Scotch Plains Democratic Chair Files Lawsuit Against Town, Mayor

The chairman of the Scotch Plains Democratic Party has filed a complaint in court against the township alleging that the mayor and council held “secret” discussions during this past budget season that violated the state’s open public meeting act.

Richard Samuel filed a complaint in state superior court on July 6 that accuses the township of illegally discussing the budget and new sewer utility in closed sessions. He also calls for the mayor to be disqualified for going beyond her allowed duties and influencing the official acts of town manager Michael Capabianco prior to his resignation and temporary co-managers Robert LaCosta and Madeline Rutkowski thereafter.

“Our country is based on the rule of law, and they have just run rampant,” Samuel said to Scotch Plains-Fanwood Patch on Thursday. “I think they have to be called out on it. They have a procedure spelled out by statute, and certain things were allowed to be done in closed session, and they just ignored it.”

In his 10-page complaint, Samuel states that in past years the township held as many as 10 public meetings on the budget. But, this year, he argues, private meetings were held to discuss the budget before it was introduced to the public.

When Samuel wrote Mayor Nancy Malool on April 23 asking if the budget would be discussed by the council prior to its introduction, she replied by saying that “the council has discussed the budget in closed session in the context of personnel issues–i.e. layoffs.”

Samuel responded at the time by saying that it would be interesting to see how the council would be able to introduce a whole budget “without having discussed the matter other than the layoff of specific people.”

Malool replied the same day: “Obviously we discussed the budget because we can’t have a discussion about layoffs without talking about the budget. There are no cover-ups here.”

“What we did differently in past years was we had all the meetings first and then introduced the budget. This time while we did have some meetings before introduction, we had more meetings after the introduction,” Malool said to Patch on Thursday. “It’s just a matter of timing. Things were much more structured in previous years because we had a manager. We were thrown in a bit of chaos when the last manager left in February and we had to scramble to try and meet some timelines. In order for us to introduce it in time for us to be able to have the month before the public hearing and vote on it, we couldn’t delay it anymore. It didn’t have anything to do with keeping information from the public, it all had to do with timing. We were dealing with a consultant.”

Township Attorney Brian Levine said on Thursday that any closed meetings that were held were in compliance with state law because they were discussing specific positions that could potentially be eliminated.

“He seems to be alleging that we didn’t have required public meetings on those issues, and there were about five public budget meetings at which the public was present,” Levine said. “Each of those provided ample opportunity for public input. To the extent the township discussed personnel issues in closed session, that’s permissible and recommended under the public meetings act. There was nothing done that wasn’t in accordance with the civil service guidelines.”

In addition to the discussion on layoffs, Samuel alleges that the mayor and council also discussed the adoption of a sewer utility in secret, a matter that directly impacted the budget.

“With the sewer authority, they had meetings upstairs and there were two ways to do it, and I said I think this is the way, and the mayor said, ‘we can’t do that, but I can’t tell you the reason why’,” Samuel said. “I said that’s not good enough. You can’t just tell us what you decided in secret, and she said it was a confidential personnel issue. How do you pass law and say it’s based on secretive stuff, but we’re going to tax you and not say why we’re doing it? I think these things need to be explored.”

Samuel also alleges, based on reports from others, that at the February 18 council meeting, Malool sought to influence then town-manager Michael Capabianco. Capabianco later resigned at that meeting. The lawsuit also claims that the mayor attempted to influence co-managers Robert LaCosta and Madeline Rutkowski, along with other town officials, thereafter.

“I didn’t try to influence anybody other than the job I was elected to do,” Malool said in response to those accusations. “I was elected to be leader in the town, and that’s what I did. I didn’t violate my duties.”

The township’s attorney sent Samuel a letter earlier this week giving him reasons why he thinks the lawsuit should be dismissed.

“His comments are frivolous in my mind,” Levine said. “It’s disappointing when Mr. Samuel was present during all of the discussions for both the budget and the sewer utility, and voiced his opposition to it substantially, that now he argues that he was not aware of what he should’ve been aware of.”

Levine said because Samuel is not seeking monetary gains from the lawsuit, the case is not covered under the town’s insurance policy and thus must be paid for using taxpayer dollars.

How much it will cost, Levine says, depends on how long the case gets drawn out. If the court does not dismiss the case immediately, he said, the discovery process could take as long as one or two years.

“It could be quite some time before this matter is concluded,” Levine said.

Malool said on Thursday that if the costs of the lawsuit exceed the township’s legal budget, then funds may have to be taken from the budgets of municipal departments.

“I asked the consultant with the budget this tight if we’d be in trouble if we had an emergency, and he said yes,” Malool said. “This might qualify as one of those emergencies, and that’d be a shame because we have to take money from other departments, which might impact other services.”

Samuel has 28 days to withdraw his lawsuit, and if that doesn’t happen Levine says he’ll file a motion to dismiss the claim. At that point, the court will either dismiss the lawsuit or allow it to proceed.

Levine said he will try to recoup all attorney’s fees and other costs incurred by the township during this process.

“I’m sure the case will get thrown out because there is no evidence to sustain any of his claims, particularly against me,” Malool said. “Honestly, I think his motives are political, which is a shame because I’ve always looked at this job as not being a political job. We’re trying to do what’s best for the residents of Scotch Plains.”

Samuel said his lawsuit is merely motivated by the desire to be heard as a citizen of the township.

 “I asked to speak to them, and they kept ignoring me,” Samuel said. “There comes a point where, whether they like me or not, if they don’t take a citizen’s complaint seriously, there’s need to go to the next level.”