Stoffa Veto Stands: Council Prez Grube Calls Veterans' Rebate a "Half Baked Deal"

Two weeks ago, Northampton County Council was in no mood to listen. It defied its own solicitor, former judge Leonard Zito, when he told them their tax break for Iraqi veterans needed a little work.

Rather than listen to their own consigliere and do the work suggested, Team Dertinger decided to shove this premature legislation down our throats. Charles Dertinger argued that council could simply amend the language later. "We can do that after the fact," he mistakenly assured everyone. If an ordinance is legally flawed, a legal challenge will kill it. It makes no difference how much tweaking is done once the cows have left the barn.

After a motion to table narrowly failed, Council unanimously adopted the American Heroes Grant - a property tax rebate for veterans deployed this or next year.

End of story, right?

Wrong.

That's because county executive John Stoffa, in perhaps his most courageous move yet as the top elected Northampton County official, vetoed this politically popular, if meaningless, ordinance. For any normal pol, this is tantamount to political suicide. But Stoffa pays no attention to the political winds.

"When I ran for county executive, I promised voters I'd raise their taxes, and they elected me anyway."

And he did, with a comprehensive "pay as you go" open space plan. Who gets elected by promising a tax increase? John Stoffa.

In his veto message to council on August 28th, Stoffa actually praised their intentions.

While I applaud the attempt on the part of Council to recognize those who have participated in the military, I nonetheless intend to veto the Ordinance at this time. I have consulted at length with the County Solicitor and have reviewed the opinion of the Council's own Solicitor. It is my belief that the Ordinance as currently drafted will invite litigation and that the better course would be to introduce a new ordinance consistent in intent that addresses the stated legal concerns. Frankly, I see no difference among someone who served in Iwo Jima, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan or Iraq: all are deserving.

Council members Dertinger and McClure both told Morning Call reporter Joe Nixon they had intended to introduce an amendment at the very next council meeting to address legal pitfalls.

That meeting occurred last night. And neither Dertinger nor McClure made any attempt to introduce a new ordinance that addressed their own lawyer's concerns. Instead, they played power politics and tried to override Stoffa's veto.

For his part, Dertinger scoffed at the notion of listening to county lawyers. "If you have four lawyers in a room, you can have five different opinions." He also complained that Stoffa failed to warn him he intended to veto the grant. At least three times, he bemoaned the "lack of communication" with the administration. "Rather than talking to anyone involved, it was simply vetoed. It's just another example of the lack of communication." After being prodded by Ron Angle, Dertinger conceded that he himself never communicated his intention to introduce the ordinance. "I had a hard time, sitting back [and] waiting."

After finishing his speech, Dertinger introduced a Bethlehemite who had come to complain about the veto. Vanessa Santiago, accompanied by her two adorable children, told council that her husband is on his second tour in Iraq, and that an absent husband means she must hire someone to cut her grass. More importantly, there is also a loss in income.

After she made her plea, Lamont McClure chimed in to say that the ordinance may not be perfect, but it is good. "People who oppose it oppose it on other grounds, but won't say so. Let's vote with the Santiagos tonight."

Whether McClure knows it or not, and he probably doesn't, Santiago actually proved that the ordinance is a bad law. Here's why. She owns title jointly with her husband. But the way the ordinance is drafted, her husband gets a rebate only if he owns that property individually.

So if Stoffa had done the popular thing and signed that ordinance, Santiago would get diddly. But McClure would still be able to give election speeches about our "brave warriors" overseas and take credit for meaningless legislation.

Only four members of council - Charles Dertinger, Lamont McClure, Diane Neiper and Tony Branco - voted to override the veto. The magic number is six. So the attempt to override Stoffa's veto failed.

And that's good news for Ms. Santiago. Now, Council can draft an ordinance that defines ownership to include jointly held property.

Council Prez Wayne Grube, himself a vet, said it best. "I want something more solid, more concrete. We have no idea how many deserving veterans would qualify. Nobody's ever talked about that. This is something that can't be done on short notice. I don't want a half-baked deal ... ."

So is council willing to sit down and do the hard work of drafting a comprehensive ordinance that really helps families like the Santiago family? Or was it just political grandstanding after all? Grube and Angle both expressed a willingness to sit down and work out the details. It would be nice to see Dertinger and McClure overcome their bitter partisan feelings and work for the good of the county.

But I'm not holding my breath.

For an excellent and objective account of last night's meeting, Joe Nixon's Morning Call report is here. In Lamont McClure's strange little world, county council and county lawyers have conspired with Stoffa to do a "favor" for Ron Angle. What McClure still is unable to figure out is that some foks, especially Stoffa, are more interested in doing the right thing than in partisan politics. He should try it sometime.