There was another moment during Northampton's last city council meeting where if you'd blinked you would have missed something important. Let's see if you caught it.
With the council's focus on the proposed Business Improvement District, the BID, it voted without much fanfare to transfer $50 thousand into the city's legal services budget. The rationale given by mayor Mary Clare Higgins for requesting the transfer is that the city needs the money to cover the legal costs related to the environmental remediation of the Round House parking lot located behind Pulaski Park. Finance director Chris Pile indicated that the money would be reimbursed after negotiations with Bay State Gas are completed. Supposedly at some future time when the money is recouped the city will then transfer $50 thousand back into the general fund from the legal services fund or so was the appearance.
The councilor from the city's second ward, Maureen Carney, asked if the $50 thousand was being earmarked specifically for the purpose of cleaning up the parking lot. The answer from the mayor was quick, "No." The money is going into the general fund of the legal services budget. That means the money can be used for other legal services not related to the parking lot clean up, at the discretion of the city solicitor, Janet Sheppard. No other councilors questioned the transfer and the mayor was offering up nothing, thus the public did not, could not learn more. The council then voted to transfer the money and moved on to its other business.
At last count the legal services budget for fiscal year 2009 was over budget by about $350 thousand, standing presently at about $450 thousand in obligations. Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I've been adding it up in my head as the council meetings go by. According to the mayor's posted budget expenditure summary PDF the city spent about $159 thousand in legal services in FY 2006 and $118 thousand in 2007. For some reason the actual amount expended in 2008 is not posted but is listed in the solicitor's narrative at an estimated $180 thousand through March, 2008. That leaves April-June 2008 unaccounted for. The mayor budgeted for about $108 thousand in legal services for 2009 with about $104 thousand of that figure allocated for legal counsel. About $94 thousand of that figure is paid for by taxpayers, with the balance coming from an enterprise fund. The fact is the city has expended about $450 thousand in 2009, and the fiscal year has more than four months remaining. Read the solicitor's narrative DOC.
From that narrative you will see that the solicitor's stated mission is to, "provide the best legal services available to the city of Northampton in the most cost-effective way." Perhaps the most cost effective way is for the city to consider not contracting out for the services of Janet Sheppard and Elaine Reall and return to hiring a solicitor outright. In 2006 Sheppard made $38.8 thousand from the city while Reall made about $40.9 thousand. Various other outside counsel were paid $64.1 thousand. In 2007 Sheppard's take was $54.7 thousand and Reall's, $40.1 thousand, with outside counsel earning $11.1 thousand. In 2008 Sheppard's estimate through March was $71.7 thousand while Reall's estimate was $44.1 thousand with outside counsel getting $58.2 thousand, and there are three months unaccounted for. Claims and judgements for 2006 were $7 thousand, for 2007 $.99 thousand, and 2008's estimate is for $6.3 thousand respectively. I believe claims and judgements include monies paid out for pot holes damaging cars and other small claims.
I presume Sheppard bills the city for her time spent at city council and other city meetings. That means last Thursday while the council listened to public comment and then its council's finance subcommittee met prior to the start of its regular meeting, Sheppard may have been sitting in the gallery of council chambers racking up her billable time, presumably at hundreds of dollars per hour. Unless of course she is sitting there on her own time until she is called upon and recognized or perhaps she arrived for the scheduled BID public hearing at 8 pm. That too is not clear though Higgins and Sheppard joked about Sheppard's fees during the meeting. I'm glad someone is laughing.
What is clear is that the city is spending a lot more on its legal services than what has been budgeted for. I can attest that Sheppard once told me rather forcefully that she works for the mayor and not for me, this before she hung up on me in a huff. As a taxpaying citizen of the city I beg to differ on who she works for, but if that is so the mayor is apparently spending wildly on legal services during a time of a projected $6 million deficit for fiscal year 2010. This spending has nothing to do with the state or federal government but rather it is a home rule matter. It's a shame to think that the city may be laying off teachers and public safety personnel while padding the bank account of its solicitors. Thus the ever present policy questions linger: who wins, who loses and who pays?
During a previous council meeting where additional monies were transferred into the legal services budget it was explained then that those increased funds were due to collective bargaining between the city and its labor unions, but no details were offered up and no councilors asked for any. When concerning the city's legal budget councilors charged with overseeing spending are frozen in an apparent, don't ask-don't tell posture.
What we do know from limited media reports is that there there have been several lawsuits percolating against the city, like the two related to the Hilton Garden Inn with one of those being settled for $75 thousand. That was to the owner of the Round House office building, Bob Curran. Another settlement was reached with the owners of the South Street apartments. So let's see, the city sells the Hilton Garden parcel to the Parmar family for one dollar, then pays out a claim to an abutter for $75 thousand on top of the amount the apartment owners got. That too is a home rule matter. (I believe the money for the lawsuits concerning the landfill is coming from the solid waste stabilization fund and not the city's general fund.)
There are other cases against the city pending in various stages of litigation too, but getting information regarding those would likely require a real go-get'em journalist to get on it and start making phone calls in order to best inform the public as this information is not being posted on the city's website. As it is the councilors are acting a bit like Nancy Pelosi at a George Bush State of the Union Address, apparently blinking so often while the mayor is speaking that they allow items ripe for inquiry to pass. Thank you Maureen for at least asking one question, but you and the others should have delved deeper. Maybe next time…
