Mailbag: Wind Turbine Study: Tom Alisankus writes:

(Ed.note: The following is a copy of a note written by Tom Alisankus, Chair of the Town of Union Wind Turbine Study Committee to the Town of Union Plan Commission.)



I will be submitting a formal request to the Commission asking that they reject the acceptance of any information that is not first submitted through the properly appointed Committee. Below is part of my support for the request:

If the Commission intends to preserve the credibility of the appointed committee structure, the Commission MUST insist that Eco (or anyone, at this point, including the Superintendent of Schools) send ANY info, or proposed corrections, through the Committee. To do otherwise completely disrespects the integrity of the Committee, and the committee structure/process. If Eco has a factual issue, then before they get to 'appeal' it, if you will, to the Commission, practice suggests that they must first make the Committee aware of their 'issue', and give us the chance to rectify it.

This is not just a procedural issue, (although that IS how it is done in a court/legal setting), but it makes sense: If Eco ignores us, and brings something directly to the Commission, it denies the Commission of the 'wisdom', knowledge, etc., that the Committee has gained to assess Eco's issue. The Commission's Committee has, by design, become their expert, and to accept Eco's submissions blindly, and without having the Committee's expertise to assess it, the Commission would be 'accepting' or 'rejecting' it without the benefit of our gained knowledge and experience, etc. The Committee may look at what they 'submit', and say, 'you are right, we'll change it', or it may say the opposite based on what it knows....The Commission needs to accept OUR findings, unless the 'clear weight of the evidence' show otherwise. That's the deference that should appropriately be afforded a committee such as this. It's not something I'm pulling out of thin air; this is how it works in the legal system. (This gets to the issue of Board's acting in 'legislative' vs. quasi-judicial roles....)