New Haven Independent

Bolden Targeted

by Paul Bass | July 28, 2009 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)

City government’s top lawyer’s job seemed on the chopping block — and then was taken off again — in a flurry of activity late Tuesday in the hours leading up to the annual Democratic Party convention.

The activity started in the afternoon when two Hill alderwomen, Jacqueline James-Evans and Andrea Jackson-Brooks, submitted a letter requesting a vote next week on whether a legal technicality should prevent city Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden from having his job.

The alderwomen argued that Bolden can’t legally hold the job under the city charter. The letter, addressed to Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield, requested that he put on next Monday night’s meeting agenda their request to require that the board take a “two-third vote” if it wants “to allow the Mayor to waive requirements of the City Charter to appoint Victor Bolden as Corporation Counsel.”

The DeStefano administration reacted immediately. It summoned reporters to a City Hall briefing with Bolden, city human resources chief Emmett Hibson, Jr., and mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga. The trio denounced the request as based on faulty legal interpretation. And they called it a politically motivated shot by administration opponents on the cusp of Tuesday night’s Democratic Party nominating convention, at which Mayor John DeStefano is seeking the endorsement for a ninth two-year term.

Within the hour, the two alderwomen withdrew their request. For now. Stay tuned — the controversy’s not over.

It involves a Talmudic debate over possibly contradictory sections of the city charter, long-running tensions over the balance of powers in city government, and political positioning in an election year.

Article VI, Section 17

The issue first arose in January, when DeStefano tapped Bolden, a Harvard Law graduate and former general counsel of the national NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to become his new corporation counsel.

At first DeStefano named him to the job on an “acting” basis. He wanted to settle a legal issue first: whether the city charter allows him to name someone to the job permanently who passed the Connecticut bar exam less than 10 years ago.

Then DeStefano made the appointment official, not acting, based on a legal opinion by human resources chief Hibson (who’s a lawyer) that the charter allows him to.

Two of DeStefano’s critics on the board, Alderwoman Jackson-Brooks and James-Evans, objected. They asked board President Goldfield to hire a lawyer to offer an independent opinion.

Fast forward to Tuesday, when the two alderwomen wrote their letter. They were up against a deadline, at the end of the day, to request to have items placed on the agenda for next Monday’s board meeting.

In the letter they asked for the order requiring the two-thirds vote to have the mayor waive the charter if he wants to have Bolden remain in the job. “It seems evident,” the letter argued, “that his permanent appointment violated the terms of the City Charter.”

It cited Article VI, Section 17. It states that the corporation “shall have been an attorney and counselor at law of this state for not less than ten years.” Bolden passed the Connecticut bar exam eight years ago.

On To Section 19

Hibson, Bolden and Mayorga swung back in the immediate aftermath at the City Hall press briefing.

First of all, they argued, the Board of Aldermen doesn’t have the power to grant the mayor permission to waive the charter.

“How can they waive the charter?” Hibson asked. “If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.”

But Bolden’s hiring is not illegal, he argued. He offered two reasons.

Reason number one: Another section of the same article of the charter, Section 19, offers a different legal view on the question. It deals with the deputy and assistant corporation counsel positions. It requires that those individuals “have been admitted to the bar of the state of Connecticut and shall have been practicing attorneys for at least two years.”

Why’s that relevant, if it deals not with the corporation counsel, but with underlings?

Because it specifically mentions the bar exams. Section 17, the one dealing with the corporation counsel, does not. That means, in Hibson’s interpretation, that the attorney should have been living here for 10 years, and practicing law for 10 years, but not necessarily practicing law in Connecticut. Bolden has lived in Connecticut for more than 10 years. But he passed the Connecticut bar in 2000. However he has practiced law for 19 years.

Hibson’s second reason: The residency requirement is unconstitutional anyway. Courts have dealt with traditional residency requirements and required a “compelling government interest” to require an employee to live in town, Hibson said. This falls under a different legal category: “durational” residency, involving requiring someone to have lived in town prior to an appointment. There’s no “compelling” need to require that here, Hibson argued.

He acknowledged that courts haven’t definitively ruled on that question. However, he said he checked with the state and discovered that superior court judges do not have to have lived in the state for 10 years to be appointed — but they do need to have been practicing law, somewhere, for 10 years.

Request Withdrawn. For Now

Within a half hour of the press briefing, Jackson-Brooks and James-Evans withdrew the letter. They’re no longer asking for it to be put on next Monday night’s agenda.

But they do plan to redraft the letter. They still seek to have the Board of Aldermen seek an outside legal opinion rather than rely simply on Hibson’s interpretation.

In their letter, the alderwomen took special aim at Board President Goldfield. for “ignor[ing] our concerns.” They called it a “an unprecedented action” when he “refuse[d] the request of colleagues for a legal opinion” earlier this year.

Jackie James-Evans amplified her concerns in a conversation late Tuesday afternoon.

“We made a request. We asked for a legal opinion. We were denied. I don’t understand. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s disrespectful,” she said.

Goldfield responded that he did immediately address their request. He wrote them this letter on May 6.

In the letter, Goldfield said he believed it unnecessary to spend a lot of city money on potentially “an empty exercise in legal thinking” that could “set the stage for a major confrontation between the Board and the Administration” over whether to remove Bolden from office. Goldfield, like Hibson, argued that the charter can easily be interpreted to allow Bolden’s hiring, and that Bolden has done a great job.

However, Goldfield invited the alderwomen to submit a resolution seeking to have the board hire the outside attorney anyway. He promised it would get a fair hearing. If the board disagrees with him, it could go ahead and hire outside counsel.

Politics? Or Respect?

Bolden and Hibson cast the alderwomen’s request as an attempt to embarrass the mayor on the day of his reelection endorsement rather than an attempt to deal with important city issues.

“I don’t have any problem if anyone feels I can’t do the job,” Bolden said. “But I think the fact of the matter is, the charter surely gives the city flexibility. I think I have served the city well.”

“This is nothing more than a political shot across the bow rather than a legitimate concern about attorney Bolden holding office,” Hibson argued. “It has nothing to do with attorney Bolden’s qualifications. This is one of the most qualified lawyers the corporation counsel[’s office] has ever had. This is somebody’s career you’re playing around with.”

The Bolden affairs arises against a backdrop that preceded his time in office: an ongoing debate over whether the DeStefano administration respects the aldermen’s legal powers, and whether the board needs to be more independent of City Hall.

That came to a head several years ago when Hill Alderman Jorge Perez (supported by Jackson-Brooks and James-Evans) blasted DeStefano for illegally entering into a legal contract with a member of a politically connected law firm, Will Clark. In a humbling resolution to the dispute, DeStefano came before the board to apologize for breaking the law and promise not to do it again.

Jorge Perez said Tuesday afternoon that he agrees with the DeStefano administration that the board and the mayor have no legal authority to waive the charter.

But he also said that it often makes sense to have the board hire its own, independent counsel. He said he hasn’t reviewed the issue of Victor Bolden’s hiring yet.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | July 28, 2009 7:37 PM

Lost the Ricci case, so its time to go. Looks to me like DeStefano put Eavans and Jackson Brooks up to this.

Posted by: Buaer1966 | July 28, 2009 10:48 PM

Can someone from the NH Independent please tell me how an alleged violation of the city charter has anything to do with Alderperson Jorge L. Perez who in this instance agrees with the administration; "Jorge Perez said Tuesday afternoon that he agrees with the Destefano administration that the board and the mayor have no legal authority to waive the charter". Furthermore, if in fact there is an alleged violation of the charter why not be open and transparent about the allegations and provide an intelligent answer to the citizens of this city who are already burden by previous interpretations and or mishandling of many cases from the same corporation counsel office. In closing, the reality of this article is to divert attention from the real issue whether or not there has been a violation of the city charter to something not related to this question.

Posted by: Bauer66 | July 28, 2009 10:53 PM

Posted by: Cas | July 29, 2009 12:24 AM

Remember how DeStefano evaded the charter in appointing Personnel Director Tina Burgett? It was supposed to be a tested position so DeStefano just changed Burgett's job title to avoid complying with the charter. And DeStefano was hiring firefighters under a fake job title to avoid complying with the charter's rules on competitive exams and got slammed in court for it. You could go on and on. And of course you have the Ricci mess, all caused by DeStefano's contempt for the charter and the law. And now you have this similarly laughable "interpretation" of the charter to excuse the appointment of Bolden. Whether Bolden is a good guy or not is beside the point. For all DeStefano's lawbreaking, he should not be nominated for another term but taken out of city hall in handcuffs.

Posted by: correction | July 29, 2009 12:28 AM

Bolden did not lose the Ricci case. He had nothing to do with it but came into office at the very end of it. The case was lost by Wilmer Hale, the mega law firm that takes on leftwing causes and loaded with the usual suspects - Yalie loons.

Posted by: New Haven Dependent | July 29, 2009 7:17 AM

Buaer1966:

You don't seem to get the "news" theory of this blog. Paul begins with his theory, inserts an inflammatory headline, some "facts" and a statement or two to incite the ususal suspects and then confirms his theory with "follow up" stories as needed.

Why would you expect him to start with facts, investigate as a reporter to discover more facts and produce some legitimate news? It is much simplar and apparantly sustaining enough to simply answer the phone and report what he is told by people with a dog in the fight, an ax to grind or and agenda. He has already divided the City into good and bad so all he needs to do is insert the alleged facts into the Paulometer and whammo he has his angle.

Otherwise you are quite right as is Mr. Hibson. It is either illegal or it is not.
Perez has nothing to do with this issue other than to serve as a convenient muse for Paul to ressurect other real or imagined rifts to help harden the lines of division and assist the usual suspects in picking a side in this latest version of Paul's New Haven Soap Opera. I suspect Perez would simply like an answer to the question to which he will be satisfied or not and then vote or not publically on the matter for all to see.

One can only hope that we are all suffering from that tried and true soap opera plot twist of the lengthy bout of amnesia and that we will wake up to read a New Haven Independent some day that is not so Dependent on getting its "news" by answering the phone to write about the bikering in the sandbox as the world goes by.

Posted by: True New Havener | July 29, 2009 10:08 AM

So let me get this straight (based on my google research):

- The most qualified lawyer to have probably ever been corporation counsel.
- Practicing lawyer for 19 years, manager of other lawyers (key to his current job) for many years before coming to New Haven government.
- Graduate of Harvard Law School.
- Has practiced for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund across the country as its lead lawyer.
- Actually has won school desegregation, criminal justice, and voting rights cases all over the country.
- A high quality litigator who has often sued governments at all levels. If there's one thing we need its someone who might actually know something about cities' liability in litigation situations.
- Long term New Haven resident.
- Nationally respected civil rights advocate regularly quoted on civil rights (before he came to City Hall) in most major media sources in the country.

We care about James and Jackson-Brooks perspective -- why? Are they moonlighting as Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Cause the usually coherent gentlewomen sound a whole lot like Jeff Sessions on this one.

Seems like petty politics when the city needs quite a bit more from elected officials.

Posted by: Streever | July 29, 2009 10:17 AM

Charlie O'Keefe:
That's crazy talk, man. Those alders routinely oppose the mayor, and a lot of people have been irritated with what is viewed as Mayoral contempt for Charter/Aldermen/checks & balances.

The Mayor definitely has a history of interpreting the charter to allow him to do things he'd like to do that appear forbidden--not saying that's the issue here, but I do think that is the feeling behind the Alder's actions.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | July 29, 2009 10:52 AM

And just why is anyone concerned about the City Charter? It is abundantly obvious to anyone and everyone that this village has no legal authority. Anything Johhny Boy wants he gets and anything he doesn't want doesn't happen. Legalities be damned. ... Thankfully, his authoritarianism is restricted to this very tiny and insignificant burg.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | July 29, 2009 3:00 PM

Ok, here we go again. Clearly Bolden is qualified for the job. That's not the issue. The issue is whether DeStefano and Hibson conspired to intentionally circumvent the city charter in a sneaky and dishonest way. Once done, the question becomes whether it violates the city charter enough as to be disallowed.

I'll give the middle aged mayor and Hibson some advice - the same advice I give my children. Tell the truth always. Don't sneak around. If you're sneaking around, it's because you know it's wrong. If you are hiding what you are doing, are afraid to do what you're doing if I was standing next to you, then you know it's wrong.

As grown men who should know better, you're both a disgrace and damn poor examples to citizens in general and our children in particular. Think about that, mayor, next time you tell us you are running "for our children." Quit corrupting our systems, budgets and charter and start being honest and open about what you are doing.

As for Goldfield denying an outside legal review, we see how well that turned out with the New Haven 20 didn't we? If you don't get an independent review, then you are free to ride with your own interpretation until somebody sues you. If you're so sure of your analysis, what are you afraid of?

Posted by: Peace Frog | July 29, 2009 3:50 PM

Mayor Destefano first hired this highly qualified lawyer and director as "acting" corporation counsel. The reasoning behind that was that, while we badly needed someone to do the job, it was unclear whether or not the charter allowed his hiring. He worked in this temporary position for 6 months, until the Mayor was presented with a satisfactory legal opinion supporting hiring Mr. Bolden permanently. This was clearly done out of respect for, and in cooperation with, the City's rules as manifested in the Charter.
The complaint was brought forward by two aldermen who have aligned themselves as political opponents of the administration. The aldermen are neither lawyers themselves, nor do they have legal experts giving them advice in support of their position. They also withdrew their request immediately after the Mayor confronted the press regarding this issue. This was a political stunt designed to humiliate and weaken the Mayor, and this type of slandering hackery is reprehensible. The aldermen should be ashamed of themselves, and their constituents should strongly reconsider their support of such petty representatives.

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | July 29, 2009 7:59 PM

Streever.

Why would two African-American alderwomen diss an African-American attorney. Remember Ms Jackson Brooks was DeStefanos administrative assistant for many years. Disgruntled she may be at being thrown overboard when the FBI arrived but all politicians make deals.

Watch your back.

Posted by: Peace Frog | July 29, 2009 8:34 PM

I'm sorry, CHW, I was unfortunately unable to read your post before posting my own response to this article, and therefore unable to respond to what you wrote. Let me rectify that situation:

You start by posing the question of whether or not Mayor Destefano and his staff conspired to sneak around the charter (I'll refrain from inferring that doing so would, in this case, be a malicious attempt to disenfranchise the voters and abuse their power). You do not, however, make any arguments for either outcome; you skip past that stage to your personal opinion on what you take to be the obvious answer--that this was, indeed, a conspiracy "to circumvent the charter in a sneaky and dishonest way."

If that is indeed your opinion, I would have to disagree. The facts of the case, as I have written above, do not indicate any sneakiness at all. Instead of trying to lecture Mayor Destefano on how to be an honest adult, why not try using some integrity yourself and make a case before bashing people?

Posted by: City Hall Watch | July 29, 2009 11:33 PM

... The legal opinion put forth by Hibson isn't worth a tinker's damn. He has an inherent conflict of interest and is only concerned with covering the mayor's ... and allowing him to violate the charter and anything else he wants to do. This is just like Pres. Bush and his tortured legal theory, put forth by his own lawyer, which allowed the federal government to render captives, hand them over for torture and to torture them ourselves.

The whole political angle is nothing but a red herring and is like so much else, designed to intentionally mislead in order to put a petina of legitimacy on what the mayor wants to muscle through. Let's not whitewash it.

Posted by: Peace Frog | July 30, 2009 10:19 AM

CHW, you say that Hibson's legal opinion is worthless, but I, for one, haven't read it. Have you? Do you have a legal opinion based on the actual text of the charter that strongly supports the argument that hiring Victor Bolden as Corporation Counsel is illegal for the City of New Haven?
I reject your comparison of this to President Bush's torture memos. Torture as a whole is entirely illegal under both international and US law. The Bush administration wrote a series of orders and memos in order to circumvent laws explicitly forbidding the types of activities that they were engaging in. The New Haven charter does not explicitly forbid the position of a Corporation Counsel in the first place, nor does it forbid the type of action by which Bolden was hired. It lists guidelines for the position that City lawyers say can are not entirely clear on the limitations.
Additionally, this was not an action taken in order to abuse the personal, individual rights of human beings in the custody of the City of New Haven, as torture was to individuals in the custody of our Federal government. Victor Bolden is obviously qualified for the job--our City is lucky to have his service. Comparing his hiring to torturing prisoners illegally is simply ridiculous.

Posted by: Streever | July 30, 2009 4:17 PM

Charlie O'Keefe:
Watch my back? Is there something on there? Should I carry a mirror with me at all times?

I'm so confused.

O'Keefe
have you lived here long?
I suspect the answer is no, because you display a complete lack of knowledge concerning these two alders, Bolden, the mayor, & the politics in New Haven.

Bolden was not the cities lawyer on Ricci vs DeStefano.

Maybe you should take the one man conspiracy theory show to Coast to Coast AM or something? Moon hoax message boards? I'm stumped.

Bolden Targeted

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed