The City of Taneytown is facing quite a conundrum. A vote on a proposed ordinance designed to clarify who the City Attorney reports to is on hold as the proposed ordinance must be reviewed by an attorney, but that has not been possible since Mayor Chris Miller single-handedly fired the City’s attorney of 20 years in November.
One possible solution would be reinstating Attorney Jay Gullo, who claims Miller had no right to "make such a unilateral decision" and claims his action was "illegal."
In a four-page letter dated Dec. 28, 2023, addressed to Miller, the City Council, and City Manager Jim Wieprecht, Gullo stated he foreshadowed his firing on Sept. 16, 2023, when he wrote what he referred to as a "whistleblower memo" to the Council reporting on the "questionable and undisclosed activities of the Mayor and City administration."
"It is not my performance that is at issue, but as stated by Councilman (Christopher) Tillman during a meeting, my services were terminated as an attack on the Council in retribution for my disclosure to the Council of the Mayor’s inappropriate activities," he wrote.
In November, Councilmember Judy Fuller reported that Gullo sent the Council a 29-page memo detailing questionable behaviors revolving around Miller before the Mayor chose to terminate him. Fuller did not specify any of the "questionable behaviors" allegedly cited in the memo.
Council members also disclosed at that meeting that Miller banned Gullo from speaking with them outside of public meetings. Miller said he believed Council members were abusing Gullo’s position and there should be a cap on how much each Council member can contact the attorney for to save money. City legal bills are between $5,000- $7,000 a month, averaging between $48,000- $60,0000 a year, Gullo said.
The Council also asked Gullo on Nov. 8 to investigate who leaked privileged information.
In September, a citizen filed a Public Information Act (PIA) request that included specific information only available to Council members and the Mayor, Gullo said. The attorney advised City Manager Jim Wieprecht to reject the request citing "discretionary privilege." However, Wieprecht was directed to release the document to the requestor against the attorney’s advice. In response to the release, which the Council considered unauthorized, the Council charged Gallo with the task of identifying who, besides Wieprecht, was involved in the release of the documents.
"The situation requires investigation," Councilman James McCarron said, since "the Council cannot have deliberative email conversations about anything without knowing if it would be secure."
Giving out privileged information is no different than opening the City’s bank account and giving out money, Gullo said.
Four days after that November meeting, Miller axed Gullo on a Sunday night – a move Gullo claims is a breach of contract.
"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 the administration and the citizens of Taneytown," Gullo wrote.
Miller contends department heads serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. Gullo agrees, except he argues he was never a department head. Chapter 11 of the City Code lists departments as general administration, finance, economic development, water, sewer, streets, police, planning and zoning, parks, recreation, and code enforcement.
During the December meeting, Wieprecht said the attorney could be viewed as the head of the legal department. Citing the City charter, Gullo claims no such department exists and refers to the claims as "smoke and mirrors."
"Obviously, there is no mention of City Attorney or the fictitious ‘legal department’ anywhere," Gullo wrote. "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."
To further illustrate his point, Gullo referred to Section C-401 of the City Charter which states the City Council has the authority to create or abolish offices, departments, or agencies other than those established in the charter.
"Accordingly, it is quite obvious that the City Council has the sole authority to create departments and department heads for the City, and has not done so in the case of the City attorney or the fake ‘legal department," Gullo wrote. "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, cost of living adjustments, FICA withholdings, nor the protections contained in the City Employee Manual."
Gullo wrote that his services are provided under a contract established between him and the City more than 20 years ago. The contract, Gullo wrote, was approved by the Mayor and the City Council, so the termination of the relationship would also require approval of the Mayor and City Council. Since Miller acted alone in Gullo’s firing, it may be invalid.
"The Mayor alone cannot terminate, cancel, or otherwise void a valid contract of the City," Gullo wrote.
Gullo also referenced a second contract the City awarded him to recover funds for the water contamination in the City’s wells. That contract, he wrote, included a contingency that Gullo would only get paid if he was successful in the endeavor. He claims to have spent "countless hours of unbilled effort" to retain a recovery and that a partial settlement agreement has been reached.
"Accordingly, by the Mayor illegally terminating my services, the City has breached all of its contracts with me causing damages, not only of loss revenue for services I have been engaged to provide but also for the fees attributable to the recovery made in the pending PFSA litigation," he wrote.
While Gullo classified Miller’s misinterpretation of the law as predictable, he did admit he was shocked by what he claims are inappropriate and inaccurate public statements concerning his personal life. Repeatedly, Miller has claimed Gullo lives in Florida and has been unavailable to the City.
"Aside from these claims being completely false,my personal life, where and how I spend my time, and my business practices are not subject for public discourse," he wrote. "The Mayor should not be making such statements or should be discouraging the spread of such falsehoods instead of stoking the fires on social media, and, along with every Councilperson and City official, correcting the erroneous statements when made."
Next steps
Gullo’s letter was dated Dec. 28 but it barely got a public mention at the Mayor and City Council Workshop on Jan. 4 or the Mayor and City Council Meeting on Jan. 8. Fuller attempted to read it, but was dissuaded from doing so.
One option, as suggested by Gullo, is to initiate a dialogue with the former attorney.
"It is difficult to see a path forward given the damage this breach and ensuing conduct has caused; however, before the City exacerbates this breach by contracting with a new counsel, I am open to a positive resolution and would be happy to discuss it further," Gullo wrote.
Miller has rebuffed such a suggestion from Council members. During his State of the City Address on Jan. 8, Miller claimed a lack of an attorney is not hindering the City’s operations.
"We have ways in which we can receive legal advice regardless of whether we have a City attorney or not. We plan to proceed to move things forward," he said. "The City is not at a standstill, the City is moving faster than ever before and I expect that to continue in 2024."
With that, he gaveled the 21-minute meeting to a close. No ordinance was passed since legal review was not possible and Miller did not share any plans to fill the vacant attorney position.
Read former Taneytown Attorney Jay Gullo’s full letter to the Town Council
Rift between Council & Mayor erupts into open
