Taxpayers Frustrated by Legal Fees

Posted by Shore Publishing on Nov 06 2008, 03:22 PM
By Marianne Sullivan, Source Senior Staff Writer

    Although their number was few, their frustration was evident. Barely a dozen taxpayers attended the special town meeting last week called to approve a $250,000 special appropriation meant to cover the town’s legal costs to the end of this fiscal year.

    With comments that ranged from “the town is spending too much on legal fees” to “the police should pay for their own legal problems” to “cut the police budget next year,” residents made it clear they were not happy with the rise in legal costs.

    The higher costs are attributed in large part to “continued police legal activity” and 96 legal appeals filed after the recent property revaluation. The $250,000 special appropriation comes on top of the $134,000 budgeted for this fiscal year. In the last fiscal year, the town spent more $337,000 in legal fees, attributed largely to the Police Department.

    Within the past 18 months, the Police Commission has terminated five officers, placed the chief of police on administrative leave pending an investigation by the Connecticut State Police, and notified a lieutenant of administrative charges being brought against him. The affected officers are appealing their terminations before the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

    “You are spending too much on legal fees, and spending it without the approval of the Board of Finance,” Michael Hayes told First Selectman Al Goldberg, who said the level of legal activity seems to be increasing because “the selectmen now have to take action on legal matters were lingering in the past.”

    Goldberg added, “In the present, we have to deal with people so that their legal rights are protected as well as the town’s, and some of these people are town employees, and some are property owners.”

    Mary Bacque stood up to say, “The police caused their own problems…It is not right for taxpayers to have to pay this money when we have officers meeting with prostitutes. Why are we paying these bills? Why aren’t they paying them?”

    Another resident suggested the selectmen take the legal costs from the Police Department budget.

    “It all comes from the same town budget,” Selectman Noreen Kokoruda explained; the resident then suggested the selectmen cut the Police Department budget next year.

    “When is that department going to feel the pain?” he asked.

    Selectman Kathi Traugh added, “No one on the board is happy with the situation we are in now, but we truly feel we have no choice. We must resolve the Police Department situation fully and completely.” The property revaluation appeals “are a major expense and we are trying a new method this year to deal with them with a eye to bring costs under control.”

    Answering a question from Board of Finance member Jennifer Tung, Goldberg said he had called a meeting with the town’s assessor, director of town services, and town counsel “to look at the revaluation cases to see which might be settled expeditiously and at little or no further cost.” He said he hoped as many as 30 of 96 cases could be settled without incurring greater legal costs.

    Others raised concerns that this special appropriation would not be the last, particularly when dealing with the issues concerning terminated police officers. 

    The small number attending the meeting meant that the special appropriation was automatically approved. The town charter requires an attendance of at least 75 taxpayers in order to conduct business at a special meeting. Without 75 taxpayers present, all resolutions are approved. The appropriation will come from the town’s $1.2 million general fund.