In what is being viewed by many as a strong show of support for the Community Agreement, Garden City residents turned out in record numbers to elect the Estates Property Owners’ Association candidate Brian Daughney over two write-in candidates, Ronald Tadross and Raymond Rudolph.

The official results are as follows:

Central: Donald T. Brudie: 617 (509 machine votes/23 absentee ballots/85 paper ballots)

West: John J. Watras: 658 (521 machine votes/25 absentee ballots/112 paper ballots)

East: Nicholas P. Episcopia: 546 (458 machine votes/25 absentee ballots/63 paper ballots)

Estates: Brian Daughney : 532 (446 machine votes/25 absentee ballots/61 paper ballots)

Ronald A. Tadross: 342 (195 machine votes/0 absentee ballots/147 paper ballots)

Raymond Rudolph: 333 (186 machine votes/0 absentee ballots/147 paper ballots)

Daughney issued the following statement to The Garden City News after the results were announced: “I want to thank the residents of the Village of Garden City for supporting my election and more importantly, for affirming the validity and intent of the Community Agreement and the property owners’ associations. In my opinion, the Community Agreement is aptly named because we are an open form of government which tries to avoid partisan politics and foster community involvement.

“In that spirit, I would ask that those who by their votes have expressed an interest in being more involved, or feel they do not have any direct voice in what is happening in the Village, attend the POA and the Village meetings. In my view, there is no system of government that is more transparent and local or welcoming. I moved here about eight years ago, and now I am lucky enough to be selected as a Village Trustee, so to me, that reflects how welcoming and inclusive the POA system can be when you put out an effort to get involved.

“In the Estates our meetings are every second Wednesday of every month. As one of the trustee representatives of the Estates, I will be at these meetings to engage with our residents. We are fellow residents, and we meet face to face to discuss Village issues, no matter how contentious they may be.

“But despite any disagreement about a particular issue, we also are committed to the Village because we like living here and like the services we receive, and want to improve these services. We welcome and invite every resident, old and new, to come and put forth their ideas. Change and improvements based on new ideas do not happen overnight, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but everyone can and is welcome to contribute to improve our Village.”

Tadross and Rudolph announced their candidacy two days before election day. The write-in candidacy elicited a strong response from many in the Village who believed it was a violation of the Community Agreement.

“This isn’t so much a mini taxpayer revolt as it is two individuals, Ron and Ray, trying to take advantage of our process in Garden City to, literally, steal today’s election and get themselves elevated to the Board of Trustees for personal reasons,” said Trustee John Mauk in an e-mail sent to a group of approximately 50 residents and other trustees on election day. He is stepping down as one of the trustees from the Estates, so the men were vying for his seat on the Board.

The Community Agreement, adopted in 1919 and not legally binding, allows each section to nominate two trustees and seeks to assure that the Village has a “government without politics.” According to the agreement, trustees are elected by the residents. “The four Property Owners’ Associations are the conduits which supply the slate of candidates. At all times each section of the Village has two of its residents on the Board of Trustees, assuring equal representation.”

Tadross referred The Garden City News to the Web site he started with Rudolph earlier this year for a statement: “We want to thank you all for your support in the General Village Election yesterday, and realized it was more about you than us. The 957 residents that came out to vote were almost five times as many as last year and (hopefully) a message in itself to the Village Trustees and Administration. While our grassroots effort could not match the established POA base, our effort was commendable given its infancy. We still believe the POAs need to better represent the residents, or our job will just get easier.”

Tadross said approximately 75 votes were disqualified because some residents wrote both their names more than once each. “So, we could have gotten 400 votes if that were not the case. That seems unfair, but is just a lesson learned as it would not have been a game changer. We observed the write-in vote count, and take their word for the machine tally.”

“We should be proud that we stuck to the issues and made commitments, and did not resign to fear-mongering,” he wrote. “We saw most of the hate e-mails and even got the flyer from a neighbor that called us ‘radicals.’ That was especially mean and unsubstantiated, and we are sure she will come around in a year or two as taxes and debt continue to rise. We fundamentally believe our commitments to you were easily achievable given the waste and management weakness in our Village. We should continue to demand better performance from our Trustees and Administrators.”