"It bothered me over the weekend that it was such a close defeat," Young said. "We added the figures again, and we discovered errors in the tally sheets."Yes, it would bother anyone for a vote to be that close (originally reported as only a 6 vote difference). . . and a recount should have been expected.
But no recount was announced.
From the article, the public is led to believe that the Town Clerk decided to do the recount on her own ... and apparently without notice to those who would want to observe. Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday newspapers go to print, but nary a word about a recount being considered.
Interestingly, some people were given notice of the recount. A person who called him/herself "Democracyinnewhartford" on "Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:23 pm" on the OD's Story Chat was the first to break the news that a recount had already taken place, saying that:
"It sounds like the folks who have been against the bonding (and just about everything else the town board has proposed) better check their facts.....Confounding reporting by the Observer-Dispatch only further clouds the issue. On 3/31 the OD reported that:
It is my understanding that after a re-count the tides have turned...
"The move of the police station fell short by 52 votes."But today it reported that:
"Proposition No. 5, which proposed moving the police department to 1 Oxford Crossing and releasing space at the Kellogg Road facility for the town court use, had failed by just six votes. But after the recount, Young said it was defeated by about 150."It was the stormwater issue that originally failed by 6 votes, not the police station. Regardless, had the recount been announced immediately -- and an opportunity given to observe -- there would be no question now about the change in outcome.
The manner in which this recount came about and the apparent secrecy in which it was conducted gives residents a reason to suspect that fraud might be involved ... Or is it desperation by town officials spending money faster than it is coming in?