Assignment Judge Peter Bariso City of the Hudson County Superior Court - legal opinion on...
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
mile-square-view -
Category
Documents
-
view
13.890 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Assignment Judge Peter Bariso City of the Hudson County Superior Court - legal opinion on...
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION : HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKET NO. HUD-L-5410-12
MAYOR DAWN ZIMMER, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETER CUNNINGHAM,
COUNCILMAN RAVINDER BHALLA,
COUNCILWOMAN JENNIFER GIATTINO
and COUNCILMAN DAVID MELLO,
Plaintiffs,
v. OPINION
COUNCILWOMAN THERESA CASTELLANO,
COUNCILWOMAN ELIZABETH MASON,
COUNCILMAN TIMOTHY OCCHIPINTI
and COUNCILMAN MICHAEL RUSSO,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________
DATE OF DECISION: February 1, 2013
William W. Northgrave for plaintiffs (McManimon, Scotland &
Baumann, LLC, attorneys).
Steven W. Kleinman for defendants (Gregg F. Paster & Associates,
attorneys) Jerry H. Goldfeder, of the New York Bar, admitted pro
hac vice, of counsel (Strook & Strook & Lavan, LLP, attorneys).
BARISO, A.J.S.C.
INTRODUCTION
This decision stems from a dispute over the filling of a vacancy on the Hoboken City
Council. The matter was initiated by way of an Order to Show Cause supported by a verified
complaint in lieu of prerogative writs. Plaintiffs, Mayor Dawn Zimmer and several members of
2
the Hoboken City Council, (hereinafter “Mayor Zimmer Plaintiffs”) seek a judgment declaring
that the abstentions of Councilman Michael Russo and Councilwoman Beth Mason with regard
to the appointment of James Doyle to the Council were correctly interpreted as “negative” votes
sufficient to create a tie that allowed Mayor Dawn Zimmer to cast the deciding vote.
Accordingly, the court must now determine the legal effect of an abstention.
BACKGROUND
The City of Hoboken operates under the Faulkner Act, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1, et
seq. The City’s Charter provides for nine council members to serve on the city council; six by
ward and three at-large. On September 19, 2012, Council Member at-large Carol Marsh
announced her resignation, effective October 3, 2012.
The Municipal Vacancy Law, at N.J.S.A. 40A:16-4(a), provides that “If [a] vacancy
occurs subsequent to September 1 of the last year of the term of the officer whose office has
become vacant, the office may be filled for its unexpired term by appointment by the governing
body….” N.J.S.A. 40A:16-12 goes on to explain that the remaining members of the City
Council “may” fill the vacancy “within 30 days” of its occurrence or the position shall remain
vacant until an election can be held. Under N.J.S.A. 40A:16-7, a majority vote of the “remaining
members” of a governing body is required in order to fill a vacancy on the City Council. In the
event that a tie vote occurs, the Mayor is permitted to cast a vote pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:16-8.
On October 3, 2012, the Council held a meeting wherein seven (7) of the eight (8)
remaining council members were present. Councilwoman Mason was absent. At this meeting,
Mr. Doyle was nominated to fill the seat vacated by Carol Marsh. In the vote that followed,
Council members Cunningham, Bhalla, Mello and Giattino each voted in favor of Mr. Doyle,
3
while Council members Castellano and Occhipinti each voted against Mr. Doyle’s appointment.
Councilman Russo abstained from voting.
Councilman Russo’s abstention and Councilwoman Mason’s absence were deemed by
the Council to be “negative” votes as to the appointment of Mr. Doyle, creating a four (4) to four
(4) tie vote with regard to filling the vacancy. Accordingly, Mayor Zimmer then exercised her
statutory power to break the perceived “tie,” voting in favor of Mr. Doyle. Following the
Mayor’s vote, Mr. Doyle was sworn into office as a Council member.
In response to the controversy stemming from the October 3, 2012 vote, the issue of Mr.
Doyle’s appointment was once again put to a vote at the October 17, 2012 Council meeting.
This vote resulted in Council members Cunningham, Bhalla, Mello and Giattino voting in favor
of Mr. Doyle, and Council members Castellano and Occhipinti voting against Mr. Doyle’s
appointment. Councilwoman Mason abstained from voting and Councilman Russo was absent.
Once again, believing that the negative votes combined with Councilwoman Mason’s abstention
and Councilman Russo’s absence created a tie; the Mayor cast a vote in favor of appointing Mr.
Doyle as a Councilman.
On October 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause
(Docket No. HUD-L-5012-12), seeking to invalidate the October 3 and October 17 votes and to
declare that Mr. Doyle had never been lawfully appointed to the Council. On November 16,
2012, this court ruled that the Vacancy Law requires a majority vote of all the remaining
members of the governing body (here, five of eight members) to fill a vacant council position.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 40A:16-8, in the event of a tie, the Mayor may vote. The results of the
October 3 and October 17 votes were four (4) yeas, two (2) nays, and one (1) abstention;
therefore, no tie occurred. Accordingly, Mr. Doyle’s appointment was void.
4
On November 20, 2012, Plaintiffs, the Mayor of Hoboken and the four (4) Council
members who supported Mr. Doyle’s appointment, filed a Verified Complaint and Order to
Show Cause seeking an Order compelling the full Council to attend a meeting and vote on a
resolution to fill the Council vacancy. Following a hearing on December 14, 2012, this court
entered an order directing all remaining members of the Council to attend the December 19,
2012 Council meeting and vote on filling the vacancy. Although the court was prepared to rule
on the effect of an abstention at this hearing, counsel for Defendants objected on the basis that
the issue was not ripe for adjudication. The court provided that its order would be stayed in the
event that Defendants filed an emergent appeal prior to December 19, 2012.
On December 18, 2012, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave to file an interlocutory
appeal of this court’s December 14, 2012 Order. On January 8, 2013, the Appellate Division
denied Defendants’ request. Subsequently, the Council convened on January 16, 2013, to decide
the issue of Mr. Doyle’s appointment.
Predictably, at the January 16, 2013 Council meeting, Council members Cunningham,
Bhalla, Mello and Giattino each voted in favor of Mr. Doyle, while Council members Castellano
and Occhipinti voted against Mr. Doyle’s appointment. Council members Russo and Mason
abstained. The Council once again interpreted the vote as a tie, and Mayor Zimmer cast a fifth
vote in favor of the appointment. This court must now interpret the legal effect of abstentions in
order to determine whether or not Mayor Zimmer was permitted to cast the deciding vote
appointing Mr. Doyle to the Council.
5
DISCUSSION
The question facing the court is simply stated; how shall an abstention be interpreted
under the Municipal Vacancy Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:16-1, et seq.? Plaintiffs put forth a two
pronged argument in support of their position. First, Plaintiffs rely upon several common law
cases regarding the treatment of abstentions in support of their argument that where a statute
requires a specific majority vote, abstentions are to be counted as “negative” votes. Second, they
argue that to interpret abstentions as anything other than “negative” votes would be to subvert
the “clear intent” of the Municipal Vacancy Law on how vacancies in Council positions are
filled. Alternatively, the Defendants distinguish the common law cases relied upon by Plaintiffs,
and rest their position upon the Council’s adopted procedural rules in support of the contention
that an abstention is not to be counted at all.
The Municipal Vacancy Law
The governing law in a municipality with a Mayor-Council form of government that
controls the filling of a vacancy on the Council is the Municipal Vacancy Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:16-
1, et seq. If a vacancy occurs, the Council may, but is not required to, appoint a successor within
thirty (30) days. If no appointment is made, the office shall remain vacant until the next election.
N.J.S.A. 40A:16-13. In the event that the Council arrives at a deadlock in deciding whether or
not to fill a vacancy, N.J.S.A. 40A:16-8 provides a remedy; “[A] mayor shall be permitted to
vote to fill a vacancy in the membership of a governing body only in the case of a tie vote.”
When the Council convened on January 16, 2013 to consider the appointment of Mr.
Doyle as directed by order of this court, four (4) Council members voted in favor of Mr. Doyle,
two (2) Council members voted against him, and two (2) members abstained. In this limited
circumstance, to afford an abstention any meaning other than a negative vote under the
6
Municipal Vacancy Law would prevent the Mayor from voting and nullify the authority granted
by the legislature to municipal governing bodies to fill vacancies. To decide otherwise would in
effect permit a single Council member to control the entire deliberative process. This certainly
could not have been the intent of the legislature in enacting the Municipal Vacancy Law.
Further, this court relies upon a number of common law cases, as well as Robert’s Rules of
Order which were affirmatively adopted by the Hoboken City Council, in concluding that the
voting requirements set forth in the Municipal Vacancy Law compel this court to interpret
abstentions as negative votes.
State of the Common Law
In New Jersey, the law surrounding the effect of an abstention by a member of a public
body is somewhat convoluted. Early cases held that “[W]here no specified number of votes is
required, but a majority of a board regularly convened are entitled to act, a person declining to
vote is to be considered as assenting to the votes of those who do.” Mount v. Parker, 32 N.J.L.
341, 342 (1867). Later decisions interpreted abstentions as affirmative votes, unless an
abstaining member voices opposition, in which case the abstention is to be counted as a negative
vote. Aurentz v. Planning Board Tp. of Little Egg Harbor, 171 N.J. Super. 135, 139 (Law Div.
1986); Kozusko v. Garreston, 102 N.J.L. 508, 510 (1926). Subsequent case law sought to clarify
the confusion as to how to treat abstention votes by holding that if a statute requires a specific
number of votes for a majority, then abstentions are to be counted as negative votes. Patterson v.
Cooper, 294 N.J. Super. 6, 18 (Law Div. 1994) (citing Garner v. Mountainside Bd. Adj., 212 N.J.
Super. 417 (Law Div. 1986)).
The complicated nature of the effect of abstentions is evidenced by its review from the
New Jersey Law Revision Commission (NJLRC). The NJLRC was legislatively enacted in order
7
to review existing laws and offer suggestions on how to clarify them. N.J.S.A. 1:12A-8. The
New Jersey Law Revision Commission addresses the effect of abstentions by stating:
[I]f a statute requiring a particular number of affirmative votes for passage of a
matter, abstentions do not count as affirmative votes. The rule applies both where
the statute specifies a particular number and where it requires a particular
percentage of the membership of the public body. It is often stated that in such
circumstances, an abstention is a negative vote. Since a particular number of
affirmative votes is required, there is no difference between no vote and a “no”
vote.1
[John M. Cannel, Esq., Executive Director, Final Report Relating to the Effect of
Abstentions, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISION (Apr. 2011),
available at njlrc.org] (internal citations omitted).
The matter at hand presents such an instance. The Municipal Vacancy Law requires that an
appointment to fill a vacancy be made by a vote of a majority of the remaining members of the
council. N.J.S.A. 40:A16-7. As this court explained in prior related litigation, a “majority of the
remaining members” following Ms. Marsh’s resignation means five (5) out of eight (8) possible
votes.2 Accordingly, Mr. Doyle needs five (5) affirmative votes out of a possible eight (8).
Therefore, a “specific, fixed number of actual affirmative votes” are required for a majority and
the two (2) abstentions count as negative votes under the common law. See Patterson, supra, 294
N.J. Super. at 18.
The Hoboken City Council Rules on the Effect of Abstention
The Council Rules are consistent with the common law with respect to the effect of an
abstention in cases where a specific number of affirmative votes are required. On June 20, 2012,
the Hoboken City Council adopted Council Rules as permitted under the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A.
1 Part of the NJLRC’s mandate is to provide the Legislature with recommendations on improving
current statutes. In April 2011, the NJLRC recommended that the Legislature adopt legislation
declaring that an abstention “shall not be counted as voting either for or against [a] matter.” Ibid.
To date, no legislative action has been taken on this recommendation. 2 Castellano v. Zimmer, Docket No. HUD-L-5012-12, reasons placed on the record November
16, 2012.
8
40:69A-36(f). The Council Rules provide, inter alia, that “[i]n addition to voting yea or nay, a
Council member may abstain or vote ‘present,’ which has the effect of an abstention.” See Rule
XI. Method of Voting (attached to Certification of Steven W. Kleinman, Exhibit B at 7). While
the Council Rules make no further mention of abstentions, they do provide that “Robert’s Rules
of Order shall be followed at regular meetings to the extent that they do not conflict with these
Rules of Procedure.” See Rule I. Method of Voting (attached to Certification of Steven W.
Kleinman, Exhibit B at 1). Therefore, as the Council Rules are silent as to the meaning of
abstentions, their express incorporation of Robert’s Rules of Order compels this court to review
Robert’s Rules in order to ascertain the effect of an abstention.
Corresponding with the Council Rules, the current edition of Robert’s Rules provides that
“to ‘abstain’ means not to vote at all”; however, Robert’s Rules acknowledges that where the
vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of
the entire membership, “an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote.”
RONR (11th
ed.), p. 45, ll. 16-19; p. 403, ll. 13-18. Here, the Municipal Vacancy Law requires a
majority vote of the “remaining members” of the governing body at issue. N.J.S.A. 40A:16-7.
Additionally, this court compelled all members of the Council to be present at the January 16,
2013 meeting. Therefore, Mr. Doyle could only be validly appointed to the Council upon
receiving five (5) affirmative votes. Accordingly, in this specific scenario, Robert’s Rules
acknowledges that an abstention has the effect of a negative vote.
CONCLUSION
The court determines that this case is governed by the interplay of the Municipal Vacancy
Law, Hoboken City Council’s resolutions regarding internal governance, Robert’s Rules, and the
common law. The state of the law regarding the effect of abstentions is far from settled.
9
However, it is clear that in cases such as this, where a statute requires a specific number of
affirmative votes, abstentions are to be counted in the negative. See Patterson, supra, 294 N.J.
Super. at 18 (Law Div. 1994). The Council’s vote of four (4) yeas, two (2) nays, and two (2)
abstentions must be interpreted as a tie because abstentions have the effect of a negative vote.
Mayor Zimmer correctly used her power to cast a tie breaking vote, in accordance with N.J.S.A.
40A:16-8. To conclude otherwise would permit a single member of a city council to exercise
veto power over the filling of a vacancy which would thwart the process established by the
Municipal Vacancy Law. This court cannot countenance the notion that the Municipal Vacancy
Law was intended to encourage gamesmanship. Council members should not be permitted to
undermine the deliberative process and trump the intent of the legislature.