Although Council member Charles Morgan chose not to run for re-election this fall, the administration is not done dealing with some issues he has raised. On October 7 Morgan submitted a voucher for litigation expenses to the township in the amount of $2,874.10 including costs for court transcription, state filing fees, postage, and more than 50 letters and copies.
Morgan incurred the expenses while filing two lawsuits against Mayor Hsueh. Morgan said more vouchers will come as expenses continue.
The lawsuits stemmed from a written request Morgan made in 2010 to Hsueh regarding the township possibly utilizing profits from a liquor license. The mayor says the administration thought it was common sense for members of council to know that the township “could not be like a businesses.”
Added Hsueh: “The question was addressed to the CFO [Joanne Louth] and business administrator [Robert Hary] because I was not at that meeting. Morgan wanted to ask them whether we should use our municipal income from a liquor license and our good financial position to make profits for the township. My understanding from the IRS mandate is that if governmental agencies get involved in making profits then the money will have to be returned. We cannot take that profit and apply it elsewhere,” Hsueh said.
According to Hsueh, Hary and Louth responded to Morgan that as a government entity the township could not do that. Morgan then asked Louth and Hary to provide him with research and citations that would validate their position. Morgan claims that his requests for information were ignored. Hsueh said that Hary did not want to set a precedent of being preoccupied with every request made by a council member unless it was unanimously voted for. “It was not a priority because Joanne and Bob have other routine operations to do,” Hsueh said.
The first lawsuit Morgan filed with Mercer County Superior Court was dismissed on February 18 of this year. In August Morgan filed an amended version of his complaint. He says he was unsuccessful with the first suit for two reasons: one was a dispute over whether the mayor actually responded to his request, in which the judge ruled that Hsueh did respond. Morgan also says a rule in which judges cannot give advisory opinions to clarify ambiguities in the law stopped the first suit.
“The second law suit is about a request for a report where the Mayor has already admitted, in a sworn statement, that he did not respond to my request for a report. The judge in the second lawsuit cannot rule that the Mayor responded, as the judge in the first lawsuit ruled, since I have the Mayor’s sworn admission of no response. Second, I made it clear in the second complaint that I am requesting a declaratory judgment,” Morgan wrote in an E-mail to the News.
