Yonkers, NY, August 26, 2010 -- A meeting of the Charter Revision Commission seemingly came to order tonight under the aegis of Chairman Julius Walls, Jr. Even though a “draft” of today’s Final Report stipulates the commission met on July 13, 22, 29, August 2, and 26, 2010, and further stipulates at every meeting, except the July 22, 2010, at which a quorum was not reached, all meetings were conducted at City Hall, but were not open to the public, even though the Final Report draft states they were.
Were the meetings “noticed” as required by way of official media outlets specified authorized to carry Public Notices in a timely manner, City Hall would have proof to that effect. They do not have such proof because for most of the dates mentioned above, notice was not accomplished. Furthermore, 72 hours or more prior notice is the standard, but oftentimes City Hall subscribes to 24 hour notice to be sufficient. Even so, they fail at the dictates of their own lesser stringent choosing.
The Final Report draft fails to make notice of the Public Hearing called for August 16, 2010, which was not “noticed”. After the speakers in attendance spoke, Chairman Walls advised the Charter Revision Commission would deliver its rulings and future actions on August 23, 2010.
On August 23, 2010, an acid-tongued blogger advised the Yonkers Tribune the City of Yonkers website gave notice the August 23, 2010 meeting had been changed 4 hours prior to its being previously noted to be conducted, to Thursday, August 26, 2010. August 26, 2010 would have the Charter Revision Commission hold a Public Hearing, to be followed by a determination thereafter.
The August 26, 2010 meeting was not called to order properly. The Final Report draft delineated all the dates upon which the Charter Revision Commission met. There is no notice of a meeting having taken place at any time between the August 23, 2010 date and the August 26, 2010 date. This is important because a formal meeting at which a quorum is present must be called to orderto abide by any legal action of the Charter Revision Commission or any such body to be accepted as legitimate and legal. Conference telephone calls, email notices, texting, faxing, or any form of communication other than the physical presence of board members is required. The Charter Revision Commission did not hold such a meeting. Therefore no action, resolution, purpose, intent, is permissible to be moved forward by the Charter Revision Commission to its intended next step.
Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone’s charge of the Charter Revision Commission, to which the Office of the Yonkers Corporation Counsel served as counsel to the Charter Revision Commission have again collectively failed to abide by the tenets and protocol adhered to throughout these United States.
Mayor Amicone charged the Charter Revision Commission to determine the order of succession should the seat of the Mayor of Yonkers be found vacant for any and all reasons. While its goals were set, the misconduct of the Charter Revision Commission has failed to comply by its not following prescribed protocol. Its findings are moot. Its recommendations are moot. Its charge is unfulfilled. The issue of succession is unanswered.
So far, the collective “ignorance”of the Charter Revision Commission has been exposed as defined above.
It behooves us to now consider the “plot”.
When Chairman Walls asked for a motion to accept the minutes of the August 2, 2010 minutes, Vice-Chairman Robert Gotschall did. Asking for a second, Stephen Szulhan raised his hand. Mr. Szulhan’s second to the motion before the board was not accepted. Chairman Walls divulged he preferred the “second” from someone who attended the August 2, 2010 meeting.
Another issue that acid-tongued bloggers distilled as residing in the “plot” department was an issue raised by Chairman Walls which is derived from the number of people attending the meeting. The Board of the Charter Revision Commission is comprised of one chairman and nine members. A quorum is established upon the attendance of a minimum of 5 board members and the Chairman. The Chairman of the Charter Revision Commission only casts his vote to break a tie. After Chairman Walls’ announcement of that fact, Mr Walls preceded to trespass over the self-defined parameters permitted his chair.
When the issue of moving forth on a charter amendment was presented, the Charter Revision Commission voted 4 in favor with 1 opposed. Chairman Walls chose to insinuate his vote to raise the vote to 5 in favor and 1 opposed. There was no tie that demanded to be broken when the five board members made their initial vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. Chairman Walls was suffering a mathematical anomaly that is impossible to “prove”. It was at Corporation Counsel’s insistence that Chairman Walls encroach on the initial vote. Chairman Walls advised his taking this step is out of the ordinary. Acid-tongued bloggers recognize it is also incorrectly executed. A tie vote did not exist. The vote tabulated is in error in this case, and occurred in two additional circumstances later that evening.
Yonkers Inspector General Dan Schorr must advise Yonkers Mayor Amicone, and Yonkers Corporation Counsel to the merits inherent in the recapitulation of events such as they are. He must gather proof of “notice”. He must determine when and where and the proof of the calling for a Public Hearing and the subsequent meeting conducted Thursday, August 26, 2010. And lastly, he must teach the Charter Revision Commission, and those similarly challenged to define the term “tie vote”.
At issue now is whether Yonkers City Hall will ram the illegal conduct of those it has charged onto an illegal Referendum in November 2010 which will make all who vote affirmatively to be accomplices to a scam perpetrated by Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone and those he has charged to complete his fraud.
Laughably, a Public Notice of the August 26, 2010 Public Hearing and subsequent meeting was placed in the Friday, August 27, 2010 dated weekly newspaper. Acid-tongued bloggers are uncertain whether to define this as "ignorance" or "plot"? What say you?
