Still haven't answered the question

[WNYresident]

The real question is what did the Free***ders do, that it added up to $28,000? They're on offense here, its their lawsuit, they're controlling the ball.

You stil haven't said what "town" had done to add up to $28,000 in legal fees. If you don't know what they did how are defending them against the community that wanted the books audited?

Same goes for DNT. If you not privy to what the lawsuit was trying to block from the towns side of things you really shouldn't be knocking anyone in the community looking into it.

Has anyone foiled the bill the town got for $28,000 to protect who ever the town hired lawyers to protect? I would stop all the other bickering for now and just foil the bill.

That is a lot of legal work for nothing being wrong don't you think? Was the law firm related to someone on the town board?

[DNT]

You stil haven't said what "town" had done to add up to $28,000 in legal fees. If you don't know what they did how are defending them against the community that wanted the books audited?

Same goes for DNT. If you not privy to what the lawsuit was trying to block from the towns side of things you really shouldn't be knocking anyone in the community looking into it.

Has anyone foiled the bill the town got for $28,000 to protect who ever the town hired lawyers to protect? I would stop all the other bickering for now and just foil the bill.

That is a lot of legal work for nothing being wrong don't you think? Was the law firm related to someone on the town board?

It is real simple, the town did not block an audit. They said, we have already audited ourselves, we have already investigated our selves, we have already been audited by an outside agency. There is no reason and there are no findings from thoses audits and investigations that would suggest corruption or fraud. THat is what the town said. THey went on to say, we welcome your audit, audit away.

The freeholders could have paid for that audit right there and then, and there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.

THe freeholders instead, decided to sue the town on the grounds that the town is corrupt and that if it was proven, they would HAVE to, by a court order pay for an audit. If it was proven that they where not corrupt or acting unlawfully, THen the obligation to pay for and conduct an audit would fall on the freeholders.

The town sought legal representation because it now found itself being sued and had to go to court. I think it would be irresponsible to go to court without legal advice - wouldn't you agree bob?

So they didn't block anything, they simply showed up to court with the same information that the freeholders had and it was determined based on the evidence that there was no wrongdoing.

So freeholders, because you lost the case, the obligation to pay for and conduct the audit is on you. Pay for it. Go get it done. The town said it would welcome it. They aren't stopping you, they just don't need to do it. If they don't need to conduct an audit, why should the waste money to do it. You lost, so if you want an audit pay for it.

Make no mistake, the town has not blocked an audit. THe lawsuit was about proving guilt and as a result would require an audit. The town said before the lawsuit, sure we welcome an audit, come and audit, but the freeholders didn't want to pay for it then and they don't want to pay for it now, THe lawsuit was only to assign guilt and then force the town to audit. Because the town did nothing wrong, the courts have no reason to force an audit. If the freeholders still want an audit, they can do one, so long as they pay for it.

About the legal fees, I can't answer that because I don't know the answer. Legal advice when facing a lawsuit against a town can get expensive. I've seem claims on small ding car damage hit $25,000 if nobody budges and it drags on. I'd say we got off cheap......at least this first part.

Ask all you want, I can't tell you anything...If I had the info, I would. The town and the lawyers are the only ones who can tell you this.

Ask the freeholders why if they were so intent on getting this town why they didn't just pay for the audit in the first palce. They could have sued with their findings after ward and recooped their losses, but now they were prooved wrong and they won't pay for an audit. The end result is that they simply just wasted $30,000.00 of taxpayers money for no net result. The answers we had 2 years ago are still the answers we have today, only the town is $30,000.00 lighter. Who are the crooks? THe freholders who siigned the Doering petition are.

[Stevenco]

It is real simple, the town did not block an audit. They said, we have already audited ourselves, we have already investigated our selves, .

How do you investigate yourself? That's sort of like trying to tickle yourself.

[MarkLV]

Very simple question: What was the single factor that initited the lawsuit in the first place?

In order for there to be fire, there has to be smoke. Who saw the smoke first? What was the one thing that made someone say "I think possibly there is some improper spending going on by the Town Of Evans officials at this New York State Convention of Towns event in NYC?"

[DNT]

Very simple question: What was the single factor that initited the lawsuit in the first place?

In order for there to be fire, there has to be smoke. Who saw the smoke first? What was the one thing that made someone say "I think possibly there is some improper spending going on by the Town Of Evans officials at this New York State Convention of Towns event in NYC?"

The single factor is that Robert Doering's group surmised, based on the info they FOILed that the town had acted corruptly and commited fraud. As we have all said all along, he wasn't wrong in questioning that. The town, came back and said, hey people, we did nothing wrong. infact we were well within our travel policy, so tough, we are right. They did their own investigation. Stevenco, they investigated themselves and as a result, found out their per diem rate was too high. THey were investigated by the NYSOSC and the town reported their per diem problem. Instead of beating around the bush, the admitted to the per diem mistake and changed it 1 month later.

They were investigated internally and by an outside agency and there where no findings.

At that point, it is a moot point. there is no evidence that they did any thing unlawful. You may say the did something wasteful (I've said that from the beginning).

This not being good enough, the signing freeholders couldn't give up, so they pushed for a lawsuit. It is at this point the town needed to get legal advice. Now they have to go to court.

All along, the town has said, we have nothing to hide, audit us...but we aren't going to pay for it as we have already done what we need to do and the result is no corruption.

The freeholders might like everyone to think that the town was trying to "Prevent" an audit, but the town simply said, we've done an audit, we've done and investigation, we've been investigated by the NYSOSC and all the findings are the same. But if that is not good enough, then go ahead and audit us....we welcome it, but we aren't paying for it.

The freeholders were so sure that there was corruption, and they also had no money to audit them that they decided to sue . The lawsuit that THEY, THE FREEHOLDERS brought was worded in such a way that they had to prove current corruption and only then would the town HAVE to do an audit.

Well the town needed to defend themselves...so no matter what it looks like they are trying to avoid an audit. But when you are being sued, you just can't simply blow it off.

So the evidence says it all, and proves that the towns spending was not corrupt or unlawful. So the end result is that the lawsuiet does not require the town to do an audit....But if the freeholders still want an audit done, the town can't stop it from happening, the Town is just not obligated to pay for it.

This lawsuit was not really about proving who was guilty of fraud or not, it was about establishing guilt in order to determin who must pay for the audit.

The freeholders did not prove their claim, so if they want to do the audit, they can, but they have to pay for it.

So pay for it group of 35 signers. The town has said it welcomes it, so go ahead and do it. Take up a collection and chip in and audit them.

[WNYresident]

This lawsuit was not really about proving who was guilty of fraud or not, it was about establishing guilt in order to determin who must pay for the audit.

And the law firm the town chose charged $28,000 to tell you that? Thats pretty lame on thier part.


Anyone ever foil the legal bill to see how the hours were spent?

[SmokeyBurnout]

And the law firm the town chose charged $28,000 to tell you that? Thats pretty lame on thier part.


Anyone ever foil the legal bill to see how the hours were spent?

[begin sarcasm]
The hours were spent, undoubtedly, lounging around the pool, sipping margeritas...
[end sarcasm]

You know WNYRez, you really crack me up...

I get the picture - you have a permanent axe to grind against anyone in office and will immediatly jump in with the 'little guy' - did you get burned on an assesment or something? DNT and davenport may rub you the wrong way, but I got news for you:

The little guy is sometimes a bad guy, out to destroy people and reputations for his or her own purposes which you cannot begin to fathom if you are not from this little patch of green called Evans. You can pretend that this is a david and goliath saga if you wish, but in the real world, when attacks escalate like they did here, people lawyer up and respond to the nonesense by stopping it dead in its tracks.

DNT and davenport make compelling claims, you might not like the way it is delivered, but, c'est le vie...just my $.02

-SmokeyB

[DNT]

And the law firm the town chose charged $28,000 to tell you that? Thats pretty lame on thier part.


Anyone ever foil the legal bill to see how the hours were spent?

It doesn't end with you. Call the lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I don't know what they spend the hours doing, I suspect they spend it advising their clients.

I do know that when a group of people bring a lawsuit against a town, generally, that town hires lawyers to represent them. This wasn't the people's court.

As a town board, the have a responsibility to defend themselves and the taxpayers they represent. As I said, you just don't blow it off. Doering did ...they had no lawyer, and they got laughed out of court.

The problem here is you refuse to own up to the fact that the signers are a bunch of disgruntled residents who do not like the individuals on the board. If it isn't this thing it is wendt beach, or the helecopter pad, or the drive-in, or sturgeon point, or the (insert whatever here). They are playing a fantasey game here and they are unprepared for it. They had no legal advice for this lawsuit. After they lost, they asked for free legal advice.

They don't know what they are doing and the only thing they want is to get catalino and erikson off the board. Well Catalino is stepping down....so they are beating a dead horse, and Erickson is well liked...she hasn't done anything wrong, but govern fairly.

These are personal grudges - personal grudges that has cost me and my fellow taxpayers a lot of time and money.

They wasted $30,000.00 to go after a guy who is stepping down. Brilliant.

but after all, ignorance is bliss

[MarkLV]

Call the lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I don't know what they spend the hours doing, I suspect they spend it advising their clients.

I think you might be evading a legitimate question DNT. What was a bill for almost thirty grand generated on? We are talking about investigating a weekend trip, correct? Or was the lawsuit based on many years of the board members going on that same trip every year? Either way, its a stretch of the imagination to think it would cost that amount of money for legal fees.

I know your answer is "I'm not a lawyer, go ask them". But for all the specific information and myriad details you otherwise provide in defense of the Evans Board, you dont seem to offer anything on how the taxpayers money was spent defending this case, other than to say the people who brought it should have to pay the bill. Would you not agree that amount seems rather expensive?

As an aside, I think the Town of Evans is self-insured. But wasnt there an insurance policy in effect that would cover this sort of lawsuit? It would be bad fiscal policy if there wasnt.

[DNT]

I think you might be evading a legitimate question DNT. What was a bill for almost thirty grand generated on? We are talking about investigating a weekend trip, correct? Or was the lawsuit based on many years of the board members going on that same trip every year? Either way, its a stretch of the imagination to think it would cost that amount of money for legal fees.

I know your answer is "I'm not a lawyer, go ask them". But for all the specific information and myriad details you otherwise provide in defense of the Evans Board, you dont seem to offer anything on how the taxpayers money was spent defending this case, other than to say the people who brought it should have to pay the bill. Would you not agree that amount seems rather expensive?

As an aside, I think the Town of Evans is self-insured. But wasnt there an insurance policy in effect that would cover this sort of lawsuit? It would be bad fiscal policy if there wasnt.

I honestly don't know. I am not on the board and I am not on the "Inside" of this lawsuit. I don't know what generated $28,000.00, I only know that it was generated as a result of the freeholders lawsuit. You might call the town and ask them, or foil the bill. I'm sure militello already has.

Trust me, If I had the answer, I would post it. But at this very moment I don't have an answer for anyone.

When I find out, I will post it. I don't have the distrust that a few others have for the board. Just as it was proven in a court of law that hey did not spend money illegaly, that they did not act corruptly, that they did not do anything unlawful, I don't see anything suspicious with their legal costs. I have seen legal costs over union employee issues creep up to these levels and higher very quickly. So it doesn't seem to be a stretch that over a 2 year period of time thies cost accrued. But it is speculation and again, I don't know why the costs tallied 28k. THe law firm and the Board can answer that.

[WNYresident]

[begin sarcasm]
The hours were spent, undoubtedly, lounging around the pool, sipping margeritas...
[end sarcasm]

You know WNYRez, you really crack me up...

I get the picture - you have a permanent axe to grind against anyone in office and will immediatly jump in with the 'little guy' - did you get burned on an assesment or something? DNT and davenport may rub you the wrong way, but I got news for you:

The little guy is sometimes a bad guy, out to destroy people and reputations for his or her own purposes which you cannot begin to fathom if you are not from this little patch of green called Evans. You can pretend that this is a david and goliath saga if you wish, but in the real world, when attacks escalate like they did here, people lawyer up and respond to the nonesense by stopping it dead in its tracks.

DNT and davenport make compelling claims, you might not like the way it is delivered, but, c'est le vie...just my $.02

-SmokeyB

No,

People work too hard in WNY to have thier money wasted. I'm not asking for claims... I'm asking how was $28,000 spent technically. Lets say they had a lawyer that was 150 an hour. There's 186 hours of labor. Isn't that a lot of labor for nothing wrong? Was this legal stuff court time? I need to know this so when the issue comes up again we know how town boards work.

Lets say a group of citizens wants to sue for a town board giving away the bank in labor contracts. It will be good knowledge knowing how they usually react. I'm not on either side of these two groups. I haven't gone over all the data from either side so i'm still neutral on the matter.

[SmokeyBurnout]

No,

People work too hard in WNY to have thier money wasted. I'm not asking for claims... I'm asking how was $28,000 spent technically. Lets say they had a lawyer that was 150 an hour. There's 186 hours of labor. Isn't that a lot of labor for nothing wrong? Was this legal stuff court time? I need to know this so when the issue comes up again we know how town boards work.

Lets say a group of citizens wants to sue for a town board giving away the bank in labor contracts. It will be good knowledge knowing how they usually react. I'm not on either side of these two groups. I haven't gone over all the data from either side so i'm still neutral on the matter.

Thats a fine position to take WesternNYRez, you don't need to remind me of how hard people work, I'm one of them. I guess my mistake was in presuming that this is an acceptable amount for legal work on the order of 6 months or more - it is a naive and silly perspective to say all that needed doing was for the lawyers to say 'nothing wrong here' ... Having participated in several real estate transactions of my own, I have seen the closing costs mount based on the complexity of the situation - all for well understood reasons. A recent transaction of mine, albiet a significant transaction, had associated closing costs of $13,000+ - and the lawyers fees were a good deal of that. Now, for sure, there were several sub-components of that price, and I am using real estate law vs criminal/civil law, but you can bet that this case had alot of subcomponents as well - and lawyers charge what lawers charge... But that is my experience off of which I base my comments - $28,000 does not seem unrealistic to me given the nature of what was involved, however it is within your rights to demand an itemized list of work items, I'll give you that...Once you get it though, could you do me a favor and go back and read what i said before about some of the 'little guys' out there ... Thanks

-SmokeyB

[caldwec]

How does anybody know the legal bill WAS $28,000? I keep seeing that figure flying around as if it's fact but if the bill hasn't been published, posted, or even commented on by the town, how do we know how much it was?

[Milret]

Because the Supervisor says it was 28k.

[WNYresident]

Because the Supervisor says it was 28k.

Well the superivisor is your employee. All the supervisors are our employees. Same goes for townboard members, legislators, assembly people and so on. It's funny how they get elected and all the sudden think they are above all the people that acutally produce the economy they live off of.

I believe most have forgotten that.