Island Park not "important" to Glen Farm chair?

By John McDaid | Thursday, 13 August 2009

An Open Letter to the Town Council:
In a letter in today's Sakonnet Times, available online here, David Gleason, chair of the Lower Glen Farm Preservation committee, speaks about both free public discussion of issues and the neighborhood of Island Park with language I feel inappropriate for an appointed official of the Town of Portsmouth. Here's what he said.

Gleason begins his letter about Glen preservation efforts by citing the 1.5 hour public discussion at the recent Council about the proposed Island Park skate park, and says, "after the recess where the one reporter left and most had headed home, an important discussion about an important part of our town ensued."

Did I hear that right?

I am forced to conclude that I did, because two paragraphs down, Mr. Gleason continues, "If you can sit through the skate park talk on Cox Channel 3 to get to hear this discussion, you will see that I was successful in getting the council to unanimously agree to a workshop in September to discuss this in public."

So let me get this right. Mr. Gleason is willing to say, in print, that when he appears before the Council discussing the area around the Glen, it's "important," but when 40 citizens come to share their thoughts with the Council about Island Park, it's something you have to "sit through?"

Granted: the Glen is a gem to be treasured. But that does not obligate me to accept divisive rhetoric in its defense.

My family has been taxpayers in the same house on Gormley Ave in Island Park for three generations, and I take strong exception to such remarks from a Town committee chair. I respectfully ask the Council to request a clarification of Mr. Gleason's comments, or ask for his resignation.

Best Regards.
John G. McDaid

Full Disclosure: I live in Island Park, and I am pissed.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871

Comments

craigi

Sun, 08/16/2009 - 12:18pm

I think you are over reacting and perhaps illustrating the opposite of the point you may be trying to make.

We are a specialized society. Different folks have different interests. You live in Island Park and so you may have a bigger interest in the skate park - all well and fine.

The writer is probably frustrated by the fact that the Park has vast amounts of press and time both here and elsewhere, while his very important issue is playing second fiddle. That is his job....as chair, to be a proponent for his issues....and, in this case, a very general town issue.

Asking him to resign is just one more example of "gotcha" politics where we end up getting rid of the all the great volunteers that make a community.

I think you should calm down and try to see things from other point of view - then apologize. Not every word or statement needs to be broked down as to every possible intent of the writer.

John McDaid

Sun, 08/16/2009 - 4:45pm

Hi, craigi...
I will have to respectfully disagree; we may be a "specialized" society, but there is not reason for us to be a factionalized community. We are, in fact, one town, and there is no excusing an official (notice that Mr. Gleason introduces himself as "chair of the Lower Glen Farm Preservation committee") who advocates for one part of the town in a way that engenders hurt feelings in other neighborhoods. I found this rhetoric unacceptable in the discussion of closing Elmhurst and I find it unacceptable now.

I am not "breaking down every possible intent," since Mr. Gleason chose to lead off, not with a clear statement of the problem, not with a recap of his committee's work, not with a presentation of his proposal and its merits, but with a snarky comment about the skate park discussion. I reproduce the text here under Fair Use for commentary:

"At the last Portsmouth Town Council meeting held on July 27, after the 1 1/2-plus hour debate over a proposed Island Park skate park (a "small" park for "small" kids 16 and under?), and after the recess where the one reporter left and most had headed home, an important discussion about an important part of our town ensued."

And then, two paragraphs on:

If you can sit through the skate park talk on Cox Channel 3 to get to this discussion, you will see that I was successful in getting the council to unanimously agree to a workshop.

I am not apologizing for reading this as a slight to the 40-plus taxpayers who took the time to come to the council meeting, all of whom thought what they had to say worth listening to. I may not have agreed with everyone who spoke, but I respect their right to speak, and I am not going to put up with an appointed official saying they had to "sit through" it to get to their "important" part.

Mr. Gleason needs to clarify, or the Council should ask him to resign.

Best regards.
-j

craigi

Mon, 08/17/2009 - 6:23pm

Well, they say the pen is mightier than the sword - it is one thing to disagree, quite another to call for someone to resign.

Heck, maybe we should burn him at the stake!

I assume he doesn't make a lot of money at his gig.......and is also a human being like you and I.

When no one decent (or perfect) is left in politics or as volunteers for good causes, we may look back and think that perhaps we held them to unreasonable standards.

Peace,

John McDaid

Mon, 08/17/2009 - 11:08pm

Hi, craigi...
Twice now, I have said that the Council should ask Mr. Gleason to clarify his remarks, _or_ (if such clarification is not forthcoming) ask him to resign.

If he's a human being who made a mistake — maybe he was annoyed that people left before his presentation and chose to take it out on the group that ran long — if he would just admit that and apologize for the slight to the participants at the skate park workshop, I would happily move on.

But to absolve any misstep because it risks forcing everyone good from politics, well, that's a pretty darned slippery slope. Are we not allowed to hold our public officials to basic standards of interpersonal conduct like "don't say snarky things about the people you represent?" Really?

Cheers.
-j

Maddie_C

Tue, 08/18/2009 - 1:21am

I read the Gleason letter and I agree, John, that it a bad letter, but not for the reason you think. The reason you think it is bad is that Gleason let his personal frustration at having to sit through a long meeting clutter and cloud his actual message, and in doing so disrespected the Island Park residents. OK, for that he owes an apology.

But you are letting your own hurt feelings cloud your vision because the letter is bad for two much more serious reasons.

First, it is terribly unprofessional. A committee chair should not write an attack letter relating to the committee's business in the newspapers. Maybe Gleason forgot the committee works for the council and is responsible to the council, who in return is responsible to us. Gleason could have written as a private citizen, but he instead identified himself as chair of the committee and later invoked the committee's membership in making his point. Resorting to saber rattling in the newspapers is not only unprofessional and inappropriate, it frankly makes me question whether Gleason understands what his role as chair is.

Second, and much worse: the tone of his letter is a call to arms. The urgent tone is a rally cry for the people of Portsmouth. He closes with, "Please plan on attending this workshop and supporting the preservation of these properties in perpetuity." Why is this call to action a bad thing you may be asking?

Because the Aquidneck Land Trust has long been making overtures to Portsmouth to acquire a conservation easement on the Glen property to preserve it in perpetuity. Portsmouth might have stood to gain a nice amount of cash in exchange for that conservation easement. But with Gleason rallying the troops and writing letters to the editor, why would the ALT give Portsmouth a single penny? From their perspective, they can now just sit back and let this rabble-rouser politically embarrass the council into rash action and maybe get the Glen put under an easement for free.

So Lower Glen Farm Preservation Committee chairman David Gleason may have just deprived Portsmouth of the opportunity for fifty or a hundred thousand dollars or more from the ALT because he doesn't understand diplomacy or leadership or how to use his position as chair to be effective. No, he only understands bluster.

Gee thanks Dave.

John McDaid

Tue, 08/18/2009 - 11:20am

Hi, Maddie...
Thank you for your cogent and much more insightful critique. Your first point ties the behavior directly to the role as chair in a way that I did not. And I just didn't think of your second point. But now that you point it out, yeah, that doesn't sound like the best strategy. Hopefully, Ted Clement doesn't read the Sakonnet Times. :)

Cheers
-j