|
Debate Over TownshipAppointments Rages On; Matter May Go To Trial
By Catherine Snipe
Four months ago, township officials made appointments to several positions, including the municipal attorney. Shortly thereafter, newly appointed Mayor Dan Kelly contested those appointments, arguing they were his to make. And so he took the matter to court.
Now, the issue may enter a trial phase to ultimately decide who had the right to choose the municipal attorney.
Kelly brought up the subject at this week's township council caucus meeting. But the township council members asked and strongly urged the mayor if he would abandon the legal issue.
"Why is it at this point you are continuing in this? What is the reason you feel this is so important to you?" Council Vice President Ruthanne Scaturro asked the mayor, saying the situation made her irate.
Kelly said the answer was simple. "It's a matter of right and wrong," he responded.
At stake are several appointments former interim Mayor Virginia Lampman made at the township's annual organization meeting, held January 1. Lampman - who served as mayor for several weeks after former Mayor Joseph Scarpelli resigned - chose who would serve in several dozen positions.
For the most part, those officials remained the same as last year, but one key official was changed: the township attorney. The firm of Gilmore & Monahan, Toms River, in which county Republican Chairman George Gilmore is a partner, was chosen to replace the firm of Starkey, Kelly, Bauer & Kenneally, a frequent appointee in Democratically-controlled towns.
Days later, Lampman's interim term expired and Kelly was appointed mayor.
That's when it began. Kelly, a Democrat, says the appointments should have been his to make, and he sought the help of the county court to find out for sure.
Now, the situation may become a trial, a trial critics say will be paid for by taxpayers.
The Republican-majority township council members said as each day passes, the disputed terms grow closer to ending - the appointments are for one year only - prompting them to question if the mayor's battle is worthwhile.
"What are we talking about, a trial happening in May or June, we're talking about two months," Acropolis said to the mayor.
Kelly's term ends in November, when a general election will decide who the next mayor of Brick Township will be.
Councilman Anthony Matthews said such an issue could slow the work the council is trying to do. He said the township needs to continue to try and come together after Scarpelli's recent resignation and subsequent guilty plea to extortion. He told Kelly the appointments issue isn't helping that.
"We (the council) are moving forward pretty rapidly, and what you're doing is putting a wrench into it," Matthews said.
Acropolis asked, how long into January could a new set of appointments been made? What if there were two weeks or three weeks between the January 1 appointments and the new mayor's term, for example? He said such questions complicate the issue.
While the debate swirled around the council chambers, at the end of the row of officials sat Jean Cipriani. She is serving as township attorney since her firm was appointed the role in the January 1 meeting.
Should the court decide that Kelly, a Democrat, had the right to make the appointment for attorney, he could choose the former firm.
In previous weeks, officials were scheduled to give depositions in the matter, currently before Superior Court Judge Frank A. Buczynski Jr.
However, some have refused to give depositions, which could create subpoenas and escalate the situation to a trial. They include former attorney Charles Starkey and Democratic Municipal Chair Michael Blandina, who also holds an administrative position with the township.
Councilwoman Kathy Russell, the lone Democrat on the township council, said the question of who should have made the appointments is still something she wants to know.
The answer is in the hands of Judge Buczynski.
| 
