Amidst boiling tensions over a referendum that would alter the mayor’s powers, Norman Rosenblum, the village of Mamaroneck’s Republican mayor, will sue the three Democrats on the Board of Trustees over alleged breaches in the Open Meetings Law.
According to an order for declaratory judgment which was sent to a New York state Supreme Court judge on Oct. 17, Rosenblum will seek to nullify a decision by the Democratic majority of Leon Potok, David Finch and Ilissa Miller on the village board to authorize a ballot referendum that—if passed by public vote on Election Day—would alter the mayor’s ability to appoint a village attorney as well as certain land use board members.
“I will not bow down,” Rosenblum said. “This is a continued attack on the office of mayor.”
In the mayor’s lawsuit—which would upend an upcoming public vote on his powers of appointment—he claims that the village board meeting held on Sept. 6, which authorized two public referendums on the Nov. 8 ballot, failed to be properly noticed and broke New York state Open Meetings Law.
The state law stipulates that agenda items during Board of Trustees meetings must be properly noticed—both in local media as well as municipal websites—beforehand. Specifically, the law is meant to provide community members ample notice before and insight into important legislative decisions.
Board Democrats, however, have characterized Rosenblum’s suit against them as an attempt to retain his own power.
“Rather than demonizing the Democratic trustees, the mayor should focus on the substance of the issue,” said Potok. “His lawsuit is without merit and would deny residents the opportunity to vote their views.”
The debate over what the mayor’s powers of appointments should be was spurred in August when village board Democrats introduced a proposed public law that would become the precursor to the referendum.
Democrats argue that the mayor has enjoyed unilateral powers of appointment by abusing what is known as the “hold-over” rule.
According to this village rule, the mayor is able to appoint members to land use boards—the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals—if there is a sudden vacancy, like a resignation or when someone is removed from their position.
Once that interim appointee serves out the rest of the previous member’s term, the vote must go to the Board of Trustees who can decide to keep him or her for another term. If the vote is not unanimous, however, the interim appointment stays on for another term. Therefore, a simple no-vote from Rosenblum ensures that his previously appointed hold-over stays in place.
The mayor has called upon this rule to appoint land use board members several times throughout his 6-year tenure.
While Democratic trustees have hesitated to say whether or not Rosenblum has forced any such resignations, Finch, who spoke on the matter in August, said the practice of the mayor appointing during hold-overs is “available for real abuse.”
According to Potok, the judge’s decision on whether or not the mayor’s lawsuit is with merit should be finalized within the next week.
Rosenblum said that while a decision is likely forthcoming, even if a rendering is issued after the Election Day, the referendum could still be voided retroactively.
The referendum would follow previous measures passed by village board Democrats to alter the mayor’s use of village facilities, specifically his office, and his power to set agenda items, in addition to parking spaces at Village Hall.
