Rally referendum shot down

Board contemplates public hearing instead

By FRITZ MAYER

NARROWSBURG, NY — In response to the growing controversy over the Rally New York contests on the roads of Tusten, the town board voted on May 24 to let the voters decide. The board voted unanimously to hold a binding public referendum on the issue on June 18.

But there was a problem: New York is not an “initiative and referendum” state such as California, and only certain issues can be placed on the ballot for a direct public vote. Tim Hill, a commissioner of the Sullivan County Board of Elections, said he did not believe a vote about the rally could be “statutorily” upheld. He said only issues such as bonding acts, or changing the length of terms of office of elected officials and similar matters could be put directly to the public for a vote.

In terms of deciding the future of the rally in Tusten, Hill said, “The board has to make a decision.”

Lee Daghlian of the New York State Board of Elections in Albany concurred. He said only issues having to do with financing government, or changing some part of government, may be put on the ballot for a direct vote.

Daghlian said issues such as the rally could not appear on the ballot unless there were an amendment to the New York State Constitution to allow initiatives and referendums. The same roadblock cropped up when members of the public suggested putting the issue of casinos in Sullivan County to a public referendum.

Daghlian said the way for voters to influence policy, on matters such as the rally, is for voters to petition their elected representatives. Some voters have done just that, and the Tusten board may make a final decision on the matter at the next meeting on June 11, or they may decide to schedule a public hearing for a later date.

The rally issue was most recently addressed at the May 24 meeting, which featured a lengthy presentation by Ivan Orisek, the Clerk of the Course, the highest official of Rally New York. Orisek attacked news articles in The River Reporter and the Sullivan County Democrat that detailed residents’ complaints about the rally expressed at previous town meetings. He called the articles “willful misrepresentations.” He said the articles had driven away business from the event, and had made it more difficult for him to recruit people to help stage the event.

He denied that rally participants or spectators left trash behind after the race, and denied that participants drove at unsafe speeds.

He said that while he had limited control over the spectators, they included many doctors and other professionals who spend $5,000 per event in the community.

In response, residents contradicted Orisk, and cited specific examples of wrongdoings committed by spectators and rally participants that involved trash, urinating in public, reckless driving and other offenses.

In objecting to the race itself, resident George Banta said, “Somebody’s going to get killed. It’s just a matter of time.”

There were several heated exchanges between Orisek and residents. While Lance Brodmerkel was making a negative remark about the race, Orisek said, “Why don’t you stop your mouth.” At another point, still during public comment, Orisek asked, “Is there a way to make this stop?”

Supervisor Ben Johnson explained that the public comment period was a useful way for residents to communicate with the board.

Johnson, who said there were 100 spectators on his lawn at the rally on March 30, reiterated that he supported the rally because it had brought good things to the community. He said it increased activity for local businesses, and introduced new people to the area who then returned later for other reasons.

Another person who supported the rally was a volunteer firefighter from Lava who said his company made $500 running a concession during the event, and he supported it.

Altogether, however, among those who have spoken at public meetings, far more have expressed opposition than support.