To the Editor:

“Maurice McCormick has been an integral part of our zoning process for just over 22 years. His experience and leadership as chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals has absolutely helped our residents and the Village as a whole.

“The knowledge he has given our new members is invaluable and I am hopeful, should we need his experience down the road, Maurice will be an asset we can call on. We truly thank him for his service to the Village.” These are the exact words that I told the Enterprise reporter who contacted me through email last week about an article he was writing. Unfortunately, none of my words were included in the subsequent story.

It was truly a disappointment that some key information I provided was not cited in the article. In excluding much of the information I shared and not having the opportunity to comment on many of the assertions made in the article, in my opinion, the article was incomplete, lacked relevant facts, and was of an accusatory tone.

After receiving feedback from others who are also involved in our local government, I thought it was important to address the article’s specifics.

In one example, the reporter asked me to comment on Mr. McCormick’s words with regards to a joint zoning and planning board meeting for the Stewart's application, but conveniently left out Mr. McCormick’s profanity about my mood that was included in the story.

I commented to the paper that, when presented with the option, I thought a joint meeting was a great idea, as the decisions of one board would absolutely affect the decisions of the other board and this way both groups would have some common understanding on the application. Mr. McCormick did not want this meeting and that was his call.

There were several of us in the office during this discussion and any signs of anger he’d suggest are not only false, but would have been unprofessional, inappropriate, and unwarranted. I had no issue with his decision and did not have any negative reaction — those who know me, not to mention those who were present, know that to be true.

The conversation I had with Mr. McCormick in regards to appointing a new chairperson was about wanting to get more residents involved on our boards, as there has been increased interest from residents wanting to work with the village; I’m sure some of it is because of the Stewart’s application.

Historically, that has not been the case. It was difficult to find residents for these positions in the past so members of these boards whose terms were up would be asked to extend their membership for another five years.

The fact is, although we do not have term limits, these posts are not intended to be lifetime appointments — that is not good for the future of our village. It is my strong belief that increased participation brings about varying perspectives, as well as a host of new ideas. After consulting with building/zoning inspectors, village trustees, village counsel, and having residents asking how does one get on these boards, I felt it was important to reach out, and get more residents involved. At our last meeting, the village board agreed.

My perception of my discussion with Mr. McCormick was positive. In truth, I was taken aback by the tenor of the article suggesting otherwise. When we did have our discussion, we never talked about Stewart’s and Mr. McCormick did not share any negative feelings with me. It just did not happen. In fact, he wanted to discuss who should fill his shoes as chairperson. He shared his thinking with me, which I took as a positive sign.

Relatedly, I was informed that this article would not be focused on the Stewart’s application and what had transpired over the last month, but rather it would be about Mr. McCormick’s tenure serving the village. However, the article surprisingly placed the Stewart’s application front and center.

Mr. McCormick’s claim of predetermined outcomes in our transparent process was another surprising assertion. This was unfortunate to read and only assured me that the decision to involve more residents was the correct action.

Truth is, everyone in this village had an opinion one way or another on Stewart’s, including Mr. McCormick. Public servants are not without their own perspectives, but the onus is on each of us to afford opportunity for debate, consider the greater good, and weigh all information prior to making what one believes is the best decision for the constituency.

After 40-plus years here, I agree with Mr. McCormick about the history and charm of our village — it is priceless. No one person is singularly responsible for protecting Altamont’s history, nor shepherding it into our years ahead.

My opinion is that this article was both unfortunate and, at times, untrue. The village government will continue to invest in conversation and community action that is collaborative, not divisive. Diplomatic, not dramatic.

Without question, we have plenty of work to do in our village, and I remain steadfast in my commitment to the people who live here, and greatly appreciate all public servants who give of their time, energy, and effort — it always has been, and will most certainly remain, a team effort.

Kerry Dineen

Mayor of Altamont

Editor’s note: More than half of our story, “After two decades of service on zoning, Chairman McCormick not reappointed,” was on Maurice McCormick’s career and on what lies ahead for Altamont. The reason for his not being reappointed was of course essential to the story as were his views and the mayor’s views on why.