Letter from former Taneytown Attorney Jack Gullo to City Manager Jim Wieprecht

Never did I imagine that I would be in an adversarial position to my beloved city of Taneytown, but the total disregard of rules and laws by the current Mayor have made many unthinkable situations a reality. I now write to you to address the breach of contract caused by Mayor Miller‘s action to terminate my legal services as memorialized in your November 21, 2023 letter. In short, Mayor Miller does not have the statutory authority to make such a unilateral decision, and by doing so has breached our agreement to provide professional services, thereby causing damages – not only to me, but to the administration and citizens of Taneytown.

Section C -304 (B) of the city charter states:

The Mayor, with approval of Council, shall appoint all committees and the heads of all departments and agencies of the city government, as established by this charter or by ordinance. All departments and agencies heads shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor, unless otherwise provided in this charter.

It is this section of the Charter which you have quoted as the root of the Mayor’s authority for making the decision regarding my service to the City. However this language is very specific that "department and agencies heads" shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

Chapter 11 of the city code entitled obviously enough, "Departments, which was passed by ordinance, outlines the departments of the city, with Section 11 stating:

The Department heads shall be the following:

A. Administration

(1) General

(2) Finance

(3) Economic development

B. Public Works

(1) Water

(2) Sewer

(3) Streets

C. Police

D. Planning and Zoning

E. Parks and Recreation

(1) Parks

(2) Recreation

F. Code Enforcement

Section 11-3 Department Heads goes further to specifically enumerate the Department Heads stating:

1. There may be appointed by the Mayor, with the approval of the Council, department heads including, a Chief of Police, Public Works Director, Director of Planning and Zoning, Director of Parks and Recreation, Director of Economic Development, Code Enforcement Officer, City Clerk and Treasurer...

From the statements made at your meetings, the stretch is being made that the City Attorney could be viewed as a department heads – specifically you stated "essentially he or she is our legal department." As can be obviously noted, "City Attorney" is mentioned nowhere in this list which delineates in Code what Department and Department Heads exist.

This smoke and mirror attempt to circumvented the actual provisions of the Charter and Code is further dispelled by section C-603 of the Charter which address is the duties of the City Manager which states:

1. Organize, direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City, including the Police Department, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Finance, the Department of Planning and the City Clerk, and to further include such departments and agencies which the City Council from time to time places under his or her supervision. In addition there may be department heads, including a Chief of Police, Superintendent of Public Works, Director of Planning, Treasurer and City Clerk.

Obviously there is no mention of City Attorney or the fictitious "Legal Department" anywhere. Although the current Mayor likes to believe he has the authority to do most anything in the City as the Chief Executive Officer, he does not have the authority to create departments at his whim nor treat the City Attorney "like a department head" just to suit his purposes.

Sections C-401 one of the City Charter enumerates the Powers of the Council with Section C-401(B)(16) stating that the Council has the power:

Department. To create change and abolish offices, departments or agencies other than the office departments and agencies establish in this Charter.

Accordingly, it is quite obvious that the City Council has a sole authority to create apartments and department heads for the City, and has not done so in the case of the City Attorney or the fake "legal department."

It should be crystal clear that as the City Attorney I was not an employee of the City, as I did not receive City health insurance benefits, sick and vacation leave, raises, cost-of-living adjustments, FICA withholdings nor the protection contained in the City Employee Manual.

However if another flawed logic stretch is attempted to treat the City Attorney like a City Employee, the Mayor would still not have the unilateral authority to terminate my services at section C-603 (B) of the City Charter would apply stating:

The City Manager she’ll have the authority to suspend any city employee with sufficient cause. With the approval of the Mayor and Council, the City Manager shall have the authority to remove an City employee.

Section 34-3 of the City Code addresses the City Attorney and is contained in Chapter 34 entitled "Officers and Employees." As the name states, this section of the cloud delineate who the Officers of the City are – naming in addition to the Attorney, the Manager, Clerk, Auditor, Engineer and Treasurer.

Some of these "Officers" are also employees does subject to the Charter and Code provisions cited above; some of these "Officers" are "Department Heads" as described by the Charter and Code provisions, and the rest, while still being "Officers" of the City are filling these positions as outside contractors. Thus the City has contracted with the Auditor, City Engineer and City Attorney to provide services to fulfill these roles as Independent Contractors.

To obtain these positions the City made solicitations under Chapter 46, Purchases and Contracts, of the City Code. Specifically, Section 46–5 Professional services was enacted for exactly such a purpose stating:

All contracts professional services such as accounting, architectural, auditing, engineering, land surveying, planning, legal and insurance services, in excess of $10,000 shall not be subject to the competitive bids provided in this chapter but shall be approved on an individual basis by the Mayor and Council.

Accordingly, my legal service to the City are provided under contract which was establish when I was hired over 20 years ago. This contract was awarded through a solicitation, interview process and approval by the Mayor and City Council. It is evidenced by a simple letter agreement which stated the hourly rates and terms of representation – including the provision that either party can terminate the relationship at any time.

Of course the operable principle is that the Mayor alone cannot terminate, cancel or otherwise void a valid contract with the City. This not only applies to the services provided under the contract by the "Officers" of the City, but to contract big or small. From the construction contract at the wastewater treatment plant to the street sweeping contract these are approved by the Mayor and City Council and must be terminated in the same matter.

This was not done in my case.

Furthermore the City has an additional contract with me to provide legal services on a contingent fee basis in relation to the "PFSA Lawsuit". This arrangement was approved by Council action and evidence by a sign agreement dated February 14, 2022. As you may recall, this matter concern joining a Multi-District Lawsuit to recover fronds for water contamination in the City’s wells. When this matter was initiated it was speculative in nature, thus the City elected to eliminate expense by the execution of the contingency fee agreement which we pay for legal fees only if a recovery is made.

Since that time I have expended countless hours of unbilled effort to assist the City in obtaining a recovery with a partial settlement agreement already reached.

Accordingly, by the Mayor illegally terminating my services, the City has breached all of its contract with me causing damage, not only of lost revenue for services I have been charged to provide, but also for the fees attributed to the recovery made in pending PFSA litigation.

It is disappointing that after giving over 20 years of service to the City this entire situation has occurred, however I predicted this would happen in my September 16, 2023 "Whistleblower Memo" to the Council reporting on the questionable and undisclosed activities of the Mayor and City Administration, when I stated: "Regardless of the fallout and the consequences that will surely be directed at me, I am fortunate that my duty is clear…" Accordingly, it is not my performance that is an issue, but as stated by councilman Tillman during a meeting, my services were terminated as an attack on the Council and retribution for my disclosure to the Council on the Mayor’s inappropriate activities.

What I could not predict has been the lack of professionalism and abundance of inappropriate comments and false words that have been stated or failed to be rebutted. These include comments that "I live in Florida"; "that the City pays for me to fly to Maryland"; "I did not get permission to travel all over the world"; "that I am unattainable"; or "it takes days for a response:, … and the list goes on.

Aside from these claims being completely false – my personal life; where and how I spend my time; and my business practices are not a subject for public discourse. Were the same discussion be occurring in a public session about one of the City employees? A Department Head? A contractor like to City Engineer? Certainly not. The Mayor should not be making such statements, and should be discouraging the spread of such falsehoods instead of stroking the fires on social media, and along with every councilperson and City Official correcting the erroneous statements when made.

It is difficult to see a path forward given the damage this breach and ensuing conduct has caused, however before the City exasperates this breach by contracting with new counsel, I am open to seeking a positive resolution and would be happy to discuss further.

Very Truly Yours

Jack Gullo Jr.

Rift between Council & Mayor erupts into open