Thomas MacMaillan Photo
Goldfield: “‘Inartfully drafted’ is the understatement of the year.”
It began with a question over the Board of Aldermen’s role in renegotiating a 1990 agreement that closed a few blocks around the Yale campus to vehicular traffic. Now the board is seeking a broader legal review of its power versus that of the city administration.
Carl Goldfield, the board president, agreed last week to hire an outside law firm to help determine the board’s rights when the city administration does not follow through on policies the board has established.
The most pressing issue is the board’s power to ask Yale to pay more to keep a downtown block of High Street and a portion of Wall Street shut to car traffic. The city administration and Yale have taken the position that under the original 1990 agreement the city can not now ask Yale for more money. Read the agreement here. (The Wall Street portion has reopened to Yale-approved traffic and parking, but remains technically private.)
Several aldermen have challenged the city administration’s position and Yale’s role in shaping it, and thus argued the board could not rely on the city’s corporation counsel for advice. The board therefore needed independent lawyers. (To read about other conflicts between the board and corporation counsel, look here and here.)
The board also required outside advice on what to do should it want to renegotiate the Yale agreement and the administration stuck to the contrary position.
“The broader question is what to do if the board’s wishes are not being carried out,” said Goldfield, who as president makes the decision whether to hire outside counsel. “The broader question is implicit in the narrower question of how to interpret the agreement.”
To Goldfield,who represents Beaver Hills, the narrower question is a simple matter of contract law, even though the underlying contract is very unclear. “Holy moly,” Goldfield said. “Describing the agreement as inartfully drafted is the understatement of the year.”
At issue is a paragraph 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.)
Michael Morand, Yale’s director of state communications, strategy and special projects, said previously that the deal between Yale and the city was not “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.
Several board members and local union activists, however, said that the provision that requires a review of the street closure after 20 years means that the city can re-negotiate the terms, including asking for additional payments. (For a story about the unions’ position, read here.)
During a meeting of the board’s Services and Environmental Policy (CSEP) Committee last month, Hill Alderwoman Jackie James and West Rock Alderman Darnell Goldson argued that the provision was so vague and Yale’s role in interpreting it so objectionable that outside advice was essential. (Read about the meeting here.) The committee agreed, although Committee Chair Justin Elicker expressed more concerns about the balance of power between the aldermen and the city administration than the agreement itself.
“Clarification” Sought
Last week Elicker of East Rock sent a letter to board president Goldfield making a formal request for outside counsel. Read the letter here.
Elicker said he acted at the request of several board members.
The letter cited “the lack of agreement among Committee members and their colleagues, representatives of the Mayor’s office, the general public and other interested parties.”
Outside counsel would “provide clarification and allow us to arrive at a decision,” Elicker wrote.
The letter sought help determining “Yale’s obligations as .… part of the 1990 agreement.”
A key question is whether asking Yale for more money for street closures might imperil the rest of the agreement. 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 during the July 19 meeting.
His letter also sought advice on the broader question: “What recourse does the Board of Aldermen have when the administration does not follow through on policies established by the Board?”
The Legal Trail
In addition to anticipating a dispute over the board’s position on the Yale street closures, the letter cited two past examples of the city administration not following through on board policies. Both involved the city’s relationship with Yale.
The city administration didn’t implement a 2003 aldermanic order regarding Yale property assessments, according to the letter. The city also did not establish “working groups” with Yale to examine issues of economic development and poverty as required under the 1990 agreement
“The city’s response was that it had done something even better than the working groups in terms of collaborating with Yale,” Alderman Elicker explained. Still, the city should not have ignored the board’s wishes.
“It may be a small issue, but it sets a bad precedent,” Elicker added.
Over lunch Friday, Elicker met with Goldfield to discuss Elicker’s letter and to identify the lawyers the board might hire. They decided to solicit resumes from three Connecticut law firms. One is a solo practitioner. The other is a medium-sized firm and the other is a “white shoe” firm, Goldfield said. He couldn’t name the firms and referred the Independent to Lucas. Lucas couldn’t be reached on Friday.
Goldfield said the board will decide within two or three weeks whom to hire. It would then hope to receive legal advice two or three weeks after that.
“We’re not in a huge rush,” Goldfield said, “but we don’t want it to take forever either.”