Common Sense For New Hampshire

Reprinted with the permission of the Coast Star:

BELMAR — Mayor Matt Doherty is calling the lawsuit filed against him and the council “politically motivated,” and has alleged that the true intention of the lawsuit is to smear his name in the weeks prior to the borough’s mayoral election.

Last week, former mayor Ken Pringle filed a lawsuit against the borough, mayor and council on behalf of a group of residents in town, seeking to eliminate the borough’s “responsible bidders ordinance” on grounds that it was unlawfully adopted, and alleging that Mayor Matt Doherty had a conflict of interest when choosing to adopt said ordinance.

The ordinance requires contractors that bid on projects in Belmar to participate in a federal apprenticeship program that meets requirements of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, and during the Sept. 9 council meeting, Councilman Jim Bean called on the council to eliminate the ordinance.  (And here’s a big surprise…they ignored Jim Bean!)

The lawsuit asking for the ordinance to be overturned was filed on Sept. 23.

A week prior, a group of residents submitted a petition to the mayor and council requesting that same responsible bidder ordinance be amended.

In response to the petition, the mayor mailed a letter to residents to explain the ordinance and said he would offer a compromise to those petitioning in order to avoid a costly special election. (The “compromise” turned out to be having the requirements kick in when a project is over $500,000. Of course they wanted that much just to build a porch onto Taylor.  And although the opponents are considering the law’s effect on future projects like the new outflow system for Lake Como, they started their actions because of its distortion of the pavilion project bidding.  The proposed compromise wouldn’t have changed anything.)  The mayor is now dismissing the lawsuit as a political attack.

“When you look at this, it is overtly political,” the mayor said. “The ordinance was passed back in February, and the fact that this lawsuit is filed five weeks before the mayoral election is pretty obvious it’s political.”  (The timing is actually a result of the mayor refusing the petitioners’ pleas to have the bond referendum as part of the fall general election.  Instead, he called for a $17,000 special election to be held during the summer.  The bond had to be defeated first or the second petition and Pringle’s lawsuit would have been moot.  The money would have already been spent.  If the referendum was in November and the bond was defeated then, the actions taken against 2014-1 would not have come until winter.)  

The mayor also alleges that much of the lawsuit is factually inaccurate, one example being the statement that alleges his wife, Maggie Moran, and borough administrator Colleen Connolly were roommates in college, which he says is untrue.  (OK, maybe they were just in the same dorm or something.  Fact is they’ve been friends and co-workers for like 20 years.)

“That’s one example that is just easy to point to,” he said. “Throughout this politically motivated lawsuit, there is a tremendous amount of false statements.”  (Unless like 98% of it is false we got a problem.)

“It’s not a matter of opinion,” he added. “It’s pretty black and white.”

The mayor said much of the literature in the lawsuit is reminiscent of previous campaign attacks, and therefore nothing knew.  (The “literature” and “campaign attacks” he is referring to is quotes from established news sources such as the Asbury Park Press, Newark Star Ledger and the Bergen Record.)

“A lot of it is very similar to the campaign attacks in last year’s election by the Republicans against me and my wife, back in the fall of 2013,” the mayor said.

Mayor Doherty said the “overtly political” nature of the lawsuit may have also introduced legal complications to the mayoral race.

According to the mayor, Mr. Pringle’s decision to handle the lawsuit for free, seeking costs from the borough of Belmar, is at the root of those complications.

“Ken Pringle is not charging his clients, and he wants the taxpayers of the Borough of Belmar to pay his attorney fees,” he said.

That, “mixed with the fact that Joy DeSanctis is the campaign manager for Jim Bean and Michael Seebeck,” has led Doherty to take counteraction in the suit, he said.

Calling the lawsuit an “in kind contribution” to the Bean and Seebeck campaign, the mayor will be filing a complaint with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission [LEC], (Isn’t it ELEC?) saying that the lawsuit should be disclosed as a campaign contribution.  (The mayor is certainly blazing some new legal paths here.  First of all, he can’t “file a complaint”.  All he can do is ask them to investigate.  They will decide whether a complaint is justified.  I don’t believe they will find that suing someone who happens to be running for office at the time constitutes a “campaign contribution”.  I haven’t been able to find any kind of precedent for making that stretch.)

If the LEC is to rule that the lawsuit is in fact an in kind contribution, (They won’t.) the mayor said that the fees sought by Mr. Pringle from the lawsuit would then be considered campaign contributions, and he believes it will exceed the legal limit allotted for campaign donations — which is $2,600 per candidate.  (The Asbury Park Press and Newark Star Ledger didn’t charge my campaign for what they wrote about the mayor last year, so maybe those were “in-kind contributions too.)

“If Ken Pringle was charging Joy DeSanctis for his time to put this all together, well then, that’s not a campaign contribution — he’s doing work for them,” the mayor said. “But he’s doing work on their behalf, and not charging them — he’s trying to charge the fees and costs for his firm to the taxpayers of the Borough of Belmar.”  (What’s he worried about?  Belmar only pays if Doherty loses.)

The mayor said that lawsuits filed against the borough by Mr. Pringle have become a recurring trend.  (Pringle also keeps winning them, so the “recurring trend” is this administration breaking the law.)

“Every time Ken Pringle sues us, he tries to get the Borough of Belmar to pay his fees,” he said. “The court has never ruled in that manner, but he keeps asking for it — it’s a way for him to make money.”  (Oh, please.)

“It’s what attorneys do,” he said. “They throw up lawsuits, hope to be successful, and if they are successful, taxpayers end up bearing the burden of it.”  (You can’t see me, but I’m shaking my head.)

In addition to reporting the lawsuit to the LEC, the mayor said the borough attorney will be making a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that “it’s a frivolous (I was waiting for him to use the “f” word!) lawsuit that was filed months after the timeframe by which to challenge [the ordinance].”  (Some of you may remember I challenged it the night it was introduced.  But who am I?  Nobody.)

Ms. DeSanctis said the allegation that Mr. Pringle’s work would be considered an in kind contribution would be “a matter for her attorney to answer.”

Mr. Pringle was out of town this week, and thus unavailable for comment.  (I have a feeling he’s going to have something to say about this when he gets back.)

Councilman Bean is remaining removed from the lawsuit.

While Ms. DeSanctis has been referred to as the “Democratic campaign manager,” Councilman Bean said that her title is not official, and that is in uninvolved with the lawsuit.  (While DeSanctis is a registered Democrat, I think the reporter meant to say “Republican”.  BTW, Pringle is a Demcrat too.  So much for it being “political”.)

“I have nothing to do with this lawsuit,” Councilman Bean said. “I’m a defendant here. I don’t know how me being sued by Ken Pringle is helping me out at all.”  (Good line Jim.)

Subsequently, Councilman Bean noted that he was involved in the petition against the mayor’s responsible bidder ordinance, and helped garner signatures from residents in town.

However, while similar in nature, the lawsuit and petition are legally independent of each other.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the ordinance will be found unlawful, and the petition will be moot.

However, if the lawsuit is a bust, the petition will still remain.

Under the Faulkner Act, which allows for the petition, the council can either accept the terms of the petition and amend the ordinance as requested, or push the decision to a referendum.  (Wednesday night they were pretending that another option was to get Bean to “compromise”.  He correctly pointed out that it was too late and the time to compromise would have been before the petitions were filed.)

The borough will have just under three weeks to make a decision on their course of action, and if no action is taken, the result will be a $17,000 special election — similar to the election held in August regarding the $7 million boardwalk bond.  (Hopefully resulting in a similar victory for the taxpayers!)