I'd like to bring the following corrections and clarification (on a June 19 Tribune story) to your attention:

1. The first sentence incorrectly reads, "A lawsuit to stop wind development in Howard and remove town board member Hatch will continue."

Correction: The only issue that is being pursued is the removal of Mr. Hatch. The petitioners chose not to appeal the decision dismissing the claims that challenged the wind development in Howard.

2. The fifteenth sentence incorrectly states that, "The second lawsuit was transferred to the appellate court..."

Correction: Only the third claim in the second lawsuit requesting Hatch's removal from his town board seat was transferred to the Appellate Division , the remainder of the lawsuit was dismissed.

3. The fifteenth and sixteenth sentences both incorrectly state that the second lawsuit was heard in Seneca County Supreme Court.

Correction: The second lawsuit was transferred to Hon. Joseph Valentino in Monroe County Supreme Court.

4. The seventh sentence states, Hedman's case focuses on a signed statement by Hatch from Feb. 21, 2007...

Clarification: The Hatch case focuses on the inconsistency between Hatch's repeated claims that he did not have an agreement with Everpower, and the following documents filed between April 2006 and February 2007 by Everpower (with either the Town of Howard or Steuben County IDA) in which Bill Hatch is identified as a "participating landowner", either directly, by the listing of his name, or indirectly, by showing his property on Hughes Road in the Town of Howard as a site where a wind turbine will be installed:

a. Howard Wind's April 2006 application includes "Hatch, William O" of Hughes Road in of "participating landowners", referencing parcel number 154.00-01-0156.000. Everpower's April 11, 2006 transmittal letter, in response to the requirement at Section 2(B)(5) of the WEF law that an applicant "show consent of the participating property owners," states that Exhibit 1 "includes the names and addresses of all participating (consenting) landowners."

b. Howard Wind's April 2006 "Proposed Project Layout" map accompanying its application depicts wind turbine number "13" located on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.

c. Howard Wind's November map continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.

d. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted on February 20, 2007 to SCIDA on behalf of the Howard Wind Power Project, which was "accepted as complete" on February 27, 2007 by SCIDA, includes a drawing dated December 2006 entitled "Figure 3: Proposed Project Layout", that continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.

Please note: During the March 14, 2007 public hearings conducted by the Howard Town Board, I directly asked Bill Hatch, in front of a crowd of approximately 100 people, whether he had ever advised Everpower or Howard Wind LLC that their submissions in support of the pending wind energy project contain incorrect information regarding him and his Hughes Road property. He did not respond to the inquiry.

5. At the eleventh and twelfth sentences, Hatch claims that he abstained in all the wind-related discussions and votes even before he signed an agreement in 2008.

Clarification: Town of Howard records show that Hatch voted a number of times on wind-related issues in 2006 and 2007. For example:

- On 2/08/06, upon motion by Lowell Smith (a participating landowner), seconded by Bill Hatch, the town board unanimously adopted local law No. 1 of 2006 enacting the town's wind energy facilities law.

- On 4/12/06, with two other Town Board members abstaining, Bill Hatch provided the necessary third vote adopting a resolution to accept Everpower's incomplete application for a permit under the Town's WEF Law, and significantly, to recommend that the Steuben County IDA lend financial aid to the proposed "Howard Wind Power Project".

Editor's note: Arthur Giacalone is an attorney for petitioner Gerry Hedman.