To the Editor:

After Westerlo residents voted down a $2.75 million bond for a new highway garage and renovations to the town hall, the town board asked the plan developer, Delaware Engineering, for a cheaper alternative.

The revised plan is essentially the same as the original, its “savings” mostly acquired by deferring expenses. For instance, it excludes a new roof for the town hall building, which, we were cautioned, will need to be replaced in the near future. Less costly garage structures (Morton or Butler type building), are mentioned, but these options were also discouraged. The new price tag is $2.336 million.

At the town board workshop on Nov. 17, the board's commitment to this plan was stubbornly defended by one councilman. The others were essentially mute.

This stubbornness was also evident at the Nov. 4 meeting. We learned that the restricted funds remaining from the grant that paid for the entire purchase of the town hall could be lost unless used in a timely and appropriate way.

The code enforcement officer asked the board to approve soliciting Requests for Proposal (RFPs) to insulate the town hall building and replace its failing boiler, a legitimate use for the remaining funds. The same councilman harangued him at length until the DE representative spoke in support of doing exactly that work. Only then did the councilman relent and the board agree to the RFP process.

Asbestos abatement was brought up at both meetings. The estimate at the time the building was purchased was around $100,000. DE, when pressed to break out the abatement estimate embedded in its numbers, said it allocated up to $50,000.

At the workshop meeting, residents commented that it's too late to “educate” the public into acceptance of the DE plan, that the way the project was managed has further eroded the board's credibility and public trust; that the history of neglect, inaction, and financial camouflage has not been corrected; and that alternate plans, including RFPs from sources other than DE, need to be developed.

“My way or the highway” prevailed, however. No other board members expressed disagreement, so it seems the only plan they're willing to consider is the one they already have. They may try to implement it in pieces at an even higher overall cost.

I keep thinking about “taxation without representation,” one of the gripes American colonists had against King George. Technically, we have representation in Westerlo, but consider this: Seven men, all I believe to be on the town's payroll, make up the Democratic Committee in Westerlo.

They pick the candidates for elections and “recommend” candidates who are appointed to fill vacated council seats. Two men sitting on the council right now got there after incumbents resigned immediately after an election. They then ran unopposed. We're stuck with them unless they resign, are removed, or leave some other way. I'm wondering if the pattern of waiting until after an election to resign will repeat itself again this year.

Are you really representing people if you ignore or rationalize the results of a referendum? Are you really representing people if you ignore what they say in meetings? Are you really representing people when you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into open government? Or when you obscure and obstruct financial transparency?

The board resists the idea that there is a lack of public trust, even suggesting that the only people who don't trust them are the ones who come to meetings, implying that the vast majority supports them.

I find this astonishing.

In spite of repeated requests, even the names of councilmen are not on the website, let alone phone numbers or email addresses, except for the supervisor, who doesn't use a computer. If you don't have a personal connection to these guys, you likely have no way of knowing who they are, unless you come to meetings or see their names in the newspaper or town board minutes. So who are they willing to represent, unless it's just their own families and friends?

I believe most residents don't know what's going on here, especially if their main source for information is the town dump, where misinformation and politicking are practiced with impunity.

Democracy requires informed and responsible people who vote in spite of the disgust with government they may feel.

Thankfully, we had three excellent people willing to serve the community and give voters a choice this year. The default in Westerlo is that Democrats (I am one) prevail. The election results loosened the grip party politics has had on this town.

In spite of a late start, no door-to-door campaigning, and stolen signs, the Republican candidates won one seat, came close to winning another, and had an excellent showing in the third.

George Washington warned about the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address. He said, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

He claimed that partisanship would lead to inter-political conflict, divide the nation, and give rise to cases of tyranny. Was he wrong?

I asked the Republican candidates if they could resist party politics and fairly represent all the people in town. I think Amie Burnside can do that. I think she will have her work cut out for her though, because there's a lot of political and gender bigotry here and an entrenched resistance to a “best practices” mentality.

Thank you for listening to me.

Dianne Sefcik

Westerlo