For the sake of accuracy, the dispute isn't whether the Village Attorney is "solely" appointed by the Mayor or "subject to approval by a majority" of the Board. The Mayor has never argued that the Board doesn't have the right to approve his appointment to the position.

Instead, the dispute concerns whether the Mayor has any power of appointment at all. For the first time in at least 50 years of Village history, this Board majority has illegally fired the Village Attorney and attempted to deny that nomination power to the Mayor.

To be even more accurate consult the N.Y.S. Handbook(updated version) on village law. I have stated it here several times. The Trustees vote and the Mayor votes to break a tie. Since the Mayor could NOT break a tie he is NOT entitled to his choice of Attorney. I'll recite it verbatim again if I have too.

Re: that the Mayor of C-O-H has never had his pick of Attorney for the Village may I remind everyone half of those years were Mayor Moulton who ran professional meetings and was a true gentleman. The Mayor does NOT have the unilateral right to appoint the Village attorney. That is direct from the NYS Handbook on village law which I suggest some should look at.

Our fiscally conscious Mayor is no longer the fiscal conservative I believed he was when he first ran for Mayor. His derisive actions are not only to the majority of the board but to the majority of the village workers. May I also include to the people he represents also. The lowest blow I've seen yet was when Mayor Gross told a lady "to keep your mouth shut". That's it for me. He is out of control and just plain does NOT know how to deal with people.

Pat,

You?re going to have to quote verbatim. I did look up the New York State Handbook section on Village law and was only able to find language that states that the mayor has one vote like the rest of the trustees, unless there is a tie. In that circumstance the mayor has the power to break the tie with his/her vote. This subsection is not saying that the Mayor does not get a vote unless there is a tie. It is stating that the mayor votes like any other board member, but as a tie-breaking capacity should that situation arise.

The same section (Article 4 - POWERS, DUTIES AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS) goes on to state: ?? 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;
(ii) to appoint the clerk of the court of the village, if the village has a court, only upon the advice and consent of the village justice or justices notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.
d. to institute, at the direction of the board of trustees, all civil actions in the corporate name of the village;

While not being completely specific about the retaining of legal counsel, this generally sounds like the mayor, as the chief executive officer, has the ability to appoint employees and subcontractors, but that those appointments are subject to board approval. Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, subsection ?4-412 ?Board of Trustees? makes no mention of the board (or a majority of the board in this case) having legal ability to fire or appoint counsel independent of the mayor?s office. If I?m looking in the wrong place, please point me in the right direction with specific links or cut and pasted content that specifically states the board has these powers.

Mr. Warren is right. The Mayor has only one vote as a trustee but he also is Chief Executive of the Village. As such, he holds the power of appointment, or nomination if you like, for positions like Village Attorney.

For the first time in at least 50 years, the new Board majority usurped that power this year, first by illegally firing the former Village Attorneys, Rider Weiner, then by denying the Mayor the right to appoint a replacement, then by retaining the "Attorney for the Village Board" over the Mayor's objection and finally by denying access to that attorney to the Mayor.

Yet the Board can only commission the legal work they want under the Open Meetings Law. As a result, the Village is in a state of legal paralysis.

A member of the Board has contended that as Mayor, you cannot vote a second time to break a tie. She referred to a portion of a manual stating that:

"A problem arises when a tie exists even after the mayor or president has voted. For example, when there is a vacancy in office or a trustee is absent and the mayor opts to vote, a tie vote may result; (e.g., two trustees, yes, one trustee, no, and mayor, no). In that situation, the issue at hand has not passed. There is no provision in the State Law to resolve such an occurrence. The Mayor may not vote a second time to break the tie. Municipalities may, however, provide the procedure to be followed when such a tie does occur by local law. If the local law increases or decreases the number of votes which any member of the legislative body is entitled to cast, or if it abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective office, such law is subject to a mandatory referendum."

She also referred to sources of information stating that only village trustees may introduce legislation and, consequently, contends that the mayor of a village may not do so.
Additionally, ?4-400(1)(a) of the Village Law states that it is a mayor's responsibility:

"To preside at the meetings of the board of trustees, and may have a vote upon all matters and questions coming before the board and he shall in case of a tie, however on all matters and questions, he shall vote only in his capacity as mayor of the village and his vote shall be considered as one vote" (emphasis added).

Direct quote from page 70 Dept. of State Local Government Handbook.

>>>At the direction of the board of trustees, the mayor may initiate civil actions on behalf of the village or may intervene in any legal action ?necessary to protect the rights of the village and its inhabitants.? Subject to the approval of the board of trustees, the mayor appoints all department and non-elected officers and employees<<< Please note Subject to the approval of the board of trustees.

But what do your first three paragraphs have to do specifically with the firing of the former law firm and the hiring (essentially by three board members)of the new one? Was there a tie vote over the issue?

Further, introducing legislation is completely different than appointing commissioners, sub-contractors, or employees. The President cannot introduce legislation, that has to come from one of the houses of Congress. He can, however, appoint SCOTUS justices and make countless other appointments that are subject to congressional approval

" <<< Please note Subject to the approval of the board of trustees."

But as Mr. Chase pointed out, this is not a matter of the mayor not seeking board approval. This is a matter of the board potentially over-stepping its legal role and cutting the mayor out of HIS role of doing exactly what you quoted verbatim (i.e.; appointing all department and non-elected officers and employees.)

The majority of the board wanted new counsel for the village. They took a vote and the majority ruled.
>>>Subject to the approval of the board of trustees<<< so even though Mayor Gross did not get his wish of counsel the law was followed. He is not dictator but ONE VOTE. Gross CANNOT appoint without approval of the board of trustees.

Mayor Gross has been wasting taxpayer dollars while continually trying to rule by decree. This he cannot do. He can obfuscate, irritate, and name call all he wants. This is not what the village needs.

No, you don't seem to understand. The Mayor has to appoint before the board can vote. Majority or not, what you describe is backwards. As I read it in the state law, the board cannot make appointments independent of the mayor's office.

I realize you may not like the Mayor, but you can't expect municipalities to just throw out the rule book because an opposition majority exists.

Sure Ted the President can Veto legislation too but with a 2/3's vote even his veto can be over rode by the House. He is not a dictator either. This is why we have the number of trustees we do. I wish Mr. Gioia would chime in again how important it is to have this number of trustees to prevent one person from becoming too powerful. He was correct. I still have his quote but in lieu of cut and paste I'll let him retell it. He was correct.

But my point is that it is the chief executive, the Mayor in this case, who is empowered with the responsibility of appointing an attorney, or clerk, justice, etc. and the board then votes on whether or not to approve it. In the case of the current flap over legal representation, three board members did an end run around New York State law and, as a result, have apparently paralyzed the board and racked up unnecessary legal fees.

As I said, this is not a case of the Mayor not wanting to give the board a chance to approve or not, this is a case of the board cutting the mayor (who is also a board member, out of the process.

It would be one thing if the board majority said no, we don't want your choice of legal counsel. Come back to us with another alternative. That's rational procedure. It's entirely different if they say no, we don't want your choice of legal counsel...and we're going to appoint our own.

I don't understand why you keep harping on the number of board members. The people you support have a majority. This is not about having a majority or not, it's about board protocol

The the bill in question was over $20,000 for june. The lawyers said they spent about $5,000 on this issue. (where I think the mayor is correct)My question is why are the trustees spending hours of legal time in preporation for a work session? The trustees confermed that they had a potential illigal meeting by signing the vouchers. Mr Edsall reconfemed a potential illigal meeting my signing a check and the law firm deposited the check.It was not a simple oversight. The legal bills are going up over trustees authorising looking into purchasing property and leasing it , hours of time on the ethics board (while we didnt have one) and the trustees tendancy's to call up and ask questions and get advice.All while the mayor is critisized for looking for legal review on a $50,000 open ended contract. While the attornys review and mark up a $15,000 dam inspection contract