Board members drop bombshell; distracted voters don’t notice
— a tale of two headlines

I’m as disgusted with the sad state of Riverhead campaigning as anyone, but what troubles me most is that the mud-slinging diverts attention from really important things.

Want proof? Two big stories appeared on RiverheadLocal within a few hours of each other.

“Supervisor: Giglio arrested in California in 1989″ (see story)  drew more than 50 comments and replies, including an 1,160-word rant (as long as the very detailed story).

“State-imposed budget deadlines loom” drew NO comments. (See story.)

The first story was about Candidate A giving a private investigator’s report to Candidate B, who used it to disclose long-ago legal trouble of Candidate C … who admitted not resolving same until deciding to run for town office. It’s pure soap opera.

Each candidate accuses the others of bad character and lack of integrity… and this is clearly the only thing in this disgraceful campaign on which we can agree: They’re ALL guilty as charged.

Searching for substance

I refuse to let this nonsense influence my vote — and keep looking for real substance. Fortunately, it’s in the other story, which is about what should matter most to us all: town finances.

The budget piece no one noticed contains truly remarkable stuff. First, three council members — George Gabrielsen, Jim Wooten and John Dunleavy — say they’re going to vote to pierce the tax cap, which will allow the supervisor’s budget to take effect.

Notwithstanding this clear and insurmountable hurdle, Councilwoman Giglio says she has new ideas, three weeks to develop an alternative budget, and “after the election, my board members will help me put my budget in the direction I want to see the town go in.”

She appears to be living in an alternate reality. Gabrielsen, Wooten and Dunleavy denied saying this, and said they didn’t even talk with her about it.

Gabrielsen went further: “She’s said she has ideas, but I’ve never heard specifics. If she’s got something, she should share it… Just to vote no and have no options, that’s just dumb, dumb and dumber.”

Not a new problem

This isn’t the 1st time Jodi has been unable to sell her fiscal plan. Mason Haas recently wrote: “The supervisor…passed a budget” and Jodi “attempted, along with other council people, to bring real cuts…but in the end could not get the support.”

The way it works, of course, is that the supervisor only proposes a budget. Town board members have the power to change or reject it… but it takes a majority.

Last time, Jodi couldn’t convince even two council members to agree with her suggested changes and her proposal failed.

(The fact that her cuts were tiny — just half of 1 percent — is another major concern; they would have achieved very little.)

This time, she’s counting on council support for mysterious and much larger cuts, which she won’t disclose until after the election. Given the strong and unambiguous statements made by her board colleagues, Jodi’s plan for the budget is pure fantasy.

Asking voters for their trust — while sweeping aside fiscal facts, ignoring other council members, and offering no solutions — is an offense of much greater consequence than all the name-calling we’ve heard.

Where to turn?

I’m an unaffiliated voter, with no allegiance to any party or individual. I have no confidence Jodi can lead the town to fiscal recovery, but believe we’ve watched Sean pursuing his own fantasies at EPCAL for far too long.

Remember that the $1.2 million shortfall in our budget is about what Sean wasted on studies and consultants over the past six years.

Luminati’s arrival is certainly a big, positive development… but our runway brought them to Riverhead, not the supervisor.

It’s also alarming that Sean unabashedly declared (twice!) at a recent debate that he’ll continue to ignore town law as written, instead enforcing his interpretation of lawmakers’ intent. (The topic was hotel rental permit fees, but this might apply to anything going forward. Very scary.)

Rolling the dice

That leaves Coates. To say I have serious reservations about Tony is gross understatement: ignoring his personal issues (everyone deserves a second chance), I have big doubts about his professional background — the recent past, not decades-old scandals.

I certainly don’t take him at face value, and that means I can’t fully trust him… but I don’t trust any of the supervisor candidates, and the others have shown they can’t do the job. Tony is definitely smart enough, and I’m willing to take a chance that he’ll “rise to the occasion” and do right by our town.

It’s less risky than it might seem: he’ll have just one vote on a five-member board—which sharply limits the damage he can do—andwe get to decide in just two years whether he gets to continue in office.

This is my 19-year old daughter’s first election; away at school, she asked for help with her absentee ballot. She knows that, in our family, not voting isn’t an option. But she isn’t used to seeing me struggle with the decision. In the end, reflecting on where we sit fiscally, the absurd and endless in-fighting at town hall, and how little progress we’ve made on critical issues, I advised her to vote for Coates for one simple reason: “might be better; can’t be worse.”

It helps a great deal that I’m genuinely enthused about two council candidates, Neil Krupnick and Laura Jens-Smith. Jodi’s right: we desperately need more business experience in town hall. I like Jim Wooten, and Tim Hubbard seems sincere, but these guys can only be viewed as “more of the same.” Wooten, Hubbard and Dunleavy are great cops, but just don’t have the skills.

Neil and Laura have useful experience, impressive skills, understand the economic issues and offer new ideas. They’re clearly Riverhead’s best chance for recovery.

Larry Simms is a resident of South Jamesport.

Editor’s note: The “In MY Opinion” column is open to anyone who wants to submit a viewpoint on any topic. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of RiverheadLOCAL’s publishers. We welcome submissions. Be sure to include your email address and daytime phone number. Click here to submit your opinion.