Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenburgh board debate turns contentious over social media policy and forensic-audit postings; deputy building inspector defends staff
Summary
At the April 21 work session the Greenburgh town supervisor held over a proposed social media policy and the appointment of a part-time deputy town attorney, prompting a prolonged exchange over website postings related to a forensic audit, allegations about fiscal shortfalls, and personnel oversight. Deputy building inspector Liz Garrity publicly defended her office and staff.
Supervisor Paul Feiner placed the draft social media policy and a part-time deputy town-attorney appointment on hold at the April 21 Greenburgh work session, saying posts and letters about a recent forensic audit on the town website were damaging to the town’s reputation and property values.
That move prompted an extended, at times heated, exchange among board members. Several board members defended publishing the forensic audit and corrective actions, read prepared statements and cited delinquent-tax figures and an estimated revenue shortfall from the controller and the forensic-review material. “We are addressing the problem head on,” one board member said while listing delinquent-tax and collection figures the group has identified.
Why it matters: The debate touched on the town’s transparency and public communications policy, allegations of mismanagement, and the oversight of staff — issues that can affect public trust and the administration of municipal services.
Key developments and statements
- Holdover and request for public comment: The supervisor said he wanted the social media policy to be presented publicly and discussed before a vote so residents could comment; he also said he objected to personal attacks and some material being posted to the town website.
- Forensic audit and fiscal figures: Other board members defended the forensic audit and argued for keeping the findings and corrective actions visible so the public understands the town’s fiscal challenges. During the exchange one member read a statement that referenced a New York Post interview and described the audit’s findings and estimated shortfalls.
- Deputy building inspector’s remarks: Liz Garrity introduced herself and said the building department employs four New York State code-enforcement officers who conduct inspections; she characterized prior statements that the department had only one inspector as false and said the staff has been working long hours to serve residents. “I will provide you with whatever report I have shown,” Garrity said, defending staff work and noting efforts to streamline permitting and electronic submissions.
- Staffing and appointments: The supervisor said he was holding over the part-time deputy town-attorney appointment because he felt one person should not have two jobs; other members said the proposed arrangement was manageable and described the deputy’s plans to perform town-attorney duties outside the building-department hours.
- Motion to executive session: Near the end of open session the supervisor moved to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters and to seek legal advice; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor.
What happens next
The social media policy and the appointment were held over for further discussion; board members requested inspection reports and additional materials related to staffing before the next meeting. The board entered executive session for personnel and legal discussions.
