Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the TB1 Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated exchange at Greenburgh work session over TB1 resolution and delayed appointments
Summary
Supervisor Paul Feiner said he would seek a second legal opinion on TB1 and held over several appointments, prompting sharp pushback from other board members who said the resolution is procedurally improper and that changing appointment practices midstream undermines process.
A prolonged and sometimes heated discussion at the Aug. 13 Greenburgh Town Board work session centered on a proposed resolution known as TB1 and the supervisor’s decision to hold over several appointments, including the nomination of Dylan Pine to the planning board.
Supervisor Paul Feiner said he submitted a proposed resolution asking the Association of Towns for a legal opinion on whether TB1, which would limit certain participation on land-use boards, should be enacted as a local law rather than a resolution. “I am almost certain that you can’t do it by resolution,” Feiner said, arguing he wanted a second opinion before enforcement.
Several other board members disagreed. One council member said the policy as drafted is appropriate and enforceable and noted the town has sent letters to planning and zoning board members about the matter. Another member defended the town attorney’s work and questioned why the board would bypass the town attorney for outside counsel.
The exchange widened into procedural disagreements over agenda practice, with members arguing whether placing items on an agenda without polling colleagues is constructive. Several members said changing the town’s usual appointment and agenda procedures in the middle of the process creates confusion; others said communication and pre-meeting polling could avoid these conflicts.
Supervisor Feiner announced he would hold the appointment of Dylan Pine and several other reappointments until the September meeting to allow time to seek outside legal advice and to gather additional input. Board members criticized the delay as an ad hoc change of rules and warned it could be perceived as politically motivated. The meeting record shows the board debated process, due process, and appropriate channels for legal advice rather than voting on TB1 that night.
The board agreed to continue the agenda and to revisit the held appointments at the next meeting; no final action on TB1 was recorded during the work session.
