Star chamber




The following letter to the New York State Committee on Open Government was shared with the Garden City News:

NYS Committee on Open Government Attention: Robert Freeman, Executive Director

Dear Mr. Freeman:

Thanks again for taking the time last week to speak with me about the sale of Village owned property in Garden City.

Before we spoke I had not been aware of the application of Public Officers Law §105(1)(h) to the scenario under discussion.

If you will kindly indulge me a bit more, I would like to share certain documents with you, documents which were furnished to me by the Village in August 2014 in response to a FOIL request. These documents are attached. In my view, these documents have relevance to the statute you cited.

During our conversation I mentioned that the sale of the property at issue was authorized by the Village’s Board of Trustees at a public meeting held on December 19, 2013. The Village has purportedly furnished me with all documents it maintains in connection with the sale. The minutes of the Trustees December 19, 2013 meeting are attached. They are the only minutes provided by the Village in response to my FOIL request. It is safe to conclude that the sale was not discussed at any public meeting prior to December 19, 2013. In any case, just last week the Village’s current attorney wrote to me stating “Respectfully the Village has no further documentation to offer…regarding this matter.”

Long before this only public meeting the Village, in private, made all its deliberations and decisions to effectuate this sale. These events are notable:

On July 11, 2012 the Village received a letter from the then prospective purchasers inquiring whether the property may be bought and kept “green and open as is.”

On July 13, 2012 the Village Administrator wrote to the Mayor and Board of Trustees stating:

“Enclosed for the Board’s consideration and direction is a letter from Messrs. [X, Y and Z] on behalf of the Franklin Court Mews, inquiring as to the possibility of purchasing the triangular piece of Village owned property to the north of the homes. I have enclosed a copy of an incorporated Village map which shows the property that they are interested in purchasing for open green space.

“For the information of the Board, the Incorporated Village sold garages at Franklin Court to the Franklin Court Mews in 1983 for use by residents of the Mews.

“Please advise as to how you would like to proceed and authorizing the engagement of an appraisal to determine a value.”

The same year at the request of the Village Attorney, the property was appraised without any public discussion about retaining the appraiser.

On August 21, 2013 the Village’s attorney wrote to the purchaser’s attorney advising: “We intend to give you a quitclaim deed with a restrictive covenant setting forth that the parcel be held and used as open space and not developed, with a reverter to the Village if that condition is no longer met.”

The Village’s discourse concerning this parcel of property was concealed until the December 19, 2013 Trustees meeting, which itself was a sham insofar as this property was concerned. Before this meeting was held the Village had already decided to proceed with the sale. The conveyance had been predetermined. This “public” meeting was nothing more than an opportunity to rapidly apply the rubber stamp of approval on planning actions conducted in a star chamber over the preceding seventeen months.

On that night, in a matter of minutes, a resolution was passed designating this property as surplus and authorizing its sale. The mayor signed the deed the same night. The closing was held the next morning. By the time the sale was covered in the local press, title had already passed to the purchasers.

When the story was covered the Trustees launched into a self-laudatory spiel about how “the land must forever remain green space, otherwise, it reverts back to the Village.” (Please refer to the attached Newsday article published on December 23, 2013.) Distressingly, the non-purchasing Village residents were again bushwhacked in June 2014 when, without notice, the new owner erected a 61/2 foot tall, 165 foot long fence with locking gates along the only open side to this triangular park. Unbeknownst to everyone save the parties to the sale, days before the Trustees authorized the sale the Village attorney took the highly irregular measure of writing to the purchasers’ attorney saying that “the Village consents to the installation of the fence…on the property to be conveyed.”

The installation of the fence, as intended, prohibits access to “open space” and is what troubled many who were not in on the purchase, and prompted the inquiry into the sale. The timing of the fence installation, to me at least, suggests a strategy to thwart an Article 78 challenge to the sale. Until the fence went up, nobody suspected shenanigans.

By my lights the Village’s actions scorn the Legislative Declaration of the Open Meetings Law which, in part, states:

“It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. “

Admittedly I am only now becoming acquainted with this law. Perhaps the Committee on Open Government is willing to issue an advisory opinion educating this Village resident and the Village of Garden City’s Board of Trustees by interpreting how the Open Meetings Law applies to the Village’s actions with this particular sale of Village property.

If you think it is appropriate I will forward this correspondence to the current Village Administrator.

Thank you once again.

Rod Coyne



Leave a Reply