I have read both the article and letters that have referenced the complaint against the town supervisor. I was also present at the town board meeting whereby a resolution was approved to pay for the legal representation of the town supervisor to a maximum of $2,500.
When queried about the justification of paying the legal fees, the town attorney read from the complaint. The initiator of the complaint apparently referenced the town supervisor in his role as town supervisor as well as his role as a private attorney. The actual complaint is not published so the actual complete wording is not available. While the town attorney was challenged about his interpretation, it appears that he was correct since the complaint initiator, according the article, quickly amended the complaint. Ultimately, the validity of the complaint will be determined by the 9th Judicial District, the venue for investigating the complaint.
There are two issues that are of greater concern to me, the first being the tenor and lack of civility in the electoral process. Secondly, and perhaps of greater concern, is a councilmember’s often routine response of, “I voted for it before I voted against it.” When asked for an explanation concerning the resolution on the town supervisor that he initially supported, he stated that he didn’t understand the resolution in question. If this is true, then why did he initially support it before publicly opposing it? Or, was he told to oppose it in open session even though he initially supported it?