Randall Ethics Committee says Nolan was not referring to Halvey in campaign letter

The Randall Ethics Committee, in a split decision, found that Supervisor Rose Nolan was not specifically referring to Supervisor Mark Halvey in a controversial piece of campaign literature she circulated in April.

Three of the committee members said they felt the passages in the letter were generic, while two committee members said they felt there was evidence the comments were leveled at Halvey by Nolan.

Halvey said his complaint was based on a piece of Nolan campaign literature he received April 1, 2011. Incumbents Halvey and Nolan were running for re-election along with challengers Randy Kaskin and A.J. Johnson. Nolan and Kaskin won.

“I was quite shocked to see it …” Halvey said of the letter.

Halvey said he felt parts of the letter were directed at him as the only other incumbent running for re-election. Some of the terms he objected to included some supervisors being “fatheads,” some having their “masculinity challenged” and that some were “petty, vindictive tyrants.”

“I felt if I was the only one running … it was meant toward me,” Halvey said adding that he felt the literature damaged his reputation in Randall.

Under questioning from the committee, Halvey said he felt the literature damaged his campaign.

Nolan waived her right to make an oral statement to the committee, opting instead to offer a written statement with multiple attachments. Committee members asked her to clarify a number of parts of the attachments and asked her questions.

Nolan contended the statements in the subject letter, which she acknowledged was hers, were not directed at any individual including the comments Halvey highlighted.

“A lot of things that were in my flyer were in a lot of articles and flyers before I even knew you sir,” Nolan said to Halvey.

Committee Chairman Ed Antaramian said the proceeding from tonight will be distilled into a formal statement that will include a finding of facts and a place for minority opinions that will be presented to the Town Board for its action.

Halvey has a right to appeal the decision.




  1. Nolan was a candidate, not a Supervisor says:

    IF she had done this as a BOARD SUPERVISOR then they would have some authority.
    In this, she was a candidate, not a supervisor. The Board has a lot of nerve to think that they have any level of power in what a candidate publishes. What will they do when a candidate who isnt a sitting board member says the same things? They can do nothing. Just as they should do in this case. Nothing.

    Shame on Halvey. Sore Loser.

  • Follow us on

  • Archives