To the Editor:

Once again, thank you for permitting me the opportunity to voice my opinion in your newspaper.  I, along with the gallery, at the Westerlo Building Committee meeting, held on Jan. 28 were once again instructed not to comment or speak.  From my point of view, our voices were once again (like the TV remote) put on mute but could be reactivated at the upcoming town board meeting.

I continue to believe that good leadership is the key to many successful conclusions.  It is an important quality, yet appears to be in short supply, especially, within our local government.  In my opinion, when any restriction is made to refrain from speaking, it is an out right violation of America’s First Amendment rights.

I also perceive it as an action depicting cowardice and fear.  To be a good leader requires a balance of many skills plus the ability not to cross the wrong line, especially the line of bossing, intimidation, and dictatorship.  There definitely has to be good communication.  Throw in caring and you’ve got a good package, plus you’re on the right road.

Referencing the committee meetings of Jan. 19 and Jan. 28, I gave them a very poor grade.  I felt the so-called conversations, were more like low caliber oratorical speeches.

I felt there was a strong attempt to use a filibustering technique.  So for certain individuals, long-winded speeches that gave the appearance of trying to be misleading, were, in my mind, boring or basically sleepers. I, therefore, rated them a C-.  

I would like to continue to reference:  The Altamont Enterprise’s editor’s note on page 4 of the Jan. 28 edition that pertains to Mr. Richard Rapp, Westerlo’s supervisor, addressing the halt on public comment because it would have made the meeting less productive.  I ask, how much less productive could it make a meeting that has taken place many years (possibly 10) after the first signs of roof leakage of the highway building?

If you research many of the existing problems concerning both buildings, you will be able to see that a number of years of neglect are evident.  Therefore, I believe the community has been witness to a wide range of stagnant productivity.

I would like to pull out the TV remote control I referenced in the opening paragraph of this letter and take the voices off of mute and pop in a tape or DVD and press rewind.  Here goes the plan as I recall it.

First, the highway garage needed roof repairs; then the plan was upgraded to repairs and renovations; followed by the demolishing of the highway building and new construction, including drilling a new well (approximately estimated at $40,000)  because of previous salt contamination from seepage — I don’t know if the seepage is still occurring.

Now this “productive plan” led to a $2.75 million project, which included  both the highway garage and the town hall, that was voted down by the voters in a permissive referendum.

As I see it, the current project continuously changes.  That brings us back to the beginning.

The roof of the highway building, after all these years, is now called an emergency so $12,000 paid for a repair job.  Having attended many meetings, I do not recall the bidding, budgeting, or resolution of the board to authorize or allocate these funds, especially since it exceeded the $10,000 threshold of one-time expenditures granted to the supervisor, but I’m just a regular citizen who has to refrain from speaking to keep productivity high.

Now we skip or fast-forward our remote to the town hall.  There is now a declared asbestos issue, test or no test?

At the onset of purchasing the town hall, I posed a question, “Is there any asbestos in this building?”  I was told, only a little under the floor. Now there is the possibility of it in the plaster and elsewhere.

Additionally, consideration has to be given to the justices’ chambers that are to be designed and constructed at the town hall plus addressing the heating system.

So, readers, are you with me on productivity? I think we’ve gone in almost a complete circle, which reminds me of a three-ring circus.

So now tell me, will the commenting of concerned citizens make any of their meetings less productive?  I would definitely wager a guess — no.

Now here is where I have to ask a few more questions.  If the public voted “no” to the $2.75 million project, why would a building committee be appointed by themselves (town board) to be themselves (building committee) and further report back to themselves (town board)?

This is like a comedy; however, in all due fairness, this procedure was minus the new board member appointing herself because she just took office in January, but she is still on the building committee.

Now, I believe I am witnessing the building committee skirting around the original financial plan by segmenting the project in pieces (like a pie) with taxes being raised as an option for a so-called budget process.  So am I seeing $2.75 million flip or re-flip?

Back to my questions:  Why is the public not included to serve on the building committee?  Why has the original project of roof repair escalated to the current project plan of many expenditures at the town hall?  Why is the expenditure of $2.75 million still being considered after a “no” vote from the public? Why is Delaware Engineering the only firm considered for this project?  Why are we, the taxpayers, being silenced at meetings?

I sure hope none of the answers have to do with “conflict of interest” or the appearance of “conflict of interest,” because that’s an ethics no-no.

To those individuals who are sympathetic or empathetic, we, the silenced, do have other options.  Some of these are: Face Book, YouTube, establishing a community website or newsletter, contacting Greg Floyd from Channel 6 (the anchorman who looks into how political officials spend your money), and, of course, The Altamont  Enterprise.

Thank you once again for permitting me the opportunity to inform the Westerlo residents about the current events that could affect them and their tax dollars and we can watch together the trail of the $2.75 million as I remind myself this is 2016 not 1776; this is America and this is where Democracy is suppose to thrive.

Anita Marrone

Westerlo