There you go: The Jersey Journal telling it like it was. With several examples (by no means the full extent of the 2-hour character assassination.) What a grotesque display of egos run amok, abuse of the power voters vested in them. NEVER AGAIN.
GA asks folks of good will to remember this at election time.
"The meeting seemed to at times go off the rails, with council members delving into Holtzman's character.
Tip of the iceberg. Folks in the room report giggling, whispering and laughter off-camera. Yeah, hilarious.
They wont be laughing when they try to get re-elected.
An important lesson in all of this is recognizing how hard it is to judge who people really are, especially when you think they are on your "side."
ReplyDeleteBeth Mason didn't switch from saint to devil in 2009 - she was always the same person. Folks just didn't see it because they thought she was on the "reform" side and cheered her on when she attacked the OG.
Cunningham, Giattino and Fisher didn't suddenly transform into the nasty, narcicistic self righteous hypocritical assholes on display at Wednesday's meeting. Folks just didn't see it because they were "reformers" on Zimmer's team.
Going forward, I will be making character the #1 factor in my voting decisions at every level. I can abide good people with whom I have genuine disagreements on issues, and having different points of view represented is actually a good thing.
But the assholes at every level have to go.
Agreed. Voting for assholes because of party (whether unofficial party like reform or a national platform) isn't getting us anywhere good.
DeleteThe two hour character assassination marathon is actionable, as alluded to by Mr. Holtzman's attorney, because the council's inquisition did not stay within the confines of the publicly stated purpose of this public dressing-down. Another example of the amoral incompetence of these five council members.
ReplyDeleteBy slandering Mr. Holtzman and claiming his employment was linked to his work on the planning board, amongst other aspersions, they crossed a line. I hope he sues them, both personally and as elected officials, whose actions were not in line with what they're elected to do.
That these defamatory comments came from the lying mouths of these dishonorable council members with broken moral compasses would be a joke, if not for the fact that they sought to and succeeded in causing damage, not only to Mr. Holtzman, but to anyone who serves on any board or commission, that gets caught in the cross-hairs of their vile attentions.
Now where's that countdown clock again?
In my layperson's opinion, the slander (and run-to-the-press libel campaign) are actionable. However, litigation is very, very expensive. So in order for Holtzman to clear his name, he has to spend tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars-- unless someone out there wants to offer pro bono services. What are the chances of that? IMO, this council's actions have jeopardized his employment, permanently scarred him going forward. If he could, I'd hope he could sue them personally and not as council members so each of them has to pay out-of-pocket legal expenses and NOT foist their defense on taxpayers. Tiffanie, the Wikipedia legal scholar , and the hyenas who feasted on Gary's reputation should be held accountable. They will be held accountable politically.
DeleteAgreed. Maybe a hungry lawyer will take this on a contingency. Or, maybe Mr. Holtzman's employers will join him in a suit as their reputation has been damaged too, as are the names of attorneys on the compiled list.
DeleteUnfortunately, the city and its insurer would wind up paying the bill even if the council members were sued personally, since the issues involved are within the scope of their employment. And Councilpeople have some measure of immunity protecting them from liability for defamatory statements made from behind the council dais.
DeleteThe only real remedy is in the hands of their constituents next November. Incumbents are hard to dislodge no matter how poorly they do their jobs - remember Beth Mason pretty easily won re-election in 2011.
Unless good people who are also good candidates step up to run and start making their case by the early part of next year, we may be doomed to 4 more years no matter how unpopular we persuade ourselves these people are.
Not sure I agree. The council members went over and above what was stated in the public documents regarding this agenda item. What could have been an uncomfortable discussion about what Mr. Holtzman did, and his intentions and the consequences, quickly became a character assassination, and they implicated his employer too.
DeleteWhere is Jay Zeke?
DeleteRight here, citizen! At your (cash only, all sales final) service!
DeleteWhat kind of frivolous (cash only, all sales final) litigation were you interested in?
We've got a holiday special coming up. The 12 Depositions of Christmas. You could be suing 12 people in 12 days! Friends, family members, people at that mall. Is that festive or what!
Just let me know what you had in (cash only, all sales final) mind and we'll get a retainer over to which you should read right after you sign it!
Score another one for ... JayZeke -- Master Litigator!!!
(cash only, all sales final)
(cash only, all sales final)
(cash only, all sales final)
also...
(cash only, all sales final)
Unintentional irony, I'm sure:
ReplyDelete"Do you realize there are standards of treatments before people who go before these boards?" Second Ward Councilman Tiffanie Fisher asked."
---
What a clown.
If Tiffanie held herself to the same standard she applied to Holtzman, she would immediately resign and apologize for her disgusting behavior over the last year to the whole city.
DeleteWhy would anyone volunteer for a position on the zoning board or planning board after the hot mess that unfolded on Wednesday? None of the idiots that led the charge on Wednesday can say with a straight face that the hearing was nothing other than retribution for Gary's support of the mayor in the last election. Keep in mind that Gary VOLUNTEERED countless hours to make Hoboken a better place. And instead of thanking him for what he has done over the years, there was an all out assault on his character, led by that Beth Mason in sheep's clothing Tiffany F. The signal is loud and clear; if you don't support us, we will smear your reputation and try to drive you out of any participation in Hoboken, even a volunteer position, regardless of how effective you may have been and have made solid contributions to make Hoboken a better place to live. The irony between handing out a proclamation to honor the coma inducing foot stomping rants of Mary O (made at any and every opportunity to speak at ANY public meeting in town) and the hateful, venomous assault on a member of the public who has actually given countless hours of his time in a productive manner (see Master Plan and its revision) made my stomach churn.
ReplyDeleteI am sure (make that I know) that the council members acting the most venal and petty have plenty of issues in their civic history that make anything that Gary did pale in comparison. What about Defusco's attendance at the Jersey City meeting where he plugged for a project on the Hoboken 4th Ward/Jersey City border that is being built by one of his campaign contributors. Pot meet kettle, times 100. The list is long. However, the true irony, of epic proportions, was Russo pontificating about ANYTHING related to ethics given his admission that he was willing to accept money from Solomon Dwek in exchange for pushing through zoning applications.
BTW, I can't abide sanctimonious DINO assholes posing as Democrats. You three know to whom I am referring. Many Democrats in town vividly remember the Tiffany reign of incompetence and obstruction as head of the Hoboken Democrats and are just biding their time to render her totally irrelevant in Hoboken. Bye, Felicia.
Thank God we have Emily and Jim, the only adults in the room.
More direct quotes from the JJ article, does Fisher have enough rope yet with which to hang her political career? She can't help herself from slandering Jim Doyle with that cloying, little girl voice of hers:
ReplyDeleteAsked to respond, Fisher said, "Mr. Doyle is a historical revisionist who has tried in the past to diminish Mr. Holtzman's role. This isn't politics, it is Land Use 101 with consensus from professionals that Mr. Holtzman's conduct was a material, ethical breach."
You know what else is Land Use 101? DeFusco should NOT be cozying up to developers, and lubricating their applications through Jersey City's review process, or Hoboken's. Will he face a public tribunal too?
$50 says if her emails every came out it would prove this was an orchestrated smear job from day 1. The only material ethical breach I have seen to date comes from the city council.
DeleteIndubitably
DeleteHere's an amazing "exchange," if you can call it that, which tells you all you need to know about the future ex-councilwoman.
ReplyDeleteExcerpted to one thread of their discusison....
1) Vijay Chaudhuri: You criticize the Mayor’s “alliance” with the union (on a topic of the hotel of which you both agree!) yet yank Doyle from the planning board in favor of Mike DeFusco, who you filed an ethics complaint against for having too many pay to play violations and taking tens of thousands of dollars from special interest union PAC money, violating our local ordinance! (See https://hudsoncountyview.com/fisher-files-complaint.../...) Yet somehow that “alliance” goes unmentioned by you, and still appoint conflicted Mike DeFusco to the planning board now that he’s your political ally of yours opposing the Mayor any chance you get. What happened to your outrage from a year ago when you filed the complaint outlining in great detail DeFusco’s union pay to play violations? Don’t hear a peep from you anymore about that now he’s your ally.
Tiffanie Fisher: [Sticks to discussing anti-Doyle ad and her expectation of a more angry response from Doyle.]
2) Vijay Chaudhuri: My greater point which you didn’t address is how you can attack the Mayor for his “alliance” with labor (for a topic of which you both agree!) when you booted Jim off the planning board and replaced him with pay to play king Mike DeFusco who illegally, as you eloquently pointed out in your ethics complaint, accepted contributions over the limit (tens of thousands of dollars) from Union PACs, but yet you seem to have no issue with that “alliance” when it suits your need of booting off an ally of the Mayor. If you truly wanted to do what was right for the City and were concerned about “union alliances”, and if Jim Doyle was such a “friend” - you wouldn’t have booted him from the planning board.
Tiffanie Fisher: I welcome any constructive discussion and I will address your point... again. [Goes on to discuss her rationale for putting DeFusco on the board; not a word about his conflicts of interest.]
3) Vijay Chaudhuri: Tiffanie Fisher still ignoring my main point (why?) you appoint Mike DeFusco who took tens of thousands of dollars from Union PACs above the legal limit, which you submitted an ethics complaint about. No not a word from you about it post Mayoral election. Now you tear into the Mayor for his “union alliances” And Mike has had to recuse himself from several votes on the Planning Board because of conflicts and doesn’t show up to half of the meetings. That’s best for Hoboken, right?
Tiffanie Fisher: Vijay Chaudhuri I think you hit the nail on the head - there is nothing I will be able to say or do to change your mind that our not reappointing Jim was anything other than political payback.
4) Vijay Chaudhuri: Tiffanie Fisher right so still ignoring my point about DeFusco’s “alliance” aka illegal contributions with labor PACs and choosing that over Jim.
Tiffanie Fisher: Vijay Chaudhuri as I mentioned, there were two decisions. We didn’t choose Jim. We supported Mike given his experience and interest in updating our zoning code. His contributions received during the election did not factor into that decision.
continued...
ReplyDelete5) Vijay Chaudhuri: Tiffanie Fisher and that is where the blatant hypocrisy is on full display! You make DeFusco’s illegal union/PAC contributions a huge issue during the election (which was the right thing to do, I agreed with you then), then poof it goes away and you pretend the conflicts don’t exist once he’s your ally, yet criticize the Mayor’s “allegiance” to the unions.
Tiffanie Fisher: Vijay Chaudhuri again, you are conflating. I didn’t raise the issue of the mayor’s alliance with unions until it resulted in a direct threat to elected officials and our democratic process. I personally would prefer that PAC money be left out of our local races and our local laws are clearly ineffective in doing that. Whether through direct contribution or independent expenditure. They effectively are the same to me. But so far, only one PAC has openly threatened elected officials.
6) Vijay Chaudhuri: Tiffanie Fisher Oh Tiffanie, again, you are avoiding the subject of which I raised. You appointed someone who has substantial pay to pay conflicts and taking union/PAC money above the legal limit. After admonishing DeFusco, you appoint him to the planning board. In essence, you are condoning his PAC/union contributions above the legal limit. Let's call it like it is. So much for your previous claims of promoting "honest elections." And your whole stunt with the BS press release is called taking political cheap shots.
Six, count 'em, six. Six attempts to get Fisher to address the hypocrisy of her hand-wringing over Bhalla's connections to unions and PACs while ignoring Defusco's well-documented pay-to-play violations with unions and PACs - about which she herself filed a complaint. A performance worthy of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Tiffanie Huckabee....
Fast forward to the first run-off between neo-Old Guard top vote-getter and by extension biggest P2P violator (Ramos or Defusco - it hardly matters) and Bhalla or anyone else on permanent butt-hurt banishment. Who are the butt-hurt for life going to support? You already know.
Gary Holtzman was seduced by power. His testimony in front of the council was honest. He does not think of himself as corrupt since money was not the raison d'être of his machinations. He wants to be the center of things, he honestly believes he is doing God's work here in Hoboken on the Planning Board. It is the arrogance of the liberal, the arrogance of the apparatchik that is the worst sort of corruption. Literally, Gary thinks he operates above the petty concerns of the mere paid consultant or greedy developer. And this arrogance extends to his wife, the zoning official. No citing of legalities or precedent can overcome the simple fact that a husband and wife, exercised power and dominion over zoning in Hoboken, he had the planning board, she the zoning board. No wonder Caufield creates a job just for Gary, how could the Caufields not get the hint from his breakfast catch up chats with Gary that Gary wanted to change careers and move into real estate. Does anyone really think anyone would voluntarily have breakfast with Gary if he were simply an insurance site man? Pure and Innocent Gary had a breakfast chat with the owner of one of the most successful real estate developers in New Jersey, and without even submitting a resume, without even asking, was given a job that was created just to match his skill set.
ReplyDeleteThe Russos are just as bad, I am not in any way saying all the past corruption in Hoboken was not real, but the Council did the right thing in 2018 buy removing this power hungry and crude man from the planning board.
Well, you’ve made my point. Holtzman, an unpaid volunteer board member with an impeccable record of service was removed for personal, subjective assessments not actual malfeasance; he was punished for alleged “arrogance” (in that snotty liberal way), “power-hunger” and “crudeness.” In the real world, we call such excuses to take a man’s board position away by a legislative tribunal, an abuse of power and illegitimate. Your opinion is in my opinion WRONG. No, Holtzman did not have “power and dominion” over the PB—he was one vote on a panel of 9. As for the ZBA, I served for 4 years and the Zoning Officer did not influence deliberations on any application I heard or voted on.
DeleteGary’s lawyer called the hearing defective. I call it illegitimate. The email was an afterthought- that’s what the hearing was supposed to be about. It wasn't. You think he’s “crude”? Too bad. Don’t like his liberal politics? Tough luck. Think he’s “arrogant”? So what. You don’t sound like a cupcake yourself.
The EMAIL was the alleged act which the council was supposed to adjudicate. Instead, the inquisition moved to his resume, his job, his wife, all loose threads to tie him to alleged influence peddling—totally outside of the purview of the hearing, and not a line of attack which he or his attorney were prepared to defend. The council sandbagged him with allegations of influence peddling, and the 2 hours looked like a Stalinist firing squad. A reporter who doesn't cover Hoboken called me, astounded that a “low level” volunteer was grilled for 2 hours, then REMOVED, instead of at most, censure. She said “the punishment did not fit the crime.” And after GH asked for “mercy.” THAT is how it looks to the casual observer and not to political insiders. Hoboken residents who might consider board service have every reason to be discouraged, and only “friends” who want to play ball with the Council will be encouraged. THAT is corruption.
As for equating Russo (legislator with REAL power) with Holtzman (low-level board member) an asymmetric and RIDICULOUS comparison. Russo told Dwek that he picked Mason's council slate, and that he was going to put Dwek's variance requests at the top of the pile. You're saying a low-level board member has that kind on power? B.S.
How Holtzman got his job is irrelevant unless he is guilty of influence peddling. Was that the charge? NO. Not only didn't council prove that GH was "influence peddling" -- all seemed to agree his intentions were good and honest. In other words, no crime. So, the suggestion that a job was created for his for NEFARIOUS purposes and not because he had outstanding credentials, was alleged cause for removal?
Should we ask Council members how they got their jobs? Didn’t Jen Giattino used to work with her pal, Chris Christie’s brother? What about Cunningham? How did he get his job? Is it true that he obtained a handicapped parking permit from a senior who moved away, and was using it (taking away spots from actual handicapped residents?) How about Ruben Ramos' co-worker, a vice principal at his Paterson school, who registered his fake non-profit "NJ Democracy in Action?" By council standards, a mere allegation is enough cause to remove a public official from their board or Council seat. That's a real great legal precedent set by council CLOWNS.
Was that "crude?'
I hope smearing Holtzman’s reputation was worth it to the Clown Council because they will pay a political price.
Uh - so this appears to be an admission that booting Holtzman has nothing to do w/ any email and is purely a function of the fact that you don't like the guy. Got it.
DeleteNews flash - nobody likes you.
"It is the arrogance of the liberal, the arrogance of the apparatchik that is the worst sort of corruption."
DeleteWell that's interesting. Please explain.
I suspect it can be shortened to "I can't stand liberals." With the corollary, "If I don't like you, you're probably a liberal. I don't like Gary, so...."
But give it a shot anyway.
That was quite the diatribe. What on earth does your strange view of "liberals" and "apparachik" have to do with anything? Was Gary removed from the board for being a communist?
ReplyDeleteLoved the last paragraph starting with "the Russos were just as bad" creating equivalence between the federal crimes committed by Anthony Russo and whatever Gary is supposed to have done.
First of all, I truly admire Grafix_Avenger for her actually investigating and digging deep into the facts of all sorts of stories that the press just ignores. Using her own name and exposing the truth against powerful interests is of singular importance in today's world. I don't agree with many of her conclusions but you lay it on the line, and for that, I regularly visit your site. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond, and I want to be respectful. I consider myself beyond liberal in terms of gender, marriage, immigration, utter distaste for Trump, health care for all, right to choose but I think Hoboken should have more buildings, more development, less money for parks and more for parking spaces, less control by government, and double parking, I think double parking should be legal, don't like bike lanes and ridiculous bump outs. I want the XL Pipeline, but believe in climate change. I think the violent left like the protestors in Portland are as bad as the right wing gun nuts. I believe the silencing of dissent imposed by the Hollywood liberal left is as bad as was McCarthyism. I believe the stories of the MeToo people but believe that their creating heros out of victims can only go so far. The gymnasts were heroes, most of the Hollywood accusers are victims of their own naked ambition. You don't walk into Weinstiens hotel room without thoughts of how to exploit his power.
Well, I think my bag of thoughts are very common, not liberal or conservative, more like "don't tell me what to think" one side is no better than the other.
I want to respond to the Hoboken stuff and will do later, just wanted to position myself and make it clear my word are not meant to offend but to elucidate another view, otherwise there is no fun in it !!!
There is no reason to position yourself. You don't like the guy and that is why you are okay with him being removed for no reason at all other than his politics offended Tiff and company.
DeleteWell now we're getting somewhere!
DeleteYou essentially want more development than Gary did but want to gussy it up to sound like the product of some Higher Plane of Political Thought where "liberal and apparatchik" paper-shufflers turn out to be worse than greedy old fucks who live like this planet only has to last long enough for them to die. Good start!
And fair and balanced AF! Why oh why can't everyone be more like you and mention their saving "belief in climate change" in passing while offering up native lands as pipeline highways (and potential pipeline off-ramps)? Hey, if they don't like it, they should get street addresses like everyone else and vote instead of using those loser PO boxes.
Bravo! One thought though. I would head back to the Pig Cosmetics SuperStore and see if you can get the lipstick in a much larger size. What you've got here is still pretty obviously a pig.
It's easy (and fun) to pick apart the posts of this entertaining new contributor to the body politic. But let's pause for a moment to admire "unknown's" work. He/she/it is taking the important first step of establishing and developing a "personna" to demonstrate his/her/it's objectivity.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, another mysterious new poster named "citizen Joe" has taken a similar tack on HCV.
Establishing a "personna" is online political operative 101. You need to take the time to do that totbe remotely effective.
The doofuses who typically post this drivel are too doofy to even do that.
So kudos to the new guy/gal/thing. Definitely an upgrade over the three doofuses.
For the record, flattery is an ineffective tool.
DeleteI dont think "unknown" will find my post particularly flattering. Sunlight and sarcasm can be pretty effective tools.
DeleteAlso, the "personna" is pretty lame. An effort worthy of a doofus.
There is no excusing the actions of the CC. They literally removed Holtzman because they don't like the guy. This persona can pretend there is some rational reason behind the move all he or she wants but I am not buying it. It was an orchestrated political stunt and I hope everyone remembers this next election when deciding who to vote for and who to vote against.
DeleteHa! numbers, by flattery I meant the stuff about "truly admiring" your hostess. (No one will ever mistake one of your posts for flattery!😺)
DeleteAgree, NC. These dopey names come to mean something (which is why the gang at Tiffanie's site outs me whenever they can; I take it as a backhanded compliment.)
DeleteWe build up some sort of public record, good, bad or otherwise by these names. Unknown is no fool and is capable of staking out a piece of rhetorical territory. Hope he/she picks a name and gives it a shot.
He/she won't. I'd bet money this poster has already cycled through a few names and each time made him/herself look like a complete idiot, tool or fool.
Deleteha...this attempt at "persona" reminds me of year's past when hacky political ops would start their comment with "I voted for Zimmer last time but..."
DeleteIf Holtzman was wrong in what he did, he could have been reprimanded or terminated in whatever ways are legal. City Council is the one who "overstepped boundaries", as DeFusco stated, by throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at him. While there were inherent conflicts of interest in having his wife be the zoning officer, there was no legal or ethical reason to bring her up at the meeting. And because she is their employee, to mention her in the context of her job would require a "rice notice". Failing to do so is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, not that they would know or care. She has Civil Service protection, and has a few legal cards to play if she so chooses, and I hope she does.
ReplyDeleteFast forward, Mayor Bhalla will appoint someone new, the council will reject the choice(s), and the seat will remain empty for the forseeible future. With DeFusco missing many meetings, the planning board will not function very well. I hear "remindr" is a great phone app for people with time management issues.
The council cannot reject Mayor Bhalla's choice. They do not have advice and consent. They would have to find another pretext to remove the new appointee for cause at another show trial.
DeleteThe fact that Gary's wife is the Zoning officer is not new --they have served in their dual roles for many years. While you as an individual may see that as an inherent conflict, it legally is not one so it can't be a basis for removing Gary for cause.
Conflicts could arise from time to time due to Gary's wife's role, just like conflicts could arise due to Gary's employment by a developer who might have future applications before the PB. When those instanceinstances arise Gary should recuse. If there are actual examples of situations where Gary should have recused and didn't I'm sure we would have heard about them so my guess is they do not exist.
I think that's only true of the Mayor's designee. Is that the seat Holtzman held? If council has no authority to vote, advise or consent on a mayoral appointee, why would they have the authority to remove a member, and why wouldn't the mayor simply reappoint him? Many people in town were not happy with two people from the same household being integral to zoning and planning. That was a problem caused by whomever hired / appointed them, and should not have been a topic in Holtzman's removal, but the "conflicts", such as they were, are over now.
DeleteThe law is weird re PB. The board is picked entirely by the Mayor except for the single council appointment which is made annually at the council re-org meeting.
DeleteBut the Council is given the power to remove the Mayor's appointments for cause - even though they had no role in the original appointment. I guess the drafters thought removal for cause would be a more equitable process if done by a body (council) than by an individual (mayor).
Conceptually that actually makes sense - until you consider the vindictive nature of so many of our current council members.
Re your view that alot of people in town thought that the two positions should not have been held by a married couple, you and others who share you view are certainly entitled to your opinion. But it is a NOT a legal conflict even if some think it ought to be. Whether the relationship was disqualifying was a judgment call made by the legal appointing authority which in this case was Mayor Zimmer. The rest of us can agree or disagree with her judgment but since there is no legal impediment the call was hers to make.
DeleteNJMLUL seems to be silent on the vote vs. no vote. The member of the City Council appointed from amongst their ranks is rated at Third Class, which describes the current holder of that seat to a T. And while not a legal impediment for a married couple to be in positions of power on zoning and planning, the optics were terrible, and the results were not as benign as you may think. It smacked of the old guard style of nepotism. Applicants were not always well served, and the stories are many. It will be good for Mayor Bhalla to appoint an excellent replacement ASAP, and be vocal enough to raise the question of DeFusco's conflicts whenever they occur. It will be often.
DeleteI say let the mayor appoint someone who we trust that we know will set the CC off just to make them start foaming at the mouth. My vote is for Dawn or Stan!
DeleteThat would be so great! Or how about Bob Matule? He'll have plenty of time in retirement, and there's no residency requirement for certain classes of commissioners.
DeleteAnon - I don't disagree with you about the optics - but as I'm sure you'll agree bad optics doesn't constitute a legal basis for removal for cause. And if you don't think Gary and his wife should both have been in their respective positions, the fault doesn't lie with either Gary or his wife. That buck stops with Mayor Zimmer.
DeleteGood optics or bad optics, there was no cause given to remove the guy and the optics have nothing to do w/ the email that is supposedly the reason he was removed. The man was removed for one and only one reason, he and his wife did not support Jen.
DeleteSpeaking of bad optics, what about the optics behind putting Ruben on as CC President? Or the optics of Tony on NHSA? How about the optics behind that entire rent control board mess where the CC essentially blew a gasket b/c Jen's pet rent control backer did not have mayoral support. And don't even get me started on DeFusco on the planning board or the optics behind supporting Frank Raia's second favorite ballot initiative behind eliminating rent control I am referencing the ballot initiative that opens the door to rampant vote buying during runoffs. Those are not only all situations that are bad optics - they are perfect examples of both bad governance and the same questionable sort of stuff the OG used to do.
I really don't want to hear about bad optics when it comes to Tiff, Jen and the gang. They pretty much have a lock on bad optics across the board with just about every single thing they do.
Agreed!!
DeleteDa Ojo Rojo, there was cause. The list circulated in an email may have had good intentions, but was problematic. But the way in which the council went about the business of gathering information and making a decision is another thing, and revealed their true intentions and true natures.
DeleteIf many of them don't get indicted sooner, it'll be only 358 days until they're gone.
Right. The email was the pretext to pin Holtzman to the tray like a lab-frog. Like the lab-frog, Holtzman was already dead when his innards were pulled out in a public search for "cause" (of death.) In fact, the dissection-team was the cause of death. Holtzman was perfectly healthy; a high-performing Planning Commissioner unlike the low-performing, AWOL, donor-conflicted Mike DeFusco whom the same Dissection Team appointed. After 2 hours, some mumbling about "optics" and "risk", the vindictive Tiffanie Fisher and her nasty dissection team declared Holtzman "dead."
DeleteThe list was an excuse, nothing more. I am not going to even dignify their excuse and pretend it was cause b/c that notion is laughable. Even Trump comes up w/ better excuses for his stupidity.
DeleteThe list was their wedge to drive him off, it's true, but it's also true that he should never have compiled and circulated it. No commissioner can be seen as recommending one service over another to applicants, and if the planning board's counsel had known, he should have advised against it. If he knew and didn't try to stop it, then he's incompetent.
DeleteOne remedy could have been that Holtzman recused himself from any application that had an attorney whose name appeared on the list, but that would probably happen too often to make him an effective commissioner.
Since DeFusco's contributors have compromised him, he must recuse himself from hearing any of their applications. Hopefully, the mayor's replacement for Holtzman, the uncompromised commissioners and the planning board attorney will insist upon it. And when he doesn't recuse himself, we can look forward to his third degree grilling after the counsel majority flips next year.
Compiling a list of competent attorneys doesn't rise to the level of requiring a recusal. There is no quid pro quo. Recommendations like this are very common and I personally have been steered in the direction of certain experts by policymakers on more than several occasions on wide number of different issues. Tiff has no clue what a real conflict of interest looks like (news flash Tiff, you stare at just such a conflict every morning in the mirror)
Delete