Controversy: Martin Roby versus Valerie Bertram, supervisors of Stuyvesant full version.
Here is the short version (correction) of the back and forth between Bertram and Roby linked at the top of this post:
The supervisor has interjected herself into a planning board process. Is this normal or helpful?
Some of the statements of the supervisor appear to be inaccurate: Chatham does have a noise ordinance. The PS21 tests were not conducted according to the DEC guidelines discussed but with the town's sound ordinance as the governing legal authority, a sound ordinance would be legally binding
The PS21 results did go to state court, an article 78 filed against the town by a neighbor of PS21. The case was dismissed at the state level and the issue of the DEC standards did not come up and is not relevant, as claimed by Valerie Bertram, apparently. Bertram is apparently right that the case went to court but that this decision justifies the use of the DEC guidelines is wrong.
I am glad that Ms. Bertram is engaging with the public on issues before the town. This has not always been the case, say, with the missing money from the attorney invoice line in the 2009 budget or the boat club assessment. However, if Ms. Bertram's statement in January in our private meeting is to be taken on face value, there may be unethical aspects to engagement on this particular issue now in April (planning board and supervisor issue) but I am no expert on the matter. I only report what she said to me.