JUNE 7, 2006 UPDATE: Tonight I learned even more disturbing information about the law firm representing all parties in the Mirant case, further exemplifying the urgent need for Stony Point to retain independent counsel as soon as possible prior to acting on the proposed Mirant settlement agreement. The following memo details this information, and includes copies of four of the cases and appeals filed by Dodge Watkins against his former employer, the Wappingers School District, subsequent to their suspending and ultimately terminating him as their superintendent. The four documents following the memo are copies of the appeals and decisions referred to in that memo.
Ladies and Gentlemen - There are so many questionable matters involved with these Mirant and School Tax issues, it is almost impossible to get it all out to everyone. For example, at the Town Board meeting Tuesday night, a speaker mentioned something that I hadn't thought of before, but it sure ties in with the letter I just sent to "our" attorneys in the Mirant matter. The speaker asked the Supervisor, after he just stated that the School Board and the Town are "completey different entities" with different responsibilities, why the Towns of Stony Point and Haverstraw, the School District, and the Villages of Haverstraw and West Haverstraw are all using the very same attorney in the Mirant matter. I knew there was a conflict, but never thought of it the way the speaker did - either we're connected or we're not - which was a GREAT point. Below if the letter I sent to "our" attorney's expressing my concern, to which, of course, I have had absolutely no reply:
I am a Town Councilman with the Town of Stony Point, one of your clients in the Mirant tax matter.I am extremely concerned about a number of issues relating to your continued representation of the Town of Stony Point and the North Rockland School District in this case.
No doubt you are fully aware of the adversarial relationship currently existing between the North Rockland School Board, Superintendent Dodge Watkins, and at least two members of the Stony Point Town Board, including myself.It is my opinion, for the reasons set forth herein as well as others, your continued representation of the various parties in this matter is not just an appearance of impropriety, but presents a serious and actual conflict of interest.I am also of the opinion that the procedural advice you recently provided to Stony Point Supervisor Phil Marino, and your legal opinion relating to the School District’s bonding plans, should be reconsidered.
As you know, myself, Councilman O'Neill, and hundreds of citizens of Stony Point are involved in a widely publicized, fundamental disagreement with the North Rockland School Board and Superintendent Watkins, much of which relates to the Mirant matter.Although individually we are not your clients, your firm is certainly aware that the Town of Stony Point Town Board, which IS your client, does not have the necessary “super majority” vote needed to approve the bonding required under the settlement agreement.Nonetheless, your firm continues to render legal advice to both the Town of Stony Point and the North Rockland School District in an effort to perpetuate that settlement.
In this regard, it is my understanding that Stony Point Supervisor Phil Marino has been advised to remove the bond vote for the Mirant settlement from the May 9, 2006 Stony Point Town Board agenda, and postpone it until after the revised Mirant settlement agreement is distributed (despite the fact that all of the numbers necessary for that bond vote have been received from the County of Rockland Finance Department).Further, I believe it has been recommended to the Supervisor that a vote be scheduled on the revised settlement agreement BEFORE the bond vote.Obviously the plan is to obtain approval of the revised settlement agreement by a 3 to 2 majority first, knowing that the bond approval requires a super majority vote (4 or more), which the Town does not have.The intent, equally evident, would then be to claim that your other client, the School District, already has what they need to proceed (unanimous approval of the settlement by all of your clients), and thus, it would no longer be of any benefit to the taxpayers of Stony Point for the bonding to fail.
This scheme is disingenuous and will fail.First of all, this advice is simply an improper attempt to strip one of your clients, the Stony Point Town Board, of the purpose, intent and protections of, among others laws and regulations, Local Finance Law §33.00(a), solely for the benefit of your other client, the School District.Moreover, I believe it is now impossible for the Town of Stony Point Town Board to seek confidential and objective professional advice from your firm as regarding alternative avenues which may be pursued in order to force our adversary in this settlement, the North Rockland School District, to soften the extreme tax affects of this settlement on our residents (whether by adjusting the percentages in the Pilot agreement, revising the School District Budget to recognize the affects of the settlement, or any other possible solution).
I can assure you that regardless of the vote by a simple majority of the Town Board of Stony Point on the revised settlement, myself and Councilman O'Neill will not support the required bonding unless the North Rockland School District executes substantial budget cuts as we have publicly demanded, or otherwise makes some effort to address the substantial tax implications of that settlement.I can only hope that in addition to the aforesaid advice, Supervisor Marino was also counseled on the affects of an approved settlement without the ability to bond, as well as an overview of Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, and the 2% of total assessment cap on municipal taxation.
In addition to the above, as a taxpayer in the North Rockland School District, I am also dismayed at your recommendation to your client, my School District, that they can borrow an extra $96 million beyond the actual cost of the settlement in order to pay itself a percentage of that money over the next 8 years to keep taxes down.Not only is it poor advice, but there is no authority to issue bonds to finance operating expenses, and thus, the proposed additional bonding is beyond the authority of your client to undertake.
Although this letter is my opinion, and does not represent a majority of the Town Board of Stony Point at this time, your actions are nonetheless not in the best interests of the Town of Stony Point, rather, are obviously designed to perpetuate the execution of the proposed Mirant settlement agreement, which your other clients openly desire.
In closing, I simply cannot understand how you can represent multiple clients with clearly adverse interests.The minute litigation slowed and settlement negotiations began, the Town of Stony Point and the North Rockland School District became adversaries.
