Special Counsel 10/16/03
The Hazlet democrats are proudly advertising the frugality of their agenda. Deputy Mayor Christopher Cullen recently stated, “I am obsessed with saving the township money”.
The democratic leadership maintains that by closing the Hazlet Township Sewerage Authority, they will save taxpayers $105,000 per year. Recent campaign literature suggests that their proposed open space tax will save Hazlet citizens from future tax increases. Relevant facts repeatedly contradict the assertion that these proposals will save money for Hazlet.
Curiously, the democratic leadership does not seem interested in reducing the cost of Hazlet’s legal representation.
In addition to Ronald Gordon, our township attorney, Hazlet employs another lawyer as special counsel. The Mayor annually appoints the special counsel at the township committee’s re-organization meeting each January. This year, Mayor Steven Peich re-appointed Norman Kauff to that position. At that same meeting, former mayor and current committeeman, Michael Sachs, stated that he previously, and repeatedly, asked for documentation of the work that the special counsel had performed for Hazlet. Since he received no such records, Mr. Sachs opposed the reappointment of Mr. Kauff as Special Counsel.
On January 7, the first regular meeting of the 2003 Hazlet Township Committee, Mayor Piech was asked to explain the function of Hazlet’s special counsel. He answered, “To be honest with you, the special counsel is set up to be, to have an attorney that is, I guess, if they needed to have a special part of the counsel with [Norman Kauff] to be easily accessible to handle certain items and what not that, I guess, they use.”
During the public portion of the township committee meetings on January 21 and February 4, several citizens asked what services the special counsel had provided to Hazlet over the last two years. No one on the township committee was able to provide information about any meetings with Mr. Kauff.
Last week, at the October 7 township meeting, I asked the committee to detail Hazlet’s use of the special counsel this year. Committeeman Michael Christopher stated that he has met with Mr. Kauff on a regular basis since February. Mr. Christopher further explained why he consults with Mr. Kauff. Not being an attorney himself, Mr. Christopher needs clarification of the legal wording of some ordinances. Mr. Christopher mentioned that he sometimes confers with the special counsel on “other township business”, but added that he does not report to the township committee or keep any notes regarding his meetings with Mr. Kauff.
Neither the township’s business administrator, nor any other committeeperson acknowledged that he or she had any contact with Mr. Kauff regarding township business.
Does Hazlet employ an attorney for the primary purpose of explaining township business to Mr. Christopher?
Mr. Gordon claims that he consults with Mr. Kauff on a regular basis. Why would an attorney employed by one of the largest municipal law firms in the state, need to seek professional advice from a private attorney?
Township records show that Hazlet pays a $1400 monthly retainer fee directly to Mr. Kauff. Hazlet also contributes to Mr. Kauff’s pension, as required by law for township employees. Other municipalities hire an attorney on an as-needed basis, if they need the services of a special counsel. This practice saves the taxpayers from paying expensive retainer fees and benefits.
Why do the citizens of Hazlet pay someone whose position has not been, and seemingly cannot be, reasonably explained or sufficiently documented by those who appointed him?
The township committee may have a legitimate, or even fiscally responsible motive for the less-than-straightforward manner in which Hazlet obtains, and pays for, its legal services. Citizens of Hazlet have been asking in vain for the township committee to explain their reason. We deserve an answer from our elected officials.
If elected this November, Republican candidates Paul Coughlin and Scott Aagre have pledged to advocate for the elimination of the special counsel position, as currently established by our township committee.
The democratic leadership is claiming they will save the township money by raising taxes, and by dismantling an organization that successfully manages our sewer system.
Hazlet’s democrats seem more obsessed with obscuring the facts to make their direction sound logical, than they are with saving money.
Mere common sense determines that the current position of Hazlet’s special counsel is superfluous and costly.
Rich Kohler
Registered Voter
Hazlet, NJ
The democratic leadership maintains that by closing the Hazlet Township Sewerage Authority, they will save taxpayers $105,000 per year. Recent campaign literature suggests that their proposed open space tax will save Hazlet citizens from future tax increases. Relevant facts repeatedly contradict the assertion that these proposals will save money for Hazlet.
Curiously, the democratic leadership does not seem interested in reducing the cost of Hazlet’s legal representation.
In addition to Ronald Gordon, our township attorney, Hazlet employs another lawyer as special counsel. The Mayor annually appoints the special counsel at the township committee’s re-organization meeting each January. This year, Mayor Steven Peich re-appointed Norman Kauff to that position. At that same meeting, former mayor and current committeeman, Michael Sachs, stated that he previously, and repeatedly, asked for documentation of the work that the special counsel had performed for Hazlet. Since he received no such records, Mr. Sachs opposed the reappointment of Mr. Kauff as Special Counsel.
On January 7, the first regular meeting of the 2003 Hazlet Township Committee, Mayor Piech was asked to explain the function of Hazlet’s special counsel. He answered, “To be honest with you, the special counsel is set up to be, to have an attorney that is, I guess, if they needed to have a special part of the counsel with [Norman Kauff] to be easily accessible to handle certain items and what not that, I guess, they use.”
During the public portion of the township committee meetings on January 21 and February 4, several citizens asked what services the special counsel had provided to Hazlet over the last two years. No one on the township committee was able to provide information about any meetings with Mr. Kauff.
Last week, at the October 7 township meeting, I asked the committee to detail Hazlet’s use of the special counsel this year. Committeeman Michael Christopher stated that he has met with Mr. Kauff on a regular basis since February. Mr. Christopher further explained why he consults with Mr. Kauff. Not being an attorney himself, Mr. Christopher needs clarification of the legal wording of some ordinances. Mr. Christopher mentioned that he sometimes confers with the special counsel on “other township business”, but added that he does not report to the township committee or keep any notes regarding his meetings with Mr. Kauff.
Neither the township’s business administrator, nor any other committeeperson acknowledged that he or she had any contact with Mr. Kauff regarding township business.
Does Hazlet employ an attorney for the primary purpose of explaining township business to Mr. Christopher?
Mr. Gordon claims that he consults with Mr. Kauff on a regular basis. Why would an attorney employed by one of the largest municipal law firms in the state, need to seek professional advice from a private attorney?
Township records show that Hazlet pays a $1400 monthly retainer fee directly to Mr. Kauff. Hazlet also contributes to Mr. Kauff’s pension, as required by law for township employees. Other municipalities hire an attorney on an as-needed basis, if they need the services of a special counsel. This practice saves the taxpayers from paying expensive retainer fees and benefits.
Why do the citizens of Hazlet pay someone whose position has not been, and seemingly cannot be, reasonably explained or sufficiently documented by those who appointed him?
The township committee may have a legitimate, or even fiscally responsible motive for the less-than-straightforward manner in which Hazlet obtains, and pays for, its legal services. Citizens of Hazlet have been asking in vain for the township committee to explain their reason. We deserve an answer from our elected officials.
If elected this November, Republican candidates Paul Coughlin and Scott Aagre have pledged to advocate for the elimination of the special counsel position, as currently established by our township committee.
The democratic leadership is claiming they will save the township money by raising taxes, and by dismantling an organization that successfully manages our sewer system.
Hazlet’s democrats seem more obsessed with obscuring the facts to make their direction sound logical, than they are with saving money.
Mere common sense determines that the current position of Hazlet’s special counsel is superfluous and costly.
Rich Kohler
Registered Voter
Hazlet, NJ
posted by Rich Kohler at 9:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home