| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:04 am: | 
|
Eric, if there is no formal statement from the Ethics Board I think it appropriate that you not remove yourself from discussions.
I believe that the previous order re: Quarry can only apply to the Quarry situation. It is Ed extending the logic to your case.
You have been elected to represent us - don't be marginalized!
Quote from the Quarry opinion letter:
"All Board opinions are limited to a specific matter as outlined in the request letter. Due to the fact sensitive nature of each circumstance, an advisory opinion may only be applied to the question at issue."
see the following link for the full text: http://howard-levison.com/Conflict_of_Interest.pdf |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2571
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Howard,
What happened? Did Matthew try to make Eric recuse himself on something pertaining to the Quarry?????? Because of his involvement in CPSO????
If so, why wasn't Steglitz forced to recuse himself because of his involvement in RRD - the group that preceeded CPSO in the fight for the quarry? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 304
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Ed is using the same logic that was provided by the Ethics Board for the Quarry issue and extending it to Eric on discussions relating to Beifus/SOPAC/Rug Store etc.
Ed asked Eric to leave when these topics were being discussed.
Ed inferred that Eric had a ruling that was communicated during the campaign but stated that he did not have the details. |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Unfortunately, there is a precedent. Unless Eric gets a favorable ruling from the Ethics Board, the other trustees could become legally exposed to any future potential lawsuits by a harmed party resulting from Eric's potential votes.
Ed controls how this plays out. Since he has already gone on record (as village attorney) and raised the ethics decision with the quarry as the reason why Eric would need to remove himself from votes within 200ft of his busniness, the only way Eric can change the potential lawsuit described above is to get another ruling from the Ethics board.
Any future plantiff would use Ed's discussion as the basis of their lawsuit. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Single - Welll said and right on target.
I do think Eric had discussions with the DCA on the matter and was told that he could not participate in discussions or votes on any property within 200 feet.
MHD: I fail to see the relationship between Steglitz's participation in the RRD and what it has to do with an elected official not being allowed to participate on property within 200 feet of his/her property. I think the DCA has been pretty clear with it's opinion.
|
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
I am still waiting for the brain trust at S.O.A.R. to explain why they told everyone this would not be an issue. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 752
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Me too...I asked then, and wasn't answered, and I ask again. |
gotcha
Citizen
Username: Gotcha
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Becasue the most important thing to the "Brain Trust" was to get their politicans elected, even if they had to tell lies to do so. |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
I know the S.O.A.R. leadership reads this board and it's from Daniel Goldberg's opinion that they put forth the untruths during the election:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=129&post=375662#POST37566 2
A good read indeed. |
Sitoyan
Citizen
Username: Sitoyan
Post Number: 82
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
SOAR adopted the opinion in Daniel Goldberg's post of 4/27/05. Why not? After all he is a lawyer. And his post did make legal sense (legal sense? wow! what an oxymoron!). |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2039
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
What type of attorney is he?
|
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Dan is a very smart and well spoken person. However, he is not an attorney. |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
I repeat below what has occurred so far.
In November 2004 I wrote a letter to the Dept. of Consumers Affairs - Local Finance Board in Trenton, requesting an Advisory Opinion on whether my ownership of commercial property downtown would force me to recuse myself from any discussion/vote regarding redevelopment projects in the vicinity of my property (50 W. South Orange Avenue).
At that time I was considering running for trustee in the May elections and I made this request in order to decide whether I can be an effective trustee and not just occupy a chair on the dais. I was naive enough to believe that I would receive a response in the next one or two weeks.
In December I received a letter from the DCA acknowledging receipt of my request stating that "it is the Board's practice and intent to conduct thorough research responding to all such requests. The Board will correspond with you as soon as a determination is made on this matter."
After two months of waiting I contacted the DCA and asked for the status of my request. I was told that "it is still being reviewed". Finally in March, after repeated calls, I spoke on the phone to an employee who located the response letter. He said that it still has to go through several reviews and signatures. I asked him if he could tell me the gist of the letter. He said that the letter indicates that I could have a conflict of interest and should recuse myself from projects within 200 feet of my property".
I made this information available to the voters on MOL and in my website www.EricDeVarisForTrustee.com/conflictsofinterest.php, together with my rationale for continuing my campaign. I also stated that until I receive the written Advisory Opinion I would recuse myself from projects lying within 200 feet of my property.
I continued my weekly calls to the DCA, until on June 23 I was told that the letter was about to be mailed tomorrow.
I received this letter, dated June 23, 2005 in today’s mail. It states indeed that I have a conflict of interest, which requires me to recuse myself from participating in or voting upon any issues pertaining to properties located within 200 feet from my property.
This translates as follows: as a Village Trustee and owner of commercial property I cannot participate in any discussion or vote on any of the following properties:
to the north: the Beifus site development, the S.O.Auto Repair, and the buildings located in between;
to the south: the S.O. Performing Arts Center, the NJ Transit Parking Lot;
to the east: “Bunny’s Restaurant”, and the buildings located between Bunny’s and the train trestle;
to the west: the River Corridor project, the “Taste of Asia” restaurant, the Exxon gasoline station, and the “Reservoir” restaurant.
I hope this puts this issue to rest.
|
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Thank you Eric. Your communication and honesty are much appreciated.
It's a shame that you (and the village) have been put into this position where you are unable to particpate on so many important issues facing the village.
Ed wins again.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Eric: Thanks for posting the information and I agree with you in that I hope it puts the issue to rest once and for all. I am sure that you input on other issues will allow you to be an effective trustee.
The reality is the ruling is meant to protect residents from an elected official who might be influenced by potential personal financial gain. They use a blanket rule (200 feet) and in some cases it does not appear to make sense.
However, in this case we all knew this was the likely outcome (well most of us). |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Mark,
I agree but in other towns this is not an issue unless someone (in our case the village attorney) makes it an issue. |
Lucy
Citizen
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Can someone please answer this question. How can the V.P. not only vote but be on the redevelopment commitee for Shop Rite and the projects within 200 ft of his business? Is this a selective conflict of interest that only apply's to Eric and Patrick. |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 207
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Why in the world would Eric need to leave the dais? Okay... he can't speak and actively participate - but why can't he be there for discussion and listen and observe? At one point or another, residents may have questions for Eric and the least he can do is relay the message of the board onto them. You know... be educated on the topics. Furthermore - the minutes are available to everyone. Having him go watch the ceiling in another room does what exactly?
not directed at anyone in particular but just curious as to this...
Is nonverbal communication outlined in this letter? Geez folks.
In addition, I don't think it's a matter of "Ed Wins". He's the Village Attorney - it's a state statute, he wouldn't be doing his job if he let it slide by... |
gotcha
Citizen
Username: Gotcha
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
In other words, Eric is useless to the redevelopment of downtown. Thanks SOAR! |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Lucy: I don't know if Bill's store is within 200 feet of the shop-rite /Vose ave development. Bill was not allowed to discuss the Quarry development either but as has been pointed out it was not consistently enforced prior to Patrick being elected.
Sheena: I can't explain why the DCA feels that a person with a conflict needs to leave the room.
You are right that this is not about winning or losing.
|
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Apologies for the "Ed Wins" comment. However, we did not need to be put into this situation in the first place. It was political motivation that caused Ed to request an ethics opinion in the first place (with Patrick & the quarry). Anything to the contrary is B.S.
If our village attorney was half as diligent in writing contracts that favor the village with our redevelopment projects as he is with enforcing ethics opinions, the village would be in much better shape.
That's my point.
|
hariseldon
Citizen
Username: Hariseldon
Post Number: 371
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Of course Trustees should be ineligible to be players on issues affecting their own interests and property. How could the SOAR people feel bent out of shape about that.
Or...was furthering their own business and personal agendas the main point, after all? |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 173
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Singlemalt, you make a very good point. Ed's motivation was and is political. He never raised a conflict of interest for Mary Theroux. And yes if he would apply himself to better represent the Village's interests and not conclude expensive dealings for contaminated properties, we would be much better off. Besides as an attorney he should know that a Village employee is not allowed to participate in political agendas. But, hey, this is only a small grain in the heap of improprieties that plague our Village. |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 208
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Singlemalt,
I may be wrong but I believe the the judgement about the 200 ft. rule came out at about the same time that Patrick was running. Could have been political - not sure, but it is also something to consider if I'm correct.
Back to Eric for one sec. The DCA feels he needs to recuse himself from "discussion and the vote". It doesn't say he needs to leave the room. I don't think he'll be throwing up hand signals trying to tell people how to vote. Small point - but I just think it's ridiculous for him to leave whenever someone says "Beifus". Someone at the podium says it once and there goes Eric... then that person jumps to speeding or something and here comes Eric... back to Beifus... there he goes again...
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Malt, I'm pretty sure Dan and his wife are both attorneys, though his wife now teaches, from what I understand. Or maybe I'm confusing him with someone else... |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
I may also be wrong but I thought I asked either him or someone else who knew what Dan does and was told he was not.
|
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Did anyone notice at the 6/13 BoT meeting, when DeVaris voiced concerns about approving changes to the Church Street redevelopment plan without a current master plan for the village, Calabrese rolled his eyes and Ed Matthews suddenly said, "Mr. President, do you want to call for a motion to approve this on second reading?", which Calabrese immediately did.
What's that all about? Since when does municipal counsel prompt the village president to shut-down healthy debate among trustees? And, who is working for who in this town? |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Besides as an attorney he should know that a Village employee is not allowed to participate in political agendas.
Is that why John Gross was partying with the Line C candidates on election night at Cryans? |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Gotcha,
I take exception to your comment: "In other words, Eric is useless to the redevelopment of downtown". I should hope not. I will have a voice and a vote on every other downtown issue, i.e. strategic planning, the supermarket, the development of Valley Street and Irvington Avenue, downtown presence of Seton Hall, parking and traffic solutions, etc.
I flatter myself to believe that my active involvement in these issues will be of some use to the downtown of the Village. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Don't forget Church Street, Eric! We're counting on you!
And I do believe the property for the supermarket is within 200 feet of Bill's pharmacy. Why is he allowed to participate? |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 174
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Singlemalt asks: Is that why John Gross was partying with the Line C candidates on election night at Cryans?
FYI John Gross also did some recruiting for line C before the elections. A friend of mine was approached by him. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2572
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:13 pm: |
|
Maybe he's got a thing for "women Trustees"?
Kidding! |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Mark-
Sadly while what you said is true, the 200 feet rule is to "protect residents from an elected official who might be influenced by potential personal financial gain," it sure didn't help when Shop-Rite wanted to build on Third Street. The 'rumors' were (no naming names) a certain trustee thought it would be a threat to his business. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Eric-
I'd be more then happy to help you resolve the problem of you not being able to vote within 200 feet of your business. You could sell it to me for, hmm let's say $13. Then you can run the business as my employee! I'll even pay you a salary! What do you think?  |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:05 am: |
|
Bets, I'm pretty sure that the new market site is not within 200' of Bill's pharmacy. |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 175
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Aunt: "The 'rumors' were (no naming names) a certain trustee thought it would be a threat to his business."
It was not a certain trustee, it was the Village president Bill Calabrese. Shoprite wanted to include a pharmacy in their new proposed location on 3rd Street, but Calabrese, "out of consideration" for the neighbors stopped it.
I believe (I don't know if this is only a rumor) that Shoprite sued Calabrese on this, and that Calabrese was fined by the court. Anybody can throw some light on this?
|
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
“Don't forget Church Street, Eric! We're counting on you!”
Bets, I didn’t forget Church Street. At the June 13 BoT meeting I questioned the wisdom of developing Church Street without first developing a Strategic Plan for downtown that will include Church Street. I suggested that we shelve the project until we see the impact that all these residential units that we add on Curch Streeet will have to the whole business district. I criticized our “spot zoning” practice. All that to no avail. The Church Street redevelopment plan was voted in; I was the only objecting voice.
I plan to continue my efforts to have a long and short term Strategic Plan drawn for our downtown, and for the infrastructure of the entire Village. I hope I will be able to convince enough of my fellow Trustees of the importance of such a Plan.
Aunt, your offer sounds enticing. Would that include benefits?
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page