The Wine Wars: My Dear Abi...
A silent board, righteous writing and outright bigotry - Oh Chatham!
As the town of Chatham waits for the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide if the garage at 509 Bashford Road is appropriate as a subordinate structure — a tasting room for commercial use, for an unlicensed product, in a building with no proof of code compliance, on a hill where a house burned to the ground because the local public safety infrastructure could not pump enough water up a steep grade — some of the townspeople seem confused. How is this happening? And just who is driving this seemingly runaway bus?
It does seem like there’s no Sandra Bullock or Keanu Reeves onboard to stop the bus before it goes boom.
While some of this does seem like it is scripted by Hollywood (at least some of the characters), as we all know life is not a movie. If the stakes weren’t so high and the time crunch not so critical, I’d be knocking on Netflix’s door: “Look, I know Meghan & Harry suck at content but do I have something people will want to binge.”
I get the impulse to look at all this as just drama, but it is not. But before I lay out some of the tit for tat that’s spewing around town, let’s revisit the central issue here.
This is not an issue about farming or if the Williams will lose their “farm” and need Willie Nelson and a concert to save it. This was never the issue. It is an issue of the other people who want to protect their fundamental right to enjoy their homes and protect, what is for many, their most significant financial investment. It is also important to remember the Williams are not being picked on; they live in a community and no one is on the record supporting this project. And behind these issues is maybe a less immediate, but a significantly larger one: public trust.
In the storm that is 509 Bashford Road are the foundational issues of when an elected official has to choose between what is in his or her personal best interest versus the interests of the people who elected them into office. There are the issues associated with the “right to know.” Meaning the boards’ silence — months into this process with documented problems of disclosure, notice and ethical violations – is not appropriate. No matter how well intentioned, no matter how much internal deliberation, the two boards — the Columbia County Board of Supervisors and the Chatham Town Board — do have obligations to the people who elected them. It’s not “none of your business” — this is everyone’s business. While some are desperate to frame this blue or red, it’s about transparency and responsibility — critical to everyone’s democracy.
Call it what you want, I am going to call it stonewalling. The boards’ claims of “I can’t talk about this” don’t hold up to any standard.
Pips and Squeaks
And these very real issues are only getting obfuscated by some of the noise and chatter from the town square (sorry, I mean social media, specifically the bane of civil discourse – Facebook).
Maybe most off the mark and damaging, in its polite and erudite-striving way, is that of a local woman who scrutinizes town politics and sits straight — steno pad ready and pencil sharp — and loudly calls out what she thinks are and are not “town issues.” In a recent post, her claim to what is valid board business rests on the off-hand comments of a board member. Well, what a person says does not mean it is law, any more than chanting abracadabra can make things appear out of hats. And no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.
Peppered in her musings are swipes at town officials and claims of others being wrong without the benefit of actually saying what is wrong. If I were writing that Netflix script, I’d call her Prew.
Prew is profoundly, arrogantly, proudly, seemingly almost always well-spoken and quiet often as right as a 36 degree angle.
Prew’s assessment that much of what is at the heart of the Wine Wars is not a town board issue is incorrect — not in law and not in its spirit.
Everything — that’s right — everything being handled by the town, from zoning to dog-catcher (the latter being a euphemism to make a point), is town board business.
Under New York law, the town board is it. Full stop. The law doesn’t hedge on this – it explicitly defines the town board as the body “vested with all the powers of such a town.” Not some of the powers. Not the powers that are convenient or comfortable. All of them. The town board is, by statute, the “legislative, appropriating, governing and policy determining body.” Everything else in town government — every appointed board, every commission, every official who was handed a title instead of a ballot — exists because the town board said so, and continues to exist at the town board’s pleasure. Moreover, it IS their job to step in when there are ethical conflicts. It doesn’t mean the board can or should put their thumbs on the scales all decision-making - but when this is a troubling issue, this is their sandbox.
Prew also took a swipe at Rick Werwaiss (and yes, get the name and spelling right – Rick is very sensitive in this regard) weighing in at a ZBA hearing about the 509 issue. Prew was justified in bringing the issue up, but her “optics” concern might be more than optics – but, and I could be wrong here, after going through the ZBA and Planning Boards meeting minutes I don’t see Werwaiss anywhere weighing in on this matter.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s take a look at why, if true, this is an issue.
First, in a small town, the line, if there is one, between Town Board member and private citizen in settings like Zoning Boards is thin, if it exists. And not for nothing, I’m landing grudgingly with Prew on it being a problem.
Ex parte communication concerns exist to protect the integrity of quasi-judicial proceedings. The principle runs in both directions. It isn’t only about outside parties trying to whisper in a ZBA member’s ear. It also covers the question of whether people with institutional authority over the ZBA were present at the proceeding in a capacity that could reasonably be perceived as pressure.
A town board member is not a private citizen. Under Town Law, that board member sits on the body that appoints ZBA members, controls ZBA funding, sets ZBA structure, and holds removal authority over ZBA members. That authority doesn’t get checked at the door when the councilman walks into a ZBA hearing. Every person in that room knows who he is and what power his board holds over the people sitting at that table.
So if and when Werwaiss showed up at a ZBA meeting and made comments opposing the application that are now part of the official record, the question isn’t just whether it looks bad. The question is whether a ZBA member, consciously or not, weighed those comments differently than they would have weighed the same comments from an ordinary member of the public. That is precisely the kind of institutional pressure that quasi-judicial procedural protections exist to prevent. So it’s more than optics.
Again, I have not been able to find the ZBA meeting minutes where Werwaiss showed up.
So this brings us back to Prew and just how accurate she is with that #2 graphite because of course there’s more. There always is with Prew and her ilk. Her assertion in the same Facebook post attempts to exonerate Collins of any wrong-doing because of his February recusal is wrong.
With the exception of royal warrants, judicial opinions and the all too common Executive Orders, personal declarations carry water like colanders. Prew’s social media missive gave nothing exculpatory. As I’ve explained before: a recusal has to be in writing and it needed to happen before February.
Sorry Prew; it just isn't as easy as walking the halls in the 9th grade with the Aigner bag like it was back in the day. The late recusal is not an act to be rewarded with an endorsement and a cookie. It was a requirement under the law because there was/is a conflict. This was compounded by not recusing himself while he worked on an issue that was the subject of the conflict. It is clear that the only reason Donal eventually did recuse himself was this column, not a sudden pointing of true north on what was a faulty ethical compass.
And there is yet another facet to this saga that leaked out in last night's town board meeting. It was explained that all correspondence that goes to the town — for example, Columbia County providing mandatory notice including 509 Bashford in Agriculture District 10 — is given to Donal.
Thems the facts.
Hope this clears things up.
You’re welcome, Prew.
Crickets and other Non-Noises
And I suppose this is a good time to really look at the board and what is happening — and to test their “I can’t talk about it” position. There are circumstances where that claim has merit. I don’t think this is one of them.
Any such refusal to speak should require the justification of privilege — the legal term which means some conversations are protected from being forced into the open — even in court, even under subpoena, even under a public records request. The law recognizes that certain relationships only work if the people in them can speak freely, without fear that what they said will later be used against them.
The actual reasons to claim privilege are few. So when can a town board member actually, legitimately, invoke some version of privilege or restriction on public comment? The list is shorter than they’d like you to believe.
Attorney-client privilege applies when the town’s attorney has advised confidentiality in connection with active or clearly imminent litigation. This is real, it is recognized under CPLR §4503, and it has genuine force. It does not, however, extend to every topic that might theoretically result in a lawsuit someday. The privilege covers specific legal advice given in the context of a specific legal matter. It is not a blanket gag order on governance. And in the case of Chatham, the town attorney is not a board member — meaning no board member can claim this protection.
Personnel matters involving individual employees can warrant confidentiality under Civil Service Law and the due process protections afforded to public employees. But this is not what is being talked about.
Executive session under New York’s Open Meetings Law, Public Officers Law §105, permits a public body to meet privately for a defined and exhaustive list of purposes: certain personnel matters, contract negotiations, matters requiring attorney-client privilege, and a small number of other specified subjects. The decision to enter executive session must be made by vote in public session, the general subject must be identified, and no binding action may be taken in executive session itself. It is a limited procedural tool. It is not a mechanism for making public governance questions disappear.
Outside of these three categories, a town board member has no legal basis for a blanket refusal to engage. Questions about whether proper notice was given, whether required disclosures were made, whether a conflict of interest was disclosed and addressed, whether the FOIL process is being lawfully followed, and whether the board is meeting its oversight obligations — these are not privileged. They are governance questions, and under New York Town Law §60, board members are sworn to faithfully discharge the duties of their office. Faithful discharge does not include strategic silence on matters of public accountability.
The courts in New York have addressed the limits of this kind of evasion, affirming that public bodies cannot use vague claims of legal sensitivity to avoid their transparency obligations. When a board member claims they “can’t talk about this,” the appropriate public response is: cite the specific legal basis. Because if they can’t name one, there isn’t one.
And this brings us away from Rick and to Lisa Simonetti and what some have said — that she cannot answer questions because she is a lawyer. I want to be clear here: I have no knowledge that she has claimed this reason for not responding to residents or to me. Nor do I think she would.
But to answer some people’s questions: can she claim this protection? The answer is a big, fat no. Attorney-client privilege belongs to the relationship, not the person. A town board member who happens to be a lawyer in their private life does not get to wrap themselves in privilege just because they have a law degree. The privilege isn’t a costume they’re wearing. It’s a specific legal protection that attaches to a specific conversation between a specific lawyer and a specific client. The question answers itself.
What I can share is that she and other members of the board respond only sporadically, if at all, with substantive answers to questions about these matters.
But a more specific question is just what is the Chatham Town Board’s responsibility to deal with Collins’ late recusal, possible ethics violations, and what is now (I’m getting to it) an undisclosed business relationship between Ed Collins and Cheri Williams?
If a board member has direct knowledge of an ethics violation, meaning they witnessed it, were told about it, or have documentary evidence of it, they have an affirmative obligation to deal with it through the appropriate channel. Under General Municipal Law §806, that channel is typically the municipality’s ethics board or ethics officer if one exists, or the town board itself acting in its collective capacity if it does not. Sitting on that knowledge is not a neutral act. It makes the silent member complicit in the ongoing violation and in any harm that flows from it.
Their position on whether a conflict exists, and how they choose to respond to it, is not privileged.
Dog Whistles and Flying Kitchen Sinks
Now I don’t think it is fair to say that a public person’s partner, spouse, or whatever term you want to use, should not be subject to press examination — for the most part. In this case, Donal’s partner Abi Mesick should not be immune from a critical review. This is a position supported by law and policy, not because she is Donal’s partner.
Mesick was a town board member. And more importantly, she was on the board during part of this mess. Now, voting two people from the same household to govern a small town is not for me, but there is no law against it. Freedom — let it ring — even if off key, I suppose.
What were you people thinking?
But what is problematic is what Abi posted on Facebook about the town board — not just because it’s false, but because of what it reveals about her character. And someone should tell her it’s also a problem because it implicates her and her time where she was on the board.
She is still very much in the mix.
In her posts she claims that two town board members (and I am assuming she means those besides Donal), which is 50% of the board, have a financial relationship with Fox Hill Vineyards. Then, in a gratuitous nod to bigots everywhere, she claims that two of the board members are having gender identity issues. Whether sheer recklessness or a deliberate dog whistle to the KKK-minded, it’s not something I’d want my partner posting on Facebook if I were Donal.
She also claimed that the Wine Wars is a fight between the rich and the poor, the farmer and the elite fox hunters. She must have misplaced her talking points – in Williams’ letter to me in December 2025, he himself talks about his membership in the Old Chatham Hunt Club. And not for nothing, I don’t think Ed and Cheri Williams are in need of a helping hand any more than they are legitimate farmers. But what Abi did disclose was a clue — a real one, not the Colonel Mustard with the candlestick kind — about the long-running conflict that does exist.
In her words, not mine: “Donal and I took over the lease on this beautiful pasture from the Ooms Family before we ran for town government.” As this issue has been not just been controversial, she as well as Donal both should have disclosed their lease arrangement with the Williams.
But the ad hominem attacks (that Latin is for you Prew 😘) and ham-fisted innuendo really have no place here. It might be the fashion, but then again so were leg-warmers.
As my mother once told me, beware of the woman who puts on war paint like it’s makeup. Abi’s righteous indignation reads as more than just a riptide of reckless innuendo and bigotry – it is now further evidence that Donal had a relationship with the Williams family before he landed in the big chair and once again, he did not disclose this until February to the public and is fellow board members. And let’s not pretend as he told the town in February that his unnamed round bales dotting 509 Bashford come even close to a legal disclosure.
None of any of this does much to inspire confidence that things are on the up and up.
What is clear is that this story continues to hit nerves and shine a light on process that should be transparent and is not. And to be fair, I bet many board members are thinking: I didn’t sign up for this. Indeed, this kind of clean up does seem more “Hurt Locker” than “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” — but it is what it is. And independent of the sentiment there remains no cover for the silence around what are now public and corroborated records.
The Toil of FOIL
In previous town board meetings, Ms. Simonetti was pretty clear that the town was not in compliance with FOIL, and as of this writing, they still are not. I suppose a gold star for consistency. Last week I received emails from both the County and the Town letting me know that my FOIL requests have neither been denied nor have the materials been supplied to me. And while the emails were professional, they do little to mitigate the fact that both municipalities are now outside the bounds of FOIL law. For those looking for the legal term, it’s called constructive denial. And now this, like so much else in this matter, opens yet another door to a lawsuit. No matter how well-meaning, this is not good government. And no worries I’m not about to slap blue backs on people. Let’s call it a point of fact.
Coming Up
What really is a tasting room? Where are the real plans (the ones where the building size for example is actually filled out) and for that matter - just how the hell did Ken Pratt sign this blank application? I’m going to unpack the details of the many iterations of the Fox Hill Vineyard application(s) and going to share an interview with someone who knows Ag and Markets and what the real impact can be on the land, the town and those who live on old dirt roads.
Maybe the town should think about a public hearing on properties being moved into agricultural districts? Maybe now is the time to figure out the long-term implications of these efforts. Have that discussion about what commercial venues can cost a town in terms of road maintenance, safety infrastructure and lowered tax bases when it’s really not a farm.
A big thank you to the Town for updating its website files on Fox Hill Vineyard or as it is known EF Hutton Williams LLC. It only took a few years.
Maybe, just maybe, posting these documents before this matter became such a matter would help tap down the costs of all the FOILing that was discussed last night.
EF Hutton might be paws up, but people still do listen.
On the personal side: I don’t feel any obligation to defend myself or my writing, but I’m happy to pull back the curtain a bit, since people seem curious about my motives.
To Abi and others asking — I’m not paid by anyone. I’ve got no dog in this fight. This is simply a good story that deserves to be told, and it’s clear that transparency is a genuine concern among citizens here. That’s motive enough for me.
For what it’s worth, I’m a member in good standing of the National Press Club and the National Writers Union. I hold both national and international press credentials, and my work has been published by Hachette Book Group, The New England Journal of Medicine, and other vetted outlets.
Why Your Subscription Matters
Independent journalism answers to readers—not advertisers, corporations, or access-hungry editors. No story gets killed because it upsets a sponsor. No punch gets pulled because someone important made a phone call.
Your support makes possible sharp commentary, fearless satire, and reporting that follows the story wherever it leads. In an era of manufactured narratives and algorithmic blandness, that independence isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.
Subscribe to The Powell House Press. Or settle for content that tells you what someone else wants you to hear.
©2026 | josh@thepowellhousepress.com