In a quixotic vote at Wednesday night’s City Council meeting, a resolution involving longevity payments for city workers, which was sponsored by Councilmen Tony Soares and Ruben Ramos Jr., failed 4-2-3 after those same sponsors voted against it. Longevity payments are payments added to a municipal employee’s base pay after they work for the city for more than three years. The resolution failed after three members of the nine-person council abstained from voting on the issue, saying that they themselves could benefit from longevity payments. The council’s rules required five votes to pass the resolution. After the vote, both supporters and detractors of the resolution charged that the issue had become tainted by politics. The way that longevity payments are calculated became a hot button issue recently when Soares discovered that Business Administrator George Crimmins, a high ranking official in the administration of Mayor Anthony Russo, had been paid $21,000 due to an adjustment in his longevity calculation. The resolution that Soares and Ramos originally offered was intended to ensure that all city employees had an opportunity to calculate their longevity using the same procedure that Crimmins did. It also would have prohibited new employees from adding time served in other government bodies, such as the county or the state, to their longevity calculations as current employees apparently can now. Although the council appeared to be heading towards a consensus on the issue, City Councilman Dave Roberts appeared to upset the apple cart last week when he sent a two-page letter to Soares suggesting that the resolution might, in fact, be condoning the payment to Crimmins even though it may be a violation of city law. “It may not have been proper for some individuals to accept these payments in the past,” Roberts said before the meeting. “I think there are some elements of this measure that should survive, but nothing that should contest current city law. We should take a couple of weeks to ask some questions and get some answers. There is no reason to rush this thing through.” Even though Soares, who works closely with Roberts on the council, asked his colleagues to allow him to table the amendment so that more information could be gathered, the majority of the council disagreed. A number of members seemed to be frustrated that the issue kept coming up but it never got resolved. “This has been going on for more than a month,” said Councilwoman Theresa Castellano. “I had questions too and I made an appointment to have them answered and got them answered. That’s all you had to do.” After the meeting, Councilman Steven Hudock, who tends to support the administration, said he thought Soares and Roberts were just trying to embarrass Crimmins. “If Crimmins had not been the recipient of these payments, none of this would have ever come up,” said Hudock. “They say that they have the interests of the city employees in mind, but when it actually comes up for a vote, they waffle. They know that Crimmins negotiates with the unions and that this is a perfect wedge issue for them, so they are just driving it in there.” Hudock added, “I voted for it because I thought that not paying people for service in other governments was a good idea.” Soares seemed to be in a state of shock that he could not withdraw his own amendment for further review. Pointing to Ramos, he said, “We sponsored this and we want to make sure that everything is right here. I don’t see what the problem is with waiting two more weeks before we vote on it.” After the meeting, Soares said that he thought the reason that he was overruled was that pro-administration council members were hoping to cover something up. “This is the sort of thing that Oliver Stone could make into a movie,” Soares said. “It was my idea and they were pushing it through.” Paragraph perplexing The root of the disagreement appears to center on a paragraph in the city code that several city employees brought to the council’s attention before the vote. The paragraph reads, “Only those years in actual service with the city of Hoboken may be taken into account for computation of years of service.” Roberts suggested that the paragraph calls into question whether Crimmins should have been allowed to make adjustments to his longevity that may have included years he worked for the county. Robert Murray, the city’s legal counsel, explained that the paragraph that Roberts, Soares and several city employees pointed to only pertained to employees who worked for the city before 1955. “The code says in clear, unmistakable terms that longevity applies to anyone who has been in the Public Employees Retirement System,” he said. But Roberts disputed Murray’s ruling, suggesting that the city’s lawyer might not be the best person to interpret the ordinance, since he stood to gain from longevity payments. When the vote was called, Soares and Ramos were the only members who voted against it, but since three members abstained from voting, it was enough to defeat the resolution. After the meeting, the debate around the longevity resolution seemed to leave everybody somewhat perplexed. “That was kind of like a farce,” said Hudock. “One minute they were for it and the next minute they want to take it back. It’s just kind of weird.” Sponsors oppose their own resolution By David Danzig Reporter staff writer In a quixotic vote at Wednesday night’s City Council meeting, a resolution involving longevity payments for city workers, which was sponsored by Councilmen Tony Soares and Ruben Ramos Jr., failed 4-2-3 after those same sponsors voted against it. Longevity payments are payments added to a municipal employee’s base pay after they work for the city for more than three years. The resolution failed after three members of the nine-person council abstained from voting on the issue, saying that they themselves could benefit from longevity payments. The council’s rules required five votes to pass the resolution. After the vote, both supporters and detractors of the resolution charged that the issue had become tainted by politics. The way that longevity payments are calculated became a hot button issue recently when Soares discovered that Business Administrator George Crimmins, a high ranking official in the administration of Mayor Anthony Russo, had been paid $21,000 due to an adjustment in his longevity calculation. The resolution that Soares and Ramos originally offered was intended to ensure that all city employees had an opportunity to calculate their longevity using the same procedure that Crimmins did. It also would have prohibited new employees from adding time served in other government bodies, such as the county or the state, to their longevity calculations as current employees apparently can now. Although the council appeared to be heading towards a consensus on the issue, City Councilman Dave Roberts appeared to upset the apple cart last week when he sent a two-page letter to Soares suggesting that the resolution might, in fact, be condoning the payment to Crimmins even though it may be a violation of city law. “It may not have been proper for some individuals to accept these payments in the past,” Roberts said before the meeting. “I think there are some elements of this measure that should survive, but nothing that should contest current city law. We should take a couple of weeks to ask some questions and get some answers. There is no reason to rush this thing through.” Even though Soares, who works closely with Roberts on the council, asked his colleagues to allow him to table the amendment so that more information could be gathered, the majority of the council disagreed. A number of members seemed to be frustrated that the issue kept coming up but it never got resolved. “This has been going on for more than a month,” said Councilwoman Theresa Castellano. “I had questions too and I made an appointment to have them answered and got them answered. That’s all you had to do.” After the meeting, Councilman Steven Hudock, who tends to support the administration, said he thought Soares and Roberts were just trying to embarrass Crimmins. “If Crimmins had not been the recipient of these payments, none of this would have ever come up,” said Hudock. “They say that they have the interests of the city employees in mind, but when it actually comes up for a vote, they waffle. They know that Crimmins negotiates with the unions and that this is a perfect wedge issue for them, so they are just driving it in there.” Hudock added, “I voted for it because I thought that not paying people for service in other governments was a good idea.” Soares seemed to be in a state of shock that he could not withdraw his own amendment for further review. Pointing to Ramos, he said, “We sponsored this and we want to make sure that everything is right here. I don’t see what the problem is with waiting two more weeks before we vote on it.” After the meeting, Soares said that he thought the reason that he was overruled was that pro-administration council members were hoping to cover something up. “This is the sort of thing that Oliver Stone could make into a movie,” Soares said. “It was my idea and they were pushing it through.” Paragraph perplexing The root of the disagreement appears to center on a paragraph in the city code that several city employees brought to the council’s attention before the vote. The paragraph reads, “Only those years in actual service with the city of Hoboken may be taken into account for computation of years of service.” Roberts suggested that the paragraph calls into question whether Crimmins should have been allowed to make adjustments to his longevity that may have included years he worked for the county. Robert Murray, the city’s legal counsel, explained that the paragraph that Roberts, Soares and several city employees pointed to only pertained to employees who worked for the city before 1955. “The code says in clear, unmistakable terms that longevity applies to anyone who has been in the Public Employees Retirement System,” he said. But Roberts disputed Murray’s ruling, suggesting that the city’s lawyer might not be the best person to interpret the ordinance, since he stood to gain from longevity payments. When the vote was called, Soares and Ramos were the only members who voted against it, but since three members abstained from voting, it was enough to defeat the resolution. After the meeting, the debate around the longevity resolution seemed to leave everybody somewhat perplexed. “That was kind of like a farce,” said Hudock. “One minute they were for it and the next minute they want to take it back. It’s just kind of weird.”
Strange things afoot at City Council
