Dear Editor:
OK, I’m really confused. So far we’ve heard a number of stories about the circumstances surrounding the termination of Business Administrator Laurie Cotter. The latest, from the Roberts administration and City Council President Ramos is that the reason for the separation was “Mutual.” Now I’m familiar with the following reasons for leaving a firm permanently: death, firing, layoff, resignation and retirement. Over the years I have filled out quite a few forms on recently departed staff, and I have never seen a box annotated as “Mutual” as an option.
As far as I know, Ms. Cotter is not dead, except for perhaps as far as Mayor Roberts is concerned. No one has claimed she has retired. So she was either laid off, was fired, or she resigned. The distinction may very well be important. Ms. Cotter may have certain rights depending upon the circumstances of her departure regarding things like severance pay (reported to be as much as 3 months pay, or approximately $25,000), health insurance, unemployment insurance, and retirement credits. No one is suggesting that she be denied benefits that are due her under statute and case law. However, if she receives benefits beyond those to which she is legally entitled, are we setting a policy, precedent, or past practice that will come back to haunt us in the future? Are we setting up a situation where future Directors and/or other employees who resign receive severance payments?
We have seen at the national and state levels that attempts to hoodwink the public can have disastrous effects for the hoodwinkers because the truth eventually comes out and their credibility goes down in to the sewer. If Mr. Roberts fired Ms. Cotter he should simply say so. It’s well within his authority to do so, and it’s OK. I urge Mayor Roberts to come clean with the people of Hoboken as to the reason for Ms. Cotter’s departure.
Jonathan R. Gordon