Letters

At Jay Schneiderman’s behest, Nelson Pope Voorhis has “taken responsibility” and fallen on their sword for the unforgivable faux pas of not catching (and removing) a damaging snippet of truth that was left in their contract with the town [“Consultant Withdraws From Hampton Bays Overlay District Project Following ‘Crucial Oversight’ Of Language In Contract,” 27east.com, September 6]. That should not, as the smarmy malingerers in Town Hall are hoping, be the end of it.

Actually, what has NPV taken “responsibility” for? The plan to disparage the opposition of the Hampton Bays redevelopment as disgruntled NIMBYs under the heading of “Public Outreach”? Did the plan to do that originate with NPV — or did they just forget to remove it from what was obviously notes of a meeting? Who would that meeting have been with, Schneiderman or someone in the Planning Department?

If NPV wishes to take responsibility for coming up with the “NIMBY Disparagement Policy” out of the blue then they should do so and by implication automatically be prohibited from doing any further work for the town. By their own account, they certainly had no qualms about disparaging the opposition to the town’s Hampton Bays redevelopment plan.

In any case, their work should be seriously vetted in future (reality check: that would involve actually reading their contracts before signing them). Their credibility is in the sewer. New contractors should be sought, and vetted more closely. Taxpayers, who foot the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them annually, have a right to that as a minimum.

What NPV cannot take the responsibility for is that those paid handsomely to read, amend and analyze their contracts didn’t do so. The chances of that being a one-off are slim. Rather, and experience proves this time and again, they hardly read anything. They have perfected a professional cluelessness. It’s a waste of their time; they have seen it all before. They know what is expected of them. And they do what is expected of them to secure their jobs. And their votes prove it.

In NPV apology-speak, lack of “oversight” resulted in the inclusion of “unfortunate (sic) language.” This language reveals the bald and blatant truth. It originates in and expresses arrogance and contempt for the public, and the democratic process provided to them to balance power. NPV taking responsibility for an editing oversight seeks to evade the content of what is being proposed.

No one has really been brought to account in all of this, so it falls to the public to demand a review of all the applications, reports and “studies” that NPV is involved in.

Beyond that, it is the public’s duty to see to a personnel and political audit. No other way to say it.

Frances Genovese

Southampton