Background Check

The job of Town Clerk may not sound consequential, but don’t let the
name fool you. It plays a pivotal role in the town’s operation.
According to Brookhaven Town Clerk, Donna Lent—who’s running for
re-election this November—the Town Clerk is “frequently considered the
center of town government.”

The clerk “attends and keeps an accurate record of all meetings of
the Town Board . . . authoring the only chronological and historical
record of the operation of the town . . . issues licenses . . .
receives and records documents such as land records, vital statistics,
and requests for access to public documents.”

The Town Clerk must possess a record proving she can be entrusted
with this responsibility. But a closer look at Lent’s background—all of which is public record
but little known—raises serious questions whether she is worthy of the
public’s trust. Brookhaven voters are entitled to the facts. Here’s what
Background Check discovered about Donna Lent:

As Secretary of the Suffolk County
Working Families Party (“SCWFP”), Donna Lent was implicated in the
fraud and forgery of voter proxies and sign-in sheets by a NYS Supreme
Court Justice.

Here’s What Happened. . . .
.Fellow WFP members filed a lawsuit against Donna Lent and others,
claiming fraudulent and forged voter proxies and meeting sign-in sheets
were used to establish a quorum at the meeting where Donna Lent was
elected Secretary. One egregious example of fraud was a sign-in sheet
indicating that Donna Lent’s husband, Gregory Lent, had attended the meeting, but a proxy for his vote indicated that he was absent!

Several witnesses “flatly denied” ever signing the proxies submitted
in their names by Lent and Pohanka. Following a recess, Lent and Pohanka
returned to the courtroom and conceded that the proxies were invalid.

Court “Deeply Troubled“. . . . .As Secretary of the
Suffolk County WFP Secretary, Lent was responsible for ensuring that the
proxies and sign-in sheets were valid. But the Court found serious
problems with those documents:

“Review of the 71 proxy documents reveals
that . . . the majority of the [signatures on the proxies] . . . do not
match . . . the signatures on the voter registration of the individuals
who purportedly signed the proxies. Additionally, several proxies were submitted from individuals who are also reflected as present by the sign in sheet. (Gregory Lent, Sharon Ward). (Emphasis added.)

“Indeed, the Court has found that at least
29 signatures do not match registration cards and at least three have
wrong election districts. The Court is troubled by these findings and
has been made aware (from letters submitted by petitioner’s counsel
regarding scheduling of witnesses at the hearing scheduled to commence
May 11, 2005) that testimony is expected from a number of persons
denying that they signed the proxy” respondents [Lent and Pohonka] said
they signed.”

After hearing witness testimony, the Court expressed its profound concern:

“[T]he Court has reflected upon the
serious impact such fraudulent activities…..have upon the fundamental
rights of citizens to participate in the political process. The Court is
deeply troubled by the circumstances of this case.”

Here are our sources:

https://www.brookhavenny.gov/D...

Klein v. Garfinkle #2187-04, (NYS Sup. Ct. Suff. Co. May 11, 2005) http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2005jun/51002178720041sciv.pdf

Klein v. Garfinkle #21787-04, (NYS Sup. Ct. Suff. Co. June 29, 2005) http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2005jul/5100217872004100sciv.pdf