Legal bills reach about $200,000
By: David Campbell
Will the cost of lawsuits against Princeton Township’s deer-management program result in funding shortfalls for programs and services under the 2003 joint budget?
At a meeting of the Human Services Commission earlier this month, Casey Hegener, Township Committee liaison to the commission, warned the cost of litigation will have an adverse impact on funding decisions in the upcoming rounds of budget talks.
"It’s so sad that deer will cut into Human Services and everything else," said Commission Chairwoman Marjorie Smith.
So far, the suits have not succeeded in ending lethal deer management by the township.
Earlier this month, the Township Committee unanimously approved a nearly $161,000 contract with Connecticut-based wildlife-management firm White Buffalo for a third year of culling and a possible pilot program to test an experimental one-shot birth-control vaccine on about 25 township deer.
Also this month, a Superior Court judge upheld a township ordinance that bans deer feeding by property owners.
Township Attorney Edwin Schmierer has said eight lawsuit filed by opponents of the deer program cost township taxpayers around $200,000 this year.
With a large case still pending in the state Appellate Division, appeals of related cases being considered by opposing attorneys, and, according to Mr. Schmierer, possible new litigation from an upcoming vote by the state Fish and Game Council on whether to approve the cull this winter, more fees are expected.
"Could you imagine if that money went into our open-space tax budget? Wouldn’t that be nice?" Mayor Phyllis Marchand said.
According to Township Committeeman Bernard Miller, "The entire budget will be impacted by the cost of litigation."
Ms. Hegener, who is also committee liaison to the Princeton Regional Health Commission, said deer litigation "absolutely" will affect services and programs provided by the Human Services and Health departments in 2003.
As an example, Ms. Hegener cited difficulties by Human Services to fund the ailing Crosstown 62 program, which Human Services is seeking $40,000 to fund, up from the $31,000 in the 2002 budget.
In October, the department notified the township it would likely run out of money for Crosstown 62, which provides rides for elderly citizens, before the end of the year, and gained permission to use $5,000 from surplus department funds.
The Human Services Commission has also discussed providing translator services to non-English-speaking Spanish families in Princeton, but funding has been a problem, Ms. Hegener continued.
"We’ve been talking about adding something to the budget and we’ve been unable really to think about it," she said. "Think of what it would mean if we’d had $50,000 to $60,000 for something like that. We probably would have talked more seriously about this very pressing need."
Attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, who have represented more than 30 plaintiffs from Princeton and elsewhere in several legal actions against the township related to the deer program, objected to claims by township officials linking the suits to the threat of budgeting shortfalls.
"It angers me to hear them say that citizens that take their government to court are wasting tax dollars," Mr. Afran said. "It’s essential for citizens to do that to keep governments honest."
Mr. Afran called township claims "just an opportunity for them to score some political points," and said it is the township that has wasted tax dollars on three motions to dismiss the deer suits, all of which were denied by the courts.
"This case could have been tried and handled for a very modest fee, but they have simply made pointless motion after motion after motion," Mr. Afran said. "If they would simply face up to the fact that the cases have to come before a judge and stop wasting money trying to avoid that, they wouldn’t have any financial problem at all."
Mr. Mayer noted that he and his associates sought eight months ago to settle the pending suit through mediation but the township declined to negotiate.
The attorney said the cost of the five-year deer program itself, as well as past lobbying of the Legislature by the township to amend state law to permit the program, is what’s really affecting taxpayers.
Not all joint agencies are linking the cost of deer litigation to budgetary considerations.
Harry Levine, president of the Princeton Public Library Board of Trustees, said it has not been an issue, and noted that it is premature to say whether 2003 will be a fiscally tough year until the municipal budgets are finalized.
Michael Finkelstein, chairman of the Princeton Joint Recreation Board, said deer litigation and its costs have not yet been an issue in programming talks for the coming year, and said the state-imposed 1-percent cap on municipal spending increases for 2003 is the real worry.
Princeton Health Officer William Hinshillwood said of the cost of deer litigation, "Quite honestly, it hasn’t crossed my mind." Mr. Hinshillwood noted that budgets are always tight and no single issue can ever be to blame.
But Health Commission Chairman Dr. Norman Sissman, while he said the cost of deer litigation in the township hasn’t come up in discussions yet, said he plans to raise it as an important issue at the commission’s next meeting.
"There is a limited amount of budget for the Health Commission, and things that bite into other aspects of the budget that will affect that," Dr. Sissman said. "I think the deer issue is an important one."