Acting Supreme Court Judge Nesbitt signed the following order compelling the Village to appear and explain why an order should not be granted finding the Village in violation of State law. Also attached in this file is the proof of service and affidavit of truth: Onelyons Article 78 case 759060001.
Grant language requires that alternatives to dissolution are to be drafted =Partially True with explanation The LGE grant process gives the option of applying for funds to research alternatives to dissolution AFTER completing the required dissolution plan as requried by GML 17-A. PER the Mayor’s statements to FLT Reporter Jule Anderson, the MAYOR is the one who added this language to the grant application. This is now required that the village consider alternatives.
Mayor’s assertion that village board approved the creation of two plans on 9/11/12 board meeting = FALSE. Mayor was approved to execute contract and submit a request for grant funding. No discussion of actual approval of the language of the final grant funding is found in the village minutes. However, an EMAILobtained via FOIL shows the Mayor acknowledges verbally obtaining permission from the Village Board on 9/26/2012 and notes a formal approval will be obtained 10/9/2012. None is noted in the 10/9/12 minutes. This appears to be an illegal act under the OPEN MEETINGS LAWS and is representative of behavior ONELYONS has challenged the village about.
Mayors assertion that MYRA Fedyniak of LGE required her to put the language into the proposal =Inconclusive Reviewof EMAILS does not support Mayors assertion here, but we note that Mayor reports she met in person with Myra Fedyniak. We have no written correspondence to support the claim at this time.
Trustees Vanstean and Alvaro deny knowledge of Mayor plan to create two plans, Trustee Greco asserting this was always the case = FALSE Review of EMAILS 9/26/2012 by Mayor Kleisle report that she briefed the board the previous evening and received their approval.
Dissolution Committee Chair reporting at 3/21/2012 meeting that the requirement for two plans was IN THE LAW =FALSE REVIEW of GML 17-A shows that this is not required in the law. We don’t know how the chair received this information.
MRB Diana Smith 4/11/13 assertation that this was clear from the beginning that there is ONLY one plan, and that alternatives would be part of the plan =FALSE REVIEW of all Village Board meetings and all Dissolution Committee meetings does not support this assertion. OneLyons Member DeWolf FOILED the Village of LYONS and received emails and the LGE plan, which revealed this information to us.
OneLyons will be copying our research to the FingerLakes times encouraging a skeptical review of our findings here. We also challenge the mayor and village board to challenge our findings and back up any challenges with proof.
OneLyons continues to believe that the relationship between MRB and the village is extremely cozy and questionable. There are many financial and ethical conflicts of interest present. From the emails, and from the confusion, we can begin to now see and realize the results of this cozy relationship. MRB was advising the Mayor on the process since at least 9/7/2012 in a direct relationship on how to proceed. MRB actually CREATED the part 3 and WORK PLAN of the LGE Grant, and strongly guided the wording of the RFP that was put to bid. Is it surprising MRB won the contract?
Further, the emails obtained via the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) show that the Mayor held an illegal session of the board for the purpose of obtaining consent, and that the anticipated 10/9/2012 follow up approval of the language of the Grant was never entered into the minutes! This is a violation of the OPEN MEETINGS LAW and clearly the behavior OneLyons has been campaigning against.
OneLyons looks forward to more media involvement. We believe that such scrutiny helps open the doors and clear the secrecy and distrust. We will be forwarding these findings to the FLT and INVITE the public to sign in and comment below this post: