On Tuesday evening a brilliant spring sunset guided us to the Town of Brant, where corn, grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes come from the ground and history fills the air.
The town was named for the Mohawk Indian chief Joseph Brant, who as a British military officer during the Revolutionary War led Native American tribes in raids against patriot communities. I stopped at the Brant Cemetery, just down the road from town hall, to visit the gravesites of two Revolutionary War soldiers.
The board meeting began with an engaging discussion of wind turbines and the potential for new energy resources throughout our rural communities. My friend Bobby Kennedy, a leading voice for environmental protection, recently wrote that “the American Midwest is the Saudi Arabia of wind.” And as one resident suggested that Brant could be a leader in “harvesting the wind,” it was exciting to think that our southtowns could play a leading role in helping America lose its dependency on fossil fuel energy.
After the energy discussion, though, the mood soured. An undercurrent of anger informed the next three hours, as citizens and politicians had at one another. Matters ranging from the color of the town tennis court, a state directive to account for elected officials’ time, and the police chief’s personnel practices, were drenched in bitterness.
It was like listening to an argument between a long-time married couple. Minor slights always seem to set it off. With a married couple, a cross word or a missed courtesy. In Brant, it was the police chief’s alleged unfairness in scheduling his deputies.
But in reality, the married couple’s bitterness stems from living together long after the spark died. And in Brant this week, the real reason for everyone’s anger is that the light and hope of opportunity has left this wonderful community.
The evening’s depressed mood may have rendered residents ears impervious, even to a call for change that will help restore economic life. But I’ll keep trying. And I look forward to continuing the reform conversation in Brant.
August 6, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
Mr. Gaughan,
I read this entry with much interest as I was the individual sitting in front of you at this particular board meeting and it would have been beneficial for you to understand why you were invited to speak and why I was not. Our Supervisor has initiated a resolution which prohibits the public from address the Town Board without an “invitation” from that Town Board. According to this new Resolution passed in January, 2008, we must first send a letter to the Supervisor and await his response in order to address our Town Board with any concerns, questions, etc. That being said, I think you will now better understand the “sour mood” and “bitterness” that evening. You, sir, were invited to speak to us…the taxpayers of Brant, when, we ourselves are not permitted to speak. You were asked to speak that evening along with other “outsiders” because I had submitted a request to speak and our Supervisor was trying to delay me from addressing my Town Board. Didn’t you wonder why the little Town of Brant Board meeting was full of “speakers” who where not town residence. In any event, I thought I would explain our situation in Brant and if you have any suggestions as to our removing from office a Supervisor and some town board members for abuse of power, we, the taxpayers and residence in Brant would be very interested and grateful for your advice. In my opinion, “down-sizing” in Brant is not an option at this time as it then puts very important decisions regarding our town in the hands of only 3 uneducated and ill-informed people. With 5 people on the Town Board this little community may have a chance. With only 3 people making the decision, especially at this time, we are done.
Debra A. Ritz
Brant Citizens for Good and Open Government