WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. By John F. Bailey. September 12, 2007: The city will consider any submissions received in response to the council-rejected Request for Qualifications to developers to redevelop the area around the White Plains railroad station, City Hall stated today, but the Mayor's Office raised another issue that the public stand by 4 councilpersons acting in consort in secret violated the City Charter. 

Paul Wood City Executive Officer, September 2006. WPCNR File Photo.

Any responses to the RFQ will be forwarded to the Common Council for their consideration, Paul Wood, City Executive Officer told WPCNR today. “The RFQ is still in effect,” Wood said.

“The RFQ is still in the market, but I would be shocked beyond belief that anyone would respond since a majority of the council people have publicized the fact that they are not going to support it,” Wood said.

All submissions received will be forwarded to the Council

Asked  what happens to a company like Reckson who submits within the deadline of the RFQ (September 30), would the city consider their proposal Wood said, “The council has already said they won’t consider anybody. Let me tell you what happens now, they have, in effect, precluded at least one person from submitting (Cappelli Enterprises). I think I’d rather see what they are going to say. “

WPCNR asked if the city would not rule out holding any proposals received in abeyance and submitting them once a new RFQ procedure had been established.

Wood said “The issue is they (the council) are policy makers. They are not administrators. RFQs are developed by the administration. They (the council) can vote it up or down any way they want. But they cannot draw up a new RFQ, that’s not their duty by charter.”

No Rewrite of the RFQ Being Considered: Wood

Asked if the administration was planning on sitting down with the four councilpersons who criticized the RFQ, and hammering out a new procedure acceptable to Councilpersons Boykin, Malmud, Roach and Power, Wood said the administration would not:

“No. Because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the current one. The RFQ does not ask anyone for a plan, an idea. It asks for nothing more than the qualifications of the builder and an ability of putting up the money ($3 Million for the study). From that group the council can choose whoever they want, or  they may choose a partnership of two or three (developers). They can do anything they want. They can say they don’t want anybody. They may say they want that guy or that guy. Or pick this that and another one. The  RFQ is not bonding in any way. Their charge it’s tilted toward Cappelli is ludicrous considering the fact he is not interested in it anyway.”

If any qualifications submissions come in, Wood said he would forward them to the council.

Charter Violation?

Wood raised the issue that possibly the Common Council 4 issuing the statement against the RFQ had violated the open meetings law of the City Charter.

The Charter states in Section 28: “…Four (4) members of the council will constitute a quorum, and unless otherwise proved by law, the affirmative vote of four (4) members shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or pass any measure coming before it.”

Reading Section 29 of the Charter, one finds…”The common council shall determine the rules of its own proceedings. Its meetings shall be public, except when the public interests require secrecy, but no vote shall be taken in secret or executive session. Its records shall be open to public inspection. The passage of an ordinance, unless otherwise herein provided, shall require the affirmative vote of at least four (4) members.

Wood observed  the Council 4 who jointly signed the letter published in the press had been “caucusing” in secret “obviously,” which he said considering they publicly announced their “decision” in public without informing the other three members of the council appeared to violate the Charter open meetings law by voting on a policy in secret.

"They accuse us all the time of not being open," Wood said, "Yet they do something like this."