NYCOM tells mayor Friedland who may
see Brennan's and Cummings' phone bills

[Editor's note: In the May 11 issue of The River Reporter, a statement the Monticello Police Benevolent Association was published in its entirety. The statement, which bore the fax heading of lawyer Loran Shlevin, was read to the village board by Police Benevolent Association president John Riegler. It called for Friedland to resign or be censured for examining chief Michael Brennan's phone bills -- including numbers which Brennan claimed violated his privacy or confidentiality. The village board then voted to censure Friedland, by a 3-2 margin, for obtaining Brennan's unredacted phone bill from Cellular One. Friedland told the board he got the bill directly from the phone company because Brennan and former manager William Cummings refused to provide him complete copies when he asked for them.

Friedland said he was interested in reviewing Brennan's phone bills because they seemed unusually high, and no contract with Cellular One had been approved by the board. Documents obtained by The River Reporter reveal that Brennan contracted for the phones under his own name, using his personal VISA number, and then charged the bills to the village. A majority of the calls are presumably official, but there are also a large number of unexplained calls to Cummings' home and to the office of the Northeast Baseball League in White Plains, of which Cummings is an officer. Cummings did not return a phone call by The River Reporter to his Otisville home, telling a family member who answered the phone that he was unavailable.

Examination of Cummings' and Brennan's cellular bills reveals questionable billing practices and a number of evidently personal calls for which it is unclear whether full reimbursement was ever made to the village. Copies of the bills were obtained under the Freedom of Information Law. A personal check by Brennan for $17.00, and one for $32.22 by Cummings, reimbursed the village for some personal calls in April 1995. Friedland continues to assert that money is owed to the village.

The following May 19, 1995 legal opinion cites Village Law as stating the board of trustees has the right to audit all calls appearing on the police chief's phone bill. In the absence of such exercise by the board, the mayor may request information in writing -- like any citizen -- with the final judgement falling to the village information disclosure officer as to whether to black out portions or not. In Monticello, the disclosure officer is the village clerk.

Friedland recently called on state agencies to thoroughly audit Monticello's financial books and other official records, which may reportedly occur at any time.]

Robert Friedland
Mayor
Village of Monticello
2 Pleasant Street
Monticello, NY 12701

Dear Mayor Friedland,

This is in response to your letter date[d] May 17, 1995 regarding cellular telephone bills and the payment thereof. You have asked whether the mayor or the board of trustees of a village has the authority to review bills being paid by the village for cellular telephone calls. Pursuant to Section 4-412 of the Village Law, in a village which has not established the office of auditor, the board of trustees shall audit all claims against the village. Claims include all bills, accounts and demands for the payment [of] money asserted against the village. A claim may not be ordered paid unless such claim is in writing, is itemized, and is approved by the officer or employee originating the claim. In view of the fact that the board of trustees is the custodian of village funds, I believe that the board of trustees would be authorized to view an entire telephone bills. I can find no authority for any officer or employee of the village to cross off numbers prior to submission of the claim to the village board.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, the records access officer of the village would have the authority to cross out phone numbers when a member of the general public requests copies of cellular telephone bills. The Freedom of Information Law specifically allows this information to be crossed off if it would interfere with a law enforcement investigation. Of course in this instance, the board of trustees is not requesting information under the Freedom of Information Law, but is using their authority to approve an[d] audit all claims before the village.

Very truly yours,
Barbara J. Samel, Counsel
NYS Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials
119 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12210

---

Above text is copyright by the author.
Duplication without permission is prohibited.