Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood Blog has obtained a document posted openly on the Bergen County Clerk’s website indicating that Ridgewood Mayor Paul Vagianos and his spouse, Jean Bogle, recently extended a $47K mortgage, in the form of a promissory note, to Mr. Richard Brooks and his spouse, Ms. Gail Price.
Ridgewood NJ, a conflict of interest refers to a situation in which an individual or entity has competing professional or personal interests that could potentially compromise their impartiality, objectivity, or judgment in making decisions or fulfilling their responsibilities. It arises when there is a clash between an individual’s personal interests and their professional obligations or fiduciary duties. When navigating real estate transactions, such as south carolina homes for sale myrtle beach, it is crucial to be vigilant about potential conflicts of interest to ensure transparency and fair dealings.
Lawyers argued Monday over whether a former state judge who handled affordable housing cases should have at least one of his rulings overturned because of his relationship with a developer.
In Trenton, a lawyer for South Brunswick Township squared off against a half-dozen others representing developers and affordable-housing advocates. The township is seeking to have affordable housing rulings made by now-retired Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Douglas Wolfson vacated because of what it alleges is the appearance of a conflict of interest: Wolfson’s acceptance of vacations from, and current representation of, Edgewood Properties.
While on the bench, Wolfson handled litigation involving the township, but not Edgewood Properties, according to documents. And Wolfson recused from cases that came before him involving Edgewood.
Nevertheless, Wolfson for years has had personal and professional ties to Edgewood, and South Brunswick claims Wolfson’s decisions in other affordable housing cases could work in favor of Edgewood or its primary owner, Jack Morris, even though he has no projects pending in the township.
BY ALEXANDRA HOEY
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The fate of a lawsuit that claims “conflicts of interest” by multiple former planning board members paved the way for high-density development proposals, has been rescheduled to Monday.
The suit, which was filed in May by attorney Kevin Mattessich on behalf of a resident’s grassroots organization, Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development Inc. (RCRD), was supposed to be decided by Superior Court Judge William Meehan on Wednesday, Oct. 19.
Ridgewood NJ, no surprise that some people in town are not concerned that possible fraud would seem to merit some investigation as well as possible violations of fiduciary responsibility and pay for play violations .Some people have even gone to jail for these things , some people …
“Should this even be newsworthy? This person is obviously a repeat complainer who would rather spend time harassing Village staff (and costing tax payers money) instead of being with their children. They don’t realize their townhouses at one point were full with trees and got bulldozed over with residential complaints. If we want to throw rocks, Susan should recuse herself from any Shedler discussions due to the fact her parents house is located directly across from the property. Yes, by the text of the law not defined as “conflict of interest”, however I do not believe she can make wise decisions without prejudice. Godforbid a RSA member connections was on the council, these same people would be crying, suing for their removal.”
Jackie Hone’s response….
“Dear 12:46, “Anonymous.” Seek to understand. Watching or attending the meeting would help correct your statement. I am not a repeat complainer, harassing Village staff. I filed one complaint, that is finally being addressed, with merit. Thanks to the new Village Council, my claims are being substantiated one by one. As for costing tax payers money…this compliant saved tax payers approximately 10 million dollars and avoided destruction of Green Acres, Open Space and US History (check the facts). Mayor Knudsen defending Historical Preservation and honoring Open Space/Green Acres is not a conflict of interest, it is her fiduciary and ethical obligation. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one too. Additionally, Mayor Knudsen’s parents owning a house, across the street from Schedler (by the way it’s down the road), is not a conflict of interest. That point was addressed, looked into, checked again, re-checked and sniffed one last time just in case. Each and every time, legal counsel said there is no conflict of interest. Lastly, despite your ill-spirited comment (rather spend time harassing Village staff…instead of being with their children”), I invite you to meet before a Village Council meeting so I/we can share more. I’m sure you’ve heard, I have a huge binder with all the proof. I passionately believe residents should be up to date and truly know what is going on in their community. Email me firstname.lastname@example.org.”
Readers say , “no money need change hands for a conflict of interest to exist. It even looks worse when you see it all in writing. NJ Law states that a conflict of interest need not be financial in nature but merely a perception of partiality to the issue in question. This is clearly more than a perception, it is a reality. Gwenn morally should have recused herself but since she hasn’t , the Council should have asked her. It is their right and also protects the reputation of the governing body.
Ms. Fraser was more than an employee of Valley, but also an officer. And yes, she was already an officer at the time of the donation.
Can anybody donate to a cause they approve of? Sure. But Ms. Hauck was running for a representative elective office that was going to make important decisions about the hospital. Even merely to protect her from any taint of a conflict (political donations are in the public record), most people would not donate to the campaign. The fact that that happened was one of many indications of how confident they were about being immune.
Regarding Bernie Walsh, I don’t get it. Any candidate can express an opinion. That means she never pretended to be neutral. or lied to get votes, unlike some. And no money changed hands.
Ms. Fraser is of course entitled to her opinion but would have done better to protect her favored candidate by not donating to her campaign. Council members of a different stripe might have urged such a person to recuse. The killer is that recusal is entirely a matter of conscience.
As for Mr. Albano, why do you think a call was made (in my opinion, not an email message) to Mike Sedon’s employer claiming a “conflict of interest” (which did not exist) to try to force him choose between his job and his council candidacy, leaving the field open to candidate Albano?
Ridgewood NJ, If anyone thinks that she should represent us in the law suit all you have to do is look up the minuets Sept 19 H-Z hearing and she what she said. Then you tel me.
Speaking before the council during the “H-Zone” hearings to determine the fate of ‘Renewal’, Hauck said on Sept. 19: “Also, I trust Audrey Meyers, Megan Fraser, all the doctors and volunteers I work with and all the spokespersons of the hospital when they tell me that the hospital will have better services and healthier surroundings if they modernize and expand the way they’ve laid out because they’re the health experts…and I believe them.”
While it may seem unlikely a perfect solution will ever emerge, Hauck stressed a “healthy” and “reasonable” dialogue must emerge for any meaningful change to happen.
Ms. Hauck also signed this letter. Do you still thing she should represent us in the Valley Hospital law suit?
An Open Letter to Fellow Residents of Ridgewood and the Ridgewood Planning Board, As residents of Ridgewood, we write to share our thoughts about The Valley Renewal
We are among the thousands of Village residents who support
To continue to be the high quality hospital that residents of Ridgewood and our neighboring
communities need and desire, it is essential for Valley to renew. Valley must right-size its
operating, diagnostic, and treatment rooms to accommodate new technologies and procedures.
It is also essential for Valley to develop single patient rooms to meet new patient care and
safety standards. These steps are not optional, they are crucial.
During its almost 60-year history, Valley has evolved from a local hospital to the award
winning, top quality regional healthcare organization that it is today. The hospital ranks
among the highest in the nation for both clinical care and patient satisfaction. It has evolved
over time to meet the needs of the communities it serves, and it must do so again. Valley’s
role as a provider of excellent healthcare services for tens of thousands is what makes the
suggested revisions to the Master Plan and H Zone not only acceptable, but vital.
As residents of Ridgewood, we disagree with those who have written or stated that
will harm the unique character or way of life of the Village.
In addition, we believe that Valley is wholly committed to the safety and security of the
hospital’s patients, its staff, and the neighbors and students who live and attend school
in the hospital’s neighborhood.
We are proud of The Valley Hospital and we know the majority of our neighbors feel the
same way. As friends and neighbors of many Village residents, we suggest that we move
past the “us vs. them” mentality that has unfortunately become a part of this discussion
and move toward ensuring that Valley remains the hospital that all of us would choose for
ourselves and our family’s healthcare, today, tomorrow, and in the future.
Scott Agins, D.P.M.
Michael W. Azzara
George Becker, M.D.
David F. Bolger
Tracey Carbone, M.D.
Anne G. Crane
Thomas R. Crane
Charles D. Crowley, M.D.
Elizabeth O. Crowley, M.D.
Bettina M. Daly
Anne Raftery Denyeau
Marc M. Dreier, M.D.
Stephen J. Errico
Kevin M. Fee
Carole E. Forenza
Russell R. Forenza
James D. Fraser
Danielle M. Gaglioti
Robin L. Giordano
Edward and Joan Lefferman
Kenneth Levitsky, M.D.
Hugo Lijtmaer, M.D.
David Lipson, M.D.
Donna H. MacPhee
Gail M. Matthews, M.D.
Susan H. Mayo
Klaus J. Meissner
David Namerow, M.D.
John Nasr, M.D.
Ali Nasseri, M.D.
Pat and Mario Perillo
Thomas J. Rakowski, M.D.
Bettie and Howell Rile
Marivic F. Santiago, M.D.
Kathleen B. Sayles
David G. Sayles
Maria Scibetta, M.D.
Marjorie L. Slankard, M.D.
Ann Marie Snyder
Charles J. Snyder
Susan J. Snyder
Jack Tohme, M.D.
Daniel Van Engel, M.D.
Wayne A. Yankus, M.D.
Patricia J. Van Dyke
Victoria Van Dyke
Michael Wesson, M.D
DECEMBER 16, 2015, 5:43 PM LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2015, 6:49 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
RIDGEWOOD — A question about whether a village councilwoman with sons on a police-hiring waiting list should vote on police matters has left village officials wrestling with a gray area of state law regarding conflicts of interest by municipal officials.
The issue first arose after a 2014 Village Council review of its residency requirement ordinance related to hiring municipal employees. The council voted to broaden residency requirements for civilian hires, but maintain hometown residency for public safety titles, specifically, police and firefighters.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen has three sons ranked highly on the waiting list of Police Department candidates. In the August 2014 council action, the vote by Knudsen and her colleagues maintained hometown residency requirements for public safety officers — without Knudsen telling the rest of the council or the public about her sons, all village residents.
And that has raised concerns that she may have voted despite a personal conflict of interest, said Mayor Paul Aronsohn. Aronsohn said the Village Council and administration learned about Knudsen’s sons only when she told them in a February closed-session meeting. But the public, he said, “had a right to know the details of the situation” before the vote. “None of us were made aware that any such conflict may have existed,” he said in an email.
State law is clear on conflicts of interest: No government officer or employee, it says, “shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.”