Preserve C.A.C. Firewall
The role of the East Hampton Town citizens advisory committees appears to be up for re-evaluation. During a town board meeting last week the point was made that perhaps the time had come to look again at an order that has prevented the committees from communicating with other town-appointed boards and government agencies since 2012.
The committees had more or less been banned from directly addressing other parts of government in a letter from then-Supervisor Bill Wilkinson. According to Mr. Wilkinson, C.A.C.s had targeted individual businesses, spoken out in seemingly official capacities at public hearings, encouraged their members to exert pressure by attending justice court proceedings, and independently petitioned state lawmakers. In the warning, he reminded members that they were supposed to be advisers to the town board, offering their opinions on policy matters, and not to be advocates for or against specific projects within their putative jurisdiction.
That these committees might be permitted again to offer opinions on matters before other boards, like the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards, seems to be under consideration, but it should be approached extremely cautiously. Any changes have to preserve the firewall between elected officials and the key land-use boards to the greatest extent possible.
The fact is, as now-Supervisor Larry Cantwell said recently, the members of the citizens advisory committees are “creatures of the town board.” This means that any pressure a C.A.C. might bring to the review of matters before other boards could carry similar perceived authority. It also should go without saying that petitioning an outside government agency instead of working through the town board should be off-limits for the C.A.C.s as it is 0apt to cause confusion or be counterproductive. The town board is not supposed to meddle in the deliberations of the appointed boards; neither should the C.A.C.s.
The advisory committees can provide a vital way for the most highly localized concerns to reach the town board. But they should be prevented from the chance of exerting influence on behalf of the people who appointed them. As town board proxies, the committees should not weigh in on development plans and variance requests unless the manner in which their members are appointed is changed to avoid this potential impropriety. How to do this is a good question; longer terms for members might be one approach. Some form of members’ lottery could be another. But in the absence of immediate answers, the committees must reserve their comments for the town board alone.