Commentary Corner
JOE LINTNER | COLUMBIA SPY
Borough Solicitor Evan Gabel sent Vera the Letter of No Trespass, but one wonders if he recognized the constitutional issues inherent in banning a citizen from public property without due process. The ACLU and others have called the ban "unconstitutional" [LINK].
"Letter of No Trespass" from Solicitor Evan M. Gabel
The identities of those who ordered the ban remain elusive. Former Borough Manager Steve Kaufhold authorized the firing but did not publicly admit to ordering the ban [LINK]. So, who authorized the "ban letter"? Most likely, Gabel didn't act alone but was directed to write it by officials "behind the scenes."
"Letter of Termination" from former Borough Manager Steven M. Kaufhold
By banning Vera from public property, officials essentially branded him a threat to the community; the borough, in essence, deemed him so dangerous he wasn't allowed to set foot on a public sidewalk or in a public building.
At the March 27, 2025 borough council meeting, Mayor Leo Lutz tried to justify the ban by claiming that banning former employees was "standard procedure" [LINK]. However, at the June 3 council workshop, Vice President Eric Kauffman said that is not a standard policy [LINK].
The borough will inevitably hide behind "personnel matters" to avoid transparency, but once officials ban a citizen, the issue stops being "personnel" and becomes a matter of rights and accountability.
In addition, legal fees for this boneheaded misadventure have no doubt run into the thousands. Residents are paying for this mistake and have a right to know the cost. There are other costs, too, including harm to a citizen's reputation and the erosion of public confidence.
So, why did it take so long to reverse a decision that was indefensible in the first place? Who benefited? What did the borough think justified these actions? Those questions need to be answered, but for officials, it will no doubt be "business as usual," without apology or explanation.
Some residents are already saying that since the ban has been lifted, it's now time to move on. But without consequences, there's no accountability, and without an accounting of what happened and why, the black eye Columbia gave itself will continue to fester.
The residents of Columbia deserve better than officials who make such poor decisions. We deserve officials who tell the truth, not contradictory stories.
The borough will inevitably hide behind "personnel matters" to avoid transparency, but once officials ban a citizen, the issue stops being "personnel" and becomes a matter of rights and accountability.
In addition, legal fees for this boneheaded misadventure have no doubt run into the thousands. Residents are paying for this mistake and have a right to know the cost. There are other costs, too, including harm to a citizen's reputation and the erosion of public confidence.
So, why did it take so long to reverse a decision that was indefensible in the first place? Who benefited? What did the borough think justified these actions? Those questions need to be answered, but for officials, it will no doubt be "business as usual," without apology or explanation.
Some residents are already saying that since the ban has been lifted, it's now time to move on. But without consequences, there's no accountability, and without an accounting of what happened and why, the black eye Columbia gave itself will continue to fester.
The residents of Columbia deserve better than officials who make such poor decisions. We deserve officials who tell the truth, not contradictory stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment