Town of Sweden Perspective
This is a continuation of my letter to the editor submitted in late January 2026. On June 16, Village of Brockport residents will consider a referendum to dissolve the Village Court. While the Town of Sweden has no legal authority or official opinion on this matter, we would like to share information to be considered in this decision.
The Town of Sweden was formed in 1814, including the Town Court. The Village Court was formed by resolution on October 17, 2013, with its operations beginning on January 1, 2015. Therefore, there have been 212 years of the Town Court and only 11 or 5% of those years with a Village Court. The question has been raised: Can the Town Court handle the Village cases if the dissolution is ratified? We will, from the aspect that there will be a transition of cases back to the Town, similar to the transfer of cases to the Village in 2015. We are prepared for this possibility. Of course, there will be a period of transition with a smooth outcome based on cooperation between the two courts.
Currently, Village residents pay for two courts through their Village and Town taxes. The rising costs of operating courts are a concern addressed by NYS Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli in an article on his website titled “Cost-Saving Ideas: A Guide to Justice Court Consolidation in Villages and Towns.” In this article, he states: “The financing of courts is a local responsibility, and maintaining a court may pose administrative and financial challenges. As a result, there is growing interest by citizens and local governments to explore consolidation of justice courts, when practicable. In these cases, towns and villages should consider consolidating their justice courts. Benefits of consolidation include, but are not limited to, maximizing services by pooling resources and streamlining the court system by centralizing services.” While I may not agree with Mr. DiNapoli on everything, I agree with his points on why a court consolidation should be considered to lower costs for our residents.
Village residents will retain a Judicial Branch of government if the court dissolution is passed. It will return to the Town as it has existed for 201 of the last 212 years.
As a reminder, the Town of Sweden has no legal authority or input on the decision to dissolve the Village Court. By NYS Municipal Law, if the Village Court dissolves, the Sweden Town Court is obligated to take on those cases. We are ready and able to take on this additional caseload if Village residents choose to dissolve its court. I am happy to meet with any of our residents to discuss this matter further.
The most important decision to make on June 16 is the decision to cast your vote, whether your vote is yes or no, to the referendum.
Patricia Hayles
Sweden Town Supervisor
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Court’s Financial Analysis Doesn’t Add Up
At the Brockport Village Board meeting on June 1, the court presented another analysis of its finances. It was to prove that the court is making money. I compared the three scenarios discussed with the prior 11-year analysis and adopted budgets. The budget amounts shown on Monday, June 1, total Personnel Services, Supplies and Contractual Services, and Postage. The following items were missing: Social Security, Health Insurance buy-out, Disability Insurance, Worker’s Compensation, Life Insurance, and NYS Retirement. There was also no amount for the court’s pro-rated share of Building Insurance, Maintenance and Repairs, Utilities, and Janitorial Supplies. That is an additional 10 items that were not included. In FY2025, these amounted to over $35,000. If you add them to the three scenarios, there is no profit. Instead, LOSSES range from $21,000 to more than $45,000.
While the court may look at budgeting only its three selected line items, as taxpayers, we must fully fund the cost of employees (not just their wages) and provide a safe environment for the court. To omit this information is only telling a part of the story. The Village Court requires taxpayer support to operate.
Even if you think there are non-financial benefits that make the losses worth it, critically review all the information we have, and then join me in voting on June 16.
Kevin Jenkins
Brockport
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Overlooked Issues in Village Court Debate
The debate over the courthouse referendum on June 16 has overlooked two pertinent issues. One is the history of the building itself. Second is the option for the Village Court to continue.
The building that currently houses the Village Court was a gift offered to Brockport in 1930. Brockport artist and historian, Helen Hastings (1871-1953), convinced her cousin James Seymour, son of William Seymour, to bequeath the mansion to Brockport if they would use it to house a public library and museum. Two different referendums took two years for the board to decide to accept the donation. Local government and the community were well aware that even “free” buildings are expensive to maintain. Helen’s role is not mentioned in written accounts, and little is made of her contributions to establishing our town and village’s first museum. She wrote many important historical accounts and filled the museum with contents that were never subsequently documented.
In order to establish precedent for our Village Court, our former mayor compared two other SUNY towns and villages. Both Geneseo and Fredonia have a town court and a village court. Not highlighted is the fact that both municipalities have one physical courthouse, which the town and village share. Yes, they used these two as models for our court, yet this major difference goes unreported. Fredonia and Geneseo do not charge their taxpayers for providing two physical courtrooms. Unbelievably, these respective towns and villages share one courtroom. By simply getting along, they save taxpayers the extravagance of maintaining two courts.
The Helen Hastings art collection could be world-class. This expansive collection could be rotated, books and history papers written, museum curation taught, and pieces traveling to national and international shows would highlight Brockport. For now, it remains improperly stored in boxes, deteriorating, and abused. Because of the neglect, original documents are missing, and possibly as many as 10 paintings are missing, while we argue, ironically, over Helen’s gifts and what to do with them. This collection would be welcomed by our nation’s first museum, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, where it is a component of our national history. Remaining in Brockport, this collection has the potential to be ‘a big fish in a little pond.’ If the community were to care for the collection properly, where would it be housed? So far, the knee-jerk reaction is to get a grant and buy yet another building…Good Grief!
Abolishing the Village Court, if only for the time being, would allow consideration of opportunities far greater and intellectually loftier than two courtrooms. This needs to be part of the dialogue. Please weigh the choices and vote on June 16.
Sarah Hart
Brockport
