Berne lives do matter, but three-day weekends don’t threaten Berne lives
To the Editor:
I am concerned that the editorial comment about local events in Berne last week leaves me with some important questions and the editor’s comments attached to my letter were inaccurate.
First, it has been my understanding that, at the beginning of the three-day weekend negotiation impasse, the highway crew already had an agreement that included a period of three-day weekends but they wanted a much longer period so they turned down a raise and walked away from the negotiation. Is this true?
It was also my understanding they thought a split shift with a half crew Monday and Friday would give everyone three-day weekends. Is this true?
That indicates they can get the daily work accomplished with a half crew and they don’t need a raise very bad. It’s almost logical to take the raise off the table and cut some positions in that scenario. I think leaving a raise on the table over additional three-day weekends was a poor decision and laying people off was also a questionable decision.
The editorial begins with the layoffs, calling them firings and implies that [Supervisor Kevin] “Crosier wants them to work five days a week in eight-hour shifts.” Was the layoff decision left to Kevin Crosier alone? I think the editorial appears very skewed if it doesn’t go back to explain the cause of the very flawed “negotiation” tactics and indicate if they already had three-day weekends.
Second, I provided documentation of every point in my letter last week, including dated photographs documenting how long the hazard created by town highway operations was in place. The photos clearly document that Mr. [Highway Superintendent Randy] Bashwinger’s response is not factual. Mr. Bashwinger was given the public opportunity to basically say I was untruthful about every point I made.
I provided thorough documentation for everything and have a roster of wedding guests and participants who witnessed the pavement drop-offs. This also makes the paper appear skewed – at least to me.
I do, however, agree with many of Mr. Bashwinger’s assertions to various degrees. He did visit my father repeatedly. The problem is his messages were not made clear. At his first visit he said something about permission to put snow fence on our property and moving the intersection because it is difficult to clear. My father said he was surprised when the intersection was closed.
The issue here is that my father is 89 years old and has less than sufficient hearing. He doesn’t ask people to repeat themselves. In public service, when taking actions that directly impact residents, it is common practice to provide written explanations and to evaluate comments before taking action.
My father is perfectly capable of understanding and evaluating written material. Our written correspondence with Mr. Bashwinger made this clear, but he continued to visit my father instead of explaining anything in writing or responding to any correspondence.
Some forms of communication are not effective in certain situations. That is why I didn’t automatically assume the superintendent received my voicemails in September. After a week with no response, I asked a friend and neighbor who works at the town hall to explain that we were having a big event and needed to do something with the pavement drop-offs. This person is 100-percent reliable. I would trust her with my life. I know Mr. Bashwinger got the message yet there was no action taken.
I also agree that a portion of Stage Road has the worst drifting problem of anyplace in the town. The problem with the town’s seasonal closure is that it makes that extremely drift-prone portion of Stage Road our only access. That more extreme portion of Stage Road just cannot be kept open. Forcing us to access a residence via a piece of highway that cannot be kept open with a seasonal closure is inconsistent with Highway Law.
I also agree there is a time period that new asphalt can be damaged by heavy equipment but it certainly is not four weeks. And failure to coordinate construction operations is no excuse to leave extremely dangerous conditions in place for weeks.
That’s the hard part in public service — public safety comes first. If you can’t fill the shoulders immediately, you make other arrangements. The town provides no warning signs or protection and leaves hazards in place for weeks. How well or how fast something gets done becomes a moot point when someone is killed or disabled due to non-existent maintenance and protection of traffic. How safely the job was performed becomes the only issue at that point.
The superintendent made it clear, in The Enterprise, that he supervises union employees doing out-of-title work. The Enterprise seems to consider this exemplary. Are these workers being paid to do out-of-title work? Is it volunteer work after hours? What are the consequences of this public declaration when someone is injured or disabled on the job doing out-of-title work under the direct supervision of the superintendent?
Can it be documented that these workers were trained to do this work safely? Accidents happen and when they do will the union be advocating for the best interests of the injured employee? Will lawyers be retained? Can workers file grievances? Does his public declaration give the town an indefensible position in injury/disability cases? How would that impact insurance costs?
Mr. Bashwinger convinced me to vote for him and personally, I think he is capable and gets things done, but at a big potential cost. In my decades in public service, the priorities have always been public safety and serving the needs of the public.
Berne lives do matter, but three-day weekends don’t threaten Berne lives. The town is currently operating at an unacceptable level of risk to residents, workers, and those traveling through town. That is a threat to all those lives. I hope Mr. Bashwinger can recognize his mistakes and adjust his attitude.