One month after unanimously voting to temporarily dissolve the Environmental Conservation Commission, the Gardiner Town Board reversed its decision and reinstated the group at its Oct. 6 workshop meeting.

“We paused the ECC and I’m reflecting on that and I think that we have two issues that we’re dealing with with the ECC,” said Town Supervisor Mary Beth Majestic, who had voted in favor of dissolving the commission just one month earlier. A referral by the ECC for the Planning Board to adequately review land use applications is mandatory by the town’s zoning code, Majestic argued, making the pause illegal.

The board had originally favored the dissolvement until Jan. 21, an idea which was pitched by Deputy Supervisor Laura Walls in an effort to elevate the group’s powers so that it would become more powerful post-pause. She pointed out that the commission is barely functioning despite being a legally-mandated municipality - the group has dwindled to just three members, though a quorum of seven is required by the town code. Additionally, the group has not posted its minutes since April 2019, essentially making it a defunct group, according to Walls.

“The bigger picture is the outdated charge the ECC is operating under and how we can advise that to make it more effective for the members to have more valuable input and for applicants and boards to understand our resources and areas that need to be protected,” Majestic continued.

Board members David Dukler, Warren Wiegand and Franco Carucci agreed with Majestic that pausing the commission may lead to legality issues in which the board would be in the wrong. Zoning code states that a quorum of seven must be maintained for decision making, such as voting, but not for other business, which Carucci said the team should be able to continue.

“I would say from a pause standpoint that we go back and take away the pause, allow the three person ECC, at this point, to continue their valuable work,” he said. “At the same time, we should establish more environmental conservation advisory councils and such to revisit reshaping this to become more valuable.”

Carucci referred to a webinar he led with Walls on Sept. 27 that called for more community composed task forces that wouldn’t share the same burdens that municipality-run groups do and thus accomplish its goals quickly. Carucci and Walls pointed to Climate Smart Gardiner as an example; the group is very involved with and influences government, but is not a part of the government. Walls called Climate Smart Gardiner the “hare,” while the ECC would be the “turtle” in comparison. The task forces proposed in the webinar would be a mixture of the two groups, which Walls called “the hairy turtle” - government affiliated but with less restrictions or limitations.

At the Oct. 9 meeting, Walls continued to defend her proposal to temporarily dissolve the ECC while the board brainstormed avenues to transform the commission into a “hairy turtle.” Carucci argued earlier that the commission’s three members should be able to continue their work that doesn’t require voting, thus avoiding the quorum mandate, but Walls fired back that all their work gets forwarded to the Planning Board, which eventually takes a vote, thus making all the ECC’s actions involved with voting. Though supportive of Walls’ attempt to give the commission more power to enact environmental change, the town board felt it was not within their right to pause their work and was unswayed by her arguments.

“I’ll leave it at that because you’ve got your votes to pull it apart, but I will advise that it’s a slippery slope. I think it sets bad precedents when you don’t have a quorum of people,” said Walls. She was the only negative vote to rescind the ECC dissolvement, though made it clear that she would continue working to secure more rights for the commission even in the face of her loss.