One of the first public acts of Mamaroneck Mayor Norman Rosenblum and the new majority of the Board of Trustees was the decision to replace the full-time Village attorney with a part-time attorney on retainer. Mr. Rosenblum has consistently justified the decision on the basis of projected budget savings. The reasoning behind this, unfortunately, is strikingly incomplete and flawed.

In late November, the Mayor explained that his goal was to "maintain the same operations or more with less funds where possible" and that the Village Attorney function was simply the first department to come under examination. The Mayor's analysis, which was revealed at a Board meeting on Jan. 11 after the decision had already been discussed and implemented, is strikingly simple: the full cost of the full-time Village attorney is $183,000 and the cost of the part-time attorney is $60,000 under the retainer, thereby producing $123,000 in cost savings. 

This implies that the Village will receive the same level of services from the part-time attorney under the fixed retainer as from an employee working on a full-time basis, but no such assumption has been articulated or justified by the Mayor at any time. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mayor or the two newly-elected trustees conducted any review of the work performed by the full-time attorney to determine which legal services that she was providing could be eliminated without adverse consequences to the Village budget.

The adverse impacts to the Village budget could take the form of

      (a) Additional expense of using the part-time attorney at $205 per hour for services not covered by the fixed retainer

      (b) Retaining outside counsel at comparable or even higher rates

      (c) Shifting work performed by the Village Attorney to other highly compensated, but otherwise fully engaged Village employees (e.g. the Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager and/or Clerk-Treasurer)

      (d) Incurring higher costs for retained outside counsel if part-time counsel cannot supervise their cases as actively as full-time in-house counsel could do

      (e) The costs of new lawsuits arising because decisions will be made by the trustees and volunteer committees without the safety net of competent legal counsel

Second, the all-in cost of the full time attorney is less than $183,000. According to Trustee John Hofstetter, the Village Manager has calculated the cost at $161,000. The difference is not overwhelming, except for the implication that the Mayor did not even consult or seek input from the Village Manager for his so-called analysis.

Third, the decision to replace an employee selected through an objective and open hiring process with an  outside attorney who is politically connected and aligned with the Board majority has several adverse long-term cost implications: 

- The Village will lose continuity of experience when switching attorneys every time a new majority is elected to office.

- Each new politically appointed attorney will need on-the-job training to learn about outstanding litigation and Village operations and priorities before they can become fully effective.

- The quality of legal advice provided to the Trustees and the Village will suffer, as it will be tainted by the perceived and real political needs of elected officials in majority control of the Board, rather than the larger needs of the Village as a whole.

- The higher risk and appearance that a part-time attorney with private clients will be more inclined to deal gently when supervising cases handled by outside attorneys.

Fourth, the decision to summarily terminate the full-time attorney with a two-week notice on the basis of what is clearly a political decision rather than a budget or personnel decision was not just heartless and contrary to the aspiration of being a friendly village, but it also sets a bad precedent.  This precedent will adversely affect the Village's ability to attract future professional employees who are not covered by civil service protections, be it in terms of a smaller pool of qualified applicants interested in working for the Village or in terms of paying a premium for the higher risk of termination for reasons unrelated to performance.

Fifth, the arrangement with the new part-time Village Attorney does not appear sustainable. Under the contract negotiated with the new attorney, she is committed to spend an average of sixteen hours per week at Village Hall and to attend Trustee meetings and certain other meetings as well. If she devotes twenty hours per week to Village affairs as implied under the contract, or roughly 1,000 hours per year, her annual compensation of $60,000 will work out to $60 per hour. This compares to the $300/hour to $350/hour that she reportedly charges to private clients. There has been no explanation for why the new attorney would enter into a contract that is so far below her usual billing rate, and service contracts that require one party to bear such enormous financial sacrifices rarely are sustainable.

If the Mayor somehow concluded that the Village does not need a full-time attorney, why is it that he did not explore with the full-time attorney whether she would be willing to reduce her hours with comparable reductions in pay and benefits, or explore the possibility of sharing the services and expense of our full-time attorney with another Westchester municipality?

The undersigned serve on the Village of Mamaroneck Budget Committee.