The real reason for this article

Former Trustee Wants Real Reason For Change

Post-Journal October 4, 2009

This article is outrageous on a number of levels, where to begin? How about we first take a look at the author, former trustee Mr Hallenbeck. We don't have the slightest clue what we has to show from his days as a trustee but we do know that most recently he has been dismissed as a zoning board member. This occured after an embarrassing tirade of his part attacking the new administration and defending the old, during a zoning meeting to which his rant had nothing to do with his duties nor the agenda at hand.

As to his assertions in this article and his blatant facetiousness, we contend that it is filled with error, bias, dishonesty, and assuredly was written or at least co-authored by Slagle and Gertsch. You see Mr Hallenbeck is one of their most ardent supporters, the type of supporter that could witness them do the most henious thing he's ever seen and yet would still call them saints. Also the kind of supporter that can be used to submit an article like this so that they themselves have no accountability. So be it for the disillusioned.

Where will will agree as to the authors opening statements about voter turn out in that over the last couple years it's been high, we would also point out that is because of so much contention.If you were to look at many years you would see that most are a much lower turn out. So where mayor used an analogy to talk about voter participation and how voting in november will facilitate such, the author knowing this was an analogy attacks as if he was using specific numbers. Look the bottom line is that the mayor could have done a better job explaining this point but regardless the basic pouint was correctly made, as supported by a number of studies and professionals that stipulate November elections to promote a better level of participation in furthurance of the democratic process.

Now for the good stuff: Costs- First and foremost why the author did so much research of figures for the above mentioned but didnt research one simple number on this issue is beyond us. The village handling it's own elections did not cost $400 as evidenced by the prior administrations own budget and spending papers, it cost over $800+. That's just whats evident, there are also other hidden costs that have been discovered which puts the figure over $1000+. Thats right, it cost more than we would have had to pay the Board of Elections $1000flat) to administer our elections as they have done for many many years. Now for the bill of goods that the prior administration sold in that they were going to do it for $500 saving us $500 (which according to the author is such a small amount its hardly worth his time). This was complete dishonesty on the part of the prior admin, not just about bogus statements and figures, but intent. They hijacked the election away from the BOE to control and manipulate it, to further stack the deck in their favor as they knew they were in trouble, and how do we support this, because there were several instances of ethical gaffes on their part in handling matter in addition the voter fraud and violations of election law generally. So much so that it is an outrage none of them have been sued, sanctioned, or more importantly charged for their crimes, especially both Slagle's with regard to illegal absentee ballot activity. So the issue is not any worries about the current clerk, it is more so that the integrity of the system should be restored and no chance should be taken on anyone's part to ever have the potential for a repeat of last years disgrace. One other very important and totally overlooked point is that the prior administration had no right to take over elections from the BOE without a resolution, public hearing, subject to the very same permissive referundum. They broke the law and the current administration with respect to that issue has corrected the matter. Where is the authors' outrage ?

Now as far as term extensions, that is a unavoidable consequence of said action, not an intent. That fact that terms will be extended a whole 8 months is really insignificant. The prior administration certainly could have done it as was recomended over and over but they never listen to others. The fact is that the many experts and agencies including the Lundine commision, Attorney General, State Comptroller, Chamber of Commerce, et al have suggested that all villages in the state should move to November, "to enhance local level participation in the democratic process, to achieve uniform voting throughout the state, and to achieve considerable cost savings". Their are over 50 villages in the state that do vote in November and for all the right reasons hopefully soon there will be one more. With regard to the conspiracy theory comment, we feel the Mayor was completely justified in this comment with the idea that he was simply pre-empting what he knows will ensue based on prior practices of the opposition. It has been long and well known that the biggest rumor mill in the past has been village hall. The prior dictatorship has used this as a bully pulpit over and over again to attack and demean people, pit groups against each other, spread disinformation, misinformation, divide and conquer, coerce, or display nepotism and quid pro quo. To them there isn't anything that isn't a conspiracy theory. Lastly, how on earth can the Mayors efforts be underhanded when he was up front days ago as to the affect this move will have on terms. He made no attempt to hide it, skew that facts, or obscure the truth, which however unfortunate seemingly a foreign concept to certain persons!

Then the author goes on to speak about foil requests, which ironically have been being made endlessly by former deputy mayor Gertsch since his resignation, who in an even more ironic fashion hated foil requests made to his administration and then recently had the gall to submit comments to the newspaper complaining about the process to which he has been treated more fairly than he ever treated anyone else.

Finally, as to the commentary about taking away from the village as to assessing and police to which the current administration has had absolutely nothing to do with, and a desire to reduce the board to three members, well we think you almost hit the nail on the head and we'll one up you. You want to circulate a petition for something meaningfull, how about dissolution of the village period. That is not only the most prudent thing, long overdue, but it also solves all these problems.