The Nov. 3 issue of the Herald printed a statement from Mayor Eugene Murray, in which he apologized for the actions of Trustees Jeanne Farnan Mulry and Andrew Karamouzis during village meetings, and referred to them as "disgruntled gadflies."
Mulry and Karamouzis issued the following statement in response to Murray's comments. It was released Nov. 4.
"I, along with Trustee Mulry, would like to respond to Mayor Murray's Statement, dated October 28th, which was published in last week's Herald. It appears that Trustee Mulry and I have struck a nerve, as Mayor Murray and Trustees Lipton and Sutton have all seen fit to come out publicly and personally attack Trustee Mulry and myself. Why the unprovoked attack? Because since we took office, Trustee Mulry and I have asked probing questions, challenged conventional wisdom, and seen fit to dissent from the Board's Home Rule majority on a handful of issues. It has become clear that after our election to this Board, the Home Rule majority expected us to be silent. However, the last time we checked, open debate was not a punishable offense in our open and democratic society, but rather one of its virtues. Some of the issues we have raised (e.g., Signature Place) seem to be too sensitive for the Board's Home Rule majority to address, as demonstrated by the fact that the mayor and Trustees Lipton and Sutton have resorted to personal attacks rather than addressing the real issues.
"It is also disturbing that neither Trustee Mulry nor myself were notified of the Mayor's Oct. 28 statement, and that we only learned about it after it had been published in the Herald, and that we were not given a chance to respond before last week's Herald went to press.
"Trustee Mulry and myself are both experienced attorneys, and we are happy to donate our time and talent to improve and maintain our vital village. We also deeply respect the public service of the mayor and our fellow trustees, and, since our election in June, have worked very hard with the entire Board on the business of the village, from improving zoning legislation to approving public expenditures. We welcome public participation, and have also made a point of reaching out to members of the public to get their input on a variety of issues and proposed legislation. We respect the opinions of village residents, and do not dismiss those with opinions and concerns as 'disgruntled gadflies.' Since our election, every day we have worked together with, and been very grateful for the responsiveness of, the village administrator, the village attorney, the village engineer, the Building Department, the Police Department and all other village departments, to respond to many dozens of resident inquiries that we have received since being elected. We have not ceased to be amazed by the dedicated efforts of Village employees and Department heads to help us make sure that all residents are served.
"But we know that this village faces complicated issues that affect all of us, that cannot be ignored and must be resolved. We understand that our proposed solutions may not be the solutions embraced by a majority of the Board. But we welcome open, honest discussion and a proper vote on these critical issues among the Board members, and we seek to protect the public's input, which is vital to our democratic system. However, the consistent refusal to allow us to place relevant items on Board meeting agendas - items such as density controls, the multifamily legislation, and Signature Place - have made our job all the more difficult.
"We first spoke out publicly about Signature Place at the Sept. 12 Board meeting, because we had heard of a settlement meeting, ut had no further information. We requested that all relevant, non-privileged information be disclosed to the entire Village Board and to the public. We also objected to the settlement meeting between two members of the Planning Board and the developer's representative because it was conducted without the knowledge or participation of the other three members of the five member Planning Board, and not disclosed to the Village Board until after Trustee Mulry and I started asking questions. And, as Trustee Mulry has previously stated, it placed the village in a position of 'stretching' to avoid the Open Meetings law. If one more Planning Board member had been present, the Open Meetings law would have required that the meeting be held in public. As trustees, we have no interest in participating in a governmental 'stretch' to avoid the Open Meetings law.
"On Sept. 14, we received, for the first time, a copy of the Aug. 12, Cameron letter, which followed Mr. Cameron's meeting with the two Planning Board members, and conveyed the developer's 'terms' to settle the developer's lawsuits against the village. The 'terms' do not conform to the Planning Board's decisions on the Signature Place application rendered in the fall of 2004. Rather, the developer is seeking a number of concessions from the village to settle its lawsuits.
"Trustee Mulry and I were concerned that the Aug. 12 letter needed to be quickly made public, because the last time this developer wrote to the village, on Oct. 30, 2002, regarding his 'Proposed Rezoning' request, the Village Board voted in two months to change the zoning law to allow apartments, for the first time, to be built on the Signature Place site. The law was changed to allow apartments anywhere in the commercial district, which has given rise to the building boom that has raised so many resident concerns. Time was critical, but, because the Sept. 27, Village Board meeting was cancelled, the Village Board of Trustees did not meet again in public session until Oct. 24. At the Oct. 24, Village Board meeting, Trustee Mulry and I urged the Board to release the August 12 letter to the public because it was neither privileged nor confidential. The rest of the Board refused to vote in public session. Interestingly, the Mayor has now unilaterally released the Aug. 12 letter, and it was printed in last week's Herald.
"Every action we have taken as village trustees regarding Signature Place has been taken in public. These public actions have been recorded. We welcome and encourage the mayor and the rest of the Board to identify which of those public, recorded actions constituted the 'hostility, disrespect and self-righteous insistence on their own way' and the 'false, unsubstantiated accusations of wrong-doing' which the mayor charges. We ask that the videotapes of the Sept. 12 and the Oct. 24 Board meetings be broadcast repeatedly on the Village Local Channel 18. We ask that audio tapes of the September 12 and October 24 Briefing Sessions be broadcast repeatedly on the Village Local Channel 18. We stand by our resolve to represent village residents, and we will continue to do so with strength and dignity. There was no disrespect, no hostility, and no accusations from us. The other members of the Board will have to answer for themselves, but we believe the public should decide. In addition, we have requested, and will continue to request, that all meetings of the Village Board of Trustees be videotaped and broadcast, including the next meeting, which is a 'Legislative Work Session' on Nov. 8, at 8 p.m., at Village Hall, and the public Board meeting and briefing session on Nov. 14.
"Prior to running for the Village Board, Trustee Mulry and I each attended many Village Board meetings and asked the mayor and the trustees direct questions - many of which had to do with Signature Place. But we never got any answers, so we decided to run for the Village Board. Well, as village trustees, we have continued to ask questions and we still are not getting any straight answers. We do not apologize for our dedication and resolve, and we pledge to continue to ask tough questions and make judicious decisions, on all issues that affect this village, large and small. We pledge that we will advocate full disclosure of all non-privileged, non-confidential acts and decisions by this government. We believe that a fully nformed electorate is this village government's greatest asset.
"We both have a deep respect for the mayor, but his recent disclosure about Signature Place is long overdue, short on facts, and seeks to make this personal and political, perhaps to deflect attention from the real issues. Mayor Murray has refused to answer whether he was present at any meeting or meetings that gave rise to the Aug. 12 letter. In addition, we do not know how many meetings were held, when or where, and we have never been told exactly who was present at any such meeting. This belated, and limited, public disclosure is only being made now because so many village residents have been asking about this matter that the mayor simply had no choice. In fact, these matters should have been disclosed to the public many, many months ago when they first occurred. We all deserve to know exactly what is going on with Signature Place and why. Quite simply, it is a massive project - certainly the largest development to ever hit this village, and it will have a lasting impact on all our lives, and the lives of our children.
"In order to clarify matters and clear the air, Trustee Mulry and I respectfully request that the mayor and the Board of Trustees hold a special Board of Trustees meeting solely devoted to the Signature Place matter so that village residents will have a full and fair opportunity to ask any questions that they may have and obtain the answers to which they are entitled from their duly elected village officials. I hope that my fellow Board members seize this opportunity to address the public and set the record straight."
Trustee Andrew P. Karamouzis
Trustee Jeanne Farnan Mulry
