Please scroll to read . . .
REGARDING OUR SOLAR LAW
FACTS: In her insert in the June 18 PennySaver, Carl’s opponent acknowledges that “Mr. Ast is a member of the group of concerned citizens that worked with the Town Board to develop the [Town solar] law.” She then asks, “Why now does he suggest there is something wrong with my support of solar that conforms with the Town Law?
Carl has not suggested that there is something wrong with his opponent’s support of the Town’s solar law. However, in her two-page insert in the June 4th Genesee Valley PennySaver she stated she does not have a position on whether large industrial scale solar like Horseshoe Solar has a place in our town. She claims that our Town “has the expansive farmland that is attractive to such large-scale Commercial Facilities like Horseshoe” and questions whether it should be her place to say “No” to someone who wants to use their property for this purpose.
COMMENT: The “expansive farmland” Carl’s opponent refers to is currently zoned residential. Whether she believes it is her place to say no, or not, is irrelevant, the fact remains that it is the Town law that specifies where and how much of it can be used for large-scale solar. The Town has determined that 150 acres of Town land is an appropriate amount to be dedicated to this non-residential, non-agricultural commercial application. Members of our Town Council should be ready and willing to support our law and defend it against those who would exploit it for commercial purpose.
FACTS: In her insert in the June 18 PennySaver, Carl’s opponent acknowledges that “Mr. Ast is a member of the group of concerned citizens that worked with the Town Board to develop the [Town solar] law.” She then asks, “Why now does he suggest there is something wrong with my support of solar that conforms with the Town Law?
Carl has not suggested that there is something wrong with his opponent’s support of the Town’s solar law. However, in her two-page insert in the June 4th Genesee Valley PennySaver she stated she does not have a position on whether large industrial scale solar like Horseshoe Solar has a place in our town. She claims that our Town “has the expansive farmland that is attractive to such large-scale Commercial Facilities like Horseshoe” and questions whether it should be her place to say “No” to someone who wants to use their property for this purpose.
COMMENT: The “expansive farmland” Carl’s opponent refers to is currently zoned residential. Whether she believes it is her place to say no, or not, is irrelevant, the fact remains that it is the Town law that specifies where and how much of it can be used for large-scale solar. The Town has determined that 150 acres of Town land is an appropriate amount to be dedicated to this non-residential, non-agricultural commercial application. Members of our Town Council should be ready and willing to support our law and defend it against those who would exploit it for commercial purpose.
REGARDING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FACTS: In her insert in the June 18 PennySaver, Carl’s opponent asks “if a review [of the Comprehensive Plan] is currently underway, why don’t members of the Town Board or Planning Board . . . know anything about it?”
In fact, at the January 22 Town Board meeting, Deputy Town Supervisor Mosetti stated that her role is to establish collective intelligence committees within the community to address outstanding matters including updating of the Comprehensive Plan.
Again, at the February 12 Town Board meeting, the Deputy Town Supervisor distributed a timeline of where the plan began and where updating the Comprehensive Plan could be done to the Town Board, Town Clerk and Town Attorney. Copies were distributed to the audience. To begin the process, a public meeting would be necessary. Work in updating the Plan would be years in the making.
At the same meeting, Attorney Mancuso stated that the CHA, town engineer, has also prepared a comprehensive plan update and talking points on how expansive or detailed the town wishes to proceed. The town budget will drive updating the plan. A copy of comments is being forwarded to Deputy Town Supervisor Mosetti.
COMMENT: So yes, the Comprehensive Plan update is underway. Recent demands associated with COVID-19 and questions regarding the role of the Deputy Supervisor raised by two members of the Town Board and supported by Carl’s opponent have put a damper on this and other important initiatives.
FACTS: In her insert in the June 18 PennySaver, Carl’s opponent asks “if a review [of the Comprehensive Plan] is currently underway, why don’t members of the Town Board or Planning Board . . . know anything about it?”
In fact, at the January 22 Town Board meeting, Deputy Town Supervisor Mosetti stated that her role is to establish collective intelligence committees within the community to address outstanding matters including updating of the Comprehensive Plan.
Again, at the February 12 Town Board meeting, the Deputy Town Supervisor distributed a timeline of where the plan began and where updating the Comprehensive Plan could be done to the Town Board, Town Clerk and Town Attorney. Copies were distributed to the audience. To begin the process, a public meeting would be necessary. Work in updating the Plan would be years in the making.
At the same meeting, Attorney Mancuso stated that the CHA, town engineer, has also prepared a comprehensive plan update and talking points on how expansive or detailed the town wishes to proceed. The town budget will drive updating the plan. A copy of comments is being forwarded to Deputy Town Supervisor Mosetti.
COMMENT: So yes, the Comprehensive Plan update is underway. Recent demands associated with COVID-19 and questions regarding the role of the Deputy Supervisor raised by two members of the Town Board and supported by Carl’s opponent have put a damper on this and other important initiatives.
REGARDING ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
FACTS: On her two-page insert in the June 4th Genesee Valley PennySaver, Carl’s opponent stated that one of six concepts she is committed to is "Ethical behavior" on the Town Board. After seeing this statement, we just could not keep silent on the hypocrisy. During her very first step in becoming a candidate, that is, the collecting of signatures in support of her candidacy, she chose not only to engage in unethical behavior but violated election law. At a Specific Objection Hearing held before the Monroe County Board of Elections on April 9, 2020, Carl’s opponent confirmed that in violation of the law, she did not have a notary public witness some of the signatures on her Designating Petition for the Independence Party line voters. This was in violation of Election Law 6-132(3), and she did this knowingly. The affected signatures were thus disqualified by the Commissioners. Additionally, she then went even further by later having a notary public sign off on the signatures without the notary being present to witness the petition being signed.
COMMENT: This disregard for Election Law, which is clearly noted on the petition signature forms, reveals a willingness to disregard the law for her own convenience. This is not a characteristic that we want in an elected official and calls into question her allegiance to the law and to “ethical behavior.” Cutting corners to get around the law is not what we need or want in our elected government officials.
FACTS: On her two-page insert in the June 4th Genesee Valley PennySaver, Carl’s opponent stated that one of six concepts she is committed to is "Ethical behavior" on the Town Board. After seeing this statement, we just could not keep silent on the hypocrisy. During her very first step in becoming a candidate, that is, the collecting of signatures in support of her candidacy, she chose not only to engage in unethical behavior but violated election law. At a Specific Objection Hearing held before the Monroe County Board of Elections on April 9, 2020, Carl’s opponent confirmed that in violation of the law, she did not have a notary public witness some of the signatures on her Designating Petition for the Independence Party line voters. This was in violation of Election Law 6-132(3), and she did this knowingly. The affected signatures were thus disqualified by the Commissioners. Additionally, she then went even further by later having a notary public sign off on the signatures without the notary being present to witness the petition being signed.
COMMENT: This disregard for Election Law, which is clearly noted on the petition signature forms, reveals a willingness to disregard the law for her own convenience. This is not a characteristic that we want in an elected official and calls into question her allegiance to the law and to “ethical behavior.” Cutting corners to get around the law is not what we need or want in our elected government officials.
REGARDING HAVING A CHOICE IN NOVEMBER – PART I
FACTS: Again, in its recent, undated flier (probably sent out on Friday, June 12) to Rush Republicans, the RRC claims that in order for voters to truly have a choice in the November election, Carl’s opponent will need to win the June Primary. This is untrue.
COMMENT: Carl’s opponent will appear on the Conservative and Independence lines – again, in spite of the fact that she was found guilty by the Monroe County Board of Elections Commissioners for violating election law in order to secure the Independence Party registration. There will still be a choice.
FACTS: Again, in its recent, undated flier (probably sent out on Friday, June 12) to Rush Republicans, the RRC claims that in order for voters to truly have a choice in the November election, Carl’s opponent will need to win the June Primary. This is untrue.
COMMENT: Carl’s opponent will appear on the Conservative and Independence lines – again, in spite of the fact that she was found guilty by the Monroe County Board of Elections Commissioners for violating election law in order to secure the Independence Party registration. There will still be a choice.
REGARDING HAVING A CHOICE IN NOVEMBER – PART II
FACTS: Speaking on behalf of Carl’s opponent, the RRC has made claims, as presented above, that in order to really have a choice, voters need to do what the RRC says to do. Unfortunately, the RRC has not provided its Republican voters much choice over the last dozen years because of its involvement in pre-end-of-term retirements coordinated with political appointments, rather than elections, to choose new replacement candidates. Consider that since 2008 there has been a pattern of preliminary-end-of-term resignations followed by appointments of favored individuals. In fact, there have been 11 full years of Town positions filled by appointment rather than by election over the last 12 years.
COMMENT: These resignations and appointments appear to have been orchestrated by a very small group of individuals who make up and run the Rush Republican Committee (RRC). The assuredness of this group in being able to so consistently secure Town offices and place individuals in these positions on the basis of their loyalty to the RRC rather than on their skills and qualifications is insupportable.
While these officials have been in control, many of the Town’s urgent needs have been neglected: collapsing buildings on the former BOCES property, deteriorating conditions in the 1911 house, ten plus years of a leaking library roof and generally deteriorating conditions of the hamlet area. Recently there has been more debate regarding another push to appoint yet another RRC friend than there has been to address any of these significant needs. It is time to clean up the process.
FACTS: Speaking on behalf of Carl’s opponent, the RRC has made claims, as presented above, that in order to really have a choice, voters need to do what the RRC says to do. Unfortunately, the RRC has not provided its Republican voters much choice over the last dozen years because of its involvement in pre-end-of-term retirements coordinated with political appointments, rather than elections, to choose new replacement candidates. Consider that since 2008 there has been a pattern of preliminary-end-of-term resignations followed by appointments of favored individuals. In fact, there have been 11 full years of Town positions filled by appointment rather than by election over the last 12 years.
COMMENT: These resignations and appointments appear to have been orchestrated by a very small group of individuals who make up and run the Rush Republican Committee (RRC). The assuredness of this group in being able to so consistently secure Town offices and place individuals in these positions on the basis of their loyalty to the RRC rather than on their skills and qualifications is insupportable.
While these officials have been in control, many of the Town’s urgent needs have been neglected: collapsing buildings on the former BOCES property, deteriorating conditions in the 1911 house, ten plus years of a leaking library roof and generally deteriorating conditions of the hamlet area. Recently there has been more debate regarding another push to appoint yet another RRC friend than there has been to address any of these significant needs. It is time to clean up the process.
REGARDING ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN TOWN BOARD MEETINGS
FACTS: And again, in its recent, undated flier (probably sent out on Friday, June 12) to Rush Republicans, the Rush Republican Committee claims that Carl’s opponent has “actively participated in Town Board meetings . . .” This again, is untrue. The truth is that over most of the last year and a half, she has remained silent, only briefly commenting three times:
COMMENT: It doesn’t really matter whether Carl’s opponent was truthful or not in stating that she intentionally remained silent during the last year and a half because she didn’t want to appear to be politicking, her action would be faulty in either event. If she was indeed interested in winning the election on the basis of something other than being anointed by the RRC, she should have spoken up frequently like Carl did to let voters know where he stands on the important issues facing the Town today. If, on the other hand, she said nothing because she had nothing to offer, then she really isn’t what we need in our elected office.
During this same period of time, Carl spoke at least ten times about his views on topics such as large-scale solar in Rush, the need for an updated comprehensive plan and improving the town's processes.
FACTS: And again, in its recent, undated flier (probably sent out on Friday, June 12) to Rush Republicans, the Rush Republican Committee claims that Carl’s opponent has “actively participated in Town Board meetings . . .” This again, is untrue. The truth is that over most of the last year and a half, she has remained silent, only briefly commenting three times:
- Once last year when she spoke up without introduction to tout the value of following Robert’s Rules of Order; and
- Again on January 8, 2020, when in response to Supervisor’s Kusse’s comment welcoming applause but not the opposite during Town Board Meetings and explaining that concerns could be presented to the Board during Public Comment sessions, she interrupted the Board to ask: “How can we let you know when something is being done that we’re concerned about?”
- And again on February 26, 2020 when she questioned whether a committee was being formed about the building at 1911 Rush-Scottsville Road.
COMMENT: It doesn’t really matter whether Carl’s opponent was truthful or not in stating that she intentionally remained silent during the last year and a half because she didn’t want to appear to be politicking, her action would be faulty in either event. If she was indeed interested in winning the election on the basis of something other than being anointed by the RRC, she should have spoken up frequently like Carl did to let voters know where he stands on the important issues facing the Town today. If, on the other hand, she said nothing because she had nothing to offer, then she really isn’t what we need in our elected office.
During this same period of time, Carl spoke at least ten times about his views on topics such as large-scale solar in Rush, the need for an updated comprehensive plan and improving the town's processes.
REGARDING BEING ENDORSED BY THE RUSH REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
FACTS: The RRC has touted its endorsement of Carl’s opponent as its unequivocal statement of her qualifications for the job. The first mailing by the RRC advertises its choice for the Town Council and includes a portion of her statement posted on the RRC website. Interestingly, the RRC chose to not include her stated goals for candidacy, which included only:
FACTS: The RRC has touted its endorsement of Carl’s opponent as its unequivocal statement of her qualifications for the job. The first mailing by the RRC advertises its choice for the Town Council and includes a portion of her statement posted on the RRC website. Interestingly, the RRC chose to not include her stated goals for candidacy, which included only:
- To implement “Robert’s Rules of Order” protocols for the general public, which she claimed does not understand what is proper for a public comment period; and
- To develop a more “cohesive” governance team with “strong unified” leadership.
