Why Vote 'Yea?'

I was invited to an informal meeting in Cooperstown about the Manor earlier this week; it was a lively discussion and I am grateful for the invitation. During the conversation, I mentioned that I would probably vote for the sale of the Manor, when that question reappears (as you may know, a judge recently voided our first vote (September, 2012) on a technicality). I got an e-mail from one of the participants today, asking why. This is how I replied:

I feel strongly that we need to be following parallel paths in this: the path toward the eventual sale, and the path toward alternatives to the sale. There isn't time to move exhaustively through one alternative before taking up the other, not while owning the Manor is costing the citizens of Otsego Co. five million dollars a year, which translates into cutting many jobs, and even more services, year after year. If there is no alternative solution, we are responsible for acting in a timely manner.

Of course, if there is a solution, if an alternative path is found, the vote is reversible (as is any vote we take). It will be two years, at best, according to the experts, until the sale papers are signed; that's the point we can't go back from. Until that time, I'll work on finding and supporting plans such as the Kosmer plan.

There is no alternative plan, as you know, without the union taking some pretty substantial actions, rapidly. But the fact that the chair of the Board's Negotiating Committee is not committed to finding an alternative plan, and the union has not independently come to the Board to negotiate an alternative plan (the details of which seem to be pretty clear), makes any other approach much more difficult.

I remain committed to supporting any alternative plans that seem like they will work. The difficulties of this path are tremendous, and the time is short.