east hampton indoor tennis, lessons, club, training
27east.com

Story - News

Dec 13, 2010 11:42 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton Town lawmakers walk out of discussion on MTA lawsuit

Editor's Note: For the entire story, pick up the Thursday, July 29, issue of The Southampton Press
Dec 13, 2010 11:42 AM

The majority of the Southampton Town Board walked out of a work session on Thursday when Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst insisted on hearing a status report from an attorney regarding the town’s lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in public rather than in executive session.

Conservative Councilmen Jim Malone and Republican Town Council members Chris Nuzzi and Nancy Graboski abruptly stood up and marched out of the meeting room when Ms. Throne-Holst refused to call a vote on a motion Mr. Malone made to discuss the issue behind closed doors, as is common practice when litigation is involved.

“An abundance of caution dictates that this discussion be in executive session,” Mr. Malone said, before making the motion to adjourn the meeting behind closed doors.

His motion was quickly seconded by Mr. Nuzzi. Ms. Graboski then asked if Ms. Throne-Holst was going to call for a vote on the motion.

“No, I’m not,” the supervisor said. “I would like to propose that we get just a simple status update.”

“What’s the problem with that?” she asked as the three gathered their papers and walked out of the room. “This is really interfering with transparency. This is a case that is really of very great public interest and to not have a public discussion of the status of this is really unconscionable.”

Despite the lack of a quorum to continue the meeting, Ms. Throne-Holst, an Independence Party member, and Democratic Town Councilwoman Bridget Fleming remained in the meeting room and asked attorney Jeltje DeJong to give them an update on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit in question was brought by Southampton Town against the MTA earlier this year over a new payroll tax enacted by the state in May. Under the MTA tax, $3.40 is levied on each $1,000 of payroll for businesses and municipalities within the 12-county area that is serviced by the MTA. The tax, which the state says was needed to help close the MTA’s nearly $1 billion budget deficit at the time, applies to all individuals making $10,000 a year or more.

Town Attorney Michael Sordi on Thursday expressed no concerns about the lack of quorum or a public airing of the litigation update.

Ms. DeJong, however, said she had never before been asked to discuss any litigation in a public session and was uncomfortable doing so, particularly in light of the absence and obvious objections of three board members.

“I have to tell you, I have never ever briefed any board on any pending litigation in open session and, in my opinion ... I think every board member has to waive the privilege in order for me to do that,” she said. “I don’t feel comfortable doing this.”

Mr. Sordi defended the request to hold the discussion in public session, saying that all the board was looking for was a basic status update on where the lawsuit stood.

“What we’re asking for at this moment is not for the revelation of any strategy information or privileged information—just nuts and bolts status of where the case is at this moment,” Mr. Sordi said, adding that if board members had any questions about strategy and details of the case, they could be addressed in executive session.

Ms. DeJong, nonetheless, continued to resist the discussion, noting that the other board members thought any topic of discussion on the case should be considered privileged information. She said that she had given Mr. Sordi information about the case and that if he simply updated the board himself it would not present her with attorney-client concerns.

Ms. Throne-Holst and Ms. Fleming, the latter a practicing attorney herself, also attempted to convince Ms. DeJong to discuss some of the case.

“People want to know where we are on this,” Ms. Throne-Holst said. “Nothing of what we’re asking you goes outside the realm of public knowledge at this point. All we are asking for is a timeline and anything you can say in terms of moving forward. If you wouldn’t mind just giving us a timeline, we’d appreciate that.”

After a long silence from Ms. DeJong, Mr. Sordi again asked her to simply inform the board when the defendants in the case were served with the lawsuit.

Finally, the attorney relented, somewhat, stating that one group of defendants—including State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, Governor David Paterson and the state Department of Taxation and Finance—had been served on July 7 and that the MTA had been served on July 12.

When Ms. Throne-Holst asked why the MTA hadn’t been served until July 12, Ms. DeJong said flatly: “I’m not going to get into that,” and closed her folder full of notes.

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Yes! I'll try a one-month
Premium Membership
for just 99¢!
CLICK HERE

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

The public has the right to hear what is going on.....we put them there for a reason, and we what the right to know what is going on.

By Bel (86), southampton on Jul 23, 10 5:00 PM
1 member liked this comment
> The public has the right to hear what is going on.....

The public absolute does -- EXCEPT in matters of litigation and personnel, so Bel , you are uninformed and wrong.

This had to do with on-going litigation, and cannot by law be discussed in a public session except as has elsewhere been noted, if each member of the Town Council individually waives confidentially of attorney-client privilege.

Ms. Throne-Holst and Ms. Fleming, who portrays herself as an attorney in ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1795), Northampton on Jul 24, 10 1:08 AM
1 member liked this comment
I dare say that the reason that Chris Nuzzi and company walked out, was due to the fact that they were wholly unprepared to hear even the basics of this pending litigation. They did not want to lose face should some un-popular notions come up, since these people are all about image rather than substance. Chris Nuzzi and company represent alot of money in this town, and they did not want to upset the powers that pull their puppet strings.
By xatiannorthsea (16), southampton on Jul 23, 10 6:22 PM
The possible waiver of the privilege of private Attorney-Client communications is a very legitimate concern IMO.

If this issue had not been previously discussed this in an executive session, with the Board and legal counsel agreeing to discussing things in public (including the parameters of that discussion), then it was appropriate to take this discussion off the table by whatever means necessary IMO.

Perhaps the public has a right to know certain aspects of the pending litigation, ...more
By PBR (4863), Southampton on Jul 23, 10 6:38 PM
The MTA along with our systemically corrupt state government have now come up with a precedent setting new way to pick the taxpayers pockets without our politicians "raising taxes". With ten thousand vice presidents making 100K a year the incompetent donut eating crooks at the MTA along with their cohorts in our state Gov should not be allowed to get away with this boondoggle. Yes, this should be a very open public discussion, I commend our town leaders for bringing this lawsuit, if we can only ...more
By rrc1049 (63), Bridgehampton on Jul 23, 10 7:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
PS. I also commend 27 East for making me aware of this criminal act by the MTA.
By rrc1049 (63), Bridgehampton on Jul 23, 10 7:17 PM
HIDE IN THE BATHROOM IN THE TRAIN........FREE RIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By SirHampton (60), quogue on Jul 23, 10 8:29 PM
1 member liked this comment
The party of NO strikes again.

It seems that how taxpayer's money is spent is privileged information.
By Noah Way (450), Southampton on Jul 23, 10 9:23 PM
2 members liked this comment
where are we- Albany??!!
By CaptainSig (653), Dutch Harbor on Jul 24, 10 7:18 AM
Please stop behaving like children and work together!
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Jul 24, 10 3:52 PM
yes mother
By CaptainSig (653), Dutch Harbor on Jul 28, 10 10:32 PM
Litigation issues are always discussed in Executive Session. This was indeed grandstanding on the part to ATH and Fleming.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 25, 10 12:20 AM
All these printed words and all they had to do was say something to the effect of: There have been some advnaces in the case that we will discuss in executive session" Really simple stuff. This is partly why the general public is leary of politicians. As a citizen in the town, based on this article I want to know whats going on with the litigation. Its not fair that I have to pay into the biggest sinkhole in NYS.
By North Sea Citizen (482), North Sea on Jul 25, 10 7:19 AM
Chris Nuzzi and his friends need a new drama coach and a new legal advisor. Their lockstep walkout, less than a minute after Jim Malone made his motion, was a laughably obvious setup, and they're wrong on the law. What the Supervisor was seeking, dates of service, is in the public domain -- there's no privilege or confidentiality for something anyone can look up in court records. The Republicans are just trying to protect their pet law firm from public scrutiny, and the firm lawyer, Ms. DeJong, ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 25, 10 6:22 PM
Ms. Dejong (Attorney hired by the town) stated several times that she was unconfortable discussing the case in open session, but the town attorney Mr. Sordi kept pressing her. Ms. Dejong told Mr. Sordi that she kept him up to date by email on what is going on and if he would like to advise the board & the public, that would be fine with her and would not jepordize her attorney client privilage. Mr. Sordi did not reply & kept insisting she speak about the case.
Something doesn't make sense, ...more
Jul 26, 10 12:29 AM appended by reg rep
Outside council is used all the time, this is not the first time and it won't be the last. Is this why they gave Dejong a hard time, because ATH selected TA was not given the job to deal with the MTA case. I wouldn't let Sordi handle this case the guy does not know what he's talking about. Watch the work session meeting, when they were talking about private roads, he did not even know that the town is responsible to plow a private road in a snow emergency. He clearly Anna's lap dog.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 12:29 AM
reg rep, whatever validity may actually be hidden in your comments is entirely over-shadowed by your irrational hatred of ATH.
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Jul 26, 10 9:41 AM
progressnow
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I hate ATH. I do not hate her.
What I don't like about ATH is that she is a phoney. I have observed her many times in person and I don't care for the way she uses people for her own agenda and political benefit.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 6:46 PM
I have read a number of your postings and most are filled with far-right vitriol and personal attacks, many directly concerning ATH
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Jul 26, 10 8:32 PM
AS LONG AS THERE IS THE RIGHT WE WILL ALWAYS ENJOY FREE SPEECH.
ENJOY READING.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 8:58 PM
yeah... doesn't sound like you hate her
By CaptainSig (653), Dutch Harbor on Jul 28, 10 10:34 PM
This is not a surprise - the new Town Attorney is a hack. He was responsible for botching the pre-trial hearing of the biggest (financial) court loss in Nassau County history (the other lawyer responsible is a former SHT Attorney too, hmm...) and was run out of the County. Someone owed him a favor - it's the only explination for hiring an attorney from Greenlawn.

As reg rep said, he was given the information and could have informed the Town Board. Regardless of Nuzzi and Co.'s setup ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 26, 10 11:14 AM
To those who say the new Town Attorney, Michael Sordi, is not capable of managing this MTA lawsuit, I say look at the two trailers for homeless sex offenders that Suffolk County inflicted on Southampton Town alone when they were supposed to be rotated. Along comes Mr. Sordi, and for the first time in three long years, we get results -- first a temporary restraining order, and then a permanent injunction against the County's expanded trailer.

Anyone who wants to spend $50,000 of our money ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 26, 10 12:02 PM
Turkey,

You are giving a lot of credit to Mr. Sordi - can you back it up that it was all him? Are you sure the Deputy attorneys didn't do the ground work and Mr. Sordi took credit for it? There's a reason he was basically booted from Nassau County - see Newsday's article 'Hiring of Attorneys to change'.

Outside counsel can be very expensive, BUT it is better to spend the money and have a good chance of winning, then not spend the money and lose big. That's what Nassua County ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 26, 10 12:49 PM
I can back it up in this sense, Nature -- long experience shows [1] that matters turn on the lawyer who is arguing in the courtroom in about 90% of the cases, and [2] that cases with a high level of emotional content, like the sex-offender trailer issue, are determined almost entirely by the oral argument. On that one, Mr. Sordi himself argued both the TRO and the permanent injunction, successfully obtaining both from the court. You say I'm giving Mr. Sordi a lot of credit, but it seems that you're ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 27, 10 3:17 PM
Two things are clear, Ms. Holst had to know before the meeting of concerns expressed by the board, and their request to discuss as is customary a legal issue in executive session. Second, if her claim for transparency was legitimate she could have honored her colleagues concenrs, and subsequently made publis what she wanted without the drama.
One thing is unclear, at least to me. How is it legal for the supervisor, to not allow a properly made and seconded motion to be voted on?
By DJII13 (155), Hampton Bays on Jul 26, 10 2:38 PM
DJII13 said and I agree.
How is it legal for the supervisor, to not allow a properly made and seconded motion to be voted on?
Also, after Ms. Graboski, Mr. Nuzzi & Mr. Malone walked out, she proceeded with the work session and after they (ATH & Fleming were done questioning Ms. Dejone, ATH said we had a motion to move into Executive Session all in favor, I or (aye). How can she call a vote with just 2 board members present to then move into Ex. Session. Was this legal? She had no quorum.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 6:39 PM
I don't know what led up to this walk-out, or what the various motivations and political intricacies may be (per the posts above), but for this to have occurred, in the manner in which it did, demonstrates a growing dysfunctionality in the Town Board.

A reminder to the Supervisor and the Board -- you work for us, and this kind of last-minute melodramatic grand-standing is NOT serving OUR needs.

Of course you have many issues about which you disagree, but would you please find a ...more
By PBR (4863), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 5:01 PM
Mr. Turkey's smoke screen comments will not work.
The Town Attorney had all the answers to inform the TB but he would not when asked by Ms. Dejong. ATH knew that Nuzzi, Malone and Graboski were uncomfortable doing this discussion in a Work Session but she went ahead and did it anyway. She was grandstanding with her side kick Fleming. If ATH wanted the public to know what was going on for transparency reasons she should have instructed Sordi to speak up. What ATH's real intentions were, who knows. ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 26, 10 7:19 PM
"We have town cars being used to communte from SH Town to Brookhaven, Islip and E. Hampton (take home cars)."

Can you be more specific? It's my understanding that town policy prevents Town vehicles from being taken home outside of Town limits. Who (or what positions) are taking vehicles home out of town?
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 27, 10 9:42 AM
Reg rep, that may be a good suggestion about the cars, but it doesn't in any way invalidate my suggestion about the law firms. Get a grip, please.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 27, 10 2:57 PM
not true about the cars , hater. they can only take them within the town. sooooo bitter (is this Linda?)
By CaptainSig (653), Dutch Harbor on Jul 28, 10 10:39 PM
Thanks Sig, I knew reg rep wasn't on the right track....
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 29, 10 6:44 PM
It's the same story here, as in war.

NO ONE, not even the "Fourth Estate", has the right to clandestine information which may, or may not impede, or reveal any strategy. This could serve to derail a "war effort".

If you had a secret weapon, that could win your "war", would you go around spewing strategy, or just implement it?

If you do anything other than clandestinely implement it, you're an idiot...
By Mr. Z (10157), North Sea on Jul 26, 10 11:25 PM
???
By progressnow (556), sag harbor on Jul 27, 10 7:53 AM
???
By PBR (4863), Southampton on Jul 27, 10 12:50 PM
Let me put this another way.

Transparency is good, BUT things that are revealed at even a town meeting could be introduced in court, and have a negative effect on the Town's legal arguements. The opposition will look for any "chink" in this suit's armor to have it dismissed, even if it is the minutes from a town meeting.

People can be lowdown and dirty when they want to win, and in this case, the Five Towns do not need to give them any ammunition to shoot holes in the case which ...more
Jul 27, 10 7:17 PM appended by Mr. Z
When it comes to going up against someone like Sheldon Silver, you DO NOT take unnecessary risks...
By Mr. Z (10157), North Sea on Jul 27, 10 7:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
Nature I would be happy to provide you with the names of those departments that have take home 24-7 cars.
Chief Building Inspector- Building and Zoning
Environmental Facilities Manager- Waste Management
Town Director of Education and Cable Access
These 3 live in Brookhaven, Islip and E Hampton
Is this not a waste of money?
These positions/departments are hardly emergency departments.
Several other employees take home cars 24-7 but may live in SH town.

Also, in ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 27, 10 9:28 PM
re rep,

Thanks. I'm not arguing or saying it's right that they can take the cars home - just wasn't aware that they can take them out of the town even if they have 24/7 privileges. While I known for certain the chief bldg inspector lives in Bhaven Town, I'm not sure he takes the vehicle home... maybe I'll have to swing by his house after hours and verify!! As for the need for him in particular to have the vehicle, it does make sense (well, if he picked it up @ the border in Eastport ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 28, 10 12:01 AM
Its a fact he takes the vehicle home. The idea of swinging by his house, I don't know, that may be a little much.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 28, 10 9:32 PM
Reg rep, you say we have to spend $50,000 on outside lawyers because "the town needs to win this case," but no one has ever identified any special expertise or special experience that the outside firm, Devit Spellman, has which makes them any better qualified for this MTA case than the Town Attorney and his staff of lawyers. Why is that? Because there isn't any. This is a matter of taking care of the friends of the Republican/Conservative faction by giving them $50,000 out of the public treasury. ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 28, 10 9:55 PM
so we should just take your word for it
By CaptainSig (653), Dutch Harbor on Jul 28, 10 10:44 PM
No of course not, if you are computer savvy, go to the town web site and find the resolution and list of names that take home town cars.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 29, 10 10:51 AM
You know or should know the thousands of dollars the town spends each year on outside council. In this case you again are only going along with your friend ATH because this is what she wanted. Should all lawsuits be handled by the town attorneys?? Do they have the time to handle all outside lawsuites?
What are the case loads like? Do you know?
The town attorneys are ok lawyers. If they were really good they would be in private practive making the big bucks. ($60,000) is no money today for ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 29, 10 11:18 AM
I'll say it once more, reg rep, slowly, no big words: When you want to spend $50,000 of the people's money, you should have a good reason. No one has ever stated a good reason why this outside firm is any better able to run the lawsuit than the Town Attorney's office. Do they have special knowledge? Do they have special experience? If you know of any, tell us.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 29, 10 11:51 AM
I don't want to spend any of the people's money, the TB voted 5-0 to do that.

Take all your long winded questions to the Town Board. All you have to do is show up at the next meeting and during the public portion ask those questions.


By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 29, 10 3:50 PM
Because the Town Board is busy with other boards/lawsuits/court duties. They don't have time for a MAJOR lawsuit - an outside firm that is getting paid to handle it, does have the time.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jul 29, 10 6:43 PM
Wrong again, reg rep. The Town Board didn't vote unanimously to retain the Republicans' pet law firm for $50,000 that we didn't have to spend. Nuzzi, Malone and Graboski voted for it, and Throne-Holst and Fleming opposed it, maintaining that the Town Attorney's staff could do the job. (27east, 6/9/10, "Southampton Town Board debates who will handle MTA lawsuit.")
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 30, 10 10:12 AM
Turkey
You are correct (& arrogant) Anna and Bridiget voted no. All the more reason for the grandstanding at the work session by ATH, Fleming and Mr. Sordi.
You never did answer why the Town Attorney did not brief the TB at the work session instead of badger the Ms. Dejong.
Will you be complaining when the town hires outside council for this 70 million lawsuit now pending.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 30, 10 10:57 AM
Guilty as charged, reg rep. I suspect the Supervisor wanted to get the answers from Ms. DeJong instead of Mr. Sordi because she wanted to ask Ms. DeJong why this expensive outside firm was serving the MTA and other defendants two months late, actually falling the Bookhaven town attorney's office. [See the July 29 newspaper story.] It's a very fair question, and I imagine that's where she was going, and also that's probably why Ms. DeJong was so hot to get out of there, as she did, because she ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 30, 10 11:44 AM
Sorry -- should be "actually falling behind the Brookhaven town attorney's office" above.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Jul 30, 10 11:49 AM
I appreciate your response, but you are really just speculating when you say
"I imagine" "likely "and "probably”.
I did read the newspaper story 7/29. Sordi is blaming the law firm and Nuzzi is blaming Sordi for the late filing. Who knows who’s right? Who knows why Ms. Dejong left after the work session.
I did read in one of the related articles that ATH said that Sordi "should be able to handle the case". Not for nothing, but using the word should does not sound very positive.
On ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 30, 10 8:35 PM
I agree that we don't know all the answers on the MTA lawsuit controversy, but we're all entitled to speculate, which is just what I meant by the use of those speculative words, as you correctly note. As to the relationship between the $70 million suit and the MTA matter, maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that you start with the Town Attorney's recommendation -- that's the process -- and no, the Board doesn't have to follow it, but if they don't, they should be able to state ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 1, 10 11:36 AM
I understand this case is a pet peeve of yours but where should they state a reason? Do you want an explanation stated at a town board meeting when a resolution is being voted on? Should they do this in every case when outside council is used. ATH said half of the $900,000 bugeted for 2010 has already been used. Did you ask for an reason in every other case? I know $50,000 is alot of money but even more has been spent on other cases.
I don't think this will happen, you will not get the explanation ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 2, 10 7:06 PM
"Pet peeve" is putting it mildly when the tab comes to $50,000. I fear you're right, reg rep, that there won't be any explanation, and that's part of what makes me so peevish. I'm not saying there should be an explanation for every little thing, but this isn't a little thing. Also, we're paying a guy over $100,000 a year to be our Town Attorney, our legal advisor. It seems that the normal course would be to follow his recommendation on something like this. Two things flow from that: [1] If ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 3, 10 11:48 AM
The town attorney I'm sure has a full case load, him not getting this case will not put him out of a job. If he was hired to handle outside cases why was $900,000 put in the budget.
I do appreciate your reply but I can't help but think that you are not being truthful. I really think this is not about the $50,000, this is only about the supervisor & Bridge being out voted to have Sordi handle the case.
I really think you only use these types of senarios to bash the 2 republicans & one conservative. ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 3, 10 8:58 PM
Given how new the Town Attorney is on the job, it's a safe bet that his recommendation hasn't been turned down before, but that's not the point. The point is that when his recommendation isn't followed, that's outside the normal course of things and should therefore require a stated reason, which hasn't happened here. Contrary to what you say, it's not just about outside counsel. Whether it's the retention of outside counsel or the awarding of a contract or rubber-stamping a developer's proposal, ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 3, 10 9:53 PM
Come on Turkey Bridge you knew exactly what I meant about you never complaining before. You have been leaving comments on this blog since 2/09 and I can't remember not even once a complaint about the town hiring outside council.

This complaint stems from your support of ATH wanting Sordi to handle the case.
These are the differenct complaints you have posted for this article
$50,000 way to much money, the TA can handle it.
Three TB members that voted yes to hire outside ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 4, 10 8:55 PM
Reg rep, you still don't get it, or refuse to get it, and I don't know how to make it any clearer to you except to say re-read my last comment with a little care.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 5, 10 9:50 AM
No, I get it, you are bias when it comes to ATH.

Back up your statement and answer the question, what do you mean when you said "taking care of friends". What pals are they taking care of (hiring this lawfirm)? If you know something share what you know.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 5, 10 9:42 PM
Reg rep, this is one of the more ridiculous things, of very many ridiculous things, that you've ever posted -- with your record, accusing someone else of bias regarding Anna Throne-Holst. Unbelievable. (It always comes down to ATH for you, doesn't it?)

Anyway, as to your question, let's see. Well, 27east reports that Devitt Spellman is "handling numerous legal matters for the town." (7/28/10, "MTA lawsuit spawns internal bickering . . ." etc.) The same piece reports that the initial ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 6, 10 2:43 PM
For you its always about the republicans.
Who bickers more than you? A total of 350 times according to your comments.
Now your blaming the Kabot admin and the villages, all republicans.
You are truely a desperate man, did it ever occur to you that this is one good lawfirm and in demand. All you know how to do is twist the truth.
According to you, this lawfirm could not be very good at all because they are hired by republicans.
Get it together turkey bridge, your response was ...more
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 6, 10 10:13 PM
For all your bluster, reg rep, the simple truth remains that Chris Nuzzi, Nancy Graboski and Jim Malone forced the Town to spend $50,000 of our money on outside counsel unnecessarily when the Town Attorney and his staff could have handled the case.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 6, 10 10:25 PM
As always you have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea what the town attorney or the assistants work load is.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Aug 8, 10 2:19 AM
But the Town Attorney and his assistants do have an idea of their workload, and he said they could handle the case, but Mr. Nuzzi and his friends ignored that professional advice. You can't get around these basic facts.
By Turkey Bridge (1829), Quiogue on Aug 8, 10 11:38 AM
Meetings are presumptively open.

The Board of Trustees has an attorney client privilege that the board, in its corporate form can waive at any time. It is not an individual prerogative.

When a majority refuses to waive the privilege, the public must ask why ? It it truly some secret strategy involved that should not be disclosed?

The issue in this case is purely a question of law. No strategy, just good legal research is required, no sleight of hand, just good hard ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 28, 10 11:12 PM
It has nothing to do with the Trustees.
By Terry (380), Southampton on Jul 29, 10 9:29 AM
You're a councilman and you walk out on a meeting, that's like walking off the job, right?
By clam pie (161), Westhampton on Jul 29, 10 6:52 PM
I was recently reiminded of Bastiat's work, and this quote from him:

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselvesin the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it."

-Frederic Bastiat, 'The Law' (1850)

The MTA, the towns, the states, the Fed, Wall St., HMOs, whomever it is these days, it's all about power...
By Mr. Z (10157), North Sea on Jul 29, 10 10:43 PM
I've been away for a little while, so let me get this straight. First, the Nuzzi/Graboski/Malone coalition forces the hiring of an outside law firm that we probably don't need, to sue the MTA for $50,000. Then, when Supervisor Throne-Holst wants to ask that law firm some public-record, non-confidential questions, that same coalition walks out because she won't do it in private. Then Mr. Nuzzi accuses the Democrats -- which the Supervisor isn't -- of trying to undermine the Town's case to help ...more
By fidelis (199), westhampton beach on Jul 30, 10 9:59 AM
Southampton Animal Shelter, Unconditional Love, Adoption