1-0 vote gives city workers big payout Mayor gets $42K; Roberts apoplectic
9 years ago | 123 views | 0 
| 2 
| 
| 
| 2 | |
Three council members were absent from the meeting, three were told to abstain because they were in a position to benefit from the special payments, and another two decided to abstain. That left only 1st Ward Councilwoman Theresa Castellano - ironically, the mayor's cousin - to vote on a measure intended to compensate the mayor and 45 other city employees who worked for various public service agencies before joining the city's workforce.These are not the first so-called longevity payments that the city has doled out. Since the 1980s, some members of the workforce have regularly received the payments on top of their annual base salary for their outside-of-Hoboken municipal government experience. These workers have seen the bonuses added to their weekly pay month after month.
But exactly what types of service made them eligible for the regular bonuses had not been clearly laid out before. Many workers, for example, were unaware that prior service in the school system or for the county might have made them eligible.
Seeking to rectify the situation, a special attorney was hired by the city earlier this year to investigate the matter and develop a standardized set of criteria to determine who was eligible.
Employees who thought their longevity pay may not have been calculated correctly - or may not have been added at all - were asked to contact the payroll office. Of the 84 workers who came forward, 46 were deemed eligible including Mayor Anthony Russo, whose longevity payments as a result of 22 years of work as a teacher.
The mayor stands to earn $42,831 as a result of the correction.
Earlier this year Business Administrator George Crimmins took home an additional $21,000 as a result of a longevity pay he had not been collecting related to his service at the county level before joining the Russo administration.
"If it is deserved by any employee, then it should be granted to that employee," the mayor said after the meeting. "This is all based on precedent set back in the 1980s before I was the mayor. And if I am entitled to it like any other employee I am going to apply for it."
The fact that $355,000 is going to be paid out to only a few dozen people, and that more could be paid out if more eligible city employees come forward, left 6th Ward Councilman Dave Roberts steaming.
Roberts, who has been at odds with Russo for two years, was told not to vote on the measure because he was a city fireman before taking his council position, and could have been affected by the vote.
Before the vote was taken, he urged his colleagues to postpone the payments until the issue could be studied more carefully. He argued that the special counsel's views were simply opinions and that the city ought to be sure of the risks involved to taxpayers before setting the precedent of making such large payments.
"This is a very complex, confusing, hard-to-analyze subject and the ramifications for the city could be in the millions if it goes to court and an unfavorable opinion comes out of it," the councilman said. "Something as large as this could be increased two or threefold if it is opened up by court order to retired people [who are currently considered ineligible]."
It's clear
Roberts's arguments were met head on by the council's lawyer, Robert Murray, who said that the special counsel's opinion was "clear and forthright." He also pointed out that an outside hearing officer, Thomas Portelli, had been employed to review each case and ensure that awards were handed out only to those who met the criteria laid out by the special counsel. Each case was reviewed by number - not by name - so Portelli had no idea who he was approving or disapproving, Murray said.
When it came time to vote, it appeared that Roberts's logic, not Murray's, made sense to 3rd Ward Councilwoman Roseanne Andreula and 5th Ward Councilman Michael Cricco. They abstained, leaving Castellano as the sole "yes" vote.
"They told me I had a conflict because they wanted to take me out of the debate," said Roberts after the meeting. "I didn't even apply for this. I didn't ask for it. By voting no I am obviously not advancing my interests. It's bizarre. It's ludicrous. And it's ridiculous to have something like this pass 1-0 when a majority of the people there did not even vote."
Roberts voted to abstain as well, following Murray's advice. But when he realized that he had unwittingly allowed a resolution that he strongly opposed to pass, he threw his hands up in the air in exasperation and immediately asked to have his vote changed.
(Ironically, Murray himself may be affected in a minor way by the longevity issue because of a prior job he held. Roberts raised this later. See sidebar.)
Roberts's efforts to change his vote sent Murray scurrying to the clerk's office to check Roberts's Rules of Procedure - the rules that govern the council's procedures - to see what the councilman could do.
After asking for a 10 minute recess so he could call his law partner, David Corrigan, to figure out how to proceed, the white-haired, dapperly dressed lawyer returned to his seat next to Council President Nellie Moyeno and informed Roberts that he had two options.
First, he could petition the "majority party" that carried the vote and ask to have his vote changed. But when he did this, Castellano - the sole member of the majority - rebuffed him.
"We have been talking about this for six months and it is time to conclude this," she said by way of explanation.
Without skipping a beat, Roberts asked Murray what his second option was. As the crowd of 50 sitting on the council benches leaned in to hear what the lawyer said, Murray explained that Roberts could petition the entire council to have his vote changed. If he could persuade a simple majority to support him, he could switch his vote, Murray said. But since the matter related to longevity, he counseled Roberts, Council President Nellie Moyeno (who had worked for the city in the past) and Councilman Richard Del Boccio (who had worked in the school system) to abstain to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Roberts quickly put a motion forward asking the council for the opportunity to change his vote. But for a pregnant moment, it appeared that it might not be considered since another member of the council had to second his motion for it to be considered.
Then Roseanne Andreula, one of the less vocal members of the legislative body, became energized.
"I think anybody should be allowed to vote the way they want to vote," she said, seconding his motion. "He should be able to vote any way he wants."
Despite Andreula's support, Roberts's motion failed. Castellano and Cricco voted against him. Moyeno and Del Boccio abstained, leaving Roberts and Andreula as the only "yes" votes. The 2-2 deadlock left the approval of the longevity payments on the books.
Before the meeting broke up, the mayor strode to the front of the room to say that he was one of the beneficiaries and that although, like Roberts, he was worried about such a large expenditure too, nothing could be done since the precedent had been set 15 years earlier.
"Thank you Councilman Soares," the mayor went on to say, referring to the mayor's political foe, Councilman Anthony Soares, who had actually sponsored the resolution that eventually led to this round of payments. "I have to pay 20 percent of my medical bills [related to a recently diagnosed form of lung cancer] and I have just had a grandchild. I need this."
Soares, who was unable to attend the meeting since he was recovering from back surgery, but was reached at his parents' home in Kearny where he is recovering, was incensed that a resolution he had sponsored to "help the little guy" had been "hijacked."
Soares complained that many city workers who still may be eligible for longevity were never notified like they were supposed to be about the possibility of receiving back payments for prior service.
"This was used to allow the fat cats in the city to loosen their belts a few more notches - that's it," he said. "And now they are trying to turn it all around and say that this was thanks to me."
The councilman and his lawyer
Except maybe for O.J., every person who has hired a lawyer has probably wondered whether his lawyer is representing him as well as possible. But perhaps nobody has ever been so unhappy with his legal representation as Councilman Dave Roberts was Wednesday night over the way that the council's attorney, Bob Murray, handled a measure designed to compensate city employees for back longevity pay.
As debate over the measure evolved, it became clear that Roberts was the primary opponent of the resolution and that Murray was the primary proponent.
The two men argued about how many other city employees - past and present - may be eligible for additional payments not covered in the $355,000 the city was doling out Wednesday.
They argued about the objectivity of the special counsel's opinion. The counsel was charged with reviewing the matter for the city and had developed the criteria they were using to cut checks to 46 city employees.
And they argued about whether or not Roberts could vote on the issue. (Murray advised him not to since he could potentially benefit from longevity payments thanks to his service as a city fireman from 1981 to 1985.)
Finally, Roberts had had enough.
"Mr. Murray, you are supposed to represent all of us," he said. "I would hope that you would read the law, interpret the law and be there for us. But I would respectfully say that when you start interpreting the law and advocating for one side you have gone too far."
Throughout Roberts's verbal onslaught, Murray waited patiently.
"To quote a much more famous lawyer than I, I would simply say 'I'm not here to be a potted plant,'" said the lawyer in a reference to a comment Brendan Sullivan, a lawyer from a Washington D.C.-based firm, said during the Oliver North-Iran-Contra Congressional hearings.
Later, after Roberts had abstained on a vote on the measure as Murray instructed him to, it developed that Roberts could have blocked the measure's passage if he had simply ignored the lawyer's advice.
Ironically, the councilman pointed out that he was blocked from voting "no" on the measure by a lawyer who had, in the past, benefited from longevity payments.
Murray received longevity for his service as an engineering teacher at the NJ Institute of Technology and for time spent serving as a counselor for the Toms River Township. He will not, however, be one of the employees receiving a paycheck due to the vote at the meeting.
"If there is an appearance of conflict on this, Mr. Murray is the one who appears to have it," Roberts said as the meeting wound down. "He is the one who has benefited from this and he is the one who should have recused himself from this. He has steered this vote from the start."
post a comment
comments (0)
no comments yet