Village of Mamaroneck Mayor Norman Rosenblum’s lawsuit challenging the village Board of Trustees on its adherence to Open Meetings Law was shot down by a judge last week.
The decision, rendered on Oct. 27, will now guarantee the existence of two propositions on Election Day ballots; one altering the mayor’s power of appointment for the position of village attorney, and one altering interim appointments of members of the village’s land use boards.
Rosenblum, a Republican who filed the lawsuit only two weeks ago, has repeatedly criticized the decision by the Democratic majority of the village board to put both propositions on the ballot, citing improper procedure and “petty politics.”
“The real question is what the people decide,” Rosenblum said about the propositions. “If you vote yes, you are tipping the balance and eliminating the office of mayor.”
The judge found that Open Meetings Law—which requires proper public notice before municipal meetings are held—was upheld, contradicting the mayor’s claims.
Additionally, according to court transcripts, Rosenblum filed his lawsuit in his capacity as mayor, an action denied by the courts, forcing him to refile the case as a village resident.
Both the mayor in addition to the three Democratic trustees—who were the defendants named in the suit—plan to file invoices that would obligate the village to pay for all legal expenses associated with the case.
According to village of Mamaroneck law, village officials may retain outside counsel in the case of legal action against it.
Village Manager Richard Slingerland said no invoices for legal services have been filed, as of press time, but he expects them to be submitted this month.
Village board Democrats, who voted to put both referendums on the ballot in August, have repeatedly criticized Rosenblum’s use of what is known as the “hold-over” rule.
In the case of either a land use member’s resignation or removal, the mayor is able to appoint an interim person to serve out the rest of the vacant member’s term.
Once the remainder of that term has been served, the village board must vote on whether or not to retain the mayor’s interim appointee for an additional term.
In this case, if the village board is not unanimous in its decision, the appointee remains on the board, allowing Rosenblum to retain his appointment by simply voting against the rest of the village board.
Democrats have also contended that the hiring of the village attorney position should be a full Board of Trustees decision, claiming that the hiring and firing of the position makes the attorney beholden to the mayor’s preference.
Democrats argue that both propositions return the village board to a more equitable form of governance.
“Now the voters can decide whether the full Board of Trustees—including the mayor—or the mayor alone will make more balanced appointments to two key land use boards and the position of village attorney,” said Trustee Leon Potok, one of three village board Democrats that Rosenblum sued.
Both propositions will be decided in referendums on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 8.
