Correcting the errors

Thank you, Photo News, for giving my efforts a front page run. However, due to numerous errors contained in the article, I feel it necessary to correct the inconsistencies. The actual events need to be presented as they occurred. It’s tough enough to captivate people’s interest when holding our local municipality accountable for their actions. When the press misrepresents the facts, they confuse and frustrate those who are trying to understand exactly what happened and why. Whereas, getting the facts right will greatly increase the paper’s credibility and gain back the reader’s trust. To begin with, the premise of the article is incorrect. I didn’t try to “block” the Village of Monroe from building a new DPW (Department of Public Works). My mission was strictly and solely to gather the required number of signatures needed, by law, to put the $1.7 million spending project in the hands of the voters, where I believe it should be. Second, the story failed to mention The Village of Monroe did not provide a public forum to discuss this proposal, nor did village officials adequately present their agenda through the press. So it’s not surprising only a handful of residents contacted actually knew about the plan. Finally, the petition requirement, as given to me by the Board of Elections, was misleading. It stated that the number of electors must equal 5 percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial election. I used these parameters to obtain the 165 signatures and present them to the village on August 19th. Two days later, I received a rejection letter, from the Village of Monroe. It indicated that my petition was declared invalid due to an insufficient number of signatures. The letter referenced Village Law Article 9, Section 900, which stated signature totals must be at least 20 percent of the total electors in the village. That equates to about 1,000 signatures, which would take several months to obtain. It would be nearly impossible to canvass that amount of people within the 30 day time frame required by law. How can we hold our local government accountable with this type of restriction? I asked that question to our state representatives, Senator Bill Larkin and Assemblywoman Annie Rabbitt. They both agreed the law needs to be revised to reflect a more equitable level of signatures and will combine their efforts to draft legislation in January 2012. The bill is expected to reduce the Village Law requirement to 5 percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial election. This will give registered voters easier access to petition their local government on a wide range of issues. In closing, I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to all who stood with me to help make our voices heard. Michelle Hieronymi Monroe