Council meeting features discussion on downtown mall frustrations
There was a degree of frustration on all sides in council chambers Monday night over the long-simmering dispute over the state of the downtown mall after a resident raised the issue during public comments.
Some council members initially joined in the call of Richard Richmond to have the state's comptroller's office audit the city's legal fees associated with the city's dispute and the current lawsuit with the Mall Merchants Association.
Molino noted, however, that the city was audited last year and no irregularities related to legal bills were found.
He also asked what the goal of such an audit would be. The legal fees are public record and have been released before.
Richmond said he would like to see an itemized list of attorney fees for the mall, even suggesting audio go back six years to check for any inadvertent double billing.
The city's financial statements are scrutinized every year by an independent accountant, Molino told the council, and "they report any fraud or inconsistencies."
There have been no such reports.
Last year, resident John Roach issued a public records request and received documents showing the city's legal fees related to mall litigation, but some material was redacted if it could reveal information covered by attorney-client privilege.
An audit, Molino suggested, would not necessarily uncover the kind of information perhaps some think it might.
"The comptroller is not going to provide you with guidance on what you pay for what services," Molino said. "They're not going to come in and tell you you're paying too much for police services, you're paying too much for fire services or you're paying too much for this."
Council members such as John Deleo expressed concern about how much was being spent on mall litigation and compared the years-long conflict with the mall association to a messy divorce that has gone on too long.
More than just the legal fees, perhaps, Deleo said, "people are concerned about the mall and the 57 buckets and how long does this divorce will go on."
After the meeting, Molino hinted at his own frustration with five or six years of disputes over the mall, but also expressed hope that a once-and-for-all solution can be reached during legal negotiations.
The condition of the mall and the disputes over the mall create a perception problem, Molino said, that could hold back redevelopment and brownfield development.
"It does not help the long-term success of the city nor the long-term success of the businesses and the redevelopment potential downtown, so, yes, it does hurt," Molino said. "It hurts everybody. I think everybody's business involved is going to benefit when it's resolved, and the city as a whole, and the community, will be able to get through this, and I hope it's a milestone that we can get past and say we were able to get past that hurdle."
There is an openness, Molino believes, to finding a solution to the disputes that led to the lawsuit, the involves negotiation and not further litigation.
"I think both parties want to resolve this issue and it's just a matter of coming together to find common ground that is going to meet everybody's needs," Molino said.
Just for the record, Richard's last name is Richmond.
There are parallels common to the MALL and OBAMA CARE.
Since their inception neither was well thought out and both are financially unsustainable. THE BATAVIA MALL was built on a flawed business model while OBAMA CARE has proven to be flawed and as leaky as the roof in the concourse.
Our elected members of Congress calling for transparency and open government can’t get straight answers about OBAMA CARE’S true cost because of President Obama’s unquestioning supporters and enablers.
Our elected members of City Council calling for transparency and open government can’t get straight answers about the City Attorney’s fees regarding the Mall litigation.
Jason Molino has said in the past that disclosing the true cost would give the other side the advantage in the litigation......really? How? He referred to Attorney-client confidentiality. Who exactly is the client or clients? Do they include the Council as a whole or the individual Council Member?
Because of the most recent controversy swirling around the Mall regarding the New Year’s Eve Party, I went to the Council Meeting of January 12th to ask them to direct the City Manager to have the New York State Comptroller Audit the Attorney’s fees regarding the Mall litigation.
Council discussed my request in the “the response to public” where the public may not comment, but must listen only; fair enough. Council informally moved to suspend the rules for me to respond to give them clarification.
I respectfully requested they should go back 5 or 6 years of itemized billing for the Attorney’s bill relating to the Mall litigation only. It is my understanding the firm the City uses does not audit for what I’m requesting. No real audit has been done in the narrow and reasonable parameters I asked for. There are no checks and balances to insure there is no inadvertent-honest mistakes of double billing that have happened in past.
The City Manager audits the Attorney’s bill. In other words “The client audits his attorney’s bill and we the taxpayers must pay the bill. We taxpayers may however; if we choose, “jump through the hoops” may foil to receive a redacted version which brings us back to where we started.
Our City Manager stated in Joanne Beck’s column-QUESTION SPURS CANDID TALK ABOUT CITY VERSES MALL LITIGATION “The negativity, no matter what it is, does not help the long-term of the city. “It hurts everybody, I think everybody will benefit when this is resolved.”
Oblique and opaque explanations and resolutions will result in more negativity not less. There are reasons why there should be transparency and open government; just as there are consequences when there are not.