No Government Should Rely on Another to Enforce Its Laws
In the June 5 issue of the Westside News, Sweden Supervisor Patricia Hayles assured Brockport Village residents that the Town Court was “ready and able to take on this additional caseload” if the Village Court is abolished.
She provided no details. Nor did she mention that the Village Court has a much heavier caseload than the Town Court. Or that when the Town Court handled Village business before 2013, it had three justices, whereas now it has only two.
Even so, the three justices before 2013 neglected the Village business. When the Village recovered its business from the Town, it discovered that the Town had not collected $89,000 in fines levied by the Village. When the Town Court had more business than it could handle, it—quite naturally—gave priority to Town business and let Village fines languish in a box under a desk. After all, the Town was paying their salaries.
Supervisor Hayles also points out that the Town Court has existed since 1814, whereas the Village Court was created only in 2013. This suggests that the Village has had only 11 years of experience adjudicating its laws. In fact, the Village has long experience enforcing its laws. From its beginnings as a Village, Brockport elected “police justices” to perform duties that the courts have taken over more recently.
Law enforcement is the very essence of government. No government should rely on another government to enforce its laws. We do not ask Canada to enforce U.S. laws. New York should not rely on the national government to enforce its laws. We should not expect the Town of Sweden to enforce Village of Brockport laws.
Bill Andrews, Sr., Former Historian
Brockport
Why I Want to Keep the Brockport Village Court
I never imagined I would become involved in a local government issue.
I have never served in government. I have never run for office. I have no plans to run for office. I am not employed by the Village, the Court, or any government agency. I have no family members who work for the Court, and I stand to gain absolutely nothing from whether the Brockport Village Court stays or goes.
I am simply a taxpayer who loves this village.
Like many residents, I chose Brockport because of the sense of community it offers. I appreciate the services our Village provides, the people who work to keep it running, and the quality of life that makes Brockport a special place to call home.
That is why I began asking questions when I learned our Village Court was being considered for abolition.
What started as curiosity quickly turned into concern.
The more I listened, the more I heard claims that the Court was costing taxpayers money and operating at a loss. But when I reviewed the Village’s own financial records, I found something very different. The Court was operating with a surplus. It was generating revenue rather than being a burden on taxpayers.
So, I asked what I believed was a reasonable question: If the Court is paying for itself and contributing revenue back to the Village, where exactly are the savings residents are being promised by abolishing it?
To this day, I do not believe residents have received a clear answer.
What many people may not realize is that I am the sole organizer behind the grassroots effort to keep the Brockport Village Court. There is no political organization behind me. There is no special interest group funding this effort. There is no personal benefit waiting for me if the Court remains.
I am simply a resident who felt that important questions were not being answered and that our community deserved better transparency before losing a longstanding Village service.
For me, however, this discussion is about much more than dollars and cents.
The Brockport Village Court serves an important purpose within our community. It handles local matters that directly affect quality of life, including code enforcement, parking violations, traffic matters, and other cases that impact residents and businesses alike.
But beyond that, the Court represents something that is becoming increasingly rare in today’s world: a nonpartisan institution dedicated to fairness and justice.
The Court is not political.
It does not exist to advance a political agenda. It does not belong to one party or another. Its purpose is to apply the law fairly and equally to everyone who comes before it.
Regardless of who sits on the Village Board, who serves as Mayor, or which political viewpoints are popular at any given time, the Court’s responsibility remains the same: to ensure fairness, due process, accountability, and equal treatment under the law.
In a time when so much of public life feels divided, I believe there is tremendous value in preserving local institutions whose purpose is impartial justice rather than politics.
That is why I care.
Not because I have something to gain.
Not because I am seeking attention.
Not because I have ambitions in government.
I care because I believe residents deserve transparency. I care because I believe important decisions should be supported by facts. And I care because I believe Brockport should not give up a self-sustaining institution that serves our community without a clear and compelling reason.
At its core, this issue is about trust.
Residents deserve honest answers. They deserve to know what is being lost, what is being gained, and what the long-term plan is before an institution is dissolved.
I love Brockport. I am proud to call it home. And as a taxpayer, a resident, and a member of this community, I believe the Brockport Village Court is worth preserving.
That is why I have spoken up.
That is why I continue to ask questions.
And that is why I will be voting to keep the Brockport Village Court.
Michelle O’Dell
Brockport
