Lancaster’s 2019 primary field

[Lee Chowaniec]

As an unaffiliated registered voter (blank) and unable to vote in the primary to affect its outcome, I have little interest in the primary process. My interest kicks in after the primary votes are counted and the candidates winning the election line are announced.

The petition signature sheets have been submitted to the Board of Elections for review and within the near future the individuals who have garnered the credible required number of signatures will get a place on the primary ballot.

I am quite sure that a number of potential voters will be as intrigued and perplexed as me regarding some of the following:

Party Endorsements / Primary Petitioners

Town Supervisor

Current council member Ronald Ruffino has been endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties.

Current council member Dawn Gaczewski (endorsed by the Democrats in 2015) has received the Republican, Conservative and Independence Party endorsements.

Primary petition submittals have also come from Martin A. Szczublewski and Frank Caparaso on the Conservative Party line and Joseph Bish on the Independence Party line.

Town Clerk

Incumbent Diane Terranova was endorsed by the Democratic Party in 2015 and was elected as Town Clerk. She is being endorsed by the Republican Party this year - as well as the Conservative and Independence Parties.

Cynthia Maciejewski has been endorsed by the Democratic and Working Parties.

Primary petition submittals have also come from Diane Terranova (Democratic Party), Anne V. Desiderio (Republican Party) and Donald Biando and Brian Sabatino (Conservative Party).

Town Council (Two Seats)

Robert Leary – endorsed by the Republican, Conservative and Independence Parties

Bruce E. Stutz – endorsed by the Republican, Conservative and Independence Parties

Kristen J McCracken – endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties

David F Mazur – endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties

Primary petition submittals have also come from:

Scott M. Pease, Jared J. Maciejewski, Phillip A. Caparaso and Joseph M. Karosik – Conservative Party

Michael L. Bauer – Independence Party

Observations

As someone not invested in the primary system, it is puzzling why some feel the need to primary someone within their own party. Each party interviews and vets an individual seeking party endorsement. Hopefully each party makes its endorsement decision based on party ideology and applicant qualifications. Is the real reason others take the time and make the effort to unseat the party endorsed candidate are?

- Commitment to serve in the best interest of the community
- An honest belief that one is better qualified to serve than the party endorsed candidate
- A covert attempt by some members within their party to disrupt and take away votes from the endorsed candidate to ‘steal’ the line.

In looking over the list of petitioners I recognize the name of a town employee who works in the code enforcement department. If the individual were to win a town council seat, would he have to give up his town job? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest consequence?

I am surprised that incumbent Town Clerk Terranova was not endorsed by her own party. I thought it was a brilliant move by the Republican Party to endorse her. Actually, they came out with their endorsement near a week before the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was going to cross endorse Terranova because she deserved to be re-elected based on her qualifications, experience and job performance in her current term. As a registered Democrat, Terranova got enough petitions to challenge the endorsed candidate and stands an excellent chance of winning that line. Can't help thinking: What were the Democrats thinking?

In Lancaster sized communities minor parties are playing a bigger role in election outcomes. The gap between Democrat and Republican Party voter registration has significantly narrowed. In that respect primaries are of concern to ‘blanks’ like me. In the town of Lancaster there are near 31,000 registered voters:

Democrats – 11,693
Republicans – 9,393
Blanks – 6,612
Independents – 1,822
Conservative – 939
Working Family - 177

Elections have consequences. Hopefully, the eligible voters will take the opportunity to question the candidates on their intent and positions on issues before making their voting decisions.

[shortstuff]

As an unaffiliated registered voter (blank) and unable to vote in the primary to affect its outcome, I have little interest in the primary process. My interest kicks in after the primary votes are counted and the candidates winning the election line are announced.

The petition signature sheets have been submitted to the Board of Elections for review and within the near future the individuals who have garnered the credible required number of signatures will get a place on the primary ballot.

I am quite sure that a number of potential voters will be as intrigued and perplexed as me regarding some of the following:

Party Endorsements / Primary Petitioners

Town Supervisor

Current council member Ronald Ruffino has been endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties.

Current council member Dawn Gaczewski (endorsed by the Democrats in 2015) has received the Republican, Conservative and Independence Party endorsements.

Primary petition submittals have also come from Martin A. Szczublewski and Frank Caparaso on the Conservative Party line and Joseph Bish on the Independence Party line.

Town Clerk

Incumbent Diane Terranova was endorsed by the Democratic Party in 2015 and was elected as Town Clerk. She is being endorsed by the Republican Party this year - as well as the Conservative and Independence Parties.

Cynthia Maciejewski has been endorsed by the Democratic and Working Parties.

Primary petition submittals have also come from Diane Terranova (Democratic Party), Anne V. Desiderio (Republican Party) and Donald Biando and Brian Sabatino (Conservative Party).

Town Council (Two Seats)

Robert Leary – endorsed by the Republican, Conservative and Independence Parties

Bruce E. Stutz – endorsed by the Republican, Conservative and Independence Parties

Kristen J McCracken – endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties

David F Mazur – endorsed by the Democratic and Working Family Parties

Primary petition submittals have also come from:

Scott M. Pease, Jared J. Maciejewski, Phillip A. Caparaso and Joseph M. Karosik – Conservative Party

Michael L. Bauer – Independence Party

Observations

As someone not invested in the primary system, it is puzzling why some feel the need to primary someone within their own party. Each party interviews and vets an individual seeking party endorsement. Hopefully each party makes its endorsement decision based on party ideology and applicant qualifications. Is the real reason others take the time and make the effort to unseat the party endorsed candidate are?

- Commitment to serve in the best interest of the community
- An honest belief that one is better qualified to serve than the party endorsed candidate
- A covert attempt by some members within their party to disrupt and take away votes from the endorsed candidate to ‘steal’ the line.

In looking over the list of petitioners I recognize the name of a town employee who works in the code enforcement department. If the individual were to win a town council seat, would he have to give up his town job? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest consequence?

I am surprised that incumbent Town Clerk Terranova was not endorsed by her own party. I thought it was a brilliant move by the Republican Party to endorse her. Actually, they came out with their endorsement near a week before the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was going to cross endorse Terranova because she deserved to be re-elected based on her qualifications, experience and job performance in her current term. As a registered Democrat, Terranova got enough petitions to challenge the endorsed candidate and stands an excellent chance of winning that line. Can't help thinking: What were the Democrats thinking?

In Lancaster sized communities minor parties are playing a bigger role in election outcomes. The gap between Democrat and Republican Party voter registration has significantly narrowed. In that respect primaries are of concern to ‘blanks’ like me. In the town of Lancaster there are near 31,000 registered voters:

Democrats – 11,693
Republicans – 9,393
Blanks – 6,612
Independents – 1,822
Conservative – 939
Working Family - 177

Elections have consequences. Hopefully, the eligible voters will take the opportunity to question the candidates on their intent and positions on issues before making their voting decisions.

Pretty impressive outline Lee of the Primary stats.

Speakup has been pretty quiet lately because some of us have been silenced from other poster(s) on Speakup and words taken out of context. Unfortunately, being silenced is the wrong approach especially in the upcoming elections throughout our nation. But in focusing on the election in Lancaster here are my thoughts. I *respect* debate not name calling or misplaced judgements. I'll post the following facts with my own opinion in the summary portion of my post.

1. Primaries:
Honestly all parties do this, perhaps it is an unfair advantage to those who were "endorsed" by their parties but it is part of the game. I was told that candidates who run a primary against one of their own is a reflection of those who collectively do not agree with the "endorsed" candidate so they run another person. What happens in this situation is that the "spoiler" typically takes votes away from the candidate they are primarying against, that is the obvious.

2. Supervisor race:
I am glad there are primaries for this race because the chosen endorsed candidates are not committed to serve the town with the mindset of governing fiscally.

-Ron Ruffino certainly has displayed within the last 5 years a need to demonstrate with a flare for discussion/debate a more fiscal approach towards the bidding process and the budget(s). I do commend him for that, but we need to not forget the Colecraft disaster. This was a demonstration of fiscal irresponsibility, in what I call an event, that existed under the Giza administration. That will be his stigma heading into the Supervisor race.

-Dawn Gaczewski certainly has displayed a level of *fiscal irresponsibility* under her reign as a Town Council member in her first term. When she ran for Town Council in 2015, she was endorsed by the Democrats, Working Families and most noted-- she garnered the endorsement from the *Women's TAP Fund* this organization is a Left Wing Pro-Choice group that pushes and supports socialist agenda's/policies. If I recall, some posters had issues with Democrats donor list and endorsements based on their liberal social history with then candidates Wallace & Bruso. Secondly, Dawn as the Program Coordinator for the Village, withheld 9 months of fundraising monies due to the Food Pantry. That is a fiscally irresponsible thing to do under the position she held. This is not a behavior that best serves a large town where she would be in the position to act as the CEO of one of the most progressive growing town(s) in Erie County. Thirdly, her voting record has been a continual demonstration of liberal Democratic spending polices where she voted *yes* for every increasing budget proposals, voted *yes* for every year Supervisor Colemen proposed to *override* the *tax cap* if needed which set a precedent to other neighboring towns which allowed those towns to follow suit. And yet, she was endorsed by the Conservative, Republican & Independent Party.

3. Town Clerk:

-Diane Terranova served this town well as Clerk. I think she is the best qualified candidate. It is no surprise she'll secure the Democratic Line in the primary. The other candidates that are primarying her in the Republican & Conservative Party are doing so because they are running a person that is a member of that party. No surprise there.

4. Town Council Seats:

-Robert Leary is in his third running term to try and secure the Council seat. He lost the last two elections because another candidate (Democrats) stole the Independent line from him in the primary. His losses were by such a small margin. He is the best candidate for the seat, but common knowledge of the hijacked Independent Party by the Democratic Party gives me pause here. I hope Leary can secure that line.

-Scott Pease in the primary, no surprise here. Yes if by chance he wins the election, of course he would have to give up his code enforcement position. Pease has been a positive and negative feature as part of the Code Enforcement department. His work ethic may become a focal point throughout the campaign as well as his work conduct as an obstructionist. No race here with this candidate.

-Kristen McKracken has been an excellent member on the Planning Board. Yes, she is Terry McKracken's wife but she has been an asset on that Planning Board and she will definitely showcase as a positive if she were to win the seat on the town board as a Council member. It will be the Planning Boards loss though.

My observations:

I think in this upcoming race the winners will be, Ron Ruffino, Kristen McKracken and if Leary can pull of that Independent line he will be that winner for the other Council seat. Also, Diane Terranova will win and maintain her seat as the Town Clerk. You are right Lee when you state elections have consequences. Dawn's voting record speaks for itself. It is not an opinion. Ron's voting record speaks for itself as well. When the person goes to the polls, there is certain things that come to mind when they vote, fiscal responsibility, no conflict of interests that links the town & village, qualified, and a leader that has the town's interest first. My preference for Town Supervisor is Ron Ruffino.

[mark blazejewski]

Ron's voting record speaks for itself as well... a leader that has the town's interest first. My preference for Town Supervisor is Ron Ruffino.

I respect your pleadings Shortstuff, but, without regard to the $2,000,000 Colecraft issue, I must ask:

Was it in the town's best interest to seem, at least to me, to exclusively support real estate people for the ZBA in late 2017, while walking back a early summer commitment to support and I believe sponsor, a well qualified town resident who had no such business connections?

Was it in the town's best interests to seemingly contradict this representation that appeared in 2017 campaign mailing(s)...

"From day one I have promised that I am for the people and refused to be controlled by party bosses. I am very proud to say, I have not deviated from this promise. I stand firm in making a statement to party bosses that want to control elected officials..."

...by, at the very least, appear, perhaps unwittingly, to turn a blind eye to the self-serving manipulations of minor party lines, seem in 2017 and perhaps in 2018? Did not those 2017 manipulations well serve his interests in his race against Bob Leary?


No accusations, just asking questions based on my understandings.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I thank you for your input, Shortstuff. My post was not to direct attention to the best qualified candidates for any elective position, but to focus on a town primary process that is too often infected with bad intentions, machinations, down-right lying and with mean-spirited hyperbole.

You posted:

Honestly all parties do this, perhaps it is an unfair advantage to those who were "endorsed" by their parties but it is part of the game.

Unfortunately, that is too true.

I was told that candidates who run a primary against one of their own is a reflection of those who collectively do not agree with the "endorsed" candidate so they run another person.

Over the years, regretfully, I have seen that the great majority of non-endorsed primary applicants who garnered the required number of petitions to be eligible for primary consideration are not there for the right reason or to even consider themselves as a potential winner, rather to be pawns for disruptive reasons.

As stated in post #1, winning the Conservative and Independence lines are of utmost importance to the endorsed candidates. Look at the list of primary applicants and tell me how many, if any, names you recognize from their appearing at town board meetings and/or on addressing any town issues. The most egregious example of disruption this year is the support that was given for the Supervisor position to Anne Desiderio by three former disgruntled Republican Party Chairs.. If they say their support was attributed to oppose the endorsement of Democrat Dianne Terranova it would be disingenuous and a slap in the face to the new Republican Party Chair who made a decision based on best qualified candidate.

What happens in this situation is that the "spoiler" typically takes votes away from the candidate they are primarying against, that is the obvious.”

Obvious, like in Scott Pease? Do you honestly believe he would give up his code enforcement salary and benefits to get a low paying part time job with no benefits?

Yes, it’s politics as usual. What you see is not what you get. It is difficult enough to pick out the lesser of two evils when you really know who the players are and what they 'supposedly' stand for. This process sucks! I’ll stay a blank!

[shortstuff]

I thank you for your input, Shortstuff. My post was not to direct attention to the best qualified candidates for any elective position, but to focus on a town primary process that is too often infected with bad intentions, machinations, down-right lying and with mean-spirited hyperbole.

You posted:
Unfortunately, that is too true.


Over the years, regretfully, I have seen that the great majority of non-endorsed primary applicants who garnered the required number of petitions to be eligible for primary consideration are not there for the right reason or to even consider themselves as a potential winner, rather to be pawns for disruptive reasons.

As stated in post #1, winning the Conservative and Independence lines are of utmost importance to the endorsed candidates. Look at the list of primary applicants and tell me how many, if any, names you recognize from their appearing at town board meetings and/or on addressing any town issues. The most egregious example of disruption this year is the support that was given for the Supervisor position to Anne Desiderio by three former disgruntled Republican Party Chairs.. If they say their support was attributed to oppose the endorsement of Democrat Dianne Terranova it would be disingenuous and a slap in the face to the new Republican Party Chair who made a decision based on best qualified candidate.


Obvious, like in Scott Pease? Do you honestly believe he would give up his code enforcement salary and benefits to get a low paying part time job with no benefits?

Yes, it’s politics as usual. What you see is not what you get. It is difficult enough to pick out the lesser of two evils when you really know who the players are and what they 'supposedly' stand for. This process sucks! I’ll stay a blank!

I think the Republican Party has a large faction within it, perhaps that could be the reasons you mentioned, I heard differently from many. As for Scott Pease, he knows he will not win, he has no chance but he put his name in to jostle the apple cart.

I thank you for starting the conversation.

[shortstuff]

I respect your pleadings Shortstuff, but, without regard to the $2,000,000 Colecraft issue, I must ask:

Was it in the town's best interest to seem, at least to me, to exclusively support real estate people for the ZBA in late 2017, while walking back a early summer commitment to support and I believe sponsor, a well qualified town resident who had no such business connections?

Was it in the town's best interests to seemingly contradict this representation that appeared in 2017 campaign mailing(s)...


...by, at the very least, appear, perhaps unwittingly, to turn a blind eye to the self-serving manipulations of minor party lines, seem in 2017 and perhaps in 2018? Did not those 2017 manipulations well serve his interests in his race against Bob Leary?


No accusations, just asking questions based on my understandings.

And Dawn G. promised support for a qualified town resident and then turned her nose against her and yet that town resident still endorsed her with the Conservative endorsement...

[mark blazejewski]

And Dawn G. promised support for a qualified town resident and then turned her nose against her and yet that town resident still endorsed her with the Conservative endorsement...

In a way Shortstuff, you have made my point for me. The assumed resident apparently acted in what she perceived to be the best overall interests of the town, without regard for her own personal considerations.

That resident needs to be commended for placing the needs of the people of Lancaster first.

[shortstuff]

In a way Shortstuff, you have made my point for me. The assumed resident apparently acted in what she perceived to be the best overall interests of the town, without regard for her own personal considerations.

That resident needs to be commended for placing the needs of the people of Lancaster first.

Well then don't condemn Ruffino for acting in the same manner as Dawn. I actually DO NOT think Dawn is the best person to be the Town's Supervisor and you know why. I kindly ask that you don't play politics with me Mark, we all know her history with you and your family, I have respect for you and your family for what you all went through.

[mark blazejewski]

Well then don't condemn Ruffino for acting in the same manner as Dawn

Pontius Pilate condemned, I only asked some questions. You chose to view those questions as a condemnation.

I actually DO NOT think Dawn is the best person to be the Town's Supervisor...

You certainly have every right in the world to express your preference.

I kindly ask that you don't play politics with me Mark, we all know her history with you and your family...

To date, I am a neutral in the Supervisor race Shortstuff, so think about your comment "don't play politics with me Mark."

What was the source of my historic issues with Ms. Dawn? I was the source of that old information, and it remains on the record for all to see.

In this Supervisors race, we do not have a contest between two saints, so as a neutral, the best thing, IMHO, is to apply balanced criticism. For me to exclude Ruffino's pitfalls, and there are many, that friend, would be to put a thumb on the scale for Ruffino, and to play cheap politics--- and for personal reasons.

I have already criticized Ms. Dawn. It is now time for me to question, and if need be criticize, the Ruffino record.

That's just the way it is Shortstuff.

[Lee Chowaniec]

A primary always has its share of machinations, trickery, lies and manipulative designs to undermine the opponent – usually conducted by supportive party committee minions. This year, the focus of such malicious stratagem appears piloted by party disloyalty – dissident ex-Republican Chairs under the direction of Republican BOE Chair Ralph Mohr.

Such claims are the result of the change in Lancaster Republican leadership and the election of Greg Sojka as Republican Party Chair. Under Sojka the Lancaster Republicans pledge themselves to endorse candidates for office based on impeccable credentials and not on strict party label. In that light the Lancaster Republicans endorsed Democrat Diane Terranova, an outstanding Town Clerk with extraordinary qualifications, for re-election. “As a party organization, while always welcoming dissenting ideas, must unite to end any sabotage and any resistance to this new direction,” says Sojka.

Sabotage claims rest on the what has been taking place in the Independence Party primary ballot line. It will be interesting to see whether the names of Dianne Terranova appear (Town Clerk) or Robert Leary (Council) – endorsed Republicans who were also endorsed by the Independence Party, but who may not be considered eligible by the BOE. This ruling should be considered pointless considering that all candidates filed individually with the BOE and met primary application requirements. Why then have Republican candidates Gaczewski (Supervisor) and Stutz (Council) been found eligible to be on the Independence Party ballot?

What is the reason for such action? Discrimination or vindictiveness? Why were past Republican Party Chairs supposedly garnering petitions for Anne Desiderio to oppose Terranova? Is there any truth to the claim that Desiderio’s name will be on the ballot, and not Terranova’s? What was the reason for the Democratic Party not endorsing an incumbent candidate (Terranova)?

Better yet, what possible reason could there be for Robert Leary being left off the Independence Party ballot?

We shall see when the official primary ballot list is made public.

Lastly, one has to wonder whether Erie County Republican Chair Langworthy has had any knowledge of what has transpired in Lancaster. Does he have his party under control?

[mark blazejewski]

A primary always has its share of machinations, trickery, lies and manipulative designs to undermine the opponent – usually conducted by supportive party committee minions. This year, the focus of such malicious stratagem appears piloted by party disloyalty – dissident ex-Republican Chairs under the direction of Republican BOE Chair Ralph Mohr.

I have likened the "New Republicans" to be the equivalent(s) of modern day political gladiators, fighting in the "Establishment Coliseum" for entertainment two emperors: One a Democrat and one a Republican.

The current new direction undertaken by the Republican Party seems to have faithfully functioned in the best interests of the people of Lancaster. In that regard, the suggested internal "sabotage" of the Republican ticket is particularly troubling and sad.

A cynical observer just may infer that the old power holders may wish to content themselves with the existing "Go along to get along", system, aka, the same old comfortable patronage crap.

Unfortunately, from what I hear, the trickery is not limited to the disgruntled Republican deposed.

Do I accurately understand that certain distinguished Democrat Committee people are taking a page out of the Party's 2003 playbook, and have been circulating petitions for "proxy" candidates on the Conservative Line?

Mr. Graber and Ms. Kulpit, would you not agree?

Councilman Ruffino, if the foregoing is true, will you lend credibility to your 2017 claim that you are not controlled by party bosses, and as the leader of the 2019 ticket, will you publicly speak out against such tactics.

IMHO, the Democrats could take the high road, and at least imitate Sojka, who has called out political machinations of BOTH parties.

[mark blazejewski]

Sabotage claims rest on the what has been taking place in the Independence Party primary ballot line. It will be interesting to see whether the names of Dianne Terranova appear (Town Clerk)

Based on the rumors that I have heard, it is my understanding that Ms. Diane's name will appear on the Independence primary ballot.

...or Robert Leary (Council) – endorsed Republicans who were also endorsed by the Independence Party, but who may not be considered eligible by the BOE.

I have heard nothing "solid" about Leary's position.

Why then have Republican candidates Gaczewski (Supervisor) and Stutz (Council) been found eligible to be on the Independence Party ballot?

As Artie Johnson used to say on "Laugh-In" in the 1960s, "Very interesting."

Discrimination or vindictiveness? Why were past Republican Party Chairs supposedly garnering petitions for Anne Desiderio to oppose Terranova?

Initially, I thought that the Desiderio challenge was occasioned as the result of an embittered, rather unsophisticated, rogue "Establishment" Republican resistance, almost exclusively appealing to the thin world of party loyalty.

I have previously observed that Ms. Desiderio, in a campaign comment, suggested that as Town Clerk, she would "represent" the interests of her constituents. "Represents" strongly suggested to me that she did not have a handle on the service-nature of the Clerk's position.

Ergo, a sloppy, or perhaps naive, campaign statement written by the politically untested.

However, this weekend, I noted in another comment, in a further campaign message, in which Ms. Desiderio makes reference to the advocacy elements of the position. Arguably, "represent" and "advocate" are synonymous.

Methinks I have changed my mind.

Both campaign comments, replete with the steady partisan pleadings and references to an improper function of the Clerk's office, suggest to me, IMHO, a two-pronged theme is in play, and the actors are not rookies, but politically sophisticated and the deception-dedicated.

The first prong is the promotion by the Desiderio campaign, of the "red meat" lusting(s) of the partisan.

The second prong IMHO, is the deceptive assertion(s) which would lead, or perhaps more accurately mislead, the voter to believe that Ms. Desiderio is challenging Ms. Terranova for a position which requires a testing of legislative temperament, political philosophy, and strict party loyalty.

Together, both prongs combine to reflect the toxic cocktail which has been the Lancaster Republican hemlock for so long.

If such is the case, the above-referenced tactics resonate with the all-too-familiar echos of the dark political patronage angels, trumpeting a crusade to destroy the competence-based, reform direction of the "New Republican Party."

But, even more concerning, those tactics suggest that the "rogue" actors hold the party faithful in such contempt, that they assume that the grassroots would not recognize the misrepresentation of the Clerk's office as one which relies on partisan advocacy, rather than accurately, one which exclusively embraces the exertion of non-partisan skill and competence.

All of the foregoing are just my opinions, of course.

[shortstuff]

A primary always has its share of machinations, trickery, lies and manipulative designs to undermine the opponent – usually conducted by supportive party committee minions. This year, the focus of such malicious stratagem appears piloted by party disloyalty – dissident ex-Republican Chairs under the direction of Republican BOE Chair Ralph Mohr.

Such claims are the result of the change in Lancaster Republican leadership and the election of Greg Sojka as Republican Party Chair. Under Sojka the Lancaster Republicans pledge themselves to endorse candidates for office based on impeccable credentials and not on strict party label. In that light the Lancaster Republicans endorsed Democrat Diane Terranova, an outstanding Town Clerk with extraordinary qualifications, for re-election. “As a party organization, while always welcoming dissenting ideas, must unite to end any sabotage and any resistance to this new direction,” says Sojka.

Sabotage claims rest on the what has been taking place in the Independence Party primary ballot line. It will be interesting to see whether the names of Dianne Terranova appear (Town Clerk) or Robert Leary (Council) – endorsed Republicans who were also endorsed by the Independence Party, but who may not be considered eligible by the BOE. This ruling should be considered pointless considering that all candidates filed individually with the BOE and met primary application requirements. Why then have Republican candidates Gaczewski (Supervisor) and Stutz (Council) been found eligible to be on the Independence Party ballot?

What is the reason for such action? Discrimination or vindictiveness? Why were past Republican Party Chairs supposedly garnering petitions for Anne Desiderio to oppose Terranova? Is there any truth to the claim that Desiderio’s name will be on the ballot, and not Terranova’s? What was the reason for the Democratic Party not endorsing an incumbent candidate (Terranova)?

Better yet, what possible reason could there be for Robert Leary being left off the Independence Party ballot?

We shall see when the official primary ballot list is made public.

Lastly, one has to wonder whether Erie County Republican Chair Langworthy has had any knowledge of what has transpired in Lancaster. Does he have his party under control?

I am just now reading your post Lee. I took special note to the paragraph regarding "Sabotage claims rest on the what has been taking place in the Independence Party primary ballot line." I did some research on this as I was totally surprised that Dianne Terranova doe not qualify. Now we knew right that Leary probably would not garner the line as he did not in the past. One needs to understand that status rarely changes. I won't reveal the knowledge I have been given, as the parties are scrambling but there is fault to be had in the parties I won't mention. There is also very good reason the Democratic Party has had a negative viewpoint of Terranova. But I can assure you that Discrimination or vindictiveness as you mentioned is NOT the reason they did not qualify. That would be a false narrative. Like you also mentioned, it will be interesting to see who is "officially" on the ballot.

[mark blazejewski]

There is also very good reason the Democratic Party has had a negative viewpoint of Terranova.

If one has a vested interest in the Democrat political hair-pulling contest, that comment may be of intrigue interest. But to those of us who are exclusively interested in the skillful, competent functioning of the Town Clerk's office, it has no relevance to our support for an outstanding incumbent, no matter what her party label.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I am just now reading your post Lee. I took special note to the paragraph regarding "Sabotage claims rest on the what has been taking place in the Independence Party primary ballot line." I did some research on this as I was totally surprised that Dianne Terranova doe not qualify. Now we knew right that Leary probably would not garner the line as he did not in the past. One needs to understand that status rarely changes. I won't reveal the knowledge I have been given, as the parties are scrambling but there is fault to be had in the parties I won't mention. There is also very good reason the Democratic Party has had a negative viewpoint of Terranova. But I can assure you that Discrimination or vindictiveness as you mentioned is NOT the reason they did not qualify. That would be a false narrative. Like you also mentioned, it will be interesting to see who is "officially" on the ballot.

Interesting.

Why doesn’t Diane Terranova qualify to have her name on the Independence Party line considering the entire Republican Party line was endorsed by the Independence Party and considering she filed the required paperwork to make her eligible to be on the Independence Party line?

As to Leary, isn’t the same true that he was endorsed by the Independence Party and that he also filed the necessary paperwork to make him eligible for the primary vote. As to him not garnering ‘the line’ in the past, you must be speaking of him losing in the primary, not his being eligible for primary consideration. He did garner enough petitions in the past to be in the primary on the Independence Party.

Ergo, what makes Republicans Gaczewski and Stutz eligible for the Independence Party primary ballot but not Terranova and Leary? What changed? What shall we call this political faux pas?