Dissolution: Holderman needs to leave committee; Village Board should allow K-ville residents to vote

We strongly disagree. As we have said, the towns already provide the majority of the services that village residents currently have, with little needs of expansion. Garbage collection will be eliminated, but there are still transfer stations.

Does Holderman really think that town governments cannot be trusted? Does he truly believe that Gerald Morrow, Sandi Senecal or other North Country supervisors do not have the best interests of their constituents in mind? Or, is this an attempt to save the jobs of elected officials that can be consolidated easily? Is this just an attempt to pit village against town in a border war over a border that really isn’t there?

Addressing the other point of losing identity, what is really going to be lost? People will still call Keeseville by its name, just like they do in Bloomingdale. The Revitalize Keeseville organization will still be able to work to improve the community, with Holderman hopefully staying on as a contributing member.

Another issue is Holderman is a sitting member of the dissolution committee which was formed to be an “un-biased” group. Holderman stated when he started on the committee that he had no bias, but that is no longer the case, and therefore he should resign his position on the committee. We are not saying that he should no longer be mayor, but he should not have an official capacity on the committee.

It has become apparent that Holderman and the board will not act on the Dissolution Plan when it is presented to them. The members each showed their hand. Mary King, a trustee and committee member has not spoken as openly against dissolution but has spent the past three meetings trying to thwart it. There was also the village sanctioning an anti-dissolution meeting Aug. 28, along with the letter sent out by the mayor. We question if an official village newsletter is the right place for a personal, political statement.

At the very least, the village board should allow the residents they represent to vote on the matter without having to call for a vote through referendum, where signatures representing 10 percent of registered voters in the village are required. The choice seems clear: If it’s about what is best for the taxpayers, then the village board will allow a vote.

But if it’s about making themselves look needed or saving elected jobs, then the village board will do nothing, leaving residents with the sole option of referendum. Do the right thing.

Comments should be directed to denpubs@denpubs.com

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment