(Updated) Calling City Hall’s top lawyer “able and brilliant,” two alderwoman who originally sought to put his job up to a vote renewed their efforts to probe the legal basis of his hiring.
Hill Alderwomen Jacqueline James-Evans and Andrea Jackson-Brooks wrote a letter to Mayor John DeStefano Wednesday clarifying their reasons for pursuing the issue, and asking for a meeting.
The mayor’s office responded later today that DeStefano would be happy to sit down with the alderwomen to discuss the issue.
Earlier this week the alderwomen requested that the Board of Aldermen put up to a vote whether Victor Bolden (pictured) can remain in his job as city corporation counsel. They argued that his hiring violates the city charter because he passed the Connecticut bar exam less than 10 years ago.
They withdrew their request hours later after DeStefano administration officials held a press conference attacking that request as politically motivated — and illegal.
In the latest letter, the alderwomen detailed a months-long quest to gain information on the legal basis for Bolden’s hiring. Rather than seek an aldermanic vote on whether to keep Bolden, they focused on how City Hall does or doesn’t communicate with aldermen — and how aldermen do or don’t arrive at independent judgments.
“We feel that Attorney Bolden has proven himself to be both able and brilliant, that he has done an excellent job in representing the city, and that is by no means at issue, nor is any political agenda at play,” they wrote.
“Rather we are puzzled and quite troubled by the manner in which” the mayor named Bolden to the post on a permanent basis earlier this year, the wrote.
DeStefano first named Bolden to the job on an “acting” basis while his team researched the city charter. A provision of the city charter states that the corporation counsel “shall have been an attorney and counselor at law of this state for not less than ten years.” Bolden, a Harvard Law graduate and former general counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, has practiced law for 17 years. He has lived in Connecticut for more than 10 years ago. But he passed the Connecticut bar only eight years ago.
DeStefano’s director of organizational development, Emmet Hibson, Jr., who’s a lawyer, researched the issue. He concluded that Bolden can legally have the job under the charter. Based on that legal opinion the mayor then permanently appointed him to it.
(Click here for a previous story that runs down the complex legal issues behind that decision.)
Enter Alderwomen James-Evans (at right in photo) and Jackson-Brooks.
They “courteously” asked the mayor in a Jan. 23 letter for his “long-term plans” on Bolden’s appointment, they recounted in this week’s letter.
“We were stunned when on March 25, 2009, we finally received” a reply from the mayor’s chief of staff, Sean Matteson. Matteson’s reply letter “without explanation or discussion, announced the pending appointment of Victor Bolden … as a fait accompli.”
Matteson’s letter offered no explanation beyond stating that DeStefano had decided to keep Bolden on permanently. “We received no further information on this matter until [this Tuesday’s] press conference when it when it was disclosed” that Hibson had prepared a legal opinion months ago.
“Had we been informed that such an opinion had been requested and issued, we would have proceeded differently.” They asked to have Hibson’s written opinion forwarded to them.
Chief of Staff Matteson was asked Thursday about the alderwomen’s complaint that his response letter had been too terse.
“They asked a direct question,” Matteson said. “I gave them a direct answer.”
Making “The Best Decisions Possible”
James-Evans and Jackson-Brooks proceeded in the new letter to detail their efforts to have the Board of Aldermen obtain an independent legal opinion on the rules for hiring a corporation counsel. The language in the charter is unclear and requires interpretation. The alderwomen didn’t disagree or agree with Hibson’s interpretation. Rather, they argued that aldermen need to be able to have their own independent interpretation rather than relying on City Hall to judge City Hall’s actions.
They originally asked Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield to obtain a legal opinion. Goldfield denied the request but suggested the alderwomen put the matter of hiring outside counsel to the full board for a vote. (Click here to read Goldfield’s letter.)
That “would have prompted a major legislative battle just to get the most basic information,” the alderwomen complained in the new letter. They argued that aldermen need to pursue “expert independent clarification to better understand issues as they arise.”
“With all due respect to President Goldfield, we think the citizens of New Haven are best served when the legislative branch has all the facts before it so it can make the decision possible, the alderwomen wrote.
Then they told the mayor they’re “amenable to meeting with you about this matter at any time if you so desire.”
“The administration will meet with Alderwomen Jackson-Brooks and James,” mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said later Thursday. “We have metwith them in the past on this matter where they did not express these concerns but we are open to bringing them in to discuss this further. “
The mayor’s office offered no response about a possible meeting by the time this story went to press.
Wonder why these alderwomen suddenly want everyone to know that Bolden is "able and brilliant?"
Could it be that they found zero support in their communities for their actions?
Guess this wasn't as good an idea as it seemed once it hit the light of day.