An ordinance establishing the Hoboken City Council as the appointing authority for three seats and two alternates to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board City Clerk 2/21/2018 Introduced, passed first reading as read and laid on the table for further consideration of the council at its next meeting to be held on March 7, 2018 at ‘Tpm. City Clerk 2/21/2018dir7 SPONSORED BY: atti > SECONDED BY: CITY OF HOBOKEN ORDINANCE NO.: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE HOBOKEN CITY COUNCIL AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR THREE SEATS AND TWO ALTERNATES TO THE RENT LEVELING & STABILIZATION BOARD, WHEREAS, the City of Hoboken has ¢ Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board which, among other things, provides independent review and decisions concerning issues that arise in relation to the City’s, rent control laws; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter §155-18 of the City’s Rent Control laws, the seven member Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board and two alternate board members are “appointed by the Mayor with the ‘consent of Municipal Coungl”; and WHEREAS, City Council members, both ward and at-large representatives, are regularly contacted by tenants and landlords about housing and tenancy issues; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Hoboken wishes to vest in itself the power to appoint three of the ‘members and both of the alternates to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Governing Body of the City of Hoboken as follows: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO HOBOKEN CODE CHAPTER 155, Chapter 155, Article III, of the Code of the City of Hoboken is amended as follows; deletions to the current ordinance are noted in strikethrough, additions to the current ordinance are noted in underline: § 155-18. Creation; compensation; terms; altemate members, ‘There is hereby created a Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board to administer this chapter under the direction and supervision of the Department of Administration of the City of Hoboken. The Board shall consist of seven members: four appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Municipal Council, and three appointed by the Municipal Council. Said members of said Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board shall serve a term which coincides and is coterminous with the term of the Mayor during the term of the Mayor appointing them and shall serve without compensation but shall be allowed reasonable expenses. ‘A quorum for hearing shall consist of at least four members (a majority) of the whole Board and shall be authorized to issue orders relating to the powers and functions of the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board. Two alternate members shall also be appointed by the Municipal Councildvéeyer withthe consent -eftre Counell, In the e\gnt that there exist dui}\appointed members of the Board at the time"vf adoption of this sire he first three appointed shall be deemed MaYoral appointments, withhquy remaininggnd any alternates < g deemed Council appointments. SECTION TWO: REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONSAll ordinances or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, but ‘only to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, it being the legislative intent that all such ordinances or parts of the ordinances now existing or in effect unless the same are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance shall remain in effect. SECTION THREE: SEVERABILITY ‘The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable and if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance, but shall remain in effect; it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE ‘This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and publication as provided by law. ‘SECTION FIVE: CODIFICATION This ordinance shall be a part of the Code of the City of Hoboken as though codified and fully set forth, therein. The City Clerk shall have this ordinance codified and incorporated in the official copies of the Code. ‘The City Clerk and the Corporation Counsel are authorized and directed to change any Chapter, Article and / or Section number of the Code of the City of Hoboken in the event that the codification of this Ordinance reveals that there is a conflict between the mumbers and the existing Code, and in order to avoid confusion and possible accidental repealers of existing provisions not intended to be repealed. Date of Introduction: February 21, 2018 Introduction: ‘Councilperson ‘Yea ‘Nay ‘Abstain/Present | Absent Peter Cunningham Michael DeFusco James Doyle Vanessa Faloo ‘Tiffanie Fisher ‘Jennifer Giattino Emily Jabbour Michael Russo. President Ruben Ramos, Jr. Final Reading: ‘Councilperson Yea ‘Nay ‘Abstain/Present | Absent Peter Cunningham vMichael DeFusco uv James Doyle ‘Vanessa Falco, Vv Tiffanie Fisher Jennifer Giattino v Emily Jabbour 7 Michael Russo. ee President Ruben Ramos, Jr. Approved as to Legal Form: Vetoed by the Mayor for the following reasons Oe { web mt Brian Aloia, Esq., Corporation Counsel Adopted by the Hoboken City Council ~or= ByaVoteof _ Yeasto 3 Nays Approved by the Mayor Onthe iS dayof Mer _,2018 ee the > day of Ma/ 42018 0 ce James Farina, City Clerk Ravinder S. Bhalla, MayorRAVINDER 8. BHALLA CITY OF HOBOKEN Office of Corporation Counsel BRIAN J. ALOIA, ESQ. Mayor Corporation Counsel ALYSSA BONGIOVANNI, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel SCOTT DEROSA, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel MEMORANDUM To: foboken City Council From: Alyssa Bongiovanni, Assistant Corporation Counsel Re: Power of Appointments to Hoboken’s Rent Control Board Date: March 6, 2018 Issue: In a municipality organized pursuant to the Faulkner Act (Mayor-Couneil Plan), who has the power to appoint members to the Rent Control Board? Short Answer: The Mayor with the advice and consent of the council Please be advised that after an ordinance was placed on the February 21, 2018 agenda proposing to amend the Hoboken City Code to provide the City Council with the power to appoint members to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board, I performed legal research to determine whether the ordinance was consistent with the Faulkner Act. For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that the ordinance is violative of the Faulkner Act and therefore do not recommend the passage of same. ‘The City of Hoboken is a municipality organized under the Optional Municipal Charter Law, NuJ.S.A. 40:69A-I et seq., also known as the “Faulkner Act.” ‘TheFaulkner Act is an elective statutory scheme that authorizes participating municipalities to choose [from among] four plans of government that are set forth in the Act.” MeCann v. Clerk of City of Jersey City, 167 NJ. 311, 324 (2001). Specifically, “[tJhe Faulkner ‘Act was created with the intent to confer upon municipalities the greatest possible power of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this State” Id. at 328 (quoting Casamasino v. City of Jersey City, 158 N.J. 333, 342 (1999)), The City of Hoboken has elected the mayor-council plan, which is “quite close to the presidential or gubernatorial form in its concentration of power in the hands of a highly-visible, independently-elected Chief Executive who has substantial power over the administration” and the “mayor's authority under the Faulkner Act's mayor-couneil plan is, therefore, substantial...” Municipal Council of the City of Newark v. James, 183 N.J. 361, 364 (2005) (citations omitted). ‘The issue of appointments to boards, authorities, and commissions is addressed in the Faulkner Act at N. 40:69A-43({), as follows: Whenever in any municipality with a population greater than 100,000, according to the latest federal decennial census, the governing body is authorized by any provision of general law to appoint the members of any board, authority or commission, such power of appointment shall be deemed to vest in the mayor with the advice and consent of the council. In all other municipalities, whenever the governing body is authorized by any provision of general law to appoint the members of any board, authority or commission, such power of appointment shall be deemed to vest in the mayor with the advice and consent of the council, unless the specific terms of that general law clearly require a different appointment procedure or appointment by resolution, in which case the appointment shall be by the council. Id. (emphasis added) The term "general law" is defined by the Faulkner Act, NL.S.A. 40:69A-28, as: any law or provision of law, not inconsistent with this act, heretofore or hereafter enacted which is by its terms applicable or available to all municipalities...” Id‘A municipality is authorized under NJ.S.A. 2A: -T7 to enaet a rent control ordinance whenever “the governing body of a municipality finds that the health and safety of residents of that municipality are impaired or threatened by the existence of substandard multiple dwellings.” Pursuant to N.LS.A. 2A:42-77(a), the ordinance shall include a provision that a “public officer be designated or appointed to exercise the power prescribed by the ordinance.” Public officer is defined as “the officer, officers, board or body who is or are authorized by ordinances adopted hereunder to exercise the powers prescribed by such ordinances and by this act.” See N.J.S.A. 2A:42-75. ‘The City of Hoboken has enacted a rent contro! ordinance in the Hoboken City Code Chapter 155 entitled “Rent Control.” Hoboken City Code Sections 155-18 and 19 create a Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board to administer Hoboken’s rent control ordinance and therefore act as the City’s “pul officer.” Pursuant to NJ.S.A. 2A:42- 77a), the governing body of the municipality shall appoint the publi officer to exercise the power prescribed by the ordinance. There is no specific method of appointment S. proscribed in 2A:42-77(a), therefore, in accordance with N. - 40:69A-43(1), the appointment shall vest in the mayor with the advice and consent of council. In light of the above, it is my opinion that the City Council does not have the power to appoint members to the Rent Control Board, but that said appointment power vests in the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Couneil. Thus, itis my opinion that the ordinance introduced at the February 21, 2018 meeting is invalid pursuant to the Faulkner Act. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ts) Voge L BengicvanntVeto Statement Thave decided to exercise a veto of B-10 for the following reasons. First, the ordinance is unlawful for the reasons stated in the attached legal opinion from the Law Department. Second, even if the City Council had lawful authority to transfer appointment authority of Board Members of the Rent Leveling & Stabilization Board away from this office and to the City Council, the City Council has failed to articulate a compelling public policy purpose in support of the ordinance. Rather, the ordinance is driven by the City Council's dissatisfaction over the fact that two political allies of its leadership were not re-appointed by this office. While the City Council has made unconvincing attempts to coueh their purpose in policy terms, itis strikingly obvious that their conduct is driven by politics, not good government. For the foregoing reasons, I exercise a veto of B-10, effective immediately. aa 4 61:6 WY C2 UW Bidz &CITY OF HOBOKEN Department of Administration Office of Corporation Counsel RAVINDER'S, BHALLA BRIAN J. ALOIA, ESQ. Mayor Corporation Counsel ALYSSA BONGIOVANNI, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel SCOTT DEROSA, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Ravinder 8. Bhalla From: Alyssa L. Bongiovanni, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Regarding: Ordinance B-10, Amendment to Hoboken’s “Rent Control” Ordinance Please accept this legal opinion in further support of my previous legal opinion dated March 6, 2018 (hereinafter “March 6 Opinion”) which was addressed to the Hoboken City Council, which opined that proposed Ordinance No. B-10 was in violation of the Faulkner Act, For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend that you veto ordinance No. B-10 in that it improperly removes the power to appoint members to the Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board to the council, when the Faulkner Act specifies that the appointments are made by you, the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council. 1[Page1. Background ‘Under Hoboken’s current Rent Control ordinance, and in every other rendition of said ordinance since same was enacted in 1973, the appointment power as to all members of the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board has rested in the mayor with the advice and consent of council. This is because the power of appointments to boards rests in the mayor with the advice and consent of council unless otherwise specifically specified, in accordance with the Faulkner Act, Ordinance B-10 seeks to amend the City of Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance at §155-18 and 19 to remove some of the mayor’s appointments to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board and transfer those appointments to the Hoboken City Council. Il. Procedural History In conformance with Corporation Counsel’s duty to prepare and approve as to form and legality all ordinances, a legal analysis of Ordinance B-10 was prepared (the March 6 Opinion).! Upon review of the applicable law it was determined that in accordance with the provisions of the Faulkner Act, the power to appoint members to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board resides in the Mayor with the advice and consent of the council. This finding is consistent with the appointment procedure established in Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance forty-five years ago and followed for all board appointments since the creation of the Rent Leveling and Stabilization * Ordinance B-10 was not included on the agenda for the February 21, 2018 City Council meeting. However, it was sent to the City Clerk on the date of the meeting at 5:15 pm. This point is noted because this action violated the Council Rules of Procedure and caused much confusion. Foremost, the Council Rules of Procedure Rule XXI state “All ordinances shall be prepared by the Corporation Counsel’s office, and thereafter approved as to form and legality by the Hoboken Corporation Counsel. The Corporation Counsel's office shal, in a timely manner, provide all necessary legal guidance and assistance (0 any member of the Couneil seeking to introduce an ordinance.” Ordinance B-10 was not prepared by Corporation Counsel’s office and Corporation Counsel was not consulted regarding the legality of said ordinance. Had Corporation Counsel been provided an opportunity to review and analyze the ordinance as contemplated by the Rules of Procedure, all questions regarding the validity of the ‘ordinance could have been properly vetted before the ordinance was considered for implementation, Furthermore, this action also violated the Rules of Procedure which dictate that all ordinances must be submitted to the Council, whether by Council members or the Administration, by 4:00 p.m, on the Thursday preceding each regularly scheduled Wednesday council meeting. Any “urgent” items submitted after the deadline must be accompanied by a ‘written statement of urgency, which statement was not provided in this matter. 2|PageBoard in 1973. The March 6 Opinion, which set forth this law, was circulated to the City Council prior to the Second Reading, which was originally scheduled for March 7, 2018, but was moved to March 15, 2018 due to inclement weather. At the March 15, 2018 council meeting, an unsigned legal opinion which was prepared by Jason M. Ryglicki, Esq. (hereinafter “Ryglicki Opinion”) contradicting the conclusions reached in the March 6 Opinion was left at each Councilmember’s seat. Copies of the Ryglicki Opinion were provided only to members of the City Council, and not to Corporation Counsel, the Business Administrator, or the City Clerk. Ordinance B-10 passed on Second Reading by a vote of 6-3 after some discussion on the record. Corporation Counse! has since received a copy of the Ryglicki Opinion and reviewed the statements made by Council members on the record at the March 15" meeting. Based upon my review of all of the relevant law, I hereby confirm the conclusion reached in my March 6 Opinion and must again advise that Ordinance B-10 is in violation of the Faulkner Act, which provides you, the mayor with the advice and consent of the council, the power of appointment to boards.” TI Legal Analysis: As is more fully delineated in the March 6 Opinion, the Faulkner Act is clear on the issue of appointments to municipal boards at N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(1), which states in relevant part: “Jn all other municipalities {with a population of less than 100,000], whenever the governing body is authorized by any provision of general law to appoint the members of any board, authority or commission, such power of appointment shall be deemed to vest in the mayor with the advice and consent of the council, unless the specific terms of that general law clearly require a different ‘This is true unless “the specific terms of that general law clearly require a different appointment procedure or appointment by resolution, in which case the appointment shall be by council” which is not present in this case, NIS.A. 40:698-43() 3|Pageappointment procedure or appointment by resolution.” There are two (2) general laws which authorize appointments to a rent control board: N.J.S.A. 2A:42-74 et seq. and the “police power” pursuant to N.L.S.A. 40:48-2. See Caldwell Terrace Apartments, Inc. v. Borough of Caldwell ‘Tp., 224 N.J. Super. 588 (1988) and Inganamort v. Bor. of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. 521, 303 A. 2d 298 (1973), Pursuant to a review of the historical enactments of Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance, said ordinance was established in accordance with N.IS.A. 40:48-2 as its stated purpose was to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City.”* As will be fully discussed herein, there can be no question that the Faulkner Act in general and N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(0) specifically apply as to appointments to Hoboken’s Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board.* During the discussion prior to the vote on Ordinance B-10, the Council opined that they did not believe that N.LS.A. 40:69A-43(f) or the Faulkner Act would apply to Ordinance B-10 because of the fact that Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance was codified pursuant to the “police powers” of the municipality. The fact that Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance was enacted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 does not remove it from the purview of the Faulkner Act. The term "general law" is defined by the Faulkner Act, N..S.A. 40:69A-28, as: “..any law or provision of Jaw, not inconsistent with this act, heretofore or hereafter enacted which is by its terms applicable or available to all municipalities...." Due to the fact that N.LS.A. 40:48-2 is a provision of law that is not inconsistent with the Faulkner Act and is applicable and available to * Although Hoboken’s ordinance was based upon the general law codifying the “police powers” of the municipality, NJLS.A, 40:69A-43() also applies to ordinances enacted pursuant to N.IS.A. 2A:42-74 et seq. Simply put, the ‘Mayor has the power of appointment with the advice and consent of the Council regardless of the methodology used to form the board “ Teis noted that the Ryglicki opinion also argues that “the right of a Municipal Council o determine the procedure to appoint members to the rent control boerd, in Mayor-Couneil Municipalities is a standard practice throughout the State" and goes on to list other municipalities which have contrary appointment procedures. This argument will not be addressed in detail herein as itis neither relevant nor legally persuasive or binding. Frankly, it is ridiculous to contend that because other municipalities have an ordinance which violates the Faulkner Act, it is legally acceptable for the City of Hoboken to do the same. This is a dead-end argument which provides no legal basis for the enactment of Ordinance B-10. 4|Pageall municipalities, same is a “general law,” as referenced N. A, 40:69A-43(f). It is also unquestionable that N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 permits municipalities to enact rent control ordinances and create rent control boards as was held in Inganamort v, Borough of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. $21 (1973). ‘The Ryglicki Opinion concedes that pursuant to the Faulkner Act, in the Mayor-Couneil form of government, the mayor is granted “executive authority with broad appointment powers.” The Ryglicki opinion indicates that although the March 6 Opinion does not misstate any statute or citation, it is overbroad in stating that N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(f) grants sole appointment powers to the Mayor, with the advice and consent of council unless a different appointment authority is granted specifically by statute. As can be seen from the above reproduced text of NJ.S.A. 40:694-43(f), the March 6 Opinion was based upon a literal reading of the statutory language, Furthermore, Mr. Ryglicki does not and cannot cite to a specific term or terms of a general law that require a specific appointment procedure to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board, which if existed could make N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(f) inapplicable. ‘The legislative history of N.J.S.A. 40:69-43 further confirms the conclusions reached in the March 6 Opinion wherein session notes state, “Under the provisions of section 3-13 of P.L. 1950, c. 210 (C.40:69A-43), as amended by P.L. 1985, c. 374, any governing body's appointment of any member of a board, authority or commission is deemed to vest in the mayor, with the advice and consent of the council, unless the specific terms of general law clearly require a different appointment procedure.” 1989 NJ Sess. Law Serv. 258 (West) (emphasis added). These notes state almost verbatim the conclusion of the March 6 Opinion and confirm that said opinion was not “overbroad.” ‘The Ryglicki Opinion also incorrectly concludes, without any legal citation or support, that appointments to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board are legislative or investigative in 5|Pagenature and therefore within the purview of the City Council. Pursuant to the Faulkner Act, the “governing body” shall be considered the mayor for any administrative or executive functions, and the council for any legislative or investigative functions. See N.LS.A. 40:69A-32(b). Although this concept is correctly cited in the Ryglicki Opinion, Ryglicki does not provide any law or statute to support the contention that appointments to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board are considered a “legislative” or “investigative” function, The Ryglicki Opinion improperly relies upon N.J.S.A. 2A:42-77(a) which states that municipalities may adopt an ordinance related to the regulation of rents and possession of rental space in substandard multiple dwellings and the interpretation of same in Kessler v. Passaic, 113 N.J. Super. 59, 61 (Law Div. 1971), As discussed above, this statutory scheme is inapplicable to the instant analysis, as a review of the history of Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance indicates that same was enacted pursuant to the City’s general police powers in accordance with Inganamort v. Bor. of Fort Lee, 62.NJ. 521, 303 A.2d 298 (1973) and N.I.S.A. 40:48-2. Conversely, relevant law indicates that appointments are an executive function. For example, in the matter of Hawthorne PBA Loc. 200 v. Borough of Hawthome, 945 A.2d 736, 741 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008), it was held that the mayor in the Mayor-Council form of government had the authority to appoint and promote police officers to the positions that the municipal council created within the department. In sum, although the council could create by ordinance the police department, the power of appointment to the police department was considered an executive function. Similarly, “the power to appoint department heads, subject to confirmation by the council, is an executive function,” but the power to prescribe the qualifications for the departments heads is considered a legislative function. See Forester v, Palmer, 950 A.2d 253, 257 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008). This distinction can be seen in the 6|PageFaulkner Act at N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(a), wherein it authorizes the munieipal council to establish the department of administration and other departments by ordinance, but authorizes the mayor, with the advice and consent of council, to appoint the department heads. Additionally, Hoboken’s Rent Control Ordinance at §155-18 specifically states that the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board is “under the direction and supervision of the Department of Administrati mn.” It is nonsensical to conclude that the law would permit the council to pass an ordinance to create the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board, set the qualifications for board members, and they actually choose all of the specific members who work under the direction and supervision of the mayor. Although Ordinance B-10 only provides the Council with the ability to appoint three (3) members to the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board, under the Council's theory, the ordinance could be amended to provide the Council with all appointments, allowing the Council to create, control, and fully select the members of a board required to operate under the Department of Administration, a department the mayor is responsible to oversee and control. It has also been contended by the Council and in the Ryglicki Opinion that appointment procedures can be amended by ordinance regardless of the provisions of the Faulkner Act. The Ryglicki Opinion inappropriately cites to the case Corrigan v. Palkoski, 213 N.J. Super. 316 (1986), claiming it stands for this proposition. In Corrigan, the Court addressed the specific issue of whether the N. 0:69A-43(f) would override the provisions of the Municipal Land Use law which set forth a method of appointment for board of adjustment members. The Court in Corrigan clarified the issue in stating that “[tJhe resolution of this case depends upon an interpretation of the first exception [in N.J.S.A. 40:69A-43(f)], that is, ‘unless the specific terms 7|Pageof that general law clearly require a different appointment procedure.”” Id, at 319.° The Court ultimately held that a different appointment procedure was established in the general law for boards of adjustment, specifically at N. 40:55D-69, which provides that the governing body shall establish by ordinance the method of appointment. This case is clearly distinguishable from the issue at hand. No other altemate appointment method for rent control boards has been established in the general law, and no such alternate appointment method has been proffered in the Ryglicki Opinion or by the Council. Therefore, since neither of the exceptions delineated in N.LS.A. 40:69A-43(f) would apply, the appointment procedure for the Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board is by the mayor with the advice and consent of council as it has been for the last forty-five (45) years. ‘The Council and the Ryglicki Opinion appear to argue that the legislative body of a ‘municipality has unlimited power to create through ordinances any number of boards and create the appointment procedures to these boards without limitation, essentially legislating away the powers granted to the mayor under the Faulkner Act. These assertions are clearly counter to the applicable law. The matter of Hillside Firemen's Mut. Ben. Ass'n, Loc, No, 35 v, Menza is instructive on this issue. In the Menza matter, a township ordinance requiring the mayor to obtain the council's approval for a layoff plan pertaining to all municipal employees was deemed invalid. A-4937-10T2, 2013 WL 811417, at *6 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Mar. 6, 2013). Not only does the Faulkner Act specifically grant the mayor the power of appointment as to boards unless another provision of law specifies an alternate appointment procedure, but “[ulnder the mayor council plan, the mayor is the ‘appointing authority’ of administrative municipal employees other than those specifically designated as also coming within the authority of the municipal * The second exception as referenced in Corrigan is where appointment by resolution is specifically called for in the general law. Notably, the Court in Corrigan references that there are only two exceptions to N.I.S.A, 40:69A-43(), neither of which apply to appointments to a rent control board. 8|Pagecouncil” and has the unilateral authority to remove municipal employees. Id. The Court in Menza specifically rejected the argument that a municipal government could change the distribution of power between the mayor and the council by way of local ordinance, and stated “[a] municipal council cannot override the State Legislature's statutory directives and acquire for itself powers it was not granted” and further held that “[tJhe Faulkner Act does not authorize a municipal governing body to adopt a binding local ordinance that alters that statutory grant of authority.” Id. This also applies to the proposed amendment to the Hoboken’s Rent Control ordinance. This amendment seeks to remove the appointment power from the mayor and give same to the council on the theory that any ordinance can be amended by the legislative body. However, as is clear in the applicable law, the legislative body cannot amend the powers prescribed in the Faulkner Act by ordinance, Taken to its logical conclusion, this would allow the legislative body of a ‘municipality to amend the governmental structure by ordinance without limitation. Clearly that is not legal nor was it intended, particularly in the “strong mayor” form of government under the Faulkner Act. See Menza, supra at page 7. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, as the Mayor, you are designated as the appointing authority for municipal boards under the Faulkner Act, unless a different appointment procedure is clearly specified in another law. Ordinance B-10 seeks to amend the appointment authority for the City of Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board to give appointment power to the City Council. No alternate appointment procedure is specified as to rent control boards in the general law, and therefore you, as the Mayor, are proper the appointing authority for the City of Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board. The proposed amendment contained in Ordinance B-10 is in violation of the Faulkner Act, as a municipal legislative body may not alter a statutory 9|Pagedesignation of powers by ordinance. Therefore, I recommend that this ordinance be vetoed as it is an improper attempt to strip you of your power to appoint municipal board members with the Hl. 4 Bovey —— Alyssa L. Bongiovanni, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel advice and consent of the Council. 10|Page