“This board takes transparency seriously. We take communication seriously. We take making ourselves accessible to the public and accountable seriously. And personally, I welcome criticism,” Rochester Town Board member Michael Coleman said. “But for me, there’s a difference between legitimate criticism of local government and deliberately misrepresenting its actions for politics.”

Coleman made the remarks during the Oct. 22 town board workshop meeting, addressing criticism of Rochester’s property revaluation process. Since the process began earlier this year, residents have voiced concerns about what they consider unfair assessments and the potential for significant increases in property values.

At the Oct. 8 meeting, members of the Rochester Citizens United group reiterated those concerns during public comment. Two weeks later, Coleman condemned what he described as escalating political attacks against town officials, employees and volunteers, including allegations of felony conduct. He also called criticism of the Rochester Democrats’ tent at Heritage Day over its focus on national rather than local issues a “manufactured political controversy.”

“Over the last several weeks, we’ve seen escalating and ugly political attacks, particularly on social media,” Coleman said. He also criticized what he described as fabricated claims and AI-generated content intended to mislead residents.

Coleman specifically addressed comments made by Rochester resident Clayton Haugen, a frequent critic of the revaluation process. At the Oct. 8 meeting, Haugen read a letter criticizing the board. Another member of the public finished reading it after Haugen’s allotted public-comment time expired.

Coleman said the board listened to Haugen despite disagreeing with some of his statements. He said technical issues temporarily interrupted the meeting’s livestream during Haugen’s remarks, and the board offered to pause until the stream was restored. Haugen declined, Coleman said. The board also requested a copy of Haugen’s letter for review.

Coleman denied that the board attempted to silence Haugen.

“But following that, Mr. Haugen and others went on social media and suggested that the board had intentionally failed to record public comments or attempted to silence residents,” Coleman said. “They know that’s not what happened.”

Haugen did not attend the Oct. 22 meeting but later shared a response to Coleman’s remarks on Facebook and with the Shawangunk Journal.

Haugen asked, “How is it fair or appropriate for a Town of Rochester town board member to spend more than 15 minutes publicly disparaging citizens by name when those same citizens are limited to just three minutes to speak during public comment?”

Haugen said he did not personally attack board members during his Oct. 8 remarks, adding that he mentioned one by name only to correct an explanation of the numbers.

“There is a significant difference between correcting inaccurate information with facts and personally attacking citizens by name,” Haugen said. “Citizens have every right to question their government, express concerns, and hold elected officials accountable without being publicly singled out or disparaged in return.”

Haugen also questioned whether Coleman’s remarks were politically motivated, noting that other residents, including Democrats, had made similar public comments about the revaluation without being singled out.

“That raises a legitimate question: was this really about addressing the issues, or was it an attempt to influence the upcoming election while being paid by the town?” Haugen said. “Town meetings should be about public business, facts and accountability – not political attacks or selective criticism.”

Haugen further disputed Coleman’s claim that Rochester Citizens United discouraged residents from attending workshops, meeting with the assessor or seeking information provided by the town.

Haugen said the group “fully encouraged everyone to seek every available avenue for resolution,” including meeting with the assessor, although he described the process as “inconsistent.” He said he personally helped residents schedule appointments.

Coleman said he attended several meetings organized by the group to help residents navigate the revaluation process but was eventually told elected officials could not attend. Haugen confirmed that Coleman was “politely asked to leave,” explaining that participants were discussing legal strategies and potential solutions for residents who felt they lacked guidance from the town board. Haugen said excluding a town board member was “in the group’s best interest.”

“People are absolutely entitled to hold private meetings and organize politically and criticize this board,” Coleman said. “But you can’t reasonably complain that elected officials aren’t listening and making themselves available while simultaneously turning them away when they show up to listen.”

Haugen also criticized Town Supervisor Erin Enouen for not intervening when Coleman named him during the Oct. 22 meeting.

Enouen responded by email to the Shawangunk Journal, saying she agreed that town meetings should address public business in a “constructive, respectful manner,” a standard she said applies to everyone.

However, Enouen said Haugen’s Oct. 8 comments included personal criticism and political rhetoric, including statements that the board “should be embarrassed” and “I pray you’re not re-elected.” She said the board listened without responding.

Enouen described her leadership approach as “collaborative, transparent, and grounded in civil discourse,” including respectful disagreement and debate. She said Coleman’s remarks were intended to defend staff, correct information about town issues and address claims made publicly at the previous meeting.

She also encouraged residents to remain for entire meetings rather than leave after public comment, saying doing so helps them better understand the issues being discussed.

Despite their disagreements, Coleman and Haugen both emphasized accountability in their respective statements. Coleman urged residents to continue discussing Rochester’s future while ensuring debates remain grounded in facts.

As both men noted, “accountability goes both ways.”