Readers take issue with “Hauck’s ‘character’ letter in the Ridgewood News
There was an interesting letter in The Ridgewood News on June 21. The letter was entitled: “Hauck’s ‘character’ overrides her past work with Valley.”
Although letter writer John G. Hartnett identified himself as Councilwoman Hauck’s neighbor, he failed to disclose that he is also the long time rector of St. Elizabeth’s Episcopal Church, thus the spiritual leader of Ms. Hauck’s own church.
Is it just me, or was the Reverend’s failure to disclose more than “I’m a neighbor” a deliberate omission of fact? And, was the Reverend’s letter solicited or unsolicited?
The letter immediately following this one was certainly more to the point. When your next door neighbor finally speaks out about a matter that has been on people’s minds for God knows how long, and then does not fully disclose who he really is, you really have to wonder. On the other hand,it’s a lot like Valley…tell only part of the story.
Is Hauck using her friends to conduct a PR campaign solely to preserve her capacity to vote in favor of Valley Hospital’s expansion plans? If so, that is shameful.
Person who wrote main post above: thank you for sharing that information. Would you consider adapting it and sending it to the Ridgewood News as a letter to the editor? The deadline is noon on Wednesday.
As you saw, even a very short letter can have substantial impact. An example is the “must recuse herself” letter that followed the minister’s letter and which you cite above.
This information would be of great interest to readers of the paper who do not necessarily see every blog post here. A letter to the editor would be widely read and exchanged, and usually they all get to northjersey.com for even greater distribution and ease of sharing.
The minister’s letter missed the point completely. Recusal has nothing to do with character or honesty (that’s impeachment) or liking dogs. It’s to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest from marring an elected body’s vote on an issue. Fair to say that the appearance has appeared.
With the final Planning Board hearing on Valley’s expansion proposal now scheduled for Aug. 20, there is more time than expected for Ms. Hauck’s recusal to be demanded by residents, who should consider speaking out on this subject at Village Council meetings.
Council meeting dates (almost always Wednesdays, but not every week) and times (7:30 except one per month at 8:00) are posted on the printed Village calendar and available on the Village website under Agendas and Minutes, left side of home page, first item. Direct link:
https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/agenda.cfm
Each meeting has two public comment periods: one near the beginning and one near the end. The first one usually starts within 5-15 minutes of the beginning of the meeting. Afterward, the speaker can leave. No need to stay for the whole meeting.
#2 Why don’t you adapt the information and send it to The Ridgewood News yourself. The facts above aren’t copyrighted, anyone is welcome to let the cat out of the bag.
I think someone ought to inform the head of the Episcopal church. A religious leader weighing in on an elected official seems like overstepping the barrier of separation of church and state. I would be furious if I was a member of that church. And he kind of did it anonymously, since he did not identify himself as her priest. My guess is that Ms. Habernicle Hauck is a large donor to the St. Elizabeth’s coffers, so the priest wants to keep her happy. Just saying…..
He did not identify as a religious person because he was not acting in an official capacity. He said that he was her neighbor and knew her well.
He is entitled to his opinion even if I disagree with him.
It is not about her character. It is about an elected official and a conflict or the appearance of a conflict. Either way she cannot vote. This should be easy for an adult to understand.
Very interesting reading about Conflicts of Interest for
Municipal Officials In New Jersey. The Bay Head example should be familiar to Ms Hauck.
https://www.njslom.org/magart_1207_pg18.html
She cannot vote on Valley.
Her character? She IS a charachter! She and her buddies Paul and Albert are beyond disgraceful
Mrs. Hauck ran for office to vote yes on the Valley expansion yet she does not seem to have considered what she would put her family and town through to cast that vote. She does not seem to be getting good advice and if she is, she is not heeding it. I agree with the post above that people on this blog need to take off their masks and write to the Ridgewood News. People also need to attend the Planning Board meetings and speak up there as well.
Let her vote. The project will stop in its tracks with the first lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Pascack is reopening and Englewood is expanding. Valley needs leadership.
Wow, if i were a member of that church I would hit the roof. How dare the priest write such a letter.