On Monday, former Democratic mayoral candidate and City Councilor Chuck Mason filed the specifics to his “general objections” to the petitions of fellow Democrat and former City Council colleague David Dempsey, who is running for mayor. Mason's objections have since been rejected by the Cayuga County Board of Elections. Mason, the former Democratic chairman, alleged “an act of fraud.” One has to wonder if that was really the case.

At issue was whether the forms Dempsey used, which listed the current leadership of the Democratic Party - who aren't supporting his run (they have put their support behind former Auburn Fire Chief Michael Quill) - were improperly used. It looks as if Dempsey whited out the chief's name and inserted his own. Apparently the names of those three individuals (listed in small print as a “Committee for Vacancies”) were a “signal to the potential petition signers that not only did he have a legitimate (endorsed) petition, but also had the support of the top three members of the party,” according to Mason's objection.

Should Dempsey have not used his party's listing of a “Committee For Vacancies” and instead come up with his own list of names? It was bad judgment, something that he is too often accused of, but was it an “act of fraud”?

While the challenge charged that the move was “a blatant attempt to mislead,” the question really isn't who (one has to ask themselves if anyone who signed his petitions, and it is known that some refused, according to several local Democrats, read the fine print) he was trying to “deceive.” Was the use of such names either an amateur mistake or a way to goad the party's leadership?

Anyone who doesn't know that Democratic Chairwoman Katie Lacey is not supporting his efforts likely didn't pay attention to the fine print either. Did her name or the names of the two other members of the Democratic leadership persuade anyone of the petition signers to sign?

Former Chairman Mason alleged that 40 percent or roughly 176 signatures, of the more than 440 signatures collected were invalid because they were deceptive.

Invalidating that many signatures would have tossed the mayoral candidate off the primary ballot.

More interesting in the challenge was the rationale that Dempsey, who has run for office close to half a dozen times, should have “known better”. That may be true, but one standard should be used - experienced or not, it is either right or wrong - not based on your experience running. In challenging petitions one's experience or lack thereof, the reason most petitions are challenged, should not be at issue - uniform enforcement and observance of the rules should be.

Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com