 |
| Lower left side: GA's fabulous sidewalk shoveling job erased in 10 minutes. |
Here is what's on tap for tonight:
MUNICIPAL BUDGET INTRODUCTION
No controversy there, right?
RESOLUTION CL-2 FOR A "NEW OPTION" FOR REBUILD-BY-DESIGN
Hmmm... curious about this one. I can't find it in the resolution packet, so don't know what it means.
RBD may be Dawn Zimmer's legacy project but really, who cares about the politics? As Hoboken experiences it's 3rd nor'easter in 2 weeks, its a reminder to all Hoboken residents how vulnerable our coastal city is. After all, Superstorm Sandy was the result of a nor'easter meeting a hurricane.
"Just as the hurricane headed northward along the coast, leaving Florida for the Eastern Seaboard, it seemed to head out into the Atlantic -- until a force pushed the warm air mass back toward land. That force? A cold nor'easter, whose powerful winds wrangled with the tropical hurricane, morphing it into a hybrid part nor'easter, part hurricane and making it capable of gale force winds, snow and rain."
Unpredictable weather events are happening with ever-increasing frequency. So, whatever "CL-2" is, let's hope it is not counterproductive to seeing this project move forward.
PATRONAGE ORDINANCE B-10 NOT APPROVED YET, WHICH MEANS...
...this epic showdown started by the Ramos-Giattino-DeFusco-Fisher-Cunningham "Council majority" against Mayor Bhalla's legal right to appoint Rent Leveling Board members, continues. On February 21, the Council introduced (and passed) Ordinance B-10 to strip Rent Leveling Board appointments from the mayor (3 full and 2 alternates).
What is different and truly questionable about this transfer of appointment power, is that the intent and purpose is so the Council may appoint specific people, political patrons of Jen Giattino. (Giattino and Ramos seem to understand the unseemliness of their actions, because names of appointees were omitted from agenda items CL-3 thru CL-6.)
What is the legality of doing that? If you change municipal law to appoint particular political loyalists, doesn't that board appointment become a "gift"? Can an elected official legislate a gift to a political patron?
What is different and truly questionable about this transfer of appointment power, is that the intent and purpose is so the Council may appoint specific people, political patrons of Jen Giattino. (Giattino and Ramos seem to understand the unseemliness of their actions, because names of appointees were omitted from agenda items CL-3 thru CL-6.)
What is the legality of doing that? If you change municipal law to appoint particular political loyalists, doesn't that board appointment become a "gift"? Can an elected official legislate a gift to a political patron?
It doesn't sound kosher to me.
So, about 2 weeks ago, Corporation Council wrote a legal opinion calling Ordinance B-10 a violation of the Faulkner Act and asked that it be removed from March 15th's agenda (it was up for a final vote).
So, about 2 weeks ago, Corporation Council wrote a legal opinion calling Ordinance B-10 a violation of the Faulkner Act and asked that it be removed from March 15th's agenda (it was up for a final vote).
That didn't happen. Last week Council VP Giattino produced a written opinion contradicting Corporation Council and upon which the council majority relied entirely to approve Ordinance B-10. Note, Corporation Council was not provided with a copy of Giattino's legal opinion before the meeting, nor did Ramos allow him to speak on it. Most notably, Giattino blurted out that she had not paid for the legal opinion which she proffered to override the City's lawyer.
What have we discovered since then?
- That "free" legal opinion was written by Ryglicki & Gillman PC, a longtime friend and political ally of District 32 Senator/North Bergen Mayor Nick Sacco.
- The Ryglicki opinion was unsigned.
- Councilwoman Giattino violated Hoboken law§ 30-1, prohibiting public officials from accepting gifts having a value of $25 or more, when she accepted "free" legal services. Here is the statute:
"No officer or employee of the City of Hoboken shall directly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift having a value of $25 or more, whether in the form of money, services,loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise or any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that such gift was intended to influence the officer or employee, or could reasonably be expected to influence the officer or employee in the performance of official duties or was intended as a regard for any official action on the officer's or employee's part."
So, on March 15, the Council Majority passed Ordinance B-10 based on an unsigned "gift" accepted in violation of Hoboken law. Corporation Counsel has not yet responded to the arguments within the unsigned Ryglicki gift, nor whether or not it is viable, nor the actions of the Council in producing it without prior City review.
GA imagines a bunch of legal issues are hanging out there waiting for the City to weigh in. I won't try to guess them.
I just wonder: why expend so much political capital over these (2) patronage appointments? Giattino has gotten herself in hot water, ethically. Taking a political favor of free legal services is not a small transgression. Even if they 'win', it's a Pyrrhic victory. This has been extremely messy, legally dubious, and stinks all around. It won't be permanent either; once the rogue council members are replaced the law can be reverted back.
This one is a big L-O-S-E-R.
So tonight we find out if the Council stands down, and gives consent on the CL-7 and CL-8, or whether the showdown continues. Whatever happens, they've lost, and we've learned.
They will double down on stupid and move forward with appointing two of the most annoying and self-serving people in town to the rent leveling board. That is my prediction. Jen, Peter and Tiff can't help themselves. They have gone full blown dark side. Their political future with reformers in town is dead. Their new masters demand this political favor be delivered upon or they will lose all 12 votes Lenz and Fallick bring to the table.
ReplyDeleteBecause these appointments are illegal in the opinion of the only counselor that matters, the city's insurance agent should refuse to indemnify the rent leveling board members and their actions, until they are in compliance with state law, during which time the board may not meet as a quorum and conduct business.
ReplyDeleteLenz and Fallick, oleaginous and shrill, plodding and plotting, scheming and screaming, should not be allowed by the city clerk to be sworn in.
They are hurting the very citizens they purport to wish to help. But we all know their illegal appointments have nothing to do with tenant's rights, any more than the Council of No gives a shit about what's best for Hoboken.
The RBD resolution is appropriate only if it was coordinated with Mayor Bhalla and synchs with his negotiating strategy in his ongoing discussions with the state on these issues. I hope that is the case. Given this council's behavior there is reasons to be skeptical but until I know the answer I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteThere are two different legally permitted alignments for the southern portion of RBD, and there are ongoing discussions among the City, NJT and the DEP over which to choose. One of the factors being considered is the effect of the chosen alignment on the feasibility of the NJT redevelopment project. The allignment tentatively selected by the State would effectively kill the railyards redevelopment project. The Council is advocating for the alignment that would facilitate the completion of the redevelopment project.
The RLB appointments can't legally be made for at least a month (a little longer if the mayor vetos the ordinance) so it's really dumb that they keep carrying it on the agenda.
Maybe Jen should ask the NB lawyer to opine on when an Ordinance becomes effective under the Faulkner Act.
Or they can ask Cheryl Fallick to explain it to them. She is well aware of the answer given her expertise in the Faulkner Act right of Referendum.
Fortunately they tabled the Lenz/Fallick campaign reward ceremony.
ReplyDeleteAnything passed during a snowstorm would be added to the eventual lawsuit as evidence that they knew it was dirty and did it anyway.
These are not very bright guys, as Deep Throat would say.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much who wins the battle over rent control appointments in the sense that the board will exactly the same decisions either way. Which highlights the complete lack of even a semblance of public policy justification for the Council's actions and makes the comparisons to the ZBA in 2009 a laughably absurd talking point.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how this plays out the end result will be a further erosion of the credibility of the Fisher faction, adding to the cumulative effect of the many actions Cunningham asked people "not to worry" about.
There are many reasons to be comfortable Dawn made the right choice in endorsing Ravi rather than participate in a contrived "process" rigged by the usual suspects to overrule Dawn and force her to go along with a Giattino candidacy she did not believe was in Hoboken's interests.
One reason is their willingness to put their quest for power ahead of the interests of the city they serve. But another is the breathtaking stupidity reflected in their choices.
In both these ways, they have created an eerie comparison to the Mason crew.
It seems to me that the crew backing Giattino must be sitting home giggling over their "power" and drunk on the idea that they "control things now".
DeleteWhat process are you talking about? Are you referring to the back room deal Jen and company tried to force Mayor Zimmer into agreeing to in order to force her as a private individual from deciding who she would endorse? Sorry, but Jen's slimy brain trust has kind of shown why nobody should ever have agreed to that deal. Had she done that, most of us would have voted for anyone but Jen.
DeleteHeck, I might have also but an ABJ sign up in my window to show my displeasure.
I dont think they're giggling. I they are beside themselved that Mayor Bhalla's doesn't see how unpopular and powerless he is and bend to their will. And their delusional self righteousness in which they believe whatever they do is justified because they, in their minds, are and always will be the "good guys" is genuine. Another characteristic that they share with the Mason crew.
DeleteI used to think Mason was a bizarre outlier in the political world. Now I'm not so sure.
I had no idea they were that delusional. Good to know.
Delete