To the Editor:

By now we know that two of our trustees are being challenged for their positions on the Board of Trustees. Although the challengers, Michelle Harrington and Jon Segerdahl, try to pretend otherwise, their sole issue is St. Paul's, which they maintain must be saved at all cost. Their supporters from the St. Paul's committee would like nothing better than to take control of the Board through this election and begin spending our money on the building, notwithstanding protestations from the rest of us. Keep in mind that those unalterably committed to this cause, despite more than 15 years of trying, still haven't been able to come-up with an acceptable long-term plan for saving the building - or a way to pay for such preservation except with tremendous taxpayer expense.

I submit that the primary concerns for the well-being of the village, and therefore, qualifications for being a trustee, have nothing to do with St. Paul's. But if you have an opportunity before the election, I would still encourage you to ask the challengers about their long-range vision for the building. You may have to press pretty hard before learning that they don't really have a clear plan - only a heart-felt belief that St. Paul's must be saved, and a willingness to commit the residents' hard-earned tax dollars in the hope that luck (certainly not planning) may yet produce a payoff.

I know from years of personally searching for an acceptable and affordable way of saving the building that we need to put aside our rose-colored glasses when looking at St. Paul's. The consequences are far too expensive and potentially negative to allow any decisions about the building to be made only with the heart. And that's why it would be a tremendous mistake to entrust Michelle and Jon with this matter.

I have known both people for many years. I'm sure they are good neighbors, and they may have many friends who will be encouraged to vote for them. But, friendship aside, they should not represent us on the Board of Trustees. If the challengers and their supporters take control of our Village Board through the upcoming election, we will all need to hide our wallets.

And what of the challengers' qualifications? Jon Segerdahl tells us his past tenure on the Board is a good reason for placing him there again. But the truth is quite the contrary. Despite his claim of accomplishments, I recall Jon as a fellow trustee who was fixed and uncompromising in his views. Rather than being the visionary he promises, he was unwilling to explore any imaginative options for saving the building without great expense to the residents. And he was never ever interested in the cost involved! Jon was never a problem solver. He was, however, totally committed to doing the bidding of others on the Board who insisted on only one approach for the building's future. Jon contributed to ramming through some of the worst decisions ever made regarding St. Paul's. Many of them haunt us to this day (Remember the "parkland" designation?), and serve as major obstacles to every achieving the preservation Jon espouses. Jon's own POA had enough, and denied him re-nomination for the position after his 2nd term; hardly an endorsement for returning him to the Board now.

As for Michelle, in spite of years attending Estate POA meetings, there is little we can look at to measure her accomplishments. She has never risen to a leadership position and, despite her background and professed interest, never even participated in the POA's financial vetting of St. Paul's. She tells us that her experience in finance would be an asset to the Board. That seems difficult to understand, however, since her only expressed concern for years has been with the salvation of St. Paul's. This myopic focus wouldn't lead to financial benefit for any of us ? just the contrary.

The Board has a variety of issues that must be dealt with on an ongoing basis for the well-being of the Village. Among other things, being a capable trustee requires experience, steadiness, intelligence, analytical ability, leadership, and the capacity to work toward compromise solutions for the benefit of all the residents. On close examination, I think you'll find these challengers to be limited in this regard.

Turn out to vote in the POA primaries next Tuesday. This is a critical election! And if you love our Village, be sure to reject these challengers. Vote instead to retain the two trustees they are challenging: Brian Daughney in the Estates and Nick Episcopia in the East. They have the experience, qualifications and capabilities we need in our trustees.

John Mauk,

Former Trustee,

Village of Garden City