Judge calls Montclair's strategy in whistleblower suit Kafkaesque

On Friday morning in Newark court, Judge Stephen Petrillo ruled against Montclair’s attorneys in the whistleblower suit against it, saying they had “no legal basis” for wanting a host of items in town CFO Padmaja Rao’s suit to be kept secret from the public.

“I can’t imagine that anyone anywhere … other than the CIA or maybe the NSA, has this need for secrecy, but for … a town … that is being accused of awful conduct, it is inconceivable,” Petrillo said. “It should make a person shudder when a municipal government has this need for secrecy.”

On the issue of “walling” Rao off in her job from duties similar to those she performed in incidents described in her suit, Petrillo also dismissed the town attorneys’ arguments. The only exception was to exclude her from accessing the billing records of Riker Danzig, the firm defending the town and former manager Tim Stafford in the lawsuit.

Excluding Rao from doing her job “makes no sense,” Petrillo said. “They want to keep secret much of what it is the plaintiff has to say, and then they want to keep secret much of what it is they don’t want the plaintiff to be able to do anymore.

“Kafka would be proud.”

Local: Judge in Montclair whistleblower suit: 'We have some ride ahead of us'

Petrillo said it was also “contrary to good sense” to wall Rao off from her responsibilities given her record as CFO. When she began working for the town in June 2015, the town’s bond rating was AA3, but was upgraded to AA2 in December of 2016 and AA1 in August 2017, he said.

In 2016 the S & P awarded the town a AAA bond rating for the first time in the town’s history, saving the town hundreds of thousands in bond interest. “Whether she’s solely responsible is a good question but I suspect she has had some hand in it given that she’s CFO,” he said. "The fact that she is now the subject of a request to remove her from her job duties as CFO seems contrary to … the interests of the citizens of Montclair."

The judge addressed Rao’s allegations that the town’s law department has allowed outside lawyers such as O’Toole Scrivo and Riker Danzing to “consistently underbid contracts … causing Montclair taxpayers to pay more than the original contract.

“If true, that’s serious,” he said. ”Taxes are high. People need someone to keep an eye on things.

“If it’s true that the people in charge … are just writing a check for each new resolution … and simply don’t care about spending money they are not not allowed to spend, that’s rank irresponsibility, and of great concern.

“There no harm to [the town] by having the person who does it right, and recognizes how it's been done wrong, remaining in the process," he said. "On the contrary, having her there preserves the integrity of the process. What I heard argued isn’t that she’s doing her job wrong or bad but rather her continuing to do her job will expose her to information that will harm the defendant ... that’s inconceivable, that can’t be, because her doing her job right is the very definition of protecting the defendant.

"Maybe she’s a pain, maybe she’s one of these people who is persnickety and detailed, wants everything done right. We should have more like that," Petrillo said.

"I don’t hear anyone saying she’s doing a lousy job ... I've heard that allowing her to do her job is going to expose her to information that’s uncomfortable for us … Will she find a bigger mess than she’s found so far to cause her to blow the whistle louder and harder? ... that’s not a basis to remove her.”

Petrillo said he understood the strategy behind Riker Danzig’s approach, but that the mission of the courts is to search for truth and that the courts have “emphatically eschewed gamesmanship.”

“Truth and justice are inseparable."

One instance which Riker Danzing wanted removed because it was "privileged" which Petrillo found “absurd” is when town attorney Paul Burr asked Rao to distribute forms at a meeting. “Asking her to distribute the form was not a request for legal advice, any English-literate person can conclude that," he said. "That this is attorney-client privilege is nonsense."

Another was when town affirmative action officer Bruce Morgan notified Rao that the town had rejected his finding that she was discriminated against; Riker attorneys assert that was "privileged" because the law department was copied on the email. “No one says anything at the time but suddenly now this is akin to a crime against humanity? I said last week it was ridiculous and it's ridiculous today," he said.

In this and several other instances Petrillo said that the the attempt to “manufacture” various claims of confidentiality and privilege after the fact are "clever and well-stated and I understand the strategy behind them but I don’t find them at all valid.”

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Montclair NJ whistleblower lawsuit: Judge rules against town