Council Minutes
March 23, 2004 Meeting Minutes
BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 – 7:30 PM – Town Hall
(Rescheduled from Tuesday, March 16, 2004)
1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
President J. Michael Schweder called the meeting to order.
Pastor Larry Burd of Calvary Baptist Church offered the invocation
which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were
Ismael Arcelay, Jean Belinski, Robert J. Donchez, Joseph F.
Leeson, Jr., Gordon B. Mowrer, Magdalena F. Szabo, and J.
Michael Schweder, 7.
CITATIONS
Honoring Ronald G. Dancho
President Schweder presented a Citation to Ronald G. Dancho
on the occasion of his retirement from the Water and Sewer
Resources Department after 46 years of service to the City.
Honoring Lewis R. Malpedo
President Schweder presented a Citation to Lewis R. Malpedo
on the occasion of his retirement from the Fire Department
after 25 years of service to the City.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of March 2, 2004 were approved.
5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances
and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)
None.
6. OLD BUSINESS
Hirko Case - Settlement
Mr. Donchez, with reference to an article in the Morning
Call edition of March 23, 2004, noted it states that Attorney
Karoly may pursue civil action in Federal court. In addition,
Mr. Donchez related that news was also the story on television
Channel 69 this evening. Noting that he received an e-mail
of the television news story, Mr. Donchez read the e-mail
from WFMZ Channel 69 for the record, as follows: “The
attorney in the John Hirko wrongful death trial is now asking
the United States Attorney to look into filing criminal charges.
John Karoly wants murder and criminal conspiracy charges to
be brought against police involved in the shooting death of
Hirko back in 1997. Karoly said he wants a more independent
entity to look over the handling of the raid on Hirko’s
home. Pennsylvania’s Attorney General has already found
no criminal wrongdoing by Bethlehem officers.” Mr. Donchez,
expressing he believed that City Council was told Sunday night
that this settlement was over, said his question is based
on the story and the e-mail did the plaintiffs execute a release
to the City that there would be no further civil or criminal
action to be brought against the City and was that part of
a written agreement.
John Spirk, City Solicitor, replied he does not think one
can release criminal action. Attorney Spirk continued on to
communicate there was a release of all civil action, and the
end of all litigation related to this case in terms of lawsuits.
Attorney Spirk, in response to Mr. Donchez’s question
about whether it was written, advised there was a written
agreement between Attorney Ledva who is representing the City
and Attorney Karoly and they drafted and executed appropriate
releases. Attorney Spirk stated that covers lawsuits and is
different from criminal investigations.
Mr. Donchez asked, if Attorney Karoly is going to file,
where does that leave the City. Mr. Donchez further queried,
if criminal actions were to be taken, who provides the legal
aid to the Police Officers. Mr. Donchez remarked he was shocked
when he heard this was on the television news at 5:00 PM today.
Mr. Donchez inquired how does such a filing affect the City.
Attorney Spirk, explaining that anyone can ask law enforcement
to investigate, exemplified that the City asked law enforcement
in the northern part of the State to investigate timber theft,
and added that the City did not file anything but rather made
a request. Attorney Spirk commented that, from what Mr. Donchez
read, Attorney Karoly is asking people to investigate a criminal
matter which is different from lawsuits, from things that
get filed, and from things that get released at the end of
litigation.
Mr. Donchez expressed his understanding was that he “thought
this was over meaning over, and now I read this that he’s
asking the U.S. Attorney to review this, and is that going
to end up for more litigation for the City if it were to go
that far…[W]ho will provide the legal defense…”.
Attorney Spirk, responding it is up to the U.S. Attorney,
recounted that already the State Police have looked at it,
and the Attorney General has looked at it. Attorney Spirk
communicated he would be very surprised if the U.S. Attorney
would look at it more than to determine that the Attorney
General and the City have already looked at it. Attorney Spirk
restated that is not litigation and is more like asking somebody
to investigate. Attorney Spirk continued on to say, under
the City’s collective bargaining agreement, the City
is obligated to provide counsel when someone is sued for something
they did in the line of duty.
Mr. Donchez observed that, under the worst case scenario,
if the U.S. Attorney’s office feels this is justified,
even though the State’s Attorney General’s office
said no after the event, the City will provide legal counsel.
Attorney Spirk replied yes to Mr. Donchez’s observation,
and added that under the collective bargaining the City is
obligated to provide a defense.
Mr. Donchez asked if there was a written agreement that
there would be no more civil action.
Attorney Spirk said that is right. Attorney Spirk continued
on to say he thinks, legally, a person cannot be stopped from
filing a criminal action as part of a civil case. He said
anybody can go complain about a criminal case.
Mr. Donchez asked if Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor,
would like to make any additional comments.
Attorney Spadoni stated this is appropriate for the Administration
to report to Council as to the status of the matter that was
just brought to his attention this evening, and it is something
that should be looked into.
Mr. Leeson stated, when he heard the news report today about
Mr. Karoly referring this case to the Federal authorities
for murder charges, the question that came to his mind is
“did you make a request to the plaintiffs in exchange
for payment of close to $8 million to not do this.”
Attorney Spirk replied no.
Mr. Leeson asked why not.
Attorney Spirk responded “because within the context
of civil litigation we asked for a release of all suits, claims,
or anything as a result of this investigation. I don’t
know that I can bind the United States Attorney appointed
by the President of the United States from investigating criminal
wrongdoing. I don’t think there was criminal wrongdoing
here. I think the Attorney General was right but I don’t
believe it’s within my power as a City official to bind
the United States Attorney appointed by the President of the
United States.”
Mr. Leeson said his question is “did you not seek
to ask the plaintiffs. I’m not asking if you made a
request to bind the Attorney General. I’m asking you
why didn’t you make this request to the plaintiffs seeing
as how we’re spending so much money on this and we wanted
to conclude everything.”
Attorney Spirk replied “because I was in the court
room where we were in civil litigation involving lawsuits
for money damages, and within the context of the authority
of the court in civil litigation it was my desire to end the
civil litigation. I don’t believe I can stop anybody
legally from reporting what they think is a crime. Mr. Karoly
can’t bring criminal charges. No one on his side of
the case can. The only one who can bring criminal charges
is the United States Attorney in this case.”
Mr. Leeson said, “in reviewing the stipulation which
is the agreement that the parties made, which I’ve had
a chance to receive yesterday, and looked at today, it appears
that the findings of the jury and the judgment of the jury
were not vacated in the context of the settlement, but rather
the City allowed a judgment to be entered against all of the
defendants, to be entered on the docket of the court. And,
I have to tell you I am concerned about this latest development
with [Attorney] Karoly’s statement today because the
entry of a judgment means there is a binding judicial finding
of the jury that has not been vacated, and will be examined
by the U. S. Attorney as a binding judicial finding. Did this
occur to you before you made this agreement?”
Attorney Spirk commented “as you know, there is a
different burden of proof in a civil lawsuit criminal prosecution.
This jury found, painful and unfortunate as it was, that the
City and a particular [police] officer by a preponderance
of the evidence used excessive force. The definition of preponderance
of the evidence is that if one were to take the scales of
justice and pile up all the evidence favoring the plaintiff’s
side, all the evidence favoring the defense side, the scales
need tip ever so slightly and once they do the plaintiff wins…The
criminal matter, on the other hand, the State must prove someone
guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a tremendously
higher burden, as it should be, when the State seeks to take
someone’s life or liberty. So, therefore, the jury finding
that by a preponderance of the evidence the police used excessive
force compared to what would have to be proven to show that
the police committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is
a significantly different standard. So, if there were ever
to be, despite the rulings of the local [District Attorney],
despite the rulings of the Attorney General, that there [were]
ever to be criminal charges brought, the finding by this jury
would not by any stretch of the imagination result in automatic
criminal liability for these officers.”
Mr. Leeson, commenting he does not think it is any secret
that he has expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome,
said he needs to reiterate it and express dissatisfaction
that this case is not concluded.
Ms. Szabo said she, too, was quite shocked when she read
the remarks in the newspaper that the case may be investigated
because she left the meeting on Sunday evening with the information
that she heard from both the Mayor and Attorney Spirk, and
the Judge, that there has been an agreement between all parties
that this would be the end of the case. Ms. Szabo continued
on to say “well this is not the end of the case…”.
Ms. Szabo stressed “what’s being reactivated is
exactly what [the City] was charged with at the very beginning,
and the remarks, the accusations that there was a conspiracy
between the State Police and the State Attorney General to
cover up what happened, that’s continuing the case.
And, what happened to the agreement between all parties that
we’re finished, forever.”
Mrs. Belinski, remarking that Attorney Spirk skirted around
Mr. Leeson’s question, said the fact is “wouldn’t
you think you would have anticipated, in view of what happened
in the Rodney King trial in Los Angeles…that this is
exactly what happened there what we are going to now experience
with Mr. Karoly, these criminal charges. Wouldn’t you
have anticipated that this might have happened and put something
in the agreement…to indemnify us against something like
this happening before we gave him $8 million…”.
Attorney Spirk responded there are not criminal charges
here. Attorney Spirk said Attorney Karoly cannot bring criminal
charges here, only the United States Attorney can. Attorney
Spirk commented he cannot make anybody do anything to stop
Attorney Karoly if he wants to. Attorney Spirk thought after
the District Attorney and the Attorney General did not, the
chances of the U.S. Attorney somehow saying that the local
District Attorney John Morganelli and the Attorney General
of Pennsylvania somehow missed it seems very unlikely, but
he could not stop the U.S. Attorney if he wanted to do it.
Mrs. Belinski stressed but he could stop Mr. Karoly by including
that in the agreement.
Attorney Spirk restated he cannot preclude criminal charges.
Ms. Szabo said “we were told that the case was over,
that the whole case is over, and this was all behind us. Well,
that certainly sounds like there was an agreement to not continue
the case.”
Attorney Spirk commented “there was no agreement not
to write a letter. The man has written a letter to the United
States Attorney, and the case is over. His ability to write
letters isn’t…The litigation after seven long
years is over…”.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Business Administrator – EIT Rules and Regulations
- Revisions
The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 8, 2004 from Dennis
W. Reichard, Business Administrator, to which were attached
revisions to the City’s EIT Rules and Regulations as
required as a result of Act 166.
President Schweder referred the matter to the Finance Committee.
B. City Solicitor – Purchase of Village View Water
Company by Bethlehem Authority – Operation and Indemnity
Agreement
The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 12, 2004 from John
F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached an Operation
and Indemnity Agreement, along with a proposed Resolution
authorizing the Agreement, in connection with the purchase
of the Village View Water Company by the Bethlehem Authority.
President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolution
can be placed on Council’s Agenda unless the Public
Works Committee wishes to review the matter.
C. City Solicitor – Property Exchange – Saucon
Park Vicinity – Joan Marie Ronca
The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 12, 2004 from John
F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a copy
of the revised Agreement of Sale for a parcel of land in the
vicinity of Saucon Park to be sold to Joan Marie Ronca and
developed as a condominium development rather than a townhouse
fee simple development which was discussed at the Parks and
Public Property Committee meeting on February 24, 2004.
President Schweder stated that authorizing Resolution 11
I is listed on the Agenda.
8 . REPORTS
A. President of Council
None.
B. Mayor
1. Administrative Order – Nereida Villanueva –
Fine Arts Commission
Mayor John B. Callahan appointed Nereida Villanueva to the
Fine Arts Commission, effective until March 2007. Mr. Mowrer
and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,311 to confirm the
appointment.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution
passed.
2. Administrative Order – Lee F. Snyder – Civil
Service Board – Engineers’ and Electricians’
Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Lee F. Snyder to the
Civil Service Board – Engineers’ and Electricians’,
effective until February 2008. Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay
sponsored Resolution 14,312 to confirm the appointment.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution
passed.
3. Administrative Order – Joseph Kelly – Assistant
City Solicitor
Mayor John B. Callahan appointed Joseph Kelly as Assistant
Solicitor, effective as of March 15, 2004. Mr. Mower and Mr.
Donchez sponsored Resolution 14,313 to confirm the appointment.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution
passed.
C. Finance Committee
Mr. Donchez, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented
an oral report of the Committee meeting held on March 15,
2004 on the following subjects: Amending Non-Utility Capital
Budget – (A.) Additional Funding for Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), (B.) Route 412 Capacity Improvement
Project; Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – Carryovers
from 2003; Amending General Fund Budget - (A.) LATCH Grant,
(B.) Permits and Housing Inspections – Overtime; Transfer
of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau – Zoning
Hearing Board Expenses; Transfer of Funds – Community
and Economic Development Department – Overtime; Transfer
of Funds - Community and Economic Development Department –
Equipment; Amending Community Development Budget – (A.)
CDBG Program – 2003 Final Amounts; (B.) HOME Program
– 2003 Final Amounts; Sewer Fund Budget – Prior
Year Encumbrance – Change in Justification; Transfer
of Funds - Sewer Capital Budget – Collection System
– Fourth Street Utility Improvements; Amending Water
Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem
Authority Projects; and 2004 Bond Issue – (A.) Sewer
Capital Projects - $2,000,000, (B.) Non-Utility Capital Budget
– General Fund Equipment – $366,120.
9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE
A. Bill No. 1 – 2004 – 2004 Bond Issue –
Non-Utility Capital Projects-General Fund Equipment ($366,120)
and Sewer Capital Projects ($2,000,000)
The Clerk read Bill No. 1 – 2004, 2004 Bond Issue
– Non-Utility Capital Projects and Sewer Capital Projects,
on Final Reading.
President Schweder announced he will be moving shortly that
Bill No. 1- 2004 be tabled until the first City Council Meeting
in April. President Schweder explained the reason is that,
in discussions with Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator,
it has been noted that a report on the funding for the settlement
of the Hirko case is anticipated to be received tomorrow.
Afterwards, a Committee of the Whole meeting will be scheduled
as soon as possible to discuss funding of the settlement.
Tabling Bill No. 1 - 2004
President Schweder moved that Bill No. 1 – 2004 be
tabled until the first City Council Meeting in April. Mr.
Leeson seconded the motion.
Upon receiving the approval of President Schweder, Mr. Reichard
stated he wanted to go on record to express concern about
the importance of the bond issue for the Sewer Fund. Mr. Reichard,
advising there is $17,000 in the Sewer Fund as of today, stressed
there are projects that need to be done at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Mr. Reichard, explaining that the Sewer Fund
would not be affected by the financial settlement of the Hirko
case, pointed out that the Sewer Fund is a separate fund.
Mr. Reichard reiterated his concern about the sewer projects.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The motion
passed.
B. Bill No. 2 – 2004 - Acquiring Right of Way –
Paint Mill Bridge Replacement
The Clerk read Bill No. 2 – 2004 – Acquiring
Right of Way – Paint Mill Bridge Replacement, on Final
Reading.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
2 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4239, was
declared adopted.
10. NEW ORDINANCES
A. Bill No. 3 – 2004 – Amending Non-Utility Capital
Budget – Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and Route
412 Project
The Clerk read Bill No. 3 – 2004, Amending Non-Utility
Capital Budget – Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
and Route 412 Project, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski,
and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR NON-UTILITIES.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
3 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.
B. Bill No. 4 – 2004 – Amending Liquid Fuels
Fund Budget – 2003 Carryovers
The Clerk read Bill No. 4 – 2004, Amending Liquid
Fuels Fund Budget – 2003 Carryovers, sponsored by Mr.
Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE LIQUID FUELS FUND BUDGET FOR 2004.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
4 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.
C. Bill No. 5 – 2004 – Amending General Fund
Budget – Permits and Inspections Overtime and LATCH
Program
The Clerk read Bill No. 5 – 2004, Amending General
Fund Budget – Permits and Inspections Overtime and LATCH
Program, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2004.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
5 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.
D. Bill No. 6 – 2004 – Amending Community Development
Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs – 2003 Final Amounts
The Clerk read Bill No. 6 – 2004 – Amending
Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs
– 2003 Final Amounts, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Ms.
Szabo, and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR
2004.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
6 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.
E. Bill No. 7 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital
Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem Authority
Projects
The Clerk read Bill No. 7 – 2004 – Amending
Water Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem
Authority Projects, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay,
and titled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR WATER
UTILITIES.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No.
7 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.
11. RESOLUTIONS
Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 A through C as
a Group
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson moved to consider Resolutions
11 A through C as a group.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The motion
passed.
A. Certificate of Appropriateness – 136 East Market
Street
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,314 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the previously
approved rear addition at 136 East Market Street.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness – 535 Main Street
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,315 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair and or
replace the flagstones and slate in front of the building
at 535 Main Street.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 29 East Wall Street
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,316 which
granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the exterior
at 29 East Wall Street.
Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 A through C: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs.
Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo,
and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolutions passed.
Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 D through G as
a Group
Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson moved to consider Resolutions
11 D through G as a group.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The motion
passed.
D. Transfer of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau –
Zoning Hearing Board Expenses
Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Donchez sponsored Resolution 14,317
which transferred $10,000 in the General Fund Budget from
the Unforeseen Contingency Account to the Planning and Zoning
Bureau – Zoning Hearing Board Expenses Account to provide
funding for legal services in support of the Zoning Hearing
Board.
E. Transfer of Funds – Community and Economic Development
Department – Overtime
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,318 which
transferred $1,000 in the General Fund Budget from the Community
and Economic Development Department – Administration
– Temporary Help Account to the Community Development
Department – Administration – Overtime Account
to provide additional monies for secretarial overtime.
F. Transfer of Funds – Community and Economic Development
Department – Equipment
Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,319
which transferred $800 in the General Fund Budget from the
Community and Economic Development Department – Administration
– Other Expenses Account to new Community Development
Department – Administration – Equipment Account
to provide funding for the purchase of a file cabinet.
G. Transfer of Funds – Sewer Capital Budget –
Collection System – Fourth Street Utility Improvements
Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,320
which transferred $132,000 in the Sewer Capital Budget from
Control Box 5 and 6 – Gates and Actuators Account to
Collection System – New and Renewal Account to fund
a portion of the Fourth Street utility improvements required
as a result of the PennDot road project.
Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 D through G: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs.
Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo,
and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolutions passed.
H. Authorizing Execution of Right-of-Way and Easements –
Relocation of Paint Mill Bridge
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,321 which
authorized the Mayor and the Controller and/or such other
City officials as deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor,
to execute Agreements of Sale and/or Easement Agreements with
Bethlehem Racquetball Club, Inc., Sharkan Realty, Inc., and
Gail M. Beitelman in connection with the purchase of additional
right-of-way and easements associated with the relocation
of the Paint Mill Bridge, according to the terms and conditions
of the Agreements.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution
passed.
I. Authorizing Alternative Procedure for Sale – Land
Exchange – Saucon Park Vicinity – Joan Marie Ronca
Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 14,322
which authorized an alternative procedure for sale of the
parcel of land in the vicinity of Saucon Park owned by the
City of Bethlehem located at the Northeast corner of Arden
and Ravena Streets, 16th Ward, Northampton County Tax Map
Q7NW1C, Block 2, Lot 3, designated as Parcel “A”
outlined on Exhibit A, to Joan Marie Ronca at a purchase price
of $50,000 in exchange for the parcel of land located at the
Southeast corner of Arden and Henry Streets, 16th Ward, Northampton
County Tax Map Q7NW1C, Block 2, Lot 4, designated as Parcel
“B” outlined on Exhibit B, to be sold to the City
at a purchase price of $1.00, as authorized in Section 10
of Resolution 9939, as amended by Resolution No. 11,679 -
Sale of City Owned Property.
Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr.
Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution
passed.
12. NEW BUSINESS
South Side Clean Up
Mr. Arcelay noted that at a recent block watch meeting he
saw a flyer for the annual South Side clean up. Mr. Arcelay,
recounting there have been complaints about littering from
block watch groups, advised that his research revealed there
have been no citations issued in January, February or March
for littering. In light of the fact that money is being spent
on efforts to address the problem of littering, Mr. Arcelay
asked how this matter will be pursued and reinforced.
Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, recalled that last
year Mayor Delgrosso instituted a program to address littering.
Police Commissioner Donchez, while saying he cannot answer
why no citations have been issued in the last three months,
pointed out that since littering is a crime that is difficult
to see a Police Officer cannot make an arrest if he does not
see littering occurring. Police Commissioner Donchez stated
that he will reiterate to the Officers that littering is a
crime, is a concern, is a quality of life issue, and if possible
citations would be issued.
Police Commissioner Donchez confirmed to Mr. Arcelay that
the Police Department receives copies of the minutes of the
block watch meetings. Mr. Arcelay pointed out that one can
read the complaints in the minutes. Mr. Arcelay suggested
it be reiterated that littering is a crime before the force
goes out.
Dangerous Dogs
Mr. Arcelay requested the status on the dog ordinance.
Attorney Spirk affirmed that he issued a memorandum to City
Council today requesting a Committee meeting to discuss the
brochure developed by the Department of Community and Economic
Development to inform the public about what to do in the event
of dangerous animals and dogs. Training would be set up for
Police Officers since they are empowered by law to enforce
the ordinances. Attorney Spirk advised that the Administration
would discuss with the Committee its wishes as to the dangerous
animals ordinance since legally it cannot apply to dangerous
dogs.
Water Filtration Plant - Capacity
Mrs. Belinski asked the Administration for an explanation
as to how the Executive Director of the Bethlehem Authority
can say as he did recently in the newspaper that the Water
Filtration Plant is capable of filtering 29 million gallons
of water. Mrs. Belinski pointed out that the summer before
last the top capacity was 20 million gallons, and it was just
barely within the new, stricter EPA guidelines for clean water.
Mrs. Belinski added that the filtration plant is working at
half capacity.
Mayor Callahan noted that the Executive Director is not
at the meeting this evening.
Mrs. Belinski remarked if the water cannot be filtered she
does not know how the water base can be expanded.
Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, commented he would
assume that the reference is to the peak treatment rate at
the plant. Mr. Alkhal, noting he has not been looking at that
issue specifically, communicated that, even if the average
were 20 mgd, there is a clear well that stores water and,
as long as the storage keeps up, the demand is at about 15-16
mgd so it is not a pressing issue at this time. Even if there
were to be an agreement signed tomorrow for sale of water,
Mr. Alkhal advised it would take some time before the water
could actually be tapped. Mr. Alkhal pointed out that the
City is diligently working on the aging filters over ten years
old that have exhausted their useful life, one will be replaced
this year, and the program is to replace two each year. Mr.
Alkhal expressed the belief that the City is in a good position
to serve water beyond what is currently being served. In further
response to Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Alkhal pointed out that the
plant is designed to handle 42 mgd.
Promotion of City Employee
Mrs. Belinski said it has recently come to her attention
that an employee has been promoted to a position for which
he is not qualified. The position calls for a State certification,
and a class A license. Mrs. Belinski continued on to say the
person was promoted to that position and is receiving the
salary according to the payroll printout. Mrs. Belinski said
she would like an explanation how someone could be promoted
when they are not certified. Observing if something happens
and this person does not react in the proper manner, Mrs.
Belinski questioned how does the City answer to the State
letting someone who is not certified be promoted to that position.
Mayor Callahan, noting there are 642 employees, expressed
he would be happy to discuss the matter after the meeting.
Hirko Settlement - $5 Million Police Grant for Training
Mr. Donchez commented he personally believes, as he said
in the newspaper, that $8 million is too high in the matter
of the Hirko case settlement, and he had hoped it would be
in the $2 million to $5 million range if there were an award
against the City. Mr. Donchez stated that he does respect
the Mayor’s decision. Mr. Donchez reiterated he was
under the impression that this matter was over and he did
not expect any requests to be made by Mr. Karoly to the U.S.
Attorney’s office for possible further investigation.
Mr. Donchez stressed what troubles him, in addition to what
he just said, is that if this case did go to the jury and
the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs it would have been
only a financial settlement, and no conditions would have
been attached to the settlement. Mr. Donchez stated that,
as a strong supporter of public safety and especially the
Police Department, he believes that some of the settlement
conditions will be viewed as an indictment against the entire
Bethlehem Police Department. Mr. Donchez observed that the
Police Department is a Department of highly trained and professional
individuals who put their lives in jeopardy every day. Mr.
Donchez commented he is not against reform and not against
in-services. Mr. Donchez communicated that applying for a
$5 million grant to train and educate every officer in the
Fourth Amendment and constitutional rights in his opinion
is an indictment against the professionalism of 147 men and
women. Mr. Donchez stated that the Police Department will
continue to move on and to provide excellent service to the
City’s 72,000 citizens with a high degree of professionalism.
Mr. Donchez stressed that he will continue to be a very strong
supporter and advocate of the City’s public service
areas, especially the Police Department.
Mayor Callahan, with reference to his prepared statement
delivered yesterday, noted that he made it very clear that
he believes the City has an excellent Police Department and
has made significant changes in procedures since 1997. Mayor
Callahan advised that he welcomes the opportunity to have
the Police Department accredited by CALEA, and thought it
would be a badge of honor for the City. Mayor Callahan added
he does not view that as punitive in any way. Mayor Callahan
pointed out that, as was reported in the newspapers, with
accreditation from CALEA there is the likelihood that it would
be harder to bring suit against the Police Department which
he thought was a reasonable response to this situation. Mayor
Callahan continued on to say it would likely lower the City’s
insurance rates, and, most importantly, to the best of the
City’s ability, assure that this will not happen again.
Mayor Callahan expressed he is proud that it was able to be
included in the settlement in order to get the dollar amount
down. Mayor Callahan thought that the City should always try
to improve its Police Department. Mayor Callahan, noting that
he made the FOP aware of the settlement, stated they support
the settlement. Mayor Callahan stated that he thinks the City
has an excellent Police Department and he stands behind the
Police Department. Mayor Callahan expressed the hope that
with a CALEA accreditation the City will have an opportunity
to show how good its Police Department is. Mayor Callahan
noted the City would be one of less than 10% of the police
departments in the country with CALEA accreditation.
Hirko Settlement – Attorney Karoly - Fees
Ms. Szabo, with reference to a newspaper article today,
noted it was stated that Mr. Karoly declined to give a breakdown
of awarded money. Ms. Szabo recalled that, when Judge Gardner
met with Members of Council on Sunday, it was said this is
not a malpractice suit where the insurance companies refuse
to give out information about agreements. Rather, this is
a tax-based agreement. Remarking indeed it is, it is the taxpayers
who are going to be paying for this, Ms. Szabo said “we
as Council have to account for every nickel and dime that
we spend.” Ms. Szabo requested that Attorney Spadoni
investigate, before City Council has any hearings on the financial
settlement, whether or not it can be held secret how the money
is going to be spent. Ms. Szabo queried “what indeed
are the taxpayers paying for.”
Attorney Spadoni advised that the relationship of counsel
with their clients is governed by the rules of professional
conduct and ethics, there are a number of ways that can be
handled, and that is done by contract between the attorney
and their client. In some cases, it is done on an hourly basis.
In some cases, it is done by a flat rate where there is a
set number no matter how little or how much work. There are
other cases that are contingencies, and that is based on the
success of the action and can range from negotiation of 20%
in a workmen’s compensation case to 40% and higher depending
on the complexity and type of case. Attorney Spadoni stated
that is a question for private citizens with their counsel.
Attorney Spadoni said he “would be hard pressed to tell
you that we will be able to find that out because that is
a matter that is private between counsel and the plaintiffs.
As I understand it, there has been a stipulation that we reviewed
on Sunday evening, and have made available to us by the Administration
with a gross number, and that has not been broken down. However,
it does say…that the amount of $7.39 million which is
our exposure…or payment is inclusive of attorneys fees
and costs. And, if you will recall the discussion by…Judge
Gardner, there was significant discussion about that as to
what those numbers were and could be. Now, do we have verification
of that other than his indication, the answer is no. And,
I think that we would be not permitted to get that because
that may be a private contract between counsel and their client.”
Ms. Szabo remarked “in other words, the taxpayers
pay to sign a blank check.”
Mrs. Belinski, noting that supposedly Mr. Karoly said he
had a million dollars in legal expenses and then an additional
million dollars in costs, asked is that $2 million set aside
and he gets his percentage on the difference as his contingency
fee in addition to the $2 million he says he is already owed.
Attorney Spadoni stated that the document he reviewed which
was presented to City Council setting forth the settlement
has a gross number of $7.39 million and it states inclusive
of costs and fees. Attorney Spadoni pointed out there is no
breakdown and no distribution of that amount in the document.
Mrs. Belinski recalled that Judge Gardner said the costs
should be investigated and made sure they are legitimate costs
and legal fees. Mrs. Belinski asked how does the City check
and ensure those expenses are truly the expenses.
Attorney Spadoni thought the Judge indicated there was an
open-ended perspective in that regard that they may need to
be reasonable and may need to be justified but that was part
of the settlement discussion that the Administration negotiated
and handled as to the gross number. Attorney Spadoni stated
he thinks the City is “stuck with the settlement document
and the stipulation as made before Judge Gardner on Monday
morning.”
Mrs. Belinski noted it was indicated to her in discussions
with a lawyer who lives out of the City that most likely Mr.
Karoly would get 40%.
Job Status – Police Officer Riedy
President Schweder queried what is the current job status
of Officer Riedy.
Mayor Callahan replied he is employed by the Police Department
of the City of Bethlehem.
President Schweder inquired whether there will be any disciplinary
action taken towards him.
Mayor Callahan responded there are no plans for disciplinary
action for Mr. Riedy at this time.
President Schweder asked if it could be explained why.
Mayor Callahan replied “we’ve been working on
this settlement, we’ve been working our way through
this case and the conclusion of this case, and is something
that I will discuss with Commissioner Donchez.”
President Schweder observed that the officer is currently
working and is not suspended with pay since the finding of
the jury in the Hirko case, and has been working actively.
Mayor Callahan explained that, for the bulk of the last
six months, Mr. Riedy has been in court and it has not been
a question that the City had to address up until the conclusion
of the Hirko case because he was paid to be in court during
those times. In between, he was basically taking care of administrative
issues. Mayor Callahan added that is a situation that is something
that needs to be looked into now that the case is over and
he will no longer be in court.
President Schweder asked if there is a policy in place or
one that is collectively bargained for that covers this, or
what is the City policy that exists currently with respect
to this. President Schweder wondered what does an officer
have to do to be suspended.
Attorney Spirk responded any number of kinds of misconduct
can warrant a suspension and there is no finite list.
President Schweder inquired does this fall under it or off
of that list.
Attorney Spirk replied it is not specifically addressed
in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, it
is not listed as a specific item of cause for discipline.
Police Commissioner Donchez explained if an officer were
to violate State or Federal law that could be a cause for
discipline. Police Commissioner Donchez continued on to say
that if an officer were to violate City policy or Police Department
policy as laid out in the general orders or SOP’s that
could be a cause for discipline. Police Commissioner Donchez
noted, however, as was stated earlier, the investigation by
the District Attorney’s Office and by the Attorney General’s
Office found no wrongdoing on the part of Officer Riedy, and
therefore there has not been nor is there planned any disciplinary
action. Police Commissioner Donchez pointed out that the finding
by the jury was based on testimony within the confines of
the courtroom, which he felt did not tell the whole story.
Police Commissioner Donchez said, however, “the whole
story having been told to the District Attorney’s office,
the Attorney General’s office, and to the Police administration
I see no cause at this point for any disciplinary action.”
Hirko Settlement – Funding
President Schweder commented that, with respect to the settlement,
Council is willing, ready and able to go to Committee of the
Whole at any point within twenty-four hours notice. President
Schweder noted that he spoke with the Business Administrator
and expressed the belief that the Mayor would be providing
a written proposal to City Council tomorrow on the payment
procedure so that deliberations can begin. President Schweder
noted that, since Bill No. 1 has been delayed until the first
City Council Meeting in April, he would like to be able to
have City Council meet as a Committee of the Whole to review
what would be the procedure for funding the Hirko settlement.
Mayor Callahan, affirming that will be done, said he wants
to make it clear that the Administration attempted to share
that information with Council on Sunday evening during the
Executive Session. Mayor Callahan added there is a clear financial
model that the Administration will be recommending to Council
in order to fund the settlement, but Council did not want
to see it at that time. Mayor Callahan expressed the hope
that Council would fund this settlement consistent with the
way that the Administration has outlined. Mayor Callahan expressed
the belief that the financial model is the right balance,
minimizes the financial pain felt by the taxpayers in any
given year by stretching the payments out over a 12 year period
but does not burden future generations, and importantly takes
advantage of the current historically low interest rates.
Mayor Callahan stated that Council will have the document
in their hands tomorrow, and it will be Council’s decision
whether they want to follow the model put forth by the Administration
or would like to investigate a different model to fund the
settlement. Mayor Callahan communicated that he stands willing,
ready, and able to work with Council to come upon a model
that Council can agree on.
President Schweder, referring to a newspaper article in
which it was stated that Council either refused to look at
the business model or the payment in the Executive Session,
clarified it was his ruling and in conjunction with the Solicitor
that had Council taken the Mayor up on that opportunity to
look at the financial model at that point then Council would
have been in violation of the Sunshine Law. Consequently,
President Schweder explained it was not a refusal on Council’s
part. President Schweder continued on to point out it was
a legal consideration at that time, the determination was
that the meeting was called to discuss litigation, litigation
was discussed, and a decision that would ultimately have to
be made by Council with respect to the funding was a financial
consideration, was not part of litigation, and therefore not
part of the meeting, and would have been inappropriate had
Council discussed that.
Mayor Callahan, expressing he would agree with that, noted
he wanted to mention there was no secret and the Administration
wanted to share the information.
13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR
Hirko Settlement – Federal Court
Roger Hudak, 1256 East Fifth Street, saying he is in shock,
stated he had no idea that any of the things that were mentioned
earlier were about to happen, and that this “nightmare
was going to continue.” Mr. Hudak commented there is
another lawsuit by this same attorney. Mr. Hudak, stressing
that he fully supports the Police and Joe Riedy, remarked
if Joe Riedy did anything wrong he would have been found guilty
in court by the District Attorney, the State Police, and the
Attorney General. Mr. Hudak suggested that, if Attorney Karoly
chooses to take the matter to Federal Court to pursue a murder
charge, Council consider withholding payment until the Federal
Court comes up with a decision whether or not any laws were
broken. Mr. Hudak stated that, if the matter gets as far as
the Federal Court, the City may not have to pay anything.
Mr. Hudak, remarking he is shocked and dismayed, communicated
he had hoped to come to the meeting this evening and say “let’s
move on. Let’s get to the clean up of the South Side
streets. Let’s get Bethlehem Works rolling…But
this thing hangs over us like a nightmare…”. Mr.
Hudak noted that the South Side is getting cleaner. Mr. Hudak,
advising that a lot of people from New York City and Philadelphia
are moving to the South Side, explained they throw things
in the streets.
Mrs. Belinski informed Mr. Hudak that she followed up on
a complaint she received when she attended the South Side
Task Force meeting at Concordia Lutheran Church last Thursday.
Mrs. Belinski, advising that she took the parking problem
of the woman with the flower shop to Michael Alkhal, Director
of Public Works, affirmed that Mr. Alkhal solved the problem.
As a result, the woman will only be inconvenienced the first
week and last week of construction of Fourth Street.
Reading of Legislation
Robert Bauder, 1035 N. New Street, said he found it very
hard to hear and understand the legislation passed by City
Council tonight.
Hirko Case - Settlement
Mr. Bauder asked why the decision in the Hirko case was
made without consulting City Council until Sunday night. Mr.
Bauder further inquired about the 10 to 2 decision and penalty
phase. Mr. Bauder, with reference to Mayor Callahan’s
comments that borrowing $300,000 a year for 12 years means
there will not be a tax increase, expressed the hope that
the Mayor is right “because I don’t know how we
can afford to keep on increasing our taxes when we’re
on fixed incomes…”. Mr. Bauder said he wants an
answer as to how the City is going to pay for the settlement.
Mayor Callahan responded that, as chief executive officer
of the City, it is his responsibility to act on behalf of
the taxpayers. Stating he has accepted that responsibility,
Mayor Callahan continued on to say he would be negligent if
he did not step forward to seek a solution that would neutralize
the financial effect on the taxpayers of Bethlehem. Mayor
Callahan, acknowledging that the settlement cost of $7.39
million is a lot of money, pointed out it is not $100 million,
$50 million, $20 million, $15 million, or $10 million. Mayor
Callahan affirmed he will put forth a model that will demonstrate
that the City can handle this settlement in a way that could
potentially not result in a tax increase. Mayor Callahan explained
that the worst case scenario would result in a 1.8% increase
in taxes which is less than ¼ mill and would equate
to $11 a year or 92 cents per month for a taxpayer whose house
is valued at $100,000 and assessed at $50,000. Mayor Callahan,
restating that his job as Mayor is to minimize and neutralize
the financial risks of the Hirko trial, said he has done that.
James Follweiler, 2222 Main Street, commenting that yes
the City must move on, learn and improve, expressed that one
must also look at what has happened to make sure the City
learns correctly and improve as it moves into the future.
Mr. Follweiler said he finds interesting tonight’s comments
by the Police Commissioner that the whole story was not told
during the trial. Mr. Follweiler queried when would the City
present its case if it is not during the trial, and asserted
there should be nothing held back. Mr. Follweiler thought
the City could have asked Mr. Karoly not to ask for a Federal
criminal investigation. Mr. Follweiler, stating that his sympathies
go out to Ms. Fodi and the Hirko family, said Mr. Hirko’s
death aside, the Administration’s decision-making process
through the legal process requires further analysis. Mr. Follweiler
said the failed gamble by the newly elected Mayor will result
in taxpayers paying the bill for years to come. Mr. Follweiler,
questioning why would the chance be taken with a deadlocked
jury by gambling that a verdict would have gone the City’s
way, asserted that a deadlocked jury is a victory for the
defense. Mr. Follweiler wondered why the City was worried
about financial risk increasing proportionally if the case
were retried a second time and that a future jury would not
be more hardworking, diligent, fair, and impartial when compared
to the present jury. Mr. Follweiler remarked “all this
sounds like it was an excuse after the fact to gain sympathy
as the trial entered the penalty phase.” Mr. Follweiler,
continuing on to remark that the desire for quick closure
was also another odd statement, said “you fight until
you win. We surrendered…”. Mr. Follweiler said,
after consulting lawyers and laymen before the verdict was
announced, “we concurred that a retrial probably would
not have even occurred due to the time and investments made
by the plaintiff.” Mr. Follweiler communicated that,
after a hung jury, negotiations to be fair for a smaller settlement
without an admission of guilt probably would have been prudent
to agree upon. Saying he does not argue with the guilty verdict
of the jury, Mr. Follweiler stated this was the result of
a real process. Mr. Follweiler said, following the trial through
the media, it was obvious to him that a certain amount of
excessive force was used. He questioned how could the City’s
legal team and advisors come to the belief that a 10 to 2
jury was favorable to the City’s side, and felt that
when it came to the final point on which the City was found
guilty the verdict should not have been a surprise. Mr. Follweiler
stated that in the end “we have been asked for a guilty
verdict against the City and the Police Department.”
Expressing his support for proper training and instructing
for the Police and Fire Departments, Mr. Follweiler said nothing
is more important to the constituency than the City’s
protective services “who have now been undermined. The
requirement to conduct $5 million worth of constitutional
rights training must be monitored. Training of this nature
for a Police force of the [City’s] size should not cost
anywhere near this amount. I recommend auditors properly track
the expenditures to ensure our tax dollars are not wasted.
Even though the money might be coming from a State or Federal
grant, it is still our tax money. The amount of money that
will now be spent on the debt payments until the full costs
are paid would have gone far towards additional equipment,
training, and personnel. It would have been nice to have conducted
these certifications with money and not be forced through
settlement costs.” Mr. Follweiler further stated that
the settlement required an external probe and hiring of consultants,
and questions the credibility of the Police force. Referring
to the Mayor’s statements that there will be no need
for a tax increase and that the tax increase will be minimal
at about 2%, Mr. Follweiler questioned which is it. Mr. Follweiler
remarked that the number of $300,000 for twelve years only
adds up to $6.6 million not counting interest. Mr. Follweiler
asserted that the idea of floating a bond with ballooning
payments in the later years will push the responsibility towards
the future, straddling future taxpayers, and away from the
City’s current financial difficulties. Noting that the
City is currently contemplating a $2.3 million bond issue,
Mr. Follweiler questioned how it can be argued that the settlement
will have no to little impact on the City’s finances.
Asserting that the taxpayers are straddled with the recent
bad decision in the Hirko settlement, Mr. Follweiler remarked
that in the end the taxpayers pay for incompetence. Communicating
that leadership is not easy, Mr. Follweiler observed that
critical decisions must be made when the pressure is on. Mr.
Follweiler felt that Mayor Callahan failed in his first test
of leadership and the City residents will pay his price. Mr.
Follweiler remarked that Mayor Callahan “grabbed defeat
from the jaws of victory.” Mr. Follweiler said “as
a citizen and taxpayer of Bethlehem I will pray that Mayor
Callahan’s remaining time in office will be as a bureaucratic
administrator who poses for pictures while hopefully never
being placed in a position to make such a critical decision
ever again.”
Ms. Szabo, informing Mr. Follweiler that she attended about
75% of all of the sessions on the Hirko case, said she sat
through the agony of listening to the plaintiff’s questioning
and statements because the City could not reply and had to
sit there silently. Ms. Szabo advised that the City was unable
to tell the truth because it was not a criminal trial but
rather a civil suit, and evidence was cut out by legal maneuvering.
Ms. Szabo, expressing that she dreads to think what it was
like for the 14 defendants sitting there and for their wives,
stressed that it was not easy for Police Officer Riedy’s
wife to hear those things. Ms. Szabo stated that what was
cut out was the most important information.
Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, with reference to
Mr. Follweiler’s question why the whole story was not
told, explained that “unfortunately we were hamstrung
by the Federal rules of civil procedure. For example, we were
unable to tell the jurors that the search warrant in question
passed muster with the Northampton County Judge in a suppression
hearing…”. Police Commissioner Donchez communicated
that legal maneuvering and the rules that boxed the City in
favored the plaintiffs in this case.
Steve Marshall, President of the Fraternal Order of Police
(FOP) for the City of Bethlehem, said he personally wants
to express his gratitude and deepest appreciation to Councilwoman
Magdalena Szabo and her sister Louise because they attended
the Hirko trial for most of the five months period. Mr. Marshall
stated he was also a defendant in the Hirko case. With reference
to President Schweder asking about Joe Riedy’s punishment,
Mr. Marshall highlighted the fact that at 11:00 on April 23,
1997 he was standing behind Joe Riedy “when we got fired
at by John Hirko.” Mr. Marshall remarked that, to bring
up punishment at this phase because ten jurors believed that
Officer Riedy did something wrong and whether that was an
issue due to an error with the City’s counsel or otherwise,
“would be almost like trying our troops that were over
in Iraq when they come back for the things they did there.”
Mr. Marshall, with reference to comments of Mr. Schweder in
the media, said if the quotes in the Morning Call are accurate
he thinks they are uninformed. Mr. Marshall, saying that the
Mayor made a very difficult decision, stated that the negotiations
could have been done 7 years ago. However, it came down to
the zero hour, the Mayor got involved along with John Spirk,
City Solicitor, and negotiated with the family and Mr. Karoly.
Mr. Marshall expressed his opinion that Mr. Schweder’s
comments in the Morning Call that the Mayor’s decision
was one of the most stupid that anyone has made was cowardly.
Mr. Marshall felt that Mr. Schweder could have spoken up and
advised the Mayor and City Council, but chose not to take
a stance. Mr. Marshall stated all that one vote would have
given was a hung jury. Mr. Marshall, acknowledging that may
have ended it, pointed out “we don’t know that.
And, as a defendant, to go through this case, and put my family
through this case again, it was a living hell. You can’t
imagine what it was like for 14 police defendants…What
another trial of this magnitude would have done, not only
to the financial burden for the City, but also for the people
involved.” Mr. Marshall, exclaiming nobody wanted to
go through this again, said he does not think the City or
Council wanted to go through it and the defendants did not
want to go through it again. Mr. Marshall thought that all
Members of Council had their chance to give input into the
decision on the 10 to 2 vote. Mr. Marshall said in his opinion
he found Mr. Schweder’s comments to be uncalled for
and uninformed. Communicating there is a human side to the
issue, and expressing his understanding that $8 million is
a lot of money, Mr. Marshall said he also understands that
what the 14 officers went through during depositions, trial,
and the aftereffects of Mr. Karoly now asking for a murder
investigation, and added “you can’t understand
what that’s like.” Mr. Marshall illustrated the
difficulty in telling his son why he did his job and may go
to jail for that. Mr. Marshall thanked the Mayor for getting
involved and spending the time to negotiate a settlement.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that, if it was left up to the jury,
it is unknown whether it could have been better. Mr. Marshall
thanked the Mayor on behalf of himself and his family, and
the other individuals involved in this case. Mr. Marshall,
stating that City Council could take a lesson from the Police
Department, noted that the Police Department and the Police
defendants held together during the trial. There was no blame
and no finger pointing. Mr. Marshall said it is time for City
Council to put aside their differences and get the City moving
forward as it has done in the past.
William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, suggested this would
be a good time to have a public meeting for the citizens to
express their appreciation of the Police and their support.
Mr. Scheirer, with reference to the tabulation he distributed
to the Members of Council for funding the $7.39 million Hirko
settlement, explained if one picks an interest rate and a
number of years for the bond to run, one finds the annual
payment to pay off the bond. Mr. Scheirer emphasized these
are constant annual payments. Noting there has been some talk
about how the rest of the City debt will be declining over
time and this can be taken advantage of by having a bond issue
where the payments would be small in the beginning and larger
at the end, Mr. Scheirer said total payments would be greater
because there would be more interest cost. Mr. Scheirer further
said this would minimize the tax increase so that the total
taxes paid over the next 12 years would not be much greater
than they are now. However, the situation would still remain
that the declining amount of other debt would have, before
the settlement award, made possible either tax decreases or
providing additional services.
Landfill Debt
Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, questioning how long will
the City be paying on the Landfill debt, stressed that the
City is still paying on the debt.
Windmill Energy
Mr. Nyul, with reference to an article in the newspaper
depicting windmill energy, explained he researched the company
on the Internet. Mr. Nyul advised that every State University
in Pennsylvania is now dealing with the company at a lower
cost for electricity. In addition, the county of Delaware
last year saved $12,000 on its electricity bill. Mr. Nyul
expressed that, instead of paying PPL, perhaps the City could
utilize this approach to obtain energy and save money.
Proposed Building at East Broad and New Streets
Mr. Nyul, focusing on the relocation of a State Judge’s
office to a proposed building at East Broad and New Streets,
wondered whether the Mayor considered space available at One
Bethlehem Plaza across the street. Mr. Nyul, remarking that
a new building is not needed at East Broad and New Streets,
contended that the parking lot currently there is paying for
itself.
Eighth Avenue – Lowe’s Project
Mr. Nyul inquired whether the Lowe’s project will
be built on Eighth Avenue.
Attorney Spirk informed Mr. Nyul that the current status
of the litigation surrounding the proposed project is at rounds
three and four.
Mr. Nyul noted that when Route 378 was built about 25 years
ago it was not just to connect Route 22 with the Hill to Hill
Bridge, but also to provide access to locations throughout
the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Nyul pointed out it is seven miles
and takes seven minutes from Eighth Avenue to either MacArthur
Road or Route 191 where Home Depots are located. Consequently,
Mr. Nyul questioned “what in the world do we want with
a Lowe’s.”
Martin Tower
Mr. Nyul, noting that he found out Martin Tower is for sale,
stated that the City should consider buying it and move all
the current City offices to that location, and build a restaurant
at the top of Martin Tower in order to make money for the
City.
Club Avenue – Paving
Mr. Nyul thanked the City for paving Club Avenue.
Windmill Energy
Mr. Leeson asked Mr. Nyul to share with the Administration
the article about use of windmill power by State universities.
Mr. Leeson further asked Mayor Callahan to assign someone
to look into the matter to find out whether it is worthwhile.
Hirko Settlement
Mary Pongracz, 321 W. Fourth Street, with reference to Mr.
Follweiler’s remarks, observed that Mr. Follweiler is
a military man and has been trained to kill. Ms. Pongracz
said she is at the meeting to defend the Police Department,
and added they have done the best they could under the circumstances.
Ms. Pongracz communicated that no one has talked about the
victims of Mr. Hirko’s drug dealings. Ms. Pongracz highlighted
the fact that when a fireman, policeman, or teacher has been
killed they do not get a settlement of $ 8 million. Ms. Pongracz,
with reference to Mr. Karoly’s statement in the newspaper
that it is not about the money, said she wants to know what
Mr. Karoly is going to do with his share of the money. Ms.
Pongracz, expressing her thanks to the Police Department,
commented their job is thankless and sometimes they make mistakes.
Ms. Pongracz, noting that Mayor Callahan is new at the job,
queried why he should take the blame for everything. Ms. Pongracz
asserted that, if Mr. Karoly is really sincere that it is
not for the money, “let him not take his share of the
settlement and let him give it to the City so the lifelong
people…don’t have to have our taxes increased.”
Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, commented he was impressed
with what Officer Marshall had to say. Mr. Antalics, stating
he has been concerned with the situation, remarked that Ms.
Szabo said it succinctly that ultimately it is up to the taxpayer.
Mr. Antalics, expressed the best way to be objective would
be to use an analogy, and said he keeps coming back to the
idea of the corporation with Members of Council as the board
of directors, the Mayor as the president, the taxpayers as
shareholders, and the City which is incorporated as a Third
Class City as the corporation. Mr. Antalics continued on to
say that the corporation of Bethlehem was faced with a very
profound and difficult decision to make on a problem that
could result in dramatic financial costs. The outcome would
fall primarily on the stockholders. The stockholders would
vote based upon shares which could be the real estate tax
as to who would be the board of directors. Mr. Antalics further
said the president is faced with a very difficult situation
of having to make a decision based upon something that will
have a financial impact on the welfare of the corporation.
Mr. Antalics felt that it took courage for the president to
use the wisdom of the board of directors chosen by the stockholders
because, although he had legal counsel to advise him, he thought
he might want more input to make the best decision. Mr. Antalics
said, as a stockholder, it bothers him that the president
was refused comment by the chairman of the board of directors.
The mission of the stockholders, its CEO and president is
to look out for the welfare of the corporation and act as
a team. He added that whether the input would have changed
the decision or not is not known but it should have been there.
Mr. Antalics said the board of directors, CEO and president
have a responsibility to the stockholders and to act as a
team in the best interests because they asked the stockholders
to appoint them to their responsible position. Mr. Antalics
stated that, in his estimation, dialog should be free and
easy because personalities should be out of it but that did
not happen. Mr. Antalics suggested that, for the best welfare
of the City as a corporation, the board of directors, CEO
and president act as a team in the stockholders best interests.
Garbage Hauler - Unlicensed
Dave Sanders, 69 E. Goepp Street, noted that over the past
few months he has talked about a garbage situation, especially
with Mr. Donchez. Mr. Sanders explained that a hauler was
picking up garbage at 4:00 a.m. that was most disturbing.
Mr. Sanders called Mr. Sterner and Mr. Steward of the Health
Bureau who contacted John’s Hauling. Not only was the
hauler in violation for waking everyone up but had no City
license, paid no mercantile tax, and was not permitted to
haul in the City. The situation was also turned over to Al
Timko, Tax Administrator. Mr. Sanders reported that John’s
Hauling is no longer operating in the City.
Hirko Settlement
Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, said he finds it quite difficult
to understand the amount of money the City has to pay for
the Hirko settlement. Mr. Bruch felt that the Mayor did the
right thing. Mr. Bruch felt there has to be better administrative
fiscal responsibility. Mr. Bruch exclaimed people have to
understand if they accept money for the payment of their duty
and they do not do it “you don’t work here no
more.” Mr. Bruch highlighted the fact that when he calls
the Police they come right away. Mr. Bruch questioned why
the police academy does not incorporate into their training
something that needs to be done.
Police Training
Frank Donchez, Police Commissioner, explained that most of
the officers attend the Allentown Police Academy, however
some go to Scranton and Montgomery County. Police Commissioner
Donchez advised that the standards for the academy at which
officers are trained for 20 weeks are set by MPOETC, the Municipal
Police Officers Education and Training Commission that is
appointed by the Governor and headed by the head of the State
Police. Police Commissioner Donchez stated he is trying to
get on the MPOETC commission as he would like to have input
because he does not agree wholeheartedly with some of the
training. He added that when the officers return from academy
training they get additional training in areas specific to
the Bethlehem Police Department.
Liability Insurance
Mr. Bruch, focusing on liability insurance, questioned why
the Police do not have some of their own, and also asked if
all City employees are under the City’s liability insurance.
Police Commissioner Donchez replied the insurance that covers
the Police Officers is set by the City. Police Commissioner
Donchez said he does not believe anyone has any personal insurance
on their own. He further informed Mr. Bruch that the agreement
with the police bargaining unit is that punitive damages are
covered by the City.
Hirko Case
Anthony Rybak, 408 Adams Street, expressed his understanding
is that the liability of the insurance company was $500,000
and also to defend the City in the suit.
Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, affirmed it
is correct that the policy has a cost of defense.
Mr. Rybak noted that the attorney fees of the lawyer who
defended the City were paid by the insurance company, not
by the City.
Attorney Spadoni affirmed that is correct.
Mr. Rybak said the City did not save anything by taking
a non-unanimous jury except putting people through another
trial which he would not wish on anybody. Mr. Rybak, questioning
why the City would go with a non-unanimous verdict, stated
that a hung jury or a mistrial is a victory and the City was
the defendant.
Mr. Hudak said when he spoke earlier he was speaking on
behalf of the task force and the block watches in South Bethlehem
and now will speak on behalf of himself. Mr. Hudak felt that
John Hirko was a criminal and was the enemy in the war on
drugs, in war people get killed, and John Hirko was killed.
Mr. Hudak felt that the lawsuit should have never come to
pass. Mr. Hudak remarked that John Hirko did not have to answer
to his aunt whose son was one of his customers and has since
gone off the deep end to finish his life in the gutters of
Philadelphia. Mr. Hudak pointed out that the police killed
the enemy “and now we’re going to pay his parents
who haven’t talked to him for years, and now we’re
going to pay his girlfriend, and now we’re going to
pay the guy who owns the house all this money…but that’s
the way the law is.”
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
|
