I am writing in response to Don Michalak’s commentary in the OBSERVER (April 23) headlined “Fredonia referendum is likely illegal.” I would like to address some specific points.

First, I want to thank the writer for openly stating that local officials must know basic municipal law. Even more so, the mayor, who, under our charter and New York state law, is responsible for the faithful execution of all laws and bylaws. During my four-year term, I was truly fortunate to work with two exceptional municipal attorneys, Sam Drayo and Dan Gard, who taught and guided me while ensuring that all legal actions were sound, compliant and in the best interest of our community.

Therefore, I can assure him that I very well understand the statutory limitations regarding referendums.

Second, based on the content of his commentary, it appears that he had not watched the meeting in question when he wrote it. Had he seen it, he would have understood that my public comment was prompted by the mayor’s repeated misstatements regarding referendum law. On at least three occasions, Michael Ferguson stated that forcing a permissive referendum would require signatures from 20% of the village’s registered voters. That is not correct.

Village Law Section 9-902 clearly states that the requirement is 20% of the registered voters “who voted in the last general village election.” This distinction is significant; in the last election out of the 4,000 registered voters fewer than 1,900 voted. That means that the number of signatures needed to force a referendum is 372 and not 800, as was suggested. I wonder if the mayor was aware of the actual law and if not, why not?

Third, he states that his “immediate reaction” (upon reading the article) was “that such a referendum is illegal and unauthorized.” Illegal is a strong word that makes you wonder why he chose to use it. Our only, and very legal, attempt to secure a permissive referendum took place last September, following the board’s approval of $17.5 million in serial bonds for the water project. We successfully collected 318 signatures. Although we only needed about 50 more, we did not pursue the matter further.

In his “final” note, he states that he doubts the article’s assertion that “submitting a question to referendum is not without precedent” is correct. Instead, he believes that the “bond resolution for a new Village Hall” was subject to a mandatory referendum. I disagree with that belief.

The story of how the community saved the Opera House was one of the first we heard when we moved to Fredonia in 1992, and it remains my favorite.

Jim Sedota, the administrator at the time, later recounted those events for me. The situation was quite similar to the current and the question the same. Keep and restore what already was or demolish it and build anew. Although both the planning and the village board supported demolition, the resolution to bond the necessary funds was subject to a permissive referendum. When it became clear that many residents opposed the decision, the board chose to hold a permissive referendum voluntarily to respect the community’s voice.

In contrast, the current village board has chosen to ignore and dismiss public opposition to their decision to decommission our water system in favor of buying water from the North County Water District. The mayor, rather than encouraging community engagement, has repeatedly misrepresented the number of concerned residents, and made disparaging remarks regarding their intelligence. Moreover, he hindered relevant comments by severely restricting the people’s ability to speak on the subject during public meetings.

Finally, I would like to address two questions.

Why did the writer choose to use the word “illegal” to describe a possible referendum or even my suggestion to have one? How can a referendum be illegal when most require state level legal authorization? Or could that be a message he’s trying to convey to the people of the village?

Also, is there a point he is trying to make? He starts his commentary by giving a general disclaimer stating that it doesn’t “constitute a legal opinion or advice” and finishes it by suggesting a retraction, offering references, case law, and well-chosen opinions by state appellate courts. As a matter of fact, those two parts seem to cover more than half of the whole thing, so, to me, he sure sounds like he is giving advice.

In any case, he knows his reasons; and I know mine. Contrary to a common belief, voting for someone doesn’t mean giving them a blank check to do whatever they like, but rather that you allow and expect them to fulfill the platform they run on. Referendums are legal and should be used when elected officials decide to jump off that platform into fields they never spoke of as candidates.

Do I still support a referendum, although I understand that the board has already taken steps that would be difficult to reverse? As long as there is a legal way, yes, I do.

Athanasia Landis served as village mayor and is a Fredonia resident.