Monticello, NY - news analysis

NEWS ANALYSIS - July 24, 1996
EXCLUSIVE TO THE WORLD-WIDE WEB

Free speech, openness victories
brought unknown real-world results

By TOM RUE
MONTICELLO, N.Y. -- Lawsuits commenced in 1993 and 1994 in federal and New York State courts, including one in which some aspects are still pending, sought to defend the civil rights of citizens and freedom of the press. But in retrospect, what was actually born from those actions remains unclear. In one of the cases, the lawyer who said she supported the aims of a taxpayer advocacy group protesting government abuses now seeks to elicit $80,000 in fees from tax coffers, according to Monticello village attorney Michael Davidoff.
Victory for the First Amendment was heralded in another case when a frivilous $25-million lawsuit (which was later ruled to have "no legal merit") filed by a former Monticello village attorney over a parody issue of The River Reporter. Schulman's case was dismissed October 3, 1994. Lawyer Mark Schulman sued the newspaper over an "April Fools" piece written by a former editor who resigned his position a few months after the suit was dismissed citing personal reasons.
Though former editor Glenn Pontier solely authored what he later called the "sophomoric" offensive April 1st article, on April 4, 1994 Schulman filed suit against publisher Stuart Communications, Inc. and The River Reporter; general manager Laurie Stuart; and the paper's entire editorial staff, consisting of: editor Glenn Pontier; associate editor David Hulse; assistant editor Pamela Chergotis; senior editor Bert Feldman; and contributing editors Andrea Henley-Heyn, Barbara Yeaman, Tom Rue, and Ted Waddell.
Most staffers were dropped from the suit after signing affidavits stating they had no part in creating the offensive article. Though some may have viewed the satirical article as mean-spirited or juvenile, editorial staffers remained unwaveringly united behind an editor's right to publish parody.
Stuart Communications offered legal representation to the writers, funded in part by a "free press" fund-raising drive which received broad local support, including from members of the Sullivan County Bar Association. But the only ones to benefit from Schulman's lawsuit were the lawyers who represented the newspaper and staff, and perhaps Schulman's lawyer. Schulman got zip, as the action was dismissed on the first motion.
Defending press freedom, sister newspapers joined in denouncing the suit. "Schulman's lawsuit against The River Reporter suggests an attempt to intimidate a small newspaper with limited resources. As such, it is an assault on the First Amendment and disservice to the people of Sullivan County," declared a full-column editorial in the The Times Herald-Record of Middletown.
The New York Press Association also took note of the victory, in a memo to newspaper publishers statewide.

"Musical chairs" job swap
The parody article over which Schulman sued stemmed back to his involvement in an illegal job swap among officials of the Village of Monticello, which came to be known in the media as "musical chairs." Schulman, who had been an elected justice in the village, became full-time village attorney. The former mayor became village justice. The deputy mayor moved up, being replaced by one of the trustees. The post of village assessor was abolished, and its occupant moved over to the post of trustee.
A local taxpayers group known as the Sullivan County Action Coalition protested the move, with participation from local journalists. As vice-president of the Sullivan County Action Coalition, Pontier obtained the services of local lawyer Loran Shlevin in suing the village to overturn officials' actions taken in what was ruled by the courts to have been an illegal executive session and violation of the NYS Sunshine Law.
As village attorney, Schulman pressed forward in appealing various court decisions all the way to the NYS Court of Appeals, and lost at every level. The case reportedly set a statewide precedent regarding awarding judgement of attorney's fees against municipalities which defy the Open Meetings Law and then lose in court.
Commenced by members of the Action Coalition, who held fund-raising drives to help underwrite costs, the lawsuit which sought to overturn "musical chairs" was actively supported by staff writer Barbara Gref of The Times Herald-Record and by Pontier and others at The River Reporter. In additon to news editing, Action Coalition minutes show that Pontier took a leading role in laying the strategy for a campaign of protests against the job swap.

Arrested sign-carriers sue, settle
Tiring of protesters at meetings, village officials, following Schulman's advice, ordered anyone who entered Village Hall carrying signs be arrested. This edict was issued by the village manager, upon the advice of the attorney. No local law or other measure was adopted to back up the rule. Stating he was "just following orders," on his first night in office, August 2, 1993, police chief Michael Brennan arrested five peaceful citizens, including this reporter, for holding placards bearing such messages as "We love democracy."
These arrests, after disorderly conduct charges were dismissed, led to yet another lawsuit against Monticello by the group which media dubbed the Monticello Five. Eventually a settlement was offered by the village's insurance company for $95,000, on the second day of trial in Federal District Court in White Plains.

Elections and more elections
Two elections have taken place in Monticello since the job swap known as musical chairs. The village board is now dominated 4-1 by Republicans, in a municipality where a majority of registered voters are Democrats. On its face, this may seem neither bad nor good. One analysis is that by 1996 voters had grown tired of all the lawsuits and other bad news of recent years, and simply hoped for a change -- any change.
But will it prove healthy, for the taxpayers, to have a board where four out five are of one political denomination? Without the usual loyal opposition, will the board refrain from temptation to spend, spend, spend? Only time will tell, but performances during their first few months in office do not bode well for taxpayers. Another unresolved question, in this day and age, is why a Village government is needed at all, in addition to Town and County administrations.
But many in this village of 6,500 who had hoped to see reform, agree that resorting to lawsuits rarely provides clear relief to anyone but lawyers. Litigation must only be a last resort, after all other peaceful measures have failed.


NOTE: This article was privately published on the Internet on July 24, 1996. The author has been a contributing editor with The River Reporter since November 1985.

© 1996, Tom Rue.


SULLCOUNTY - AN INTERNET JOURNAL OF LOCAL THOUGHT