Political cowboys or beleaguered volunteers?, By JoAnn Baker WEST MILFORD For more than a year there has been a controversy brewing between the Democrats on the town council and the Zoning Board of Adjustments. At issue are the 2005 and 2006 contracts between the zoning board and its attorney, and whether the contracts follow the rules set forth by the state’s Local Public Contract Law. Despite the fact that the zoning board has received letters and memos from the township’s Chief Financial Officer Arthur Magnotti, Township Administrator Richard Kunze and Democratic Councilman Bob Nolan requesting the contracts be rewritten to fall in line with code, the zoning board did not respond. Nolan contends that this amounts to the zoning board thumbing its nose at the township and says it doesn’t have the right to ignore the law. Dan Jurkovic, who sits on the zoning board and is an attorney himself, says that’s not so. He blames political divisiveness for the controversy and says the claims just get in the way of the ability of the volunteers who sit on the board to get their work done. Here’s some history: In 2005, the contract between the zoning board and Attorney Stephen Glatt did not contain a pay cap, or “not to exceed” clause. Despite letters from Magnotti in May and Kunze in August asking that the board add the clause, the board did not. “We weren’t going to change a contract midstream,” Jurkovic said. “That could be construed as a breech of contract.” He said on Wednesday night that the contract wasn’t illegal and that the law doesn’t call for a “not to exceed” clause. His argument included the fact that it was a matter of regulation, not law. The Local Public and Public School Contracts Laws Administrative Code does call for the “not to exceed” phrase. And while administrative code is, in fact, regulation as opposed to law, it still governs the actions of public bodies. When the board made its 2006 contract with Glatt, the authorizing resolution did contain the “not to exceed” clause. But with the 2006 contract, two more issues arose. Lawyers that work for public boards are required to sign a financial disclosure statement. The deadline for Glatt was March 31. He sent it in this week after the fact that it hadn’t been filed became public. “Didn’t he file the last 17?”Jurkovic said in defending Glatt and referring to the fact that Glatt has worked for boards in the township for 18 years. “Why would there be a problem with the 18th?” He also said that Glatt had never received the statement to sign. Nolan said: “It’s the law. He should follow it.” The second issue with the 2006 contract has to do with a clause that allows Glatt to appoint his own substitute, should he be unavailable to attend a meeting. According to code it is the zoning board that should appoint a substitute. The township administrator and Nolan sent letters to the board requesting a revision a few months ago. Again, the zoning board did not comply. Jurkovic said that if the zoning board did, it would bring a host of problems. He cited the problem with changing a contract in the middle of its term. In addition, West Milford has a local ordinance called the Attorney Accountability Ordinance. It requires lawyers who provide services to the township to sign a waiver of confidentiality of his or her disciplinary history. Jurkovic said that if a substitute was appointed by the board, he or she would have to sign the waiver. If the substituting attorney was actually a firm, then everyone in the firm would have to sign the waiver. He also said that the board felt like it might need legal advice on the contract, but because the contract was with their attorney, they couldn’t ask him. “What were we supposed to do?” Jurkovic asked. He also has a different take on what the substitute clause is saying. While Nolan and others read it as meaning Glatt is being given a right he shouldn’t hold, Jurkovic believes it is a protection clause guaranteeing that if Glatt can’t show up business will not stop. Nolan thinks the zoning board should do what the law requires. He also believes the whole idea of the township having a hard time finding attorneys is preposterous. “There are plenty of attorneys working for the township and none of them had a problem with following the Attorney Accountability Ordinance.” In the end, the controversy seems to come down to this: The zoning board is autonomous, and as such the council doesn’t have any governing power over the board. Basically, members of the board feel the council should stay out of board business. “We’re not trying to battle council,” said Jurkovic. “But this is one of those slippery slopes.” But Nolan said: “We’re not trying to tell them who to hire or how to do their business. We’re just trying to get them to do what’s right. They’re not above the law.” Fred Semrau, who is attorney to the township, declined to weigh in on the legality of the contracts in question, but said he is in the process of developing a standard attorney contract for all local public boards, commissions and the council to use, hopefully eliminating the problem.