Late last Tuesday, the City Council hired a law firm for defense against legal action by Mayor Adrian O. Mapp.
After the City Council meeting closed public comment on Oct. 13, the governing body went into executive session and apparently came back out to pass R 410-15, a resolution that was not on the printed agenda. It states that as the council was served with a "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" from Mapp on or about Sept. 29, it was necessary for the governing body to "acquire professional legal services." The resolution provides for up to $20,000 to be paid to Weber Dowd Law, LLC of Woodland Park.
A Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is a legal action described as seeking a judge's opinion regarding the rights of the parties involved in a dispute. It does not require any action to be taken. Click link for more details.
The resolution states that "due to the urgency of this matter," advertisement was being waived. The docket number is UNN-L-3262-15. Plaintalker was unable to locate the case online over the weekend. Details will follow as available.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is about the mayor's contention to appoint, with the advice and consent of the City Council, who he wants as the Plainfield representative to PARSA, the Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority. PARSA operates a common interceptor system into which PMUA effluent passes, and is comprised of eight municipalities, each with its own representative on its Board of Commissioners.
ReplyDeletePARSA was formed in 1995, at the same time that PMUA was created, and it makes complete sense that PMUA, as the direct customer and Plainfield's sewerage agency, would have a seat at the table. Our administrative code makes provision for this, by limiting the mayor's choice to either PMUA's executive director or a member (commissioner) of the Authority, and is echoed in the 1997 Inter Local Agreement between the City and PMUA.
The mayor thinks he should have an unfettered ability to appoint who he wants, with the advice and consent of the Council, and points to the City Charter as giving him this right. The mayor's power of appointment appears in two sections of the Charter. Section 3.5 (a) reads "The mayor shall appoint and remove officers and employees as authorized by the charter or administrative code; and shall, with the advice and consent of the council, make all appointments for which no other provision is made by or pursuant to the charter.”
Similarly, Section 4.8 reads “Whenever any statute applicable to the city authorizes the appointment of the members of any board, commission, authority or other body for municipal purposes within the city, except the board of education, the power of appointment, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in such statute, shall be exercised by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.”
Both Charter clauses are not open ended. The first speaks to appointments authorized by the Charter or Administrative Code, and the second to those authorized by statute, "notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in such statute". Either way, the PARSA appointment is constrained by Section 3:35-8 of the municipal code, which states the requirement that the representative be the director or a commissioner of PMUA. This is not much different than the limitation placed on the appointment of a City Adminsitrator to those with a master's degree in public or business administration. Not everything can or ought to be without limit.
Neither the mayor or the City Council should be spending tax dollars on this court proceeding. All seven PMUA commissioners are Mapp appointees, so what does wanting someone else say about the quality of that Board or the Authority's new director? Maybe nothing at all, which only makes spending upwards of $40,000 combined to fight this battle a crazy idea and a waste of hard-earned taxpayer money. Rather than bring in the court, amend the ordinance and the ILA, or better yet, leave it as is.
I hope this ends soon, so that the Council and Mayor may get back to their Core Mission - Giving money to Consultants who make contributions to their political campaigns.
DeleteAny specific complaint for the declaratory judgement? Is R 410-15 informative? Will Corp Counsel defend the Mayor or recluse himself as being Counsel for both Council and Administration?
ReplyDeleteThis adolescent conduct of all the parties would be comical were it not destructive. It is reminiscent of the stasis in our Federal Congress. I have a Solomonic solution which avoids monetary expenditure. Lawyers represent both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Since our Corporation Council represents both the Mayor and the Council delegate him to write both the complaint on behalf of the Mayor, and the response on the part of the Council. Not only might it establish a new precedent in law, but it will amuse the judge. The great advantage will be that it will not cost anything. It seems to me this suggestion is no less ludicrous than what is transpiring. Harken back to the Yates payment. Yates has submitted a bill in the amount of $129,000, some $54,000 more than the bill Yates initially submitted at the conclusion of his work. The first bill, for $75,000, enumerated, verbally, all the work completed by Yates. No further work has been performed by Yates. Neither bill contained any cost information, merely an enumeration of the items of work. As I understand it Yates is going to be paid the second, larger amount, on the espoused theory that if Yates doesn't get paid that Yates will sue the City. This would result in the necessity for the City to pay an attorney to defend the suite.. The rejection of Yates second, unsupported billing, underscored by the conspicuously "irregular" award to Yates at the outset, , and Yates contract being terminated for cause, cries out for the Council to reject payment. To reject payment not only for the additional requisitioned payment, but for an investigation prior to making any payment whatsoever. Rather than sitting down and quietly resolving the resolvable PARSA issue both Mayor and Council are gearing up to spend God knows what in an internecine battle.
ReplyDeleteThere is consistency in the two events, both are illogical; bluster and combat, fueled by petty political motivations. A lesser form of MAD ( mutually assured destruction). The difference is that in Plainfield the politicians survive the destruction and the victims are the public whom they purportedly represent. Bill Kruse