Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton exercised his first veto today, by return a resolution to “accept” environmentally damaged land fronting Lake Street and the North Prong of the Wicomico River. For this action, Ireton deserves kudos.
However, beneath this issue lies a problem that is equally as serious as putting the taxpayers on the hook for an environmental mess of unknown magnitude. This matter involves City Attorney Paul Wilber. As noted in SbyNEWS, Wilber has had no problem with his lord and master (former mayor Barrie Tilghman) vetoing resolutions. However, the city charter is pretty clear. Resolutions do not require the mayor’s signature. According to the Tilghman Times, Wilber has invented a power that gives him the power to decide whether or not a resolution is meaningful enough to require mayoral approval:
… Wilber said only resolutions which relate to significant action may be overridden. Recognition as significant city business is an opinion by the city attorney made on a case by case basis due to vague language in the city charter, Wilber said.
Given Wilber’s approach to interpreting law, I’m surprised that the Obama administration hasn’t nominated him for a federal judgeship.There is another problem. This “resolution” really isn’t a resolution at all. While calling the property acquisition a “donation”, it is really a purchase. Under the terms of the agreement with the current owner, the city is to pay off a $50,000 mortgage. Real estate purchases must be approved by ordinance, requiring two readings and a public hearing. Unless I am mistaken, Wilber (or an attorney from his office) drafts or approves EVERY piece of legislation. Therefore, it appears that Wilber now seems to believe that he works not for the mayor (certainly not for the citizens of Salisbury), but for City Administrator John Pick and for the Barrie Comegys party.
Ireton should immediately seek an independent legal opinion. If, as I believe it will, that opinion concurs with the opinion that this was a purchase and not a gift, Wilber should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY as the city attorney. Since Wilber is not a department head (like Ed Baker is for Wicomico County), Ireton does not need city council approval.
Ireton’s action today, was the right thing to do. It was also legally questionable. This needs to be cleared up ASAP.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
28 comments:
Go Mayor!
this is a bit off topic, but.
Being that Wilber is not a city employee does the city have to pay him by the hour for the time Wilber is appearing at the council meetings?
Anon 1618 -
Oh Yeah!
I guess the pressure got to him.It's about time he got a set.
Now , see how easy that was. Go for the next big one , fire Webster. Then fire the Wilber.
Anon 1618 -
Oh Yeah!
4:10 here.
well that just sucks. Why would they (the city) not use a rolling retainer?
Your on a Roll Jim dont stop now.
How is puying real estate -- especially this polluted hunk of junk -- not a significant action
I'd like to think this will open the floodgate, but with the "3 Stooges" Council majority, it will take until after the next election.
Can't wait to see Shanie play the race card on this one.
GA:
That's because he's a Republican, I believe!
"Given Wilber’s approach to interpreting law, I’m surprised that the Obama administration hasn’t nominated him for a federal judgeship."
Look out Jimmy Boy Queen Dingle Barrie is gonna come back and spank you for not agreeing with her Pawn Wilber.
Pawn Wilber needs to go..find a lawyer who knows law. The council must approve his replacement sooo lets get started now. Choose a good lawyer if he is not approved by the council choose another one until we have a majority vote.
Anon 1650 -
If he his, I'll trade you one Wilber for two lefties and a full blown Communist.
It's about time our Mayor does the job we elected him to do. This land grab deal sounds as suspicious as the land grab deal for the $10 Million Dollar Fire Palace. Wasn't Bubba involved in that one as well?
Wilbur is following the Cheney Legal Doctrine - "It's not illegal until a court tells me it's illegal."
A legal opinion by an attorney does not make the law. The application of the law by a competent court makes the law.
Vague wording in the city charter notwithstanding, I do not believe that there is anything in the city charter that says something to the effect of "this charter will only be legal in ways interpreted by the city attorney."
The easy way out of this is to stop pretending that Wilbur has more power than he really does. Ireton should keep pressure on the executive branch employees not to follow the order he did not approve. If somebody wants to take it to court, we'll find out who's right on this by the judge's ruling.
If Wilber argues against the city's actions, that is grounds for disbarment. If he is not eligible to practice law, he loses his job and we can then get a real attorney.
Obviously I will not say who I am, but this land deal was not a gift when it entailed the City having to pay $50,000 to get the gift. This was a purchase of land, as such, it should have been handled by Ordinance with two readings and a public hearing. For Wilber to say otherwise is wrong. Furthermore, Wilber should have disclosed his firm's prior connection to this land deal. For some unknown reason, the Barrie contingent is hell bent on making the taxpayers buy this property and pay for the cleanup. Ask yourself who will benefit from this, who's in a position to make it happen, and what kind of kickbacks are they getting to push this through?
Mr. or Ms. 5:44 is spot on.
And what about Wilber's quote in the Daily Slime yesterday -- an legal opinion on a sensitive matter -- that's grounds for his dismissal ASAP.
5:44 thanks for the logic and the comments, The property that the new fire house was built upon was a very similar "illegal" deal. I am so glad that our new mayor is doing the right thing, and of course, they rest of the story is
is is horse hockey that it is not a purchase. guess mr. wilber does not know what a purchase is either.
when money is paid, the government is under certain "laws" one of them is that the property has to be appraised, and a phase 2 enviornment study has to be done if there is any suspicion of contamination,. Perhaps Mr. Wilber does not understand the word purchase or the dictionary explaination because he does not want the city to have to follow the law. Hello folks, this is more of the same ole Barry Tilghman antics. Get rid of the city attorney, he no more represents the city than I do, and belive me,the city residents are being hoodwinked...the street language is screwed...so go Mayor Ireton. You are 100% correct the law has not be followed, and the person advising you does not own a dictionry or a set of morals.
It is obvious to me that Mr Ireton is being very careful in the steps he is taking - trying to ensure that the process (put in place before him) is being followed. Yesterday, someone had a problem because he did not say anything when this topic was discussed - smart because he already knew how he was going to handle the resolution. Secondly, the same processes have to be followed to the letter with dealing with personnel issues. Most everyone knows that firing someone at any governmental level has all the cards stacked in favor of the employee (example: Landfill). So,quit gripping and let this all play out.
All this banter about Wilber is for good reason. Wilber is a crook and a pawn for Barrie Tilghman and her regime. This man does not live in the city limits and he has been rewarded very handsomely. Reminds me of another thought, how many department heads actually live in the city limits. Anyway back to the original thought. Wilber is out of line and has been for quite some time. Mayor Ireton should fire him immediately and hire the attorneys he led to believe would get the appointment. Second Wilber is guilty of malpractice and should be charged appropriately. That's correct attorneys can be guilty of malpractice and Wilber's case should be handled appropriately.
How does a property that was bought by the current owner for $10K now have a $50K mortgage? Did a bank actually appraise the property and allow a second mortgage?
Thanks for the veto, Mayor Ireton. Now lets stay the course when the library deal hits your desk. VETO!
6:37 That's an interesting point regarding purchase and a requirement for appraisal and environmental. Can you provide the rest of us with a source for information so that we can speak about this with confidence? it would be very helpful.
6:37, is it state or federal law? Are you saying that the law requires the government to get an appraisal and Phase 2 BEFORE making the purchase? If that's true, then Wilber needs to be fired immediately for not ensuring the city did exactly that.
Thank you, Mayor Ireton, for vetoing and thank you, Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cohen, for raising the issues the city attorney should have been raising!
The bigger story is now what for Ireton? He has fired the first volley against the council majority. What will happen if Ireton needs or wants the support of the majority? He may have used his veto in a manner or on an issue that may cost him in the future. Relationship building is an important part of governance and this issue may set a tone of things to come. Only time will tell if he made the correct choice in using this important power on this issue. It is my belief he as now set a tone that he may have to pay for later on an issue much more important to him. We will have to wait and see!
1 good deed and how long has he been in? Not enough pal! I emailed this guy with some serious issues that some curupt BS going on,,WITH proof, and haven't heard anything back. This was about a month ago.
8:19
If you really think the majority of the council had any intent of ever working with the mayor in good faith, you have not been paying attention. They have been undermining him from the beginning since they were in such shock at Comegys' loss and Shields' narrow victory. How about we put it this way: perhaps Ireton is sending a signal to the majority--start working for the citizens or he will exercise the veto more often. After all, you don't have the 4 votes to override, do you?
What 8:19 said.
Except in caps.
8:19 and 9:37,
How about the council majority try to make a good relationship with the mayor? You did see the election results, didn't you?
Post a Comment