By JAIME STUDD

For the C-S-E

FONDA — Armed with an attorney representing the village’s volunteer fire department, Fonda Fire Chief Donald Wagoner used the opportunity of Monday night’s fire commissioner’s meeting to question Mayor Bill Peeler about what he believed to be an illegal meeting of the village’s board of trustees.

Wagoner said he received word of a meeting that allegedly took place last month between the Mohawk Board of Fire Commissioners, Peeler and three of the village’s four trustees regarding what he believed was a proposal to dissolve the village’s fire department.

Wagoner, along with the department’s attorney, Dave Garwood, argued that the meeting was a violation of the state’s open meetings law because a full quorum of the village board was represented and there was no public notice given.

Wagoner was also dismayed by the fact that village fire officials were not even made aware of the meeting.

“We were left in the dark about the meeting,” Wagoner said.

“The village board held a meeting to dissolve the fire department and they held it secretly,” said Garwood.

Peeler argued that the board was not in violation of the law because the village board was invited to the meeting by Mohawk fire officials and the matters were discussed in an executive session called by that board.

Peeler said the only purpose of the meeting was to explore the options available to the village in the light of increasing budgetary concerns with regards to the fire department.

“I think we need to start examining other options,” Peeler said.

Regardless of the manner in which the meeting was convened, Garwood argued, the presence of a quorum of the village board made it an official meeting under the law and required public notice.

Asked to clarify by Peeler, Fonda Village Attorney Michael Albanese conceded that a violation of the open meetings law may have occurred.

“Yeah, you may have been required to (post a public notice,)” Albanese said.

“They didn’t comply with the regulation that required them to provide public notice,” he added.

Peeler said there was no intent to deliberately leave fire department officials out of the meeting and that he intended to bring all the information discussed to their attention at Monday’s meeting.

“We need to look at our current structure and what we can do to change it,” Peeler said.

“Why not include us?” Wagoner responded. “It looks like a backdoor secret meeting.”

“This was not about losing any fire department. This was about what are our options,” Peeler said. “ You guys jumped to conclusions.”

Peeler and Wagoner agreed that the root of the disagreements between the village and its fire department could be found in the village’s control over the department’s increasingly limited budget.

To remedy that situation, both also agreed that consolidation with the Mohawk Fire District was worthy of consideration.

“It seems like public safety is at the bottom of the totem pole,” Wagoner said.

“I want to get you the money,” said Peeler. “It’s counterproductive to argue about whatever issues we’re arguing about here.

“I am all about trying to combine our efforts with other municipalities,” he added. “As it stands right now, consolidation with the town, as a whole, is not a bad idea.”

Peeler said he will continue to hold meetings as a method of gathering as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision regarding a potential for consolidation.

“The problem here wasn’t your gathering information,” said Garwood. “The problem is the majority of this board held a meeting. You were present as a board.

“The fire department just wants to know that you will invite them,” he added.

Peeler eventually conceded to keep Wagoner informed with regards to future meetings on the issue, though he remained insistent that no violation of the open meetings law occurred because the village itself did not convene the meeting.

Following the meeting, Wagoner and Garwood said they were not likely to pursue legal action with regards to the alleged violation.

“I don’t have any intention to do that,” said Garwood. “The point is, I don’t think he’ll do that again.”