The chairman of the Carbon County Farmland Preservation Board aired his frustrations Tuesday regarding comments made last month.

But by the end of the meeting, he and the Carbon County Commissioners had a better understanding of each other.As the meeting began, Richard Fedor read a letter to the commissioners responding to their comments, as well as a farmer's complaint filed with the county, about the way the board was operating, and more specifically Fedor's intentions since his farm is up for consideration for the preservation program."I would like to say how unhappy I am with the statements made at the county commissioners meeting on July 24," Fedor read at the beginning of the preservation board meeting. "Not only was I attacked and accused of unethical behavior by Mr. (Troy) Johnson, but I was also attacked by Commissioners (Thomas J.) Gerhard and (William) O'Gurek."He said that statements made at the commissioners' meeting last month were untrue, specifically that he was acting on his own property application."I recused myself from voting on my farm," Fedor said. "The minutes of the meeting also reflect that."He questioned why the commissioners were stepping in now and expecting the board, who has a combined 50 years experience in the program, to change its way because new staff have been hired for the program.He also addressed Johnson's comments, which were filed with the Carbon County Office of Planning and Development and the commissioners, that stated he felt the board was "dysfunctional and unprofessional.""The board has done nothing but require that the program rules be followed," Fedor said, explaining that Johnson's problem stems from the board not approving his farm preservation application because it has not yet been duly recorded as an Agricultural Security Area, one of the program's requirements.He explained to Johnson, who was in attendance, that it is the board's firm stance that they follow the program guidelines regarding the ASA requirement and said that as of Tuesday, the Johnson farm has not yet been recorded by the municipality the farm is in.Fedor also questioned David Bodnar, program coordinator under the office of planning, as to why he would not provide a deed that Fedor requested for a farm currently up for consideration.Bodnar said he was instructed by a county official to not provide the document.Daniel Miscavige, county solicitor, later identified himself as the official who directed Bodnar to not release the deed because the complaint against Fedor regarding a possible conflict of interest was currently circulating.He noted that the county wanted to get everything straightened out without any further possible allegations surfacing with giving Fedor the deed."The intent of the county and commissioners is to make this program work and be beneficial to the farmers in the county," Miscavige said.Fedor also questioned some of the new processes Bodnar was doing, such as hiring and paying for the appraisals.Bodnar said he was following county protocol, to which Fedor responded once the board acts on appraisals, Bodnar should follow the board's directive.As the meeting continued though, tensions eased and a discussion between Fedor, the county commissioners and solicitor occurred.Gerhard said he would not retract the comments he had previously made, but feels he now has a better understanding as to why the board acted as it did at its July meeting."I think our primary goal is to work together," he said. "I don't want you taking shots at me and I don't want to take shots at you. I think sometimes tempers flare and I think when it's all done here this evening, we want to shake each other's hands and walk out of here and work together."Fedor agreed."I feel it's going to be positive motivation here on out," he said. "You take from the good of both sides, come to the middle of the track and move forward."Commissioners' Chairman Wayne Nothstein said that there were a few things that the county had been misled on last month, and Tuesday's discussion helped clear up some of the confusion.There are a few points that the county officials and the farmland preservation board still feel needs further discussion to be able to move forward with the program.Officials decided that setting up an informal meeting with representatives from each party would be beneficial.