June 14, 2010

Matthews explains her opposition to paying some pothole claims

At the most recent City Council meeting, two councilors, Kate Matthews and Kevin McCauley, voted against paying a couple more claims related to a South Street pothole. Matthews explained in detail her opposition. Here is her prepared statement about it:

I will be voting against approval of this Claims Report, and I want to take a moment to explain to you why I am doing so. 
At our last City Council meeting, this body voted to pay a claim that arose out of a car versus pothole incident on South and Union Street on March 13, 2010, brought by Ms. Santorso.  For reasons that I have stated previously, I voted against paying that pothole claim, because I believed that the Claims Committee ignored the relevant procedure in making their recommendation to pay the claim, and because I objectively believed that the City was not liable to this particular claimant. 
This Claims Report includes two new claims that have arisen out of incidents involving the same pothole, during the same time period.  They allege essentially the same facts.  In my opinion, the Claims Committee recommended that these two claims be paid because of the previous decision that had been made regarding Ms. Santorso’s claim.  That decision created a line in the sand, and now the Committee has become entrenched in their position. 
This is a problem. 
Claimants have 90 days from the date of the underlying incident to notify the City of Bristol of their claim.  If a claimant brings his claim on the 100th day, or even the 91st day, the City will have no liability.  This is based on State law.
Claims on this particular South Street/ Union Street pothole will not close until June 13th.  As of this evening, therefore, there are still five days for a claimant to make a claim regarding this pothole.  The City has compromised our position by paying Ms. Santorso’s claim, and now we have a domino effect taking place.  Claims for incidents that occurred at this pothole after Ms. Santorso’s claimed incident will likely be paid, and claims for incidents that occurred prior to Ms. Santorso’s claimed incident will be denied.  Paying Ms. Santorso’s claim during the middle of the claims period has resulted in a situation where we have arguably admitted liability for all claims arising during a certain period, but we have no idea of who those claimants might be, what their particular claims are, or how significant their alleged damages are. We are flying blind.
For example, in this scenario that befalls us this evening, the two claimants after Ms. Santorso have small claims, totaling approximately $1,100.  Consider, however, what would have happened if one of those claimants had alleged that they had suffered a personal injury, such as to their back or neck?  That claimant would have demanded a lot more from the City – potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It is easy to see that making claims decisions during the middle of the claims period can easily cause us to shoot ourselves in the foot. 
My proposal is this:  the claims committee should adopt a policy whereby, when a particular claim comes in, we ascertain the date of the alleged underlying incident, and then table a decision on the matter until 91 days from that date.   During this 91 day period, we will hold our usual hearings and invite claimants to explain their claims to us.  During this 91 day period, we will be able to determine the full spectrum of all possible claimants, so that we can understand the magnitude of the claims that are being asserted against the City, and make fully informed decisions regarding those claims.  We will have the full benefit of knowing that all potential claimants have been identified.  We will have had an opportunity to hear from the claimants if they wish to speak with us, and to consult with relevant departments, such as public works, or the police, or the water department, to better understand what our potential liability is in a given matter.
This proposal is a fiscally responsible, no-cost solution to a problem that has the potential to cost the City a tremendous amount of money.
Although I have already consulted with City Attorney Richard Lacey and he has indicated to me that he sees no legal obstacle to implementing this proposal, I would refer this question to the Corporation Counsel’s office for further investigation, and request that they report back to the City Council by the next City Council meeting.
******* 
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just think, if Ward did his job and proprly maintained our streets, we wouldn't have to go through all this hassle!

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Miss Matthews.

Anonymous said...

Comment from a friend when she told me she was going to the next council meeting....."the problem is this..hundreds of peoples cars got boots on them today for not paying taxes..fine i get that.but 175 bucks to get the boot off and if they dont their cars are getting towed TODAY after 3 o'clock..There was an article in the paper warning people i guess but not everyone reads the paper I just think that they could've put stickers on peoples cars warning them and giving them 24 hours to clear it up or then the boot goes on..its just crazy to me..people barely have jobs as it is and now they miss a day of work cuz they get up to go and have a boot on their damn car..idk "

Anonymous said...

Great job writing this up Zoppo.

AnonymousWestconnStudent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

What did Bruce Suchinski say Kate?

Anonymous said...

I think it is a well thought out plan. There is nothing that prevents a person from making an immediate claim.
They can take pictures, statements and provide estimates to substantiate that claim.
What it does do is closes the window on all those who decide to jump on the band wagon and file a claim wether legitimate or not.
90 days is not along time to wait on a claim.

Anonymous said...

When a claim is incurred, the 90 day start period begins PERIOD. If another claim is incurred for the same pothole, another 90 days starts for that claiment. What "domino" effect is their? Are you suggesting that people are making this stuff up?

Ms Mathews is making a sink hole out of a pot hole and instead should be more focused on the real issues the city faces like the inflated budget and GASB 45 as a partial solution. This is chicken doo doo!

She should also become familiar with the insurance policy that protects the city for occurances like this. She obviously has not.

Anonymous said...

Another example of treating the symptom, not the illness.

Fix the darn pothole!

Anonymous said...

Vote them out !!!!! Must you be told you work for the tax payer,oh yeah Kevin does when he's not hurt.

Anonymous said...

6:35 AN, Kevin does as he is told.

Anonymous said...

anonymouse, you miss the point, entirely. plus, you're not smart enough to accurately throw around terms like "due process". matthews is right. its both a fiscally responsible plan as well as a legally appropriate and protectionist plan. there's no reason not to do it. she's not saying don't fix the potholes, stupid. its the mayor's street maintenance policy that is the problem.

Anonymous said...

5:00 p.m.: the insurance policy the city has carries a $10k deductible for each occurrence. that means the city is out of pocket for all small claims. add it up. its expensive.

Anonymous said...

well, considering Artie's track record with women who are not afriad to write a policy, this must have gone over real well on the third floor, ala Zoppo and Moylan. Maybe they should all start a club.

AnonymousWestconnStudent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Westconn, I believe Kate is married, so don't think you'll score with her by being her hero on the blog.

Anonymous said...

ANon West Co

I am saying FIX THE POT HOLES!!, and you are stupid if you couldn't gather that fom my comment.

Anonymous said...

Why not just fix the potholes instead of paying off your union hack buddies?

Anonymous said...

Just as long as the holes in the public employees pensions and bennies are filled.

Anonymous said...

anonwestconnjerk:

The pot holes aren't being filled for two reasons, none of which have to do with being "lazy". It's obvious how little you know what you're talking about.

1) The city is broke due to the economy and the high cost of public labor.

2) Union bargaining agreements limit the amount of work the city may ask a municipal employee to do.

While Matthew's idea may be reasonable, it's bad politics. Only in a city like Bristol, where a virtual simpleton could get elected to the council if he or she was a Democrat, could Comrade Kate get away with something so unpopular.

Kate's "pothole bill" is a joke. It's like first year law school garbage. Try some real reforms Kate, like the way the tax payers have to pay for public labor. But you'll never do that because public labor is your biggest supporter.

AnonymousWestconnStudent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnonymousWestconnStudent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.