My intentions were honorable.
Intrigued by the highly talked about contract of a certain fire company, I decided to attend a neighboring villages’s Board of Trustee meeting for the first time.
The only thing that stood in my way of attending the neighboring village’s BOT meeting was the absence of the Village Hall’s street address.
I placed a phone call. What I couldn’t have anticipated was the fact that the Mayor’s assistant had been given strict orders to screen away potential attendees. When I requested the street address, I was, in turn, asked for my name.
I was soon advised that the name and telephone number on my land-line caller ID didn’t match up as a resident of that particular village. What? Why should that matter — I was a Great Neck resident, after all.
Didn’t I have the right to freely attend and contribute to a sister Great Neck village’s public meeting? Since this was, in fact, the first time I ventured to attend another Great Neck village’s meeting – I couldn’t be 100 percent certain of the policies – but it certainly felt wrong.
The mayor’s assistant dropped the final brick by advising me that her village’s meetings were open to residents of that particular village only.
I would later learn that there are specific laws that prohibit exactly the type of treatment I received. They are called the Open Meeting Laws.
But here’s the catch. Several Great Neck mayors have been counting on residents being ignorant of their rights under the law. And the fact is, Great Neck residents have the inalienable right to speak up and contribute at public meetings.
They also have the right to make requests to be on their village’s agenda. They have the right to be heard and honored with placement on the Agenda. They have the right to be treated with respect and courtesy even if their opinions differ from the mayor and board.
Denying someone Agenda placement and reducing important speakers and important information to three-minute Public Comment is an embarrassment.
When a mayor interrupts new and critical testimony three times in a 3-minute scripted speech (during Public Comment) it should be considered aggressive, abusive behavior.
Allowing and encouraging residents to seize the microphone for up to 11 minutes because their beliefs mirror that of the mayor says it all.
What happened to diversity and the democratic process? Are we all to be intimidated? My intentions were honorable.
Judy Rosenthal
Great Neck
