Editor:

Election Day is drawing near. I have read the many articles and letters to the editor in support of each candidate for Orleans County Sheriff and I have listened to each of these candidates speak.

I’ve been paying close attention to this race and what I keep coming back to in my mind is only one candidate truly has a plan for what he would like to accomplish when he gets into office, and that candidate is Randy Bower.

Besides providing the public with a detailed plan – a plan he has been straight forward about since day one, and is not piecing it together as he goes – Randy is detailed, organized and appears to have already gained the respect of those who would be his subordinates.

I have heard ad-nauseam that Randy Bower has no police experience – besides the fact that he has 29 years work experience in the Sheriff’s Department and is keenly aware of our public safety needs. I am surprised that many people are unaware of the fact that the County Sheriff’s position is an administrative position.

Many of these same naysayers are the first to speak very highly of our former Sheriff Dave Green and tell us what a great job he did serving the people of the county. I’d like to ask these same people, how this can be possible, when Mr. Green had no police experience before being elected as sheriff? The answer is simply this: You do not need to be a police officer to lead the Sheriff’s Department.

Our sheriff needs to an administrator with an open door to the public because the public is who he serves and works for. He needs to be someone who understands public safety.

With 29 years as dispatcher for the county, Randy is more than qualified. Our Sheriff needs to be a leader that all employees can look up to, someone who motivates, inspires and encourages his workers. That person is without a doubt, Randy Bower.

Other candidates may claim to be more qualified, but no candidate seems to be as serious about being the next Orleans County Sheriff as Randy Bower does. If you have just one conversation with Randy, you walk away knowing that he truly cares about serving the people of Orleans County. There is no one that is more passionate and prepared to lead the Sheriff’s Department.

For all of these reasons and more, on Nov. 3, I am voting for the Republican candidate, Randy Bower, to be our next sheriff, and I urge you to do the same.

Cindy Oliver
Holley

Editor:

I am glad to hear that one of the candidates for Orleans County Sheriff has stated that he will uphold the law. As a Republican I am sorry to say he is a Democrat. I keep hearing a few people say that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional but none of them seem to be able to explain why they believe that.

Perhaps if one of the right wing candidates could shed some light on this it would help. I am unable to vote for anyone who refuses to do his or her job if elected. If anyone, candidate or not, can explain this to me I would be most appreciative.

If you are serious you will need to quote both the sections of the act that you feel are unconstitutional and the sections of the Constitution that make those sections of the act unconstitutional.

John S. Grimes
Medina

Editor:

There are many, many laws on the books, so many that a person cannot get through the day without violating several of them unknowingly.

Every day, police officers make a judgment call on what to enforce and what to let slide. Have you ever gotten just a warning, rather than a ticket? Is that not someone “not enforcing the law?”

Because of the way the government currently works, we have “laws” that infringe on our Constitutional rights. If you are a farmer with a field of standing water and you want to drain it, you cannot without the EPA’s permission.

If you have a dispute with the IRS, whether you are in the right or not, the IRS can seize your assets. Under the NDAA, the federal government has given itself permission to take everything you own and incarcerate you with no charges, indefinitely.

And NYS has put into place an illegally-wrought and unconstitutional law called the SAFE Act. Yes, there are aspects that seem good, but the entire piece of legislation was enacted incorrectly and illogically. Does anyone remember that in the beginning it made LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) felons as well?

A Constitutional Sheriff does not “pick and choose” the laws as we understand the phrase. He will study the Constitution as it relates to law enforcement, examine which laws are held up by the Constitution, and act accordingly. He stops tyranny and oppression of the people of his county, both at the state and federal level.

Is it not tyranny when a state agency threatens a local business to turn over paperwork or have a visit by a SWAT team? Is not eminent domain tyranny? Is seizing assets not tyranny?

We have not seen a great deal of federal oppression here because there is not as much federal land in this county. But we do not live in a bubble, so rest assured, it is coming.

A Constitutional Sheriff will not have a lawless county, but a safe one. He will not only work to keep the people safe, but he will put himself between the people and outside oppression. It can be a dangerous act and he needs to have the courage to do so.

And do not be misled in thinking that the judiciary has the last say in understanding the Constitution. The legal industry has long forsaken the Constitutional precepts, or has buried them in endless legalese. The people no longer know what freedoms they should have, and because of their lack of knowledge or understanding, they easily give them up, because “it’s the law.”

Make no mistake, the Constitutional Sheriff is not god-like. He will agree to training in the Constitution from an accepted program, such as the one Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association or KrisAnne Hall offers.

And he will require his deputies to do the same so that there is uniformity on the job. He will bring freedom to this county instead of oppression and fear.

Judith Larkin
Ridgeway

Editor:

I am writing to address some issues that arose during the sheriff forum sponsored by SCOPE and New York Revolution – both being extreme anti-government, pro-gun groups I had expected the agenda to be very one-sided when it comes to gun control and keeping our citizens safe from gun violence.

In my research of both groups leading up to this event, the only vague plan I found in their propaganda is to put more guns in the hands of more people in more places. Truly a recipe for disaster.

As we entered the forum we were encouraged to write questions on 3-by-5 cards for the three candidates to address. Mine was “What are the best ways to keep our citizens safe from gun violence?”

The first and only gun question actually asked of our sheriff candidates ran something like this: “Will you, as sheriff, enforce the unconstitutional SAFE Act which violates gun owners second amendment rights?” Stop the train and everyone get off!

First of all let’s set straight SCOPE and REVOLUTION’s false premise and their house of cards falls apart. The SAFE Act is constitutional, and doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. Who says so? Federal Judge after Federal Judge. State Judge after State Judge. One court case after another.

Reviews of legal and constitutional scholars have determined, that while parts of the SAFE Act need amending, the basic premise behind it, namely the need to control unlimited access to unlimited firearms and ammunition by anyone at any time in any quantity runs contrary to protecting the public safety, and therefore the SAFE Act remains the law of New York State.

Extremists have argued that gun laws only hurt those who obey the law. Remember, everyone is law abiding until they cause the massacre. So logically the issue is ACCESS TO GUNS.

The rest of the argument is subjective (opinion) and a circus side show. The clowns in this circus are played by the extreme factions within the NRA, the Tea Party and other ultra-conservative groups. They fail to grasp the concept that the framers of the US Constitution did not guarantee a citizens arms race with unlimited access to firearms.

The founding fathers, as they had stated, envisioned each state (The People) forming and being allowed to form a militia for protection. Former Chief Justice Warren Berger was right when he said “The NRA committed the greatest fraud against the American People, and I emphasize the work FRAUD, when they corrupted the 2nd Amendment to mean unlimited and unfettered access to all manner of weapons.”

So down comes the house of cards. The Second Amendment is not under attack and the SAFE Act stays. No one is coming after your guns.

The answer to gun violence is NOT more weapons in the hands of more people. That is a recipe for the destruction of society. The answer lies in restrict access to certain weapons by certain persons. Closing the loophole of being able to purchase weapons at gun shows. Making background checks for gun and ammunition purchases universal.

During the sheriff forum, candidate Don Organasciak was the only speaker with the guts to say it right, “The SAFE Act (limits to access to large capacity assault weapons and the requirement of background checks) is the law in New York State, and as Sheriff, I will enforce those duly enacted laws, including the SAFE Act.”

Randy Bower was wrong when he said, “If you, the citizens of Orleans County don’t want me to enforce a law, I won’t enforce it.” What means does Mr. Bower plan to utilize which will give him a scientific and therefore accurate pulse on public opinion on the myriad of issues before us in this county?

I am a gun owner, a hunter and conservationist. But I see no good to come out of allowing military type weapons in our community. When you see “Repeal the SAFE Act” signs littered about, remember their house of cards, their fraud, and let me add, their paranoia. But use your common sense.

Al Capurso
Gaines

Editor:

Tom Rivers did a commendable job of reporting the Orleans County Sheriff’s candidate forum. As he noted, there were several areas where Tom Drennan, Randy Bower and Don Organisciak seemed to basically agree. More revealing were the areas in which they disagreed.

They disagreed on the importance of accreditation. While Randy had his doubts about its merits, Don and Tom appeared to think it more worth pursuing. As I recall, among other things, Don said it might help secure grants and lower insurance costs and Tom stressed uniformity of service.

Another subject of disagreement involved the County’s Drug Task Force, which is currently under the direction of the District Attorney. Drennan and Organisciak offered rationales for keeping it that way. Bower took the view that the Task Force should operate under the direction of the Sheriff.

To me, Bower’s position showed independence and courage, as he questioned the status quo.

A question about diversity was asked. Tom Drennan took the question after Randy and Don had basically interpreted it in terms of gender diversity. There was the usual talk about the civil service exam and the difficulty of getting people to take it. Tom was the only candidate who suggested the importance of having minorities apply. None of them addressed the possibility of recruiting.

I was personally disappointed that none of the candidates seemed to appreciate the need for greater ethnic diversity, though Tom mentioned African-Americans. Randy did note, accurately in my view, that, depending on the situation, female officers can often be more effective, as they may be perceived as far less threatening.

At the beginning, a question was asked about enforcement of the S.A.F.E. Act. The responses were enlightening. None of the candidates indicated any interest in breaking down the doors of otherwise law-abiding people in order to seize AR-15’s. The notion that, because sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement professionals, they should take their cues from the people who elected them was raised. This view discounts the principle set forth in Article VI of the Constitution that states are bound by the Constitution and Federal law. It similarly discounts the idea that State law applies to all the jurisdictions within the State.

Despite the fact that S.C.O.P.E. co-hosted the event, Don Organisciak made it clear that, as Sheriff, it was his job to enforce the law regardless of his personal opinion about it. He could not pick and choose what laws he was to enforce even if pressured to do so.

Interestingly, a question about off-duty recreational use of marijuana brought unequivocal agreement from all the candidates. To what degree did their answers reflect the status of marijuana under the law?

Legislatures make laws. The courts interpret them, decide when they apply, and determine their Constitutionality. Sheriffs, as an arm of the executive, carry out the law. For example, under the S.A.F.E. Act, if a judge orders someone under an order of protection to seek mental health counseling, a sheriff would be in the position of having to enforce the judge’s order. If a judge ordered such a person to turn over his/her firearms, the sheriff might become similarly involved.

To me, all this is about respecting a system that has worked for over 200 years.
Sheriffs are supposed to lead. Sheriffs are usually thought of as enforcers of the law. Each of the candidates found the marijuana question a no-brainer. After all, how can respect for the law be taught when a sheriff openly defies the law? What type of example would such a leader provide? One might ask, “If a sheriff can defy the law, why can’t I?”

Don Organisciak showed his maturity and courage by not saying what the bulk of this audience may have preferred to hear. They nonetheless showed him respect. And he should be respected, even if one disagrees with his view of what a sheriff’s proper role is. As an aside, the civility shown by everyone at the forum was a tribute to Orleans residents and the democratic process.

Anyone who attended this event with an open mind had to be impressed by the seriousness of these three candidates. I continue to believe they are all capable and qualified.

Sincerely yours,
Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

Over the last several months I have absorbed the political propaganda being advanced regarding the race for Orleans County Sheriff.

Police protection is a fundamental responsibility of government. As citizens we have a right to expect that in our time of need law enforcement will be there to protect us. It is essential that we as voters get it right relative to who is best prepared to serve as the top law enforcement person in our county.

As a former Chairman of the Orleans County Legislature overseeing the Public Safety Committee, I know firsthand the importance of having a competent sheriff in office. Not only is the sheriff charged with ensuring the safety of our county by administrating and coordinating the efforts of our law enforcement officers, he manages the county jail and annually oversees a multi-million dollar budget.

Our sheriff needs to be an individual of strong moral character with solid and mature judgment who knows more about law enforcement than those in his employ. Come Jan. 1 there is no room for on-the-job training. When dealing with a crime, there are no second chances and people’s lives, reputations and livelihoods are at stake.

We are very fortunate to have three fine individuals pursuing the position of sheriff this year and each candidate has made a considerable effort in doing so. Despite this, we are witnessing the most contested race in years.

This race has divided our political parties, our criminal justice system and our community. The winner will not only be tasked with responsibilities of being sheriff, but also with unifying and gaining the trust of a fragmented community.

With my many years of experience in county government and in Orleans County politics, it is apparent to me that only one of the candidates has significantly distinguished himself from the others in his preparation for the job of sheriff.

It is indisputable that only one of the three candidates has received vast training and certifications in various aspects of law enforcement and has a substantial amount of actual work experience as a road patrol deputy, investigator and administrator of a law enforcement agency with budget planning and oversight.

In dealing with this candidate over the last 12 years I have witnessed his leadership abilities, his unquestionable character, his dedication both to law enforcement and to his family.

As a life-long resident he has made the protection of this county his career. He has a long established rapport and working relationship with law enforcement agencies throughout Western New York, as well as with local judges, prosecutors, probation personnel, lawyers and others associated with the criminal justice system in our county.

The other candidates have worked hard at their campaigns, but colorful shirts, road signs and stickers cannot mask the lack of experience. I trust that informed voters will make their way through the colorful clutter.

I trust once they get beyond the baseless rhetoric, they will see a lack of qualifications, a lack of experience and no proven track record. I trust voters will clearly see Tom Drennan for the position of sheriff in our county.

Tom Drennan knows what it takes to make our community safe. He understands and knows how to by patrolling our roads, coordinating investigations, collecting evidence, question suspects and witnesses, preparing and execute search warrants, make lawful arrests and comfort individuals and families who have been victimized.

Becoming sheriff is also about leadership and knowing how to develop and impart knowledge and experience to subordinates who will be delegated these responsibilities.

It is inconceivable to me that the Republican and Conservative candidate has no
experience in performing key components of the duties of sheriff and that candidate believes he is qualified for this position when Tom Drennan has performed these duties hundreds if not thousands of times.

It is not acceptable to tell the public that you don’t need that kind of experience to be sheriff and that you’ll have to rely on your undersheriff. If that’s the case, why do we need you? No disrespect intended but Mr. Bower’s proposed undersheriff has never been an investigator and as a lieutenant has limited administrative experience.

In a few weeks, we the voters are going to have the ultimate say. It is important we get this right. Make your own choice, but please take a little time and do some research. Attend the candidates’ public appearances, read the ads and materials and above all ask questions.

The safety of our community, your family and you depends on your diligence to insure you make an informed choice on election day.

Henry Smith, Jr.
Gaines
Former Orleans County Legislator

Editor:

The cognitive dissonance of the New York Revolution and the Orleans County chapter of SCOPE, as well as two of our candidates for Orleans County Sheriff, has been quite the sight to behold.

These citizens have constructed organizations dedicated to defending the constitutions of this great state and nation, and yet they call for a sheriff who would ignore a law that was written, passed, and (mostly) upheld by the legislative and judicial processes established by both of these documents.

And Mr. Bower and Mr. Drennan, who have campaigned so passionately, say they would defy one of the very laws that one of them will likely soon swear, under oath, to uphold and enforce.

At Wednesday night’s forum, Mr. Bower pointed out the Orleans County Legislature had passed a resolution calling for the full repeal of the SAFE Act. This resolution represented the will of the people, he said, and he would use this as his grounds for ignoring the SAFE Act.

Mr. Drennan too declared he would ignore the SAFE Act. Surely one of the well-versed constitutionalists in attendance could have explained that a local resolution does not supersede state law just as state law does not supersede federal law.

Mr. Bower and Mr. Drennan: Are there any other laws you disagree with and intend to disregard? Do you think it is the job of law enforcement officials to pick and choose which laws should be abided? Do you not believe impartiality to be a core tenet of the position you seek?

It is our right to disagree with our governing bodies. It is our right to organize and make our voices heard by our elected legislators and executives. It is our right to contest our grievances in court, where the legality of this law will ultimately be decided.

It is not our right to ignore the rule of law. And it is absolutely unacceptable for sheriff candidates to declare they will decide what is and is not the law of our land.

Mark Armstrong
Albion

Editor:

If you were to drive around the Village of Lyndonville and the Town of Yates, you would see many political signs endorsing candidates, many would say more this election than previous ones.

As many are aware there is a huge controversy over the proposed wind turbine project slated for this area.

At Town Board meetings our elected officials have remained neutral on their opinions regarding this project, stating until the town survey is completed as to how the entire town feels they will not go on record with either supporting or not supporting the project.

If that is true than I have to ask myself why are there so many signs supporting John Belson for supervisor next to “Fear Not The Wind” signs? This would lead me to believe that he supports the wind. Why else would they be there?

If he truly wants to remain neutral, then I feel they should be removed so not to influence anyone who is not sure how they feel.

Somerset did a survey over the summer to see how the town felt about the project. We are still waiting for our survey.

Why does this take so long to compile a few questions to see how the people feel? Why the delay?

Judy Esposito
“Full-time resident”
Lyndonville

Editor:

Wednesday night (Oct. 21, 2015) I attended the Orleans County Sheriff’s forum organized by the New York Revolution and the Orleans County chapter of SCOPE at the Albion Elks Lodge.

It was a very well organized forum and both groups should be commended for their professionalism and attention to detail to make this a wonderful educational event. I went there to learn more about the two candidates who are opposing Tom Drennan for the Orleans County sheriff’s position before I cast my vote on Nov. 3.

After an hour and a half of watching these three men answer the questions submitted by the attendees, it reinforced my decision that Tom Drennan is the clear-cut best choice for the sheriff’s position. He answered each question cleanly, professionally and honestly.

There was no dancing around the issues or political rhetoric. There was no “telling the people what they want to hear” and no false promises. His answer to the last question of the night and his closing statement are what left a lasting impression on me as I walked out the door to go home.

The last question of the night was “Why do you feel your choice of undersheriff is the best man for that position?” There was no collective sigh or dramatic pause from Tom Drennan when he stated the name of Brett Sobieraski as his choice for undersheriff. Don Organisciak’s answer was impressive and he simply stated that “You’re not voting for the undersheriff. A sheriff needs to lead by example. You’re the sheriff.” A straightforward response.

Drennan expanded on that statement after Organisciak’s spoke by stating that he wanted this election to be about the sheriff, nothing else. When he felt that by him not naming an undersheriff had become a distraction, he disclosed his choice. He then went on to tell the crowd a brief history of Brett Sobieraski’s background and their plan for the Orleans County Sheriff’s Department. He made it clear that the undersheriff will work for him. Their 50 years of experience between the two of them make them an impressive duo.

In my opinion, Tom Drennan’s closing statement was unmatched by either candidate. You could tell that the longer that he spoke in his closing statement, it became evident that he was proud of what he’s already accomplished for our county and wants the chance to do more.

He is a calm, cool and collected man by nature and for him to show the passion that he displayed while speaking in his closing statement, well that spoke volumes.

This showed me how much he loved his job, this county and how much he wants to serve as sheriff to make it a safer place for all us. He then went on to state his qualifications, his training and how he worked his way up through the ranks to get this opportunity to be sheriff.

My late father always said “The only job you should ever start at the top is when you’re digging a hole.”

Simply put, Tom Drennan has done it the old-fashioned way: He’s worked for it. Please vote for Tom Drennan on Nov. 3.

Sincerely,

Timothy Jurhs
Kendall

Editor:

When I bought my property here 15 years ago, Lyndonville was a quiet, friendly and attractive community. The people were kind, the village was quaint and offered its conveniences.

I loved coming here and until retirement looked forward to getting here as quickly as possible on weekends and for summer. Now I am here year-round.

In the last 10 years the village has changed. We once had a grocery store with fresh meat and dairy together with anything else you may need including hardware, paint and tools. I can’t tell you how many times I saw people buy things in there and the owner or her staff recorded the transaction in a loose leaf book until the next pay day! IT’S GONE.

There was an ice cream stand next to the Penny Saver at one time. IT’S GONE.

There was a very handy and well stocked drug store that sure was a godsend when the kids got sick or you needed a last minute gift or greeting card for a special occasion. IT’S GONE.

I miss having a service station right in town. I bought my tires there, got my oil changed and more than once had an irritating noise checked out. IT’S GONE.

Remember the little restaurant next to it in the same building, the only restaurant in the village open year-round? IT’S GONE.

I know businesses come and go, but in this town they just GO.

As I have just read Mr. Belson’s ad stating that he brings 9 years of experience to the job, I am reminded about what we no longer have in this town for conveniences and pleasure in that same time period.

The leadership of this town board is the essence of the definition of insanity. Why would we vote the same people back in and expect a different outcome?

We need new blood, new ideas and a new commitment to the Town of Yates. It sure as heck isn’t working with the current one.

Tanis C. Bolick
Lyndonville

Editor:

I don’t remember a race for the Orleans County sheriff’s position, maybe because I was too young, busy with the business, or just plain apathetic at the time, which is prevalent in today’s society.

At any rate, the Orleans County Sheriff candidate forum on Wednesday at the Albion Elks Club on West State Street was an event to behold.

First, thanks to the Elks Club for making their club available to Orleans County SCOPE and NY Revolution at no charge. And a big round of applause and thanks goes to Mattie and Joel Zarpentine of NY Revolution, David and Marsha Thom of Orleans County SCOPE, and Steven Aldstadt of NY Scope for their dedication to a good Constitutional government, and all of the work and detail that went into hosting this forum.

Also kudos to Tom Rivers of Orleans Hub, Jim Krencik of the Batavia Daily News, along with various other photographers, etc. for the covering of this important Orleans County event.

Now, down to the “nitty gritty.” It is my opinion that Randy Bower, during the Question and Answer period, clearly knocked it out of the park, and the other two candidates are still looking for it.

Randy Bower was clear, and precise with his answers, not differentiating from his views and plans, the same ones that he had started his campaign with. Randy Bower pointed out that the Orleans County Legislature had passed a resolution calling for the full repeal of the SAFE Act. Therefore it was the will of the Orleans County citizens, and if he is elected sheriff, he would not enforce the unconstitutional law.

The Democratic Party candidate for sheriff would enforce the SAFE Act, spend whatever it would take to keep up with “the Jones” (my words) and create professionalism within the Sheriff’s Office in order to make the employees want to come to work. Really!

The former Republican candidate, whom Randy Bower overtook in the Primary election, said he also would not enforce the SAFE Act, and stated that he would administer a more employee-employer friendly atmosphere within the Sheriff’s Department so the employees would look forward to starting their shifts each and every day. I ask, what has happened? Why hasn’t it been a decent place to work all along?

Along with the everyday problems, changes, and decisions that confront all of us, the deputies are dealing with a larger more critical issue, which I won’t expand on, but they have taken an oath, and are dedicated in maintaining the safety of the Orleans County people. They don’t need to go to work and start their shift at having to deal with a sour-pussed, disgruntled superior.

We know by their endorsements: the Orleans County Deputies Association, the NY Deputies Association, and the Orleans County Sheriffs’ Employees Association have all lined up and are standing with Randy Bower.

With smiles on their faces, and hope in their hearts, they are looking to the Orleans County voters to elect Randy Bower as the new sheriff.

Let us not fail them, or ourselves. Get up, get out, and vote for Randy Bower on Nov. 3.

Vote on the Republican line (2nd line down on the ballot) or the Conservative Party line (3rd line down on the ballot) for Randy Bower.

Being the Orleans County Conservative Party Chairman at the present time, I am biased, and would like to see the votes on the Conservative line, but in this case, either the 2nd or 3rd line down “Randy Bower for Sheriff” would be just fine.

Regards,

Allen Lofthouse
Kendall

(Mr. Lofthouse is chairman of the Orleans County Conservative Party, which endorsed Bower for sheriff.)

Editor:

I would like to address Mr. Smith’s scathing response to the survey sent out on behalf of SOS. Mr. Smith’s assertions could not be farther from the truth.

In fact, if the Yates Town Board really wanted the truth, they would have conducted their own survey in what should have been a timelier manner. It would seem to me that the information derived from any survey would be imperative to have prior to our upcoming election.

The survey itself, paid for by SOS and distributed and calculated by Lumsden & McCormick, LLC, received a 34 percent response. That response garnered a 77.9 percent response against the APEX Wind project.

All of the responses are available for review by any interested party. Many residents have repeatedly requested that the town conduct a survey such as what was done by this firm and continue to be told they are working on it. I wanted to know before the election what the constituents want and how the candidates feel about those issues.

At the last Town Board meeting, I personally asked Mr. Belson and Mr. Bradley to help me make my decisions for the upcoming election by stating their direction, commitment and position on pending issues before our town. They both would not commit to any direction as a Town Board member.

I understand the neutral direction of the Town Board. However, as a candidate for office, I would expect that the candidates would have some type of position or direction they would want us to know prior to the election.

I was further told that they would have an insert in the Lake Country Pennysaver stating their position. I have reviewed each publication since without finding a position paper for either of these gentlemen.

Back to Mr. Smith’s comments on the survey, unfortunately there will be some people who will believe his untruthful and no fact based assertions. To those folks, I submit, why are these candidates and board members so reluctant to support the will of the majority of their constituents?

We need to ask ourselves, what’s in it for them. As I travel around our town I question the positioning of Mr. Belson’s signs seeking re-election. If Mr. Belson is not in favor of the APEX Project please explain to me why “Fear Not the Wind” signs and his re-election signs are systematically aligned on almost every road in our town.

I would guess if he is not going to put out any type of position paper in a timely manner then his sign placement speaks for itself and I for one have my answer.

Tanis C. Bolick
Lyndonville

Editor:

I am a 38-year resident of Gaines, NY. As a homeowner and taxpayer, I want to applaud Allen Lofthouse and the Moshers for their letters supporting Carol Culhane as town supervisor. I agree with everything they stated.

Going to the monthly board meeting when I can, I have seen the change in management. I have seen my water bills reduced. I have seen fraud exposed and I too, applaud Carol for bringing these issues to the front. Her accomplishments include involvement of every aspect of running a town. She is accessible to the residents all day and into the night.

For many years, I registered as Independent. A few years ago, I realized, being independent doesn’t allow you to vote in the primaries. This is the bottom of the chain and this is where our politics start. So, I changed my registration.

The Gaines Town Board needs a supervisor who will work for the residents. We have that supervisor in Carol. I am only one little voice, but I pray that my neighbors in Gaines will support Carol Culhane as supervisor in the upcoming election.

Are we perfect? Not by a long shot however, this community is the best place to live and the people are wonderful.

Please elect Carol in our upcoming election. She is truly doing a wonderful job.

While I am at it, Mary Nealans was largely responsible for the Comprehensive Law and Dick DeCarlo initiated and got the water in the town of Gaines. They also have my support and my vote.

Sincerely,

Katherine Marsh
Gaines

Editor:

This letter is in response to Tanis Bolick’s letter that was posted Oct. 22.

The assertion that if the Town of Yates Town Board “really wanted the truth, they would have conducted their own survey in what should have been a timelier manner,” could not be farther from the truth.

Our board is acting like responsible government and weighing all the facts before coming out with their stand for or against the wind turbine project.

They have been actively working to create a survey that is impartial and fair. There is a member from SOS (the group against the turbines) as well as a member from Apex (the company proposing the project) and a Town Board member. This is fact. This is the only way to produce a survey that is not skewed to one side or the others’ views.

As to the assertion in the letter, “Why are these candidates and board members so reluctant to support the will of the majority of their constituents?”: They can not support the majority of their constituents until they get the results of the OFFICIAL survey after it is sent out.

In answer to his statement, “If Mr. Belson is not in favor of the APEX Project please explain to me why ‘Fear Not the Wind’ signs and his re-election signs are systematically aligned on almost every road in our town,” I would ask if Tanis Bolick feels that the only issue in our town is the wind turbines?

Many people here support John Belson and it has nothing to do with whether he supports the turbines or not, it has to do with the kind of man he is and the fact that we KNOW he loves our town, knows the history and heartbeat of our town and is one of us. John has no control over what other people support and the fact that his signs are in lawns with the Fear Not the Wind signs has nothing to do with his position on the subject of the wind turbines.

I also wonder that if his assertion that there are Fear Not the Wind signs on almost every road in our town how he can say “Why are these candidates and board members so reluctant to support the will of the majority of their constituents?” Because obviously many, many of the constituents do support the turbines.

John and the rest of the board know that their personal position, (when they do reach a decision on the subject) has nothing to do with whether the turbines come to Yates or not. Like good government officials should they are waiting to get a comprehensive, fair and unbiased view of the ENTIRE town from the results of the official town survey that will go out when all three entities that are creating it can agree on the content.

That is the kind of representation I want in my government, not someone who will bow to special interest groups.

Thank you,

Susan Campbell
Lyndonville

Editor:

I urge Republicans, Democrats and independents to vote for the Conservative-endorsed candidates. Many of you are disenchanted and frustrated with the candidates that are chosen for you and the incumbents that work for their own self-serving interest.

As a resident of the Town of Yates I can’t tell you how incompetently our town has been run for decades. Finally this wind project has brought to light how incompetently, unethical and out-right in violation of town and state law that some of the dealings of this board has been undertaking.

Decades of no supervisors reports, a bookkeeper on the town payroll as an employee that receives all the benefits of a municipal employee yet pays someone else in her firm to do our town books that is NOT a town employee as admitted by the town supervisor in front of a crowd of at least 50 people last meeting.

An unopposed Highway superintendent that for 20 years left the roads in this town in the winter time in such a dangerous, deadly condition. Many accidents were never even reported.

I kept writing letters to the town pointing out how incompetent this man is, and only then did the roads improve. You could eat off the roads last winter and that is because of me and my letter writing to the town.

The town has even had to hire an engineer at taxpayer expense to advise this man what should be done. Why hasn’t anyone stepped up to challenge this incompetence? There are certainly more qualified people in this town who can do that job better than him.

Whether you are for the wind turbines or against them, every single member of the current Town Board should be voted out of office – not because I don’t like them personally. They have only been elected because they are popular old boys and the public has never seen them in action till now.

They act like they don’t know what they are doing and they seem not to care because only I have been questioning them until now. Many people have seen them in action now and the opinion of this board has changed and rightly so. It is overdue time for a change in the Town of Yates.

The Conservative Party is endorsing Glenn Maid for Town Councilman. Glenn is very competent man with fresh ideas. He is a retired police officer and most importantly he has ethics. He will have no tolerance for corruption and underhanded dealings. His slogan is “Effective Leadership.” I truly believe this man will do a stellar job like this town has never seen before – for the people of this community.

Folks it is time for change. Not just for the sake of change but because we need it for a better future. As the vice chairman of the Orleans County Conservative Party, I highly endorse Glenn Maid for Yates Town Councilman. He will fight for you. He is a leader. You can find him on Facebook to hear more of what he has to say at Glenn Maid for Yates Town Board. You will be impressed at this man’s intellect.

Please write in Jim Simon for Town Supervisor, and vote for John Riggi for Town Councilman. The entire board needs to be changed and now is the time to do it. These men will steer this town in the right direction.

Vote Randy Bower for sheriff.

Don’t forget to vote for Paul Lauricella for Legislature District 2 and don’t forget to vote for James White Legislature at Large.

We are the candidates of change up at the county. We will not be the rubber stamps that our opponents are. We will work for you and a better Orleans County.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul Lauricella Jr.
Lyndonville