Reader asks Wasn’t having all 5 council members at a non public meeting a violation of the sunshine law?
Wasn’t having all 5 council members at a non public meeting a violation of the sunshine law? I would have thought Mr. Puch would have known that.
This is hilarious. The council accepts tickets, eats good food, drinks good booze……….and all at the expense of Mr. Saraceno. Hmmmmm….sure, they are not going to be influenced when they vote on his massive development project. Wait a minute, they CAN’T vote, since they accepted his gift of a social evening. Also hilarious that they were invited by Saraceno, NOT by the Christie camp. The Christie camp clearly stated that they did not invite any local politicos.
Ok everyone is talking and writing about it, now who calls the ag’s office? a lot of talk and teeth grinding occurred about the tom Richie situation but nothing was done. I’ll bet the same thing happens with this debacle.
If they weren’t discussing council business there was no violation. If they accidentally ran into each other at the grocery store and had a quorum, do you think that would be a violation?…..let’s use our heads here.
They didn’t “accidentally run into each other”… let’s use our heads here.
The point here is that the allegation is incorrect….but let’s not let the law get in the way here.
How about a birthday party or youth sporting event…that couldn’t be against the law….is it?
And how do you know they weren’t discussing village business? They were probably discussing development proposals in the CBD
As much as this thing stinks, there still is a presumption of innocence so unless someone can state they heard or saw municipal business being conducted there is no violation .
So now the council can’t vote on anything?
No presumption of innocence and it does not matter what was discussed there except re: Sunshine Law (which was not abrogated). It’s the conflict of interest issue that must apply. The party host, building owner, and inviter has proposals before the council; accepting his hospitality at a private political fundraising event was unacceptable. The village manager–who also attended–should have warned them to stay away. If he failed, the village clerk should have. It was too obvious to ignore. Sorry, council, you have been hoisted by your own petard.
Not the first time they have been hoisted by their own petard. When they went after Riche they thought they would come out looking awesome. Instead they wound up with egg on their faces, and in the meantime they also slandered Riche.
#8I beg to differ this is the usa there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and there are procedures, for accusing someone of an offense, or a crime, innuendo and supposition do not cut it. Furthermore it does matter what was discussed there. Your interpitation of the sunshine law would prevent the council from attending a sporting event as a unit. I am not defending the council’s actions I think it was bad judgment and possibly some kind of administrative law violation, but the bottom line is until they vote on something they’re not allowed to there is no violation at all. In closing your post shows the village manager, and the village clerk, being responsible for giving legal advice to the council , the village has a well paid attorney to issue advice on such matters, don’t look to blame it on the clerk, and the vm has made so many bad decisions I wouldn’t trust him with the time of day.
The Village Manager should have warned them or the Village Clerk. That’s it let blame someone else. So our council is not smart enough to see the conflict? Please.
It’s disturbing to see how much venom is directed towards anyone in authority in Ridgewood. Village Councils, past and present have shown they can screw things up as well as any governing body but this blog continues to incite knee jerk outrage and a mob mentality. The slanted spin written into the headlines by the blog administrator is anything but objective……there has to be an ulterior motive.
That has been the MO here for years,
Although I agree with making every attempt to be objective, there really are some borderline ridiculous issues being raised that have an awful lot of people, both in and out of Ridgewood, shaking their heads in disbelief. The Valley application, the proposed changes to the CBD, the ongoing parking problem, etc.
You really don’t need an”ulterior motive” because the truth is most high schoolers can tell when something is on self-destruct. And boy, do have it in spades here.
For the most part, I see honest opinions by concerned residents. Nothing wrong with that.
If you’re against downtown developments then great be against that . Don’t feign offense at a cocktail party attended by everyone and his brother. It cheapens your valid arguments against the development by making you look like a tin-hat conspiracy theorist.
Not against development, just over development. These proposals are over the top for a town this size. Geez, just get the garage issue done and then go from there.