By Ivy Reckson and Jacquie Rath
Many people had questions for the board regarding an informal meeting that was said to have taken place between Chase Partners, the developers of the proposed Signature Place, and members of the planning board. The situation was first made public by Trustee Jeanne Mulry at the Sept. 12 Village Board of Trustees meeting.
Mulry followed her comments about the meeting with a letter to Rockville Centre Mayor Eugene Murray. "What the public knows now is that at least two planning board members met, on at least one occasion, with a representative of the Signature Place adversary, perhaps even on village property, and discussed substantive settlement terms proposed by the Signature Place developer," she wrote.
Mulry went on: "I challenged the Village Attorney's assertion that information exchanged or agreements made between two members of the Planning Board and a representative of the Signature Place developer, Chase Partners, in a secret settlement meeting, was privileged; my position is that these talks are not subject to the 'executive session' exception or privilege exemption of the New York Open Meetings Law." According to New York state's Open Government Committee, the purpose of an executive session is to enable a public body to discuss pending litigation privately, without sharing its strategy with its adversary through mandatory public meetings.
During the Sept. 20 meeting, Planning Board members Mary Beth Kearns and Catherine Pucciarelli expressed objections to the settlement meeting, which was held without their knowledge or consent. Mulry addressed their concerns as well: "[Kearns and Pucciarelli] both expressed serious objections to the settlement meeting. The rights of Ms. Pucciarelli and Ms. Kearns as hard working members of a public body have been abrogated." Board Chairman Daniel Casella was also not advised of the settlement meeting, nor was he invited to attend.
The memorandum from Mulry concluded with a call for village government to maintain a flow of information to the public. "Rockville Centre must not be seen as taking advantage of legal loopholes to keep information away from residents," she wrote. "Open government is not a right that RVC residents should have to fight for. Open government is a responsibility that should be the first priority of all public officials in our village."
Mulry concluded by calling for Murray to "take decisive action and demand full disclosure of the matter immediately."
Murray responded to Mulry's call to action in a letter on Sept. 26, after reviewing her letter with legal staff at the New York Council of Mayors, with the village attorney and with the special counsel to the planning board, Gary Fishberg. "All have advised me that the law does not prohibit two members of a municipal board from meeting informally with an applicant in an attempt to move a project forward," Murray wrote. "In this case the applicant's consultant brought forward a proposal that is in substantial compliance with the approval issued by the Planning Board in November of 2004."
Murray also stated that "It is improper for you [Mulry] to categorize the meeting as a settlement meeting. The meeting did not require compliance with the Open Meetings law, and did not in any way prejudice the village or further review of this project."
Comments about this story? RVCeditor@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext.285
