Pratt’s phone lawsuit dismissed

Listen to this article

A judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Baltimore City Comptroller Joan Pratt over Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake‘s plan to work with Rockville-based Digicon Corp. to install an Internet-based phone system for city employees.

“The stuff alleged in the … complaint doesn’t give me any comfort that there is an actionable complaint,” Judge Pamela J. White said Wednesday evening after three hours of arguments in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

White called the comptroller’s allegations that the administration circumvented the city’s competitive bidding process in contracting with Digicon “serious,” but said they are not “legally cognizable in this place at this time.”

“I have tried mightily to find something that should raise a problem and I cannot,” White said. “I must deal with the reality of actionable legal claims, and I can’t find it here.”

White also said she didn’t believe the comptroller “has any business suing the mayor and the City Council.”

The judge dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning that Pratt cannot amend or refile the complaint.

City Solicitor George A. Nilson said he was pleased with the judge’s decision, and that she ruled immediately after hearing the arguments.

Pratt, who was represented pro bono by the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos P.C., declined to comment on the decision. Her attorney, Charles G. Bernstein, said they are thinking about whether to appeal the decision.

White said she will be issuing a decision in writing, but warned that it would not address Nilson’s argument that the comptroller lacked standing to sue the government.

Nilson said, however, that he was pleased the judge addressed the issue from the bench.

“If you are a creature of the government you wish to sue you may not sue that government except under narrow circumstances,” Nilson said during Wednesday’s ruling.

He had argued that, under the city’s charter, a city employee cannot employ outside counsel unless the solicitor certifies that there is an irreconcilable conflict and the Board of Estimates concurs.

Pratt, however, has argued that she should be allowed to hire outside counsel as an individual taxpayer and that it was appropriate in this case because Nilson is “joined at the hip” with the mayor.

Ryan O’Doherty, a spokesman for Rawlings-Blake, said in an emailed statement that the mayor was pleased with the favorable ruling.

“Now we must move forward cooperatively — starting first with an independent audit of the existing system to immediately eliminate waste and by agreeing to the [memorandum of understanding] prepared by the city’s technology director to upgrade the city’s phone system and save more taxpayer dollars over the long run,” he said.

Pratt filed her lawsuit in October claiming the mayor’s administration circumvented the city’s competitive bidding process in contracting with Digicon to install a Voice Over Internet Protocol phone system, and sued to prevent the city from proceeding with the contract.

Instead, the comptroller has repeatedly urged the Board of Estimates to approve a contract with IBM and Avaya. The board, however, rejected that bid.

Foreshadowing White’s decision in October, Judge Jeffrey M. Geller denied Pratt’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Rawlings-Blake from moving forward with her plans for the system. The judge ruled that Pratt failed to show her suit was likely to succeed on the merits at trial, a requirement for obtaining a TRO.

The court also found that Pratt failed to show that irreparable harm would occur if the administration is allowed to proceed with the contract.