TOWN OF NEWBURGH, NY - In the Town of Newburgh, a local election has now come down to a single vote. That fact alone should demand restraint, discipline, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Instead, what unfolded — both inside the courtroom on Monday, April 13th and in the hours that followed — demands scrutiny. Because when the margin is one vote, the process is not just important — it is everything.
The Timeline That Cannot Be Ignored
During the hearing, before Orange County Supreme Court Justice Sherri Eisenpress, a court-ordered recount was conducted. More than 30 ballots were reviewed and invalidated. The result: Councilwoman Mary Lou Carolan now trails by just one vote. An appeal has been filed. A stay is in the works. The outcome is not final.
That should have been the end of any immediate action — it wasn’t.
Following the court hearing, there was an attempt by town officials to swear in the opposing candidate, Paul Ruggiero. At the same time, Councilwoman Carolan was advised not to take her seat — despite the fact that the legal process is ongoing. That action was ultimately reversed — but only after it became apparent that it could not legally stand. That sequence alone raises serious questions. But it is only part of the story.
Commenting on the sequence of events, Councilwoman Carolan said the following, “After the April 13th hearing, I received a 12:27p.m. call from the Town Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor telling me that Paul Ruggiero had been certified, and would be sworn in by the Town Clerk, and that I should stay home from that evening’s town board meeting. When I pointed out the judge had not ruled and an appeal was underway, I was told it didn’t matter — that he should take the seat. I made it clear I would be there to serve, as lawfully sworn. At 1:21p.m., after speaking with town counsel, the Supervisor called back and told me to ‘forget the earlier call’—that Mr. Ruggiero had not been sworn in and I could take my seat.”
Who Showed Up — and How They Got There
During the court proceedings earlier that day, members of Town Hall leadership — including Supervisor Gil Piaquadio and Deputy Supervisor Scott Manley — were present in support of Paul Ruggiero.
This was not official Town business. Yet it has been reported that at least one elected official traveled to the courthouse in Goshen using a Town of Newburgh vehicle.
That detail matters.
Because it raises a question every taxpayer should be asking: Was a publicly funded asset used for a legitimate municipal purpose — or to support one side of a contested election?
If the purpose was official, the public deserves to know what that purpose was. If it was not, then taxpayers effectively subsidized political activity — fuel, time, and resources — all directed toward a matter that was not the Town’s business, but a contested race between candidates.
Even if defended after the fact, the line here is not subtle. Public resources are not meant to be used to advance political outcomes. And when they are — even in appearance — it erodes confidence in the system itself.
Town of Newburgh – Ethics Code - Key Provision: § 16-3(C)(7)
No Town board member, Town officer, Town employee or Town consultant shall represent private interests before any agency, department, officer or other entity of this Town of Newburgh Town government of which he or she is a member, by which he or she is employed, or to which he or she renders services. Furthermore, no Town officer, Town board member, Town employee or Town consultant shall:
(7) Request or permit the use of Town-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided as a Town policy for the use of such officer, Town board member or employee in the conduct of official business, or as otherwise permitted by prior written agreement or contractual language, copies of which shall be provided to the Board of Ethics.
Public Officers Law Section 74 - Code of Ethics
§ 74(3)(d) → Unwarranted privileges
§ 74(3)(d) → Use of public resources for non-public purpose
§ 74(3)(h) → Appearance of impropriety
Use of public resources for private/political purposes, conferring an unwarranted advantage, and creating the appearance that official power is being used to favor one side of a contested election
More Than Optics — A Matter of Trust
Mary Lou Carolan earned strong support from residents across Newburgh and has conducted herself with professionalism and integrity throughout this process. That support does not disappear because the margin is now one vote. If anything, it underscores how many residents placed their trust in her — and how carefully that trust must now be respected.
But this moment is bigger than any one candidate.
It is about whether the public can trust that:
• the process is being followed,
• the law is being respected,
• and public resources are being used appropriately.
Because when actions appear to get ahead of the law…
When decisions are made behind closed doors…
When taxpayer-funded resources are used in ways that raise more questions than answers…
Trust erodes. And once it erodes, it is not easily restored.
A Standard That Must Be Higher
This situation does not exist in isolation. It comes at a time when residents are already asking serious questions about transparency, fairness, and whether every voice in the Town of Newburgh is being equally heard.
A one-vote election does not lower the standard. It raises it.
Recent findings by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct — where the judge presiding over this matter failed to disclose conflicts of interest and ultimately will be stepping down at the end of this month — serve as a reminder of a principle that applies at every level of government:
Decisions must be made — and must be seen to be made — with fairness, impartiality, and accountability.
The Question That Now Defines This Moment
This is not about declaring a winner today. The courts will do their work. The legal process will play out.
But the defining question for the Town of Newburgh is this:
Can residents have confidence that their government is operating within the bounds of the law — and not using public power or public resources to influence outcomes?
Because when an election comes down to a single vote, that question is not political.
It is fundamental. And it deserves a clear answer.
Following the events, Stephen Krasner, candidate for Town Supervisor, issued the following statement:
There is a line between governance and overreach, and it is defined by the rule of law. When that line is crossed — quietly or otherwise — it is not an oversight, it is a deliberate choice. Too often, that choice is made in defense of a status quo focused on preserving control rather than upholding principle. The people of this community are watching closely — and they understand exactly what is happening.