Vas v. Roberts
14 A.3d 766
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Vas, a former Assembly member and Perth Amboy mayor, was indicted on multiple corruption-related counts in March–May 2009, and later faced federal charges.
- In July 2009, Speaker Roberts suspended Vas's salary and benefits, asserting it was in good faith to restore public confidence; Vas opposed the action as unauthorized.
- Legislative Counsel advised that the Speaker could suspend a member for good cause but only within the Assembly's established disciplinary process, not unilaterally outside it.
- The Assembly's Rules provide a six-member committee process for sanctioning members, with potential expulsion or sanctions by a two-thirds vote; there is no explicit authorization for salary suspension by the Speaker alone.
- Vas filed a direct appeal with the Appellate Division challenging the suspension as beyond the Speaker's lawful authority and violating constitutional salary guarantees; the issue was propagated to the merits and jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Speaker's action is appealable to the Appellate Division. | Vas contends the action is a final decision by a state officer and within Appellate Division review. | Roberts argues the suspension is not a final agency decision and not an appealable state officer action under Rule 2:2-3(a)(2). | Appellate jurisdiction rejected; matter addressed on original jurisdiction for merits. |
| Whether the Speaker had authority to suspend Vas's salary unilaterally. | Vas asserts unilateral suspension exceeds constitutional salary guarantees and lacks statutory/house-rule support. | Roberts relies on inherent powers of the presiding officer and legislative counsel; suspension for good cause is within discretion. | Suspension without statutory or rule-based authority is ultra vires and void. |
| Whether the remedy or review should be mandamus or direct appeal. | Vas seeks payment of withheld salary, akin to mandamus to compel a ministerial duty. | Rule 2:2-3 restricts mandamus-like relief to state agencies or officers; not appropriate here. | Mandamus not available under Rule 2:2-3; court nonetheless addresses merits under original jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar, 335 N.J. Super. 562 (App.Div. 2000) (State Police determination reviewable by Appellate Division)
- In re Hartz/Damascus Bakery, Inc., 404 N.J. Super. 49 (App.Div. 2008) (Agency decisions within Appellate Division review)
- Lacey Municipal Utilities Authority v. N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 369 N.J. Super. 261 (App.Div. 2004) (Appellate review of agency decisions)
- Brady v. N.J. Redistricting Commission, 131 N.J. 594 (Supreme Court, 1992) (Specialized commissions as state agencies with direct appeal)
- Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Christie, 413 N.J. Super. 229 (App.Div. 2010) (Governor's executive order reviewable as final administrative decision)
- Perkins v. Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards, 179 N.J. Super. 352 (App.Div. 1981) (Legislature's power to regulate conduct of its members)
- In re LiVolsi, 85 N.J. 576 (Supreme Court, 1981) (Consolidation of prerogative writs; procedural framework post-1947)