GIATTINO ADMITS LEGAL OPINION FROM SACCO-ALLIED NORTH BERGEN LAW FIRM WAS A 'FREEBIE'
Is Hoboken Council VP Giattino incredibly naive, or did she knowingly accept a political favor from an anti-Stack political faction out of North Bergen?
This political favor was a FREE legal service from the Sacco-allied* North Bergen firm, Ryglicki & Gillman, PC.
All this begs the question: why would Hoboken's Ordinance B-10 interest North Bergen outsiders?
Well, the ordinance was crafted to strip power from Mayor Bhalla, an ally of State Senator Brian Stack, both are allied against DeGise. Plus, intervening in Hoboken's legislative body, and taking a shot at the Hoboken mayor, is a finger in Brian Stack's eye. Ping!
As for Ordinance B-10, it would pull 5 Rent Board appointments away from the mayor (3 full, 2 alternates) Note, the troubling aspect to this proposed law change is the reason behind it: patronage appointees for (2) Giattino political allies. Unlike the 2009 transfer of ZBA appointment powers from the mayor to the Council the purpose of this transfer is to reward particular political patrons. Corporation Counsel found Ordinance B-10 to be "invalid" because it violated the Faulkner Act.
So, before last Thursday's meeting, Council VP Giattino emailed her Council colleagues only to tell them she was bringing a legal opinion to the meeting, one which dissented with Corporation Counsel's. Giattino's opinion would say that Ordinance B-10 was legal. No one saw or read that opinion before the meeting, including Corporation Counsel. At the meeting, she never identified the name of this firm, nor explained why they were qualified to override the opinion of Hoboken's legal authority.
Then... when Councilwoman Jabbour said she did not know who paid for the legal opinion...
No one provides 'free' legal services to a municipality without the expectation of something in return. Is the something simply goodwill? Or is it a contract? A job?
That is why Hoboken elected officials should never take 'freebies' given to them in their capacity as elected officials.
Seriously, what the hell?
Which council colleagues facilitated this transaction with the Sacco-allied law firm? If I had to guess (I don't, but I will) I'd pick Mike DeFusco and/or Ruben Ramos. Ramos is said to be close with Sacco aide Joey Muniz; Muniz tried very, very hard to elect Mike DeFusco.
NOTE TO CORPORATION COUNSEL
GA hopes Hoboken Corporation Counsel issues a response pronto to this legal opinion/political favor.
Questions for consideration:
They're ba-a-a-ack.
Is Hoboken Council VP Giattino incredibly naive, or did she knowingly accept a political favor from an anti-Stack political faction out of North Bergen?
This political favor was a FREE legal service from the Sacco-allied* North Bergen firm, Ryglicki & Gillman, PC.
*Joseph Ryglicki as North Bergen's Board of Education Attorney under North Bergen Mayor/State Senator Nick Sacco, who also served as Director of Elementary and Secondary Education. In 2014, Ryglicki ran for County Surrogate, an office that he currently holds.On March 15, Ryglicki & Gillman, PC. wrote a 4-page legal analysis for Giattino, which contradicted Hoboken Corporation Counsel on the legality of Ordinance B-10. Note, the opinion was unsigned.
All this begs the question: why would Hoboken's Ordinance B-10 interest North Bergen outsiders?
Well, the ordinance was crafted to strip power from Mayor Bhalla, an ally of State Senator Brian Stack, both are allied against DeGise. Plus, intervening in Hoboken's legislative body, and taking a shot at the Hoboken mayor, is a finger in Brian Stack's eye. Ping!
As for Ordinance B-10, it would pull 5 Rent Board appointments away from the mayor (3 full, 2 alternates) Note, the troubling aspect to this proposed law change is the reason behind it: patronage appointees for (2) Giattino political allies. Unlike the 2009 transfer of ZBA appointment powers from the mayor to the Council the purpose of this transfer is to reward particular political patrons. Corporation Counsel found Ordinance B-10 to be "invalid" because it violated the Faulkner Act.
So, before last Thursday's meeting, Council VP Giattino emailed her Council colleagues only to tell them she was bringing a legal opinion to the meeting, one which dissented with Corporation Counsel's. Giattino's opinion would say that Ordinance B-10 was legal. No one saw or read that opinion before the meeting, including Corporation Counsel. At the meeting, she never identified the name of this firm, nor explained why they were qualified to override the opinion of Hoboken's legal authority.
Then... when Councilwoman Jabbour said she did not know who paid for the legal opinion...
Giattino interjected that the attorneys were not paid for their work.Ruh roh. Big. Red. Flag.
No one provides 'free' legal services to a municipality without the expectation of something in return. Is the something simply goodwill? Or is it a contract? A job?
That is why Hoboken elected officials should never take 'freebies' given to them in their capacity as elected officials.
Seriously, what the hell?
Which council colleagues facilitated this transaction with the Sacco-allied law firm? If I had to guess (I don't, but I will) I'd pick Mike DeFusco and/or Ruben Ramos. Ramos is said to be close with Sacco aide Joey Muniz; Muniz tried very, very hard to elect Mike DeFusco.
NOTE TO CORPORATION COUNSEL
GA hopes Hoboken Corporation Counsel issues a response pronto to this legal opinion/political favor.
Questions for consideration:
- Should the City indemnify members of boards appointed against the advice of Corporation Counsel ?
- Should the City indemnify Council members for lawsuits arising from ignoring the advice of Corporation Counsel?
They're ba-a-a-ack.
He may not like it but Stack has come to accept that Hoboken won’t stand for a boss. Nick doesn’t believe such places exist. Extremely dumb to start owing him favors. But Jen is going to ride “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to its logical conclusion.
ReplyDeleteShe is too stupid to realize she is selling herself to the devil. I suspect Dawn realized Jen was a pretty dim bulb hence why she was completely passed over for Ravi.
DeleteSince the election, the Fisher faction has been obsessed with demonstrating that they have"power" despite their poor showing in the election, flexing their small muscles at every opportunity. This idiotic rent control board confrontation is only understandable as an exercise in muscle flexing in the apparent belief that using the power they have to ridiculous extremes will somehow make them more powerful in the end.
ReplyDeleteBut saying as they have "we will because we have the votes so we can" is not only stupid in terms of the damage to whatever is left of their credibility, its also a double edged sword in a world where their actual power is pretty limited and depends in large part on the credibility they are squandering.
"We will because we can because we have the votes" leaves them with little to say when the worm turns.
They have picked a fight that they lose no matter how it turns out, which is pretty dumb.
Its hard to believe they actually think that succeeding in getting Lenz and Fallick back on the rent control board will somehow gain them support or otherwise strengthen their position. But that seems to be what they think, perhaps because Lenz and Fallick constitute a large portion of their "brain trust"
If the rest of their "brain trust" collectively had the thinking capacity of even a single functioning brain, they would understand the insanity of this strategy for everybody other than Lenz and Fallick.
getting lenz and fallick on that board wins butthurt nation about 12 votes in town, give or take.
Delete"A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/ ( listen) PIRR-ik) is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way, though the heavy toll negates a true sense of achievement or profit."
They like picking fights they are going to lose. They are doing it with Suez, they did it with the runoff and now they are doing it with board appointments. I swear, they are like Trump. They want nothing but drama, conflict and to "win" and damn the consequences.
DeleteBTW, they might get 12 votes b/c of those two but I'd argue each one of those three former reformers has lost a hell of a lot more votes because of how completely they have abandoned the principles of the reform movement. I think on my floor alone they lost more than 12 votes.
As I keep saying, they will live to regret this one. They are trying to change the law, go against the advice of Hoboken’s counsel, and soliciting “free” advice from the most connected of the connected North Bergen, Nick Sacco family of lawyers, all to appoint two of Jen’s friends. It’s completely disgraceful and people will hear about it.
ReplyDelete