Northampton County Council member Lamont McClure, supposedly an attorney, should really spend a little more time reading the law. If he ever bothered to glance at the Home Rule Charter, for example, he'd know that the appointment of its solicitor is a decision for the entire council, not any single member. Not even council's president has unilateral authority to hire or fire its lawyer.Yet that's precisely what Lamont did. In a condescending letter to Interim Solicitor Anthony Martino, McClure instructs that because he'd like another lawyer to represent council, the entire body is sacking him.
If McClure has reached a consensus with four other members of council to replace Martino, that occurred at no public meeting. Martino was appointed October 16 by County Council resolution. If five members of council have decided to change course, their decision is a violation of the Sunshine Act, which requires council business to be conducted in public.
Either way you cut it, McClure's letter to Martino is a nullity. He has either exceeded the power of a sole council member or has violated the Sunshine Act. Butto McClure, the ends justify the means. He justifies ignoring the law, telling The Express Times "It's time to get some new blood into the solicitor's chair."
It's not so much new blood, but blueblood. McClure wants to replace Martino with Bethlehem attorney Christian Perrucci, who has spent that last month lobbying individual council members for this $49,000 part-time job.
Pennsylvania campaign finance records place Perrucci very solidly in the "pay to play" camp. In just two years, this young lawyer has already contributed $12,775 to Democrats seeking state offices. This includes $1,650 for Northampton County DA John Morganelli's failed AG bid. It includes $4,000 to former state house Democratic whip Mike Veon, currently under indictment for Bonusgate, and another $1,000 to current state house Democratic whip and payjacker Bill DeWeese.
Perrucci is part of a "pay to play" family. He practices law in a firm started by his father, Phillipsburg attorney Michael Perrucci, and former NJ Guv' Jim Florio. Like his son, Michael is very generous to Democratic candidates for state office, and has contributed at least $25,730 over the years to Governer Rendell, John Morganelli and others. His law firm represents the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Authority, rest home for political hacks. As a Director of ClearPoint Business Resources in 2007, his total compensation was a paltry $54 million.
Even Christian's sister, Bonnie Perrucci, gets into the act. She's contributed $200 to Lamont McClure.
In contrast to the Perrucci bluebloods, Martino is a Roseto piker. Over his lengthy legal career, he's made just five political contributions, totalling $250. They've all gone to judicial candidates. He's a lawyer, not a pol. He's no "pay to play" aficionado.
McClure, however, has no interest in the law, or he might try following it now and then. He is, however, very interested in "pay to play." And he's doing his best to make room for a blueblood with a very deep pocket. After all, this is an election year.
Update: Now, in addition to Perrucci, Bucks County windbag Larry Otter has just submitted his resume to council. Otter is the maroon who attempted unsuccessfully to soak Northampton County with a $2,470 private attorney bill for a few hours work when Dem party bossman Joe Long asked Otter to represent then voting registrar Debbie DePaul. His bill included $36.83 for din din at Uncle Wesleys. Stoffa refused to pay. Otter promised revenge. I guess this is it.
On the bright side, council is located very close to the Delaware River, so Otter can pop in there all the time.
Friday PM Update: A third resume circulating among Council members is Bethlehem Attorney Barbara Hollenbach, who was instrumental in naming Council Prez Ann McHale as the Bethlehem YWCA "Outstanding Public Servant of the Year."
The Morganelli connection is established. So much for Joe Long. One of your man crush buddies is at the heart of this one.
ReplyDeleteanon 1:51
ReplyDeleteI agree. Morgy's a real slimy pol. He plays the pay game and uses the ill-gotten bucks to pay the single filthiest political operator in the state to "knife" opponents. He's obsessed with getting out of the small town game and plying his trade on bigger tables. But he's so arrogant, given his unchallenged status in a registration edge safety zone, he's been rejected several times by statewide voters. The last time, he somehow figured out how (along with Sam Bennett) to be a Democrat in PA and lose, amid the Obama tidal wave.
Bernie will say he's been critical of Morgy on this blog. That's absolutely truthy. He has indeed made some critical comments. Many of the powder puff variety, but critical nonetheless. Morgy is the kind of career politician whom Bernie otherwise seems to despise on this blog. I think Bernie is a softy for anyone who pays him attention here. I don't care that he's popular in NC. He's everything that's wrong with politics.
two issues:
ReplyDelete1. lamont's conduct. if what you write is true, it appears out of order.
2. perucci. bernie, it appears that perucci has done no more than express his first amendment right to political speech. without more, why castigate him for that? would you have him disqualified from appointed office because he exercises his constitutionally protected civil rights?
Just another ridiculous smear job. Boonie your hate bone is showing again.
ReplyDeleteThis is possibly the most disingenous post you've ever written. First, you want Zito's law partner to keep the fifty grand in their firm. You never once criticized Zito for the tens if not hundreds of the thousands of dollars he has given to politicians over the years. Big Zito beneficiaries include Pat Toomey, Jack Panella, Lisa Boscola, Glenn Reibman (Zito was appointed public defender by Reibman). And to smear Perucci for giving money to Morganelli. Zito has give far more money to John than Peruci ever did. Talk about pay to play. Leading up to his appointment to the bench Zito couldn't spread enough money around. There may have even been a donation to Rendell not too much before the appointment ?
ReplyDelete"2. perucci. bernie, it appears that perucci has done no more than express his first amendment right to political speech. without more, why castigate him for that?"
ReplyDeletePerrucci does have a first amendment right to contribute to candidates, all of whom happen to be Democrats. I havea first amendement right to point out this pay to play practice.
I learned the real reason for some of the animosity directed at Zito on this blog over the weekend. Apparently, Scissorhands Seversen hates him. Since Scissorhands was doing all that work for Northampton County Dems lat election cucle, including Lamont, he wanted council to be rid of him. Poor Anthony Martino happens to be a member of Zito's old law firm.
ReplyDeleteTalk about personal attacks you go out of your way to try to smear Perucci with the legal actions of his father.
ReplyDeleteMakes one wonder how your father must have felt being smeared with the Illegal action of his son. No wonder you turned to alcohol it probably made it easier to live with the disappointment you provided.
As an Italian American I am proud to see one similar heritage called a "Blueblood"
ReplyDeleteOnly possible @ Lehigh Valley Ramblings.
hFp
Actually, Zito's kind of parasamonious giver. In 08, he gave $2475.00 to state candiates and in 07 he gave $1900.00 to state candidates. He has also contributed about $3000.00 to a Federal PAC controlled by his former client Pat Toomey.
ReplyDeletehfp,
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is impossible for someone to be a faux aristocrat simply bc he is Italian. This is America, dude. The days of rule by WASPs (White Anglo Saxon pricks) is over. In America, we all can aspire to be bluebloods.
Anon 9:59,
ReplyDeleteThanks for those details. The state web page keeps kicking me off. In previous posts, I did look at Zito's campaign contributions. My recollection is that he makes them, mostly to Dems, and they are mostly small sums. You're not going to see $12k over 2 years. You will see no member of his family bankrolling a party.
Local Dems owe Scissorhands Seversen a large chunk of change after he failed in the last election. Could Perrucci be their meal ticket?
Larry Otter, we all know, is very tight with Dem bossman Joe Long.
One thing is very apparent. Legal qualifications have nothing to do with McClure's search for a new lawyer. He wants someone he can control, even if it means ignoring the law, as he has done in his sacking of Martino.
I am constantly amazed how the mud is thrown at a single person and soon escalates to everyone within blog-shout! I believe if it went on long enough it would engulf the entire universe!
ReplyDelete“BO” has an axe to grind with party partisanship/loyalty and believes it has no place in local politics. I contributed to Obama’s elections and so did a lot of other people like me. Does that make him/us sleaze balls because he used it to get elected? Stick to the facts, 1) is the man qualified to hold the position? 2) Will he bring younger idea’s/change into the process?
Bernie, having worked with municipal governments around the state, I always wonder, sometimes out loud, if there is any benefit to having an open application process every two years (two years is arbitrary... maybe 5) when it comes to solicitors. The point is that competition is good for local government, be it in elections or for the services that are provided to taxpayers. I see WAY too many solicators who have been around for 10-20 years and the legal advice that they give is stale and lacks any kind of understanding of the complexities that face local gov't (or even changes in caselaw). Some of the municipal solicitors I've worked with are nothing more than partisan lawyers who have been around longer than borough council members or who know somebody. I have the same thoughs about engineers too.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts? Any idea if council is doing this as an open RFP process? If the process requests proposals and CV's from firms that have municipal experience, I think this could be a good thing. As watch dogs, its our job to make sure this happens.
Boonie, keep your clothes on Pal. You are all over the place on this one. You are so twisted with hate that logic fails you. First, its McClure wants Perrucci because Perucci gives money. Then its they want to get rid of Martino because Severson doesn't like Zito. No, didn't you write that McClure wants to get rid of Martino because he doesn't like Zito. Then its Perucci gave money to Morganelli - implication is that is why McClure is acting. Then, we find out Zito gave and raised more for Morganelli so that line fails. Then its Boss Long wants Larry Otter his henchman. Are you off the wagon ?
ReplyDeleteGeoff,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I like the RFP process, it is hard to apply that to a contract for professional services. But I've long maintained that people who contribute to campaigns should be barred from employment for a limited period, as is the case in NY.
"Perrucci does have a first amendment right to contribute to candidates, all of whom happen to be Democrats. I havea first amendement right to point out this pay to play practice."
ReplyDeleteunfortunately, the logical extension of your argument would preclude those active in the financial end of politics from ever holding appointed office.
the issue here is the process, not perucci's political activity.
Anon 10:35,
ReplyDeleteGiven the number of personal attacks coming from you, I suggest you look in a mirror if you want to see hate.
My objection to what McClure has done is (1) he has exceeded his authority in that nothing in the HRC gives him or the council president the unilateral authority to hire or fire the solicitor; or (2) he has garnererd 5 votes to fire Martino in violation of the Sunshine Act.
It is quite clear that the "new blood" McClure is talking about is either a "pay to play" solicitor like Perrucci or a rank partisan like Otter.
McClure does detest Zito bc Zito followed the law instead of telling him what he wanted to hear. he prefers to replace martino, a Zito associate, with someone he can control.
The real source of my objection to this process is that McClure has no authority to act unilaterally on behalf of all council members.
"should be barred from employment for a limited period, as is the case in NY."
ReplyDeleteDoes that include the grass roots citizens who gave to this year's campaign. That's a little extreme BO!
Anon 11:15,
ReplyDeletePeople who are involved in the financial end of politics are usually involved like that bc they want something. I would lose no sleep if they were barred from holding appointed office, especially when the appointment comes from the very people to whom they make contributions.
In Perrucci's case, it does not appear that he has contributed to the people who would be appointing him. So although I am still quite concerned because of the large number of contributions in such a short time to payjackers and indicted pols, I am not as concerned as I would be if he were contributing directly.
I think it would be a mistake to name him. There are many other lawyers who are far more qualified, including Martino.
So all this smearing because you think McClure presumed too much. You're such a fraud.
ReplyDeleteFly,
ReplyDeleteMoney corrupts. I think any person who contributes any signifigant sum to a local candidate should be barred from doing business with whatever municipality is represented by that candidate during his term in office. It's pay to play.
CityLine workers, for example, give $12,000 to Pawlowski. They should NOT be the city contractors. Zawarski is a major contributor., he should be banned. Cozen O'Connor lkicked in $2,500. That law firm should get no city business.
If you like the pernicious and corrupting power of money and politrics, continue making your absurd arguments. My argument is not directed at a grass roots donation, but to the very obvious legal bribes we see every day.
Bond finaciers are biggies. So are engineers and law firms. They don't give a shit about good government. They're looking at their own bottom line.
"So all this smearing because you think McClure presumed too much. You're such a fraud."
ReplyDeleteI'm not smearing anything or anyone. I'm casting a very public spotlight on activity that usually takes place in the shadows.
McClure had no authority to fire martino, yet did so. people have a right to know that. One of the candidates is a big pay to play lawyer. People should know that. Another candidate is a rank partisan who already tried to soaqk the county once. people have every right to know these things.
What really bothers you is that now they do,
Oopsie.
Larry Otter = New Blood
ReplyDelete"People who are involved in the financial end of politics are usually involved like that bc they want something. I would lose no sleep if they were barred from holding appointed office, especially when the appointment comes from the very people to whom they make contributions."
ReplyDeletefortunately, Bern, we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect us from such extremist viewpoints. would you bar someone from holding appointed office if they spoke out in favor of a candidate, and helped that candidate get elected? should someone be barred from appointed office if they speak out on a controversial issue?
you can't segregate out the civil rights you don't like from the rights you like. each of our civil rights is as important as the next.
the problem here, of course, (as we agree) is the process.
the second inquiry become's perucci's qualifications. as i haven't seen his CV, i can't say whether he is qualified or unqualified, so will withhold judgement.
"Although I like the RFP process, it is hard to apply that to a contract for professional services."
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with that notion. I've done professional service RFP's on several instances. Great example: architectural services. We established the objectives that we had for the services, laid out how we would evaluate proposals (cost, experience, expertise, understanding of the scope of work, timeline, presentation, etc) and did the RFP. We got 8 responses. 4 missed the RFP purpose altogether so we eliminated them. 4 warranted follow up. We did a public hearing to do interviews (though it wasn't required b/c it was a professional service) and made our evaluations public after deliberation.
The criteria to evaluate a lawyer vs an architect are different but can still be done. Frankly, I have an issue with the elimination of people who make contributions b/c you very well may be eliminating highly qualified individuals for the position. That doesn't serve the public good. Make it competitive. Make it transparent. Make it open. That best serves the public good.
You're not shining a light on anything. You are simply playing politics by failing to acknowledge all of Zito's contributions and they fact that makes Martino his partenr for 25 years pay to play as well.
ReplyDelete"fortunately, Bern, we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect us from such extremist viewpoints. would you bar someone from holding appointed office if they spoke out in favor of a candidate, and helped that candidate get elected? should someone be barred from appointed office if they speak out on a controversial issue?"
ReplyDeleteI agree the First Amendment includes the right to contribute to or campaign for a candidate of one's choice. I also believe that, as a condition of employment, those rights may be restricted. In Northampton County, people who work for the courts are barred from contributing to or endorsing political candidates. In many jurisdictions, that restriction is extended to police officers.
In NY, anyone who contributes a certain sum (the exact amount escapes me) to a municipal campaign is barred for a limited period from doing any work for that municiplaity. That has passed constitutional muster bc it is a limited restriction. It has been applied to bond transactions there.
There is little doubt in my mind about the pernicious influence of money in politics. On a local level, well-heeled people are given preference on the agenda, being allowed to push thru KOZ applications long after the agenda is closed. I see DAs write letters on their behalf, claiming an area right next to the polcie station is a high crime area.
But I don't see that there's all that much political will to do anything about it here, so the next best thing is to point out those connections loudly. I think we agree on disclosure. That's the whole point to campaign finance reports. It enables us to follow the money.
When a lawyer who does not engage in "pay to play" is being replaced by one who does, I think it is very fair to note that and the possible influence of money in the selection of his successor.
My main objection to what is going on here is, as you say, process. McClure clearly exceeded his authority and I view his letter a nullity. After having been appointed by council resolution as Interim solicitor, the only way he can be replaced is by an act of equal dignity, another resolution at an open meeting.
I cast no judgment on any of the players mentioned in the above posts, as I only know of them what I have read in the media and blogs, and thus only know what the writers wanted the “public” to know (sometimes there is “the rest of the story“).
ReplyDeleteThat said, as gsbrace mentioned, an RFP process is a legitimate avenue to pursue even for professional services. Bethlehem Township did such for the architectural services, for Township Engineer, and most recently to explore options for Township Solicitor. Of course with elected officials making the ultimate decisions, politics can never be taken totally out of the equation of individual votes. However, the process does increase the chances for the system/law being more important than the temporary holders of the various positions.
As to the “new blood” argument of McClure, sometimes that is a good thing, but other times the most qualified person may be replaced simply for the sake of “new blood”. And, unfortunately, sometimes elected bodies want to be told want they want to hear, or one “faction” wants to exercise its “authority”. However, the blunt reality is that “at-will” positions are exactly that, for better or worse. However, I do agree with Bernie that the proper process would be for the Council as a whole to decide by majority vote if that is indeed the direction it wishes to pursue, and only at that point write the “thanks for your service” letter.
Anon 12:09,
ReplyDeleteI have tried repeatedly to get on the state website this morning to look at Zito's contribution, but the site is failing. I have done it before. My recollection is that Zito has made some contributions, but is no pay to play dude. As onme commenter has noted, he's been a tad parsimonoious. He established his reputation as a lawyer, not a political hack.
Martino's contributions are even more parsimonious. $250 over a lengthy legal career, all of them to judicial candidates.
Zito had two problems. First, Scissorhands Severson hatess him. Second, he refused to tell McClure what he wanted to hear, preferring to follow the law instead.
For that apparent reason, McClure has decided to sack Zito's successor, who comes from the same firm. He uses a "new blood" argument, but really just wants someone he can control. That's why pay to play Perrucci and Larry Otter look so attractive.
Bernie, did your beloved Zito dupe a Democratic Governor ? Did he strike a deal with the Senate Republicans so that he would be able to run in the upcoming elections and switch his party to Republican ?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that is true, is that what this is about? You fire martino because his predecxessor changed parties? You do so without council resolution? You do so without a public meeting? You punish Martino for the actions of Zito?
ReplyDeleteDear Bernie
ReplyDeletethanks for your heartfelt endorsement of my application for county solicitor
Your pal
Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThis is one hell of a way to get reimbursed for those crab cakes at Uncle Wesleys.
Larry be careful you have entered a non-reality zone.
ReplyDeleteLarry's in the Delaware right now.
ReplyDeletespirk! spirk! sprik! sprak!
ReplyDeleteSpirk is a two faced crook. Ask some people who have dealt with him in the County and City. He is a back stabbing liar.
ReplyDeleteThe County would do better to keep who they have now.
"Spirk is a two faced crook. Ask some people who have dealt with him in the County and City. He is a back stabbing liar."
ReplyDeletenice, vitriolic attack under the guise of anonymity. spirk is no crook. and you sir, are no jack spirk.
No Spirk, good for him
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteI believe most candidates must post a statement of financial interest. Give the fiasco that has occurred in
the Luzerne County judiciary, could you post a link to the financial disclosure statement for all the Northampton County judicial candidates. Thanks Bernie. Great Blog!
Will do so. I believe they are already online with the state ethics commission and will find out.
ReplyDelete