Town of North Greenbush

FOUR'S A CROWD AT TOWN MEETING:

When Mike Moscatiello walked into the town's Planning Board meeting Monday night, it was crowded -- but not in the audience.

The dais, which normally seats seven Planning Board members, an attorney and an engineer, was crammed with 11 people.

Four people showed up for two contested Planning Board seats, and no one was giving in. One person even sat in the entryway of the dais. Another started his own row behind everyone else.
...
This unusual situation has its roots in a court case that questioned the legality of a Jan. 2 meeting where Mary Jude Foley and Brian Dwyer were appointed to the Planning Board. Just weeks before, the outgoing Republican-controlled Town Board appointed Linda Mandel-Clemente and Jim Reid, but the new Democratic majority board said those new appointments were illegal.

While the court considered the legality of the Jan. 2 meeting, acting state Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. McNamara ordered the Planning Board to proceed with Reid and Mandel-Clemente as members.

In April, McNamara issued a decision in the case, but it didn't address the Planning Board appointments specifically. However, the majority of the Town Board felt strongly that the decision backed the Foley and Dwyer appointments as did Planning Board chairman, Chip Ashworth. So the pair came to the meeting Monday.

Reid and Mandel-Clemente came, too.

To work around the problem, the Planning Board decided Monday that only the five members not in question would vote, but what happens at next month's meeting is still up in the air.

I'm curious to hear the legal justifications for setting aside the appointments of a prior board. Section 271 of the Town Law clearly provides that the Town Board appoints members of the Planning Board, who may be removed only for cause after a hearing. It is irrelevant whether the members are appointed by a "lame duck majority" board. Once appointed a member may be removed only for cause, which I doubt there is here. It marked an inauspicious start for the new majority for virtually its first act to be one that so flouted the rule of law, and I'm baffled as to why the town attorney defends the action. Anyone with more detailed information is welcome to comment. There must be a lot going on behind the scenes here.