Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to a letter Jason Smith submitted to this paper last week in which he accuses Hoboken’s Mayor Dawn Zimmer of being a “wasteful hypocrite” because of news of “skyrocketing” legal bills. He bemoans the use and cost of “big gun” lawyers whom the city retains to counter deep-pocketed developers. While Mr. Smith is certainly entitled to his opinion about his disappointment with the Mayor, he is completely off the mark in his facts in the letter of criticism.
First, while I am in no way speaking for the Mayor, it is my opinion (and the opinion of many others) that engaging well-qualified professionals (i.e. Mr. Smith’s “big guns”) is essential for the city to obtain favorable results in many areas, such as in the redevelopment context, the hospital bankruptcy and subsequent sale, or in the defense of actions filed against the city. Thankfully, gone are the days, at least for now, that well-financed developers and other such entities gain a distinct advantage in their dealings with the city based on the professionals involved, and it is important to note that the need for such professionals extends beyond solely lawyers.
Mr. Smith apparently does not agree. In his letter, his sole example proving the hypocrisy that clearly provokes his ire is that, “[the Mayor] dismisses big guns from the Scarinci & Hollenbeck [law] firm for questioning the ethics of the Hoboken Hospital Authority.” He then drops in the sage revelation that the Mayor chooses to disregard their expert advice when she does not like the critique.
What is less clear is about Mr. Smith is what he means by “dismisses big guns” in this letter. If he means “to fire” or “let go”, as is strongly implied, then Mr. Smith fails to realize an important fact – that the Scarinci & Hollenbeck “big gun” who questioned the ethics was not working for the Hoboken Hospital Authority, or in any capacity for the city either. So the Mayor cannot dismiss a big gun who does not work for her. It was the hospital’s non-for-profit managing company, which by law is not a part of the city, that retained the “big gun” in this regard. They were in litigation against the city.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Smith uses “dismiss” to mean “rid one’s mind of” or “pay no credence to” the questions raised, then it is not surprising that the Mayor would not embrace an unfounded allegation of a zealous attorney who is working for an adverse party against whom the city was in active litigation at that time.
Mr. Smith’s letter concludes by flinging around tired and generic and slogans urging that we “cut out the waste” and end “politics as usual”, but seeing as the entire point of his letter is a conclusion founded on a completely incorrect premise, I choose to dismiss his letter as I would conclude a Roseanne Roseannadana critique – by saying never mind.
Jim Doyle