1 week Ago By Alex Portal [email protected]
“What a son-of-a-b***h you are,” Trustee Tony Girard exclaimed to village Mayor Nicholas Bodkin during an open session that followed a closed-door executive session discussion. At its Nov. 6 meeting, the village board discussed the ongoing issue of unresponsive residents who have not yet made appointments to have new water meters installed at their property.
The objective of the project is to give village officials more up-to-date data when determining a new water rate schedule. Since January, the project has been fraught with difficulties stemming from disjointed communication between the village, residents, and the contractor hired to handle the installations. But still some property owners are refusing efforts to have their equipment upgraded.
As the board had done in past meetings , the discussion turned to what if any punitive action should be taken against villagers unwilling to comply with the initiative. This time, however, the board opted to discuss the penalties behind closed doors. Although the board cited “legal opinion and advice,” as the need to table the discussion for an executive session, they did not list clearly which of the eight possible reasons they were citing to go into executive session, citing one of the eight is a requirement for boards to enter executive session.
When it resumed open session, a motion was made to charge a $100 per month penalty to property owners who do not have a new water meter installed by the end of January 2025. “The village is imposing this so that we have parity between the ones that have cooperated,” trustee Harry Gutheil stated for the record. “It’s so that we can close out this project and bill everybody on the same basis.
” But when time came for the vote, and trustees Girard, Gutheil, and Tim Carota all voted in favor of the motion, Bodkin chose to abstain, though the motion carried, and the penalty will apply starting in February 2025. Mayor Bodkin's abstention triggered an expletive-laden backlash. “Did you say you abstained?” Gutheil immediately asked of Bodkin.
When Bodkin reiterated, Gutheil slammed his desk in frustration. “Sucked us into that didn’t you,” Gutheil commented. Girard asked Bodkin to give his reason for the abstention.
“I think $100 is a little steep,” Bodkin answered. “You never said that in the (executive) session. You never discussed it.
You looked at me and you said, ‘Yes,’” Girard alleged. “What a son-of-a-b***h you are!” “You know what Nick, now you know why nobody likes you or trusts you,” Gutheil added. “That’s a cheap f***ing way of doing business.
” As Girard and Gutheil continued to make disparaging remarks, Bodkin defended his abstention. However, it was apparent that his choice didn’t align with what the two other trustees understood to be his position. “This is inappropriate behavior, period,” Bodkin said, trying to tamp down the rancor.
“I exercise my right to vote the way I chose to vote and your reaction to it is inappropriate.” “My reaction is because of what happened in executive session, that you wanted it to go to $100,” Girard accused. In a subsequent interview with The Post-Star, Bodkin denied that he had agreed to the $100 amount for the penalty, which he said was Girard’s suggestion.
“I don’t think they were listening to me,” Bodkin said of the executive session discussion. Instead, Bodkin said he had suggested two different penalty fees of $25 or $50, based on potential use of water that would otherwise not be billed if the user did not have a water meter. “I very clearly explained the $25 and the $50 amounts as penalties because we could justify that,” he said.
“Nobody wanted to concede to the lesser amount that I suggested.” As for his decision to abstain rather than cast a “no” vote, Bodkin said he didn’t want to vote against the penalty just because he didn’t agree with the price. Girard and Gutheil declined to discuss any comments made during the executive session when contacted by The Post-Star.
Carota could not be reached. Trustee Joe Orlow was not present at the time of the exchange. “This type of stuff just doesn’t make any body look good,” Bodkin added.
“It’s a culture that we need to address and move on from and do better. Be better.” No formal grievances, or official actions have been taken against anyone at this time, but Bodkin said he is discussing what options may be open to him with legal counsel.
.
