5/25/07 - Handling of land deal criticized in lawsuit response

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

The county has filed its own motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed against it by the Moose Lodge, echoing the plaintiff’s request that a judge make a speedy ruling based solely on the facts involved.

County Attorney Ric Van Donsel asserts in his motion that the county had the right to reconsider the purchase of the Moose Lodge property for an agreed price of $250,000, along with the purchases of a number of other parcels along south Main, William and Randall streets.

Using affidavits from three legislators outlining the misgivings they had about the deal and the way it was handled, Van Donsel also argues that the Legislature had “the duty to employ its rules in furtherance of its role as stewards of the public’s money.”

Finally, Van Donsel states that the Moose Lodge “acted at its own peril by failing to timely deliver its title documents and understanding (the Legislature’s) process,” in requesting that the judge rule in favor of the county.

Arguments in the case are scheduled to be heard by Supreme Court Justice Philip Rumsey at 3 p.m. June 1 in the Cortland County Courthouse.

Russ Ruthig, attorney for the Moose Lodge, essentially charges that the county’s initial vote in December to purchase the property represented a binding contract, and a subsequent vote to reconsider in January had no authority to break that contract.

Van Donsel, on the other hand, argues that the vote to reconsider was an appropriate action, and effectively nullified the contract.

Much of the argument in Van Donsel’s motion has been expressed before in public discussion and in previous motions in the suit, but the inclusion of affidavits from legislators and the focus on why the motion to reconsider was brought forward was new.

“I just think it’s interesting because the way Mr. Van Donsel is presenting the county’s case pretty much supports what I’ve been saying all along,” said Newell Willcox (R-Homer). Willcox was referring to complaints from him and other legislators that the land deal, which was intended to lead to the building of a new public health facility on south Main Street, was done without sufficient communication, both within the Legislature and between the county and the community.

Van Donsel said Thursday that the affidavits were an attempt to “give some meat to bones for the judge to evaluate.” “There’s no requirement that there be a reason for the reconsideration, but it was done in the public’s interest and it’s certainly not going to hurt to show that,” Van Donsel said.

The affidavits from Legislators Willcox, Sandy Price (D-Harford and Virgil) and Ron Van Dee (D-5th Ward) all focus on their issues with the way the project was conceived, implemented and announced, and in the case of Price and Van Dee — Willcox voted against the project from the start — discuss why they ultimately moved to reconsider the purchase