A Town of Seward mailing urging residents to vote “yes” on changing the highway superintendent’s job from elected to appointed—and mischaracterizing the state’s Proposal One, Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment—is drawing fire.
Supervisor Earlin Rosa defended the mailing as “informational” and said after months of upheaval in the Highway Department, it was important to explain Proposal 2 to residents.
Prop 1 was included because it’s also on the ballot, he said.
Residents think otherwise.
Several have already filed complaints with the State Attorney General and Comptroller’s Office over misuse of public funds, criticizing the use of official town envelopes, stamps, and time for a mailing they argue is political—not informative.
Mr. Rosa said he spoke with County Attorney Mike West before sending out the two-sided letter and was told that as long as it went to every resident and was informative, it was OK.
Not quite, Mr. West said.
Mailings like the ones school districts typically mail out explaining their budgets or propositions are considered informative.
But those mailings can’t tell people how to vote.
And the Town of Seward’s did.
In May, elected Highway Superintendent Jeff Townsend resigned after an acrimonious six months and complaints over unplowed roads, broken trucks, and lack of supervision.
Mr. Townsend told a different story, accusing Mr. Rosa of “aggressive arguments with no guidance or resolution.”
After interviewing candidates, the Town Board named Tony Kelesza to the job and unanimously approved putting Proposal 2, which would make it an appointed—not elected—position on the November 5 ballot.
The mailing details five “Primary Advantages” of the switch, along with a narrative warning “Defeating Proposal 2 will result in continuing with the election of sometimes ineffective Highway Superintendents,” and in red ink, shows residents where to “Vote ‘Yes’ for Proposal 2” twice.
The letter also asks residents “Are you aware there are 2 Proposals on the ballot for voters in the Town of Seward?,” mischaracterizing Prop 1, claiming “if passed, [it] will codify certain rights in the NYS Constitution. One of those would be to give biological males the right to compete in girls sports.”
Prop 1 does not mention girls’ sports.
The Seward mailing doesn’t include the actual language of Prop 1; it is elsewhere in this issue in a different article and in letters to the editor.
“That’s what I was told,” Mr. Rosa said of the girls’ sports allegation.
“Read between the lines.”