Dateline: 25 February 2012
I have been reporting here on the very long Sempronius Town Board Meeting of February 20, 2012. It was so long, and so much happened that I think is significant for the people of Sempronius to know, that I have broken this report up into several parts.
If you have read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series, you know that public relations people from the gas industry were at the meeting to present their view of hydrofracking. And you know that I was not officially informed of this presentation (I would have mentioned it here to let people in Sempronius know if I had been informed), and you know that there was no official public notice to residents of the town that the presentation was being given. Nevertheless, a large contingent of town people who are in favor of fracking turned out.
You also know that I endeavored to ask questions about the safety of hydrofracking and the impact that this heavy industrial activity will have on our town, now and in the years to come.
One of my colleagues on the board (a man who I have been advised that it is probably best not to mention here by name, because it could be construed as a personal attack on my part, and I don't want any such thing to be construed) became visibly upset with me for asking the questions I asked of the gas industry public relations people (which I understand this colleague invited to our meeting). My colleague also expressed to me that he is not pleased with this web site, "Do We Frack Sempronius?".
My colleague on the board made several comments to me, many of which, frankly, I did not hear, but I am led to believe that they were of an antagonistic nature because the town supervisor, who was seated between us (and did hear what my colleague said), put his arms out as if to break up a fight between two people. I think the supervisor was being melodramatic and that was his way of trying to diffuse what he thought might become a heated argument.
But I did not (and will not) respond in an angry tone or manner to my colleague on the board, and I’m sure this was evident to all in the room. Fact is, I can not think of a time when I have ever had an angry outburst in a public meeting (and I would remember because such an action is very contrary to my nature). That isn’t to say that I don’t have strong feelings about some things, only that I am not inclined to act in an angry, disrespectful manner towards anyone, especially in a public meeting. And I hope I never do.
The one question I did hear from my colleague was something to the effect of, “What about Y2K?” The insinuation being (I think) that Y2K was hyped as something terrible, and it never happened, and that concerns about hydrofracking are also being hyped, and therefore nothing will happen.
I chose not to respond to my colleague's question because I didn’t want to feed into the hostility, and I didn’t think it would be fair of me to do so. I have considered answering it here, but am going to just let it go. However, if my colleague on the board truly wants me to answer the question, then I will do so and I’ll put it here in writing so there is no doubt about my position on my colleague's concerns about Y2K-versus-hydrofracking.
There were two other questions directed to me (that I heard) during the meeting by my colleague on the board, but I think they were more of a personal nature and not intended for the public to hear. In any event, if my colleague would like to ask any question of me, I will be more than happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability. If I’m not sure how to best answer a question you have, I will say so and give it due consideration (and maybe some research if needed) before answering.
I welcome constructive dialogue with you, my colleague, about this matter of hydrofracking in our town and especially about the matter of community impact on health, safety and general welfare of all the people in our town. That is my main consideration and I’m sure it must be the same with you.
All I would ask is that you, my colleague, ask any questions in a civil, respectful manner, and I will, of course, respond in kind. Thank you.
One question I did ask of my colleague, concerned the matter of a moratorium on hydrofracking. My question was, very simply, “What harm is there is passing a moratorium?” I don’t recall that I got an answer. My colleague may have responded by asking me the Y2k question at that time (I might need to start taping the meetings so I get statements and chronology exactly correct).
If my colleague did not answer my question (I'm pretty sure you did not), I respectfully ask that you do so at our next town board meeting. I’ll rephrase it as follows: “What harm is there in passing a one-year moratorium in our town to better study and understand the impact that hydrofracking will have on our community?” Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response to that question.
And if you would like me to provide reasons for why I think it is important that we do have a moratorium, I can present several, and the whole board could discuss them.
I must confess that I did express a degree of exasperation (not anger) at the board meeting. In response to what I interpreted as anger and hostility from my colleague, I said, “[colleague's first name].... You’re my friend!” What I meant by that is that I have no animosity towards my colleague on the board and I wanted to make that as clear as I could.
Unfortunately, he replied, “No I’m not!” and added something to the effect that he would make sure of that (I don’t recall the exact wording after "No I'm not!" but I think I have it about right).
I guess it is safe to say that my colleague on the board and I disagree on this matter of hydrofracking in our town (that might be an understatement). But that’s what often happens when difficult and contentious issues arise. People (friends, even) disagree. I can’t recall any time in my 12 years on the board that my colleague and I have disagreed on something. So this may well be a first. This particular colleague and I have always had a very good working relationship on the board. I hope we can do so again.
People who know me know that I am not a disagreeable person. The last thing in the world that I want is a lot of people upset with me, especially my colleague. Nobody wants that. And if I were not a town board member, responsible for, among other things, the health, safety and general welfare of this entire town, it’s not likely that I would be so involved in this issue of hydrofracking.
But I take this responsibility seriously. And I have put a tremendous amount of personal time into sincerely trying to understand how hydroracking-as-it-is-now-done will impact this town, and I am persuaded that innocent people in our town will be harmed. So this matter boils down to a moral obligation. If I have a responsibility to protect, and if I do not take it seriously, what kind of a man would I be?
That said, I have a right to disagree, and I have every right to clearly communicate how and why I feel about any issue to the people in the town I represent. My objective is to do this in a respectful, thoughtful, forthright manner. I’m not going to be bullied or intimidated by people who disagree with me in an angry manner.
I believe there is ample justification for calling a “time out” by way of a one-year moratorium on hydrofracking in our town. Such an action effectively puts the brakes on hydrofracking activity and allows us to not only study the issue but to consider all of our options. A moratorium is not a ban. It is, as I've said, a "time out." When there are conflicting interests and information and a matter gets overheated, an official time-out makes a lot of sense, or so it seems to me.
As I’ve already mentioned, I see no downside to a moratorium at all. It is a prudent step and I think we owe it to those people in our community who have expressed concerns about how hydrofracking will impact them and their families.
I hope that the all of my colleagues on the Sempronius Town Board can have a civil discussion about the issue of moratorium at the next board meeting.