Election Day is made less relevant by New York State’s unconstitutional Election Law. It places the will of parties before the conscience of The People. The algorithms of our asocial ‘social media’ amplify our unfolding civic crisis.

Consider what your body remembers about this campaign season. Is it engagement or repulsion? Did the vote feel like a culmination of evolving constructive civic Purpose, and/or relief from a diffuse malaise? The identified somatic feelings are further molding our civic psyche.

Concurrently, our Town budget is progressing toward enactment. It constitutes the financial framework for next year’s governance. When reading this, its Public Hearing is history. While it may be less likely this cycle, at least twice an election’s contested outcome led to an outgoing administration significantly drawing down reserves to hamstring an incoming one. Regardless of what the public Voiced on the budget—how will it be considered?

Lighting districts were not Noticed for the October 20 hearing concerning benefit districts. Questions about why and when district tax amounts were added to the budget before their Public Hearing remain unanswered. Past property tax bills suggest that lighting district costs are charged to the entirety of our town for the last two budget cycles. At the year’s outset, our Budget Officer announced that this change would occur this year. It conflicts with state law. The announcement referenced relying on advice of counsel. Was a misleading admission an attempt to cover earlier ‘irregularities’?

Our Board of Ethics has no budget line for legal counsel. It is administered by unsworn Town Board counsel as an advisory committee. By Code it is not a committee. Is this ethical?

There is a budget line for counsel concerning the Town Clerk as a Records Management Officer. There’s no corresponding appointed citizen oversight Records Advisory Board (our Code’s Chapter 48). Is such related to our FOIL conundrum?

“Strengthening” multi-family regulations is underway without Board authorization resolved in open meeting. Enactment is linked to the lifting of our land-use moratorium. In the context of the Governor’s SEQRA exemption “Let Them Build” budget text, local approval of “multi-unit” developments of more than one and up to 100 units on qualified disturbed land within 120 days is a “shall”. As budget busting matters, is counsel cashing in on fear for current and future billable hours (i.e., particularly on appeal)?

Languishing is a draft complaint for an emergency injunction and a stay for the SEQRA village-enabled developments by enacting constitutionally corrective emergency legislation and defending home rule. Will following the advice (#4) have greater budget impact and/or be more profitable for the law firm of an assigned and allegedly advising counsel?

Recalling previously exercised #PurposedSpeech, what’s in play is integral to a denied liberty of conscience and its constitutional protection. An oppression of conscience is repugnant and unconstitutional whether the perception of civic power involved is labeled political or religious. If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. What say you?