Verizon agrees Hessmer mayor, council did not approve cell phone contract

There are now no significant facts in dispute in the case of the Village of Hessmer’s unpaid Verizon bill. Verizon has agreed with the village’s argument that the Board of Aldermen did not approve the contract for the cell phone services for the Police Department nor did Mayor Travis Franks sign that contract.

State law requires any binding contract for a municipality be approved by its council and signed by the mayor.

Village Attorney Brandon Scott said he spoke with Verizon’s attorney on Aug. 20. Verizon admitted that they referred the unpaid bill to a credit agency but it was an error to do so.

“Verizon has admitted that the mayor did not enter into a contract for cell phone services,” Scott said.

Verizon said the person authorizing the contract on April 27 was Jason Starkey, who was a police officer acting on behalf of Police Chief Kenneth Smith. Smith was on vacation at that time.

‘MISSTATEMENT’
Scott also corrected a “misstatement” by Smith earlier this year in which the police chief claimed the village had spent over $19,000 in legal fees to contest the Verizon bill.

“Hessmer has spent, maybe, $500 in connection with this bill,” Scott said.

The village’s entire budget for “Legal and Professional Services” for the 2018-2019 budget was $20,000.

“The legal fees for the entire year were about $4,000,” Scott said. “That included some magistrate’s fees when we had a magistrate for municipal court. It also includes all of my fees as village attorney for the year. In addition, it includes engineering fees to Pan American and the cost of the audit, which was about $12,500 of that.”

A hearing on the Village Council’s request for a summary judgment to dismiss the bill is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Sept. 9.

A summary judgment can be requested when both sides agree to all issues related to the case. With Verizon’s concession that the council did not approve the contract and the mayor did not sign it, the judge will be able to make a decision based on the facts of the case and avoid any unnecessary expense of a trial.

Verizon has also requested the return of equipment it provided when the Police Department service was initiated.

“During this entire issue, I have advised the mayor and aldermen to maintain a low profile and not to respond to letters to the editors and such,” Scott said. “I told them to let the facts speak for themselves. Now I believe those facts will start speaking.”

NEW RADAR
In another long-running police-related issue, a new radar and mount, still in their boxes, were ready to be presented to the police chief at the meeting. However, instead of resolving the dispute, it may have aggravated it.

Since budget cuts have made Smith the village’s only police officer, he was unable to attend the meeting. He was informed by email that the radar and mount were available at Town Hall.

The major reason for the budget cuts was a drastic reduction in fines from traffic tickets, which Smith said was due to the lack of a reliable radar.

Smith originally asked for a new radar in October 2018. The council authorized the purchase in December, but never received a response from Smith.

Smith has noted the lack of radars in his complaints against the mayor and council during the other disputes pitting Town Hall against the Police Department -- the Verizon bill and discussion of possibly seeking to make the elected police chief position an appointed department head.

The purchase of radars was discussed again in May when Smith was told he had authority to buy the radars and was asked to submit quotes on prices for the unit.

After not receiving a response from the police chief over the summer, the council went ahead and obtained quotes on its own, purchasing the radar and mount for $2,412.

Smith apparently took the council’s approval and obtained two radars on his own, apparently without telling the administration about the purchase.

In a letter sent to Franks which was also given to this newspaper on Aug. 21, Smith told the mayor to send the radar back because he had already obtained two radars that are being calibrated.

“You had no reason and lack any authority to purchase anything or draw warrant against the police department budget at a significant cost to our residents -- and merely to try to force me, to coerce me, to write more traffic tickets solely for money,” Smith wrote in the letter. “You should return the unnecessary purchase.”

“In the future,” he continued, “do not purchase items for the police department without my prior approval, as this obviously wastes our residents’ funds.”

Contacted about Smith’s letter, Franks said he had not yet received the letter.

Asked if the purchase had been made out of the Police Department budget, Franks said it was made out of the General Fund and was not charged against the department’s budget.