EARLVILLE – Just days after 134 residents in Earlville signed a petition seeking a public vote on a proposed $3.4 million water project, a letter of objection was filed with the village clerk. The letter, which points out several procedural errors in the petition, may be enough to destroy any hope of a public vote.
On Aug. 27, the village board passed a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for a capital water improvement project pending a period of permissive referendum. During the 30-day period, village residents had the chance to submit a petition signed by 20 percent of voters registered at the last election in order for the project to be put up for referendum. A total of 104 signatures were needed.
When the petition was submitted on Sept. 25, 134 signatures had been obtained.
One day later, Earlville resident and planning board member Thomas E. Thompson submitted a letter of objection. The letter lists 12 objections to the petition, including: The witnesses of the petition all witnessed their own signatures, witness statements and the text of the reason for the petition do not appear on each page, two of the three witnesses did not include their addresses on the witness statements, three signers did not list addresses and six of the petition signers are not registered voters. Other objections included minor issues, such as names being printed instead of signed, names appearing incomplete or illegible, dates being listed incorrectly and a couple of spelling errors.
Mitch Mullenax, who gathered signatures for the petition along with former board member Myron Wilson and current board member Gerald Hayes, said if the objection letter nullifies the petition, he feels the village voices are not being heard. “Mr. Thompson is free to oppose this petition, but one man’s opposition shouldn’t stand in the way of 134 who are for it,” Mullenax said, pointing out that the possibility of an objection letter canceling out the petition was never mentioned.
Mayor Toni Campbell said she applauded the three petitioners for their efforts, but thought they failed to equip themselves with the proper knowledge to move forward with the project. “Hard work and due diligence are not one and the same. The tools were there for the petitioners; it’s pretty clear that they did not use them,” Campbell said.
The tools she spoke of include the New York State Legislature web site, which is free and available to the public. “Between Mr. Mullenax, the many years that Mr. Wilson served on the board and our current Trustee Hayes, I would say with certainty that a legal petition was well within reach for their drafting.”
Mullenax has said he doubts Thompson was acting independently when drafting the letter. “When I asked for help with the petition, I was told it was not within the village’s legal capacity to help me. Every step of the way, I saw nothing but opposition. Now one man steps up and not only is he assisted, but it looks like he is the voice of the mayor and the trustees,” Mullenax said.
Village Clerk Christian Vischi said there is no legal reason that a board member would be unable to help draft the letter, and pointed out that if there was, Hayes would have been unable to help gather signatures for the petition. However, both Vischi and Campbell said Thompson had more than enough knowledge to compile the letter on his own.
Campbell said village residents have been given ample opportunity to voice their concerns with the water project, at both board meetings and public hearings, but the turnout has been limited. “If the petition was done legally, the village would happily put the matter up to a vote. The law states that if a petition is submitted and there are no objections, that it holds. The fact that one of our residents wrote an objection letter with 12 specific items leads me to believe that the three petitioners did not do their homework.”
The objection letter has been submitted to the village attorney for review. The attorney will give his opinion on whether or not the petition was done correctly, and the village board will act on his opinion to either throw the petition out or to move forward with the public referendum. Originally, the objection letter was sent to the Supreme Court, but the village was informed that the matter only has to be submitted if the village attorney finds the petition invalid and another lawyer, representing the petitioners, refutes that point.
“We are currently awaiting the formal opinion piece,” Campbell said. The village expects to receive notice from its lawyer early next week.