If it had been a boxing match, the fans would have demanded their money back. Both fighters tripped over their own feet before they even reached the center of the ring.
It looked like the championship belt was on the line Monday night, when an entourage of twenty-nine borough workers filed into council chambers, lead by Lou Agre, the attorney for the Operating Engineers Union. A heavyweight show of solidarity for a group that voted 18-16 against representation by the Teamsters last year. Yo Council! Things will be different this time around.
Last week, Agre filed suit against the borough on behalf of five employees, alleging that council held illegal secret meetings as part of their plan to outsource most borough jobs. Workers say that these layoffs are in retaliation for their years of complaints about treatment by manager Dave Woglom.
That lawsuit could be a major headache for council - and Woglom particularly - and Agre was ready to negotiate. He first wanted to know whether council's recent decision to reject the union's request to organize was made by the members themselves, or by Woglom. And he offered that the workers would drop their claim if council recognizes their right to unionize. Sounds reasonable, but there was a slight problem. Agre was in the wrong ring at the wrong time.
This was a "work session", and, by law, council could not have voted on the matter - or anything else. They could - and absolutely should, have answered the question about who authored the rejection letter. But neither side seemed properly prepared for this battle.
All council had to do was answer the simple question (which all citizens had a right to know), point out the procedural roadblock to the vote, and claim brief victory. Instead, they got more bad legal advice. Not from their usual solicitor, Chuck Fonzone, who has come under fire for repeated mistakes. He wasn't there, replaced instead by his partner, John Ashley. The result was the same.
After a short conference with council and Woglom, Ashley declared that they would not answer because their labor attorney was not present. Ohhhhh, sorry, wrong answer. A legitimate inquiry about who makes borough decisions is not a labor issue. And it leaves the clear impression that something is being hidden here. If council had done its job, why wouldn't they just say so?
But if this was just another example of Woglom usurping power, potentially costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, it should be admitted publicly. Residents continue to lose faith in their elected representatives when questions like this are stonewalled.
And Woglom and Fonzone could be in more trouble over those secret Executive Sessions that spawned the lawsuit. Council's own minutes show that between August, 2000, and October, 2005, they went into those meetings eighteen times, and not once did they actually state the court-ordered specific reason. Not once. "Possible litigation", "Personnel", and "Real Estate" don't cut it. When Woglom announced a session himself, he gave no reason at all!
There is a saying in the law "A defendant is never a winner". With the time and expense of litigation, there are only degrees of loss. But there is more than just taxpayer money involved here. The stakes are much greater for Woglom, because if he had his way, it would be a cold day in borough hall before you would find him testifying under oath.
By avoiding the courtroom, he can continue to say anything, and deny everything. His "facts" go unchallenged, unless you happen to write a local newspaper column. (And then you are called a liar, outside intruder, troublemaker, or fill-in-the-blank). But it would be quite another story for Woglom to face questioning in court . No place to hide. No opportunity to avoid the unpleasant, or change the subject. Telling stories with a hand on the Bible is called perjury.
He doesn't want to be forced to explain the repeated flaunting of the Sunshine law. And the free stone delivery to Councilman Williams; the numerous contracts he handed out without competitive pricing; his illegal borough purchases from councilmen's businesses; the free use of town workers and equipment to help the contractor build the pool; the $27,000 car he bought without bids.
Or the wasteful secret out-of-court settlements he made. Or the useless engineering plans for the Mill Street speed humps and South Hellertown Avenue parking lot. Or the electric contract fiasco that has allowed your rates to increase by over 25 percent.
Some interesting questions: Will council trust Fonzone to handle this matter? His bad advice got them into it, and, if the workers prevail, his tenure here will almost certainly end. Will the borough's insurance cover the defense? Although this is a civil suit, it does allege that council repeatedly violated the law, and criminal activity is usually excluded from insurance coverage. If there is no insurance, guess who pays to defend council. And, finally, do you want your tax dollars (which have been wasted so badly anyway) used to defend Woglom?
The District Attorney's office is aware of all of the shenanigans in Quakertown, but they are understaffed and overworked. And their hands are tied, because the state legislature didn't provide meaningful (or in many cases any) penalties. That leaves private civil suits as the only way to make Woglom follow the law. He has shown absolutely no inclination to do so voluntarily.
Personal note: Controversial columnists expect retaliation, usually anonymous (which says it all). It comes with the territory. Certain individuals have been vilifying me for years, and it isn't hard to figure out the creators of these ridiculous-to-the-point-of-absurd fantasies. But they never once deny the truth of my writing. Some have tried to crash my web site, and have threatened my business. They hope to deter me from telling you what they are doing. That won't happen.