The City Council met Wednesday night before a packed audience who was there for various controversial issues, one of them being Councilman-at-Large Ruben Ramos’s resolution “demanding that 2nd Ward Councilwoman Elizabeth Mason drop her lawsuit” against the Municipal Hospital Authority (MHA).
After the majority of council members found the ordinance inappropriate, it went down in a 6-2 vote, with Mason voting “present” so as to not take a side in the issue.
Mason had filed numerous lawsuits to open city records when she was a citizen, before she was elected last year to a 2nd Ward seat on the council. Some of them are still outstanding or being appealed.
One of those lawsuits was an attempt to prove that the first meeting of the MHA – which oversees the city’s only hospital – did not follow open-meeting guidelines.
The courts have since said that Mason was right about that meeting, but neither the hospital nor Mason has come up with a settlement that is acceptable to both sides.
The lawsuit also asks for various financial records that Mason says she has not gotten.
Mayor David Roberts, along with Ramos (who is also a state assemblyman), believe that the ongoing legal wrangling is taking too much money away from a hospital which had financial problems in the past before it was taken over last year.
“The time and money wasted by this lawsuit have a direct effect on the ability of the hospital to focus its efforts on its proper role – saving the lives of Hoboken residents,” the Ramos resolution said, in part.
But Mason and her supporters say that if the hospital and other city entities followed rules about public information, she wouldn’t have to file so many suits.
The principle of the thing
Wednesday’s vote came after numerous speakers, including Mason’s attorney and an MHA official, debated the merits of Mason’s case and whether the hospital has been forthcoming enough with its information.
The resolution, if it had passed, could not have forced Mason to drop her suit; it would have simply conveyed a message from the council.
Ramos said in an interview after the meeting that the resolution was an opportunity to bring the issue of litigation by Mason against city entities to the forefront of public discussion.
Last year, in order to help save the hospital, the city floated $52 million in municipal bonds to keep it open. At the time of the bond vote, there was some concern on the part of the public, because if the hospital failed financially, it would leave taxpayers on the hook if the hospital could not pay back investors. The city could also sell the land that the hospital is on to help make up the debt.
The bonds were classified by some as necessary assistance, and by others as an unnecessary risk.
“Most people in this community have no idea what this lawsuit is about.”
– George Crimmins
________
Many hospitals in the state have been closed recently due to increased costs and decreased funding.
Ramos said last week that Mason shouldn’t have to worry. He said that a member of the state Department of Community Affairs sits on the MHA, and would report back to the state Attorney General should anything “nefarious” occur.
Mason called the resolution an attack on her right to pursue litigation.
“Personally, I think the hospital is not even close to the financial miracle that it’s claiming,” she said at the meeting.
The hospital said last year that it has seen a drastic financial turnaround since several changes were made a year ago. A new president was brought on, the hospital started luring more doctors and paying patients, and it partnered with a university.
The claims may not be so unusual for a hospital, as Bayonne Medical Center, which was on the brink of financial disaster last year, was recently taken over by a private company and last week sent out a press release about their massive financial improvements.
Sunshine affairs
The lawsuit contends that the MHA twice violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and had four incidents of Open Public Records Act (OPRA) violations.
Both the OPMA and the OPRA are considered “Sunshine Laws,” installed to allow the public to view government records and have sufficient notice of meetings being held.
George Crimmins, director of the MHA, said last week that “most people in this community have no idea what this lawsuit is about.”
He conceded that the Authority did have an OPMA violation. But he also claimed that some of the records Mason was requesting from the hospital under OPRA did not exist, and that others are not public records.
“This hospital needs to stay open, and there needs to be sunshine on these books.”
– Lane Bajardi
________
Resident Eric Kurta agreed.
“She’s asking for an ability to see the hospital’s numbers,” he said, “and I’m not talking about a half-page summary.”
Resident and Mason supporter Lane Bajardi said, “I am concerned that sticking our heads in the sand like ostriches – which is exactly what this resolution does – will lead to the ultimate end game of this hospital closing … This hospital needs to stay open, and there needs to be sunshine on these books.”
Mason’s lawyer, Jeffrey Kantowitz, said that the settlement efforts were cut off by the MHA’s representation.
Crimmins did not deny this, but said last week that one of the sticking points for the MHA was payment of attorney’s fees for the plaintiff.
Councilwoman-at-Large Terry LaBruno asked Kantowitz what he was charging Mason.
Kantowitz said his fee is $360 per hour.
Council chimes in
Council members Michael Russo and Peter Cammarano voiced their displeasure with Mason’s various lawsuits, with Cammaranno calling her a “professional plaintiff” – but they did not agree with Ramos’ resolution.
Council President Theresa Castellano said that she would have removed the resolution before the meeting, but that she had personal matters and hadn’t even seen it before it was posted.
Councilwoman Dawn Zimmer proposed a counter-resolution, which may be on the agenda at the next meeting, calling for information sharing between the MHA and the City Council, based upon the fact that the hospital is an investment for the taxpayers and that they want to ensure the health of the entity.
Mayor David Roberts minimized the importance of the OPMA violation and questioned the need for litigation. He also said that the administrators of the hospital should not have to answer to the City Council.
Roberts said in a later interview that, under normal circumstances, he would not have been supportive of such a resolution, but because of the sensitive nature of the hospital, he was in favor of it.
Nino Giacchi, 6th Ward Councilman, questioned why the Ramos resolution came before the council.
“Nine individuals who are not judges, who are legislators, [shouldn’t have] to decide what a judge does … This is Constitution 101,” he said.
For comments on this story, e-mail editorial@hudsonreporter.com.