How Long Is Enough to 'Digest' the MBYC Settlement?

Any meeting related to the long history of litigation between the Village of Mamaroneck and Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club is likely to draw big crowds, and Tuesday's Village of Mamaroneck work session was no different. With over 45 residents in attendance, the Board of Trustees approved a proposed stipulation to end all litigation between the village and the club by paying the club nearly $1 million.

As evidenced by the frequent rounds of applause, the majority of the attendees were against the settlement, against the way in which the public was informed of the vote, or both.

A public notice regarding the work session was posted on Aug. 31, but the agenda stating that an action item regarding the club would take place was only sent to the public on Sept. 3. And when asked why "ample notice" was not given prior to the meeting, Mayor Norman Rosenblum told Jon Dorf, resident and president of the Orienta Point Association, in an email, "you may be assured that their is no final vote that will take place on any subject."

"The fact of the matter is the BOT meeting tomorrow is for a 'work session' to determine the agenda for the scheduled BOT meeting on the 13th of September," he wrote.

In a later email, Rosenblum clarified that his previous message addressed the topic of Sportime, not MBYC. "There are subjects to be discussed in executive session regarding legal matters which will then be voted on in public," he added.

On the same day of the meeting, residents still wondered whether a vote would be taken that night to settle the MBYC litigation.

In a crowded room, Rosenblum spent 45 minutes reading the 27-page document, which according to Trustee John Hofstetter was when he was given a copy of it for the first time. "I think that getting this document at 6:30 today and not having a chance to fully understand it… is an issue," said Hofstetter, adding that anybody voting in favor was doing the village a disservice.

"I've been practicing law for about 20 years or so and that was an awful lot to digest," said Dorf. He also asked the board to give the community an opportunity to review the stipulation and share their comments.

Trustee Toni Ryan, like Hofstetter, voted against the settlement saying residents and board members should have been given time to "digest" the document and offer their comments.

Responding to residents' concerns, Rosenblum said, "This is an ongoing discussion for the past 5 to 6 years. I don't think there are any really new positions taken in the village…We are under directions from the judge that we are not to delay this suit anymore."

Stephen Kass, counsel for the Shore Acres Property Owners Association and resident Ben Golub, told the board that what they were doing was "absolutely illegal," referring to the fact that the meeting began with an executive session without having a public meeting. According to the Open Meetings Law, "a public body may conduct an executive session"…"upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting." It is not uncommon, however, for boards to come together, vote to go into executive session, and then reveal what they voted on.

Kass also spoke for his client, who attended the meeting but left early. Golub's feelings, Kass said, were that they board "squeezed in a very complex stipulation and release" on what was probably the "first day back to work for many people" after the Labor Day weekend. "This is too important for you to cram down this way," he added.

With regard to the short notice, the law says, "Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting." Every other meeting should be announced "at a reasonable time prior thereto." The village posted notices announcing the work session on Aug. 31, but the agenda including the action item was not distributed until Sept. 3.

In this case, "It would seem that the notice requirements imposed by the Open Meetings Law likely were accomplished," according to Head of the NYS Committee on Open Government Bob Freeman. "If board members felt they didn't have enough information, they should have laid it aside for another meeting. There is nothing in the Open Meetings Law that specifies that the content of the subject of action must be digested or understood before the vote is taken."

The attorneys and involved parties met in court yesterday. A finalized version of the document is posted in our photo/pdf section.