On April 14, with little discussion and just a few short weeks after first raising the idea, the Liverpool Village Board of Trustees voted three to one to dissolve the village court as of July 4, the end of Judge Anthony LaValle’s current term.

The decision came with very little in the way of background information from the trustees justifying the move. It did not have the support of the Salina Town Court into which it would be absorbed, which is already the busiest court in Onondaga County.

The village hadn’t even yet established a fact-finding committee regarding abolishing the court — that didn’t happen until after the vote.

If that sounds backwards, it’s because it is.

While the village board has said they want to eliminate the court because it’s simply too costly to maintain, the mayor and trustees have failed to provide any solid numbers to support that statement, only vaguely noting that the village will save “$30,000 to $50,000.” Meanwhile, Village Justice Anthony LaValle — who, admittedly, has a personal stake in keeping the court running — has given numerous statistics that suggest maintaining a village court is in the village’s best financial interest. In fact, a letter of explanation issued May 16 by the trustees themselves contained a graph showing that village court revenues had increased over the past two years.

There is simply no good reason to abolish the court, and a number of village residents felt the same. They carried a petition that ultimately forced the village board to pass a resolution calling for a mandatory referendum to be held during the village elections on June 21. However, the referendum the board wrote is worded in such a way that it confuses voters, forcing them to vote “no” if they want to keep the village court.

The village board’s handling of the situation has simply not been on the up-and-up, from forcing a quick vote on the court’s abolishment to the failure to provide solid numbers outlining the supposed savings to the poorly worded referendum. LaValle has accused the board of “trying to pull a fast one.” We agree. Their reasoning for doing so is unclear; whether it’s because of personality conflicts between LaValle and the board, tensions over a harassment complaint (later determined to be unfounded) brought by LaValle against Mayor Gary White or on some other basis, we can’t believe it’s because of the stated cost savings.

We do hope some good comes out of the situation. Turnout for village elections has historically been abysmal; indeed, there has not been a Democratic caucus in the village of Liverpool for some time. This year, however, there are candidates running on lines other than the Republican line, and interest in village politics has skyrocketed. We are hopeful that village residents will remain engaged in their community and future elections will draw competition. Democracy requires a choice. There is no democracy when the same people run uncontested again and again. There needs to be some competition in the market to ensure the best people are elected, even if the same people are returned to office.

Regardless of what happens in the future, on June 21, it is in the best interest of the village for residents to vote “no” on the village court referendum. There are certainly questions to be answered down the road regarding consolidation and the dissolution of local municipalities and municipal agencies. There are certainly cost savings to be had by consolidating. However, the existence of a village court has benefits which transcend price tags, things like local control of law enforcement and the continued provision of fair and impartial local justice administered by a judge who lives in the village presiding over village court.

While there is a village, there should be a village court.