GRASSROOTS FOR GREENBURGH
E-Mail: grassrootsforgreenburgh@att.net
September 24, 2006
DOBBS FERRY LAWYER COMMENTS ON THE UNINCORPORATED GREENBURGH/VILLAGE CONTROVERSY
Herbert Rosenberg, Dobbs Ferry resident and lawyer, requested that GfG post the following communication in response to the GfG posting of Feiner Appointee Representing Villages in Bernstein II Litigation.
The first time I met Bob Bernstein was at the end of the first Town Board meeting I attended, in early April 2005, just after I was appointed chair of SCOBA. As lawyer to lawyer, I went to him, stuck out my hand, and said “Bob, we haven’t met. I’m Herb Rosenberg.” Bob turned his back to me and walked away. Things went downhill from there. The latest is his letter “Feiner Appointee Representing Villages in Bernstein II Litigation,” which makes a number of incorrect statements. I think an answer is due.
Bob says that the SCOBA report contains “materially misleading information as to the facts and the law.” I will talk about SCOBA, because the SCOBA Report is an important and valuable document. After that I will discuss Bob’s other statements.
SCOBA had sixteen members -- nine residents from unincorporated Greenburgh and seven from the villages. The three subcommittee chairs I appointed all live in unincorporated Greenburgh. The notion that I am a “Feiner Appointee” is actually amusing. Feiner planned to appoint Sidney Freund, an Edgemont resident, as chair, but at the last minute Freund decided not to serve. At the end of the organizational meeting another member from Edgemont, Mike Sigal, suggested to Feiner that he appoint me as chair. Feiner hadn’t planned to appoint me but he followed that suggestion out of respect for Mike. Bob’s suggestion that Feiner and I are joined at the hip is ironic.
The SCOBA members surely had their preferences. I am sure that we all sort of hoped that what we find would benefit our areas. But the overriding commitment was to objectivity -- let the chips fall where they may. That is why the Report was adopted unanimously, and everyone, unincorporated area members and village members, felt that we had done good service and produced a useful tool for the Town Board. Indeed, the legal subcommittee, chaired by Mike Sigal, produced an outline which gives more information about the laws pertaining to town and village budgeting than appears in any reference produced in New York State. The N. Y. State Comptroller’s office asked me to email a copy of the Report so that they can distribute it, so you can be sure that it doesn’t contain materially misleading statements of law. The section on how the Town has allocated expenses and revenues is entirely factual. There is no advocacy there. Where the facts were clear we so stated. When there were questions, we referred them to the Town Attorney and the Town Comptroller. I suggest that everyone read the Report. They will have a much better understanding of the problems we all are having to deal with.
So why is Bob so critical of the SCOBA Report? I think it is because it doesn’t support the arguments that he is making.
Bob says that I have been “secretly representing the villages.” Not true. I have been helping the mayors’ lawyers with my knowledge, but I have not been representing the mayors. A small point, perhaps, but Bob knows the difference between attorneys who represent parties and people who are sources for information. And my role has not been secret. I mentioned what I was doing to the Town Attorney, and I am quite sure that he mentioned it to the Town Board. I have appeared at a Town Board work session as spokesperson for the mayors on the legalities of the tennis bubble. I have been designated by the Village Officials Committee to participate in the “mediation” (as have been three unincorporated area residents who were members of SCOBA). My role has been anything but secret. Bob says that “Rosenberg’s representation... was not disclosed in any court papers files by the villages.” Huh? Bob knows, since he is a litigator, that court papers contain the names of counsel of record, not persons who are resources for information. He quotes from the retainer agreement that “Rosenberg... has agreed to assist on a pro bono basis, and lend his expertise and knowledge...” so he knows that I am not representing anyone, but that I offered to lend such knowledge as I have. Bob is implying that there is something wrong about my name not being “disclosed” to the court, when in fact it would be bizarre if it had been. But it sure feeds an implication of conspiracy.
There is nothing wrong with my helping the villages, though Bob implies otherwise with seeming surprise and indignation. Bob started his latest lawsuit seven months after the SCOBA Report was delivered. Should I, or any village resident, sit idly by while Bob tries to quadruple our town taxes by arguing an interpretation of the applicable statute which I, and other lawyers I know, believe is contrary to the plain language of the statute and its legislative history? Of course not. I am objective, but I am not impartial about Bob’s efforts to have the village residents pay for “the brick sidewalks in Old Edgemont,” the town’s parks and recreational programs, and many other things like it. I happen to know the law.
Let me leave you with a thought. Problems can be discussed and resolved. Insults and attacks, smears and threats cannot be. The problems which have now come to the forefront need a more sensible approach than the one exemplified by Bob’s letter.
Herbert Rosenberg