15 minutes makes this the shortest meeting I have been too. It started with John Steger talking about needing 2 continuous years to get on the state retirement program. Apparently he didn't realize that if a 2-year person were liked he would get reelected. This is assuming that you believe that they are telling the truth about the reason for the change. Then Don Armstrong stating that the meeting was legal because it was an emergency, the emergency being that they didn't get their act together in time to do it at a regularly scheduled meeting. I would have liked to see him argue that before a judge, lucky for him he won't have to. Probably wasted $1,000.00 in legal and other fees doing this . . . All for naught. One audience member thought that once they read this web site they realized that it might not be one of them that got elected to a four-year term and as Ann Brennan put it, what would we do if we didn't like the person, we couldn't get rid of them for four years. Guess she saw the light. She also made the incredible point that someone doing a four-year term gets lazy and takes their job for granted and slacks off etc. Ann is in the fourth year of her fourth four-year term!. All the other town board members have four-year terms as well as Marylyn Stoker, Town Justice. I wonder how she came to this conclusion. However who better than her to know. Sometimes experience counts in these matters. After she blasted the idea both Betty and Kate agreed thus making it 3 against and that killed it. Then Peter Knapp jumped ship and left John Steger hanging out to dry by himself when he said words to the effect that he thought it was a good idea when he first heard it but on reflection decided that it was a bad idea. John looked embarrassed and said that he guessed they could adjourn and go home.

Usually these things are all worked out before the meeting. The Supervisor and board members all talk things out and decide what they are going to do at a meeting. I've seen it dozens of times. It's legal as long as only two talk at a time. If three or more get together and talk then that violates the NY State Open Meeting Law. This just makes it difficult. Have to make a bunch of phone calls. This leaves the question . . . Why didn't they go through with it? Obviously Peter and John were for it, could it be they didn't talk to the other board members? Possibly after seeing this web site they realized this would be an issue for the election. They have made half the town mad at them for the reassessment and maybe they didn't want any more problems before the election. Of course they have the Knapp rezone coming up and they all voted to have the ordinance drawn up so I assume they are going to vote for that also. However that would be a huge issue for the election. The rezone of Paul Knapp's 82 acres would adversely affect the property values of dozens of voters in the middle of town. This is where their core support is. Devaluing their supporter's property just so Paul Knapp can make a million bucks is one of the stupidest political moves I've seen. If they go through with it they can kiss their chances for re-election goodbye. They probably have lost any hope anyway. What's one more issue for the voters to be mad at them about. Julie Ray told me that in all cases where Ag land was rezoned commercial the land values dropped unless a business that came in was benign. Flying J building on Paul's land is as far from benign as you can get. Property values will plummet and the town board will be blamed. We'll have to see what happens at the 6/11/1 meeting. It is possible that they came to their senses and will vote it down. Would be a pleasant change for once. No matter to us because if they do vote for it then we will file an article 78 lawsuit that will delay it until after the election and a newly controlled Town Board can deal with it next year.

A win win win situation for our side.

Frank Hogg