FU
Posted on 02/02/2007 9:23:04 PM PST by Gondring
ACCORD - A capacity crowd in the Rochester Town Hall - and more people outside honking their horns - became too rowdy for the Town Board to handle Thursday night, and the board's monthly meeting was adjourned after only 20 minutes.
More than 100 people came to the meeting, many to protest what they believe was unfair treatment by the board of town resident Manuela Mihailescu, a candidate for the town's Historic Preservation Commission.
Mihailescu claims that, during an interview with the board last week, she was accused of being associated with a pornographic Web site. She says the allegation - which the board told her was based on an Internet search of her name - is false and that she was targeted by the mostly Democratic body because her husband, Jon Dogar-Marinesco, is active in town Republican politics.
Carl Chipman, chairman of the Rochester Republican Club, rallied fellow GOP members to come to Thursday's meeting to protest Mihailescu's treatment. The meeting was called for 7 p.m., but people began showing up at the Town Hall on Scenic Road in Accord more than an hour earlier. When the doors opened at 6:30 p.m., more than 30 people had gathered.
At 6:50 p.m., two state troopers shut the doors to the building, saying the meeting room already had exceeded its maximum occupancy of 78 people. When the meeting began at 7 p.m., a few dozen people were standing outside. Some went to their vehicles and began honking their horns, keeping up the noise for about 10 minutes.
Councilman Ronald Santosky, a Republican, motioned that the meeting be moved to a larger venue, but nobody on the board seconded the motion, so no vote was taken.
Councilman Alex Miller, a Democrat, told the crowd to remain orderly and warned that he would motion for the meeting to be adjourned if they did not.
"This is a Town Board, it is not a political rally," he said. "Public comment is a privilege, not a right. We have an agenda we need to follow today."
Rod Futerfas, the town attorney, said the board could not discuss details of the Jan. 24 meeting with Mihailescu unless she signed a waiver, because it happened in an executive session. Mihailescu declined to sign anything, saying she already had made the matter public by talking to newspaper reporters.
Members of the board this week have either declined to comment on Mihailescu's claims or failed to return a Freeman reporter's calls.
Imre Beke Jr., chairman of the Rochester Conservative Party, said the board's actions were disgraceful. Futerfas responded that Beke had only one side of the story.
"Your points would be better taken if you knew what the heck went on," the attorney told Beke.
Beke said the Town Board works for the public, not the other way around. The room then erupted in applause and yelling, prompting Miller to motion for the meeting's adjournment.
Town Supervisor Pamela Duke had to bang her gavel to quiet the room before the motion to adjourn was approved.
The board's next scheduled meeting is in March. Chipman said he will try to rally a similar crowd for that session.
Accord resident Alysse Ricks, who was stuck outside during Thursday's meeting, said the board sidestepped the public's outrage by first refusing to let everyone in and then ending the meeting.
"Isn't the way of America that we can all be in a public meeting?" she asked.
Accord resident Don Dunn thought the display on Thursday was more about politics than moral outrage. And he blamed Republicans, saying they're upset that they hold only two of the five seats on the Town Board.
"If (Mihailescu) has a case, all she had to do was get a lawyer and sue someone," he said.
So I guess only libs have first ammendment rights. And as for porn peddlers, those are usually libs in the San Fernando Valley pushing that crap on our kids.
Sums up the Democrats nicely, from Hillary Rotten down to the local hacks.
ping
In other words, not a single one of the Dems would agree to move to a larger venue so everyone could attend the town meeting. Really "democratic," eh?
Nice to see OUR people making something happen for a change.
doc,you forgot somethin just as important ::
We have an agenda we need to follow today." !
love how they spew their agenda.
Sometimes these elitist scumbags slip up and let us know how they really feel. I guess the First Amendment is just an inconvenient privilege. No wonder they despise the one than comes next.
Isn't it a shame that our Repubs elected to Federal office cannot get a similar backbone!?
Accord resident Don Dunn thought the display on Thursday was more about politics than moral outrage. And he blamed Republicans, saying they're upset that they hold only two of the five seats on the Town Board.
"If (Mihailescu) has a case, all she had to do was get a lawyer and sue someone," he said.
Here I've been being told that it was the rich Republicans suing everyone out of their rights, and it turns out to be a DIM idea to clog the courts with frivolous and inane lawsuits.
Imagine that.
The Dems usually favor that line of work.
And even if the accusation were true, what has that got to do with her knowledge of history?
You might have missed something. The Libs are the lawyers these days, At least they're the ones who squawk.
My guess is that the next round of town elections will involve a bumper sticker..."Public comment is a privilege, not a right. Sanctioned by your local Democratic council"
At the small town level...alot of people are civic wannabe's...they would really like to do something for their local town but have very little leadership or common sense. I grew up down in rural Alabama...and the local mayor...was the barber in town. He had unique skills to quieten any serious chatter in town hall and kept the peace for many years.
I've led similar crowds to town meetings and I loved reading this story. They react with this arrogance but they crumble when the public persists. I don't know how it is in Rochester, but in many places town meetings often take place with NO ONE in attendance. When the angry public shows up, they are rattled. When they can get away with it they treat the public like criminals who have broken into the place. I've seen this treatment of the public by both political parties. Very few officials have the character to behave as "servants" of the people. They will criticize you for not being at all their meetings and they will resent you if you start attending their meetings. And as someone once told me, politics is ALL about the money. It's not political principles they are guarding.
The guy who has run the highway department for decades put in a budget that had no increase over last years'... and for the first time ever, his budget was refused.
Was it too much? Nope...the Dems insisted that he spend MORE than he had asked for, insisting he raise the budget.
Perhaps that would cover for the fact that they gave themselves raises of 40%.
"This is a Town Board, it is not a political rally," he said. "Public comment is a privilege, not a right. We have an agenda we need to follow today."
A meeting must have rules. My guess is, this was a poorly stated fact about meeting regulations. All a person has to do is sign up, state your case, then wait for follow up. A lot of people favor mob rule, as long as its their mob...
I think the traditional way of handling this situation with public officials is tarring and feathering.
This guy could stand more than a phone call or two, but I doubt he'll ever be dis-imbued of whatever learnin' produced his remark.
Memory kick ....
I helped an old friend build a cabin in Accord, NY back in the early 70's,, 3 month project .... Running water and a heater then took him about 8 years to install! Visiting him required firewood. :-)
Yes. Aside from Iraq, the biggest single liability for us in the '06 election was a lack of guts and aggressiveness on the part of our "leaders." Of course, there was some lack of principle too, which is bad, but that's really a separate issue which I think has been talked to death.
Later, it will probably turn out that Alex Miller is the porno nut.
Like politics, all porn is local...sometimes you can't tell the difference between the two...
I don't know which statement best reflects the dem party's core beliefs, but 'privilege versus rights' and 'we have an agenda' sound incredibly contemporary.
A lawyer I know says "You get all the justice you can afford." If you can't afford it you don't get any justice.
Democrats are crooks.
Check your state open meetings law. You can bet these rats will be illegally meeting to discuss public business. Hire someone to follow the rats around.
In my state, citizens can file suits against public officials who violate open meeting laws. There's even a provision to throw them in jail for repeated offenses.
It's a great law useful for harassing these rat politicians.
It sounds like the board is 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans, so it looks like the other Republican wouldn't even second it for it to come to a vote.
It's good to see more Republicans being outraged and gathering together to shine the light on these outrageous Democrat silencing tactics. I'd venture to guess that the Democrats don't want any Republicans on the Preservation Board because they wouldn't be able to present a unified front in favor of violating property rights. One would hope a Republican, hearing the kind of discussion that goes on in those kinds of meetings off the record, would take a stand for individual rights over group rights...
Actually, the reporter gets it wrong. "Frances Gray," counted as "Republican," is actually Francis Gray, a liberal Democrat. There are 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. It used to be unheard of to have a Democrat win.
They get power and it goes to their head! Local government can be so Imperialistic.
Some additional links of interest...
http://www.RochesterRepublicans.com
http://www.BusyRochester.com
God bless!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.