Election News

In this article where Mayor Bartolo talks about meeting so many nice people before he was mayor, one must wonder why not during his tenure of 5 years. There are people who own homes and lived in the village for many years that have never spoken nor met him to this day. When he refers to people being behind him on projects 100%, he is only referring to a select handfull. To suggest otherwise would be dillusional to say the least. Take this idea of an addition to village hall. There has been no public imput on this issue. Many people now hearing of this wonder why this is, and why is it neccessary anyhow. How will spending $20000 of state or local tax dollars benefit the community. The most important concern with this issue is the information now disclosed to the public, that a state grant will pay for this, and this is not accurate. There is no guarantee of a state grant for this project and they knew this even prior to publishing newspaper articles and requests for bids, a simple phone call can verify this, as well as a review of his own budget to which there is no provision for any grant therein. If they move forward with the project, and so far they are having put it out to bid, the cost may very well end up on our backs with it having to be paid for with village tax revenues.

As far as improvements to the parking area of the park, what he is referring to? Too bad the mayor won't hold a public forum or debate so such questions can be asked and details discussed, and Mr Keeney has requested such but was turned down. One must ask why when considering the kind of direction and leadership we want to move forward with in our community!

As much as we may have a couple nice things going on, and that in of itself is debatable, in the overall scheme of things we should have and should have had lots of nice things going on and for years through the present, unfortunately we have very little. It is a proven fact in that we are one of the most depressed communities in the county which is really disturbing considering we are a lake community.

IT’S EASY TO UNDERSTAND HOW A RESIDENT COULD BE CONCERENED AND QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF MR SLAGLE’S CERTIFICATION. IF ONE WAS TO CHECK WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT MAINTAINS A LISTING OF THOSE CERTIFIED AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ONE WOULD FIND THAT AS OF THE OCTOBER 2008 FILING, MR SLAGLE IS NOT LISTED. CONSIDERING HE HAS STATED THAT HIS TRAINING WAS COMPLETED MAY 2008 WELL PRIOR TO THE UPDATED LISTING BY THE STATE, THIS CERTAINLY RAISES QUESTIONS. IN ADDITION YOU WILL FIND THAT GREG OSMAN, THE FORMER CODE OFFICER FOR THE VILLAGE IS STILL LISTED, WHY? HE HAS NOT REPRESENTED THE VILLAGE FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS.

WHERE MR SLAGLE IS ADAMANT THAT HIS INFORMATION IS ON FILE WITH HIS WIFE THE VILLAGE CLERK FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, WHY IS IT NOT AT THE STATE LEVEL. IS THIS AN OVERSIGHT, OR PERHAPS A FAILURE TO REPORT AND FILE PROPERLY WITH THE STATE? CONSIDER THIS, Title 19 NYCRR Part 1203, requires every city, village, town, and county, charged with administration and enforcement of the Uniform Code to submit an annual report of its activities to the Secretary of State. The information provided  in these annual reports is used to verify  each reporting municipality's compliance with the minimum standards for administration and enforcement of the Uniform Code contained in Part 1203. WHERE THE TOWN OF ELLICOTT AND VILLAGE OF FALCONER HAS FULFILLED THIS REPORTING REQUIREMENT, THE VILLAGE OF CELORON HAS NOT. SEEMS THERE COULD BE A TREND HERE.

WHERE MR GOODELL’S STATEMENT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS WITH THE APARTMENTS, THERE CAN BE WIDE DISAGREEMENT THAT THE VILLAGE IS IN GOOD SHAPE WITH THIS CODE OFFICER WITH REGARD TO NUMEROUS OTHER ISSUES AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

LET’S LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OF MR SLAGLE’S CONCERNING TARPS AND PORCH ENCLOSURES. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY BACKWARDS, BUT CONTRADICTORY TO HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE AND EFFORTS, AND QUITE FRANKLY WAS OUTRIGHT DISHONEST. HE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IT HARDER, NOT EASIER, WITH IDEAS SUCH AS OUTLAWING TARPS, INSTITUTING PERMITS AND REGULATIONS IN ABSENCE OF ELIMINATION, AND EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO GET INTO A TIFF WITH THE DEPUTY MAYOR AS TO WHY HE ONLY WANTED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STRUCTURES WITH WINDOWS EVEN THOUGH MANY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD SUCH WHILE TRYING TO SAVE ALITTLE MONEY IN THE WINTER, AND MR SLAGLE REPLIED BECAUSE HE "WANTS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH WINDOWS AND KNOW WHATS GOING ON IN THERE". THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND THE MEASURE THAT FINALLY PASSED WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A CLARIFICATION THAT WHERE PERMITS AND NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED FOR TARPS, THEY CONTINUE NOT TO REQUIRE PERMITS, WITH THE ONLY STIPULATION BEING THAT RESIDENTS ARE ASKED TO TAKE THEM DOWN DURING NON-WINTER MONTHS. WHATS EVEN MORE OUTRAGEOUS IS THAT MR SLAGLE PRIOR TO A POSTING IN THE PAPER AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER, DID INDEED MAKE SOMEONE TAKE DOWN TARPS, SPEND MONEY TO REPLACE THEM WITH NON- TARP MATERIAL, PURCHASE A PERMIT, AND SERIOUSLY MISREPRESENTED THE BASIS AND HIS AUTHORITY FOR DOING SO, AND SLAGLE SHOULD BY ALL RIGHTS BE SANTIONED FOR SUCH ACTIVITY.

FINALLY THE MATTER OF THE $20000 GRANT AND PLANNED ADDITION. THERE HAS BEEN NO PUBLIC NOTICE AND DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER. MOST RESIDENTS DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT AND MANY DISAGREE WITH THIS PLAN. MOST IMPORTANTLY IS AGAIN THE DISHONEST APPROACH. THERE HAS BEEN NO GRANT RECEIVED AND FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING NO GRANT IS GUARANTEED, OR EVEN ANTICIPATED AT THIS POINT, IN LIGHT OF THE STATES FISCAL WOES. THIS IS CAN BE VERIFIED, THEYVE BEEN WARNED THAT THIS IS THE CASE BY STATE FIGURES, AND IT IS FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED BY THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT BUDGET PLAN SHOWS AN ALLOCATION FOR THE SPENDING BUT NO ALLOCATION FOR RECEIVING ANY REVENUE. IF THIS IS DONE, THE COST WILL NOT BE BORN BY STATE FUNDS, BUT RATHER WILL BE ON THE BACKS ON THE VILLAGE TAX PAYER.

“DON’T BLAME MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL”, HE SAYS.  WE SAY LOOK AT SOME FACTS AND YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THAT!

IS THIS A CASE OF OFFICALS STATING THAT SOMETHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, OR IS THIS A CASE OF MAKING EXCUSES FOR LONG TERM NEGLECT AND INACTION?

LET’S TAKE THIS LINE BY LINE AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: IT WAS SAID THAT STATE RED TAPE DOESN’T ALLOW OFFICIALS TO GO AFTER PROPERTY OWNERS IN A DIFFERENT STATE OR NON-ADJOINING COUNTY. STATE RED TAPE MAY BE A DIFFICULT CHALLENGE BUT IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT SOMETHING IS PROHIBITED. IT ALSO DOESN’T MEAN DO NOTHING. IN THE CASE OF THE DUSQUESNE PROPERTY, THE OWNER WHO RESIDES IN PENNSYLVANIA WAS REACHABLE IN A DAY AND MORE THAN WILLING TO DISCUSS THE MATTER. HE STATES THAT AFTER BUYING A POOR CONDITION PROPERTY AT TAX SALE IN 2001 HE RECEIVED NO SATISFACTION FROM THE VILLAGE IN TRYING TO GET THE TAXES LOWERED TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE CONDITION AND THEREFORE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE POOR CONDITIONS WERE WORSENED AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY VANDALIZED, ONCE AGAIN HE FELT NO SATISFACTION AS THE PERPATRATORS WERE CAUGHT AND FOUND GUILTY YET TO DATE HE HAS RECEIVED NO RESTITUTION. TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE HE MADE THE DECISION IN 2003 TO LET THE PROPERTY GO AND INFORMED THE VILLAGE HE’D ALLOW THEM TO BURN IT DOWN. THEY WOULDN’T ALLOW IT AND ALTHOUGH THE OFFER HAS STOOD TO THIS DAY, HE HAS NOT SINCE RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDANCE OR A SINGLE WORD FROM THE VILLAGE. LASTLY, WHAT OF THIS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY MR. SLAGLE SPEAKS OF? WHY DIDN’T THIS PROPERTY SELL AT THE LAST TAX SALE, AND WHY DOESN’T THE OWNER KNOW OF THIS INTEREST? MR SLAGLE SAYS THEY’VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY, BUT HOW FOR OVER 5 YEARS, TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. I BELIEVE WITH THE RIGHT APPROACH AND EFFORT, THIS ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED LONG AGO.

NOW, HOW ABOUT THE 11 MAPLE ST PROPERTY. AGAIN, IN ONE DAY, I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING: THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY DID NOT GO TO A BANK IN PENNSYLVANIA AS WAS STATED.  IT HAS BEEN IN THE HANDS OF HEIRS OF AN ESTATE. WHENEVER THIS IS THE CASE, THERE IS A RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND THEY ARE WITHIN THE COUNTY. IN ADDITION, THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO FORECLOSURE AUCTION IN MAYVILLE MARCH 4^TH. SHOULD THE MORTGAGE COMPANY, WHO HAS AN OFFICE IN THE BUFFALO AREA AND WHOS ATTORNEY IS IN BUFFALO, RETAIN THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE SALE, THEN THEY WILL BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND ARE WITHIN A NEIGHBORING COUNTY. FOR THE VILLAGE TO WANT TO TEAR THIS PROPERTY DOWN THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY AWARE OF SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS, YET EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE HAD AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEEK REMEDIES, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS TAKEN NO ACTION BASED ON INACCURATE EXCUSES.

I AGREE THE SYSTEM NEEDS IMPROVED AND ALSO AGREE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT RED TAPE AT ITS’ WORST, AND ALSO THE WORST KIND OF RED TAPE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS MUCH MORE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THE STATE. IN A WAY IT REMINDS ME OF THE JACKSON AVE APARTMENTS ISSUE. WHERE IT’S WELL AND GOOD THE VILLAGE FINALLY DID SOMETHING, I’M GLAD TO SEE AND WELCOME RESULTS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS, AND CERTAINLY FEEL FOR THEM WITH ALL THEY’VE HAD TO ENDURE, I DON’T NECESSARILY THINK THEY WERE GIVEN THE BEST ADVICE OR REPRESENTATION BY THE VILLAGE, YET ALL THE WHILE THE VILLAGE HAS BEEN GIVING ITSELF THE BEST REPRESENTATION IN THE MEDIA. THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM A LOT LONGER THAN SINCE THIS LAST JULY AND IT’S HARD TO FATHOM WHY IT WAS NEGLECTED FOR SO LONG. THERE ARE RESIDENTS THAT MOVED OUT WELL OVER A YEAR AGO AND COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE VILLAGE THAT FAR BACK TO NO AVAIL. I WOULD NOT ONLY SEE THROUGH THE RESULTS ACHIEVED SO FAR, BUT WOULD ALSO DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE TO IMPROVE UPON THEM.

I ALSO FIND IT DISTURBING WHEN TALKING TO PROFESSIONALS IN REAL ESTATE OR INSURANCE SERVICES, WHO HAVE DEALT WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE VILLAGE INCLUDING ONE OF THE THOSE RECENTLY DEMOLISHED, HOW OFTEN YOU HEAR THAT ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES IS DEALING WITH CERTAIN VILLAGE OFFICIALS. IN CONCLUSION IT SEEMS THAT WE SEE THE MOST ACTION, OR EXCUSES FOR IN-ACTION, FROM THESE OFFICIALS WHEN POLITICAL POSTURING IS AT WORK. THIS IS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

We have very serious concerns about the village for the first time since ? taking the election process away from our County board of elections. This year the village is running it's own elections and where this may be legal and yes other villages do it, there is grave concern with why it was done, and how it's being conducted. First the reason; It was put to the public not for discussion but rather in a newspaper article to which village officials stated they are going to conduct the elections for $500 as opposed to the $1000 B.O.E. cost. The first falacy is that it should be known the village has only paid the county $1000 in the last 2 years not 1, therefore they've only paid $500 per election to begin with. Number two is that diminishing the integrity of our election process, one of the most important and fundamental rights of our citizens, all to save a few bucks is wrong; Once again the validity of the statements they make must be questioned. A review of the budget shows that they allocated $750 for elections not $500! Futhermore, they are going to do this election with papers ballots as opposed to a machine. This is outrageous. Why would we want to sacrifice the security of using some of the best machines in the country and regress to using papers ballots like decades ago. People in the community hearing of this have been shocked. They are attempting to do this election with the least secure method of voting and no oversight. Where other villages do their own elections, we are presently the only village in the county that is not going to use a machine, and the only village that is not reporting to the B.O.E. 

And there's more; because the village is running the election, the clerk becomes by default the election inspector, unlike the B.O.E. where there is a check and balance having 2 commissioners. The clerk should be impartial but is clearly not, simply the fact that she has a vested interest in the outcome for the benefit of her own position. In addition, the clerk has circulated election petitions with and for the mayor in village hall. This is not only an unethical misuse of our government facilities for political purposes, but in addition shows a clear bias in that the clerk is working for one party.

Then there's the issue of the other candidates petitions. It was brought to our attention that when Keeney and Mattison filed their petitions with the clerk she scrutinized names and addresses which is outside the purview of her authority. In addition she suggested that an entire page could be disqualified simply because an address on one line wasn't correct, (in her opinion) and such is inaccurate which she does or should know. In the end I guess that was ironed out but it certainly raises questions of either bias, incompetance, or both in this process.

One resident has reported that they were told by the clerk that they are learning as they go. This is certainly not the way to conduct such an important process.

2 other residents have just reported that they went to village hall for an absentee ballot in person before leaving for Florida and with only 16 days before the election they were still not available. So now we have at least 2 potentially     dis-enfranchised voters and there is another couple that will be leaving needing absentee ballots. Will they still not be prepared and this number increases to 4. Village elections are often close and could come down to this many votes.

commentary as of March 09.