HIGHTSTOWN: Council divided over Borough Hall plans

By Christina Whittington, Special Writer
   HIGHTSTOWN — Some Borough Council members, accused of with violating the Open Public Records Act, said they passed two resolutions they discussed in emails in order to force the rest of the governing body to keep them informed over the location and future plans of Borough Hall.
   They didn’t admit to a violation of the so-called Sunshine Law at the July 2 council meeting.
   But Councilwoman Gail Doran did say, “The irony here is that what council members did that was cited as an example of backroom politics was in response to backdoor politics for many months of being shut out of information with regards to what was going on at the time, reimbursements from Hurricane Irene and plans for Borough Hall.”
   She said “the inability of council members at council meetings to get information led to the frustration that sparked the conversations” that resulted in two resolutions being approved June 4.
   One resolution asked for the location of Borough Hall to be centrally located. That passed 5-1 with Council President Lawrence Quattrone voting against it.
   The other one required the council be kept informed in all matters pertaining to Borough Hall. That passed unanimously, 6-0.
   But discussion on these resolutions was added to the agenda for July 2.
   ”I requested this discussion item be on (the agenda) tonight in light of the controversy that followed on the passage of both of those resolutions on June 4,” Councilwoman Doran said.
   A special workshop meeting was held May 30 in which residents, business owners and groups in Hightstown voiced their opinions on the future location of Borough Hall.
   Following that meeting, members of the council added the two resolutions pertaining to Borough Hall to the agenda at the June 4 council meeting.
   Mayor Steve Kirson said the discussions via email before those two resolutions were approved could have been a violation of the Sunshine Law.
   He read a prepared statement at the beginning of the June 18 council meeting, which said, “I suspect the Sunshine Laws were treaded upon between the meetings of May 30 and June 4,” referring to the fact the council added the two resolutions to the agenda without first providing the public with information on them and discussing them among themselves prior to the June 4 meeting.
   But at the July 2 meeting, some members of the council stressed the importance of keeping the two resolutions in place.
   At the onset of the meeting, Councilman Robert Thibault read a prepared statement, which said, “Council has consistently advocated the investigation of all possible options for the placement of Borough Hall. Council has also demanded cost analysis for any and all options, in fact, one of the resolutions states that. Just as consistently, the mayor and business administrator have apparently withheld information, provided partial information or put council off saying information just isn’t there.”
   Councilwoman Doran agreed with Councilman Thibault’s statements, saying, “We, as a council, for months have asked for information and not gotten information.”
   She said, “The inability of council members at council meetings to get information led to the frustration that sparked the conversation that resulted” in the resolutions being approved.
   Councilman Thibault said he looked over all minutes from council meetings since Hurricane Irene and compiled a timeline of “events and statements and facts surrounding Borough Hall” that supported his claim of information being withheld.
   ”Without council pushing and pushing very hard, we would not have the information, the little information that we have now,” he said. “There is a clear need for those resolutions. I stand behind them.”
   Councilwoman Lynne Woods blamed “tunnel vision” as the reason things were progressing slowly with Borough Hall.
   ”The languages in the resolutions are very vague and broad and no way promotes a tunnel vision approach to where Borough Hall should go,” she said. “We also believe the tunnel vision approach stalled the process of seriously considering all our options. I am looking forward to keeping this process moving forward, and I propose we keep these resolutions in place.”
   Councilwoman Susan Bluth commented on the fact there was no public outcry over the council being kept informed of all matters pertaining to Borough Hall.
   ”All the hoopla only seems to be concentrated on one resolution,” she said. “The public outcry only involves 2012-153 and the way it was introduced. I introduced 2012-154 the same night (asking that the council be kept informed) and there was no public outcry. I stand by these resolutions.”
   Councilman Quattrone said, “I voted no to one resolution and yes to the other one. If I had to vote again, I’d probably vote no to both of them.”
   He explained, “Those resolutions should (have) come forward and been presented to the mayor, put up for discussion, then put on the next meeting. That would (have) been very transparent and probably no problem at all. I am the council president, and they could (have) come through to me at any time, and I say that every time. I received no phone calls.”
   He added, “I have nothing to hide, and I know of nothing being hidden, and I think we should put this all behind us and start moving forward for the betterment of the borough.”
   Councilwoman Selena Bibens, who was not at the May 30 meeting, said, “I am very confident that this process has been very open. At the end of the day, it comes to the fundamentals . . . how much is it going to cost and what is going to be better for the borough?”
   Council members did vote 5-1 to make a new resolution, confirming their approval of the original votes on the resolutions with Councilman Quattrone voting against it.
   Mayor Kirson said, “In business, you try to make a decision one day. You don’t want to second guess yourself the next day. They are (the resolutions) are on the books; leave them on the books.”
   At the close of the discussion about the resolutions, Business Administrator Mike Theokas commented on the lack of information claim.
   ”Some very strong statements were made, alleging some very serious things,” he said. “In my position here, given the circumstances, I fully expect and welcome criticism of my job. What was alleged quite clearly was borderline criminal activities on my part.”
   He added, “I live in this borough, too. I stand behind every decision that I have been put in the position to make, and I take my job very seriously. I do believe that in the end, the best for the borough will come forth, regardless of what it is, whose idea it was and how we get there. I would be very, very proud to continue to be a part of that.”
   Councilman Quattrone added, “Mike took a lot of shots tonight, but it’s my personal opinion that you are doing a great job.”
   The next council meeting is scheduled for July 16 at 7:30 p.m.