Posted on

Ridgewood Village Council , Is it okay to cast a vote for your “friend” to receive tax dollars?

Smell Test

by the staff of The Ridgewood Blog

Ridgewood NJ, we strongly disagree with the notion that it’s okay for members of the Ridgewood Village Council to vote “Yes; I approve” when one of their respective friends is up for the award of a taxpayer funded professional services contact, or in line to be hired for a salaried Village position.

And, we don’t really care if certain Council members continue to spout: “the Village Attorney (whose salary is paid by all taxpayers, not just Council members) says it is fine for me to vote.”

The bottom line is that “I’m voting for my friend” behaviors don’t now, and never will, pass the smell test.

Yep; voting for your friend to be paid with tax dollars stinks, big time!

Tell your story #TheRidgewoodblog , #Indpendentnews #information #advertise #guestpost #affiliatemarketing ,#NorthJersey #NJ , #News #localnews #bergencounty #nj #sponsoredpost #SponsoredContent #contentplacement #guestposts #linkplacement Email: Onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com

16 thoughts on “Ridgewood Village Council , Is it okay to cast a vote for your “friend” to receive tax dollars?

  1. No specifics…?

    3
    2
  2. Perron has voted yes twice when her friend and former co-worker was up for appointment as the Village’s municipal public defender.

    3
    1
    1. Pam votes for her because she is extremely competent. Have you ever spoken to her or taken a look at her resume. So is MORE than qualified for this job and has and incredible depth and breadth of experience. Not to mention common sense.

      Give it a break. The lady knows her stuff.

      1. Sorry. I don’t care if she graduated from Tulane Law School. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

        2
        1
        1. So you’d rather have someone incompetent that Pam doesn’t know? Thank makes compete sense to me.

          1. As usual your logic is flawed and exposes your bias.

      2. The issue isn’t the competency/knowledge of the appointee. The issue is why Ms. Perron feels the need to cast a yes vote when there are enough other yes votes for the resolution to pass? Smells bad.

  3. As a community we all have friends among us. Many of those friends also have businesses. So what are we saying? We can’t give business to community members? Not shying from having my name out there.

    5
    1
    1. Most members of the Council have chosen to recuse themselves from voting when a friend of theirs is in line to be the recipient of tax dollars. Ms. Perron feels there is no need for her to do so. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

  4. Is it ethical? No. Does it look right even if it is legal ? No.

    Honey I am meeting my friend in a hot sheet motel room We are just going to talk. No matter what it may look like, I promise you nothing is wrong here.

    Oh my gawd.

  5. REMEMBER THIS HUGE FACT . . . Susan Cassell was appointed Village Public Defender BEFORE Pam Perron was even on the Village Council. Pam has NOTHING to do with Susan being appointed…it’s an ongoing arrangement. DUH.

    1. Although Susan Cassell was initially appointed prior to Pam Perron’s election to the Village Council, she was NOT APPOINTED FOR LIFE; she was appointed for a defined period of time. There have been 2 instances post Pam Perron’s arrival in which Ms. Cassell’s appointment required “renewal” via a formal resolution. Ms. Perron cast a yes vote in both of those instances. Not sure why Ms. Perron felt the need to vote since the appointment would have been approved by the yes votes of other Council members.

  6. Pam Perron has no business voting for such a close friend. This is not a casual friend. It is completely inappropriate. Susan Cassel would get voted in without Ms Perron’s vote. She should RECUSE. Come on Pam. We thought better of you.

  7. Recusal of someone in a governing body for any actual OR PERCEIVED conflict of interest is/should be standard. This in no way reflects on the competence of the person being considered for a paid position or whatever. It merely removes from the playing field any suggestion of favoritism or nepotism. And it should be done far more than it is around here.

    That is why Mr. Vagianos should not be on the council: he has far too many finger$ in the pie. But like others before him (notably Gwenn Hauck/Valley Hospital) he refuses to recuse himself even for issues related to downtown–in fact, he pushes hard for those.

    Sorry, it’s wrong.

    1. P.S. from same poster:

      In fact, recusal PROTECTS the person being considered for a job, etc., by removing any chance of his/her being accused later of “getting the job only because X was your friend/relative/boss.”

      It cleans things up for both.

    2. like having 3 immediate family members employed by the village?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *