Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents assail supervisor over legal strategy, question $293,000 in case costs
Summary
Public commenters at the April 22 Red Hook meeting criticized the supervisor’s handling of a property dispute and town legal spending, asked which board authorized appeals and filings by outside law firms, and urged more transparency and board approvals for litigation work.
Several residents used the town’s public‑comment period at the April 22 meeting to press the board for answers about litigation spending and legal representation in ongoing disputes.
One commenter asked the board to disclose when it authorized Keane & Bean or other firms to pursue appeals, questioned why a firm that had reportedly recused itself was subsequently involved, and asked for minutes showing any authorization. The same speaker said the town had already spent about $293,000 on the case to date; that figure was reported by the commenter during public remarks and was not confirmed in the meeting record.
Richard Ross, identified by the chair when he was called to speak, assailed the supervisor and some board members as having been “nothing more than rubber stamps” and accused them of fiscal mismanagement, unauthorized spending and poor oversight. Ross said past votes and agreements appeared to conflict with current legal activity and urged the board to answer which members authorized recent filings and to consider whether representatives should remain in office.
Why it mattered: The comments focus on a specific Article 78 court matter raised by the Boat Club and on broader concerns about board transparency and legal spending. Several residents asked the board to authorize or clarify which outside counsel were retained for which matters and whether those assignments had board approval.
Board response and next steps: The supervisor acknowledged the public comments and said the matter and related attorney work have been the subject of previous meeting discussion; he suggested that requesters may file FOIL requests for records but also asked board members present to state whether they had authorized counsel. The board did not make a formal decision on the record during the meeting; residents said they may ask opposing counsel to move to strike filings if they believe the town lacked authorization to make them.
Attribution note: Direct quotations attributed to Richard Ross are from his public comment at the April 22 meeting. Other monetary figures and allegations in this article were raised by public commenters during the comment period and are reported here as statements made at the meeting.
