|
Posted by GET NJ on January 28, 2004 at 16:43:21:
4. The City Council of the City of Jersey City is a public body consisting of nine
elected members (hereinafter "Councilman or Councilwoman") pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:69A:3 1,
et. sue.
5. The defendant, William Gaughan, has held the elected office of Councilman of
the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City for three consecutive terms (approximately the
last ten years). He was most recently re-elected to this office in July of 2001.
6. The Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City is empowered and otherwise
required by law to approve and/or regulate financial matters for the City of Jersey City and
otherwise act as the legislative body for the City of Jersey City. [Cf. N.J.S.A, 40:69A-31 to
40:69A-48].
7. The office of the County Executive for the County of Hudson is an elected office
that derives its statutory basis from N.J.S.A. 40:20-1, et. s... (N.J.S.A. Section 40, Chapters 20-
37).
8. The Board of County Freeholders for Hudson County has established and
otherwise legislatively adopted and approved, as more fully set forth in the Hudson County
Administrative Code, the office of the Chief of Staff to the County Executive within the office of
the County Executive. (Section 3.7 of the Hudson County Administrative Code, attached as
Exhibit A).
9. Pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Hudson County Administrative Code, the office of
the Chief of Staff has numerous duties at the County level, including, but not limited to, being
responsible for all County relations between the County Boards and Commissions and the
various municipalities that exist within the County; interviewing and recommending County
Employees to the County Executive, including, but not limited to, Directors and Division Chiefs
(to the various County Boards and Commissions that do business with the municipalities within
the County); reviewing appointments and making recommendations with respect to County
Boards and authorities; and performing such other duties as the County Executive, in his
discretion, shall deem advisable. (Exhibit A)
10. I am personally aware that the office of Chief of Staff to the Hudson County
Executive is a tremendously powerful position at the County level. For all intents and purposes,
the office of the Chief of Staff to the County Executive often acts in a de facto capacity to
discharge many of the duties and obligations otherwise statutorily granted to the County
Executive.
11. In November of 2002, the defendant, William Gaughan, was appointed to and
accepted the office of Chief of Staff to the Hudson County Executive, which job description is
set forth above.
12. The defendant, William Gaughan, did not resign nor relinquish his office of
Councilman of the Municipal Council of Jersey City when he accepted the office of Chief of
Staff to the County Executive to the County of Hudson.
13. It is inherently incompatible for one person to hold both the office of Councilman
of the Municipal Council of Jersey City and the office of Chief of Staff to the County Executive
to the County of Hudson.
14. There are numerous situations where there are inherent conflicts between the
interests of the City of Jersey City and the County of Hudson. There are often competing
interests between various municipal and County departments or commissions. By way of
example, there are often clashes between County and municipal departments involving public
improvements, parks and recreation, and roads and maintenance. Often the County seeks money
from the municipality or the municipality seeks money from the County. It may be in the
County's interest to have a road maintained by the municipality, but in the municipality's interest
to have the roadway turned over to the County. The Chief of Staff for the County Executive,
charged with representing the interests of the County, should not be the same person who has
legislative authority at the municipal level.
15. Issues decided before the Municipal Council of Jersey City may have direct
negative impact upon the County of Hudson. For example, decisions of whether or not to grant
tax abatements are regularly decided before the Municipal Council. It may be in the interest of
the City of Jersey City to grant tax abatements for a number of reasons. Tax abatements granted
by the municipality, by their very nature, result in lost revenue to the County. There is an
inherent conflict for a person who holds the office of Chief of Staff to the County Executive to
be making decisions at the Municipal Council level regarding monies the County may or may
not receive as a result of such decision.
16, This very conflict has already arisen. Attached as Exhibit B find videotape of a
recent Jersey City Council meeting in which the issue of an extension of a tax abatement is being
discussed. The defendant, William Gaughan, is seen and heard directing the conversation.
There is clearly concern as to which law should be applied in the case of an application for an
abatement extension. Under current abatement law, the County is entitled to 5% of the revenue
it otherwise would have lost. Under the older law, they would not have received such monies.
With any new abatement application the County would be entitled to the 5% under the new law.
In the videotape, the Council is seen debating an abatement extension, instead of a new
application. The issue was whether or not the County would be entitled to its 5% with an
extension of an old abatement, as opposed to a new abatement application. Towards the end of
the videotaped recording, the defendant publicly admits "I wear a couple of hats" and "I have
some concerns" because under the new law the County would be entitled to approximately
$400,000.00 under this abatement, but if the new law were not applied, "the County could end up
with zero and I have some concerns with that". It is clear from the tone and inflection of the
defendant's voice, as well as his actual words, that he was expressing his concern as a County
representative. (Exhibit B - Videotape-approximately 5 minutes in duration).
17. The defendant clearly reveals why he should not be holding both positions. He
obviously has concerns and fiduciary responsibilities to the County as a result of holding the
office of Chief of Staff. He has conflicting obligations to the City of Jersey City holding the
office of Councilman. In this one instance alone, he was expressing concern over "the County
ending up with zero". The clash and conflict is clear. While "the County ending up with zero"
may have been the defendant's concern on that day, he, arguably, should have been concerned
with the City having not to pay the County that $400,000.00 and otherwise retaining such funds
for City purposes.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
| |
