Video statements allegedly show former Hartland board members admitting they relied on Ross Annable instead of fully reviewing resolutions.
HARTLAND, NY - One of the most serious questions now facing Hartland town government is not limited to solar, payroll, easements, or political endorsements. It is broader: did elected board members fully read and understand the
resolutions they voted on?David Mongielo says he has video of former Hartland board members stating they did not fully read certain resolutions before voting and instead relied heavily on then-Supervisor Ross Annable’s direction.
If those statements are accurate, they could explain why several past decisions are now being questioned, including the solar law, disputed benefit language, last-minute easement activity, confidential secretary pay and benefits, and transition decisions before the new administration took office.
Town board members are not employees of the supervisor. They are independently elected officials. Their duty is to read resolutions, understand what is being approved, ask questions, debate public policy, and vote in the best interest of residents.
A supervisor may recommend action, but a recommendation does not replace independent judgment. A board member’s vote carries legal and financial consequences for taxpayers, landowners, employees, and future administrations.
The concern is especially important in Hartland’s solar controversy. If board members approved solar-related language without fully understanding it, residents should be told exactly what was passed, who drafted it, who explained it, and whether any potential conflicts were disclosed.
The same issue applies to the confidential secretary position. If a final-day employment date created a potential $4,000 taxpayer cost, board members should have known the financial effect before voting. If they did not, the public deserves to know why.
It also applies to the reported easement passed shortly before the prior administration left office. Easements can affect land use, public rights, development, infrastructure, and future town obligations. They should never be approved without careful review.
Former board members who appear in or are referenced by the video should also be asked direct follow-up questions: Which resolutions did they not fully read? Why did they vote anyway? Did they ask the town attorney for explanation? Did they believe Annable had already reviewed the matters for them? Were residents told that some board members did not understand what they were approving?
This story cuts through party politics. It is about basic government competence. Voters elect board members to act as a check and balance, not as a rubber stamp.
Hartland residents deserve a complete public review of the resolutions passed during the Annable administration, especially those involving solar, land use, easements, public money, employment benefits, and records management. If elected officials voted without reading, residents have a right to know which decisions were affected and what the consequences were.
|
Source notes / records to attach or verify: • Video of former Hartland board members discussing whether they read resolutions before voting. • List of resolutions passed during the relevant Annable administration period. • Board packets showing what documents were provided before each vote. • Meeting minutes and recordings for solar law, easement, payroll, benefit, and transition-related votes. • Town attorney memoranda or explanations, if any, provided to board members before votes. |
