Perhaps to conserve paper, the late hitting lie is traveling by word of mouth.
The lie: If one particular slate wins, the incoming mayor will invoke a little known state law and downsize the Village Board to three members.
There is no such plan.
Because
There is no such law.
This is the droppings left by the male cow.
Who started passing this around? We don’t know, we can only guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
NYS Village Law Section 3-304; Changing number of trustees. The board of trustees by resolution or local law, subject to permissive referendum, may change the number of trustees.
Really there is no such law? If you can't tell the truth now, what can we expect after the election?
"SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM!"
No law exists which would allow a mayor to decide to get rid of trustees.
Only a referendum, by the public, would allow such a change.
Uncle Betty - You show your true colors! You get caught in the lie and try to split hairs. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS A LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW THE NUMBER OF TRUSTEES TO BE REDUCED.
It doesn't seem splitting hairs. A public referrendum could get rid of the entire Village, tipping te government to whoever controls the board.
A referrendum can do alot of things. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to give one tiny slate supreme power.
Though it would be nice to know whose seats would be up first, and how much of a majority this referendum would need to pass.
Seemingly Anonymous has written: Uncle Betty - You show your true colors! You get caught in the lie and try to split hairs. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS A LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW THE NUMBER OF TRUSTEES TO BE REDUCED.
Actually, no.
You chose to paste a small part of law 3-304, why not all of it? Why not section b (see below)? It makes clear that IF the mayor, with a majority of the village board puts such a reduction before the public, and IF the public decides to reduce the size of the board, NO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD LEAVE THE BOARD – but at the next election there would be fewer seats to be filled.
The lie being circulated (your lie?) is that a candidate for mayor is planning to take office and get rid of the trustees he doesn’t like. That can’t happen. The law makes that clear.
Stop screwing with our elections!
§ 3-304 Changing number of trustees. The board of trustees by resolution or local law, subject to permissive referendum, may change the number of trustees. Such action shall be in accordance with the following:
a. If the number of trustees be increased, the additional trustees shall be elected at the next general village election when trustees are regularly scheduled to be elected. At that election half of the additional trustees shall be elected for a single term equal to half of the full term for which said office is regularly scheduled to be filled and the other half for a full such term. At all subsequent general village elections such offices shall be filled for full terms.
b. If the number of trustees be reduced, no trustees shall be elected, other than to fill an unexpired term, until by expiration of terms of office the number of trustees in office shall equal that prescribed by such resolution. Thereafter at the next general village election one-half of such prescribed number of trustees shall be elected for a single term equal to half of the full term for which said office is regularly scheduled to be filled and the other half of such trustees shall be elected for a full term. At all subsequent general village elections such offices shall be filled for full terms.
He talks the same shi- about annexation. DOUBLETALK!!!!!!!!!
Swillerboy talks shi- and he is scary!! He talks SWILLER-talk
Hush Don, the grownups are talking.
Excuse me, but Mr. Queenan was the one who uttered those very words about reducing the board size, and if he denies it, then he IS a liar.
You may or may not like Swiller or anyone else. But at least Swiller did not tell, or more correctly, mislead people and tell them that creating a village would stop annexation. In fact, he publically said just the opposite.
That lie rests totally with the Preservation Party. Sadly there are still many people who believe their falsehood.
Back to previous comments about changing the number of trustees on the Village Board.
What is important here is that one person, mayor or whoever, cannot do this alone. The law provides a process and, thank goodness, the voters have the final say. We can only hope that if this should occur, the voters will not be lied to again as they have been by the Preservation Party and their supporters.
Proof? The annexation lie, and the lying fliers from the 2005 and 2007 elections. Since Burke and Caruso benefited from all of these lies (and remember folks that Burke supported the Village and even stood in the lobby of Town Hall on the day of the vote on this issue, greeting people) it is pretty clear where the lies originated.
Keep this in mind when you go to vote today.
Vote Row A for the
Common Sense Party
Mike Queenan
Tom Flood
Tim Egan
For those who continue to argue the "annexation" issue in regards to the creation of this village...ENOUGH ALREADY. The village is here. It's in the past. Stop beating that dead horse or do you not have anything else pertinent to say!!
You have the two extremes in Row A & Row B, with Row C in the middle.
Row A has offered an "idea" that may or may not work as far as saving money, and since there's no way of knowing at this point, it remains an unknown.
Row B candidates appear to be rather exclusionary- they want to live life like it was when they first moved here 25+ years ago, and they do not want or accept change. They want to keep everyone else out, which may open up Woodbury to a multitude of lawsuits.
Row C offers stability, with no apparent agendas, and they do not appear to have swayed from that course since the beginning.
Three slates of candidates with different views. It's up to the public to cut through the nonsense, especially some of the crap that's appeared on this site and in certain hand-outs, and vote for those who you believe will serve YOU and Woodbury the best.
"SUBJECT TO PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM!"
No law exists which would allow a mayor to decide to get rid of trustees.
Only a referendum, by the public, would allow such a change.
Uncle Betty, I do have to clarify something you are saying. Subject to permissive referendum does not mean that the law would only go in to effect if it is approved by referendum. The term means that the law would go in to effect automatically if approved by the Village Board, except, if by petition village residents wanted to put the question to ballot they reserve the right to do so. It does not mean that only by petition and referendum can the village board be reduced. If that was the case the law would call for mandatory referendum.
For example, right now if the town board wanted to make the Town Clerk, Tax Collector, or Hwy Supt positions appointive rather than elected it would require a mandatory referendum and approval from the public before it could take affect. However, a little known provision in the current state budget proposed by the Governor would switch that to permissive referendum, meaning the town board could approve such an action and if, we the people objected, we would have to petition to put a ballot question on the Nov ballot.
"Frantic orthodoxy is nveer rooted in faith, but in doubt"
R. Niebuhr
We are all doomed
Oh Neil you are small... In every which way.
It is soooo clear that if Steph should lose your goose is cooked.
Who will you bully? We all know about the resent bulling of people. Threats and lies to intimidate people.
Sorry your little empire might be shattered and you will be exposed for who you really are.
Cliff the same goes for you.
There's a bad odor in the air,
please take a whiff,
There's the source over there,
it's Neil, John and Cliff!!!
I expect Ralph is taking great joy in watching those who oppose him tear one another to shreds.
Wonder who will be kissing and making up in the morning Jonathan??
Gee Ralph, I never knew you felt that way.
Perhaps he wants to make up Pieman? :P
Uncle Betty, why yes, you are still a big Douchebag!
Post a Comment