Posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 6:21 am, Wed Sep 18, 2013.
A move to override the mayor’s veto for a $1.2 million public improvement project failed at this week’s Morrisville council meeting.However, council questioned the validity of the veto.In late August, the majority of council voted in favor of funding for the $1.2 million project, which involves a TD Bank loan with an interest rate of 2.99 percent for 17 years.
For nearly a year, Morrisville officials have been working with the consulting firm Johnson Controls on plans for environmental improvements such as lighting at the library and public works facility, streetlights and traffic lights, as well as the first upgrades to borough hall since it was built in 1948.
Morrisville council voted Monday to override Ledger’s veto. It failed 5-3. For the vote to pass, six “yes” votes were needed.
Council members Debbie Smith, Eileen Dreisbach and Todd Smith say they oppose the funding and the process, not the project. They have put up fights saying that the project’s contract with Johnson Controls wasn’t provided in time for council to review it and that bids haven’t been shared with them.
The last possible chance to stop the project and find a new process was Ledger’s veto, which is in question as to whether it was submitted within the 10-day period. Ledger supports the improvements, but not the process through which the project has been overseen by the borough administration.
Council voted on the ordinance for the payment plan of the project on Aug. 26. Ledger wasn’t at the meeting due to a medical emergency. The mayor received an unsigned copy of the ordinance by Smith on Aug. 28, according to Ledger’s seven-page veto. The borough obtained the mayor’s veto Sept. 6.
From Aug. 28 to Sept. 6, there was some discussion as to whether Ledger’s signature was even required on the ordinance because it was dealing with finances, which are overseen by council.
At Monday’s meeting, the public asked borough solicitor James Downey if the veto is valid.
“The information I received and got a copy of the mayor’s note, a veto was made and was received by the borough on sixth of September. That’s 11 days,” Downey said. “Borough code required for an ordinance to be vetoed within 10 days. I have no knowledge or notion when it was delivered to the mayor.”
He said that he received some information that there was a conspiracy, which included him, to keep the ordinance from the mayor.
“I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid,” Downey said. “You can’t hide things from the mayor. You can’t hide things from the executive branch of government. You can’t hide things from the Legislature. There’s no attempt then, now or ever to hide anything.”
Downey said the mayor called him from her hospital bed to discuss police matters.
“I don’t know if the mayor did or did not know. And I don’t presume to know what the mayor did or did not know, that’s why I answer to the questions that have been put by the public ‘Is the veto valid?’ I have no idea because I don’t know when it was delivered,” he said.
He noted that under borough code all ordinances must be viewed by the mayor. However, the ordinance strictly deals with finance, which is solely within the purview of council, “so to say that this gets confusing would be a grand understatement,” he said.
“Because I don’t know all the facts, I learned early on about 40 years ago when I started this profession this month, I assume nothing, but I can tell you that the vote was made on the 26th of August and the veto was on the sixth of September, that’s 11 days. The question has been put to me is the override veto necessary. The answer is I don’t know because I don’t know the answer to the first question. I don’t know all the facts.”
For nearly a year, Morrisville officials have been working with the consulting firm Johnson Controls on plans for environmental improvements such as lighting at the library and public works facility, streetlights and traffic lights, as well as the first upgrades to borough hall since it was built in 1948.
Morrisville council voted Monday to override Ledger’s veto. It failed 5-3. For the vote to pass, six “yes” votes were needed.
Council members Debbie Smith, Eileen Dreisbach and Todd Smith say they oppose the funding and the process, not the project. They have put up fights saying that the project’s contract with Johnson Controls wasn’t provided in time for council to review it and that bids haven’t been shared with them.
The last possible chance to stop the project and find a new process was Ledger’s veto, which is in question as to whether it was submitted within the 10-day period. Ledger supports the improvements, but not the process through which the project has been overseen by the borough administration.
Council voted on the ordinance for the payment plan of the project on Aug. 26. Ledger wasn’t at the meeting due to a medical emergency. The mayor received an unsigned copy of the ordinance by Smith on Aug. 28, according to Ledger’s seven-page veto. The borough obtained the mayor’s veto Sept. 6.
From Aug. 28 to Sept. 6, there was some discussion as to whether Ledger’s signature was even required on the ordinance because it was dealing with finances, which are overseen by council.
At Monday’s meeting, the public asked borough solicitor James Downey if the veto is valid.
“The information I received and got a copy of the mayor’s note, a veto was made and was received by the borough on sixth of September. That’s 11 days,” Downey said. “Borough code required for an ordinance to be vetoed within 10 days. I have no knowledge or notion when it was delivered to the mayor.”
He said that he received some information that there was a conspiracy, which included him, to keep the ordinance from the mayor.
“I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid,” Downey said. “You can’t hide things from the mayor. You can’t hide things from the executive branch of government. You can’t hide things from the Legislature. There’s no attempt then, now or ever to hide anything.”
Downey said the mayor called him from her hospital bed to discuss police matters.
“I don’t know if the mayor did or did not know. And I don’t presume to know what the mayor did or did not know, that’s why I answer to the questions that have been put by the public ‘Is the veto valid?’ I have no idea because I don’t know when it was delivered,” he said.
He noted that under borough code all ordinances must be viewed by the mayor. However, the ordinance strictly deals with finance, which is solely within the purview of council, “so to say that this gets confusing would be a grand understatement,” he said.
“Because I don’t know all the facts, I learned early on about 40 years ago when I started this profession this month, I assume nothing, but I can tell you that the vote was made on the 26th of August and the veto was on the sixth of September, that’s 11 days. The question has been put to me is the override veto necessary. The answer is I don’t know because I don’t know the answer to the first question. I don’t know all the facts.”
10 comments:
In reading this my first question was, why was Councilwoman Debbie Smith delivering the ordinance to the Mayor?
Rita's credibility is shot in my opinion. Even if she did say when she received the ordinance, I'm under the impression that the date would benefit her veto no matter when it was actually given to her.
There are times, like thinking about Rita's lawsuit or this veto when I wonder why she would do these things to her own town.
But in this crazy town, as she finishes up her term as mayor, I have no doubt that her inability or unwillingness to govern well will be forgotten as time goes on. She probably doesn't even realize what she's been doing to everyone. When the light goes out near her house, I hope she isn't the first one to complain - (joke)
Debbie, Todd, and Eileen. You are a disgrace to your positions. Every crime that occurs in Morrisville from this day forward because of inadequate lighting is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Beyond embarrassing.
Bunch of dim bulbs. You don't even have to read between the lines to see Downey's calling them liars.
I heard Rita stumbling over her veto as she read it at the meeting on Monday night. It was so long and saying nothing credible that I heard anyway.
I also used that time to use the bathroom, turn on the front and back outside lights, make sure the doors were locked and feed the dog his evening snack.
I would have fallen asleep sitting on the sofa if I had stayed in the room and listen to her drone on.
There is not way Rita Ledger wrote that veto.
Sadly, her veto had to do with the project and not the funding, which was what the ordinance was for. She didn't even know what her veto was supposed to be for. Even sadder, her veto will probably stand.
Nothing I can do about it
Maybe I won't even try
Your will is determined to kill any
Reason of mine
I see you coming
With that look in your eye
You act like a king but you ain't got a
thing
In your mind
And now there's nobody home
My belly is aching
Your image is blown
Your lights are burning bright
But Nobody's Home
You talk about love and affection
If only you could
You're full of pride but there's nothing
inside
And you think you're so good
You know you got it coming to ya
All things return
You need me
It's not gonna be my concern
And now there's nobody home
Your message is changing
The children have grown
Your lights are burning bright
But nobody's home
I hear you crying
What can I say
You get what you give so
Forgive me as I turn away
Nobody's home
A legend is dying
The seeds have been sown
Your lights are burning bright
But Nobody's Home
Turn out the lights, the party's over
They say that, 'All good things must end'
Let's call it a night, the party's over
And tomorrow starts the same old thing again
Did anyone else feel like Debbie Smith was that tattletale girl from the 3rd grade who went running to the teacher to get the rest of the class in trouble while she sat there smiling?
Someone should check and ind out when boro hall was constructed, I'm pretty sure it was not 1948, as everyone has stated. It was sometime between late 50's and mid 60's.
You're right. It appears to have been built in the mid-60's. 1966 sticks in my mind.
You can look at historic aerial photos at the site below. Boro Hall wasn't there in 1963, but was there in 1970.
http://www.historicaerials.com/
Post a Comment