On Oct. 22, I voted to certify the Oct. 1 election. My decision was based on a determination that the election was not unduly influenced by election workers or the presence of your newspaper. The assembly was unanimous in this decision.

I also voted to accept the report of the investigation held in public Oct. 16 even while questioning some of its assertions. After publication of your Oct. 24 issue which features this report, voters have disputed the report’s accounting of how “instructions” were given at the polls. Voters have also told me that they were unaware that voters were expected to testify at the investigation held Oct. 16 at the assembly chambers.

I have spent several hours with borough staff researching the decision-making process and action taken in the posting of the notice and the agenda for the investigation on Oct. 16 and the availability of the report submitted to the assembly Oct. 22. What I learned was there was a series of calculated decisions based on the belief that they were best under the circumstances. I don’t dismiss the team’s decisions as entirely misplaced. However, I believe that the public would have been better served if the investigation included public testimony which may have been achieved through a more directed effort of public notice. That could have been achieved by prolonging the investigation. Even so, in my opinion, this breach does not impact the basis for certifying the election.

Debra Schnabel