| Author |
Message |
    
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 616
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:09 pm: | 
|
At Monday's BOT meeting, there was a motion to approve a new law firm which the town will use to process its municpal bond offerings. It seems the lawyer who the town has always used has moved firms, and it is the firm with whom the town must have a contract. Well it also seems that this new law firm (Wolf and Sampson?) requires some kind of minimum payment. Matthews was asked what this meant and waltzed around the issue, saying that while a minimum is in the contract (he gave no numbers), he had assurances from the lawyer that it would not be imposed!
Here we go again. Sounds like a contract which will bind the village with its terms, and we are supposed to not question it because this one lawyer at the firm says it will not be enforced. THEN WHY IS IT IN THE CONTRACT????
I wonder what this minimum is? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9294
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:12 pm: |
|
The minimum is their souls. Having none, they seek cash. From you and me. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 575
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:12 pm: |
|
If the attorney states that they would not impose that fee then why not just put it in writing. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4804
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Don't they have to advertise for bids then take the lowest? How much time is left on the other firm's contract? Will the town get that money back? And an evenmore important question, does this new firm have any ties to our fantastic BOT members? Mark? Can you shed any light on the situation for us? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 6:05 pm: |
|
If the exception to the minimum is not currently in the contract, it should be added as an addendum. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Glen Ridge hasn't needed to select a bond counsel since 1930. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:40 pm: |
|
I am not a lawyer, so I defer to the expertise of the attorneys on the board.
Is it common for lawyers to allow their clients to enter into contracts where the other party has such an advantage, with only informal "assurances" that the client won't be screwed?
I didn't think so.
We Villagers are the client.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance? |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 618
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Looks lke I had the spelling of the law firm incorrect. It must be
Wolff and Samson.
http://www.wolffsamson.com/practiceareas/publicfinance.shtml |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 251
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:18 pm: |
|
jayjay - I might be wrong on this - I know there was something that Rosen wasn't happy about... I know it was something that seemed to have been added at the last minute Monday night. He asked Gross and Matthews why it hadn't been passed before the finance committee prior to hitting that night. Gross tried to take the fall (no pun intended) and said that because he had not been fully there, it has slipped by or something. Rosen pushed again, as since they had known about whatever it was for a week, why did it have to be voted on that night. Was it this issue? |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 619
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:36 pm: |
|
I think this was one of the items to which Rosen was objecting for having had no prior discussion before it appeared on that night's agenda. I wonder how, if the town has to have a contract with the firm rather than with an inidividual attorney at a firm, did the village get out of its contract with the bond counsel's former firm? And is the contract with the firm something that Matthews and Gross were trying to quickly push through without any dialogue, maybe to preserve a "relationship" with the attorney rather than thinking first about taxpayer interests in any contract. It just makes me wonder. I think Rosen was onto something, and I wish he would have stuck to his guns rather than just abstaining on his vote. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3979
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:46 pm: |
|
jayjay,
For the original note in this thread, here is the video clip with Matthews explaining how the contract with the new Bond Counsel is "identical", yet different: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4cq3DZlc1Q
Like Stuart said, who would sign an agreement with a "minimum clause" with only a VERBAL assurance it won't be enforced?
Eric was on the right track for asking the question, but he let it go & Rosen promptly changed the subject. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 252
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:49 pm: |
|
The whole time this was being "discussed" and with Rosen appearing upset over this I felt very uneasy. I too wished he had stuck with it. I have to ask, if this lawyer is so very important, why doesn't a contract read that the towns contract goes to the firm that he/she is at and that if he/she moves, so does the contract? Someone asked what it is going to cost us to get out of the contract that we are under with the old law firm. Someone else asked why we didn't ask for quotes from other law firms.
With reference to the clause or whatever it was about the minimum charge, I don't care HOW good our relationship is with someone, IF there is a clause that says that you can charge us money, even though you tell us it will never be enforced, I would either want it taken out totally, or at the very least a rider put into the contract stipulating that clause No. X would never be activated....
It was all handled too quickly, and for Rosen to look as stunned and upset as he did, something isn't as it should be.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 6:42 am: |
|
Spitz, has Glen Ridge not sold bonds since 1930? If they have, are you saying that their staff counsel handles it? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3981
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 8:00 am: |
|
SoRising,
I think Spitz was referring to this article on Glen Ridge that appeared in the Star Ledger recently: http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1145767665241990.xml?starledger? nex&coll=1
According to the article, Glen Ridge has not bonded for anything since 1930. |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 297
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
I find that article ironic as Glen Ridge doesn't want to "start in the hole" and South Orange is already in the hole for the holes that owns already. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 579
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:36 am: |
|
Maybe Allan Rosen could answer how much the last Bond issue will cost the Village in Legal Fees and Bonding expenses. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Glen Ridge looks like the place to move to if you don't want to pay for increasing and endless municipal debt. We'll see what happens in the next municipal elections. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 622
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
A thought just occurred to me. When one leaves a firm, isn't there usually some sort of stipulation that you can't take clients with you...at least for a period of time? Why would the bond cousel's former firm just let him take his client (South Orange) to the new firm? Doesn't make sense, does it? |
Stirling Silver, AG
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 411
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:31 pm: |
|
If not mistaken, Bernie was the principal of his law firm. He decided to merge with a larger firm, I think. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9304
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Lawyers crafted laws that exclude them from rules everyone else has to follow. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 293
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
How much bonding do we plan to do?
Rosen said we have a AA rating. We earned that by being modest (not as modest as Glen Ridge) but relatively modest about our amount of debt relative to our wealth/tax base.
Staying with the same counsel, even if he changes firms, is pretty normal. It is also pretty normal for politics to play a big role in this position, so skepticism is warranted.
That said, the parts of this that bother me are:
As noted previously, we're putting something in writing that is not in our best interests, but apparently have some verbal re-assurance. Haven't these folks learned anything about protecting us in legal matters in the last 5 years?
Gross doing an end-run on the BOT. Is this by design or just not getting the work done?
I don't know why this is an urgent matter...do we have a pending bond issue? Why not wait and get it right?
Rosen and Devaris, stick to your guns.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page