League of Women Voters of Smithtown Township VOTER

Transcription

1 League of Women Voters of Smithtown Township VOTER The LWV is a nonpartisan organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, and influences public policy through education and advocacy November Read about upcoming events, learn more about candidates and important issues on the ballot in November, and volunteer to register citizens to vote -all in this LWV Smithtown Voter Naturalization Ceremonies LWV Smithtown is covering the voter registration ceremonies at the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip during November. If you are interested and available mornings on Monday November 4, Tuesdays November 12, 19, or 26, or Wednesdays November 13 or 27, please contact Sondra Irvine at Candidates Meeting Hosted by the LWV of Smithtown and the Smithtown Historical Society 7pm Wednesday, October 30 Brush Barn, Middle Country Road, Smithtown Join LWV Smithtown for our next Community Conversations luncheon with Robert Lusak Director Smithtown Library Tuesday, November 12 at 12:30pm at the Old Street Pub in Smithtown RSVP s needed: Mary Zopf A Conversation about Immigration Tuesday, October 29 7:00pm- 8:45pm Nesconset Branch, Smithtown Library Explore how immigration continues to shape the experience of being American today. more on page 3 of this Voter Remembering Trudy Gaus on October 28 Please join us at the Main Branch of the Smithtown Library at 11am on Monday October 28, as the Library and the League of Women Voters of Smithtown dedicate a plaque in memory of Trudy Gaus. Afterwards, we will have lunch at a local restaurant to further talk about Trudy s dedication to, and joy in, League work over the years. You ll also have a chance to catch up with Adam Gaus, who will join us at the Library and lunch.

2 LWV of SMITHTOWN BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS MaryZopf President Sondra Irvine st Vice President, Programs Joyce Rosenthal nd Vice President, Voter Service Marie Manginelli Secretary Lisa Scott Treasurer, Voter Editor DIRECTORS Paul Glatzer Susan Glatzer Publicity Pat LaWare Arlene Lesser OFF-BOARD Stella Baker ATI, Natural Resources Sharon Kunz Phone Squad, Mae Tierney Budget Smithtown Town Board Meetings President s Report The basic goal of the League is to register voters and inform them. We registered voters in September and now we re having a debate on October 30 and all the candidates for offices in Smithtown are invited. Debates are an important way to judge a person and his platform where he has to defend it. League members are very interested in their community and feel a responsibility to improve it. Talk about the debate and election with your friends and build up a sense of excitement about the possibilities. To give an example, in the present election no one could have predicted that Robert Trotta (this is not an endorsement) would have won the Republican nomination for County Legislator for the 13 th Legislative District. Paul Hennings appeared to be the favorite of the party establishment in the primary and the other candidate, Mario Mattera, outspent both candidates. What seemed to make the difference was Trottas knocking on a lot of doors, his pledge to retire from his position as police detective, and his enthusiasm. Now for the general election Robert Trotta is the Republican and Conservative candidate, Paul Hennings is not on the ballot and Mario Mattera the candidate for the Independence Party. The Democratic candidate is Elaine Turley. Again, the election results will be interesting but we re hoping for a big turnout for all the races. Your local election is the one that most immediately effects you. For more information on the candidates attend the Smithtown Leagues debate on October 30, 2013 at 7:00 PM at the Brush Barn. There is nothing like judging for yourself. Other important dates (see articles in the Voter) are the memorial for Trudy Gaus on October 28 th, Immigration Conversation on October 29 th and a Community Conversation with Robert Lusak, head of the Smithtown Library, on November 12 th. Mary Zopf Tuesday: Nov. 5 9:30 am work session 2:00 pm regular meeting Smithtown Town Hall, Second Floor Board Room Thursday: Nov. 21 7:00 pm regular meeting Eugene A. Cannataro Senior Citizen Center 420 Middle Country Road, Smithtown Library Board of Trustees Regular meeting Tuesday Nov. 19 at 7pm Commack Branch, Smithtown Library Smithtown Library Budget Vote Results: Yes 1006 No 577 Library Trustee Results: Joseph A. Vallone - 1,174 Diana Schilling-Held - 1,165 Gerard J. Cairns - 1,076 (Three positions were open, all three candidates were elected.)

3 Candidates Meeting Hosted by the LWV of Smithtown and the Smithtown Historical Society 7pm Wednesday, October 30 Brush Barn, Middle Country Road, Smithtown Invited to the debate, and on the Ballot on Election Day, November 5: Suffolk County Legislator- 12 th LD: Gary Jacobs (D WF) John M. Kennedy, Jr. (R C I) Suffolk County Legislator- 13 th LD: Mario R. Mattera (I) Robert Trotta (R C) Elaine Turley (D) Town of Smithtown: Supervisor: Robert J. Creighton (C) Steven E. Snair (D WF I) Patrick R. Vecchio Sr. (R) Town Clerk: Edward I. Haeffer (D WF I) Vincent A. Puleo (R C) Council Member (Vote for 2): Adam S. Halpern (D WF I) Richard S. Macellaro (D WF I) Kevin Malloy (C) Thomas J. McCarthy (R C) Lynne C. Nowick (R) Superintendent of Highways: Glenn Jorgensen (R C) Thomas D. McCarthy (D I) A Conversation about Immigration The Smithtown Library and the Smithtown League of Women Voters will be hosting a Community Conversation sponsored by The New York Council for the Humanities. Community Conversations invites New Yorkers to explore our shared history as immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, and to discuss the ways that immigration continues to shape the experience of being American today. Each conversation uses a short text as a starting point for discussions about cultural understanding and our roles as active citizens in a diverse and democratic society. LWV Smithtown s Lisa Scott will be facilitating this conversation on immigration. Tuesday, October 29, :00pm- 8:45pm Nesconset Branch, 148 Smithtown Blvd, Nesconset, NY Contact Claire DiSpirito at ext 223 or visit smithlib.org to register in advance; seats are limited.

4 November 2013 OFFICERS President/DPO/County Voter Lisa Scott st Vice President/Housing/Redistricting Nancy Marr nd Vice President Barbara Jordan Secretary/Treasurer Naomi Epstein ELECTED DIRECTORS Voter Service Judie Gorenstein Sondra Irvine Legislative Issues Mary McLaughlin Special Events/Fundraising Susan Wilson APPOINTED DIRECTORS Arlene Lesser Barbara McClancy Judi Roth Mary Zopf LEAGUE PRESIDENTS Brookhaven Nancy Marr Hamptons (Co-Presidents) Glorian Berk Judy Samuelson Huntington (Co-Presidents) Judie Gorenstein Brenda Reiss Shelter Island Lois Morris Smithtown Mary Zopf OFF-BOARD SPECIALISTS Budget Jacqui Lofaro Health Issues Eileen Coblens Barbara Magaliff barbara Natural Resources Dorothy Cappadona Treasurer Emeritus Marilyn McKeown Suffolk County Voter Box 1440, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County Legislature Elections Will Result in New Leadership Although the 2013 general election is not of national or state-wide scope, there are important issues and offices involved on the county, town and local levels. For example, all 18 seats in the Suffolk County Legislature are on the ballot this year. Some incumbents are term-limited (12 year maximum reached) and some have left office. Once the individual Legislative District races are decided, the SC Legislature will vote on a Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer. (P.O. Bill Lindsay died in September, and D.P.O. and acting P.O. Wayne Horsley is not running this year, having taken another position elsewhere.) Thus the Legislature will have several new members, which may change the political balance or appointments, and also have new leadership. We do hope that all members of the Legislature will continue to work together for the greater good of our county residents. For the League, we again encourage our membership to observe at the general and committee meetings of the Legislature or follow these meetings via the audio recording available on the Suffolk County Legislature s website. In particular we have been following health and natural resource issues, and budget issues will continue to drive tough decisions and debate from both the County Executive as well as SC Legislative leaders. more on page 2

5 Suffolk County Voter Page 2 November 2013 LWV and Nonpartisanship guidelines for LWVSC; history of League nonpartisanship; raising community awareness of its importance in making the League effective in voter service and citizen information work The League shall not support or oppose any political party or any candidate. Article III, Sec.2, LWVUS Bylaws In accordance with the LWV bylaws, the League of Women Voters of Suffolk County is a nonpartisan organization that does not support or oppose any political party or candidate. Board members of the LWV of Suffolk County are expected to adhere to the following guidelines: Board members may neither seek nor hold any elective partisan office. The entire Board shall consider service on library boards, school boards, village boards or appointment to local non-elective office on an individual basis. Board members may not engage in any partisan, political activities, which will cause them to be publicly identified as supporting any candidate for office or any political party. They may neither sponsor nor hold fundraising events or attend coffees for a political candidate. A board member before declaring public support of a particular candidate or party or before announcing to run for elective office must resign from the board. The member may be reappointed by the board at its discretion after the election. Spouses or household relatives of a board member may engage in political activities and are considered separate from activities of that board member. Once League (local, county, state or national) takes a position on an issue, board members may not make public statements in opposition to the League position. The LWV of Suffolk County Board may request the resignation of any board members whose public activities are counter to this nonpartisan policy. It is the responsibility of the Nominating Committee to inform prospective board members of this nonpartisan policy. The League of Women Voters roots began during the long struggle to get women the right to vote and the League has continued the fight to educate both women and men on the issues impacting their communities. Soon after our founding, the decision was made to take positions on issues but to neither support nor oppose any political party or candidate (appointed or elected) for public office. Today, this policy continues to ensure that the League s voice is heard above the tumult of party politics. It can sometimes be difficult for new members and leaders and/or the public to understand our political but nonpartisan ethos. The League s strength is in its work to educate and inform voters in a factual and nonpartisan way. We are community-based and present information on all sides of an issue to help voters decide, rather than taking political positions. That information/education function is a key value, seen by the public as even more necessary and more rare in today s world of biased ads and media. Our communities should be more aware of: The role of the League in educating and informing voters The League is not partisan and explain what this means i.e. The League does not support or oppose any political party or candidate The grassroots, local aspect of the League; that issues the League addresses are based on community needs and priorities The League s long 93-year history and successes over the years The League s commitment to providing nonpartisan, fact-based information about candidates and issues to help voters make their own decisions The organization s involvement in debates and voter guides Being nonpartisan toward candidates and political parties is critical to the effectiveness of the League's unique voters service/citizen information work. This does not mean that the League isn t political. Our nonpartisan stance provides a strong foundation for the work done in support of issues. Action on legislation and ballot proposals is more effective when the public and the legislators know for certain that the League's conclusions are based on merit rather than playing politics. No matter what the League does, there will be times when the LWV is accused of being partisan. If the League has good leadership, planned its actions wisely, and acted within its own policies, charges of partisanship will not stand. When the League has followed its own rules and remained polite but firm, it has usually managed to gain the needed cooperation. The best results come from careful planning and a calculated response.

6 NOTE: THE PROPOSTION QUESTIONS ARE ON THE BACK OF THE BALLOT Wording on the Ballot for all voters in Suffolk County: Shall Resolution No , as amended by Resolution No , Adopting a Charter Law to Authorize the Use of Development Rights for Municipal Emergency, Fire, and Public Safety Corporations and Library Districts, Be Approved? Explanation: In Suffolk County there is a program entitled the Drinking Water Protection Program that provides funds for the County to purchase land for environmental protection, water quality protection, restoration programs and land stewardship initiatives. This land is not available for development and because of that developmental rights become available to the county. The county is currently authorized to use or to transfer these rights only for workforce housing. Also currently any of the Municipal Emergency, Fire and Public Safety Corporations and Public Libraries, in order to expand their facilities, must apply for these credits in order to allow for the issuance of the Suffolk County Health Department septic system permit. The County is in possession of many surplus credits and this resolution would permit the County to dedicate or transfer its developmental rights that were acquired under the Drinking Water Protection Program, to the above mentioned entities, specifically for the creation of: expansion of library districts, municipal fire districts municipal ambulance districts or municipal police districts. The Transfer of a Development Right is a mechanism by which the right to build on or otherwise develop a piece of real estate is separated from the other rights of property ownership (such as the right to sell) and made available for transfer to another location. In Support: 1. A municipal entity should not have to expend taxpayer dollars to purchase additional land to achieve needed density relief when the County has unused credits obtained through the Drinking Water Protection Program. 2. The public good provided by libraries, emergency, fire and public safety corporations warrants expansion of the beneficiaries of the TDR program to such entities. In Opposition: The programs allowing the Transfer of Developments Rights in Suffolk County are presently the subject of a study by the County (funded by HUD) examining existing local, county and regional TDR programs and proposing recommendations as follows: 1. Existing TDR plans should not be expanded while this study is ongoing. 2. Coordinate development right absorption in growth zones while discouraging development in environmentally sensitive areas 3. Develop better coordination and implementation between local land use decisions and regional transportation policies..

7 2013 New York State BALLOT PROPOSALS This Voter Guide will help you to evaluate the 6 ballot proposals that will be on the November 2013 ballot. The proposals are amendments to the New York State Constitution. Read about the amendments and decide whether you wish to vote for or against each one. Look carefully for them on the ballot; sometimes they are easy to miss. The League of Women Voters of New York State does not have positions for or against any of the proposed amendments on the ballot this year. PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE: AN AMENDMENT Authorizing Casino Gaming The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved? Currently, the NYS Constitution prohibits all gambling except for (1) pari-mutuel wagering and horse racing; (2) State lotteries; (3) bingo conducted by certain charitable, non-profit and religious organizations; and (4) games of chance conducted by these same charitable, non-profit, and religious organizations. This proposal would amend the constitution to authorize casino gambling within the state, allowing for no more than seven casinos. Proponents of the amendment argue that casino gambling has significant potential to be a major economic engine for New York State. They note that gaming already exists in the state, with five Native American owned casinos and nine racinos operating in the state, but that currently the state is not allowed to gain its benefits. They say that the amendment would enable New York to benefit from the tourism, revenue, and good jobs that they believe casinos will provide. Proponents also argue that limiting casino gambling to no more than seven facilities guarantees there will not be an excessive proliferation of casinos within New York State. Opponents of the amendment argue that expanding casino gambling in New York State could potentially increase gambling addiction, exploit those suffering from gambling addiction and their families, and have harmful effects on the communities in which the casinos are located. They say that even without including non-economic costs, the hidden costs of adding a casino to a region are two to three times more than the touted benefits. Some opponents also argue that increased crime is associated with the addition of a casino to a community. PROPOSAL NUMBER TWO: AN AMENDMENT Additional Civil Service Credit for Veterans with Disabilities Certified Post-Appointment The proposed amendment to section 6 of article 5 of the Constitution would entitle a veteran who has received civil service credit for a civil service appointment or promotion and subsequently is certified as disabled to additional civil service credit at subsequent appointment or promotion. Shall the proposed amendment be approved? The State Constitution currently grants veterans additional credit on civil service exams (5 points for an original appointment and 2 ½ points for a promotion). Disabled veterans are entitled to additional credit (10 points for an original appointment and 5 points for a promotion). Veterans are eligible for only one grant of additional credit, and so a veteran who is appointed or promoted before being certified as disabled currently is not eligible for the higher amount of credit he or she would have received if he or she had been certified as disabled before his or her appointment or promotion. The proposed amendment would create an exception to the one-time-only additional credit rule. It would permit veterans who are certified disabled after having already received credit at one appointment or promotion, because of their status as veterans, to received additional credit one more time after certification of their disability. After being certified disabled, a veteran would be entitled to an additional grant of credit equal to the difference between 10 and the number of points received at the initial appointment or promotion. This would bring the total additional points of civil service credit such a veteran can receive to 10 for either an appointment or a promotion. Proponents of the amendment argue that it would benefit individuals who, through no fault of their own, were not classified as a veteran with disabilities at the time of their first civil service appointment. They say that veterans applying the credits will be less limited by time constraints, making them more likely to be hired to civil service positions. In addition, they note that veterans are more likely to be unemployed than the average citizen. They argue that this amendment would not only increase employment opportunities for veterans, but would also help put their training and experience to work for the State and local governments. The League of Women Voters of New York State could not identify any organizations or expressed opinions in opposition to this amendment.

8 PROPOSAL NUMBER THREE: AN AMENDMENT Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities The proposed amendment to Article 8, section 5 of the Constitution would extend for ten years, until January 1, 2024, the authority of counties, cities, towns, and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness contracted for the construction or reconstruction of sewage facilities. Shall the proposed amendment be approved? The proposed amendment would extend until January 1, 2024 the authority of counties, cities, towns and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness contracted from the construction and reconstruction of facilities for the conveyance, treatment and disposal of sewage. The exclusion of sewer debt from the constitutional debt limits of counties, cities, towns and villages was originally authorized in 1963 for a ten-year period. When first enacted, the general purpose of the exclusion was to encourage and enable municipalities to participate in the State s then-new sewer construction assistance plan without fear that, by incurring indebtedness for sewer purposes, they would diminish their power to incur debt for other capital improvements which they desired to undertake and finance. Reflecting the fact that water pollution concerns are continuing and require an ongoing effort, the exclusion has been subsequently extended for four successive ten-year periods. Without a further extension, the exclusion will apply only to debt contracted through the end of This amendment would permit the exclusion of such indebtedness until January 1, Proponents of the amendment argue that the concerns addressed in 1963 and by subsequent extensions of the exclusion are still valid today. They note that although many pollution problems have been abated, there are still significant concerns that need to be addressed. Technology continues to evolve to make more efficient systems available, additional development necessitates the construction of new systems, and existing sewage treatment facilities age, necessitating reconstruction and refurbishment. Proponents say the amendment would allow municipalities to address these sewage needs without impairing municipalities ability to finance other essential capital requirements. The League of Women Voters of New York State could not identify any organizations or expressed opinions in opposition to this amendment. PROPOSAL NUMBER FOUR: AN AMENDMENT Settling Disputed Title in the Forest Preserve The proposed amendment to section 1 of article 14 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to settle longstanding disputes between the State and private entities over certain parcels of land within the forest preserve in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County. In exchange for giving up its claim to disputed parcels, the State would get land to be incorporated into the forest preserves that would benefit the forest preserve more than the disputed parcels currently do. Shall the proposed amendment be approved? The Forever Wild clause of the NYS Constitution forbids the lease, sale, exchange or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment would allow the legislature to settle 100-year-old disputes between the State and private parties over ownership of certain parcels of land located in the forest preserve, in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County, by giving up the State s claim to disputed parcels. In exchange, the State would get other land, currently privately owned, to be incorporated into the forest preserve. The land exchange would occur only if the Legislature, or its designee, determines that the land to be conveyed to the State would benefit the forest preserve more than do the disputed parcels. For the past century, the titles to more than 200 hundred of parcels around Raquette Lake, located in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County, have been in dispute, with both the state and private individuals claiming ownership. Some cases have been resolved in the courts with mixed outcomes. More than 200 parcels of land are still contested. An earlier attempted collective settlement failed in 2007 because the land owners claimed they could not afford the fees demanded by the state. The proposed settlement would allow the private parties to advance their tittle clearance by paying a fee into a fund held by the Town of Long Lake. When the fund is sufficient, it will be used to purchase replacement land that will be added to the forest preserve. Occupants could reduce their cash payment by entering into conservation easements with the town of long lake or by conveying a portion of their land to the state. Proponents of the amendment argue that it would finally remove the uncertainty and cost of the longstanding land dispute while making significant additions to the forest preserve. They claim that a lack of documentation concerning ownership has made the settling the claims in court difficult expensive and unpredictable. Opponents of the amendment argue that a legislative settlement would establish a poor precedent for other private land ownership disputes in the Adirondak Park, inviting an endless stream of private bills and constitutional amendments. They argue that similar land disputes have been resolved via the judicial system and that that is the appropriate vehicle to settle such disputes because it provides transparency and an independent authority, which they say the proposed process does not. In addition, they claim that the fees to be collected from the occupants is greatly less than the accessed worth of the land and will not be sufficient to acquire comparable or better land to be added to the forest preserve, thus delaying the private parties clear land title until the town government and state government can agree upon a land purchase.

9 PROPOSAL NUMBER FIVE: AN AMENDMENT In Relation to a Land Exchange in the State Forest Preserve with NYCO Minerals, Inc. The proposed amendment to section 1 of article 14 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to convey forest preserve land located in the town of Lewis, Essex County, to NYCO Minerals, a private company that plans on mining the land. In exchange, the NYCO Minerals would give the State at least the same amount of land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million, to be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes mining, it would restore the condition of the land and return it to the forest preserve. Shall the proposed amendment be approved? The Forever Wild clause of the NYS Constitution forbids the lease, sale, exchange, or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment would allow the State to convey approximately 200 forest preserve acres to NYCO Minerals for mining. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the State at least the same amount of land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million. This land would be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes mining, the company would restore the condition of the land it received in the exchange and return it to the forest preserve. The proposed amendment also would allow NYCO Minerals to test to determine the quantity and quality of the mineral to be mined on the land to be exchanged before the exchange occurs. It would require NYCO Minerals to give the State its test results so that the State can use them to determine the value of the land to be conveyed to NYCO Minerals. The proposed amendment also would require that if, after testing, NYCO Minerals does not want the forest preserve land, NYCO Minerals still must give the State at least the same amount of land of at least the same value of the land that was disturbed by the testing. This land would be incorporated into the forest preserve. NYCO Minerals is a producer and supplier of wollastonite (calcium metasilicate), which is a rare, white mineral having commercial application as a reinforcement or additive in ceramics, paints, plastics, friction products and various building products. The Lewis mine produces 60,000 tons of wollastonite annually. NYCO Minerals has indicated that its mine is approaching the end of its pit life because the remainder of the wollastonite vein extends onto adjacent forest preserve land. Proponents of the amendment argue that the land swap would (1) preserve jobs and ensure one of the largest employers in Essex County remains viable; (2) provide new access to mountain peaks and trout streams for outdoor recreation; and (3) result in the state preserve acquiring a greater quantity of land and higher-quality land than the land it is trading to NYCO Minerals. Opponents of the amendment argue that the land swap is not vital to NYCO s survival and that it would diminish the strength of the Forever Wild clause. They say that (1) the land swap would set a dangerous and historic precedent because it would be the first forest preserve constitutional amendment to be undertaken for private commercial gain rather than for a clear public municipal purpose and public benefit and; (2) there are viable alternatives to the land swap, given that there are considerable permitted reserves of wollastonite available on NYCO s current land and that such reserves are expected to last for years. PROPOSAL NUMBER SIX: AN AMENDMENT Increasing Age until which Certain State Judges Can Serve The proposed amendment to the Constitution, amending sections 2 and 25 of article 6, would increase the maximum age until which certain state judges may serve as follows: (a) a Justice of the Supreme Court would be eligible for five additional two-year terms after the present retirement age of 70, instead of the three such terms currently authorized; and (b) a Judge of the Court of Appeals who reaches the age of 70 in order to complete the term to which that Judge was appointed. Shall the proposed amendment be approved? The purpose of this amendment is to increase to the age of 80 the maximum age until which Justices of the Supreme Court (including Appellate Division) and Judges of the Court of Appeals may serve in the following instances: Justices of the Supreme Court are currently required to retire in the year they turn 70 years old, but are eligible to continue to perform the duties of a Justice of the Supreme Court for three additional two-year terms upon a certificate that their services are needed by the courts and they are competent to perform the full duties of the office. The proposed amendment would make them eligible for two additional such two-year terms, upon the same certification of need and competence. Judges of the Court of Appeals are currently required to retire in the year they turn 70 years old. The proposed amendment would permit a Judge who reaches the age of 70 while in office to remain in service on the Court for up to 10 additional years in order to complete the term to which that Judge was appointed. The proposed amendment would also prohibit the appointment of any person over the age of 70 to the Court of Appeals. Proponents of the amendment argue that it would enable the state judiciary to continue to benefit from the service of many dedicated, experienced and productive judges currently being lost to mandatory retirement. They argue that the current mandatory retirement age is archaic, noting a longer and healthier lifespan now than when the current retirement age was set. Some opponents of the amendment argue that the proposal unfairly favors high-level judges on the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, while others argue that forced retirement encourages diversity.

10 League of Women Voters of Smithtown Dues Renewal and Donation form Name Address City State Zip Telephone # Even if you do not have time for active participation, your membership alone will strengthen our voice. Individual Membership $50.00 Household (2 at same address) Student Membership Additional Contribution Total $ Make dues checks payable to LWV of Smithtown and mail to: Please note: LWV of Smithtown c/o Lisa Scott 322 River Road St. James, NY If you wish to make a tax-deductible donation to the League beyond the dues amount, a separate check for the donation must be written to LWVNYS Education Foundation SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS They Support Us! The League of Women Voters of Smithtown thanks Allison J. Cruz, Executive Director and the staff of the Smithtown Township Arts Council/ Mills Pond House Gallery for its support of the League. We encourage all Town Residents to support the Arts Council, participate in its cultural programs, and visit the historic Mills Pond House in St. James.

11 DATES TO REMEMBER October 2013 Thurs. Oct. 24 Town Board Meeting, Senior Citizens Center, 7pm Mon. Oct. 28 Dedication of memorial plaque for Trudy Gaus at the Smithtown Library Main Branch at 11am. Optional lunch follows. Tues. Oct. 29 NYS Council for the Humanities Community Conversation on Immigration, sponsored by LWV Smithtown, Smithtown Library, Nesconset Branch, 7pm Wed. Oct. 30 Smithtown Candidates Debate, Brush Barn, 7pm November 2013 Mon. Nov. 4 LWV Smithtown Board Meeting, Horizons office, 10am Tues. Nov. 5 Election Day polls open 6am-9pm Tues. Nov. 5 Town Board Meetings 9:30am-Work Session; 2pm-Regular Meeting, Town Hall Tues. Nov. 12 Community Conversation Lunch with Robert Lusack, Smithtown Library Director, Old Street Pub, 12:30 pm (RSVP please) Sun. Nov. 17 LWVSC Post Election Breakfast, Bellport Country Club, 10:30am-1:30pm Tues. Nov. 19 Library Board General Meeting, Smithtown Branch, 7pm Wed. Nov. 20 LWVSC Board Meeting via conference call, 10am. Thurs. Nov. 21 Town Board Meeting, Senior Citizens Center, 7pm LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SMITHTOWN 322 River Road St. James, NY Address Correction Requested