The Town of Seward’s election mailing urging a “yes” vote on making the highway superintendent an appointed—rather than elected—position and a “no” vote on the state’s Proposal 1 is being investigated by the State Board of Elections Enforcement Bureau.
The mailings and “vote yes” signs were paid for and distributed by the Town of Seward, prompting complaints to the Attorney General’s and Comptroller’s Offices.
Monday, they drew a standing-room-only crowd to the Town Board meeting as Councilwoman Wendy Adams Rosa answered criticism and took responsibility for the wording on Prop 1, which claimed “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, which passed statewide, does not mention girls’ sports.
In still-unofficial results, the highway switch failed, 491-384.
Ms. Rosa said the mailing was intended to be informative—especially in regards to the Highway Department--and the idea was reviewed by Town Attorney Mike West.
Both propositions were included, she said, to make sure voters understood there were two on the back of their ballot.
Her mistake, she said, was not making sure the entire Town Board had a chance to look at the graphics before it went out.
“We are under investigation by the State Board of Elections and awaiting a ruling,” she said, and they will abide by any ruling.
That though, didn’t address the concerns of a half-dozen residents criticizing it.
Judy Moore called it a “blatant misuse of public funds” that offered only one side of a political issue—Prop 1—and that, with misinformation.
As for Prop 2, the highway proposition, “it shows where to vote ‘yes’ two times in red ink,” Ms. Moore said. “Informative mailings cannot tell people how to vote.”
Nancy Kniskern also said there’s no record of the Town Board voting to spend money on either the mailings or the signs in any town minutes—though other residents who regularly attend the meetings said they remember it being discussed and voted on.
“Everybody was in agreement on the mailing in July,” said Councilman William Harlow, who initially worked on it with Deputy Supervisor John Bates.
“Is this not a misappropriation of public funds?” pressed Ms. Kniskern.
“I cannot speak to that until the Board of Elections ruling,” said Supervisor Earlin Rosa—though later in the meeting, he said when he was questioned by Board of Elections Enforcement Investigator Michael Johnson he was told “It’s interpretation. We can all look at the law and interpret it in different ways.”
Mr. Rosa said he spoke with Mr. Johnson “10-12 days ago” and said he was told “If you don’t hear from me, it’s not moving forward.”
“If the Board of Enforcement decides we need to make restitution, we will,” he said.