Two things keep cropping up at West Windsor Township Council meetings, and each time the issues arise, they are more complex than the time before. ##M:[more]## The resolution for the guiding principles for the train station redevelopment area keeps getting longer and longer, and questions surrounding the issue of the township attorney won’t go away. In each case, councilman Charles Morgan is pushing the issue.
Despite Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh’s insistence that the principles resolution is unnecessary, in recent weeks it has grown from having seven items to sixteen. On Monday, August 6, council approved the first 13 principles, but refused to vote on three new items that Morgan had recently added. The group voted 5-0 to approve the items on the list it had previously vetted, but decided to discuss Morgan’s most recent additions at a later date.
The potential item 14 is “the power of eminent domain will not be exercised unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative to fulfill important public purposes of the redevelopment plan.” Number 15 states that “the township pledges to conduct an open and transparent redevelopment process that will consider the concerns of the residents and businesses in the West Windsor community,” a stipulation that is a fundamental repetition of a principle that had already been included on the list.
The controversial issue is number 16: “The desires of the residents of West Windsor will be documented in a contract with West Windsor at such time as a concept plan is presented to the Planning Board for commencement of the drafting of the Redevelopment Plan; the contract with West Windsor will be signed by the Mayor, the members of Council, and a member of each West Windsor voting district selected from the membership of the municipal committees who were elected by the voters of their district.”
Morgan’s addition, which he says he wrote over the weekend preceding the meeting, would empower members of either the Republican or Democratic municipal committees to define the desires of the residents in each of the town’s 14 voting districts. It would also require the mayor and council members to enter into a contract stating that they would carry out those desires.
“The idea is to have a commitment that is signed by representatives of the community. Let’s make a commitment to the community, with some clarity, about what we’re going to do,” said Morgan. “Do you go by voting district, or something else? It’s a complicated question. It was suggested to me that with the municipal committees, we already have representatives elected by the voters, so we should take advantage of the existing representation.”
Said Hsueh: “I have a problem with this because it would mean that the people who were defining the township’s desires would have to be registered as a Republican or a Democrat to be a member of one of the township committees.”
“I have never seen anything like this,” said Township Attorney Michael Herbert. “It would not be enforceable. It’s asking council members to personally commit themselves. I’m concerned with it as a legal matter.”
Morgan says Herbert should not have commented, since it is a political matter, not a legal matter. “I thought the attorney’s reaction was over the top,” said Morgan later. “Again, this is the attorney asserting himself into a political discussion, when he should be giving us legal advice.”
Morgan v. Herbert
Councilman Morgan did not save all his criticism of township attorney Herbert until after the August 6 meeting. During his introduction of the principles resolution, Morgan said Herbert had submitted an earlier version of the document. He characterized it as having been “late to the table, with an insufficient amount of preparation and discussion.”
It was the second time he had gone after Herbert during that meeting. Among the first items on the agenda was the approval of the service agreement with Herbert’s law firm, Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci, and Goodell. Earlier this summer,Morgan formed a voting block with Council President Will Anklowitz and newly elected councilman George Borek in an attempt to oust Herbert as the township attorney.
The attempt was thwarted when, after reaching a compromise, Anklowitz and Borek voted against Morgan to keep Herbert in the position he has held for more than 10 years. The township will hire a different attorney to deal with matters relating to the redevelopment. The mayor is accepting applications, but has not made a recommendation for a special counsel. Morgan says Hsueh is intentionally dragging his feet.
Council voted 4-1 to approve the service contract and allow bills from Herbert’s firm to be paid, but, says Morgan, “this issue is not dead. I will not rest until I am satisfied that we are doing things legally. We have not solved the issue around how the township attorney gets paid. We have a salary and wage ordinance. All other department heads are covered, but this guy isn’t.”
At a July 23 council meeting, Morgan distributed a 14-page document to council outlining his reasons for wanting Herbert removed from his position. Council voted 4-1 to disallow the document.
Township Clerk Sharon Young then collected the document, which Herbert said was “outrageous.” Councilwoman Linda Geevers called for an executive session. Once the council went behind closed doors, according to Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, Morgan said: “It’s too late. I already sent copies to the press.”
He had sent the document to members of the media one hour before the meeting. The tactic is similar to one Morgan used last year in another feud with a different colleague. In July, 2006, when Barbara Pfeifer was on council, Morgan wrote a 2,”100-word statement analyzing a feud he was having with Pfeifer, and included a document that contained definitions for various psychoanalytical terms, such as “narcissism,” distortion,” and “delusions of grandeur.” Pfeifer was replaced by Anklowitz in the next election.
This time, Morgan has not questioned Herbert’s psychological profile. He has questioned his professionalism, partiality, and the accuracy of his legal advice.
This time, Morgan has chosen to go after someone who, unlike Pfeifer, has a broad range of experience. Herbert was originally selected as the township attorney by Former Mayor Carole Carson. Even After Hsueh’s resounding defeat of Carson for Mayor in 2001, Hsueh retained Herbert. Herbert is also the township attorney in Princeton Borough.
While Pfeifer responded directly to Morgan’s attacks and allegations, Herbert has publicly remained above the fray. He has declined to comment on many of Morgan’s attacks, except to defend his own reputation. Even in the face of the 14-page memorandum, Herbert kept his public response reserved: “”I’m not going to dignify those comments. They’re not worthy of further discussion. There are two things I value most in life. One is my family, the other is my reputation. Sadly, Mr. Morgan has chosen to attack one of those precious values.””
While most close to the issue decline to comment on Morgan’s actions, Heidi Kleinman said: “If there are facts within the 14 pages of character assassination, they are obscured by personal opinion, innuendo, and distortion of the historical record.”
When the approval of the contract was imminent, on August 6, Morgan again made an appeal to further review Herbert’s billing. Morgan has said that he is asking an auditor to review the situation to determine whether the township has been operating contrary to state statute for paying a township attorney.
Herbert has said that the township is currently operating legally, as it has been for the entire time he has served as its legal counsel. “I’ll go to the auditor tomorrow if you want me to,” he told Morgan.
