recuse - THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG.

Posted on May 24, 2016 May 23, 2016

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

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 .

Posted on March 30, 2015 March 29, 2015

Reader asks I would like to know if Councilman Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck recused themselves from that closed session discussion on Valley

file photo by Boyd Loving

Reader asks I would like to know if Councilman Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck recused themselves from that closed session discussion on Valley

RULES FOR SOME BUT NOT FOR OTHERS ?

I would like to know if Councilman Pucciarelli and councilwoman Gwenn Hauck recused themselves from that closed session discussion on Valley. After all, Mr Pucciarelli stated during his campaign several times that he would recuse himself if Valley came to the council. In fact, he was very upset that one of his running mates, Russ Forenza, did not disclose his wife’s affiliation with Valley and therefore, Russ would have to recuse himself if he won a seat on council.

The Village Manager was so concerned whether Councilwoman Susan Knudsen should recuse herself from the (Residency) discussion because Susan had relatives on the current police or fire list that she informed Mr. Roger who then suggested to Susan that she recuse herself even though it plainly stated that they were not going to discuss police or fire. When question about this at an open meeting Mr. Roger said something to the effect that you never know were these discussion lead to. Whats changed? If these two did not recuse themselves then how do we know that Valley Hospital maybe privy to inside information. Our Mayor should have know that this would be a hot button item and for transparency reasons he could have made an announcement prior to going into closed session that these two would not attend. I get it .They are just to busy taking care of the chamber and the developers that they don’t have time for civility or transparency

Posted on March 16, 2015 June 27, 2021

Reader says Councilwoman Knudsen is entitled to exercise her own judgment

Reader says Councilwoman Knudsen is entitled to exercise her own judgment

The decision to “recuse” by an elected official is one that is arrived at: 1) by that elected official (i.e., nobody gives an order that another must follow); 2) on a case-by-case basis (i.e., no categorical prohibitions to participation, or recusal “precedent” based on past practice (read: Killion); 3) as a result of a fact-based analysis (i.e.., the details matter and must be considered); 4) in accordance with a pre-determined standard (no making it up as we go along); 5) considering whether the appearance of a conflict would bring scandal even if no actual conflict exists or is likely to arise; but also 6) being careful not to recuse too readily (i.e., not necessarily at the drop of a hat, or in response to the first ‘hint’ of a conflict) lest the electorate be improperly and improvidently deprived of the thoughtful services of their chosen representative (i.e., this is no mere ‘employee’ of the Village).

Councilwoman Knudsen is entitled to exercise her own judgment on this issue, free from either unsolicited heavy-handed advice (pre-recusal) or uncivil and hypocritical scorn (after declining to recuse, if that’s what she decides) from any of her Village Council colleagues.