GA watched last night's council meeting to see how controversial ordinance B-10 (taking Rent Leveling Board appointment powers away from the mayor) would play out.
- Would B-10 be removed off the agenda per advice of Hoboken Corporation Counsel?
- Would the Council ignore the City's legal advice and plunge ahead with the vote?
Well, an unanticipated third thing happened.
Councilwoman Giattino obtained a written opinion from an unidentified lawyer who disputed the advice of Corporation Council. She obtained this opinion as a Councilwoman, not as a private citizen. The private attorney's opinion was presented as a counterweight to the legal advice of the City. To summarize, Giattino's attorney said that Hoboken's attorney was wrong, that ordinance B-10 was lawful.
Councilwoman Giattino obtained a written opinion from an unidentified lawyer who disputed the advice of Corporation Council. She obtained this opinion as a Councilwoman, not as a private citizen. The private attorney's opinion was presented as a counterweight to the legal advice of the City. To summarize, Giattino's attorney said that Hoboken's attorney was wrong, that ordinance B-10 was lawful.
No one received a copy of Giattino's legal opinion prior to the meeting, that includes Corporation Counsel, Brian Aloia.
Aloia tried to speak twice, but Council Prez Ruben Ramos stopped him. Yes, Hoboken's Council President did not allow City's attorney to speak on the matter in which the City holds legal liability in disputes between tenants and landlords.
Did Aloia, who represents our City's interest,wish to rebut the mystery legal advice Giattino toted to the meeting? We can't know.
We do know that Giattino, Ramos, Fisher, Cunningham, Russo, DeFusco chose to follow the advice of this unknown attorney, defied the advice of corporation counsel, and in doing so, transferred liability onto this unknown, unvetted person who may or may not have connections to Hoboken.
Further...
Councilwoman Giattino did not identify the attorney by name, nor say whether the firm had any past, present or pending proposals for work with the City of Hoboken, nor say whether they are representing any of the City's vendors, developers, or anyone doing business with the City.
Nor did Councilwoman Giattino say how she knew this unidentified attorney, and why this person is qualified to render an opinion on municipal law to the Council and why the Council should give this opinion from an attorney that does not represent Hoboken's interests greater weight than the City's attorney.
But the kicker was asked by Councilwoman Jabbour in her remarks:
"..my gut reaction when I read this ordinance was this feels like changing the rules of a game to suit your team which is something I teach my five year old that sometimes you have to learn that you don’t always win a game. That’s politics at work, to my colleague’s point. I’m concerned because I.. I didn’t receive any of the information that was referenced earlier by council president regarding the contradictory interpretation of this ordinance until I sat down at 7 o’clock tonight, which doesn’t allow me the opportunity... to digest whether or not these are in conflict with one another. What I do know is Corporation Counsel is looking out on behalf of the city. And Corporation Counsel is employed by the city to do what’s best for our residents. I’m not sure who these attorneys are or who paid them…"Giattino interrupted* (*video was unintelligible. Quote provided by a councilperson.)
"I didn't pay..."
Huh? The Councilwoman solicited a "free" legal opinion supporting her own legislation and in her capacity as an elected official?
There is no such thing as an elected official accepting "free" services. Giattino should know that.
The contribution of legal services is valued at....? Attorneys I asked estimated the value of services for a written legal opinion at $2,500 to $5,000.
- What is this firm's billing rate?
- What is the value of services waived by this firm?
- Why did they waive their fee for a Hoboken Councilwoman?
- How do they know Giattino?
- Did they really waive their fee or did someone else pay them?
JEN'S *FREE* LEGAL ADVICE
(supporting her legislation against the advice of Hoboken Corporation Counsel)
PROPS TO FALCO
Councilwoman Vanessa Falco did not explain her reasons for voting "no" on ordinance B-10. but she did the right thing: she followed the advice of Hoboken's Corporation Counsel, not a North Bergen rabbit Giattino pulled from her hat.
Props! Curious about Falco, so far she's been reserved. Personally, I prefer that style. Speak when you have something substantive to say, get to the point. Don't bloviate like DeFusco, who irritates everyone (and boy, has he been on a sexist 'man-splaining' rampage- blasting Emily again last night). GA speculates that Falco is taking it all in, figuring out the lay of the land. Maybe it's dawning on her what a petulant jackass her running-mate really is.
Well, looks to me like Vanessa's up there for the right reasons, to do good, that her heart is in the right place.
Stay tuned people...
Stay tuned people...
Free legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
ReplyDeleteNobody prepares a brief like that for free. Anyone who doesn't question his motivations in preparing this brief is being incredibly naive.
ReplyDeleteAnd this disgusting move is being contemplated to benefit to of the most annoying and self-serving people in town. I cannot wait for this to blow up in Jen, Tiff and Peter's faces.
I agree. It is a lot of work for a freebie, unless there is some relationship or motivation we dont know about. The client is a legislator, not a private person. The law firm is also taking on a tremendous liability. What's in it for them? It doesnt make sense. It may have been "free" to the Councilwoman but I suspect that someone paid for it. Who? When she files this in-kind contribution, we'll find out.
DeleteI doubt she files anything. They don't care about the rules. All they care about is playing politics of the most disgusting and self-serving kind.
DeleteMaybe the firm is hoping to replace current corp counsel once the city council removes current corporation counsel (can the city council remove corporation counsel?).
DeleteThis opinion is not signed. An opinion must be signed in order to be enforceable against the firm. That renders this opinion meaningless - the council is relying on something that is completely worthless. Well done Jen!
ReplyDeleteSo this is what it's going to be from now until the Council of No is replaced next year, opinion shopping, every time they're in the wrong, which will be a lot of the time?
ReplyDeleteI find myself uttering the words "Beth never even tried that" almost daily now.
ReplyDeleteSnoopy is onto something. No one does pro-bono for a politician in Hudson County. There are strings attached to that "free work." And fish hooks attached to the springs.
Wait til our corruption watchdogs in the Resistance find out about this....
Looks like Emily is holding them accountable probably in a courteous and intelligent way. Vanessa’s “no” vote is an indication of integrity. Bodes well for her career. If Jim or Emily broke away from each other on an issue because it spoke to them in a different way, I’d respect that too as long as it was genuine as seems the case with Vanessa.
ReplyDeletePolitical games aside, I worry about liability if this law passes. We all know there will be suits challenging whether the body was properly constituted.
It looks like "A Lawyer" is correct- the unsigned opinion is unenforceable. Which puts this City in a precarious legal situation because the ordinance passed against the advice of Hoboken Counsel on the advice of a third party law firm's unenforceable opinion. On that basis alone, the mayor should veto.
DeleteMaybe that's why it was free. It really is worth what they paid for it!
DeleteLawyers are going above and beyond these days! From taking out a home loan so they can pay a porn star, whom no one slept with, to keep quiet about not sleeping with anyone to giving unpaid for opinions on NJ State law which I'm sure they accidentally forgot to sign.
ReplyDeleteThese lawyers are the true heroes.
Ha! Good one. I was waiting for a Stormy joke. Poor Stormy! I'll bet she picked up all kinds of Orange Diseases. Listen, you're using someone else's screen name, so please get your own. Thanks.
Delete$20million SLAPP suit initiated to keep her from talking about the affair that never happened.
DeleteIt's like watching a guy who is morbidly obese and smokes like a chimney and wondering which one will kill him first.
Joseph Ryglicki is the Hudson County Surrogate. This lawyer - Jason Ryglicki is probably a close relative - likely his son. My guess is this gratis legal work came courtesy of Boss Sacco and his pal Joey.
ReplyDeleteJoe is about 70, Jason is early 30s. Makes sense. Joe is a made guy in Hudson politics. Jason likely moving into the family business.
DeleteHere's an article with Joe Ryglicki, Ruben Ramos and Stick Romano at a lovely soiree for Vision Media, another father/son operation. Just a bunch of good government stalwarts having a good government night out.
Don't worry - those Resistance corruption watch-dogs got this. They're all about connecting the dots.
Wow, so they are going full blown dark side now.
DeleteI doubt the watchdogs care. They have crossed over as well.
Does anyone suspect that Bernie Kenny and Ed Florio are the puppeteers pulling Giattino's strings since they were so gung ho for her during the mayoral campaign? Insiders reported that Kenny-Florio loved Jen because they could manipulate her easily.
ReplyDeleteIn light of all we now know, I take Cunningham's recent e-mail stating to please not be concerned about is recent actions as a variation of "I am not a crook."
ReplyDelete