Aldermen Want 2nd Opinion On Yale Streets Deal

To Yale, it’s an open-and-shut case: The city can’t ask the university to pay for the privilege of keeping streets around its campus closed to vehicular traffic. But a Board of Aldermen committee wants a second opinion — and one that’s independent of the city’s lawyers and Yale.

The board’s City Services and Environmental Policy (CSEP) Committee agreed Tuesday night to ask the board’s president to hire outside counsel to help make sense of a 20 year-old agreement that allowed Yale to shut off a downtown block of High Street and a portion of Wall Street to car traffic.

In asking for its own counsel, committee members expressed misgivings about the role the administration, the city’s lawyers and Yale were playing in interpreting the agreement.

At issue is a paragraph in the six-page, 1990 agreement that requires the city after 20 years have elapsed to ​“review the continued closure of these streets to vehicular traffic.” The paragraph goes on to state that should the city decide to reopen the streets to vehicles, ​“the City and Yale shall arrange for such reopening in a mutually acceptable manner, which is fair to both parties.” (Read a background story on the deal and the issue here.)

“This is a straightforward matter,” Yale’s Michael Morand said after the committee meeting in City Hall’s Aldermanic Chambers. Morand — a longtime Yale associate vice-president for local affairs who recently switched to a position called ​“director, state communications, strategy and special projects” — noted that he was on the Board of Aldermen in 1990 when it voted 19-to‑7 to ​“reject any attempt to make this a lease agreement subject to future or ongoing payment.”

All the city can do is determine whether changes in traffic patterns necessitate a reopening of these streets, Morand argued. Local union activists have argued that the city has the right — and should exercise the right — to demand more money from Yale to keep the portions of High and Wall closed to the public. Morand argued that the unions have made an issue of the street closure review to score points in a separate fight they’re having with City Hall in contract negotiations; he likened the tactic to U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader ​“Eric Cantor’s engaging in kabuki theater” to score political points during the current debt ceiling debate.

The CSEP Committee had initially been charged with considering a proposal by the traffic and parking department to keep the streets closed indefinitely. And one committee member tried to stick with that charge Tuesday night. (Read about an earlier CSEP meeting here.)

Yet in asking for outside counsel, the aldermanic committee indicated that the agreement is not that simple, and that more than political theater is involved.

Two aldermen argued that the agreement isn’t at all clear and the administration’s attempts at clarifying have only made matters worse. After its last meeting, the committee had asked the administration to answer questions about the deal. Hill Alderwoman Jackie James complained Monday that committee members received only a ​“completely vague” administration memo, and it arrive right before the meeting. ​“Honestly, it’s rather insulting the way the questions were answered,” said James, who was the first person at the meeting to raise the issue of hiring outside counsel.

Neither she nor West Rock Alderman Darnell Goldson, who is not a member of the committee but participated in the discussion, noted that the memo did not spell out its author. ​“I don’t know why this is anonymous,” Goldson complained.

That prompted Westville Alderman Greg Dildine, the committee’s vice chair, to call Elizabeth Benton, City Hall’s legislative and policy analyst and liaison to the Board of Aldermen, to come forward.

Benton (pictured), who was in the audience, indicated that she wrote the memo after input from ​“various city departments and Yale University.” Pressed about who had provided input, Benton said the city’s corporation counsel had contributed. Benton said the memo wasn’t presented to the committee sooner because she didn’t receive some responses until that morning.

The fact that Yale and the city’s lawyers had helped interpret the agreement and address the committee’s questions didn’t assuage either James or Goldson.

“The corporation counsel doesn’t work for us,” James said, referring to the Board of Aldermen. ​“He works for the mayor and gives the mayor the answers he wants to hear.” Her comments evoked earlier conflicts between the city’s legislative and executive branches over the role of the corporation counsel. (Find examples here and here.)

The other board members who participated in the debate expressed more sympathy for Yale’s position. Vice-chair Dildine said several times that the committee should focus on the question of whether the streets should be opened, not on questions of financial remuneration. He quizzed several members of the public who made opening statements about their views on street traffic, even though they seemed more interested in the potential revenue. As one man put it, ​“The streets should be reopened for no other reason than to force Yale to pay to close them.”

Dildine conceded that the traffic issue wasn’t going to be addressed Tuesday night and that there was ​“more work to do at the committee level.” He joined the rest of the committee in agreeing to request outside counsel.

East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker, the committee’s chair, also seemed to accept Yale’s position on the first of what he described as the two issues on the table. ​“We should not be extorting Yale — and I’m reluctant to use that word — to pay more money to keep the streets open,” Elicker said, adding that he’d like to see the streets remain just for pedestrians.

“Those of us who think Yale should make a payment are not extorting Yale,” Goldson quickly interjected.

Elicker also expressed concern that renegotiating payments to keep the streets closed could reopen the entire deal. In exchange for the 1990 street closings, Yale gave the city $1.1 million and agreed to a package of other concessions, including yearly voluntary payments for fire services, the addition of the Yale golf course to the Grand List, and an investment of $50 million over 10 years in economic development. ​“We can renegotiate but there’s a lot of risk in that,” Elicker said.

But Elicker said he has concerns over the broader issue, the second issue one on the table — the power balance between the aldermen and the city administration. That is part of an ongoing discussion about the board’s independence and ability to serve as a check on the administration. Outside counsel could address questions of the board’s role in this agreement, as well as interpret its specific language.

Elicker asked the board members to present the questions they would like to see outside counsel address. Both James and Goldson demurred, saying they would rather hire counsel and then come up with specific questions. Elicker then adjourned the meeting with the understanding committee members would draft a letter to Board President Carl Goldfield based on the discussion they had had, or would discuss the issue again at another meeting.

Reached Wednesday morning, Goldfield said he had not been informed of the committee’s action and wanted to talk to Elicker about what happened before commenting. He did say that although the board’s budget does not include a separate line item to hire outside counsel it could use a ​“pot of money” for miscellaneous items and has done so in the past. ​“There’s no reluctance whatsoever to go out and get outside counsel,” Goldfield said.

Goldfield said he didn’t want to take a position yet on the substantive issue on whether the 1990 agreement with Yale allowed for additional payments to keep the campus streets closed. ​“I have got questions,” Goldfield said. ​“It’s not the most clearly drafted agreement in the world. I’m not shocked that people have questions and want a lawyer to take a look at it.”

Aldermen Michael Jones, Maureen O’Sullivan-Best, Joseph Rodriguez, and Michael Smart attended Tuesday night’s meeting but didn’t participate in the discussion.

Before taking up the controversial Yale agreement, the committee quickly approved an order to change Dump Road to Edward B. Grant Way, named for the Dixwell activist who died Jan. 1, 2010. ​“Dump Road is not a very good name,” Yale’s Morand said in speaking in favor of the name change. ​“And Grant is deserving of all the honors we can give him.”