| 1930's |
In the early 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt was New York's governor the Laws of New York were revised.
In this revision the Town Government structure of a Supervisor and either 4 or 6 Councilmen/women
was introduced and was defined to be triggered when a township's population reached a trigger point.
Also defined very clearly is the mechanism by which the PEOPLE in the Town can establish Council Districts or Wards.
This is done through a petition process. The wording of the petition is specified in the law
- "Shall the ward system be established …in the Town of ____ ". Only the name of the Town need be filled in.
Once the petitioners gather the specified number of valid signatures the Town Clerk must validated
the petition and the Town Board must specify a date for the referendum in a window of 60 to 75 days from receipt.
It is important to realize that the Board's action is not discretionary. They may not like the idea but the law is clear.
They must act on the petition and give the people their right to vote on selecting Council Districts.
|
| 1966 |
The present organization of the Town Council with a Supervisor
and 6 Councilman/Councilwomen elected "at-large"was established.
This was triggered by Brookhaven Town growing too large - over 50,000 residents.
It now has a population of 430,000. |
| 1972 |
A referendum to establish Council Districts was placed
on the ballot |
|
The People of the Town of Brookhaven in a Presidential election with
a large turn-out approved Council Districts |
|
The Town Clerk "discovered" that he did not
properly advertise the election. |
|
The "at-large" forces sue and have the election
thrown out. |
| 1973 |
Since the last election was thrown out, a Special Election
was held. The "status quo" forces were marshalled and with a
very small turnout election the referendum was defeated. |
| 1996 |
ABCO, the Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization, first
asks the Town to place a referendum for Council Districts on the ballot
then begins petitioning as defined in state law. We are soon joined by
other groups such as the League of Women Voters, Neighborhood Network,
etc. |
| |
The League of Women Voters was stopped from handing out
leaflets on Council Districts. |
| |
A press conference held in a parking lot outside of Town offices was
drowned out by all the car alarms turned on. |
| |
A Petition with 13,000 Signatures, we only needed 5,400,
was gathered and submitted to the Town Clerk. |
| |
Three unknown people came forward and challenged our
petitions and the Town rejects our petitions. Every signature, on page
after page, was thrown out as not being registered until over 9,000 of our signatures
were voided. It was egregious. |
|
We sued. 13 Judges recused themselves from our case.
Finally after many months Judge Berler was selected to hear our case. After
months in deliberation and after the election had passed, Berler rejected
our petition as being too vague even though we followed statute wording
exactly. That decision is being appealed. |
| 1998 |
A new petition, more verbose than the first one, is started at a kickoff dinner
in February. |
| |
In March, the Town Board passes a resolution making the new petition invalid and which also
limits the time period for gathering signatures. |
| |
State Law mandates that an election must be held between 60 to 75 days after a valid
petition is granted. The Town Board doesn't have to think it is a good idea. They are supposed to follow the
law and schedule an election. 73 days before the November election we submitted the new petition with 7,000 signatures. This
time we entered all the signatures into a computer and, using the election board data, look up all the voter registration
numbers and validated all the signers. |
| |
Once again 3 unknown people come forward to challenge the petitions and the Town throws out
the petition. We again go to court. The Town again spends taxpayer money for outside lawyers. |
| |
Time passes we miss the November election, Judges change in the case and we once again
get Judge Berler. |
| 2000 |
Judge Berler agrees with us that the Town had no legal right to pass their
election law to frustrate our petitioning effort. Berler also noted that the Town's motives
were suspect. The Town is spending even more taxpayer money to appeal this decision. |
|
Berler did not specify a date for the election. We again went to court
to get the Judge or the Town to set an election date. |
| 2001 |
Town's Attorneys present oral arguments before Appellate Court and claim
motives of Town's Law is to help the petitioners. Justices use the word "incredulous". |
|
Town appoints Committee to prepare "white paper" on Council Districts.
Committee finds costs of districts greatly inflated and unanimously calls for a referendum in
November. Town attacks committee and buries the report. |
|
Appellate Court votes (4-0) for our side and agrees that the Town
acted improperly interfering with our right to petition. (Oct 15,2001) |
| 2002 |
Town votes at their meeting to schedule a Special Election on January
22,2002 to hold a referendum on Council Districts. (Nov 22,2001) |
|
Referendum held Jan 22, 2002 - We win unofficially by 725 votes |
|
Recount called for Jan 25th and the win margin increases to 825 votes |
|
Absentee ballot period closes and the win is official by 829 votes |
|
Councilman Dominic Santoro makes application to Court of Appeals to
overturn our win in Berler's Supreme Court and the (4-0) affirmation in the Appelate Court (March 5th) |
|
Town Board acting as Trustees, votes $50,000 to support a legal challenge
to the referendum on the grounds in conflicts with Trustee status (March 19th) |
