Posted on

Ridgewood Planning Board Attorney and Planning Board Member get hit With Conflict of Interest allegations

Valleywood_theridgewoodblog
May 23,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the Ridgewood blog has conducted an investigation of series of conflict of interest changes surrounding the “Whispering Woods ” hearings .Initially Valley’s attorney Jonathan Drill challenged planning board member Wendy Dockray for being part of the “campaign team” of then Village Council Candidate Jeff Voigt.

In a letter to Planning Board Chairmen Charles Nalbantian Drill asked that Wendy Dockray recuse herself or the planning board should disqualify her.

Drill referenced a letter posted on the Ridgewood blog in which Jeff Voigt expressed both skepticism and opposition to the Valley Settlement.  Drill used Jeff’s own words against him by quoting him saying a board member should recuse if “even a whiff of a conflict of interest” .
Kevin Mattessich ,Wendy Dockray’s attorney fired back using Mr.Drill’s arguments against him ,challenging Planning Board attorney Gail Price and her husband Richard Brooks who was at the time running for Village Council , Mattessich went further saying not only Price but Price’s law firm should recuse and board should retain independent council. Observers speculate if applied consistently the entire “Valley Expansion” process  can be viewed as tainted and undermined .

11 thoughts on “Ridgewood Planning Board Attorney and Planning Board Member get hit With Conflict of Interest allegations

  1. Yawn……

  2. The whole planning board thing is a disaster. It is legally setup to act like an impartial jury but the “jury” are politically appointed and 2 are elected. Then they claim a conflict if anyone has taken a position on development. But the supposed conflicts are like saying a Supreme Court justice is conflicted out if they have stated their position on abortion or gun control. The judges end up there because of those positions–there is no conflict. We need to find a way to get past this neutral arbiter idea and understand that no one goes onto the Planning Board without having already thought through the issues.

    We also desperately need to find a way to move towards a Planning Board system where the Planning Board can meet informally in working sessions with developers to suggest changes to proposals, offer counter-proposals and operate outside of the current trial system. Ideally the Planning Board should be having conversations with developers to help guide them early in the process. What is likely or unlikely to be approved? What compromises could be made? Include public input in the early stages. Some of these meetings might have to be informal and off the record. No recordings. Let them hash out ideas and broad concepts before starting the formal process.

    If we can reform the system, everyone wins. The developer avoids spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on site plans that will be rejected and months of lawyer fees to attend Planning Board meetings. The Village gets to help guide development and advocate for its own interest. Best of all both sides avoid paying lawyers for subsequent litigation.

  3. It is comical that the Valley proposal is called whispering woods. how ironic

  4. 8:43 – Without involving members of the public in the process earlier, all you are advocating for is more secret meetings. This is what’s been happening up to now – by the time something is “officially” presented to the Planning Board and the public finds out, all of the deal parameters seem to have been worked out in private. Valley tried this years ago and the outgoing Council majority has been caught more than once meeting secretly with developers. Before the very first public meeting on such projects, the Planning Board and/or Council seem to have already made up their mind. They schedule public comment and a vote for the same night so as few people as possible are aware of what generally turns out to be a massive project. I think this approach is the source of much of the ill will in town as there is a valid perception that the majority of people that would be most impacted by any one of these projects are deliberately left out of the decision making process. The public is very much “onto” this tactic by now and the idea that a few interested parties and 3 Council members “know what’s best” for the rest of us has been resoundingly rejected by the voters.

  5. 10:51–I do think public input early in the process is key. I agree current council has been scared of allowing opposition to formalize as it did with CRR and Valley. They seem to think that if you do it quick you minimize the ability of the public to create opposition groups, etc.

    So I agree, make people aware and get stakeholders into the informal meetings. But I think the public comment and the entire process would be helped if it was less formal. The Planning Board public comment period is supposed to focus on whatever specific legal objections and technical objections can be raised. They tolerate kids getting up to say there will be construction and people speculating about construction workers oggoling children, but that is not really what the Planning Board hearing is about. HOWEVER, a less formal informative session format would give a perfect outlet for those kids to be heard before the Planning Board or the developers are locked into a legal process. There can be a dialogue this way.

    Now legally this would have to be voluntary for the developers. BUT we could create a voluntary preliminary planning framework. Publish a description online and in the paper. Have 2 meetings at different times on different days. Allow cross talk so questions can be addressed and answered. You could even publish a summary of the meetings but agree they will not be recorded or be considered binding. Let the developer have the right to sign off on the summary before it is published to correct their own statements as needed. This will free everyone up to talk more freely.

    Following this process a plan would be submitted for the formal planning board. The carrot to get developers to take the deal would be that the Planning Board would have the option to allow comment and vote on the same night ONLY IF the developers went through the preliminary voluntary process. Otherwise the Planning Board would typically allow 1-2 sessions of public comment BEFORE voting.

  6. What about Pfund’s conflict? Didn’t his firm do work for valley?

  7. And then we have another big conflict, that being that one of our elected officials served on the mediation team when she is a known supporter of Valley to the tune of huge HUGE dollars year after year. If that doesn’t taint the whole thing then I do not know what does.

  8. 10.38. More like whispering wolverines..the other shame is with some compromise we might all continue to see and benefit from the value of Valley as a neighbor and a good Hospital,Many of our Children were born there and our Elders cared for in emergency situations.Compromise is always possible when parties seek to listen and respect another’s voice.
    At the Patient Care level valley often speaks with that Voice.

  9. Remove Pfund as municipal judge.

  10. 1:36- “Compromise is always possible when parties seek to listen and respect another’s voice.” When the hell has Valley done anything like that over the last 10 years ? Those people can’t even spell it ! Their approach to “compromise” is suing the town when they don’t get their way. That’s some “value.”

  11. Local Gov’t, County Gov’t ,State Gov’t ,and Federal Gov’t are all huge problems. Pfund, Price,Hauck all associated with Valley, known conflicts, yet it continues.

    WhyTRUMP may actually win…Crooked Hillary, Libya, Emails, Clinton Foundation, etc…known conflicts. Who in their right mind could vote for her?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *