Therapy addresses the needs of those who have been victimized by signage intended to hurt their feelings. As a community promotion, Sign Therapy will be offered free to Liz, Jay and Chris, to Bush, to Israel, to KTD and to the Company 1 Firehouse. Contact the Committee For Woodstock’s Future for more info.