Councilwomen Hauck Valley Auxiliary
Councilwomen Hauck Refuses to Recuse
June 10,2013
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Readers continued to be dismayed over councilwoman’s Hauck’s decision not to recuse herself form from any discussion about Valley Hospital . The Councilwomen served as a VP of a Valley volunteer organization had her picture has been in numerous papers at Valley events, she spoke adamantly for Renewal at the village council meetings and we are to believe that she won’t give Valley whatever they want?
As Vice President of the Valley Auxiliary she helped raise millions of dollars for Valley as chairperson of two of their black tie fundraising events.
Its is also well known that Councilwormen Hauck reported campaign donations in the amount of $870 from James and Megan Fraser. Ms. Fraser is currently Vice President, Marketing and Communications at The Valley Hospital, Ridgewood.
If she votes it will just invite a lawsuit.Do the right thing – for all involved. Save the time and expense of a lawsuit. The village cannot afford prolonged litigation. Do not vote on the valley expansion.
The council is responsible for her conflict of interest. It is shocking that she does not understand what a conflict is. He dad took out full page ads for her election, maybe she owes him a “yes” vote.
One reader says ,”There’s just enough time for councilwoman Hauck to understand that failing to recuse herself on all Valley-related matters would lead to a ****storm and probable allegations of improper conduct. Anybody advising her legally? What do we pay the village attorney for? (and how much?) ”
Former Mayor Pfund was forced out as Mayor for not revealing that his father was a Valley trustee. It is clear there is a bias and she should have to recuse herself..
The Concerned Residents should thank her. The lawsuits will go on forever, there will be no expansion.
Ms Hauck’s words as a witness for Valley before the council, Sept 19, 2011. Her whole testimony can be seen in the transcripts starting on page 127. The following are just a few of the statements that struck me.
“I just wanted to speak on behalf of Valley. I believe that the changes proposed for Valley are a good idea…Also, I trust Audrey Meyers, Megan Fraser, all the doctors and volunteers that I work with and all the spokespersons for the hospital, when they tell me…and I believe them. I trust Valley because Valley has never given me reasons not to trust them…They have also partnered with me in many personal ways…The hospital would never cause harm to come to any of the school children who they so carefully have protected through all the expansions in the past.”
Does this sound like someone that could be impartial?
I think not!
She is a complete idiot. She has no understanding of the conflict that she has. Who the hell voted for her???
Funny that she won’t recuse herself but jumped on the band wagon to attack Richie. Not surprising…
Really a disappointment.
Doesn’t she understand that it’s “the appearance of a conflict” that’s the issue?
What a disgrace!
The fact that Mrs. Hauck refuses to recuse herself on Valley while she’s still in the middle of publicly flogging Councilman Richie over what she calls “conflict of interest” is beyond belief. Even if the town’s attorneys say there is no conflict for Mrs. Hauck with Valley, the same attorneys said there was no conflict with Mr. Richie and Extel. So they were wrong about Mr. Richie and right about Mrs. Hauck?
Did her own ties to Valley not come to mind as she was using such phrases as “avoiding even the perception of impropriety” with regard to Mr. Richie? Make no mistake – the magnitude of the financial relationship between Mrs. Hauck and Valley dwarfs the paltry sum that she’s complaining about with Mr. Richie.
Can any of these elected folks be held personally accountable when, not if, something goes terribly wrong either during or after construction ?
The Valley expansion issue pre-dates Mrs. Hauck’s election to the Village Council. Her ties to Valley were well known to the community and were well publicized far before she decided to run for elective office. Thus the voters knew or should have known what her position potentially might be on the Valley matter and they nonetheless choose her to represent their interests…….. not just on certain matters, but on all matters which come before the Village Council. At this juncture it would be unfair to blame Gwenn for her past relationship with Valley or to demand that she recuse herself from performing a function she was duly elected by the people to perform.
Give it a rest. She won by something like 5 votes. Not exactly an overwhelming mandate. Yes, she CAN be judged by past relationships, just as she is quick to judge Riche
A legitimate point, but for a couple of things. As an elected official she is supposed to be objective in weighing the pros and cons of the Valley Expansion and its impact on the Village. Given her prior, high level financial association with Valley, it’s fair to suggest that she may not be able to be objective and should therefore recuse herself.
She didn’t help herself with her finger wagging in the Richie matter where she very publicly reprimanded Mr. Richie for allowing a potential perception of impropriety to exist. This despite the fact that the then Council approved awarding the contract to Mr. Richie’s company, the attorneys blessed the deal and Mr. Richie recused himself from the vote. If Mrs. Hauck is to live by her own words in the Richie matter, she should most certainly recuse herself on the Valley expansion.
#8 Yes we knew of her past affiliation with Valley. And Yes we did elect her, to help with a number of other issues in the Village. But we also expected her to recuse herself on the Valley issue. It’s known as “propriety” – the avoidance of any appearance of a conflict.
I agree. Just because she was elected does not mean that she is above having a conflict of interest. She is so dense she does not understand the problem. Maybe the mayor or someone from valley should explain it to her.
I don’t know how a judge would feel about your opinion, but maybe we will all get to see. So I guess words like ” fair” and “objective” really don’t apply to Mrs. Hauke in this matter ?
Be careful, you might make her cry.
See #1, end of discussion.
If she really does vote on Valley and does not have the sense to re-curse herself, I mean recuse…then this mess may be caught in legal for years before the next Valley vote in 2028? Delay, Delay, then say “NO WAY”