Following Barack Obama’s surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses on January 3, “change” has become the most commonly used word in the presidential campaign lexicon. “The American people want change!” trumpet the pundits, while each candidate tries to outdo him- or herself as the supposed champion of the new hot concept.
But however over-used the word “change” may have become, it does seem that the American people are getting sick of entrenched, broken systems, of incumbents who have come to take their percs and privileges for granted and officials who regard elective office as a passport to a reserved seat at the public trough. Locally, this is a spirit that has made itself evident recently in the Town of Callicoon, NY, where the new supervisor, Linda Babicz, recently challenged the right of ex-supervisor Gregg Semenetz, voted out of office last November, to remain on the town payroll.
The board wanted to retain Semenetz in the position of part-time deputy code enforcement officer—a duty that, as supervisor, he had performed without pay—with a compensation package of $10,000 plus health coverage. The new budgeting for the position had been approved at the last meeting over which Semenetz presided before leaving office.
This cozy arrangement gives every appearance of the good ol’ boys network hard at work, taking care of its own at the expense of the taxpayers. The facts and arguments that Babicz brought to bear at town meetings give that interpretation some weight. She brought statistics to the table showing that Callicoon’s code enforcement budget, relative to the number of building permits issued, was, if anything, high compared to those of neighboring towns, even before extra funding was allocated for the position. (see “Will Semenetz stay on Callicoon payroll?” in our January 10 issue). She also pointed out a conflict of interest: Semenetz offers his services as a building consultant in the town, and should obviously not be in the position of approving and monitoring projects involving his own clients.
Babicz’s opposition did not, in the end, squelch the appointment or its funding, although it did modify the deal’s final shape. The salary for the position will “only” be $100 a week, and health insurance will not be included (though, as a retired supervisor, half of Semenetz’s health insurance is covered by the town in any case). But notice has been served that “business as usual” may not be good enough any more.
Collegiality is an inevitable and even a desirable aspect of any governing body, and it is likely to be even stronger in small communities like our local towns than in big-government centers like Albany or Washington, DC. The development of a permanent good ol’ boy network in local government is further reinforced by the fact that there aren’t a lot of people who are willing to stand up and serve—
a point that should be remembered in favor of the incumbents who do so term after term.
But like most things, collegiality needs to be exercised in moderation. When it helps members of a government to unite to get things done in a civil and effective manner, collegiality is absolutely essential. But when officials start to feel that they owe more to each other than they do to the public, and are willing to do each other favors at the expense of those who pay the taxes and vote them into office, it has gone too far. The people who serve on the town board of Callicoon should be appreciated and honored for their service. But they should also stop to reflect, whenever they take a vote, whether they are letting their allegiance to each other trump their commitment to those who elected them.
It will be two years before there is an opportunity for change on the Callicoon Town Board. During that time, if the board lets the power of collegiality outweigh its debt to the public, the winds of change brought in with Babicz may be swiftly dampened. But if the public reaction at the recent town meetings is any indication, those who seek to obstruct rather than facilitate the change may live to rue the day. In two years, those same winds may just sweep out the good ol’ boys, and bring in some good new boys and girls.
Dr. Punnybone
World Piece
Letters to the Editor
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters
on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include
the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and
town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles
and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing
on behalf of a group.
Letters are printed at the discretion of the editor.
It is requested they be limited to 300 words; correspondents may
be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.
Please allow me to thank Carren Thomas for her letter printed in the January 17 issue of The River Reporter. She was indeed correct to point out my firm stance regarding religion. In fact, a rigorous public dialogue about religion is long overdue.
During our lifetime, politics and religion have become lumped together. Were they ever separate? And today, religion has become radical. Was it ever not? But today, “believers” fly jumbo jets into towering buildings; Hindus, Jews, and Muslims threaten each other with nuclear warheads not swords; and Christian leaders are fighting two wars—a self-described crusade. Our president, who claims a “personal relationship with our creator,” recently evoked World War Three. Is this also a “tirade against religion” or is this simply our reality?
