So, what's new? Today in a Facebook exchange with yours truly, one member of the Council Hotel Subcommittee disputes the fact that the committee broke New Jersey's Sunshine Law by holding meetings with a quorum (5) of Council members.
"our subcommittee is only 4 - Cunningham, DeFusco, Fisher and Giattino... It was only the two public statements where the subcommittee was joined by council president on the shared view..... our subcommittee was 4.... Council president was on the signature of and / or referenced in both public statements because he supported the message."
Funny, Council subcommittee member Jen Giattino disagrees. She named the four council members who were not on the subcommittee to hMAG:
"Councilwoman Jennifer Giattino seemed to indicate that she was voting yes. “Perhaps, the Mayor’s email is referencing the councilmembers not on the subcommittee (Councilmembers Doyle, Falco, Jabbour and Russo),” she said in an email."
click image to read
So, Giattino doesn't know who was on her own subcommittee? Sure, she does. >At least, she was honest. It seems the Council subcommittee wants to have it both ways. All 5 subcommittee members want to take a victory lap, all 5 want public recognition for negotiating additional givebacks.
And they got it. Hudson County View covered the Hilton drama in least 7 articles; 6 directly cited that it was a "5 member" subcommittee. Not a single fact has been disputed by any subcommittee member.
What does that tell you?
In short, the hotel subcommittee trumpeted (on two press releases) that FIVE Council members had obtained additional givebacks, which the media accurately reported. So how any one of them claim now that their 5-member subcommittee did not violate New Jersey's Sunshine Law?
To be a "meeting" for purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act, a gathering must be: (1) open to all the public body’s members; (2) attended by a majority of the members of that public body; and (3) the members present must intend to discuss or act upon public business. "Public business" includes "all matters which relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to the performance of the public body's functions or the conduct of its business." N.J. Stat. § 10:4-8(c). Therefore, the term "meeting" applies to information-gathering and fact-finding sessions in addition to meetings where formal action is taken or discussed, so long as a majority of the public body's members are present.
These are the undisputed press articles from October 9 through 18 citing the "five member" subcommittee.
OCTOBER 11, 2018 UPDATE
These two Hotel Subcommittee press releases are signed by all 5 Council subcommittee members- and all 5 provided their telephone numbers to handle press inquiries.
Um, are you buying Fisher's explanation that Ruben Ramos signed both Council Subcommittee press releases (and gave his contact information) just to show "support for the message"?
If so, you probably believe that Jamal Khassoghi tripped on a bone saw.
Fisher's response displays, not surprisingly, complete ignorance of the law. Five council members can't agree on taking joint action (like signing a press release or a letter) outside of a public setting without violating the law. It doesn't matter whether they all sat in the same room or conducted what's called a "rolling meeting."
ReplyDeleteIt's illegal. Full stop.
Well she is a moron of the highest order. Are you shocked she was stupid enough to do this? What is surprising is a couple of them who do have half a brain were dumb enough to cross this line as well.
DeleteOPMA is, unfortunately basically a toothless law so it's unlikely that Fisher and the gang will be held legally accountable .
DeleteBut 5 council members either genuinely doesn't understand the legal requirements, or are pretending not to, it seems to me corporation council ought to write a memo to the council explaining what they can and can't do going forward.
if counsel has to treat them like children because they act like children then he should write the memo w/ easy to understand pictures. anything more complicated than a pop-up book is likely too complicated for Jen to understand.
DeleteThe quorum of Council subcommitte members negotiated givebacks in violation of the Sunshine law.... none can be trusted to obey the law! The $350K in givebacks can be voided if a lawsuit is filed within 45 days.
ReplyDelete"You may file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey to void any action taken by a public body at a meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law. However, the lawsuit must be filed within 45 calendar days after the public body’s action has been made public. You may also apply to the court for an injunction or other relief to ensure the public body complies with the law in the future.Additionally, you may file a complaint with the County Prosecutor or the Attorney General, which could result in fines for any person that knowingly violates the law. Currently, the fine is $100 for the first offense, and between $100 and $500 for any subsequent offenses."