As Mr. Chase pointed out in another thread on this site, no one is saying the Mayor "picks" the village attorney.

The Mayor has the power to appoint the village attorney and that appointment is subject to board approval. It is not a decree or independent decision. Whoever the Mayor appoints (recommends) has to be approved by the board of trustees.

The Mayor should NOT have to comply with a board majority if that majority has skirted NY state law and denied him the ability to appoint counsel.

Ted-If the Village Board MUST approve the Mayor's appointment, why do they have a vote? What you described is a Mayoral appointment that needs no ratification!
Please send me (or reply on this page) a transcript of the law you quoted. I, really, doubt the state would have a law that goes against all the prnciples of any local government body. It gives the Mayor veto power--which he, definitely, does not have!! Al Mazzocca

No, what I have described is a Mayoral appointment that is subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees; exactly as I stated in my original post.

That does not in any way equal "a mayoral appointment that needs no ratification."

From the New York State Village Law:

? 4-400 Mayor. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the mayor:
...
c. (i) to appoint all department and non-elected officers and employees subject to the approval of the board of trustees however, the mayor may delegate the power to appoint certain employees to other village officers or employees;...

The same sub paragraph goes on to state that the mayor has the responsibility for executing all contracts in the name of the village, that seems to have been lost on the three musketeers on the board.

Here is a link to Article 4 of village law for NY State if you'd like to review it yourself:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$VIL4-400$$@TXVIL04-400+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=53341226+&TARGET=VIEW

Teddy--Teddy--Stop with the double-talk. All you've done, in your reply, is confirm what I said. any appointment made by the mayor is subject to the approval of the Village Board. The Village Attorney doesn't fall under any heading you mentioned for mayoral appointment. (employees, etc.) Your next paragraph about the Mayor executing all contracts, etc. means he gets to sign contracts, etc. in the name of the village--AFTER they have been moved, seconded and approved by the Village Board--the same as the appointments. I don't know of any law that says a Mayor can disregard a majority vote of the Board and "do his own thing."
Al Mazzocca

Double talk?

With all due respect for a former Trustee, I will assume that, rather than you misunderstanding the letter of the law, we are just not agreeing on the language being used, here.

You state in your original letter that "The mayor has never picked or chosen the attorney. He is the attorney for the entire board and is chosen by a majority vote of the board..." That statement is true only in the sense that the decision is not the Mayor's alone to make, but the way you express it ignores that fact that the mayor is given power under New York State law to appoint Village employees and non-elected officials. That appointment is subject to approval of the entire board of trustees, which is what I think you are trying to express with your statement. Mayor Moulton and Mayor Donahue before him had the power to appoint Village attorney, but that appointments always had to be approved by the Board of Trustees. The fact that an appointment requires a majority vote of the BoT, does not negate the fact that the Mayor has the power to make the appointment in the first place. This is exactly what is at issue in the current fracas and why some people are so displeased with the behavior of the board majority members

Now, there is some question (as evidenced by the letter posted on the C-o-H website) as to what category the Village attorney falls into. Is he/she an employee, an independent contractor, etc? Assuming an attorney is hired to work on a regular basis and for a retainer, lets agree that that role plays out more as an employee rather than an independent contractor. Assuming that, we are looking at a position which the mayor has authority to appoint and the board has authority to approve or not approve. (see language I posted in reply to your letter)

You state that "The mayor has to understand that, although he is the CEO (so to speak), he is only one of five votes on any matter before the board and must comply with the majority vote." The mayor is one of five votes in his/her role as a member of the board of trustees. The Mayor also fulfills the role of chief executive of the municipality and, as such, has certain responsibilities and powers as provided under New York State law. Again, as a former Board of Trustees member, I'm assuming you know this and are just expressing the same thing, however awkwardly. You are correct that he must comply with the majority vote, but in the case of the current disagreement, the mayor is not even being given the chance to make an appointment, so the board majority decision you are insisting he has to comply with is potentially not valid under NY State law (Again, this is a gray area depending on how you want to classify Village counsel and who they work for, but for the sake of argument and Village tradition, I?m simplifying things a hair.)

Finally, you say "meetings should occur in an orderly manner whether, or not things are going your way." I agree wholeheartedly, and suggest that you pass that message along to Trustees Vatter and Kane before the next board meeting.

Al as well as former Mayor Moulton are exactly correct. The Mayor cannot dictate who the village attorney should be. It's spelled out plainly in NYS Law no matter how ofter Mr Chase tries to obfuscate the issue.

Regarding Mr Kane folding and unfolding his arms. It that were anyone else in the village in his place they would probably be pulling their hair out of their head. It's got to be Mayor Grosses way or no way.

Finally they way Mayor Gross speaks to and treats Village workers is DISGRACEFUL. He is no gentleman like our former Mayor. He is on a complete power trip enable by a few certain individuals. It is Mayor Gross who has created this logjam making the Village Board a laughing stock. Mayor Gross enjoys calling people FAT and telling them they have no business smoking. Well I called Mayor Gross a little man. As I said stature has nothing to do with it. Anyone who treats people the way he does is a little man.

I also said, and reiterate you don't COMMAND respect you EARN it. Unfortunately our current Mayor has decided to command with disdain for our village employees.

Again March cannot come too soon when the village has the chance to restore sanity to the board.

Pat Welch

First, Merry Christmas to all celebrating today.

Now, Mr. Mazzocca surely remembers being the Trustee who moved to create the position of "Deputy Village Attorney" in 1982, so village resident Howard Protter could take that position (which he maintained continuously through 2008). This hardly fits with the "independent contractor" theory the Board majority has adopted this year.

Second, since nobody has disputed that the Mayor has the power to nominate, a couple questions arise. Does Mr. Mazzocca know of a single instance when the Board rejected a Mayor's appointment of counsel? (Answer: never.) Why, then, did the Board reject the Mayor's nomination this year and then take it upon themselves to nominate and hire the current firm (notably with a conflict on the DPW matter) over his objection? And without the required referendum?

The genius of the appointment-approval process is that it requires consent of the two branches of gov't which need the legal advice. When you ignore one of those branches, as the Board did this year, the results are, as NYCOM has put it on page 4 of their letter on the subject, "unworkable."
http://www.cornwall-on-hudson.org/documents/120310letterrevillageattorney.pdf

Ted you are very good words--also, good at twisting them. Yes, I'm
awkward with words. I'm a doer--not a talker. But, you seem to have,
awkwardly, agreed with most of what I said. Yes, the Mayor has some
powers, he chairs meetings and is, as I mentioned before, the CEO of
the village. He, also, signs all legal papers, appoints the people you
mentioned, etc.---AFTER he gets board approval--so, he is still only
one of five votes on any, and all, matters that come before the board.

Kane and Vatter do not chair meetings--and, at the meetings I
attended, they didn't start the shouting nor did they shout back. They
raised their voices--but, did not shout. The shouting was done by the
mayor. As enjoyable as it is to be your "pen pal," I think this
conversation is getting repetitious. So, I'll wish you a Happy New Year
now and say goodbye until next year.---Al Mazzocca

Ahh-Mr. Chase. What took you so long?
Yes, I remember Mr. Protter's appointment. I, also, remember that he
served the village very well. As you mentioned, he is a village
resident. I think that's on the plus side for him and the village. I'm
glad I was involved in the appointment of such a qualified person who
cares so much for our village.
Yes, I know the mayor's "appointment" has always received board
approval. But, you see, I'm not an attorney--so, I just tell it like
it is. The appointment and board approval always ocurred because (as I
stated in a previous letter) a decision was made after meetings with
applicants followed by discussions at a work session. The actual
appointment and approval at the reorganization meeting made it
official.
Why, in 1982, was I able to make the motion to appoint and, in 2010,
you say it is illegal? Speaking of legality, what is your legal
opinion of a resolution being read, moved and seconded and the chair
refuses to put it to a vote?
As for your last paragraph--remember, it's a two-way street!
A board must work together to be effective. That, certainly, does not
mean there will be no disagreements--that's why there are five people
on the board instead of one. After all is said and done, there should
be one unified purpose for every board member---what is best for the
village!!! Al Mazzocca

Mr. Mazzocca, the motion you made so notably in 1982 was not to appoint Mr. Protter, it was to CREATE the position of "Deputy Village Attorney" so that Mr. Protter, an individual, could be appointed to fill it. Surely you recognize that's completely inconsistent with hiring a firm to do village legal work as an "independent contractor," where no such position is necessary.

You may be interested to know that Mr. Protter also signed the Village oath book for the last five years he served as Deputy Village Attorney. That's also inconsistent with the "independent contractor" theory this Board majority adopted this year.

People have accused Mayor Gross of changing the rules. It's actually just the opposite. The Board has.

The Mayor has the sole power to appoint; the Board approves. That's the way it's always been done and that's what the law is. Why not follow both?

Mr. Mazzocca,

The reason I chimed in was because you seemed to either not recall correctly or express poorly what I think to be a correct understanding of protocol. A village board or any other board cannot approve anything before it has been proposed.

When in Philadelphia, I serve on a Neighborhood Association Board of Directors for a population that is about three times the size of the village.

The President of that organization makes appointments and proposals all the time and they are subject to our approval. Those committee appointments or other types of porposals have to be MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE before board members can vote on whether or not to approve them.

The way you were characterizing the Village board was putting the cart before the horse. I quote: "The mayor has never picked or chosen the attorney. He is the attorney for the entire board and is chosen by a majority vote of the board" This is INCORRECT. The Mayor DOES pick non-elected officials, but only to the extent that he appoints them (recommends them, suggests them, whatever you want to call it) That appointment is SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL of the board. So, if the board does not agree with the appointment they have the power to reject it. That does not change the fact that the Mayor initially picks his choice of non-elected employee or official.

A board cannot approve a position if it has not first been appointed. It says so in the NY State Village law.

So, no, I am not twisting words. You and Pat Welch seem to have some kind of misunderstanding of what is an extremely common governance protocal, that is designed to create a balance of power

Al,

No sense responding to Ted Warren. You see he knows it all. The fact that you served on the village board before means. nothing to Ted. The fact that you are respected by the community means nothing to Ted Warren. He is the all knowing Ted Warren.

Jon,

Have you ever seen the movie "NEEDFUL THINGS". Max Von Sydow's character may remind you of someone.

Oh, now it's Satan, Pat? Reminds me of the Truman quote.

In 1948, when a supporter yelled out, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" Truman replied, "I don't give 'em hell; I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

I'll take your lame observation for the concession it represents.

Jon,

The character played by Max Von Sydow was not meant to be you. If you see the movie there can be no mistaking who I meant.

Anyway thanks for being a gentleman in all your replies. I don't begrudge you your right as an American to exercise your rights and in fact do wish you well. I wish everyone had your even temperament myself included.

I'll be keeping off this board for the remaining holiday at minimum. Yes Ted Warrens stalking accusation bothers me so before I take anything to another level I'll take a break from the board. Anyway Jon no ill feelings between us. Have a Great and Safe New Year. I know I'm up early but I work from my p.c. and am often need to be online between 2-4 A.M. Pat

Pat,

Being respected by he community has nothing to do with it. If you want to willfully misinterpret written law, that is your prerogative. You don't have to be a know it all to know something as basic as how a municipal chief executive and a board of directors/trustees generally function. Now, I'm sure Mr. Mazzocca and the board he served on had proposals or motions that were initiated by board members and voted on for passage, but that is not what we're talking about with this issue over the position of village attorney.

You seem to have no coherent argument in response to what either Mr. Chase or any of the countless other people who agree with him have to say. All you do is say certain people are wrong and others are right. Well, Pat, that's simply your opinion. As soon as you present compelling evidence to support your argument (other than talking about shoveling that icy walk) that's when I'll start taking you seriously. Otherwise, you're just someone with too much time on your hands and an opinion...and you know what they say about opinions, don't you?

Mr. Chase--In my opinion, most of the problems on the Village Board are the result of nit-picking--an art you have down pat! You pushed your agenda and, conveniently, ignored my question--but, here it is again. If a resolution is read, moved and seconded, can the mayor refuse to put it to a vote? You know, of course, the resolution I'm referring to is the one made by Jim Kane last week. Please, no ifs, buts, maybes, just a simple yes or no. Another question. You stated the only way to appoint an attorney is that the mayor has the "sole power" to appoint and put it to vote. What happens if the board does not approve? Does the village operate without legal advice?? Or can a motion be made by a trustee?? I've been accused of writing awkwardly--and that's, probably true. However, from the feedback I'm getting, I think most people understand what I'm saylng.

Al Mazzocca

Yes, Mr. Mazzocca, if it's improper, illegal or out of order, it's the Chair's duty to rule on it. And, on some of those questions, I'm sure you can see it might be nice for the Chair to have legal advice in which he/she has confidence. For at least 50 years, that's the way it's been done here. And you should know and be big enough to acknowledge that. In fact, the first motions that were both illegal and "out of order" were those last May to fire the former Village Attorneys and to hire the current "Attorney for the Village Board" without (a) the Mayor's appointment, or (b) the requisite public referendum transferring appointment power to the Board to make that step unnecessary.

Where the Board has legitimate misgivings about the Mayor's choice, they may refuse to approve it. But the law won't allow that approval to be unreasonably withheld, as it was last May, when the Board voted down the appointment of the very firm they just hired to do the work on which Tarshis, Catania has a conflict of interest.

The whole thing was an illegal hijack of Mayoral appointment power. The Board didn't budget for it, they didn't make a contract for it, they never authorized a whole host of the work items, and now they're trying to gut a bunch of other budgets to cover for their failures.

It's a monumental SNAFU, and they have only themselves to blame for it.

You might find the NYCOM letter on the subject informative.
http://www.cornwall-on-hudson.org/documents/120310letterrevillageattorney.pdf

You know, Pat, we don't disagree on everything. We both think Andrew Argenio is doing an enormous service for village residents by recording the meetings and posting them on YouTube. As we all discovered this past week, there's nothing like being able to look back at what people actually said at meetings.

And I recall we agreed on the need to get answers on the many questions about the DPW building. We've only begun to see how much more that mess will cost.

And I see we agree on the Mayor's budget-consciousness. The boom days when governments could say "yes" to every request are surely over. Everybody's got their favorites in the budget process, which these days is a thankless task which requires adult discussion and sacrifices. Let's hope our elected officials can do that.

Meantime, thanks for your kind words and best wishes to you and yours for the New Year.

I'll ask again, why did the 3 board members fire a law firm that had not a conflict of interest and then turn around and hired a law firm that had a conflict of interest with the dpw building? Also I would like to know when the previous law firm was fired did the board have a law firm to pick from that did not have that conflict of interest?
Thank you
J Buescher

Mr Buescher - Please allow me to address your question since it seems what we have going on in this post and on this site is a four person sword fight, daily.

Obviously the board majority had a motive and currently still has an agenda. Which is to block every effort by the mayor and be NO-men rather than compromisers. So the answer to your question is just that..... they have an agenda and that is why the lawyers were fired in a hastily composed manner.

If I could address Al and Jon:

Al.... Why can't you acknowledge the fact that the board majority has decided to push their agenda irregardless of the elected Mayor's opinion? And void of any real compromise? It is obvious to every rational person in MY humble opinion. You do not have to take sides or voice opinion as to who is right or who is wrong.... but the video and transcripts prove the board majority is throwing its weight around with little consideration as to the negative effect it is having on the village as a whole.

Jon - Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Mayor makes an appointment and the board rejects it, than it is the Mayors responsibility to seek out anther candidate and so on and so on until the board makes the FINAL approval.... which is their RIGHT. Did the Mayor do this or was the choice just railroaded in?

I am glad I moved and bought a house somewhere else other than the area I grew up in. (Sad commentary, no?)

Thank you Jake but I was hoping for a comment from the trustees in this matter since they are the ones who made the decision to hire cancel with a conflict of interest. I myself do not care who elects council but to the fact since the mayor has obligations that outweigh the trustees in village matters I would hope that the sequence would be mayor selects then trustees vote. the other way seems so unethical.

J.Buescher

proof reading after sending, uh! strike "cancel" insert "council"

Jake, just like the President makes successive nominations to his Cabinet if they're not approved by the Senate, so should the process work with the Mayoral appointments under NYS Village Law. But, precisely because the Mayor didn't stop the Board from voting on illegal motions last Spring, it didn't work out that way.

It happened in two stages. First, on April 19, the Board fired Rider, Weiner, the then-Village attorneys and then made a motion to engage Drake, Loeb on an "interim" basis. Both motions were improper, the first because the Board can't fire from a position to which the Mayor appoints unless he consents, the second because Drake, Loeb are the Town Attorneys and you can't represent both sides in the many areas where the Village and Town do business. Plus, they also had a DPW-building conflict.

The Board also moved, again over the Mayor's objection, to issue an "RFP" (Request for Proposals) for legal services.

Then, before the May 17 meeting, the first three firms responding to the RFP were interviewed. At the meeting , the Mayor appointed Harris Beach to be Village Attorney; the Board voted it down and then made successive improper motions to (a) retain Tarshis, Catania as "Attorney for the Village Board" and counsel to the Ethics Board, and (b) retain Kevin Dowd, Esq., as Planning and Zoning Board counsel. Although the Mayor ruled those motions out of order, he didn't prevent a vote on them. We've been stuck with the consequences, including the uncontrolled, runaway budget, ever since.

No Chair doing his/her job should allow a motion he/she believes to be illegal or improper to come to a vote. We have done the experiment and know what happens when the approach Mr. Mazzocca is advancing is followed: Chaos.

Ted--No reply. I made it clear that you were repititious.
Jon-- I asked for a simple yes or no answer--which I knew I wouldn't get. You said the chair does not have to put to a vote a motion he/she BELIEVES to be illegal. I think the attorney should have been asked for an opinion. Is it your opinion the motion was illegal?
BTW--Either you didn't see all the facts of your Howard Protter statements or decided to submit only a small portion.
Ted and Jon--I've been in this village for 56 years. A whole lot of people know who I am and what I am.
It's been nice corresponding with you fellows--but, all good things must end sometime. Happy New Year!
Al Mazzocca

Mr. Mazzocca, things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be.

So how about a simple question to you: if you were Mayor, would you allow a vote to be taken on a motion you believed to be illegal or improper, just because the motion was made and seconded? Just a yes or no will suffice.

Happy New Year to you too.

Mr Chase--I didn't intend to continue our discussions--but, your question deserves an answer. You, as an attorney, should know if a motion is legal. I, as a layman, would get my attorney's opinion. That's why he gets paid for attending meetings. If, in his opinion, the motion was legal, I would call for a vote---even if I strongly opposed the motion.
Al Mazzocca

Yes, Jon Chase's question does deserve an answer, Al, but why didn't you give it? He didn't ask you if you'd call for a vote on a legal motion whether or not you opposed it. He asked you if you'd allow a vote to be taken on a motion you believed to be illegal or improper.

There are VERY few commenters on this and other posts that make any sense, other than Chase.

So I see we've come full-circle.

The Mayor needs legal advice in order to do his job. And, for as long as there's been a Mayor here, he's had that advice from counsel agreeable to him.

But that's what this "Renegade Board" refused him this year. And the result has been a disaster of historic proportions, first in disabling the government, and now in bankrupting it.