When unelected government officials exercise authority without meaningful accountability, taxpayers can find themselves fighting the very government they fund. Public employees are entrusted with enforcing the law, not inventing requirements, discouraging legitimate questions, or exercising powers they cannot justify.

My experiences with the Town of Newburgh’s Code Compliance Department have raised serious concerns about the misuse of administrative authority. I have encountered questionable restrictions, disputed requirements, and reluctance to explain the legal basis for decisions when challenged. At times, I have needed an attorney simply to protect my rights and conduct ordinary Town business.

What troubles me is not one disagreement, but what I see as a recurring pattern: taxpayers are expected to comply immediately, while officials resist explaining their decisions and elected leadership fails to hold them accountable.

Recently, I submitted formal concerns involving a building permit and Code Compliance requirements affecting my business, Phenix Salon Suites. Both matters appeared on the Town Board’s September 28 workshop agenda before being removed for internal handling. I am still awaiting substantive written responses.

When a resident questions a requirement, the response should be straightforward: identify the applicable law, explain how it applies, and issue a decision that can be reviewed or appealed. Silence and administrative obstacles are no substitute for due process.

This is where elected leadership must step in. Oversight cannot mean referring complaints back to the very department whose conduct is being questioned. It requires independently examining the facts, demanding written explanations, and correcting mistakes. Otherwise, what purpose does oversight serve?

Long-serving public employees and taxpayer-funded consultants should not be beyond scrutiny. Years of service, personal relationships, or political connections do not excuse anyone from accountability. Taxpayers deserve to know what work is performed, what public purpose it serves, and whether their money is being spent responsibly.

Political connections and campaign contributions make transparency equally important. Lawful contributions are not wrongdoing. But decisions must rest on consistent legal standards, not personal access, relationships, or financial support. Even the appearance of favoritism undermines public confidence.

We hear promises of limited government, individual rights, and fiscal responsibility. Those principles mean little if officials cannot justify their demands, apply the law consistently, or answer the people they serve.

Taxpayers have responsibilities, too. We should never become so accustomed to bureaucracy that we accept intimidation, unexplained demands, or costly legal battles as the price of dealing with Town Hall. The relationship between taxpayers and government should never resemble an abusive relationship.

I am not asking for favors or special treatment. I am asking government to follow its own laws, explain its requirements, provide written decisions, and treat residents and business owners fairly. When elected leaders will not enforce those standards, the public is entitled to demand a change in leadership.

Government exists to serve the people—not the other way around.