Judge Dismisses McFadden's Petition To Overturn Election Results - Marc D. Citrin is Tuxedo Park's New Mayor (Updated 9/19/23)

At 10:45pm that evening, the following concession was circulated to Village Residents via Email:

An Important Community Update from Mayor Mac

Mr Guazzoni’s claims as referenced by McFadden had also been circulated to residents via e-mail earlier that evening:

and this was then refuted by McFadden via e-mail on September 19:

September 19, 2023 Dear Friends and Neighbors, I trust all is well. In his September 15, 2023 "Breaking News" email, Claudio Guazzoni de Ganett made false claims about me (again): * Fraud charges asked to be referred to District Attorney * Judge orders McFadden to personally pay Guazzoni's legal fees * McFadden to be personally sued to reimburse Village for usurped Election Attorney ($200,000) Let's clear our names: In the Matter of Application of CLAUDIO GUAZZONI DE ZANETT, Petitioner,  -AGAINST- THE VILLAGE OF TUXEDO PARK, ELIZABETH DOHERTY, Village Clerk AND Chief Village Election Official, DAVID C. MCFADDEN, MARK D. CITRIN, JOSHUA S. SCHERER and PAUL A. BROOK No ruling in favor of Guazzoni for any claims  SUPREME COURT DISMISSES all claims and allegations of Claudio Guazzoni De Zanett (and Marc Citrin) in FINAL COURT DECISION AND ORDER  SUPREME COURT finds NO FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR GUAZZONI’S characterization as Public Advocate of the Village of Tuxedo Park. SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES that no such position of Public Advocate of the Village of Tuxedo Park exists. Concerning David McFadden: COURT denied GUAZZONI petition against McFadden as:  Lacking any specificity of the basic factual components of a fraud claim.  Replete with vague innuendo and without facts.  Bereft of the basic elements of a fraud claim. McFadden himself is not accused of misrepresenting any facts.  Failing to demonstrate that McFadden had any knowledge of voter registration status.  Guazzoni’s own “investigation report” confirmed that virtually every person who voted absentee owns property in the Village.  Guazzoni’s fraud allegations as to the Village Clerk’s associated with McFadden fail because Guazzoni has not pled any actionable wrongdoing by McFadden.  Guazzoni’s case against the Village and McFadden is dismissed as without merit and moot.   McFadden considering seeking legal fees against Guazzoni and/or Citrin  No factual support for the proposition that McFadden “Usurped” Village Election Attorney services and there is no ruling in favor of Guazzoni for any claims.  Concerning Elizabeth Doherty: All Election Fraud Charges Against Elizabeth Doherty are DISMISSED  Concerning Village Voters: All Election Fraud Charges Against Village Residents are DISMISSED Thank you. I have attached the court ruling for your review.   https://mcusercontent.com/bcef6fe82b/files/848f41cc-2c45-e4e8-4f47-0aea97a91b22/Court_Document.pdf Sincerely, David C. McFadden P.S. I did not concede the election; I stepped down from my role as Mayor.

back to top

On Saturday afternoon Village residents received the following email from Mayor-Elect Marc D. Citrin:

DAVID C. Mc FADDEN v. THE VILLAGE OF TUXEDO PARK , et.al.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I’m writing to provide you with an update on the most recent developments in this long-running Village election. In a last-minute effort to overturn the certified results of the 2023 Tuxedo Park Mayoral election, David C. McFadden hired the long-time Bronx County Democratic Party lawyer Stanley Schlein to file suit on Friday against a multitude of parties including the Orange County Board of Elections; the New York State Board of Elections; the Village of Tuxedo Park; Elizabeth Doherty, the Village Clerk; Village Trustees Joshua Scherer and Paul Brooke; the three individual election inspectors: Jean Haug, Kurt Haug and Christopher Moog and me.

By filing the lawsuit at the very end of the three day “window”, provided by the NYS Election Law, following the recount, McFadden is attempting to take advantage of the statutory “stay” which will allow him to remain in office indefinitely during the course of the litigation through any appellate review.

As so cogently explained by former Village Trustee Allen Barnett in his recently released “Letter to the Residents” that was published on TPFYI, a methodical process was utilized by the three election inspectors in tabulating the absentee ballots on August 10. The inspectors carefully examined each and every absentee ballot and determined that 35 of the 182 were defective, and in accordance with New York State Election law, would not be opened and counted.

McFadden is now challenging those rejected ballots, but in contrast to his “holier than thou” pronouncements about preserving democracy and protecting the franchise, he is only challenging the rejection of 22 absentee ballots that he claims were cast by “his voters”, while ignoring the voters he apparently does not consider “his own”.

As the Board of Elections certified winner of the twice tabulated vote count, by a margin of 201 to 195, I will challenge McFadden’s lawsuit as procedurally defective, substantively erroneous and without foundation in law and fact.

McFadden’s lawsuit will require the Village, Elizabeth Doherty, the two Boards of Elections and the three Elections inspectors to obtain counsel at taxpayer expense. This lawsuit is nothing more than an effort by McFadden to maintain his position as long as possible. Each month that McFadden clings to office, he receives his salary of $3000+ in taxpayer’s money that could have been used elsewhere for the benefit of all residents.

Now, the attorneys representing the Village can look forward to receiving additional taxpayer dollars from the Village treasury because McFadden won’t accept his defeat.

I will report back to you on any major developments in the litigation.

Regards,

Marc

Click here to view larger

and then on Monday, 8/21, McFadden's response:

August 21, 2023 Dear Friends and Neighbors, My last election update to you was July 11, 2023, and I am sorry to disturb you. Marc's misleading email over the weekend requires a response. OPEN LETTER TO OUR NEIGHBOR AND MAYORAL CANDIDATE MARC CITRIN Marc, Your public behavior toward me and treatment of the broader community do not reflect the dignified demeanor expected of a Tuxedo Park mayor and the park’s tradition as a bastion of civility. Throughout Tuxedo Park's history, various opinions have been held about past mayors, such as Kent Kroeber, Houston Stebbins, Lili Neuhauser, Tom Wilson, and Mary Jo Guinchard's terms, encompassing both negative and positive perspectives on their policies and personalities, including my own. However, should you be elected, you seem poised to stand out as the least experienced and most domineering mayor the office has ever seen. This is further exacerbated by your approach of suppressing the votes you've pledged to represent inclusively.   Your litigious tendencies, bullying tactics in the courtroom, and written communications provide ample evidence of your disposition. Your continuous denial of your significant ties to Claudio Guazzoni and Kathrine Norris is very concerning. You've uttered statements like "Claudio has no involvement in my campaign," even when faced with people's direct inquiries. I have spoken to a handful of your voters who have been turned off by your campaign's divisive rhetoric and expressed remorse over their votes. Your defeat would be decisive if the election took place tomorrow.  You've managed to alienate a substantial portion of the sitting trustees, not to mention over half of Tuxedo Park's population. Your aspirations to be the "Mayor for All" ring hollow, and if you were to assume office, your tenure would likely be marked by inefficacy and brevity as you have already shown what type of mayor you will be. You have already filed multiple lawsuits against the village and the candidates, disenfranchised your voters, and have cost the village an exorbitant amount of money. This is a disheartening reality confronting us as residents, however undeniable it may be. Your decision to halt our ongoing election has incurred costs surpassing $200,000 for the village taxpayers. Because of this, it is perplexing that you would trivialize my $3,000 monthly stipend in your letter, which I diligently earn as I continue to serve this village selflessly.    When you perceived that my absentee voters might threaten your electoral success, you resorted to various tactics, including multiple lawsuits and even employing a private investigator to hinder the voting process. Your awareness that counting the outstanding absentee ballots could actually lead to my victory makes you very critical of court actions. This is a contradictory stance on your part. Presently, existing election laws uphold the rights of aggrieved voters, affording them the opportunity to ensure their votes are duly counted. The "process" employed in this case was marked by subjectivity and randomness, leading to errors that demand rectification within the judicial system. Specifically: The inspectors rejected a community member because she was not on the registered voter's list. The following document confirms the voter is registered, and the list of inspectors used to evaluate the absentee ballots was inaccurate. Click here to view larger The inspectors rejected another community member because he was not on the registered voter's list. Yet this resident has a track record of over 30 years of voting in person and by absentee. Are we to believe he voted illegally for 30 years or that, like the resident above, the inspectors made a mistake in rejecting his vote? An additional two community members, a husband, and wife, were rejected because the inspectors could not find their signature among the papers they had with them. We located their signatures soon after the count at the Board of Elections and will ask the court to count their votes rightfully and legally. For the first time, a voter with a spotless 35-year voting record in our community suddenly faces a "signature mismatch." She's given immeasurable time to Tuxedo Park, and to think her vote hangs in the balance is grievous. The inspectors rejected her signature, and the courts will reverse her rejection. A first-time voter was rejected because his current signature did not match the signature on file from his driver's license when he was 16 years old. Why do you want to disenfranchise a first-time voter because his signature has changed since he got his learner's permit? The inspectors also rejected multiple community members for a signature that did not match their outdated records. The courts will give them the voice they did not have during the count.   During the in-person voting on the 20th, the inspectors allowed voters to "sign again" when their signatures did not match. After looking at the style of signature the electors had on file, they signed to match and were allowed to cast their vote. Absentee ballot voters are not an inferior class of voters and must be given the same opportunity to correct their signatures.   These are just a handful of examples. I'd encourage our residents to delve into the narratives of the aggrieved voters and argue that their votes should not count. Their stories and their voices deserve acknowledgment. Their pleas are accessible from the link below and will be updated as the case progresses.   Court Filling That said, to a person, these aggrieved voters deserve to have the courts intervene and have asked me to move forward and not give up the fight. We have the law and the facts on our side. Remember, Marc, you were in the room with me when the inspectors discussed that the 35 disputed absentee ballots would be marked for potential review by the Orange County Board of Electors. Residents were denied their voice over minor technicalities or ambiguous statute interpretations. Our election is riddled with mistakes made during the counts and must be corrected.   Regarding referring to yourself as the mayor-elect in your Subject line, there is little I can say except that the sealed certificate you attached to your email to back up your claim serves as an embarrassment rather than a point of pride. After the recanvas in Goshen, you aggressively forced Elizabeth to swear you in, with her expressing feelings of "felt pressured" by you and stating your swearing-in was null and void. Click here to view larger Within 24 hours of your staged and premature swearing-in, the courts citing the legal 3-day stay, confirmed you are not, in fact, the "Mayor-elect." I wouldn't flaunt such a document around our village. As the self-proclaimed mayor, your similarities to the self-proclaimed "Public Advocate" become increasingly evident.   To put it mildly, your attempts to force yourself into the mayor's seat at the voters' expense have stained our village's tranquility. Led by you and the so-called "Public Advocate," your inner circle has disrupted our community's harmony with blatant gaslighting, deliberate deceit, and aggressive political posturing. You have fractured the peace and disenfranchised many of our fellow residents while raising exorbitant expenses for Tuxedo Park taxpayers to roughly $200,000. You and your inner circle's actions have degraded what should have been a cordial democratic process into a tangle of lawsuits, bitterness, and hate. Your actions have cast a long and unsettling shadow over the very essence of Tuxedo Park. A village built on trust, community spirit, and shared values deserves better than the division and turmoil you've instigated.   Sincerely, Mayor McFadden

back to top

From: Elizabeth Doherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023, 8:27 AM
To: Marc Citrin Email
Subject: Oath of Office

Dear Mr. Citrin:

I felt pressured to swear you in as mayor yesterday at the Board of Elections office in Goshen.  Given that we are in the middle of a contested election I should have consulted with the village lawyers first.  I know that you are a lawyer yourself, and I would not have expected you to ask that I do something which violated the law.  I did not know better and had not spoken with the village lawyers.  

I have since spoken with the village lawyers, who have advised me that there is a stay in place, preventing me from taking any acts with regard to the election for at least three days after the re-canvass is concluded.  For your reference, I am told that the law imposing the stay can be found at election law section 15–126.

Accordingly, any oath I administered is void, and I cannot accept any filings with regard to the outcome of the June 20 mayoral election. As a result, I understand that Mayor McFadden continues to legally serve as the mayor of the Village of Tuxedo Park pending the expiration of the above stay.

Please direct any further correspondence on this topic to the village attorney.

Thank you.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Doherty | Village Clerk-Treasurer | Village of Tuxedo Park  
80 Lorillard Road, Tuxedo Park, NY  10987 
Ph:  (845) 351-4745 Opt 1; Fax:  (845) 351-2668  

Dear Esteemed Friends and Neighbors,

I trust this message finds you well. I've just returned from a diligent review of the votes at the Board of Elections in Goshen, and I wanted to share an update with you all.

After a meticulous re-canvassing of the votes, encompassing both in-person ballots and previously examined absentee ballots, I regret to inform my supporters that the results remain unchanged from last week. It's worth noting that there are still 35 absentee ballots that have yet to be opened, and each of these ballots represents an individual voice, a resident of our beloved Tuxedo Park. I am committed to advocating on your behalf, fighting to ensure that every voice is heard and every vote is rightfully counted.

It is undeniable that this situation warrants legal intervention. However, the approach I am taking stands in stark contrast to that of my opponent. While they have employed legal tactics to hinder the democratic process, I am steadfastly dedicated to using the legal system as a means to protect and include those who might otherwise be marginalized. My goal is not to obstruct, but to empower and I will not rest until the rights of each and every disenfranchised voter are upheld.

Today's outcome has seen Marc Citrin sworn in as Mayor, and I acknowledge this temporary development. However, I want to assure you that my commitment to our community remains unwavering. In direct response, I will be submitting court documents immediately to express my dissent and to advocate for fairness, transparency, and the integrity of our democratic values - and the inclusion of the 35 disenfranchised residents.

Thank you for your ongoing support, and I look forward to standing together in the pursuit of justice and equitable representation.

With sincere determination,

Mac

Dear Esteemed Friends and Neighbors,

I trust this message finds you well. It is with a sense of duty and commitment to our community that I share some recent developments. Yesterday marked a significant turn of events as the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, rendered a unanimous 4 to 0 decision to remove the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) previously granted to Claudio Guazzoni and joined by Marc Citrin. Initially issued by a lower court judge in the Orange County Supreme Court, this TRO had stood as the sole impediment to counting votes from the election held on June 20th, 2023.

Considering this decision, beginning at 3:00 pm today, the election proceeded as it would have on election day had it not been stopped and as if the legal disputes brought forth by Claudio and Marc had never come into play.

The combined tally of mayoral in-person and absentee ballots has been calculated, revealing the following results: McFadden – 195 and Citrin – 201. Additionally, there are 35 absentee ballots that the election inspectors did not accept for various reasons.

Given that the margin between the two candidates remains within the realm of statistical uncertainty, we find ourselves at a pivotal juncture. We have decided to act in our continued pursuit of a fair and accurate representation of the voters' intentions. Tomorrow, we will formally request a re-canvas from the Board of Elections. Our objective in doing so is to ensure that every eligible vote is meticulously considered, hoping to include those 35 absentee votes that were not initially counted.

We remain committed to upholding transparency and integrity throughout this process, working diligently to ensure that each voice in our community is heard and acknowledged.

Thank you for your ongoing support and engagement. Your involvement is a testament to the strength and vitality of our community. We will continue to keep you updated as further developments arise.

Best wishes,

David McFadden

The Judge will permit Mr. Guazzoni to file a request to add fraud to the allegations against Mayor McFadden.  All parties have until September 30 to submit briefingswhich address the following question/issue:

“Can a Request for an Absentee Ballot and receipt of the ballot by an unregistered voter, who certified under oath that they were registered, be “cured” if the voter registers within 10 days of the election or does that absentee ballot remain invalid, unopened and not counted.” 

There will be no substantial movement until the September 30 date and the Judge will not rule until October at the earliest.

In the meantime, none of the absentee ballots will be tallied.

As per a resolution passed at the July 6 Special Board of Trustees meeting, Mayor McFadden will hold-over as Mayor until successor candidates are chosen and qualified.

In an open letter to the community this afternoon, Candidate Marc Citrin stated the following:

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I am writing to you to report the disappointing outcome of today’s court proceedings, which will likely delay the final results of the mayoral election until October, at the earliest. Today I implored the Court to expedite proceedings for the benefit of the Village. Unfortunately, none of the attorneys or the Mayor stood up to join me in this request.

It has been my position since Election Day that all of the approximately 150 uncontested absentee ballots should be opened and tabulated immediately, leaving the approximately 30 contested unopened until the issue of their validity is determined by the Court and the Orange County Board of Elections. If the vote difference between the candidates after tabulating the machine votes and the uncontested absentee ballots is greater than the number of the contested absentee ballots, the issue of their validity would be moot. Today in Court, the attorneys for Petitioner Claudio Guazzoni and the attorneys for the Village, the Village Clerk, Trustees Brooke and Scherer together with me and Mayor McFadden as self- represented Respondents, spent well over an hour in a “closed” courtroom settlement conference before the judge without reaching an agreement on any of the issues.

At the conclusion of the settlement conference, the judge ordered the attorneys to prepare and submit legal briefs on what I consider to be the seminal issue in the case:

“Can a Request for an Absentee Ballot and receipt of the ballot by an unregistered voter, who certified under oath that they were registered, be “cured” if the voter registers within 10 days of the election or does that absentee ballot remain invalid, unopened and not counted.”

It appeared that the judge was prepared to require submission of all legal briefs on this specific issue by the end of August, which might have resulted in a decision in early September. However, the attorneys for the Petitioner requested the Court’s leave to file a Motion to Add Additional Claims to the Petition. Based upon that request, and the need for the Court to consider the Motion, the judge extended the time to file the legal briefs on the question of the absentee ballots to the end of September. Thus a decision by the judge will not come until October.

On a personal note, I have received multiple blast e-mails from Mr. Christopher Conrad Hansen, a former Village trustee and close personal friend of Mayor McFadden that accuses me of “pulling” ballots of his friends and family. In Court today, Mr. Christopher Conrad Hansen spoke with the judge and complained about ballots being “pulled”. The judge explained firmly to Mr. Christopher Conrad Hansen that no one was “pulling” the ballots of his friends and family. Mr. Christopher Conrad Hansen left the courtroom quite chastened.

I had hoped that with today’s Court appearance, we would have moved closer to determining the next Mayor of Tuxedo Park. Now, regretfully, I must report that did not happen.

I will report to you further on any future developments. Marc

This email from Village resident Sean Madden was circulated on the evening of July 19:

Claudio Is a Fraud. Citrin, What Say You?

Dear Neighbors,

I have been reluctant to provide any oxygen to the shameful election
antics perpetrated by Public Gaslighter Claudio Guazzoni; however,
Claudio’s disgraceful defamation and harassment of a community
stalwart demands a forceful rebuke. We can take the high road and
ignore Claudio’s increasingly bonkers emails, but when his toxic words
actualize in shockingly aggressive actions against the most generous
pillars of our community, then we all must call him out and demand he
stand down.

The Upshot: Claudio has falsely and maliciously accused our friend and
neighbor Denise Tavani of illegality related to the recent election. I
hesitate to dignify Claudio’s outrageous smears with unnecessary
detail, but his gratuitously nasty accusations deserve your
opprobrium. For starters, Guazzoni’s shambolic lawsuit employs what
must be the dumbest 9-word “defined term” (typically used as an
abbreviation!) to pollute a pleading, describing Denise as:
“[McFadden’s] long time and intimate campaign worker and agent". Not
“Ms. Tavani”; nor simply “Tavani”, but “his long time and intimate
campaign worker and agent”. Consider what kind of noxious person goes
out of his way to do such a thing? Claudio continues, accusing Denise
of being a “campaign operative” who “engaged in a ’no holds barred’
scheme to rig the outcome of the 2023 Village Election in Tuxedo Park”
and “engaging in an illegal ballot harvesting enterprise”. These are
outrageous, mean-spirited lies.

As if such over-the-top accusations weren’t enough, an unannounced
stranger appeared on the Tavanis’ doorstep yesterday afternoon and
shoved legal papers at Denise’s husband Phil, purporting to serve
Denise (who was not at home) with a subpoena to appear in Claudio’s
lawsuit hearing the very next morning. So neighborly! Perhaps I’m
old-fashioned, but I thought it was virtuous community-building to
assist in getting out the vote, but apparently Claudio believes people
like Denise who work to facilitate voting in their communities should
be harassed if they appear to be working for the “wrong” candidate.
What say you candidate Citrin? How can you condone such nastiness in
our otherwise idyllic community?

Denise Tavani is literally the first person Anne and I can remember
meeting in Tuxedo Park in 2005, and we are blessed to count her as a
dear friend. She and Phil have done almost everything one can do to
support Tuxedo Park since settling here over 25 years ago: they raised
their children here; served as trustee, class parent, volunteer and
every other role at TPS; served on the Vestry at St. Mary’s; served as
a governor and committee member at The Tuxedo Club; and Denise is
currently spearheading the beautification efforts of Wee Wah Park.
Denise is widely known and admired among our community for her
generosity and warmth. She and Phil have helped establish Tuxedo Park
as the special place it is today, with one kindness and community
service after another—for a quarter century! And in sharp contrast to
Claudio’s narcissism, they have done so with quiet dignity and grace,
preferring to let their actions speak for them.

Candidate Citrin, why do you stand by in silent complicity as your
compatriot Claudio demeans our longtime friend, neighbor and community
stalwart? Why do you stand by silently while Guazzoni does your dirty
work? Why haven’t you explained your apparent cooperation and
alignment with Guazzoni nor addressed the questions raised by a
neighbor’s revelation (and your concealment) of such confederation?

It is long past time for Tuxedo Park to see Claudio Guazzoni for what
he is: a fraud; an inveterate liar, indeed a perjurer; a serial
violator of New York law; and a cancer on our community. We as a
community can no longer stand for his toxic fulminations and
despicable character attacks.

Claudio has been gaslighting our community for years through his
self-proclaimed "Office of the Public Advocate”.  To be clear, there
is no Office, and there is no Public Advocate, but rather an officious
narcissist with a demonstrated track record of divisiveness and
destruction of taxpayer resources. Despite the fine print at the end
of his self-important emails, it is of course foreseeable that readers
could be confused by his self-bestowing of the Public Advocate title
because many jurisdictions, including New York City, do in fact have
an elected or appointed Office of the Public Advocate. Consider for a
moment whether you or anyone close to you would communicate broadly
with their neighbors employing a fictitious, self-aggrandizing title?
Creepy, right? The French have a fancy term for this: poseur; but I
prefer the plain English: fraud.

Like many an experienced gaslighter, when called out for his
invocation of a false and misleading nom de guerre, Claudio brazenly
doubles down, comparing himself to Martin Luther King and his
make-believe “Office of the Public Advocate” to the NAACP—comparisons
that insult our intelligence and demean the legacy of a bona fide
American hero and martyr. How dare Claudio—from his house on high and
his position of privilege—count himself among the truly oppressed in
history who struggled, fought and died in the quest for basic human
and civil rights? Claudio’s haughty invocation of historical figures
(Pericles, really?) merely belies his profound ignorance of history
(and his unwavering arrogance and self-importance).

In addition to being a malign and destructive force in our wonderful
community, Claudio has inflicted substantial damage on taxpayers. By
my rough estimate, Claudio may cumulatively cost Village taxpayers
over $200,000 from his previous misconduct and current misguided
election litigation, which appears as though it could drag on for
months. Below and in the attached, I document in considerable detail
behavior from Claudio that establishes his duplicity, disrespect for
the law (including perjury), and destructive cost to taxpayers, all of
which demonstrate a lack of character and integrity. Claudio and his
views simply are not worthy of your time or consideration. In fact,
just as in the iconic Seinfeld episode The Opposite (when George, at
Jerry’s suggestion, achieves success by doing the opposite of his
instincts), I invite you to adopt whatever is the opposite of
Claudio’s position given his track record of deceit and misdirection.

Why does candidate Citrin stand with charlatan Claudio? Why has
candidate Citrin not publicly denounced and disavowed Claudio’s
shameful litigation designed to disenfranchise our neighbors? If you
are the company you keep, then candidate Citrin owes us an explanation
of his relationship with a community scourge like Claudio. What say
you Citrin?

Claudio’s Dereliction of Duty, Violations of Law, and Perjury

My wife Anne and I have lived in Tuxedo Park since 2005, but my first
foray into local politics came in 2017 after I experienced firsthand
the divisive and incompetent leadership of then-trustee and deputy
mayor Guazzoni, who was bounced from office in 2017 after one
disastrous term. I discovered and documented troubling governance
abuses perpetrated by the former mayor and Guazzoni, including serial
violations of New York’s Open Meetings Law as confirmed by an advisory
opinion issued by the independent Committee On Open Government. I will
spare you the gory details (which are available upon request), but
suffice to say that I was determined to oppose Guazzoni’s reelection
effort and to communicate my concerns about him (and the former mayor)
with the community. (Longtime residents will recall the tumult in
Village governance during this period.)

Long before the 2017 Village election, I filed a FOIL request for all
the resident email addresses in the Village’s records, including those
that trustees used to communicate official business with the
community. It is important to note that, at the time, the Village
permitted Village trustees to use personal email accounts to conduct
official business. This practice—which Mayor Mac terminated in favor
of public, “.gov” emails for the conduct of Village business—left the
Village vulnerable to unscrupulous officials like Guazzoni who refused
to share their official Village records, including email records, with
the Village Records Access Officer, as required by New York law. Sure
enough, Guazzoni was almost wholly uncooperative despite repeated
requests and demands from the Village Records Access Officer and
Village Attorney. I ultimately filed an Article 78 proceeding under
FOIL to compel Guazzoni’s production of Village records in his
exclusive possession and control and to vindicate the public interest.
I contemporaneously offered to settle the litigation and explained my
desire to vindicate the public interest in an open letter to the
community on June 12, 2017 (also available upon request).

The attached provides more detail for those interested, but the bottom
line is that a New York court found that the Village had violated FOIL
because of former trustee Guazzoni’s obstruction (and through no fault
of Village officials trying to comply with the law but who did not
have access to Guazzoni’s emails). Through the course of these events,
Guazzoni lied to the Village Records Access Officer; lied to the
Village Attorney, and ultimately lied to the court in a filing made
under penalty of perjury. He thereby violated both his oath of office
and several provisions of New York law and also committed perjury. To
this day, Claudio has never produced the email distribution list that
was the subject of his perjurious affidavit. In light of his
obstructive behavior, Claudio’s recent paeans to transparency can be
appreciated for what they are: rank hypocrisy. Public Gaslighter
indeed.

After the state court had ruled in my favor in the FOIL litigation, I
settled the matter on favorable terms to the Village; I have attached
hereto the Settlement Agreement, which summarizes the case in plain
English. After formally approving the settlement, the Village Board of
Trustees, at a public meeting on December 21, 2022, unanimously
adopted the following Resolution of Censure:

"The Village of Tuxedo Park Board of Trustees hereby censures the
conduct of former trustee Claudio Guazzoni as an elected Village
Trustee in 2017 that led to the Village’s violations of New York’s
Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), as recently determined by a state
court. In addition, former Trustee Guazzoni, in such capacity, failed
to turn over all Village records in his possession related to his
duties as a Village Trustee. By not providing the level of cooperation
and candor required of him as a Village official under New York law,
former Trustee Guazzoni caused the Village to be unable to comply with
FOIL requirements which resulted in an adverse court decision against
the Village. Consequently, Village taxpayers incurred significant
costs in this matter. The Board of Trustees hereby calls on former
Trustee Guazzoni to recognize the impact of his actions and requests
that he makes a significant donation to the Village for the purposes
of beautification efforts undertaken by the Board of Trustees."

I hope these details and those provided in the attached documents
establish the context for you to conclude, as have I and many others
who care about our community, that Public Gaslighter Claudio Guazzoni
is unworthy of your time, attention or consideration. Why candidate
Citrin stands by in silent complicity with Claudio only he can answer.

Sean P. Madden

VOTP LTR 10-17-22, Madden VOTP Settlement, Who Is Claudio?

On Friday, July 21 the following email was sent to the community from self-proclaimed Public Advoate Claudio Guazzoni:

DEMOCRACY AT WORK Day = T+31 We are Still Fighting for a Clean Election   Democracy protected by the Court Democracy for the Village of Tuxedo Park was upheld by the Supreme Court. Wednesday morning, your Public Advocate appeared before the Supreme Court with his attourneys. The Court seems to have grasped the issues, and seems to have recognised that our Proceeding, which is brought on by an individual voter, is in reality on behalf of the Community, and, under the recently amended law, is the only way to prevent errors in the Election Process such as allowing illegal votes into the canvass and counting of the votes of  this Village. We have been given a briefing schedule and a filing schedule for papers to ensure that only legal ballots are included in the count of votes in this election. Instead of arguing the merits of the case to count the Ballots, McFadden's lawyers spent the first few hours arguing that we did not have “standing” to bring on a case regarding Administrative errors in our Village, that we were "self-appointed," and finally that our opinion and damage to the citizens of Tuxedo Park was not important enough to have a case heard by The Supreme Court.  After hearing both sides, the Judge ruled in our favour and let it be known that “any Voter, no matter how small, has a right to be heard in Court.” Furthermore, the Court spent the next 90 minutes ruling in our favour on the remaining 3 issues... all-in-all, not a bad day...!    __________________ “Correct the Errors” vs “Let's Count Illegal Ballots” We appeared in Court Wednesday morning ready to come to an Agreement and sign a Stipulation with the attourneys controlled by McFadden. We were ready to count all legally issued ballots that were returnable on or before 9pm June 20th 2023, at the Court hearing that was scheduled for July 24th,  as was in everyone's plans. The focus of this case is the Village Clerk issue Absentee Ballots to people who were not even registered to vote, which is a violation of the law.  That error must be corrected. The Residents of Tuxedo Park, as legal voters, must be protected, and their vote not diluted. McFadden seems to well-understand that the only way for him to stay in power is to have the fraudulent ballots counted as well. He also realised that by stalling and delaying the canvass of the votes he benefits, by staying in power as a Holdover-Mayor.  McFadden has already used our tax dollars to pay his high-priced out-of-town lawyers to accomplish this. As he is currently a Holdover-Mayor, another way for him to stay in power is to stall, and push the counting of Absentee Ballots as far into the future as possible... maybe even into September. With this agenda in mind, an agreement to canvass the properly issued and returned Absentee Ballots was, needless to say, not reached.  [to canvas = manually inspect and verify legally cast Absentee Ballots, before adding their count to the machine vote count] McFadden and his Village puppets would not even agree to produce a list of the improperly issued ballots for the Court to narrow down the issues, so as to quickly finalise the Election results, and save tax dollars. The high-priced Village Lawyers are paid for by our tax money... but, whom are the Village Lawyers really working for... you or McFadden...? Why has McFadden been allowed to hijack the Village Lawyers to defend and promote his own private Candidacy for Mayor...?    __________________ Judge’s advice for first time voters The Judge had some good advice for first time voters.  When a Low-information Voter suddenly appeared and was asked by the Judge why he was present in the Courtroom, the person became belligerent and yelled out that his son was "born in the Park" and because of that honour, his son was somehow special and could use his Privilege to skirt the rules.  The Judge calmly looked at the Low-information Voter and informed him that “it doesn’t matter if you are 18 or 80 years old,” that everybody follows the same rules... first you Register, then you Vote... not the other way around...! The Court assured everyone that no one's vote has been discarded or "pulled." And with that, the Low-information Voter was asked to leave the Courtroom. Responsible parents of first-time Voters should ensure that your child is not coerced into committing Perjury by aggressive Vote Harvesters who force your child to swear that they are fully registered when obtaining an Absentee Ballot, when, in fact, they're not.  Please keep in mind that Vote Harvesters care only about their Candidate's numbers, and not about your child's Perjury. Let's remember that a Responsible Parent does not allow their child to drive a car just because they turned 17yo... a Responsible Parent would ensure that the child first had the proper training, applied and received a valid Driver's License, and finally that the car was actually registered and properly insured.   __________________ The crux of our filings   ILLEGAL BALLOT HARVESTING BY MCFADDEN & OTHERS  [from our Supreme Court Filing]   59. We note here that the act of false voting is a violation of §17-132 of the Election Law. It is classified as a felony. Similarly, procurement of, aiding or assisting in illegal voting is a felony under §17-134 of the Election Law. (emphasis ours)   73. The ultimate goal advanced by these Respondents is to put these illegal votes into the canvass process, have them counted and secure an electoral victory for McFadden.    The facts are undeniable – virtually every absentee ballot illegally obtained has the taint of the incumbent Mayor and his accomplice on it.       Coincidence… or concerted effort…?   The current rules of the Orange County Board of Elections require that no one person be allowed more than 10 Absentee Ballots on behalf of others.  This rule was implemented by The Board of Elections in all 62 NYS Counties as a measure to help prevent Fraud. Of the 196 Absentee Ballots issued by Village Hall, David McFadden was personally responsible for harvesting 51, of which at least 23 were found to be problematic, or 45%. Of the 196 Absentee Ballots issued by Village Hall, [McFadden’s accomplice, name redacted] was responsible for harvesting 33, of which some 8 are found to be problematic, or 24%. Both McFadden and his Accomplice exceeded, by a large amount, the per-person legal limit of 10 Absentee Ballots Harvested. Out of the problematic 45 Absentee Ballots, 31 of them were personally procured by McFadden and/or his Accomplice, or 69%. We asked the Judge permission to expand our lawsuit to include specifics of the recently uncovered practice of procuring, aiding, or assisting in illegal voting. The Judge could have easily denied permission, however, without hesitation, the Judge is allowing us to include and expand the Fraud case against McFadden and his Accomplice. __________________      What could be wrong… types of Fraud Of the some 40 wrongfully issued Absentee Ballots that we deem fraudulent, certain ones are more egregious than others. Not from Tuxedo Park:  There were more than a dozen ballots given to folks that are not even registered in Tuxedo Park… one would be voter lives in the Woodlands, while another handful claims Tax Exile status in other states like Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee… why would anyone ever endanger their Tax Status by voting in a NYS election, anyway…? Ballots still at large:  Another handful of Absentee Ballots were given to folks, who plainly never returned the ballots to Village Hall.  The deadline was 9pm, June 20th 2023, with the Absentee Ballot in Village Hall.  We remain vigilant in preventing anyone from slipping late ballots into the canvas.  So, there are a number of ballots floating around out there, waiting to make their way, at the proper moment, into the safe in Village Hall which houses all of the Absentee Ballots… our job is to identify such ballots and prevent such additional ballots from suddenly appearing and being canvassed and counted. Not registered:  A number of persons not registered at the time they applied for an Absentee Ballot were given ballots in error by the Village Clerk.  They swore (falsely) that they were registered to vote.  In an effort, as part of an organised scheme by McFadden and his Accomplice, these persons subsequently and coincidentally registered all on the same day, which renders the ballot illegal.  This post-registration does not cure the error of the Village Clerk,  nor does it render the Absentee Ballot issued prior to registration valid. Voted twice:  And the last challenge for us was to identify the handful of folks who voted twice, all of the folks that previously had filled-in a valid Absentee Ballot, and additionally voted in person on Election Day.  Of all the folks that voted twice, all but one have honourably identified themselves to the Election Inspectors and had their Absentee Ballot annulled, so as to not double-count their vote.   All but one… and yes, we just identified the young scoundrel who thought he could pull a fast-one... and he almost got away with it…!   __________________   Status of current Absentee Ballots   142 to 109 = the machine vote on Election Day (Citrin over McFadden).   196 = the astounding number of Absentee Ballots created by Village Hall during the 3 week period prior to Election Day... the great majority were valid... however, some were not legally issued.   45 = number of Absentee Ballots created in a problematic manner, or not returned.  __________________ Our Position It is not too late for common sense to prevail, and for the reputations of our Village and our Village Officials to be redeemed. We stand ready to allow the Village to correct any error or omission, as shown by Section (5) of our proposed stipulation to the Village Attourney (reprinted below).  The verbiage is straight out of NY State Election Law. Section 5.  The parties stipulate and agree that any error or omission by the Village Clerk shall be corrected and resolved by excluding from the canvass the ballot(s) of any person who is determined to have NOT been registered to vote at the time they made their application for an absentee ballot. It is our fervent desire and the overriding sentiment of every person we have spoken with, that this election be concluded and the race be decided no matter who ultimately prevails.  This is our position and has been from the beginning, regardless of the noise or whispers that have been cast our way by a very few disgruntled and ill-informed individuals, or, more recently, by a few helpless moon-howlers. Therefore, we again call upon the Mayor and the Village to chart a course that will allow us to move forward together putting the campaign behind us and get on with the business of government.   Village of Tuxedo Park Residents deserve nothing less. Mayor McFadden, allow the Village Clerk to correct her errors, so that all legally cast ballots can be counted...! We shall be sending additional updates as soon as we have new information. Your humble servant,   Claudio Guazzoni de Zanett Office of the Public Advocate (NGO) Village of Tuxedo Park

and then on Saturday, July 22:

151 uncontested absentee ballots remain uncounted 20 days after the Village Election took place and many residents are growing restless as they await results and answers.  

July 6 Village Board Meeting Part 1

July 6 Village Board Meeting Part 2

Then, on Friday, June 7 the following email was circulated by David McFadden:

Stop Gaslighting, Sirs - Drop The Lawsuits and Let the Election Proceed.

Dear Friends and Neighbors, Like you, I am a village resident, and my hard-earned money has been wasted defending election lawsuits. There are two. Following a hiccup in the initial ownership, Petitioner Claudio Guazzoni bought both. The stunning display of hypocrisy and the relentless spread of false rumors regarding the election's status is truly remarkable. As of yesterday, Marc Citrin purports/attempts to adopt the Petitioner’s challenges to voter’s rights in the form of crossclaims against the village.  The list includes 30 of my supporters and none of Marc's supporters [1]. If you have any more interest in the cases, please continue reading below. Sincerely, David McFadden Incumbent Mayor Candidate [1] The following will have one or more family member's votes disqualified by Claudio Guazzoni and Marc Citrin if they prevail in court, preventing the election from proceeding: Brunner, Devereux, Foster, Garbett, Gazin, Gonzales, Gorzynski, Griffin, Hansen, Karbonska, Lobkowicz, Lopez, Ma, Martin, McDonnell, McLennan, Ryan, Ruddy, Scherer, Tinari, Turnbull, and Wiebicki.   To follow the case filings in real-time, click on each case below (using the New York State Court Electronics Filing (NYSCEF) system): CASE ONE – This lawsuit halted the June 20, 2023, village election canvassing and counting absentee ballots for the mayor's office and two uncontested trustees and asked the court to disqualify the ballots of approximately 30 village residents. EF004013-2023 - To View All Court Papers - Orange County Supreme Court Short Caption: Claudio Guazzoni de Zanett v. ELIZABETH DOHERTY et al. Case Type: Special Proceedings - Election Law Case Status: Active eFiling Status:  Partial Participation Recorded Assigned Judge: Maria S Vazquezdoles Verified Answers and Cross Claims: Marc Citrin purports/attempts to adopt the petitioner’s challenges to voter’s rights in the form of crossclaims against the village see 1 of the 4 filings by Marc Citrin (# 51 Notice of Motion (Motion #3)). Defense attorneys for the Village: Joe Burns, Esq. and Mike Burger, Esq. of Santiago Burger, LLP Judge Vazquezdoles has granted the Petitioner a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and has ordered all parties to appear in court on July 24, 2023. CASE TWO – This lawsuit declares that the Board of Trustees violated Open Meetings Law and that all resolutions to obtain special legal counsel to represent David McFadden et al. are invalid, null, and void. EF004211-2023 - To View All Court Papers - Orange County Supreme Court Short Caption: Claudio Guazzoni de Zanett v. DAVID C MCFADDEN et al  Case Type: Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 Case Status: Active eFiling Status:  Full Participation Recorded Assigned Judge: Maria S Vazquezdoles Defense attorneys for the Village: Jared Kasschau, Esq. Lead Attorney, Harris Beach, PLLC. Judge Vazquezdoles has granted the Petitioner a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and has ordered all parties to appear in court on July 14, 2023, which will likely be rescheduled for July 24, 2003, although the two cases remain separate. I believe this case will be rendered mute by the actions taken by the board yesterday: (see meeting clips above)

Also on july 9, this article was published by the Photo News:

Lawsuits Pile Up As Tuxedo Park Awaits Election Decision

On Monday July 10, TPFYi was contacted by McFadden wih the following:

Dear TPFYI,

Only Tuesday, July 11 the following three pieces appeared on the Photonews website:

Guazzoni Continues to Pollute Our Community with Lies

Tuxedo Park Residents are Entitled to Know Who Their Nexy Mayor Will Be

Stop Gaslighting, Stop the Lawsuits, and Let The Election Proceed

Currently the Village and Mr. Guazzoni are slated to appear at a hearing in Goshen on July 24.  Stay tuned to TPFYI for any further developments as they unfold. 

and then this from Village resident and former Trustee Christopher Hansen on July 2:

Who pulls Mark Citrin's strings?

• Claudio, the self declared town crier
• Claudio, who was censured by the Board of Trustees
• Claudio, who ran for Trustee but was rejected by the voters
• Claudio, who secretly backed two transitory residents who were also rejected by the voters
• Claudio, who is cherry-picking the votes he doesn’t wanted counted in this election

Citrin’s communications were sent from Claudio’s mass e-mailing account.  Claudio spouts on about “open and transparent government” yet he conceals that he is behind Citrin’s emails.  Citrin’s statement that he was not part of the lawsuit to cherry-pick votes seems even less credible than when he first made it

See for yourself before Claudio destroys the evidence

1. Open any of Claudio’s emails

2. Click on “View this email in your browser”

The position of the Public Advocate is clear:  we support a fair election process that will provide our residents confidence in the results of this election. 

Our attorney stands ready to meet before the Orange County Board of Elections and have the undisputed ballots opened and counted.

We are confident that, if the Village Attourney wished, this could be resolved in a matter of hours, and within the next few days. 

We are urging for a quick and honest resolution to this issue.

We shall be sending additional updates as soon as we have new information. 

With warm regards,
 
Claudio Guazzoni de Zanett
Office of the Public Advocate (NGO)
Village of Tuxedo Park

*The Office of Public Advocate of Tuxedo Park is an NGO - a non-governmental organisation.  It is not part of the Administration nor part of Office of the Village of Tuxedo Park, nor does it profess to be so.  It is a Private Organisation, and as such, only expresses the opinions of Private Individuals.

As Public Advocate for Tuxedo Park, one of our jobs is to ensure election integrity for Village Elections.

Yesterday morning, upon close inspection, we found that of the 182 Absentee Votes received by Village Hall, 31 of them had irregularities of non-compliance with NY State Election Law.

Some 14 of the 31 Absentee Votes were  cast by people who are not even Registered Voters, nor were ever Registered Voters of Tuxedo Park.

Throughout the day, we urged Village Hall to separate out such 31 votes, but to no avail.

We did not wish to resort to a Court dispute, but had no choice, as our efforts throughout the day to guarantee a clean election were frustrated by Mayor McFadden.

At our request, these 31 absentee ballots are currently under review by the State Supreme Court.

On the other hand, we also found that the remaining 151 Absentee Ballots cast were indeed valid, and we encourage Village Hall to open and tally such ballots as soon as practicable.

Furthermore, contrary to David McFadden’s false accusations, we have no ties or agreements with either candidate, not David McFadden, not Marc Citrin.

We are merely citizens, and Residents of Tuxedo Park who are entitled to a vote not diluted by irregularities.

In contrast to David McFadden’s Trumpesque election denial, we have absolutely no agreements with Marc Citrin regarding governance of the Village.

We are urging for a quick and honest resolution to this issue, and we shall be keeping you informed accordingly.

With warm regards,
 
Claudio Guazzoni de Zanett
Office of the Public Advocate (NGO)
Village of Tuxedo Park

*The Office of Public Advocate of Tuxedo Park is an NGO - a non-governmental organisation.  It is not part of the Administration nor part of Office of the Village of Tuxedo Park, nor does it profess to be so.  It is a Private Organisation, and as such, only expresses the opinions of Private Individuals.

and then the following from Candidate Marc D. Citrin:

TOGETHER, THROUGH OUR VOICES, WE HAVE MADE TUXEDO PARK EVEN BETTER
Dear Neighbors,
Thank you again for your support on Election Day. I am writing to update you on the events
surrounding last night’s counting of the ballots. After the polls closed at 9pm, Mr. Sarcone, an attorney
representing Mr. Claudio Guazzoni  served  a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the Village
prohibiting the counting of the absentee ballots until the judge could determine which absentee ballots
were not validly cast.

 It is my position that all absentee ballots, other than those cast by voters who were not registered in
Tuxedo Park by the statutory deadline, should be counted as expeditiously as possible. It is my belief that every validly registered Tuxedo Park voter has the right to have their vote counted.

I am confirming again that Mr. Sarcone does not represent me . I have never spoken or communicated with Mr. Sarcone and I have not provided any facts or opinions to Mr. Sarcone. In fact, I am named in his Petition as a Respondent/Defendant together with Mayor McFadden, the Trustees and the Village Clerk. I was served with the Petition at my home at 10pm last night.

At the time that the vote counting was halted, the machine count had been tabulated and showed me with a lead of 142 to 109. I am cautiously optimistic that my lead will hold up through the counting of  the absentee ballots.

No matter the final result, I want you to know that I am humbled by support that my campaign has received from our community. You made it quite clear by your many votes that there is a yearning for change in the manner and style of governance at Village Hall. I campaigned on civility, equality for all and fairness.  This remains my desire, win or lose, for Tuxedo Park.  Together, through our voices, we have made Tuxedo Park Even Better.

Marc

Marc D. Citrin (Challenger - Time For A Change Party)

To: TPFYI

From: Marc D. Citrin

Re: Question No.4-Salary for the Mayor & Trustees

Tuxedo Park is unique in so many ways. We are blessed with a multitude of historic homes, three gorgeous lakes and abundance of verdant forests and wildlife. In addition, we have a long history of citizen involvement in our village government. Since 1952 when the Village was incorporated, the men and women who served as leaders of our community have done so as a public service without remuneration. But now, for the first time, in a breach of this tradition, the incumbent mayor has reached into the pockets of Village taxpayers to give himself an emolument of more than $35,000. Furthermore, in an affront to Village residents, he did not even seek our consent for this change in the terms of his office.

I believe that Tuxedo Park IS different from the surrounding villages and towns. We are a small community of civic-minded and philanthropic people, whose past leaders have worked tirelessly for the greater good without regard for financial compensation. If elected, I will uphold this noble tradition. 

In the June 4 public forum at Chastellux, the incumbent mayor proclaimed that he wants to serve another 9 years. Aside from the authoritarian tone of such a statement, another 9 years of this mayor would cost well over $300,000 of our tax dollars. Is he worth it? You must decide. Please vote on June 20. It’s Time for a Change!

David C. McFadden (Incumbent - No Taxes Party)

Dear Neighbors,

I present my response in five parts: 1) Letter, 2) Summary, 3) Exhibit A - A Memo on the use of Referendums from the Village Attorney, 4) Exhibit B - Email from the New York State Conference of Mayors (NYCOM), and 5) Exhibit C – Download the NYCOM 2022 Survey of Salaries.
Please bear with me as I provide a comprehensive response to address Marc's concerns and shed light on approving the salary in the past and future. You know me, I am committed to providing detailed explanations and leaving no stone unturned.

PART 1: LETTER

Question 4 is the concluding question from TPFYI this election. I want to thank them for providing Marc and me a platform to share our perspectives with the residents, particularly those who recently joined our community. Through this process, I hope we have all gained a deeper understanding of how our government functions and the importance of civic engagement.
I also want to extend my sincere best wishes to Marc as we approach Tuesday, the election day. I genuinely appreciate his willingness to step forward and serve our village. It takes courage and dedication to put oneself forward as a candidate, and I respect anyone who embraces this responsibility.
Together, Marc and I have played our roles in this election, presenting our ideas and aspirations for the betterment of our community. Now, it is your turn to contribute by exercising your right to vote next Tuesday. Your vote will demonstrate that our efforts have not been in vain and will shape our village's future. Each vote matters, and I urge you to participate, making your voice heard.
While Marc believes that the salary was approved without sufficient public input and questions the process, I respectfully hold a distinct perspective. It is crucial to address Marc's concerns and clearly explain my position.
Firstly, I acknowledge Marc's emphasis on public input and transparency in decision-making. Public participation is crucial in matters that affect the community, and I value the importance of open dialogue and engagement. However, when determining the mayor's salary, it is essential to consider various factors and balance fairness and practicality. For example, a village cannot just put any topic to a referendum. There must be a specific statutory authorization; there is no statutory authorization to put a budget proposal to a referendum. 
Elected officials, including the mayor and four trustees, should be financially compensated for their dedicated service. Successfully running a municipality requires a significant amount of time and hard work, and providing financial compensation is an appropriate and necessary step toward ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of our local government.
The decision regarding the mayor's salary is not made in isolation or without careful consideration. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of the responsibilities, time commitment, and expectations associated with the role. It also considers the compensation practices of neighboring municipalities and the broader context of public service.
While I respect Marc's viewpoint, the mayor's salary was established through thoughtful deliberation by our elected officials, whom we entrust with making informed decisions on behalf of the community. This process ensures that the mayor's compensation reflects the demands and responsibilities of the position while considering the overall financial health of the municipality.
Compensating elected officials acknowledges their commitment and sacrifices to serve the community. By offering financial support, we can attract a diverse pool of candidates who may otherwise be unable to dedicate their time due to financial constraints. This ensures that individuals from various backgrounds and experiences can participate in shaping the future of our village, bringing fresh perspectives and ideas to the table.
It is worth noting that compensating elected officials is already prevalent in the Town of Tuxedo, in many surrounding villages and towns in both Orange and Rockland Counties, and in most of the 534 villages in New York State. By aligning with these neighboring communities, we can ensure that our compensation practices are fair and consistent, attracting capable individuals who can effectively commit time and energy to govern the Village of Tuxedo Park.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support financial compensation to elected officials in the Village of Tuxedo Park. This practice acknowledges their hard work, promotes diversity in our government, and fosters transparency and accountability. By compensating our elected officials, we can build a solid and resolute team that will continue to work tirelessly for the betterment of our community.

PART 2: SUMMARY

Elected officials, including the mayor and four trustees, should be financially compensated for their dedicated service.
1. Leadership and Accountability:

 - The mayor is crucial in providing leadership and making important decisions for the village.
-- It is essential for voters to critically evaluate the actions and behavior of candidates, as they often speak louder than campaign slogans. 
- The position carries substantial responsibilities, including overseeing municipal operations, managing budgets, and representing the village in various capacities.
- A salary ensures that the mayor is fully dedicated to these responsibilities and is held accountable for their actions.

2. Full-Time Commitment:

- Being a mayor is often a full-time commitment, requiring substantial time and effort to fulfill the duties effectively.
- The mayor is expected to be accessible to the community, attend numerous meetings, engage with residents, collaborate with other officials, and address issues promptly.
- A salary acknowledges the considerable time and effort required to fulfill these responsibilities.
3. Attracting and Retaining Qualified Candidates:

-- Offering compensation for the mayor's role helps attract a diverse pool of qualified candidates who can dedicate their time and expertise to public service.
-- It encourages individuals from different professional backgrounds to consider running for mayor, bringing valuable skills and experience to the position.
-- Compensation helps ensure the village attracts capable leaders willing to commit their time and energy to the community.
4. Incentive for Dedication and Performance:

-- A salary can incentivize the mayor to demonstrate dedication and deliver effective results for the village.
-- It recognizes the importance of the mayor's work and encourages them to strive for excellence, knowing that the community values and appreciates their efforts.
-- A strong working relationship with elected officials, employees, and residents is critical to successful leadership.
5. Equal Treatment:

-- Offering compensation for the mayor's role ensures parity and fairness with other positions within the village administration.
-- Most municipalities compensate their mayors as a standard practice, aligning with the compensation structure for other public officials in similar capacities.
-- Unlike Tuxedo Park, many villages employ village managers, executive assistants, and part-time mayors.

6. Reflecting the Value of the Position:

-- The mayor's role is vital in shaping the village's future, representing its interests, and ensuring the well-being of its residents.
-- Providing a salary acknowledges the value and significance of the position and underscores the importance of solid leadership for the village's progress and success.
7. Compensation as a campaign issue:

-- Compensation for elected officials is a legitimate and necessary consideration and should not be a campaign issue.
-- Focusing on whether a mayor receives a salary can unfairly cast aspersions on their character and imply greed or ulterior motives.

EXHIBIT A:  Memo on the Use of Referendums from the Village Attorney

6/14/2023

Mayor McFadden, 

A Permissive Referendum (whether initiated by the Board or resident petition) would not be permitted on the issue of a mayor's salary. Permissive referendums can only be held when specifically permitted/required by statute and there is no basis for a permissive referendum in statute on the issue of a mayor salary increase. 
A Mandatory Referendum could occur only if the Village Board sought to enact the proposed change in the mayor's salary by a local law. See N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 24. The local law process would include a public hearing and then subsequently the matter would be placed as a proposition on the election ballot. However, the Village is not required to enact the change by local law, but proceeding by local law is the only way in which a referendum would have been required. 
However, the Village enacted the salary increase via the budget process (which is permissible) and resolution of the Board in adopting the budget. There was a public hearing on the budget, so the same opportunity to comment and be heard was afforded as would be the case with local law. Regardless, the Village (unlike Town's) may also enact a change in salaries during the year by resolution under NYS Village Law, Article 5 and the Comptroller's office has issued at least one opinion confirming this. 
I cannot speak to the relative costs - but in a mandatory referendum case - the Village would need to draft and introduce a local law to increase the salary, publish public hearing notice in the newspaper, hold the public hearing, and (if the law is enacted), the Village would then need to include the proposition language on the printed ballots at the Village general election. If approved, the Village would then file the local law with the secretary of state and implement the salary increase. Whatever the costs are, the local law/referendum process is certainly more expensive than enacting the increase through the budget process which requires no additional costs since the public hearing is being held anyway on the budget and the only other effort required is adding the salary to the budget documents. 
Brian D. Nugent, Esq. 
FEERICK NUGENT MacCARTNEY PLLC
96 South Broadway
South Nyack, NY 10960
845.353.2000
845.353.2789 (fax)
bnugent@fnmlawfirm.com

EXHIBIT B: Email from the New York State Conference of Mayors (NYCOM)

From: Barbara VanEpps barbara@nycom.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023, 10:10 AM
To: David McFadden <dmcfadden@tuxedopark-ny.gov>
Cc: jmancini@nycom.org <jmancini@nycom.org>; david@nycom.org <david@nycom.org>
Subject: Re: Compensation for Mayors

Mayor McFadden,

We typically only share our salary survey results (attached) with those that participate. Tuxedo Park did not participate but I simply ask that you fill out a hard copy of the survey (also attached) when you can, and we will add you to the results.
The mayor's salary is typically set as part of the budget process and does not require a local law or referendum. It is approved as part of the budget via resolution.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Barbara Van Epps

EXHIBIT C: Download the NYCOM 2022 Survey of Salaries

Download NYCOM 2022 Survey of Salaries

BONUS: Download a pdf of Mayor MACs Answer to Question 4

BONUS: Download a pdf of Mayor MACs Answer to Question 4 

Do you believe the Village should extend Membership eligibility at the Wee Wah Beach to include all Town residents who live in the Hamlet section of Tuxedo as well as First Responders and their immediate families, which is the way it was for more than 50 years prior to 2018.  Why or why not?

Below please find their unedited responses in the order they were received:

Do you feel the approved Tuxedo Farms Development of 1600 residential units poses any risks for our Village?  If so, What are they and how should they be mitigated?

Below please find their unedited responses in the order they were received.

Below please find their un-edited responses in the order they were received.

Marc D. Citrin (Challenger - Time For A Change Party)

The following two candidates have submitted nominating petitions for the position of Village Mayor.  They are:

Marc D. Citrin (Challenger - Time For A Change Party)

Additionally, the following two candidates are running unopposed for the position of Trustee:

Paul Brooke (Independent Party)

Joshua Scherer (Lakes and Forest Party)

The Fiscal Health of the Village has never been better

As important as we take public safety and infrastructure maintenance and repair, our role as fiduciaries is sacrosanct. 

We evaluate our success in meeting or coming in below our current 2022-2023 budget and keeping a tight grip on any potential increase in our property taxes. Failure for us is going above New York State's mandatory property tax cap of 2% - we are far below it.

With that in mind, I am pleased to tell you that we came in under budget this year and continue to build our reserves. Because of our oversight, we will not see a jump in property taxes this year, keeping with our commitment as elected officials to keep our property taxes as low as possible. As of May 10, 2023, the board projects that we will come in 6.51% under the adopted 2022-2023 budget.

The outlook is even better for the 2023-2024 budget cycle we completed last week. We are excited to deliver a fiscally conservative budget without sacrificing the services essential to Tuxedo Park’s quality of life. As it stands, 2023-2024 Property Taxes are 1.7621% lower year-over-year. We achieved this decrease without dipping into our unallocated surpluses.

In a recent stress test conducted by the Comptroller’s Office, the Village received an excellent score and is in sound financial health. This year we will ask Standard & Poor’s to increase our credit score from its current rating of AA/Stable (up from AA- in 2021), which will help us borrow at the best available interest rates, as well as our ability to overcome the significant inflationary pressures and increased utility costs we are experiencing.   

I thank my fellow Board members for their input and expertise and single out Deputy Mayor and Budget Director Tinka Shaw for her expertise and daily focus on our budget with the assistance of Elizabeth and John by her side daily. I also thank DPW Supervisor Jeff Voss and Chief Dave Conklin for their solid departmental budgeting and oversight. Finally, I want to thank the Village residents for their support and confidence in our ability to manage their budgets, tax dollars, and investment in our community. We are humbled and honored for the opportunity. 

Click here to view the preliminary budget 

Dear David:

Please read the e mail below from Rod Armstrong, V  P   and Jeffrey Kent, President of AMFP.  I have received the great news that I have been selected for a position on the National board of AMFP. I was invited to submit my qualifications last October. It is a two year term. It has now finally been made official as of yesterday, 3/2/23. This National organization represents all the healthcare facilities in the USA. It is a tremendous opportunity for me and my firm; one that I can not pass up. 

I have thought long and hard about how I could be Chairperson of this National board and the Chairperson of our Village BAR. It is with sincere regret that I have come to the conclusion that I can not be Chairperson of both and have the time to devote to having each board achieve the standard of excellence that I am accustomed to. 

I am submitting this notice of resignation as BAR member and Chairwoman effective at the end of business today, March 3, 2023. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve. 

Kind regards,

Paola Tocci, Assoc. AIA

CEO+ President 

The Tocci Group

140 Broadway 

25th Floor

N. Y. , N. Y. 10005

The Wee Wah will reopen tomorrow for swimmers. No toxic green/blue algae blooms were identified visually or through testing.

I thank our consulting lake professionals, A.J. Reyes of NEAR and Bob Schindler of Solitude Lakes Management, for their guidance and quick response to our safety concerns for the WWP&BC and Town Summer Camp members and the users of Pond No.3 and Tuxedo Lake. I also thank the Orange County Department of Health for their field visit today and for clearing the Village to reopen our lakes for recreation. 

Mayor Mac

Name: