To be fair...

Subject: to be fair...

The following letter, transcribed from this morning's Times, was written by
City Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum in response to City Clerk
Anthony Conti's letter from last week. --- jc

Lawsuit was clerk's choice, not mayor's

I read The Times' editorial page July 14 with interest and saw that the city
clerk continues to peddle misinformation and drivel regarding his refusal to
fill out biweekly time records ("By law, the city clerk is 'autonomous'"). 
The people of Trenton need to know the facts.

First, there was no "power grab" by Mayor Douglas Palmer.  It was my
decision, as business administrator, to prescribe a new time record form for
managerial-level employees like the clerk.  Palmer's only involvement was
being forced to defend himself in the clerk's lawsuit.

Second, the allegation that the clerk was "forced" to file a lawsuit to
protect the independence of his office is nonsense.  The city was not
impinging upon or directing Anthony Conti's statutory duties as clerk.  New
Jersey law states that the clerk "shall be subject to such general
administrative procedures and requirements as are departments of the
municipal government including�personnel procedures and regulations."  The
clerk filed his lawsuit to force the city to issue him paychecks, which the
city could not do because of his adamant refusal to comply with the
"personnel procedures and regulations: pertaining to time sheets that he had
been asked to complete.

Third, contrary to what the clerk asserts, he was given two opportunities to
present his case to he city council.  Most recently, Council President Paul
M. Pintella gave the clerk and his attorney the opportunity to address the
issue at the July 2 public council meeting.  Neither the clerk nor his
attorney took advantage of that opportunity.

This matter ended up in court because of the choices the clerk made.  Had
the clerk simply filled out the time records, as he ultimately agreed to do,
no lawsuit would have been necessary.

Instead, the clerk's response was to assert that he would never complete the
biweekly time records.  And the clerk's lawyer claimed that the clerk would
fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court rather than complete a
single time record.

Apparently, the clerk recognized the foolishness of this position and
ultimately agreed, as part of a voluntary settlement, to submit biweekly
time sheets.  I had hoped that the settlement would have put the matter to
rest and that the parties would move on.

Sadly, this appears not to be the case.  The clerk now prolongs the dispute
by demanding that the taxpayers reimburse him for the cost of the lawsuit he
initiated against the mayor, who had nothing at all to do with the matter. 
However, the law does not require, ore even permit, the city to use public
money to reimburse the clerk for the cost of private litigation that he
initiated.  Further, there is no court order vindicating the clerk or
finding in his favor.  Instead, there is an Order of Settlement that simply
dismisses the clerk's lawsuit.  As part of this settlement, each side agreed
to certain provisions as a compromise.  This settlement hardly justifies the
clerk's demand that the taxpayers pay his lawyer.  For him to now demand
that the taxpayers pay for his arrogance and stubbornness is legally and
ethically wrong.

Jane Feigenbaum
Trenton