Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck was Vice President of the Valley Auxiliary and raised millions of dollars for Valley
Readers debate Conflicts of Interest in the Village
Under the Local Government Ethics Law, Financial Disclosure Statements must be filed by April 30th each year, or within 30 days of taking office.
Hopefully the Council changes the financial disclosure forms under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.6 to include whether or not an individuals sources of income conduct any business with an entity that is funded in whole or partially by the Village. The Local Government Ethics Law, set forth at N.J.S.A. 40A: 9-22.1 et seq., clearly states that it need not be the official’s own interest that is in conflict with his or her duty to the public. If a member of the official’s immediate family, defined as a spouse or dependant child living in the same household, or a business in which he or she has at least a 10 percent interest, has such a conflict, that conflict is attributed to the official.
Hauck has an obivous conflict when it comes to Valley
Busy people don’t operate in a vacuum……there will be conflicts.
That’s true #2 but they should have enough common sense to realize that they are to close to the subject and voting on it would be morally wrong.
Look at me I’m busy, busy busy. Maybe their to busy to be a council person.
Mrs. Hauck, along with our Mayor, piled on during the Richie fiasco stating publicly that we cannot allow even the perception of a conflict of interest. I guess her rules only apply to political adversaries.
Amen # 5
Has the Council voted yet on the Valley expansion proposal oir is it still in front of the Planning Board ? Maybe we shouldn’t jump to conclusions ? The Local Govt Ethics Law above states that there is a conflict only if the official or a member of the official’s immediate family has a source of income from the potential conflict, i.e. Valley, or a business in which he or she has at least a 10% interest, has such a conflict. Does the Councilwoman earn income from Valley or own 10% of a business that earns income from Valley ?
#7 – Nor were Tom Richie’s dealings with the Village a conflict since they were approved by the Council and he did not vote on the matter. Mrs. Hauck did take the opportunity however to indulge herself in publicly bashing a political adversary stating that he should have avoided even the appearance of impropriety. The point is, she clearly holds others to a standard that she is unwilling to uphold herself. She should absolutely recuse herself on the Valley matter.
I think we should wait and see what happens before we say she’s not willing to uphold standards herself, the Valley expansion hasn’t even gone past the Planning Board ! As for conflicts of interest, just because the Village attorney says his dealings weren’t in conflict with the financial disclosure filings – which only ask for sources of income, not whether those sources have contracts with Village funded entities – doesn’t mean that they weren’t in conflict with the Local Govt Ethics law. If a company that you own more than 10% of contracts with the Village, you have a conflict on any item where Village funding is involved, including Central Dispatch, etc. Common sense also dictates that a sitting Council member or Planning board member should not be contracting with the Village they represent, period. Don’t confuse that basic fact.
If you read further interpretation of the ethics law, local politics, in particular, is based on trust and reputation. As soon as there is an appearance of a conflict, the law suggests recusal.
Well we should all remember their antic when it come to their reelection.
Emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned” Get it Mayor.
First, you’re missing the point. Regardless of your opinion about Mr. Richie, Mrs. Hauck raised the bar by stating publicly that appearance is as important as the law. Second, I find it interesting that you bring in the notion of common sense with regard to the Richie matter while tossing all common sense aside with regard to Mrs. Hauck’s refusal to recuse herself.
#13, what Council debate are you referring to where the Councilwoman should have recused herself ? No vote on a Valley proposal has come to the Council yet in her term, so let’s wait before passing judgment. I’m sure if it does come to a vote before the Council that the Village attorney will give an opinion about who should or should not recuse themselves under the Local Govt Ethics Law. Lot’s of votes on the budget, which funded the budgets of Central Dispatch, the Library, etc, went before the Council when the Councilman you mention did not recuse himself. Maybe the Village attorney said that was okay, but the Law is the Law regarding the 10% ownership interest.
#14 Based on your posts, I’m sure you read the local papers. Mrs. Hauck has stated for the press that she will not recuse herself if and when the Valley vote comes to the Council. Why has this come up before the actual Council vote? Because she was asked during her campaign whether she was running to vote yes on Valley and she said no. After she was elected she changed her position. You are obviously enough in the know about local issues and laws but are ignoring certain key facts that poke huge holes in your argument. I stand by my original statement – that Mrs Hauck publicly held a fellow Council member to a higher standard with regard to conflict of interest than she is willing to uphold herself.
Sorry, I’m confused. Has she voted on the Vallley expansion ?
Yes, you are confused. Let’s hope she does the right thing.
I really believe ” doing the right thing,” at least in her mind, would be to not recuse herself and vote yes for Valley if the vote goes before the Council.
You seem to be confused about the Local Govt Ethics Law. Unless the Councilwoman or a member of her immediate family earns money from Valley, or unless she owns more than 10% of a business that contracts with Valley, then she doesn’t have any conflict of interest. Based on publicly available information, she has no conflict. Ask the Village attorney for clarification if thou are unable to understand the merits under the law. You’re basically saying that if someone volunteered to be an unpaid lifeguard at Graydon, and then got elected to the Village Council, that they would then have to recuse themselves from any vote involving Graydon ? Your logic has no merit under the law.
Again, you miss the point. While Mrs. Hauck may not have earned her income from Valley, she chaired big ticket fundraising events for them for years. She was pictured on their web site for years. Valley’s CEO contributed to her campaign. There was a long running, high level, financial relationship between Mrs. Hauck and Valley Hospital. Can you understand why the taxpayers might sense “the appearance of a conflict?”
The law is one thing and what Mrs. Hauck said during the Richie matter is another. Mrs. Hauck opined publicly that Mr. Richie should have avoided even the appearance of a conflict despite the fact that the very same Village attorney that you refer to said that no conflict existed – as long as Mr. Richie didn’t vote, which he did not. So which is it? Was the Village attorney wrong about Mr. Richie and right about Mrs. Hauck? She indulged herself in preaching ethical standards to a political adversary and is now failing to uphold those standards herself. Her personal rules only seem to apply to others.
ask Rogers, he’ll explain it to you