Dateline: 27 February 2012
The Sempronius Town Board meeting of February 20, 2012 was a long one and my reporting of it here has also been long. The good news is that after this installment, there will be only one more. Then I can get on to other pertinent things that relate to the hydrofracking issue in Sempronius.
I should make it clear, here at the start, that this installment is in small part a report, and in large part a personal commentary and opinion piece.
In Part 5 of this series I told you about my colleague on the town board who has acted so angrily towards me at two recent public meetings. But in the board meeting of February 20th, my colleague turned his anger on certain people in the audience in a way that I believe was very inappropriate.
You may recall that gas industry public relations people gave a pro-fracking presentation at the meeting. You may also recall that I had not been officially informed of the presentation, and neither was the town as a whole, but a contingent of residents who are in favor of fracking knew about it and showed up.
After the presentation, several questions came from the audience, and Jack Showers, the PR man, answered them. All questions from all people in the audience were asked respectfully and I saw no problems.
But my colleague on the board, the one who was clearly angry with me, loudly declared, "There are people in this audience that are not from our town!" He said this in an angry tone while jabbing his finger in the air and pointing towards the audience.
That was, in my opinion, the most surprising and disappointing episode of the evening.
In retrospect, I estimate that around 40 people were in the audience. Maybe 4 were from outside of our town. I know there was a person from Niles, and I think there was a person from Locke. The rest were from our town, and most were, as I said, in favor of hydrofracking.
No one had stated before the meeting that people from other towns were not allowed at our board meeting, and no one had said that people from other towns were not allowed to ask questions. As I noted, Jack Showers himself announced that he would answer any and all questions that people had.
But my colleague on the board took it upon himself to loudly say, "There are people in this audience that are not from our town!"
My assumption is that my colleague was making a statement that he didn’t want people from out of town to ask questions. But instead of simply explaining that, he made that statement: "There are people in this audience that are not from our town!"
I have, on two occasions, in past years, attended board meetings in neighboring towns. In one instance a presentation was given and I asked several questions. In the other instance, a contentious issue was under consideration and I gave my opinion. In neither instance did I feel unwelcome. But if a member of those town boards had angrily pointed in my direction and loudly declared, "There are people in this audience that are not from our town!" I would have felt very uncomfortable, to say the least.
I am reporting about this here because I believe it was an improper thing to do and I don’t want to be associated with it. If I don’t call it improper and condemn it, I’m afraid it might be construed that I condone such behavior.
Before I leave this subject, I also feel compelled to say something more about the anger that my colleague on the board has now displayed at two public meetings.
My colleague’s anger appears to be primarily directed at me because I respectfully (not angrily) disagree with him on the subject of hydrofracking in Sempronius. As I’ve said here before, I am persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that hydrofracking is a danger to innocent people in our community, and that a 1-year moratorium is a responsible step to take.
My colleague has chosen to make this a personal thing. It is not personal with me. I’m just taking a position that I believe, based on my research, is best for our town. And though I’m disappointed in my colleague’s attitude towards me, I'm much more concerned about the impact that his angry episodes have on other people who see them...
When my colleague is vocally and visibly angry with me because I am concerned about the safety of hydrofracking in our town, the message he is communicating to everyone else in our town who has concerns about the safety of hydrofracking is that he is upset with them too. What other impression would they get?
I can tell you, based on some of the feedback I’ve gotten from townspeople, that is the exact message they are getting. And some of them are not only disturbed by these displays of anger, they also feel intimidated.
That is not a proper message for any public official to communicate, and it should be a matter of concern for the entire town board, because it reflects badly on us all.
To my colleague on the board: I would like to say that people who respectfully disagree with you on this matter of hydrofracking (including me) are not your enemies. And when you, as a public official, can not control your anger at a public meeting, public trust in our town government is harmed. Suspicion and concern start to grow. This is an issue that is even more serious than hydrofracking!
I would like to suggest that it is time that we as a board have a civil discussion about the concerns that so many people in our town expressed to us at the public meeting we had last month. The large majority of town residents who spoke at that meeting asked the board to pass a moratorium. We need to come to a logical and responsible decision about a hydrofracking moratorium based on what is reasonable and best for the entire town.