Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PAULA DANCHUK,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
BOROUGH OF MOUNT ARLINGTON,
DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff, residing in the Borough of Mount Arlington, County of Morris, State of New
Jersey complaining of the Defendant, deposes and says:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1.
Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount Arlington, is the
governing body of the Borough of Mount Arlington located in the County of Morris, State of
New Jersey.
3.
Council Member Danchuks rights under New Jersey law and the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of New Jersey, considered, voted on, and passed in open session
Resolution 2014 - 151 (hereinafter the censure resolution.)
4.
5.
and the FOP demanding her removal from the Police Mayor and
Council and the negotiations team. This disclosure of confidences
could have subjected the Borough to a grievance;
For the reasons delineated at the public council meeting set forth in
the November 5, 2014 minutes;
The Resolution, rife with false allegations, was not given to Council Member
Danchuk until on Friday December 12, 2014 for the upcoming Tuesday December 16, 2014,
meeting in the general agenda packet presented to all Council members.
7.
The censure resolution was passed over Council Member Danchuks objection
without affording Council Member Danchuk even a modicum of due process to challenge and
defend herself against the allegations.
9.
Council Member Danchuk was given legally insufficient notice of the nature of any
action the Defendant was considering, insufficient time to obtain an attorney, was not
provided with an attorney, and was unable to properly defend herself before her character was
damaged by the Defendant Mayor and Council.
10. Council Member Danchuk had no opportunity to defend herself because she was
not given sufficient written charges upon which the censure resolution was based prior to the
date of its passage.
11. Council Member Danchuk, a duly elected official, was not given a trial, a hearing,
or even the opportunity to present a defense prior to the passage of the censure resolution,
which wrongfully and publicly damaged her political, professional, and personal reputation.
12. Council Member Danchuk had no opportunity to obtain an attorney or present a
defense against the charges brought and passed by Defendant, a Council comprised of many
individuals who are biased political rivals, and none of which can be said to be impartial.
13. Defendant had a duty to protect the important public interest in properly
investigating and holding fair and impartial public hearings on allegations like those contained
in the censure resolution, as provided by, and given to the sole jurisdiction of the New
Jerseys Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq.
14. Defendant instead explicitly and deliberately avoided an impartial forum in which
Council Member Danchuk would be given a full, fair, and constitutionally adequate
opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.
15. Council Member Danchuk requested that the Defendant vacate the resolution as it
was unconstitutionally, arbitrary, capricious, and completely beyond the powers of the Mayor
and Council.
16. Council Member Danchuk also requested indemnification of her legal fees and
costs.
17. Defendant, fully cognizant of the dubious legal basis upon which the censure
resolution was based, failed to respond much less vacate the censure resolution, and instead,
chose to stand behind the constitutionally defective censure resolution in which they acted as
prosecutor, judge, and jury.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUKS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
18. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
19. The Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and violated Plaintiffs right to due process of law under the New Jersey
Constitution.
20. Council Member Danchuk rights were violated by the censure resolution which was
passed by a bias and partial government body damaging her reputation with no opportunity for
her to defend herself or confront her accusers.
21. Indeed Defendant went out of its way to avoid giving Council Member Danchuk any
due process by explicitly and intentionally avoiding New Jerseys Local Government Ethics
Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq., which was created with the specific intent and design to
provide constitutionally adequate due process rights to local elected officials, and giving her
wholly insufficient notice of the charges prior to the censure.
22. The Defendant Council adopted the censure resolution damaging Council Member
Danchuks reputation and maligning her character, and in doing so, failed to provide Council
Member Danchuk the most basic due process rights such as notice of the allegations, an impartial
hearing before an impartial tribunal, the opportunity to confront her accusers, and the
opportunity to present a defense.
27. The censure resolution punishes conduct that is so poorly defined that persons of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
leaving the question as to whether other elected office holders may be punished by the Borough
for constitutionally protected speech and conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT III
STATE PRE-EMPTION - ULTRA VIRES RESOLUTION
28. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
29. The State of New Jersey, in N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq. has adopted comprehensive
laws regulating and pre-empting the Defendant Mayor and Council from acting as prosecutor,
judge, and jury without properly investigating and holding fair and impartial public hearings on
allegations like those contained in the censure resolution. New Jerseys Local Government
Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 et. seq., pre-empts the archaic, antiquated, and inadequate
procedure the Defendant implemented.
30. The censure resolution shockingly and explicitly states the Mayor and Council of the
Borough of Mount Arlington has chosen this form of action in lieu of filing a Complaint with the
Local Finance Board for allegations of violations of the Local Government Ethics Law in order
to avoid the expense of expending additional Borough funds, to cease discussion of these issues
and to memorialize the issues taken with Council Member Paula Danchuk. (emphasis added).
31. Thus, the resolution clearly states the Mayor and Council are avoiding the Local
Government Ethics Laws, laws which provide Council Member Danchuk with the due process
protections, right to an attorney, and right to a defense.
32. The Mayor and Council explicitly and impermissibly attempted to control areas preempted by the State statutes the censure is thus ultra vires and unenforceable, passed with the
deliberate intent of denying Council Member Danchuk with due process rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUK RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
33. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
34. Defendant censured Council Member Danchuk for constitutionally protected speech,
political speech and affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors office.
35. Defendant violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by
punishing Council Member Danchuk and maligning her character for her constitutionally
protected speech, political speech and affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors
office.
36. The censure resolution unconstitutionally burdens the rights of Council Member
Danchuk and by extension all elected office holders within the Borough to communicate
protected expression.
10
37. Likewise, the censure resolution facially violates the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey by denying Council Member Danchuk, and by extension all employees and office holders
in Mount Arlington, the right to freely speak, affiliate, write, and publish ones sentiments absent
abuse.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT V
THE MAYOR AND COUNCILS CENSURE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WITHOUT
A SUBSTANTIVE INVESTIGATION, INTERNALLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF, AND
WAS PASSED BY POLITICALLY BIASED MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE IN VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER
DANCHUKS RIGHTS; ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE VACATED AS ARBITRARY
AND CAPRICIOUS.
38. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
39. The Censure resolution was passed without any substantive investigation or legal or
factual basis by politically biased members of the Boroughs Mayor and Council.
40. The Boroughs Mayor and Council exceeded it powers and acted arbitrarily and
capriciously censuring Council Member Danchuk for among other inappropriate allegations: at
times for seeking advice from the Borough attorney and at other times for not seeking that
advice; for exercising her constitutional right to file a complaint with the County Prosecutor
when she believe the actions of the Mayor and Council were in violation of law, which were
confirmed to be illegal; for actions of others, specifically of the Prosecutors Office in denying
the Mayor and Council to see or defend against a complaint; ironically for causing the Borough
to expend funds defending against complaints that they simultaneous state they were denied the
opportunity to defend against; for expressing her protected First Amendment political opinion
11
telling the Press that she was being bullied by the Defendants filing of State ethics charges,
that the Defendant dropped; for expressing her protected First Amendment opinion complaining
to the Prosecutors office that Borough Zoning sign requirements were not being enforced and/or
selectively enforced as to political signs during an election accordingly; for allegedly exercising
her right to political affiliation by belonging to a political organization CARMA and
exercising her First Amendment right of political speech by perpetuating their accusations that
the Borough does not act in a transparent nature; and for the vague statements of reasons and
issues discussed and delineated in an August 5, 2014 Complaint and a November 4, 2014
public Council meeting.
41. Such Governmentally imposed punishment in retaliation for complaints to a
prosecutors office, in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights, and for vague and
unstated reasons and issues represents a wholesale abuse the government powers given to
the Mayor and Council.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT VI
ILLEGAL RETALIATION FOR ENGAGING IN LAWFUL AND PROTECTED
SPEECH AND CONDUCT.
42. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
43. Defendant censured Council Member Danchuk in retaliation for constitutionally
protected speech, political speech, political affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors
office.
12
44. Indeed, tellingly in the October 31, 2014 Council meeting, during which the Mayor
and other members of the Council voted to have the Borough Attorney draft the censure
resolution, members of the Council and the Mayor aggressively and angrily derided the Plaintiff
and cited at length to the complaints made by Plaintiff to the Prosecutors Office and the fact that
they had been reprimanded by the Prosecutors office for violations of the Open Public Meetings
Law by the Prosecutor.
45. The censure resolution itself is also rife with factual allegations purporting to support
the resolution which retaliate against the Plaintiff for Constitutionally protected speech, political
affiliation, and political speech.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUKS RIGHTS TO NOTICE OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
46. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
47. Council Member Danchuk is a duly elected public office holder, a position for which
she is monetarily compensated.
48. Under Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education, 155 N.J.
Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977), cert. den., 76 NJ 238 (1978) and its progeny, Council Member
Danchuck was entitled to proper notice of the charges and the hearing.
49. Defendant gave insufficient notice in violation of the law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
13
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
Hassing & DeFilippis, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date:
by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.
Date:
by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.
14
Date:
by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.
15