Noeding Files Voter Intimidation Complaint

by David Flint
Heinz Noeding of Petersburgh has filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office alleging voter intimidation on the part of the Berlin Central School District. Noeding said that last week he received a letter from the District Clerk, Mary Grant, saying it had come to her attention that his legal residence may not be in the District. He was advised therefore that if he wished to vote in the upcoming election he would have to bring to the polling station on May 18 a copy of page 1 and the signature page of his federal or state income tax form as proof of legal residence. Personal and financial information other than his name and address could be redacted.
Noeding said he called the Clerk and was told that she was acting on the basis of an anonymous complaint and that no such letters were sent to any other second home owners. The letter, she said, was prepared on the advice of the School District’s attorney
Noeding claims that in fact he has had only the one residence, in Petersburgh, since last year. He acknowledged that his school tax bills were sent last fall to a New York City address as he had not thought to notify the District of change of address. He feels he has been singled out because he has been quite vocal in speaking out against the proposed budget and other financial decisions of the School Board and school administration.
In a letter to Interim Schools Superintendent Charlotte Gregory, Noeding informed her that he had filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office and wrote that, “I find it frankly shocking that you would pursue anonymous complaints with such aggressiveness and use of taxpayer resources.”
In his complaint Noeding informed the Attorney General that his home in Petersburgh was initially built as a second home but it became his permanent residence in early 2008. He noted that he had publicly advocated against the construction bond referendum that was subsequently defeated by a wide margin last December and that since then he had participated in every School Board meeting including budget workshops, publicly questioning the fiscal management of the Board and administration. It was “clearly an attempt at voter intimidation,” he concluded.
Gregory said that Mary Grant was just doing her job as District Clerk. Because it had come to Grant’s attention that Noeding’s legal address might be in New York City and because the school tax bill was indeed sent to a New York City address, and he was not listed on Rensselaer County voter rolls, Gregory felt that Grant was correct in the action she took and moreover she was following the advice of legal counsel. Gregory understood that Noeding had suggested Grant could check with the Department of Motor Vehicles to confirm his local residency, but her response to that was, “He’s the voter. He should be required to do the footwork.” Gregory said Noeding would be challenged at the polls but thought that if his driver license does show a Petersburgh address, that might be acceptable proof.
“I thought it was a courtesy to him,” Mary Grant said of the letter which she thought would give Noeding time to clear up the matter of his legal residency before showing up at the polls and being challenged. She confirmed that having received an anonymous complaint, she consulted the District’s lawyer, Beth Bourassa of the Albany law firm Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna LLP. No member of the School Board was consulted. It was the first time she had ever received a complaint challenging a voter. Bourassa advised that Grant write the letter notifying Noeding that his Petersburgh residence had to be his primary residence. She was advised to ask for tax return pages as proof. Since residency of only 30 days is required to be eligible to vote in a school election, it is not clear how relevant a 2009 tax return might be to indicate current residency.
Education Law (section 2018-c) says that a school district may require one form of proof of residency. The form is determined by the district and “may include, but is not limited to, a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card, a utility bill or a voter registration card.” The Berlin School District has always specified these four documents in their legal notices announcing a vote or election. It is not clear why the District feels it can substitute a tax document for one of the forms of proof of residency it has already published.
Beth Bourassa said that the District has a legitimate interest in ensuring that only legal residents of the District participate in its elections and it is up to the District to determine what is valid proof of residency. She claims that a recent tax form – redacted to avoid any disclosure of social security number, financial information or tax liability information – would be one reliable proof of the primary legal address for a person who may own property in more than one school district. She said that a driver license or non-driver ID would not be reliable as the address could be wherever the person wanted it to be and a utility bill could be provided from either residence.
Section 2015 of the Education Law requires a complainant challenging a voter to file a written challenge which would be filed with the voter register. Bourassa said, however, that this section of the law does not apply because the Berlin District does not have voter registration. The District, she said, can act on any basis to request verification of a voter’s proof of residence. Presumably that would include an anonymous complaint.
While there may be many other taxpayers in the District who receive their tax bills elsewhere, Bourassa said there would be no reason to send such a letter to them if the District had no reason to believe that they had ever presented to vote.
“We believe that a prospective voter would not in any way be ‘intimidated’ or discouraged from presenting to vote with the requested documentation  in hand, unless of course such documentation would confirm that he or she is not a legal resident of the District,” Bourassa said.
Bourassa affirmed that, “The Berlin Central School District does not discriminate or retaliate against any person based on the content of his or her public statements. The District welcomes and actively encourages all legal adult residents of the District to vote on May 18.”