Andrew I could not make the meeting but I was hoping I could see how the three trustees are systematically bankrupting the village. What is wrong with these three trustees not accepting council @ 5500 a month? Sure is a discount @ 13,000 and finally the three trustees want to sit down and negotiate a contract
Are we really BACKWARDS in this village? Why are the three trustees stalling do they think they can run this village in March with no opposition I just do not get it. I;m rambling now upset and rambling

Here you go, sorry for the delay. I have been working on a big presentation (nothing to do with the village) 2 powerpoint presentations for the road surface patent.
This is an interesting video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pc4OMOUyok

thank You Andrew

The $13,000. is not a contract price, thus the difference between to two law firms. The Tarshis firm has been more then willing to negotiate the bill to be more in line with a contractual price, but the Mayor has been unwilling. Now at least the Trustees are going to negotiate the bill and I am sure it will be much more affordable. i'd like to thank the trustees for all the work they have done and continue to do to resolve this issue.

Kerry - Having worked in corp sales and dealt with many lawyers for many years it's called leaving your customer with no option.

A law firm will run up an extremely high bill, knowing that it will break a municipality budget. Then they offer to "negotiate" after the fact.

Chances are, just like in any sales job, you will lock down the customer long-term by this transparent showing of good faith. And, if the town or village decides to go with a different firm, it will still get paid IN FULL for the obscenely high invoice.

That is known as sharp sales tactics..... and I think Vatter and the other two have fallen for it, hook..... line..... and sucker.

Mr. Williams, thank you for sharing your experience. Having spent 24 years in a sales based industry I can only attest that I have personally encountered far more respectable outstanding sales peeople who generally want to do right by the customer then the type that want to sucker someone in. I have no personal knowledge of the law firm in question. I would like to think that they too will do the right thing and I will refrain from making any negative assumtions. Call me optomistic...

Ms. Merritt,

From the article I read above $13k is not a contractual price, it was the price of the fee for November ... from the article the "divided" board voted to pay the attorney -

"He then introduced a companion resolution that authorizes the village to pay the legal bills within five days. Failure to comply could result in a disciplinary review of the treasurer."

Can you explain that to me? Do you read this differently ... I do not mean to attack, only to clarify - I believe what this is saying is those 3 trustees passed a resolution threatening to discipline the treasurer if the outstanding $90k in legal fees is not paid in 5 days, and that they will then negotiate a retainer from here on out...
Correct me if I am wrong from the article above the current legal bill is $90k, there is $65k in the budget and so $55k was transfered ... 65+55 = $120k ... this covers the $90k ... where did it say that the law firm was going to negotiate the outstanding legal bills?

I do not argue that the Mayor has not made friends with his methods of addressing people and dealing with things. That does not mean that he stands alone in this mess. The law firm was hired incompetently. Rather than admitting that mistake the other trustees seem to be attempting to pretend that they were not incompetent. Attempting to retroactively negotiate a price does not change that. Attempting to blame the Mayor for the delay in that negotiation also does not change the fact that the price was not pre-negotiated. If the other trustees felt so strongly that they had to appoint the current law firm they should have done so with knowledge of how to negotiate the fees. This is the position we elected them for. The Mayor may not win friends with his attitude, but he is consistent with what he says.

Is it possible if we turn the video and minutes of the meetings over to the NY attorney general he would rule the 3 amigos incompetent in serving the tax payers of this village?

I just began watching the Youtube video of the meeting ...

The law firm Tarshis and Assoc. was hired on May 24, 2010 ... So between June 2010 and December 2010 we have incurred $90k in legal fees ... this equated to about $154k per year.

The law firm the Mayor wants to put on retainer is $5500 a month, or $66,000 a year ...

There is an $88,000 difference in price?

From what I am getting of the situation the 3 trustees felt a total break down of communication with the Mayor - am I correct in saying this?

In response they felt they needed to have decisive action to attempt to counter the Mayor ... however, they seem to have decisive action AGAINST him, without fully thinking through how they were going to do it ...

I feel that all parties are "responsible" in communicating ... This is just a mess. I do not wish to endorse anyone at this time, only to point out that it is not a right or wrong issue on either side ...

So I ask of our CURRENT leaders ... can you NOW between now and March work together to communicate? Can you attempt to accept responsibility for your actions, and admit that while mistakes were made with good intentions, mistakes were still made?

"And has only been paid for services rendered May 24, 2010 to June 30, 2010"

That is from the meeting at about 2 minutes ... That means the $90k is only for July to now ... This means that the yearly price is $180k ...

For this law firm to negotiate the $90k 6 month price down to the $33k that the Harris firm Mayor Gross wants at this point they would be giving up $60k of capital retroactively ...

I am sorry I meant

"down to the $33k that the Harris law firm monthly retainer would incur over the course of 6 months"

As per the 19 January 2011 meeting

Tarshis Assoc. has been paid $21,491.70 for services rendered between May 24, 2010 - June 30,2010 ... from the video this COULD include whatever fee there was while the board chose attorneys prior to May 17, 2010.

Outstanding legal fees to Tarshis Assoc. from July 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010 is $54,921.71

see the video at 2:26min

Now see the 19 January 2010 meeting video at 3:50 min

It was proposed that line item A1420.4 only contained $55,000k for legal fees

At 3:46 min in the video it is proposed that the following monies be transfered into line item A1420.4 legal to cover the outstanding legal fees...

$6000 from Line Item A3120.10 Police

$6000 from Line Item A1410.40 Village Clerk

$3500 from Line Item A5112.3 DPW/sidewalks

$29,400 (approx to the hundreds of dollars) from Line Item A1990.4 Contingency

As well as the additional transfer ...

$10,000 from Line Item FF1990.4 Water Contingency 2 to line Item FF8310.410 Legal

The motion was made at this time that the Treasurer be required to immediately transfer these monies and that it be reflected on the Books within 1 day of the resolution

This section ends at 4:46min and took approximately 1 minute of the meeting

$21,491.70 for about a month and a half of service?

How much of the legal fees from this law firm have been incurred to counsel the trustees regarding the validity of the appointment of the firm?

I just started to pick through Mayor Gross' counter point from about 5 min to 10 min ...

Can I pose this question though ... If Mayor Gross does not get re-elected, and Mr. Coyne or another individual takes the office ... how are they are Mayor going to deal with these pre-incurred legal fees and the strain it will put on this Village financially?

Mayor Gross, can you give us (or I guess me) further clarification of what the "Homer Law" is and why you feel that the original Village Attorney was illegally fired in the first place?

Let me skip over Mayor Gross' response for now - it is lengthy and I need to pick through it

At about 10:05min a retort was given to Mayor Gross about section 4-412

"Section 4-412, section for the procedure for meetings - Whenever required by a member of the board the vote upon any question will be taken by ayes and nos and be entered into the meeting minutes"

How to we jump from the right of the board to have a QUESTION ANSWERED with a yes or no to the right of the board to have a yes or no vote to appoint Village Attorney against the agreement of the current mayor?

I meant "how they as Mayor are going to deal" in my 12:28 comment

Just to make sure that I am conveying my thoughts properly

Ok - so now onto Mayor Gross' response

At 4:58min Mayor Gross began to read his statement - "Where in the motion seeks to appropriate from the budget line money that was established for the Village Attorney before the position of the "Attorney for the Village Board" was even created in this Village, I believe it violates the Homer Law of this State - I therefore rule it out of order and not subject to a vote" -

This ended at 5:21min

Did he say "Homer Law" "Home Rule Law" - I am having trouble hearing? Sorry if I made a mistake

I'm guessing, Melissa, but I believe "the Homer Law" is actually "the Home-Rule Law."

Mayor Gross proceeded to differentiate what he thought was the position of the "Village Attorney" - the law firm fired this year, or another law firm acceptable to him as legal counsel

As being different from the "Caucus Attorney" (Tarshis Assoc) appointed by the Board Majority 17 May 2010 against Mayor Gross will.

Mayor Gross stated that the original law firm was illegally fired -

How so????

According to Mayor Gross - at 6:54 it is an "improper and illegal action, and I will not allow it to be voted on" - He was indicating that it was illegal for the Board Majority to attempt to use funds appropriated for the Village Attorney, as he felt the current Tarshis Assoc is an illegally hired firm and only represents the "Caucus" attorney

At 7:02 min Mayor Gross stated that he would not allow it to be voted on, so long as it seeks to draw upon budget appropriated for the Village Attorney

He went on the clarify that he was NOT arguing the boards authority to transfer and relocate budget items - And stated that the board does have that power under Section 4-412 of Village Law of the State

Mayor Gross to went on that what he felt the Board Majority could NOT do was use legal funds budgeted for the Village Attorney to pay a firm he feels is represents the Majority "Caucus" without effectively abolishing the Mayorally appointed position of the Village Attorney

My question to the Village is - Do we as a community agree that the original law firm was illegally fired or not? If the original law firm was not illegally fired we can then continue to the argument of if Tarshis Assoc. was legally appointed, but if the original law firm was illegally fired in the first place then that changes the entire situation.

Ok, to correct myself - Mayor Gross, can you clarify what Section 23-F of the Home Rule Law states?

Can someone also clarify for me ...

At 11:08 min the statement was made, for purposes of putting the statement into meeting minutes -

That Mayor Gross' statement is misguided because he is attempting to state that he is appointing the Village Attorney as a firm, which is contrary to the specific writings of the Att. General and the Office of the State Comp. That Mayor Gross is again attempting to fill a position that does not exist with the OC personnel or with the "Local Law of COH with the office of Village Attorney" so that Mayor Gross statement that there is a budgeted amount for that person is inconsistent with law and inconsistent with the state agencies referenced.

This ends at 11:40 min ...

Perhaps I am slow, but how is Mayor Gross appointment of the firm different than the office of Village Attorney -

First it was stated that Mayor Gross is attempting to fill a position that does not exist by hiring a firm, that does not "exist in OC personnel or Local Laws with the Office of Village Attorney"

I am hearing that as the appointment of the firm does not exist of the position with the laws by the same position it is being stated does not exist ... what is my miscomprehension here???

The argument seems to be saying that because it is not a "real" position Mayor Gross can not consider the money budgeted for it as something he can rule as out of order under section 23F. Am I correct in this?

From the article above

"Trustee Kane later introduced his own set of resolutions aimed at solving the controversy over the unpaid legal fees, which now total $90,000. With only $65,000 in the budget and with three more months of bills still anticipated, Kane proposed transferring nearly $55,000 from other unspent budget items to provide enough money to pay the bills. :

From the video Andrew posted I did not get where the figure $90k came from in this article for unpaid legal fees. The amount discussed for Tarshis Assoc. was $55k ...??? Where is the other $35K? The other amounts referenced seemed to indicate legal fees that have already been paid.

54,921.70 + 13, 804.00 + 21, 491.70 = $90, 217.41 from May 2010 through November 2010

Melissa, from what Joe Gross has said to me, I believe you can consider it a fruitless quest to ask him to respond on this forum. He won't do it, and I doubt he even reads the website any more, for a variety of reasons. Not saying he's right or wrong, just that you're whistling down a deep, dark well if you're asking him to comment on line. Fuhgeddaboudit.

But I think that says something in itself ...

Perhaps Barbara Gosda or Jon Chase could help clarify ... at least about my "homer" law ...

I can look up the home rule law myself, but that does not tell me what my representatives view of the law is. If a representative is going to call a law into use in this fashion I feel that they should be willing to clarify what their interpretation and use of the law really is ...

"But I think that says something in itself ..."

Not necessarily.

I think it's great that you are looking this closely at the videos of the meetings and have so many valid questions, but to echo what Steven said, I think it would probably be inappropriate and ill-advised for either Mayor Gross or any of the Trustees to answer questions in a forum like this that often features quasi-anonymous and contentious dialogue and isn't necessarily accessible or known to all Village residents. It's not an appropriate venue.

I think it is perfectly appropriate for the Mayor or Trustees to submit a letter to the editor addressing certain issues, but I would be VERY surprised if any member of the Town or Village boards were to respond in these comments sections, and I think it would be a mistake to hold that against them.

I would be perfectly happy if they responded by writing a letter to the editor. But I feel that I was asking for no more than clarification of what they said in the meeting.

Typically I would totally agree, it would be inappropriate to put them on the spot - but considering the massive extent of the break down in communication, the massive size of the legal bill, and the small size of the Village it is valid for me to ask in this particular instance. Remember, we are at an election time. The individuals seeking to get into office have no more experience being in these positions than the individuals currently there had before they started ...

Melissa - I am also interested in getting to the bottom of this as quick as the rest of you.

May I suggest that YOU write a formal letter to the editor and CC every member of the board. It appears that you have posted 26 times in less than 12 hours..... so you obviously have a lot to say ;)

You might be better served condensing your questions and points into a single letter and address them directly to the individual members of the Board-of-Oz.

Just a suggestion. Good luck, to us all!

Mellisa, I find it quite ironic that the majority board fired a lawfirm that had no conflict of interest with the village including the DPW building and they turn around and hire a firm that inturn had a conflict with the DPW. I also believe that Joe had a few lawfirms for the board to consider but instead the majority went on their own path I think that is what the mayor meant by the majority high-jacking the appointment of an attorney as the majority could not even find a firm that did not have a conflict of interest.
If I have this wrong maybe Jon Chase could clear it up as I also would not expect the trustees or mayor to respond in this particular forum.
With me it all falls in common sense and ethics

and the three trustees are playing with ethical fire

Ok Jake, I sent a letter to the editor - But I have one more question - will I get my answers in the comment section, or will everyone continue to write more letters to the editor?

I like the comment section, I have a rightful place in the peanut gallery ... this is where I belong.

Melissa, why not simply draw up a list of your questions, make an appointment with Joe Gross to meet with him at his office, and go ask him the questions. That's the way it's done in the world of business. Take notes on his answers and let us know what you learn. Why all the letter-writing, editor-contacting and forum-posting?

Because that is what the internet is for - to be able to post things so that everyone can see it.

Doing things the old fashioned way makes it harder to bring that information to everyone else. I also feel that if I regurgitate the information that I gain from the mayor or trustees it will not be as straightforward - why not just get it from the horse's mouth?

I feel we pick and choose to use this website to make comments on how things "should" be , but that people are afraid of specifics - You can be held accountable for specifics. I do not agree with that.

Ah, the old-fashioned way...wen we al nu how 2 spel, when we hand-wrote thank-you notes and letters of condolence, when there were actual trained, professional journalists rather than 10,000 shrieking bloggers and "I can haz keyboard" instant experts.

Send me your list of questions--I'm at [email protected] and 534-7601--and I will go to Gross and ask him to answer them. I'm not a journalist, but I do write for national magazines. I think I can do it.

I will post the results for the Wired World to see, even though I am--gasp--74.

No thank you sir, I would like them answered online. You seemed to be able to take the time to read what I have written, I believe that others can also.

Sorry, that's not going to happen, no matter how much you think it should. Largely because, as with so many of the new-fashioned way platforms, things get toxic too quickly.

One of my metrics for "the old-fashioned way" is the famous Norman Rockwell painting, part of his "Four Freedoms" series and once a Saturday Evening Post cover, of the well-worn farmer standing up in the town meeting and speaking his piece while the audience listens respectfully, even the guy who Rockwell painted as an obvious skeptic.

Wouldn't happen online. In fact it doesn't even happen any more in real (as opposed to electronic) life.

Who is John Galt?

Steve had you ever gave a thought running for trustee?

Mr. Wilkinson - Can I ask you ...

What is the difference between those crowds and their keyboards and "old fashioned" protests?

Same crowds, less crowded. My voice can be heard here just as well as it could in person. I feel that there is something to seeing that information laid out in writing ...

Remember our history lessons and the meetings on the village green?
I invite village residents to join me at village meetings where the agenda is followed and, I feel, the unwritten agenda is followed as well. Come to the meetings and learn about our representatives, our village business and lend your voice.

How many people can legally fit into that meeting room in the Village Hall vs. how many people are tax paying residents in this Village?

This is a forum about the Village Community - Stephen I challenge your thought of "real life" vs. "electronic life" ...

This forum is for people who know one another. Who eat meals with one another, and see each other on the street. Just because it is an electronic means of communication it is not any less "real" ... I grant that a lot of internet "comment" sites revolve around total strangers, who are not "real" to one another ... this is not the case here. I have a facebook page that I use to communicate with every one I know - Including students. I choose to filter the content of my postings there, rather than filter my "friends" ... When a student contacts me through email, it is "real" ... when I speak to a friend on messenger it is "real" ... And when I attempt to use this website for discussion of local doings it is also "real"

This forum was put in place so that people who live here can not only find news stories, but so that they can also interact with one another.

We can not all fit in that room, we can all fit on this website.