JACKSON – Accusations of ethics violations, breaches of transparency and exclusion of important communication to fellow council members were all part of heated exchanges at the latest meeting of the Township Council.
Residents questioned a variety of subjects, one of which was an attempt to appoint former Planning Board Chairman Bob Hudak to the Zoning Board.
Councilwoman Jennifer Kuhn noted resolution 278-23 which was for Hudak’s appointment. “This is yet another example of lack of transparency from certain council members.” She stated that there was a lack of communication by Council President Steve Chisholm, and Councilmen Nino Borrelli and Martin Flemming toward her and Councilman Scott Sargent.
Although all members of the governing body are Republicans, there is a divide. Kuhn and Sargent are on one side with the mayor, while the other three council members are on the other side.
Kuhn criticized that faction for adding a late addition on the agenda to appoint Hudak, one of their political allies, without sufficient notice and following proper procedure.
Sargent vowed during the meeting that going forward, he would “leave no stone unturned” concerning any questionable actions of the rival side.
“If there is an issue, I’m bringing it up publicly. We can’t continue this way,” Sargent remarked.
Kuhn said transparency needs to be an open flow of information between the government and the public. “It involves disclosure, details about politics, decisions and actions.” She said she and Sargent hadn’t received copies of leadership forms that involved the background of individuals seeking membership on committees and commissions.
Sargent noted during the meeting that “as a group we don’t have to be friends, but we can be friendly with each other and work together.”
Kuhn and Sargent said they were unaware that Hudak was a contender for a spot on the Zoning Board. Zoning members are appointed by the Council while Mayor Michael Reina selects members for the Planning Board.
It was revealed during the meeting that Hudak hadn’t actually submitted a formal application to the board; instead, a prior leadership form was used – his planning board application from several years ago. Hudak previously served as chair of the planning board.
Kuhn asked, “why are we not being given the same information others are given? This is another case of back door antics and blindsiding myself and Councilman Sargent.”
“Blindsided” is how Kuhn described the announcement two meetings back when Flemming said he was stepping down as council president and nominated Chisholm to replace him. She said that the matter should have been brought up during that evening’s executive session prior to the public meeting.
She made a motion to table Hudak’s appointment due to the lack of information needed by her and Sargent to make an educated decision for the appointment. Sargent seconded her motion and it was unanimously approved resulting in a round of applause by audience attendees.
Another point of contention were comments made about investigating Borrelli, Chisolm and Flemming for violating state ethics laws regarding the Sunshine Law, which regulates public meetings and the ethics of elected officials.
Resident Ray Cattonar said the three councilmen weren’t working with Kuhn and Sargent and accused them of violating the Open Public Meetings Act.
Chisolm vehemently denied that any secret private meetings had taken place with Flemming, Borrelli and himself stating “please, keep it real; there’s nobody violating any Sunshine Law.”
“Let’s go with the DCA (Department of Community Affairs), they are suggesting somebody file a lawsuit against the township for a violation of the agenda,” Cattonar said.
Township Attorney Gregory McGuckin said, “there has been no violations of the Sunshine Law. The statute requires that the agenda be filed 48 hours in advance to the extent that it is known and there can be changes right up until the time of the meeting and sometimes during the meeting when a motion is made to do something. That is not a violation of the law.”
Resident Sheldon Hofstein also asked about the Sunshine Law and the scenario of three members of council meeting together and having a discussion privately without the two others and if that would be a violation.
“With limited exceptions it would be a violation of the law for those discussions to take place and decisions rendered by a majority of the quorum. It would be a violation if that actually happened,” McGuckin replied.
“I am not sure where this mythical meeting occurred because the three of us have never met for any personal, private, public or non-caucus meeting in person, together at any point,” Chisholm told Hofstein.
“This is political grandstanding. The reality is there was never a meeting. If you have proof of a meeting, please inform me because I must have slept through it,” Chisholm added.
As to whether the DCA did receive a complaint about the Sunshine Law, Chisholm remarked, “I guess I’ll find out because no one has reached out to me about it.”
