| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3375
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 3:32 pm: | 
|
Let us count the ways:
- Lives within 200 feet of the Quarry property - must recuse himself (although this is never enforced) from all discussions.
- In business with Sayid - must recuse himself (although this is never enforced) from all discussions on the Rug Store property.
- Owns/runs store that MAY be within 200 feet of the Shop Rite/Vose Ave site.
- Owns/runs store that IS within 200 feet of Village Hall AND Library - both properties which currently need significant money for infrastructure repair. He SHOULD recuse himself from these discussions (although it will never be enforced)
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 443
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
I don't think he did last evening when the "Resolution Authorizing a Reduction in the Performance Guarantee for The Manors at South Orange." was discussed and voted on.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 406
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 5:57 pm: |
|
And what about the fact that he has never disclosed his business venture with Saiyd, which venture could easily be a conflict with the Millenium discussions. I bet some of Saiyd's properties are within 200ft of Sloan Street, and certainly within 200 ft of the NJ Transit parking lot which is encompassed in the Millenium proposal as well. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2339
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 12:36 am: |
|
I don't see what his conflict would be with Village Hall and the Library. Simply owning a business or living near something doesn't cause a conflict. What is his financial conflict with either project? |
Elaine Harris
Citizen
Username: Elaineharris
Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
Rastro: How can you distinguish your post above from the allegations of the last election campaign where some took the position that Eric De Varis and John Pogany had "conflicts" for the same reasons? And please, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you one of them???? |
CageyD
Citizen
Username: Cageyd
Post Number: 599
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
BOOT BILL, BOOT BILL, BOOT BILL........ |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2342
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
Elaine, I can easily distinguish between them. Village Hall and the library are not commerical enterprises. They pose no commercial threat, nor do the projects impact Bill financially (by way of having a store nearby). If they do, please explain how.
And yes, I was one of the people who though Eric and John had conflicts (as did Eric himself, if I am not mistaken). That is because of the financial impact that the projects in question could have had on them.
Simply living or owning a store near a project does not make it a conflict. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there needs to be a potential economic impact.
I don't like the way Bill does things around here any more than anyone else. But this is a red herring. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:49 am: |
|
What's to hide?
If you own, then own up to it.
Anything you own, or in which you or an entity you have an ownership interest in, is something which can be financially affected by board decisions.
If you own an interest in an entity, such as a partnership, which owns an interest in something which owns real property, well, your decisions on the board may very well have a financial impact on you.
So, tell the truth, the great disinfectant.
jd |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2345
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
Joel, I assume your comment is directed at my post? If so, I am not in any way condoning keeping business relationships secret, particularly when the person in question wields the power that Bill does.
My comments are simply to address whether construction going on at Village Hall and the library amount to a conflict of interest for him. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3381
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
Rastro,
In my opinion, the appearance of Village Hall, the Library or ANY property within 200 feet of Calabrese's business do have a direct impact on him. If Village Hall goes the way of the Old Stone House don't you think that will have an impact on the businesses on Scotland Rd. Just as the condition of the Beifus site has an impact on the property value of Bunny's or Eric's building.
As a result, Calabrese has a PERSONAL incentive to invest as much money as possible into Village Hall to make it attractive so it helps his business. Therefore he has a conflict and should not be part of any discussions on the matter. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 212
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
I'm all for being hard on Bill and, frankly, not re-electing him.
I'm also big on ensuring disclosure of conflicts and requiring recusal where necessary, but I don't think recusal is necessary in every instance.
The library and village hall, as public buildings, seem fundamentally different from commercial buidings and businesses. That said, certain projects, for example, if the amount of parking at VH were being increased, that could benefit BC and it would be appropriate for him to recuse himself (since I'm relatively new, I don't know if there has been any change in parking at VH since BC has been in office - the lot looks pretty recently done, but there may have been just as many spaces before). But, HVAC and exterior repairs? Don't see how those would present conflicts. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2569
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
SO1969: The voice of reason on MOL. Very well stated. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:30 am: |
|
My point is that full disclosure of ownership interest will only help the public/voter's understand of what goes into decision making in this still closed-circle known as local government.
This disclosure should be town wide, and start at the head.
jd |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3382
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
Quote:The voice of reason on MOL. Very well stated
Mark - I assume you are referring to the part of SO1969's message that referred to "not re-electing him".  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2570
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
 |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2352
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
SO1969, I completely agree with all your comments. Better said than I could. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3163
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Conflicts of Interest ... redo....
http://johnpogany.com/conflict.php  |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
So, the local government ethics law spells it out, clearly.
"Indirect" financial interests must be acknowledged.
Thank you for the cite.
Please pass it along to Matthews.
jd |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
When Patrick Joyce's (and Bill Calabrese's) situation was referred to the Ethics Board, my recollection is that the 200 ft. restriction was cited (maybe not the one referred to above.) Maybe Patrick could elucidate us on the matter. He no doubt saw the letter from the Ethics Board and should be able to clear up some of the speculation.
It is my recollection that Eric submitted his situation to the Ethics Board and was at least verbally informed of the law on the matter. Perhaps he has by now received a letter which he could share with us.
If there is no conflict as far as John as concerned, then there should be no conflict as far as Eric is concerned. So it seems that if there is a question, then Eric's situation should be submitted again to the Ethics Board, unless Eric is firmly persuaded that there is a conflict.
It seems that the above suggestions are reasonable so that we don't start this all over again. Let's get the definitive word. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Let's get the facts, whether of not an Ethics Board is involved.
Who owns what, and where, is not hard to admit.
If you place yourself in a position of public trust, then give the public the information it needs to trust you.
If you have power over my tax monies, I have a right to know what impact exercising such power may have on your properties, in addition to mine.
Perhaps some public scrutiny will alleviate much guessing and blame laying.
jd |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 4:46 pm: |
|
joel - I don't disagree with that. This thread had been discussing Bill C's situation. What I was suggesting above was to try to get some definitive word on a matter that I thought was really closed, but evidently not.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Perhaps what should be done is the following:
Let the BOT gather the facts as best they can. Give those facts to Village Counsel and request that he submit a letter to the DCA asking about any conflicts.
From what I remember in the past, Village Counsel will not submit a letter to the DCA unless requested to do so by the BOT. It seems that all members of the BOT would want this matter cleared up.
Joel - I realize that this goes beyond learning what the facts are, but it does seem that this might be a good way to resolve some questions. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Spitz, the fact gathering that needs to be done, IMHO would be better completed by an attorney and not left to the BOT. What the attorney did with the facts, once gathered, could then be decided later. I just don't think the BOT has the prerequisite skill, training, or in some cases, interest, to conduct the kind of investigation needed. In some citical instances, they should not be the ones to decide even what constitutes a "fact" in this area. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
SO - I had been thinking the same and your suggestion is a good one. This is just something that I've been thinking of for a while and trying to come up with something that would give us all something that is more definitive than what we presently have.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
In the past, Ed Matthews has warned the BOT that one of the main reasons for not violating any of the conflict prohibitions, at least those set forth in the DCA's letter, is that to do so would open up to a legal challenge any decision made by the BOT in violation therof.
There are many decisions that have to be made by the BOT regarding SOPAC, redevelopment, etc. It would seem that every member of the BOT, including the VP, would want to make sure that everthing the BOT does is made on a firm legal basis and cannot be challenged by someone who claims there was a conflict of interest.
If full disclosure of the facts is made and then submitted to the DCA for a ruling, then the BOT has done everything it can and should do. |
Long Nose
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 318
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
I think it goes beyond requesting a full disclosure of the facts. Just think of Calabrese's smugness upon answering Eric's pre-informed email questions concerning his relationship with Sayid. His continued reluctance to deal with the issue tells me he is hiding something - it's that simple. We need a thorough investigation of Village Hall to inform us of any collusion or abuse of office for personal gain. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Hose the stables, now.
Demand at a meeting, live, that they speak of their ownership interests in anything in South Orange, NJ, (not Munich, Bill), anything but their residences.
Why the reluctance?
jd |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 5:59 am: |
|
Spitz, what is the "DCA's letter" you referenced and who is the DCA? (District/Deputy ??? Attorney?) |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 446
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 7:35 am: |
|
Department of Community Affairs:
see
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/
for details about the department.
see
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgethics.htm
that relates to the opinion letter in response to an ethics question. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:43 am: |
|
Thanks, Howard. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
I will read the website you linked, Howard, more carefully. But if the general concern is the ethical and legal conduct of public officials, whether elected, appointed or hired, it again would seem that an attorney would be needed to investigate, research, formulate related questions and generally facilitate an answer. Assuming multiple sources of such legal standards, someone trained in the law is needed to find them all (not just the DCA), weigh them all (local, state, federal?) one against another and then address the general concern in dialogue with those dismayed by the conduct of town officials. (Previous comments on this thread suggest this all has not been done, but if it has, I would like to learn more about it.) I cannot imagine that this is something that should be entrusted only or even initially to the BOT or village employees. At the very least, they cannot speak fully for residents on these questions which are too fundamental and significant to be left to the confines of village hall.
Beyond the concern as captured in various laws, however, it is a sign of how bad things are in the town when at a recent meeting of the BOT, the discussion about what constituted ethical conduct perambulated almost exclusively around legal definitions. How sad for us all. What a shameful spectacle of our leaders and the people they hired suggesting that the sole germane source for standards of ethical conduct was some crummy little law somewhere. What a dive to the bottom, shocking to behold, and what myopia about their own humanity. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3478
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Looks like we can now add a NEW conflict to Calabrese's resume.
Tonight at the Planning Board approval for the Beifus site, Calabrese abstained for "personal reasons".
We need an explanation of this. |
John Glick
Citizen
Username: Jgg
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 11:08 pm: |
|
MHD:
I think we need you to run in the next election as you appear to have your finger on the pulse of a variety of issues within the Village. If this were to occur, we as residents would certainly be more informed and not need to pose questions related to everything that goes on in our town. |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 3056
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
Why was Bill allowed in the room during the discussion and the entire planning board meeting? I thought that if they recuse themselves {Eric & Patrick} they have to leave the room? |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 438
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Did any of the other planning board members question Calabrese as to why he could not vote? We need some transparency here. What is Calabrese doing? As the Village President and someone carrying a lot of power and influence in the village, don't we, his constituents, have a right to know? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3483
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
I agree. Maybe Trustee DeVaris can write another Letter and read it before the BOT to get some answers like the last time that Calabrese stated he had "personal reasons" for removing himself [business deal with Sayid]. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3617
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
Looks like we can now add any discussions regarding the SID to the long list of Calabrese Conflicts.... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page