|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 21, 2010
Dear Editor:
I would like to encourage village residents to attend the village board meetings. They're better than any detective story on TV.
We have our own mysteries, for example, the case of the June lawyer's bill.
Here are the facts as I understand them from attending the two meetings where they were discussed. The current lawyer, Mr McKay from the firm of Tarshis, Catania, was hired by trustees Edsall, Kane and Vatter, after they fired the former lawyer over the objections of the mayor and deputy mayor. (For at least 50 years, the village attorney has been appointed by the mayor and approved by the board.) The former lawyer worked on retainer, a flat rate fee no matter how much work he did in any one period.
The lawyer's bill from Mr. McKay for the month of June, 2010, was about $21,000. He was paid by a voucher signed by trustees Edsall, Vatter and Kane. (A voucher can be signed by any three board members.) Itemized on that bill, so I understand, was a conference call with trustees Edsall, Vatter and Kane. If such a call took place, it would be considered a meeting, which would be in violation of the Open Meetings Law. Trustees Edsall, Vatter and Kane each deny that such a call took place, and insist they were not part of it. But the itemized bill says it happened.
At both the September and October Board meetings, Mr. McKay has given us no explanation to the public of whether the itemized bill contained inaccurate information or not.* Meanwhile, he has not given the village a bill for July, August or September.
Come to the next board meeting, perhaps we'll get an explanation of the mystery!
Emily Thomas
Cornwall-on-Hudson
(*Editor’s Note: Mr. McKay did say that if any entries caused confusion, he will clarify that.)
Comments:
|
If the voucher was signed by 3 trustees there is no confusion. They agree with the discription. The person who signed the check (mr Edsall)agrees that the bill is correct by signing the check. The lawyers agree that the bill was correct by depositing the check for there invoice thus completing the transaction.
I have written a request to the comptroller's office for an audit and requested the date of our last internal or externall audit
posted by Andrew Argenio on 10/22/10 at 7:11 AM
|
|
the video is up on my youtube channel ArgenioAndrew on youtube
posted by Andrew Argenio on 10/22/10 at 7:13 AM
|
|
Thank you for the summary, Ms. Thomas.
If things are indeed as you describe them, then something here smells funny.
If the three trustees in question did take part in the call, and it qualifies as a meeting, then the trustees have some answering to do to the community.
If, however, the trustees did NOT take part in the call, then someone needs to look into why the Village's new counsel is making fraudulent charges.
As Mr. Argenio points out, you can't have a bill for the call and a deposited check AND the claim that it never happened.
posted by Ted Warren on 10/22/10 at 10:38 AM
|
|
I don't think anyone is claiming anything illegal took place. I think the question is whether or not something unethical took place.
I'm not intimately familiar with the Village by-laws, so it could be that the three trustees together getting legal advice via a conference call is perfectly legit. However, if three trustees represents a quorum and qualifies as a meeting of the board, then it stands to reason that the other two trustees should have at least been notified and given the opportunity to partake.
Additionally, if it can be considered an official meeting of the board, there's the issue of whether or not the content of the call should be made available to the public.
posted by Ted Warren on 10/26/10 at 11:46 AM
|
|
Well, the fact that the village was billed for the call is pretty compelling evidence that it took place, but I agree that we don't know that all three trustees took part in the call and that we don?t know specifically what was discussed. I think the point is, though, that trustees are racking up pretty large legal bills consulting with a law firm that was not officially appointed by the chief executive of the village. In addition, this firm does not work on a retainer as the previous firm that they fired did. The net result is that a firm that was hired without the Mayor?s consent is burning through the Village?s budget for legal fees and will potentially cost the Village a lot of money.
Panning out from the specifics of this call, though, the fact is that the conduct of trustees Edsall, Vatter, and Kane is indicative of an effort to deny the Mayor powers that he is supposed to have under New York State law, and, if I had to guess, I would say that it is all linked to denying him the ability to get any closer to the bottom of whatever funny business occurred in relation to the building of that DPW building.
Call me a cynic.
posted by Ted Warren on 10/28/10 at 10:35 AM
|
|
Let me answer some questions with the actual video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yU6xi9dbw4
that is the link
It is also on my youtube channel ArgenioAndrew.
just go to youtube and type ArgenioAndrew in there serch and I have all the village meetings that I have taped
thanks Andrew Argenio
posted by Andrew Argenio on 10/30/10 at 10:50 AM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
