Reader says legally-imposed hiring preference for qualified local residents was NEVER ON THE AGENDA.
Unfortunately for you, you’ve just highlighted perhaps the best reason why Councilwoman Knudsen need never have concerned herself with any potential conflict-of-interest: Potentially eliminating the RPD’s and the RFD’s legally-imposed hiring preference for qualified local residents was NEVER ON THE AGENDA.
Other items relating to village hiring practices for other municipal jobs may have been up for discussion, but never the local hiring practices relating to police or firemen. (And certainly nothing on the agenda necessitated closing the session.)
This is also why it is so clearly a red herring for anyone to bring up her relationship to the test-takers. They are not even candidates for any of the positions or categories of positions being looked at by the VC for potential changes in the law relating to hiring practices!
What do we care about what relationship the test-takers have or don’t have with Councilwoman Knudsen? What’s the relevance?
This is about away to attack her and make sure she tows the line. This was all scripted by The Mayor and his amigos. A sort of shot across her bow to show her what they are capable of if she disagrees with them.
Knudsen has a conflict if her sons are applying for Village jobs…
How do you know what was on the agenda unless you are Knudsen or one of the other Council members? Knudsen seems to be the only one raising an issue here, so has Knudsen betrayed the Council’s closed door agenda by disclosing non-public information here on the Ridgewood blog about a closed session?
Are Police and Fireman jobs posted and open to qualified candidates in the County and should they just have Village resident preference ? I prefer not.
Nepotism is a quiet growing infection and no one is immune including local politicians.
How do you know what was on the agenda unless you are Knudsen or one of the other Council members? Knudsen seems to be the only one raising an issue here, so has Knudsen betrayed the Council’s closed door agenda by disclosing non-public information here on the Ridgewood blog about a closed session?”
11:27am, read the law!
The capitalized passage below shows that the agenda must be published in advance of the meeting, regardless of whether it is to be an open or closed one.
——-
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
(current through May 31, 2011)
N.J.S.A. 10:4-6. Short title
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act.”
—-
N.J.S.A. 10:4-7. Legislative findings and declaration
The Legislature finds and declares that the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies, is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process; that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public’s effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society, and hereby declares it to be the public policy of this State to insure the right of its citizens to have adequate advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings of public bodies at which any business affecting the public is discussed or acted upon in any way except only in those circumstances where otherwise the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion.
—-
The Legislature further declares it to be the public policy of this State to insure that the aforesaid rights are implemented pursuant to the provisions of this act so that no confusion, misconstructions or misinterpretations may thwart the purposes hereof.
The Legislature, therefore, declares that it is the understanding and the intention of the Legislature that in order to be covered by the provisions of this act a public body must be organized by law and be collectively empowered as a multi-member voting body to spend public funds or affect persons’ rights; that, therefore, informal or purely advisory bodies with no effective authority are not covered, nor are groupings composed of a public official with subordinates or advisors, who are not empowered to act by vote such as a mayor or the Governor meeting with department heads or cabinet members, that specific exemptions are provided for the Judiciary, parole bodies, the State Commission of Investigation, the Apportionment Commission and political party organization; that to be covered by the provisions of this act a meeting must be open to all the public body’s members, and the members present must intend to discuss or act on the public body’s business; and therefore, typical partisan caucus meetings and chance encounters of members of public bodies are neither covered by the provisions of this act, nor are they intended to be so covered.
—-
N.J.S.A. 10:4-8. Definitions
As used in this act:
—-
…
—-
b. “Meeting” means and includes any gathering whether corporeal or by means of communication equipment, which is attended by, or open to, all of the members of a public body, held with the intent, on the part of the members of the body present, to discuss or act as a unit upon the specific public business of that body. Meeting does not mean or include any such gathering (1) attended by less than an effective majority of the members of a public body, or (2) attended by or open to all the members of three or more similar public bodies at a convention or similar gathering.
—
c. “Public business” means and includes all matters which relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to the performance of the public body’s functions or the conduct of its business.
—
d. “Adequate notice” means written advance notice of at least 48 hours, giving the time, date, location AND, TO THE EXTENT KNOWN, THE AGENDA OF ANY REGULAR, SPECIAL OR RESCHEDULED MEETING, which notice shall accurately state whether formal action may or may not be taken and which shall be (1) prominently posted in at least one public place reserved for such or similar announcements, (2) mailed, telephoned, telegrammed, or hand delivered to at least two newspapers which newspapers shall be designated by the public body to receive such notices because they have the greatest likelihood of informing the public within the area of jurisdiction of the public body of such meetings, one of which shall be the official newspaper, where any such has been designated by the public body or if the public body has failed to so designate, where any has been designated by the governing body of the political subdivision whose geographic boundaries are coextensive with that of the public body and (3) filed with the clerk of the municipality when the public body’s geographic boundaries are coextensive with that of a single municipality, with the clerk of the county when the public body’s geographic boundaries are coextensive with that of a single county, and with the Secretary of State if the public body has Statewide jurisdiction. For any other public body the filing shall be with the clerk or chief administrative officer of such other public body and each municipal or county clerk of each municipality or county encompassed within the jurisdiction of such public body. Where annual notice or revisions thereof in compliance with section 13 of this act [FN1] set forth the location of any meeting, no further notice shall be required for such meeting.
11:27
Get over yourself and your ridiculous defense. Ms. Knudsen is DOING what the Myor only claims to do. that is, she is bringing TRUE TRANSPARENCY to our local government, bringing a public policy discussion to a public forum. Our Mayor talks about transparency until we are sick to death of the word, meanwhile he agrees that she should be kept out of a discussion to which she certainly should have been included.
She should have been Mayor Knudson. Ahronson hijacked the position because he did not win it legitimately.
Well, Community News Watch how did you get your job down at the County? I know everything was on the up and up back then. You are like some of the other posters on this blog who motto is I GOT MINE.
Actually Susan should have been Deputy Mayor for these two years, as per long standing tradition since she was the highest vote-getter. But, no, once again the rules had to be changed to suit the egos over there. Albert Pucciarelli said, and I paraphrase, I AM THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB. Arrogance is not a strong enough adjective.
Let me be uncivil about this. The three amigos will never have to worry about residency,nepotism or legacy candidates. It would be a embarrassment to them if any of their offspring worked a civil service job. It would lower their parents social status. Could you just hear Al telling friend at a social event the his kid is a cop or fireman. Not that the three amigos have anything to brag about. Full time politician. Lawyer. A Hotel and hospitality one at that. We know what people think about Lawyers Miss Silver Spoon has she ever worked a day in her life other volunteering at Vally Hospital
“I AM THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB.” Wow Man not Person. Woman must love him.
Add this Albert gem to the list: He said publicly: “I gave up MY seat on the Planning Board to Councilwoman Knudsen.”
Message to Mr. P.: I didn’t know seats on the Planning Board were owned by individuals. New rule?
Agreed with 11:37, nepotism is a quiet, growing infection and no one is immune, iincluding local politicians. Hey, if Killion recused, so should Knudsen.
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.