Lawsuits add to Pittsburgh's financial woes - PittsburghLIVE.com Lawsuits have amplified the costs of guiding Pittsburgh out of its financial mess, according to preliminary budget figures from the city's state oversight board.The coutless lawsuits that the city, and even the county have engaged, in the past decades is horrid.
Much of the higher-than-anticipated costs comes from legal fights the board started or was forced into with former Mayor Tom Murphy, the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority and the city's firefighters union.
I've called for a major shift in the benchmark for litigation. To me it is a no brainer. These court costs have been massive. And, the city has been big-time loosers. The decisions have more often than not gone against the city's best interest. And, for good reason.
The parking lot in Panther Hollow is one example.
The seedy theater in the North Side is another fine example.
As the country song goes, "you gotta know when to fold 'em."
The city's leadership must "Lay the Shovel Down" -- and do much more to cut their losses. Snip away.
The next big case that is brewing, and I already made mention of this on the blog and on the record at city hall before city council is the Bill Peduto sponsored "Bubble Bill." The city should not waste a nickle trying to defend the "Bubble Bill."
Background: In the fall of 2005, the city, at the urging of the women's health clinic and Planned Parenthood folks, drafted a new set of laws that makes a protected area around people that moves around a protected area already designated around the entry of women's health clinics. This new 2005 law came into being because the managers within the Police Department were without strong leadership. They were fearful of backlashes from city hall politicans who flapped in the wind. And, because of police force cuts and a lack of new hires to cover needed shifts.
Make no mistake, the situation was broken because of compounded problems on compounded problems -- all caused from the ill management of Tom Murphy and his administration.
So, city council acted -- and did a classic 'over reach' so as to write new laws. The best fix would have been new directions and understood policies from the police and top brass. And, there was an enforcement issue that needed to be monitored.
The people need to feel safe and respected on the streets -- and near the health clinics. But, the police were only able to toss their hands into the air and look the other way -- if they were even around due to cutbacks, overtime headaches and thin force in general.
Now that the 'bubble bill' of 2005 is on the books it is right where we thought it would go -- into the courts.
The city might need to spend $200,000 or $400,000 on the defense of the 'bubble bill' -- OR -- a wise, prudent city council member could introduce a new bit of legislation that RECINDS the 'bubble bill' and gets the court case to be dropped. That would take about ten phone calls and save $200,000.
Then, with the $200,000 -- the city can open a few swim pools, hire a few crossing guards and get new rat bait for rodent control.
I feel strongly that there are times and places where defending principles are justified. Let's not burn money on the 'bubble bill' -- NOR another dozen fruitless court cases.
Meanwhile, the ICA (oversight board) paid $800k to a law firm -- and that must stop too.
As we settle disputes in the courts -- nobody wins. Judges are bad at finding the best solutions for the long-term health of the region.
We need a better margin of litigation!
1 comment:
Lawsuits add to Pittsburgh's financial woes
By Jeremy Boren
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Lawsuits have amplified the costs of guiding Pittsburgh out of its financial mess, according to preliminary budget figures from the city's state oversight board.
Much of the higher-than-anticipated costs comes from legal fights the board started or was forced into with former Mayor Tom Murphy, the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority and the city's firefighters union.
"I think we were forced to spend more on litigation than we should have had to spend," said Henry Sciortino, executive director of the oversight board, which is officially known as the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority. Unanticipated litigation costs mounted to $500,000 between February 2004 and December 2005, he said.
The oversight board filed lawsuits against the Sports & Exhibition Authority and the firefighters union in 2005. Its lawyers also participated in former City Controller Tom Flaherty's lawsuit against the city and Murphy, whom he took to court for cutting the Controller's Office budget between 2004 and 2005.
So far, the oversight board has paid nearly $800,000 to Downtown-based law firm Reed Smith. By June, its legal bill will reach about $900,000, Sciortino said.
"Our legal bills now have dropped off dramatically since the O'Connor administration came in," he said. O'Connor has been mayor only since Jan. 3, but authority board members have lauded the new mayor's willingness to cooperate, in contrast with his predecessor.
Murphy did not respond to a message left at his home Friday seeking comment.
Despite the higher-than-expected legal fees, the oversight board has stayed within its means.
Since the Legislature created the oversight board in 2004, the state has set aside $1.75 million for operations through June. The authority has spent $1.39 million as of yesterday and expects to stick to its allotted share of state funding, Sciortino said.
"What did the Commonwealth get for their $1.7 million? A lot," said Sciortino, who noted that the $40 million deficit Pittsburgh reported in 2004 has evaporated through oversight board-driven budget cuts "without the Commonwealth writing a check for $40 million."
Sciortino, the authority's only full-time employee, is paid an annual salary of $168,000, plus benefits, money which had been earmarked by the authority.
The oversight board spent $250,000 on financial studies it commissioned on the city's police and fire bureaus, workers compensation costs and retirement health care pay. About $100,000 was spent on financial audits of the Fire Bureau and the Sports & Exhibition Authority.
A final report on the authority's two years of finances could be available by late next week.
Meanwhile, the city's other financial overseer, the Act 47 recovery team, has repeatedly delayed release of its operating expenses.
In November, Pittsburgh City Council passed a resolution requesting an audit of the Act 47 team's finances.
"We sent them a letter and haven't heard anything," said Deputy City Controller Tony Pokora. "It should only take a month, tops."
Kevin Ortiz, spokesman for the Department of Community and Economic Development, said a report on the Act 47 recovery team's spending would probably be available "early next week."
"Every government entity has an obligation to let the public know what it is doing," said Councilman Doug Shields. "This is a simple dollars-and-cents question that isn't being answered."
Jeremy Boren can be reached at jboren@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
Post a Comment