Colarusso was not on the agenda for the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting in October. Although for months the Planning Board had been holding special meetings to consider the Colarusso issue, no special meeting for that purpose was scheduled in October.
On October 8, when city attorney Cheryl Roberts presented the budget for legal services to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, she requested $100,000 be allocated in the budget for possible litigation, but the nature of that litigation was discussed in executive session. On October 20, the BEA reduced the amount budgeted for litigation to $50,000, because, in the words of Council president Tom DePietro, "The last time we had that kind of litigation, it was $50,000." (It will be remembered that A. Colarusso and Sons sued the City of Hudson in September 2017.)
On October 19, the Common Council meeting began with an executive session that lasted forty minutes to discuss "a matter of personnel." Roberts was part of that discussion, but since it happened in executive session, no one outside of city government knows what was discussed.
Now Gossips has learned that the mayor has called special meetings with the Common Council and the Planning Board to take place tomorrow, Thursday, October 28. Word is that attorney/client privilege is being invoked to allow these meetings to happen without public notice or public access. Given the hints dropped along the way, it's tempting to surmise that the potential litigation and the executive and attorney/client sessions all have to do with Colarusso and its desire to continue using the dock and to widen and extend its haul road.
In May 2020, Alderman Shershah Mizan (Third Ward) said he wanted the Common Council to pressure the Planning Board to approve the haul road. Jeff Baker, counsel to the Council, who was at the time also counsel to the Planning Board, offered the opinion that the Council "has a right to let the Planning Board know how they are feeling." Council president Tom DePietro, who had once chaired the Planning Board, then opined, "It would have no authority with them."
Is it possible now, with a perceived threat of another lawsuit brought against the City by Colarusso, that the Council and the Planning Board are being advised to avoid litigation and acquiesce? If so, is it appropriate that Cheryl Roberts, our city attorney, should be the one delivering that message?
Commenting on a Gossips post about Jeff Baker's resignation as assistant city attorney and counsel to the Council, published on October 19, "unheimlich" revealed a possible conflict of interest for Roberts when it comes to Colarusso:
It was in May that a press release for the Greenburger Center's Wellness Hub announced a parcel "soon to be donated" by A. Colarusso and Son in Greenport. Cheryl Roberts, Executive Director of the Greenburger Center, should have recused herself at once, especially as the gift was still pending.
Come to think of it, is the donation still "soon to be"? Why didn't she recuse herself from any involvement with the Colarusso application ages ago?
Given this situation, one may well wonder if Roberts is the right person to be advising the Common Council and the Planning Board about matters relating to A. Colarusso and Sons.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
If I volunteer that our attorneys are crooks on the take I may get in trouble. So I won't say that.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel free to accuse them of being indecently, even disgustingly self-interested, having long since forgotten who it is they're supposed to serve.
We're now rid of one of them anyway. Now we must work on the second.
Have I ever written about the time, in 2013, when I submitted a criminal complaint about Cheryl Roberts to the Attorney General? That concerned the filing of a document my evidence argued she knew was false, which is a felony. It concerned the previous Standard Oil property and oil depot next to the 4.4 acres (which, incidentally, she'd just spent several weeks wrongly asserting was never owned by Standard Oil).
Unfortunately, the AG at the time was that unethical party hack Schneiderman, and the complaint was dead in the water.
Now, though, we have an AG who seem to care about such things. I have no information that Roberts has recused herself (the new meeting suggests that she hasn't), so perhaps it's time to turn up the heat and maybe even get her disbarred. She despises the public, which has many of us who pay her salary despising her right back.
The Aldermen who don't understand these things should take a back seat, they'll be humiliated in the end, I promise.
I say NO QUARTER (figuratively speaking).
Avoidance of lawsuits: The guiding principle of Hudson City government.
ReplyDeleteWhat vision.
It's worse than a mere avoidance of lawsuits, dkon. There are other motivations.
DeleteThroughout the LWRP process Roberts always put herself first - or rather, her confidence in her skill set - and the public last. In her mind she always knows what's best for others, the public's corrections of her serial errors making no impression on her at all. Fresh occasions for resentment maybe, but never humility.
In the end the Aldermen managed to win some concessions, but the waterfront program was Robert's baby from first to last.
"Last" was the moment she realized she'd been duped by Holcim, Inc. all along, and despite her brilliant skills negotiating with them unilaterally.
Holcim probably always intended to sell to Colarusso and then cut the city loose. Here was Roberts to the Holcim attorney on 1/30/13, the moment the crud fell from her eyes: "it seems clear that Holcim's position, if accurately reflected in your voice mail, is designed to delay the property transfer to the City until after this alleged sale to a private party."
Later it turned out that it was a land transfer we didn't even need. I'll never forget her arrogance at the time condescending to explain that title searches don't look further back than 40 years. But the city's illegitimate sale of the 4.4 acres was within that time and she missed it. And only to a Sophist would it make any sense that Standard Oil couldn't have owned the neighboring parcel because that would have been before 40 years ago.
Long story short: she blew it. Thanks to her the city doesn't have a state-approved LWRP, nor were we reimbursed by the state for her efforts.
But what was the motivation? Notice that her political c.v. touts her great expertise in land use issues. What a joke! Has she even had any other experience in that area, or is it just the one failure.
This time, though, her motivation is all about coveting a personal prize which an applicant to the Planning Board is waving before her. Naturally it's still about ego, too, except that in her role as Executive Director of the organization that would directly benefit from her meddling she claimed to be ignorant for some time of the identity of the non-anonymous donor. Thinking that people should actually swallow that guff is perfectly consistent with her usual arrogance.
Roberts' Achilles heel is that she surrounds herself with sycophants whose blind faith in the credentialed classes alleviates them from having to ask obvious questions. But unfortunately for Roberts, not everybody is so stupid.
You'd think she'd have learned that in Hudson eight, nine, and ten years ago, but no, not a chance.
Extremely helpful analysis of what's going on beneath the cruddy hood. Rancid.
DeleteI'm utterly speechless. This has gone too far. Let the Planning Board do its work!
ReplyDeletewish you were still the chair
DeleteMargaret Morris
1.
ReplyDeleteI'm informed that Roberts had recused herself on Friday, providing no explanation other than denying the possibility of a "conflict." (If she hadn't denied the obvious, one wonders what else would begin to unravel.)
But whatever attorney they've found to guide today's Special Meetings advising the Council and Board on whatever subject it is they don't wish the public to hear, this relentless attempt to influence the Planning Board's SEQRA review and decision making is the same effort and momentum set in place by Roberts in late 2019.
That was the same year in which Ken Dow and Judge Melkonian sorted out the meaning of Roberts' abstruse Core Riverfront District. Later, she was eager for a second chance to explain her law, and in her own way, but once the applicant had waved its opportunity to appeal the Melkonian judgement the meaning of the text arrived at by Dow was set in stone. Nobody needed Roberts any longer to explain anything.
But since early 2020, Roberts' evident intention was to challenge and undermine the Planning Board's authority. That was how many understood her offer to visit the Planning Board to explain the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Never mind that the state already provides SEQRA workshops for the benefit of local governments, Roberts' tutorial would be explained entirely in the context of the newfound meaning she'd finagle for her previously confusing Core Riverfront District.
So what does her recusal really mean? To what extent is she recused? If the recusal was not for reasons of "conflict," as she claimed, then does anyone doubt that this morning she's on the phone furthering the same pretext she's been working on for years? Knowing her character as we do (or lack thereof), mightn't she be coaching the attorney for today's Special Meetings right this minute? That would be consistent with the way Roberts has pursued her private interests all along.
And all of this begs the question - she has recused herself from "what" exactly?
DeleteEvidently she explained herself in a letter which no one is allowed to see because it's "privileged."
DeleteBut Roberts has no say in whether or not her words are privileged. That can only come at the request of the client, which in this case is the Common Council.
Residents should demand that Tom DePietro stop protecting Cheryl Roberts from our wrath, lest he becomes the next target. It's bad enough the Council is allowing this Special Meeting to take place. It's 100% Roberts' doing, which means that our representatives are still doing her bidding.
It's up to DePietro to proclaim the communication privileged, not Roberts. Right now he's covering for her, a mere advisor, because he's forgotten the purpose of government.
Let's cut to the chase.
DeleteTom DePietro, why are YOU protecting Roberts and the mayor?
It's your decision for the entire Council, so the same question goes to the Aldermen. Why aren't you all failing the public interest?
Roberts' recusal letter is the public's business! Learn your purpose in government and stop covering for her.
You're all at fault as much as she is for this canard about "privilege." Use your brains, people.
2.
ReplyDeleteBut that raises another question, whether or not there's any justification for today's attorney/client privilege. Who is it who's requested these meetings? If they're to be closed, then a request from the mayor to hold the meetings has no authority.
The NYS Committee on Open Government deems that the attorney/client relationship is "operable only when a municipal board or official seeks the legal advice of an attorney acting in his or her capacity as an attorney, and where there is no waiver of the privilege by the client."
Also, "In general, 'the privilege applies only if ... the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client' [and] ..." the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client'" [People v. Belge, 1977).
https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o4622.html
Does the Office of the Mayor have the authority to privilege meetings on behalf of the Common Council and Planning Board?
Leaving aside the Planning Board's meeting (its members mustn't appear as being incurious), has the Common Council officially requested a Special Meeting? If yes, then it's up to the Council to justify why it doesn't waive the right to secrecy.
But if these meetings were called by the Office of the Mayor (read: Roberts) and the secrecy is imposed, then these closed meetings will be in violation of the Open Meetings Law unless the City's executive branch truly enjoys such powers over the legislative branch.
To the Aldermen I say get a spine, ask questions, fight back. Don't take Roberts' meddling lying down. Let everyone hear the latest elaboration of her clear-as-mud thinking.
Cheryl Roberts has no business representing the City of Hudson, and at this point, needs to be removed from her position. There is a reason so few people have trust in government, and the naked corruption on display by Kamal Johnson is one of the main reasons so many people are writing in Don Moore for mayor.
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Board is an independent body, and we should support their deliberative and thoughtful approach to this extremely important issue. Roberts has been pulling the CC and other bodies into executive session to lobby on behalf of Colarusso for some time, apparently with the carrot of a land donation for her efforts. Trying to lobby the Council to put pressure on the board is unethical (think Trump calling election officials in swing states) and doing it behind closed doors is simply cowardly.
Kamal Johnson has the power to dismiss Roberts, but, just as he showed when his landlord wanted everyone else to pay his property taxes, he’s either too corrupt or too weak-minded to do the obviously right thing.
Remember to vote.
Is there anything that involves the current city government that doesn't stink of corruption and shady dealings. It's really astonishing!
ReplyDeleteIt's got that rancid, Trumpy smell to it for sure
DeleteSeeing as Baker has resigned and Roberts has recused herself, isn't anyone curious as to who the attorney will be for today's attorney-client-privileged meeting?
ReplyDeleteRumor has it that today's meeting is with an attorney from the City's insurance carrier to speak about the Colarusso application. (Huh?)
If the City still needs a reason to fire Cheryl Roberts, then she's the one who'd have gone out of her way to inform the insurance company that Colarusso may sue the Planning Board and the City again. This is because the Planning Board and the Supreme Court alike fail to grasp her muddy laws as she understands them, and also as Colarusso needs them to be interpreted.
Why else is an insurance company making a special trip to inform the Council and Planning Board on the Colarusso application? That's nuts. What, do we suppose they caught wind of it reading the The Register-Star?
Is it typical for an insurance company to directly involve itself with the decision-making of local government? What are the industry's limits on such practice, and doesn't that become a lot more complicated in the context of Roberts conflict of interest?
Roberts may have recused herself, but her preemptive efforts against the work of the Planning Board have gone on for some time and will probably continue. Dollars to donuts she's on the phone with the insurance company right now, and so far they've only heard her skewed interpretation of the circumstances.
Meanwhile, the ONLY reason that today's meetings will be privileged is that the Council and Planning Board have requested it - not merely acquiesced but "claimed" the privilege (see above: People v. Belge, 1977).
But what's the conceivable reason to request secrecy? Not to give the potential litigant any ideas? (cue laughter). Whatever the reason, its origin is Cheryl Roberts.
I don't suppose anyone else even wants secrecy aside from her. The Open Meetings Law is clear, though, that a privilege only occurs if the Council and/or Board "claim" it. And so they must have done so, but why?
Dear Common Council and Planning Board: DO NOT CLAIM ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE in furtherance of the machinations of Roberts-and-Colarusso.
Pretty outrageous really
ReplyDeleteThe buck stops with the Mayor. He has allowed egregious and inappropriate behavior by the two principal attorneys in City Hall. It's time to clean house.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem here is that our Planning Board has been messing around with the Colarusso application for six years. The Board has been through 4 Chairs and 4 attorneys, and has made little progress, despite the fact that citizen participants have provided a massive amount of input. In fact, after six years the Board hasn't even come to the point of demanding an Environmental Impact Statement from the company.
ReplyDeleteEarly in the process Colarusso refused to provide basic truck traffic data to the Board, which would allow the Board to arrive at an informed conclusion about the impacts on our City. The application should have been tossed out at that point. And then Colarusso filed a ridiculous lawsuit (which they lost) that set the process back for one-and-a-half years. There is no good reason that this mess should have taken so long-- it is obvious that given the massive downside impacts that Colarusso would impose on our waterfront zone and the utter lack of any economic upside for the City, this ordeal should have ended years ago. Colarusso has been an obstructive, obnoxious applicant, but the City has failed miserably in its to duty to represent the best interests of the citizens.
Well said Peter.
DeleteConsidering how long the process has taken which, as you point out, is largely due to the applicant's antics and obstructions, I think it's absurd for anyone to be worrying about potential bias on the part of the Planning Board when not a single action has been committed by the Board in all that time. Not one.
The first action to be taken, which probably lies just ahead, is the SEQRA "determination of significance."
Rumor has it that the suggestion of bias, something that's extremely difficult to prove in court, would become ripe for litigation if and when the Board issues a positive declaration to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement. But it would have to be a clear-cut SEQRA infraction and not just a claim of bias for a complaint about a positive declaration to survive a court challenge. Otherwise, ordering an environmental impact statement is just another step in the process.
But any complaint at all against a "Pos-Dec" by the Planning Board would be dead on arrival considering the City's adopted policy while amending the zoning in 2011:
"The FGEIS [Final Generic Impact Statement] recommends preparation of a SEIS [Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement] if [the landowner] undertakes actions necessary to use the causeway ... should those actions trigger the conditional use provisions of the proposed zoning" (2011 Findings Statement, p. 11).
And, an SEIS "will assist the Planning Commission in determining whether the action can be approved ..." (2011 Findings, p. 16).
https://cms3files.revize.com/hudsonny/document_center/Waterfront/821.pdf
Not only did the 2011 Common Council and Office of the Mayor recommend that today's Planning Board conduct an environmental impact statement, they thought it should be a supplement to the comprehensive or "generic" EIS they'd just completed.
In that case, if Colarusso's plans were a bad fit with the recommendations that the City left itself, then the company shouldn't have bought the property two years after the city adopted the policy. That's why it's a safe guess that a court challenge over a Pos-Dec and its environmental impact statement would yield a judgement somewhere in the neighborhood of "caveat emptor."
For readers who're new to Hudson, it's important to know that the above Findings Statement and the 2011 amendments themselves were drafted by the same city attorney, Cheryl Roberts, who's just recused herself from having anything to do with the matter. The main reason so many argued for her recusal is that she cannot be trusted to interpret her own laws, nor for that matter is she trustworthy in any other department. Nobody wants or needs to hear from her anymore (though there are plenty who knew she was a problem as early as 2006).
The reasons she's still employed by the city is a sordid tale in itself, but don't expect to reach Roberts for comment as she refuses to interact with the public. It's long passed time for her to go.
Has that property ever been tested for pollution and contamination? If it's contaminated, it could be condemned.
ReplyDeleteThe Standard Oil property where the oil depot once stood (ca. 1889 to 1930) is owned by Colarusso Ventures and has never been tested for contaminants.
DeleteHowever one feels about the Colarusso issue, a City attorney taking donations from them while lobbying before them to the City where they have business is beyond repulsive, and the mayor sponsoring this kind of activity is unacceptable. If you hired a lawyer and they took money from your opposition in a lawsuit and tried to force you to settle, you would fire them, sue them, and work to have them disbarred.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Kamal Johnson and Tom DePietro have allowed this kind of corruption to openly continue on their watch (Roberts has not yet been terminated) is just one more reason voters need to clean house.
Please write-in Don Moore for Mayor and John Friedman for Common Council President. Integrity matters.
I only wish that more write-in campaigns had started just a little earlier, I think they would have actually won.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete