By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
OCEAN CITY – A councilman’s request to table a vote on a contract with the city solicitor’s firm ignited a heated back-and-forth at the June 10 Ocean City Council meeting.
First Ward Councilman Michael DeVlieger asked to pull resolution No. 3 from the council’s consent agenda, but never explained his full reasoning for the move except to say it dealt with an unfinished conversation with the administration.
Pulling a resolution means it can be discussed separately and not packaged for a single yes-or-no vote with other resolutions considered more routine.
The resolution was to award a professional services contract to McCrosson & Stanton P.C., for special litigation services. Dorothy McCrosson is the city’s solicitor, but this contract with her firm is for special legal services. The annual contract is valued at $50,000 and would run from July 1 to June 30, 2022.
Though the request started benignly enough, it grew heated quickly.
DeVlieger said he wanted to table the contract until the next meeting because there had been “some conversation” about that. “I’d like to continue that and come to a positive resolution and promptly get it back on the agenda for the 24th,” he said.
Councilwoman Karen Bergman immediately started talking, but was cut off by Council President Bob Barr, who then asked Third Ward Councilman Jody Levchuk if he had any comment.
“I have no problem with tabling it, but I have no problem with approving it,” he said.
Bergman then jumped in.
“I can’t even believe that we’re tabling this. We have awarded this contract for the last 10 years. This firm has been working diligently on handling all of our COAH (Council On Affordable Housing) issues in this city and I’m just floored that we’re even thinking about tabling this. I don’t know what we could possibly achieve by tabling this. I don’t understand. I don’t even understand what is happening anymore,” she said, alluding to growing disagreements between some members of city council and the administration.
“All things we’ve been doing and all things that have been working, the success we’ve had with this firm, on COAH, has been amazing. The new building, the earmarking of properties to satisfy our COAH restrictions, I just can’t even believe we’re tabling this and it is my word that I am so disappointed that this is getting tabled. And I think it is disrespectful to the firm that has been working diligently with us to table this.”
Second Ward Councilman Tomaso Rotondi said he wasn’t privy to the actual conversation DeVlieger was referring to but knew about the conversation and supported having that conversation. “I think putting this off for another two weeks and voting yes to Dottie or to the firm in two weeks and having this conversation is fine with me,” Rotondi said. “That’s why I agreed to table it.”
That’s when Councilman At-Large Pete Madden jumped in, asking, “Why are we tabling this?
DeVlieger responded, “Because I asked to.”
When Bergman asked why, he said, “Because we have an ongoing conversation with the administration that’s not finished yet.”
After another query from Madden, DeVlieger said it was “no reflection on the firm.”
“Then what do you hope to accomplish? I don’t get it,” Bergman said.
“Join the conversation if you like,” DeVlieger replied.
He said the meeting was “up to the administration.”
Madden jumped back in, asking, “Why are you meeting with the administration on a matter that they decide? They choose counsel. Not us.”
“And we approve it,” DeVlieger said. “And it’s not going to be approved this evening as far as I’m concerned.”
When Madden said it was not the council’s choice, just their decision to approve it or vote it down, DeVlieger replied, “Exactly. Exactly. That’s why it’s being tabled.”
That elicited a long response from Madden that council was taking on a different role and creating problems.
Saying there was no point bringing on a new firm to catch up on the COAH work McCrosson & Stanton had been doing for a decade, Madden said, “It doesn’t make sense. This is where council either has the ability to screw things up with the city or to help progress move forward. If this is a meeting to negotiate with the administration for something, it’s the wrong thing to do it with. Needless to say I’m not in favor of tabling this.”
“Me either,” Bergman said.
DeVlieger reiterated it wasn’t about the work.
“I’d like to say that it is not a reflection on our solicitor or her firm and I think they have done an excellent job on the COAH matter that was brought up,” he said. “This was rushed. I had suggested previously in a meeting that this not be on the agenda and I still recommend that it not be on this agenda. And I’m going to stand by that.”
Madden said the same resolution has been on the agenda for 10 years.
“I don’t understand how it was rushed when we do it every year,” Bergman added.
“I don’t know how you can say it’s rushed when it’s on the agenda every single year. It sounds like you’re trying to achieve something by this and I don’t know what it is.”
DeVlieger reiterated he was “trying to finish a conversation. It relates to this topic.”
When he wouldn’t explain, Bergman asked, “Are you not going to approve this resolution? Are you finishing a converation about something else?”
“I would like you to respect the fact that I have asked for two weeks to finish this conversation,” DeVlieger said. “I have said nothing negative about this firm or the counsel of our solicitor.”
On the role call vote, DeVlieger, Levchuk, Rotondi and Barr voted yes to table the resolution.
Madden voted no and Bergman voted “absolutely not.” Councilman Keith Hartzell was not at the meeting.
It was not the only heated debate between members of council at the meeting. (See related story.)