More Cloudiness With Increasing Cover (Up)

Utilizing the Town’s GBList (email list), Mr Feiner sent out another email, campaigning for votes under the pretence of explaining his flawed actions regarding legal requirements for the Edgemont incorporation effort by citing Village Law section 2-206. The text of his email is also posted on the Town’s website. Reading the email blast he sent out does little to clarify much of anything. In fact, several times it appears as though he is trying to obfuscate information. This is Mr Feiner’s “full court press” against the Edgemont residents’ right to free speech and self-rule.

Numerous times he refers to Attorney Robert Spolzino, a former New York State Appellate Division Judge as being retained by the Town to provide the Town with legal advice about the Edgemont incorporation petition. We continue to find it odd to have a fully staffed legal department and then waste $50,000 of taxpayer money to hire an outsider unless you are trying to dupe the taxpayers. Add to that voting to expend the money, totaling $50,000, after it was already done merely highlights the hi-jinks of this administration.

Mr Feiner’s email blast says many things that we can take exception with. Yet here is just one paragraph from it:

“Hiring Judge Spolzino's law firm was done in the best interests of the Town. After reviewing the incorporation petition, Judge Spolzino believed it was prudent to engage investigative services to randomly interview individuals that signed the incorporation petition to determine if the signatures obtained were acquired pursuant to NYS law.  While the investigators did act as agents of the Town, the Town had no control over the selection of the investigators or the questions they asked.”

This entire paragraph strikes us as not factual or true. First, we rarely see Mr Feiner act in the best interests of the Town, its taxpayers or residents. If he did, we wouldn’t have had the $6.5 million Fortress Bible verdict against us, the WestHelp debacle for the lost $1.2 million a year. There’s more but you get the idea. Second, there was little time between the submissions of the petition to the Town, for former Judge Spolzino to review anything. Third, no door-to-door visit is required to validate the signatures per the law. And finally, the Town most definitely has control over what the private investigators Mr Feiner is responsible for, say, do, and/or show residents.

We’d like our readers to examine an opinion we received from a retired judge that we did not pay one cent for, much less $50,000 plus the cost of paying for the private investigation firm - Stanton PI, for a legal opinion.

"Paul Feiner has written about the recent meeting regarding Edgemont incorporation at which he refused to permit persons to speak about the fact that persons (including residents and the private investigator that the Town hired) had tricked them into signing their petitions.  He cited Village Law section 2-206 as the basis for his action, asserting that this section only permitted testimony from those who objected to the petitions to be heard. 

That is not correct.  Subsection 3 of section 2-206 states:

3. All objections must be in  writing  and  signed  by  one  or  more residents qualified to vote for town offices a town in which all or part of  such  territory  of the proposed village is located. Testimony as to objections may be taken at the hearing, which shall be reduced to writing and subscribed by those testifying. The burden of proof shall be on the objectors.  All written objections and signed testimony shall clearly state the name and address of the objector.

Note that the first sentence of this subsection states "all objections must be in writing and signed by one or more residents qualified to vote..." That sentence refers to the objectors.  But the second sentence states "Testimony as to objections may be taken at the hearing which shall be reduced to writing and subscribed by those testifying."  Obviously the second sentence refers to people other than those mentioned in the first sentence - i.e., other than the objectors to the petition.  And the third sentence underlines that point, since it states that the burden of proof is on the objectors.  That sentence would not be necessary if only objectors were allowed to testify.

Furthermore, the testimony of those speaking against the objectors and their objections is not limited to the narrow testimony that Paul Feiner defines. Subsection 3 does not require such narrow testimony, but refers to "Testimony as to objections..." the words "as to objections" would include the methods used by objectors and would-be objectors. As Paul Feiner properly stated, this is an issue of overriding importance, and silencing residents is inappropriate and illegal."

Mr Feiner has gone out of his was to say that he is against the Edgemont incorporation. It might be as simple as not liking one or more of the people pushing incorporation and that’s why he is willing to trick and deceive residents. But that is not what he is required to do under the law. He has said numerous times, to the point of now becoming ridiculous, that he and the Town Board must do their “due diligence” regarding the petitions. Yet, nowhere does the law say due diligence or to hire private investigators, not tell residents who they are working for, or try to falsely get them to sign new affidavits to cancel out their previous petition signatures for incorporation.

We’ve stated over and over again that these kinds of actions by Mr Feiner and his minions are deplorable. These residents need to come to the next Town Board meeting and then continue to come more and more to hold this administration’s feet to the fire. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.