April 05, 2011
To the Editor:
In 2010, the Tarshis firm was charging COH $175/hr for legal fees without a fixed retainer.
Last night, our board passed a resolution - three ayes (Edsall, Kane and Coyne) to two nays (Gosda, Argenio) to retain the law firm Tarshis et. al. under a fixed retainer of $5000/month for 28 hours of work/month. Any hours worked over that and the firm is going to charge the Village $175/hr, and any work under that is going to be rolled over.
I did the math: $175/hr x 28 hrs = $4900. A few questions came to my mind about this.
Let’s look at that this “fixed retainer.” It is just the lump sum amount that 28 hrs/month of legal services from Tarshis would incur. Doesn’t that negate it from being a true retainer? Are we not essentially being informed that for 28 hrs/month of work we will be paying $5000?
Trustee Gosda raised the issue that she wanted to review the retainer agreement with the board members prior to passing the resolution. She suggested, and was supported by Trustee Argenio, that the board review the retainer and speak with the firm. Perhaps they would be willing to increase the number of hours worked per month. Trustees Gosda and Argenio also asked that the resolution be tabled until the next village board meeting work session.
Mayor Coyne asked the board for discussion, but put it up for a vote – passing by three ayes and two nays.
Mayor Coyne – Trustee Gosda raised the issue that historically the village used about 60 hrs/month of legal counsel - not just in 2010, but overall historically.
Have you taken the time to familiarize yourself with all the laws that require your compliance as Mayor, and all of the laws that the Board must comply to? Have you taken the time to determine how many hours/month are going to be required by the entire Village government to properly comply with all of the applicable laws? Have you accounted for the lawyer’s presence at monthly meetings, the need for the each department in the government for periodic legal counsel, the contract negotiations (including the negotiation with the police department regarding how they will be retained), the time needed to do research to properly give legal counsel, and the time taken to draft documents? How many hours/month will all of those things take?
Mayor Coyne, just because you may be attempting to limit the legal fees in good faith, do you understand that the Village government, including yourself, always needs to be in legal compliance? You cannot just forego legal counseling to limit the legal fees to this 28 hour/month retainer.
I believe that you are attempting to act with good judgment. Before that agreement is signed, could you first sit down and attempt to determine the average number of hours that are going to be needed per month, and try to negotiate the retainer from there?
Why was proper governance not worth a one-week wait, and discussion?
Melissa Vellone
Cornwall-on-Hudson
Comments:
|
The entire purpose of a fixed rate is to know that some months you win some, some months you don't, without a cap in place. This firm should be well aware that a deal like this benefits them...being an attorney myself and having worked in a firm for years I know how easy it is for some associate (or partner for that matter) to come up short on monthly billables and then need to go to a deep pocket for some creative billing. The entire premise behind a fixed rate is just that....The village should be able to know that its $5K a month regardless of the amount of time spent.
posted by Rachael Skigen on 04/06/11 at 10:25 AM
|
|
What am I missing here? Melissa Vellone writes that the firm is charging the Village $5,000 a month PLUS $175 an hour for every billable hour over what's covered by the fixed rate. Doesn't that mean that ALL months you win?
"The village should be able to know that it's $5K a month regardless of the amount of time spent...."
Not if what Vellone writes is correct.
posted by Stephan Wilkinson on 04/08/11 at 5:50 PM
|
|
Stephan -
The part you are missing is that a true fixed retainer is NOT supposed to have an hourly cap. So NO, we dont win all months, we lose many months. If it was a true fixed retainer we would still be paying $5000 if we used 30 hrs, 60 hrs or 120 hr in a month, WITHOUT paying more ... They are regurgitating that this year we are paying just as much as last year, but trying to put the word "retainer" in as a smoke screen
posted by Melissa Vellone on 04/09/11 at 8:15 AM
|
|
Melissa. please read more carefully. What you're saying is -exactly- what I'm saying, and "what am I missing here?" was intended as a bit of cynicism, since obviously I'm missing nothing. I'm not that stupid. And as for the "all months you win," I meant the law firm.
Ready, fire, aim...
posted by Stephan Wilkinson on 04/09/11 at 10:52 AM
|
|
Stephan, I didnt mean to attack, but I read no sarcasm in there. I worry that people will read comments like that and walk away saying "oh look $5000, all months we win" ... Thanks for the clarification.
Everyone else, can we get some back and forth on this, it really is invaluable, and it helps show that people are noticing and watching
posted by Melissa Vellone on 04/09/11 at 11:21 AM
|
|
It appears that the village will be headed down the same road to financial disaster with high legal bills yet again this year. A a lawyer on the board you would think that they would understand what a fixed monthly retainer is. We will pay over $175 for the first 28 hours and then $175 for each hour over that. It looks like our legal bills will far exceed our budgeted figures once again. You would think that Mr. Edsall and Mr. Kane would have learned from last year's mistakes...I guess some people don't care and the residents will continue to pay the price.
posted by Jan Smith on 04/10/11 at 9:52 PM
|
|
Exactly the kind of cronyistic giveaway that Mayor Gross had worked to bring under control before the three musketeers joined forces to try and strip him of whatever executive powers he had as Mayor. Welcome to your soon-to-be bloated, unsustainable budget, C-o-H. At least you can all rest soundly knowing someone's brother-in-law, former business partner, or cousin's friend is getting a nice favor (or kick-back) as a result.
"An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods."- Ambrose Bierce
posted by Ted Warren on 04/12/11 at 1:01 PM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
