Last night, GA watched the first 90 minutes of the council meeting, thus am not up to speed (yet) on the Housing Authority appointments. However...
Yuge news was broken during the second reading of the Ramos-DeFusco ordinance-- the one addressing the mayor's outside employment. To summarize what happened: Council President Ramos was about to call the vote, when Jim Doyle reminded the room about a memo that Corporation Council Brian Aloia had issued last week; the memo advised the council not to pass the ordinance. According to Aloia, it was "unenforceable" -- a nice way of saying "piece of crap."
He then spouted reams of mumbo-jumbo about the City of Hoboken being unable to insert ethics language into our ordinance unless we create our own Ethics Board. A City of Hoboken Ethics Board?
Shockingly, Ramos latched onto the idea, and ordered Aloia to have "something" prepared by next meeting! The rest of the council fell like dominoes. That is, except Mike DeFusco.
DeFusco is the only councilperson who got it. He knows that his ass will go right in the frying pan as soon as the Ethics Board lights go on. Oh Lord, it was funny! Sirens went off in DeFusco's head... ding ding ding! His eyes flashed like strobes... warning warning warning... beep beep beep... and his mouth blew up! A stream of allegations, arguments and man-splaining to Emily, erupted like diarrhea- it made even less sense than diarrhea- all urging his colleagues to ignore the legal issues and just vote, dammit!
Overruled!
Remarkably, Ramos pushed back. He wants that Ethics Board. Bwaa haw haw haw...
Remarkably, Ramos pushed back. He wants that Ethics Board. Bwaa haw haw haw...
Talk about watching out for what you wish for...
What ethics complaint does the public file first? It'll be like picking which truffle to eat from the box. GA's voluminous archive of existing, verifiable (not speculative) violations of local P2P law, anti-corruption law and campaign finance law for government officials include open violations by Ruben Ramos, Jen Giattino, Mike DeFusco and Mike Russo! It's like a frigging grab bag of (alleged) political corruption! Mirth! Joy! Delight!
FINALLY. All GA can say is: what's taken so long?
Can I answer that, too?
The reason why Hoboken doesn't have an Ethics Board is because previous councils knew what a slippery slope it would be-- for them. Last night, Aloia noted that once upon a time, long ago, the City Council tried to create an ethics board. But the Wise Men (or wise-guys) of that era reconsidered the plan... you know, the law of unintended consequences, a one-way ticket from City Hall to Sing Sing.
I just checked North Bergen's government directory. Know what's missing? An Ethics Board! Nick Sacco's no dope... now wait until he tries to get contracts in Hoboken! ZAP! Poor Nick flew right into Hoboken's Ethics Board Zapper!
Guess who else doesn't have an Ethics Board? Brian Stack! Hey Brian, you'll have to run your next truckload of turkeys past our new Ethics Board. Hoboken's new Ethics Board standard will be Butterball, self basting.
I am so frigging delighted.
Mind you, the Ramos-Fisher braintrust envisions this entity as a hanging jury for Mayor Bhalla. That was clear from last nights discussion. Councilwoman Oblivious Fisher smugly presumed that the council would make the appointments to the board, before she was reminded by Jim Doyle that council members too, are subject to Ethics Board review.
Should council members with ethics violations (and likely pending complaints) be allowed to pick members of a board that will eventually adjudicate their alleged lawbreaking?
NO!
NO!
Corporation Counsel: Please consider an apolitical third party with law enforcement and/or legal experience to choose Hoboken ethics board members. It is absurd to let [alleged or future] criminals pick their own jury!
Now, in preparation for Hoboken's new Ethics Board, GA has OPRAed Financial Disclosure reports for the Council/Mayor, and will be reviewing them with an electron microscope. Maybe that will yield more 'business' for Hoboken's new Ethics Board?
Great idea, Ruben!
Now, in preparation for Hoboken's new Ethics Board, GA has OPRAed Financial Disclosure reports for the Council/Mayor, and will be reviewing them with an electron microscope. Maybe that will yield more 'business' for Hoboken's new Ethics Board?
Great idea, Ruben!
If there were a test for ethical, legal and honest behavior in order to serve on this sub-committee, DeFusco, Fisher, Giattino, Ramos and Russo would not qualify. But they're so out of touch, they probably think they can aim their attentions solely at the mayor. 503 days until we vote them out, which is 33 or so opportunities for them to whine at council meetings and not do their jobs.
ReplyDeleteIs no one going to comment on the newest Ravi scandal? seems to me that being censured by the NJ Supreme Court is bad news for Ravi.
ReplyDeleteComment on whatever you like, though "scandal" is your characterization-- I have life stuff going on, so a little behind but will get to this story eventually. Frankly, seems like an administrative fuck up but I'll withhold comment until I'm up to speed. Feel free to discuss what you want, of course though it pleases the host when folks stay on topic *wink*.
DeleteUnderstood. My initial reaction was the same as yours, an administrative issue. Then I read the actual decision. The fact that he knew for years (7 or so) before taking any action (only did so after the complaint was filed) is what bothers me. He stipulated to those facts, so they're not in dispute.
DeleteI will stop commenting on this until you do a post.
Okay, I just read the decision. Thoughts:
Delete(1) I respect the Court's opinion.
(2) In 2008 -2009 Ravi transitioned to politics. As a business owner/operator, it would have behooved him to hire a bookeeper to do payroll and/or deal with ADP, and understand what ADP does and doesnt do, and to make sure matters like the subject of the complaint are expeditiously handled. IMO, Ravi has always overloaded his plate and when you have responsibilities like this, it may lead to places like this. I cannot flagellate him more than the words of the court. When a person does not have adequate staff to handle everything they have on their plate, this is what results. My opinion.
(3) This decision will be overplayed by the same people that want to strip the Mayor's office of staff, and want him to sit in subcommittee meetings-- in other words, hobble his ability to do his job (mayor) so that they can blame his of-counsel job for any collateral damage (of stripping his staff and forcing him to attend subcommittee meetings). Note: John Allen and/or Jason Freeman attend those meetings and report to the mayor, while the mayor is being mayor.
(4) I think that's it for now!
Can't wait for them to cast the first stone, as there is a whole Pandora's box of unethical and illegal behavior on their parts awaiting fresh scrutiny. Some of which they're hoping is long forgotten, but nope, it's not, and just like that, it can be trotted out to expose these hypocrites.
DeleteI support an Ethics Board in town as long as it’s an independent body, not associated with the Council or Mayor’s office, and will look at the behavior of all public officials. Neither should be able to appoint officials to it or it will be politicized and therefore unable to discharge its duties objectively.
ReplyDeleteIf we can have an independent ethics board, I think it would be good for our town. I also believe that Michael DeFusco, Ruben, and Jen are going to be sorry that they ever voted for it. Michael in particular depends on anti-wheeling law violations to fund his negative campaigns. Anyway, I can imagine an Ethics Board continually being flooded with complaints from rivals trying to hold a rival’s feet to the fire and everyone involved being sorry they ever voted for it but not able to disband it without looking... unethical.
About Michael, it’s tiring but not surprising that the First Ward has elected a politician instead of a legislator. He continually pushes the rest of the Council to use their time on the dais to play politics and perform and it’s not a good look. It was good that Ruben put the brakes on it, though not without corporation counsel having to firmly explain, again, that their political act was not legislatively legal.
I agree, bring it, but as long as it’s independent. Over time it will be for the good and hopefully clean up bad behavior. It would also be delicous to see Michael DeFusco eaten alive by it. Glasshouses.
The trouble is that the selection process for ethics Boards is always designed to achieve political/partisan balance because there is no way to make it purely objective and apolitical.
ReplyDeleteIf the appointments aren't going to be made by the mayor and council, either separately or collaboratively, what will the selection process be?
The LFB is uninterested in local politics so the existing system of letting it be the ethical arbitor of our local officials is pretty much the only way of keeping local politics out of the equation as much as possible. Though the tradeoff is the risk of interference by the governor, as I believe occurred under Governor Christie.
Since the Guv will rarely be interested enough (or corrupt enough) to get involved in local ethics issues, we are IMHO far better off leaving well enough alone. If it ain't broke, and it ain't, don't fix it.