Hedy, did I thank you yet today for creating a mess and potentially costing taxpayers a fortune? This is an absolute disgrace. God forbid this costs taxpayer dollars akin to what could have gotten our kids a field in town that is playable.

Hedy, you do indeed, need to be thanked for trying to hold this Mayor & Council to the proper standard of ethics. I can't understand how ANYONE can be OK with this appointment. And Hedy, you did provide opportunities for this lawsuit to go away. Mr. Leibman could voluntarily step down. He refuses. Mr. Ashley could have and should still recuse himself from these matters. But he won't. And then, because you are standing up for the residents of New Milford, to try to keep "pay to play" out of our community, you are the one being lambasted. I repeat, how can ANYONE be OK with this appointment?? It stinks like rotten fish!!!

I honestly have no idea what the hell is going on. As a NM resident this makes me want to tune out. BUT I won't. Can we get a timeline of events, accusations, and retorts here? If us normal folk don't have a FAQ for this Bureaucratic BS, most will have NO IDEA what anyone is talking about.

Let's say the town was going to construct a new building for the police department and one of the contractors submitting a bid worked on one of the M&C member's home. That ethical member of the M&C would recuse himself when the vote comes up because it would be a conflict of interest if he voted in favor of someone he's done business with. Councilman Ashley should have recused himself because now he's lost creditability with the public at large and voters don't forget that. And Liebman, he's tarnishing his firm and the taxpayers are stuck with this legal bill/mess.

If Councilman Ashley has not paid Mr. Liebman, then he is in the wrong and Grant is acting with integrity by holding her Council colleague accountable. If Mr. Liebman has accepted pay for the work he did for Councilman Grant, then he should say so, or else step down. We don't want people working for our town who make deals for their own gain. We want people working for our town who have a true interest in our town and gain positions fairly. It is obvious by reading the article that Duffie, Putrino, and Grant are right and are looking out for the best interests of the town by doing what is right. Ashley, Liebman, Robalino, Colucci and the Mayor Subrizi appear to be wrong. The best solution: Liebman step down. Either that, or prove you were paid. If you can prove you were paid, then no one is wrong here, and Grant needs to drop the lawsuit. The issue is whether Liebman was paid or not. It all rests on Liebman.

Thank you, Hedy, for standing up to this nonsense. Simple ethics shows your stand to be principled. I am suprised at Ms. Subrizi's position in this matter. I really gave her more credit than that.

As to whether or not Ashley has paid Leibman or not, we would also need to know when and how much that was and what work it was for. If a token gesture was paid, than that wouldn't be any better than no payment, in terms of this issue of eithical integrity. And if it was a check written yesterday (after the fact, in other words) than that would not count as well.

If Ashley and Leibman will just come clean with the facts of work and payment and if everyone else - WHO IS NOT INVOLVED in some way - would then examine the facts and apply simple time-honored ethics, I'm sure this could be cleared up with a minimum of time and expense to the taxpayers.

I didn't attend last night's meeting but I understand it was filled with drama. I think Mr. Austin and Mr. Liebman are the ones Joe Loonam should be blaming for this mess. Unethical behavior should not be tolerated. The members of the council should stop playing politics with this issue and do the right thing. They can stop it immediately by insisting Mr. Liebman step down. It really isn't very complicated. Hedy Grant is following her moral compass and should be supported by all New Milfod residents. It is Austin and Liebman who will cost the residents money that needs to be spent elsewhere.

Lori Barton- seriously? You are the only person who knows what I a, talking about, but seriously, you just said that? Miriam you are completely blinded on this one. Ask the dem members of council yourself, they were on board with liebmann for months...what changed is a political favor was owed or asked for and the appt was changed to the river doge mayors wife. This is all just a bs sideshow. NOW EVERYONE pay attention. last night this article was changed. It originally spoke of Hedy dis losing information from closed and was published and quickly deleted. I have the original. Ms ethics told a reporter what was said in closed? What do you all think about that? Ms Pickett does that qualify as unethical behavior that shouldn't be tolerated? l

I really think im sorry I voted for Hedy as she is just grandstanding over spilled milk like a child.Why don't she put herself in for boro attorney she knows so much.Just like John De santis is he the next pick to be council canadate? What ashame the new dems have cause so much drama.They should get there own cable show and call it The puppet show.

Well I think we can all figure out how much Mr. Leibman stands to make off this town if he's fighting for his crumb so completely. If he were a professional and a gentleman, he would voluntarily step down. He is tarnishing the name of his friend, Mr. Ashley with his obstinate stance.

Frankly, any appointed position should never come with recommendations from elected officials or borough employees. They should be put out to bid just like any other service or product that is needed.

What an absolute disgrace this is becoming; this ordeal will truly make New Milford the political laughing stock of Bergen County and could grind borough business to a halt. When I would read all the political stories coming out of the drama in Hudson County and Bergenfield over the past few years, I would think, glad New Milford is not like that……

The town needs to come together and be focused, but instead it is one thing after another that divides us. If the dems on the council were onboard with Liebman, then got “the call” as some have suggested and switched, then good for Austin, but he damn well better have some cancelled checks to prove he did in fact pay.

If it comes out that Hedy’s accusations are with merit, then corruption charges may be warranted. (If Joe is correct that Hedy disclosed closed meeting information to The Patch, then that needs to be addressed as well.) What strikes me is that over the past year in all the back and forth on the blogs about the United Water property, whenever anyone brought up potential corruption or “pay to play”, everyone was horrified and said no, not in New Milford , can’t be , too much integrity, etc., but here we are in the middle of our own little scandal.

I have to agree with Jimmy, no matter what the outcome, political and perhaps professional careers have already been ruined.

Here is the original opening paragraph-
Why Ms Grant would disclose that is beyond me. Why it would be pulled from a news source is also beyond me-

The room heated up at Monday's Mayor and Council work session regarding who should and should not be present during the closed session discussion regarding Councilwoman Hedy Grant's lawsuit against Councilman Austin Ashley and, after going into closed, Councilwoman Hedy Grant reported that she was "threatened" that if she did not leave the closed session discussion, she would be removed by New Milford police.

Joe, what you say may be true. I can't refute it with a first hand knowledge of what transpired last night in closed session or within the confines of the Democratic club as I am not a member. However, Marc Liebman did represent Austin Ashley at BOA meetings and his nomination by his client has a very fishy smell to it. To keep talking about everything that led up to this train wreck does not address the reality of the issue at hand. Something is not right and it needs to be addressed. If there are other issues that you believe need to be investigated do everything you can to find the truth. None of what you say, however, changes the issue at hand. Is Liebman's appointment ethical and should Austin have recused himself?

To the best of my ability all boro council people, lawyers etc WORK FOR ME!
YOUR FIRED!!!!!

ment to say knowledge it's the lack of ability here.

It seems like a lot could be resolved pretty quickly if Mr. Leibman would present the bill he gave to Councilman Ashley for payment for his services and if the Councilman would present evidence of payment, no? The longer it takes for those documents to present themselves, the more suspicious the whole thing appears.

Mr. Liebman, please do the residents and taxpayers of New Milford a huge favor and submit your resignation. I assume you do not live in New Milford so the tax hit we are going to live with will will affect your taxes. You were Austin Ashley's private attorney and clearly Mr. Ashley should have recused himself when voting for you as Boro Attorney. You can then re-submit your qualifications for the position and let the counsel member, absent Mr. Ashley (who clearly has a personal relationship with you) vote to either retain or not retain you for the position. As a fellow attorney, I understand how tough it is for the legal profession over the past few years and how lucrative securing this position is to you and your law firm, but there is a clear inference of impropriety in your selection and your ability to give independent legal advice to New Milford will be subject to second guessing and acrimony by the residents of this town. Township lawyers are supposed to act proactively and save the town money-your initial selection as Borough Attorney has done just the opposit. Please do the righ thing, resign, and lets have a do-over, absent the vote of anyone who has a personal relationship with you.

Hey, who's runs the town when Mayor and Council are fighting? Want to know what was going on in the closed session last night? Ask anyone who was standing outside in the waiting area. They were so loud, we heard the entire conversation. In my three years on the council, the Mayor and Council always acted civilly and with respect for each other. We may not have agreed with each other, but it never became personsal. What have they become? Almost makes me glad I'm not at the table anymore. Is it time to get rid of all of them and start over?

How is a council member threaten to be escorted by police if she did not leave the closed session and then telling those outside she was just thrown out of a meeting as unethical than a mayor and council voting for a borough attorney for political reasons? Because the only reason the Republicans support Ashley's attorney is all politics between the two party's zeal for power, rather than the zeal to represent the interest of the borough.

Anyone interested in starting a new political movement in New Milford, made of Independent thinkers, so we can put forth candidates willing to serve for free, candidates willing to waive insurance coverage to save the borough money and candidates that put New Milford first rather than political party interest; please send me an email at nm_iclub@yahoo.com.

Being told that police will remove you is not a threat. Police are keepers of the peace. How can one be threatened with peacekeepers...nice try Ms Barton

What's really disgusting is how so many people are rushing to judgment against Mr. Ashley without knowing the facts regarding whether or not he properly compensated the attorney. I never met the councilman and I voted against him both times. If the facts come out and he was wrong, then bash him all you want (with my blessing), but this premature mudslinging is pathetic.

How would Desantis and Berner be Independents? One was a sitting Republican councilman 45 days agol the other is actively involved with Dem club. If we are talking legit independents, someone start with Karl Schaffenberger!

Rory, the problem is that Ashley is refusing to produce any documentation. The appearance of unethical behavior will not go away until he addresses the issue head on. So far he has not done that.

Hello to everyone - For the past week or so I have been reading the New Milford Patch, and I have to say I just cannnot stand it anymore.
I am a homeowner in town for the past 30 years. I recently chose the Independant Party after the Democratic Party in our town drove me to do so. The Machine, as I call it, consists of nasty, pushy, manipulating, and controlling people. (My opinion, of course, altough I may not be the only one who feels this way.)
I was told by two of our active Councilpeople that the Democratic Party in town was going to change. The old ways to be tossed out, new ways of thinking and doing are on the horizon. Austin Ashley has proved that by taking a stand against the Machine. Not to be told how to vote, what to do and how to do it.
Anyone who has a problem with what hes done, think of this. Does it occur to anyone, that submitting the wife of our former Boro Attorney, and now Mayor of River Edge, to become our Boro Attorney may be a "pay to play". That maybe one or more of the Democratic Councilpersons sitting on the table recuse themselves because of "personal relationships." Wake up New Milford, the Dems are at it again. Get a tissue, dry your eyes, blow your nose, and get over it.
Austin Ashley is a smart young man with a lot to offer. To bad his party cant see that.

I voted for Austin Ashley and feel that he is a good man and concientious council member, but he is wrong on this issue. It is irrelevent wehther he paid Mr. Liebman $10,000 for his personal work, or if Mr. Liebman did the work for Austin pro bono. Austin was certainly in his right to put forward his personal attorney's name for Borough Attorney, but he clearly should have recused himself and allowed the other council members who DID NOT retain Mr. Liebman as their personal attorney, to vote on his candidacy for the open Borough Attorney position. Politics is always involved to some degree in such appointments, but this one lacks transparency.

Darlene, it's just not that simple. You can line up anybody you want, but as Unafilliated, they stand no chance at all.

As said previously:

Howie is a Republican who ripped apart the base which made him.
John is elequent and dedicated, but too close to only one issue.
I don't think Miriam needs any more aggravation.

No one with any brains at all will actually join an Unafilliated group except to bring back secrets to their own party.

If you do want to actually break the machine, gather together a man and a woman in just 5 districts within the same party. You MAY gather 9 men and 9 women, but all you need is 5 of each sex. GO with them to neighbors who are of that party and get your candidates elected for County Committee. 5 districts will yield 10 County Committee people. If they all win their districts, They are now the people who designate who runs with the official blessing of that party.

The problem is that The County Committee race isn't until nest year and this matter and probably the UW property will be resolved by then and everyone will go back to their own little world and forget about politics.

Good luck.

Seriously? Are you people kidding me? If you people on the council don't drop this idiotic display you should all resign and let some one in there that has a true interest in real issues!
Absolutely moronic. What are you trying to prove?

What I find astounding is that so many people are willing to turn their backs and look the other way when something that may have been inappropriate has occurred. Once again I have posted the first paragraph of 52:13D-12. Take a moment and read it. It clearly states that not only should a public official not engage in activities that violate the public trust, his conduct should not create the impression of violating the public trust.

52:13D-12. Legislative findings

The Legislature finds and declares:

(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.

We would not be having this discussion if a portion of the public did not feel that the nomination and appointment of Austin’s personal attorney might be inappropriate. In my opinion the easiest way to avoid huge expenses in litigating this issue is that Mr. Leibman step down or that the council rescinds his appointment and that the attorney of last year or some other non controversial choice be made to replace him. It boggles my mind that neither of these courses of action has taken place. I can’t help but wonder, what are our council members are thinking to allow this situation to continue?
continued....

More than once in this conversation my name has come up as though I am running for counsel. I am not running for council nor do I intend to. I have personal reasons for not wishing to run for public office, but more importantly when I step back and honestly assess my qualifications, I fall short. Right off the top of my head I can think of several people who are better choices than I. People who I have watched put their nose to the grind stone and do the day in and day out tasks that are required to accomplish very difficult goals.
What I am is a member of the Democratic Club. As such, I am trying to shift the club from being an organization that sets its primary purpose and goals from winning elections to being an organization that acts as think tank developing ideas, plans and programs that might best serve this community. My belief is that if your ideas have merit and you are capable of communicating those ideas effectively winning elections will be a byproduct. I would hope that there is someone in the Republican Club who feels the same way and is attempting to do the same thing. Our elections should be a means of vetting those ideas in public and the results of those elections hopefully would put the town on a course to a better future.
continued....

Before an honest and sincere debate can take place about the future of this town, the people must have faith and trust in their elected officials. That why it is so important that our representatives adhere to the statute 52:-13D-12 paragraph a. Without trust all is lost, we revert to a squabbling mob.

Tom, I'm not trying to rain on your parade at all please understand that. My movie might be "The Candidate" with Redford. The funniest thing to Darren and me was at the end of the movie when the results came in, Redford says " OK, what do I do now?"

The last real debate I witnessed was for the B o E in 2009 I guess. Dave Foo, Joe Steele, Karen Tyler and Darren Drake. There was a "debate" mentioned for the 2011 election, but it apparently turned out to be a setup at the K o C in order to embarrass the Republican candidates with a stacked deck of De Bari backers hooting and hollering in approval of whatever the Dems said,.

Tom, you can schedule all the debates you want. Unafiliated, Republicans, Democrats - whoever - but I doubt it will have an impact on the hard to reach voters. More than likely, unless there are gigantic headlines against someone, the votes will go by party line. So, that being the case, try to do as I suggested within a party and then you can have your own candidates. One More very important thing to remember - if you vote in an Unaffiliated candidate, what makes you think he/she will vote the way YOU want?

Their seems to be a lot of speculation going on here, so I have a few questions that maybe a member of the media could answer or direct to the appropriate party involved for an answer:
1. Did Ms. Grant speak with members of the media regarding an issue in closed session? If so, is this action somehow in violation of a standing ordinance or law? If so, is action against Ms. Grant required and what might that entail?
2. Who is paying the attorney fees to file and petition the court on Ms. Grant’s behalf? Sooner or later this will be made public. I’d like to know now along with the intended price tag.
3. What are the projected costs to NM taxpayers to hire lawyers to defend Mayor Subrizi, Councilman Ashley and the Borough of New Milford?
4. If Ms. Grant loses in Superior Court, will see appeal the decision? Will, if she loses, pay back the costs incurred by the borough by her actions?
5. Are Ms. Grant’s fellow council members in favor of this lawsuit ? Can we find out which are and which are not? If it is so obvious that Ms. Grant is in the right here, why are we not hearing it from Councilwoman President Duffy and Councilman Putrino? Why would they not want to include their names in the suite to reap the spoils of their victory?

I understand the dynamic here, but I’m not understanding the scope. If we took the worst scenario -- Liebman being promised a nomination in return for working as an objector to the Hekemian application -- which I am in no way saying is the case, what is the big deal? Isn’t this dynamic present in all of our lives. Aren’t appointments to all the Boards given to friends and acquaintances? Are those who are chosen to run for Council ever favored by someone over someone else? Are any Borough Hall jobs ever given to family members or friends? Are we all so pristine that we’ve never used our status or position to help a friend? At every job I ever worked at, I’ve helped friends come on board.

This wasn’t even the promise of a job. It was a nomination. The M&C still had to vote Liebman in based on merit. Liebman proved himself to be an excellent attorney during the hearings. He was fighting on the side of the residents of NM. I kind of get what the problem is, but I’m not getting that it’s such a big deal that it warrants a lawsuit. I don’t know the relationship between Grant and Ashley. I don’t have enough info to judge either’s positions. But I’m not seeing this as pay-to-play in the sense of someone making a large campaign contribution for example, and then the receiver of the contribution skews policy to serve the desires of the contributor.

Seems almost harmless to me, and something that can easily be remedied in several different ways.

Michelle I've helped friends find employment at places I've worked. I've even found employment at places friends worked. But they nor I were ever the ones to make the decision about hiring. That seems to be what was done here.

It's the appearance of impropriety. Whether it's this situation or the United Water/Heikemian debacle, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Austin:

I am sincerely moved regarding your situation.

No matter how you cut it, he was involved with you in oh so many situations. Whether you paid him or not, to me anyway - is irrelevant. You had a personal relationship with him and then you voted to give him the job.

How could the Mayor, Diego and Dominic be held accountable for something you benefited from < his counsel>? He did not counsel nor benefit them!

Please think about your future. if this matter does progress:

You will never be elected again anywhere.
You will endure 35 more months of hate from the dems.
If you're found guilty, you might lose your current job.
You will always carry the stigma - even if not guilty.

And it's not like Joe Ferrierro where some phone conversation was deemed to be unconstitutional and he was exonerated. You DID vote for the guy.

Before it goes any further, please consider?

making a deal with hedy to request the appointment be nullified, resign as a town councilman and go on with your life. Look man, you're only a kid. You have at least 60 to 70 years left. Do you want to live that long with this one incident crushing you wherever you go?

Please?

Sad state of affairs!

New Milford is at a crossroad which will decide its' survival as a comfortable, charming, family community. We have life altering issues which must be decided. Expanding public facilities for police, fire, ambulance, proper recreation facilities for our children. Where affordable housing makes sense and can be built without endangering our environment. Yet I see no proposals to solve any of these issues only dissent, animosity and political posturing. I am waiting for a leader to stand up and say "enough, let's do the peoples' business." There must be one amongst you!

Marlene Casey

Tom:

I kinda knew and loved talking with Tony Imperiali (I) State Senator from Newark years ago. I think we met when a dojo I was in, randuried his dojo. HE was an independent! God, I loved that old North Ward in Newark. I never lived there, but God it was fun watching him maneuver. I can't remember whether it was him or Billy Musto who ALWAYS began a speech with - "As I look out at these wonderful and proud Americans who love their country and work so hard for their family" yada yada yada and no matter what they said after that, it was all good.

Honestly Tom and in all modesty, I see myself and Joe Loonam as close to being total Independents - while still being active in local politics as a person can be.

In my case, I am an elected Dem party man, but does that automatically stop me from criticizing my own party? Nooo. Does that mean that I have to drink Kool Aid from that house on upper River Road? Nooo. However, I CAN'T WAIT for Hillary in 2016! Even as a Dem Committee member, I STILL have my McCain for President lawn sign

I think you actually meant can an independent be independent WITH the guiding force of a political machine. and my answer would be - not for very long. Perfect example - I think it was a Mayor of NYC. he blabbed & blabbed about how independent he was. He got himself elected ( probably with Tamanny hall) & the reporters asked who would be Police Commissioner.

Not missing a beat he said, "I have no idea they haven't told me yet."

simply and sincerely Tom:

I just think if he does as I hope he will, he can change shoes, but new ones and move on with his life. What he stepped in will NOT come out unless he throws the shoes away and moves on.

One thing everybody in N.M.politics knows for sure, I do NOT listen to party bosses.

I just don't want to see the kid to ruin his life over this.

Well Jim if Ms. Grant would drop her suit, Mr. Leibman resign, the M&C put the position out to bid, and ALL of them be HONEST about connections to the bidders and then review and hire based on MERIT, I think all parties (including the taxpayers) would win. Well maybe not Mr. Leibman because he'll be losing a delicious piece of pie.

And BTW, if you can be active in the Dem machine and remain "independent," I'm sure some who starts out not affiliated with anyone other than the taxpayers can stay that way.

Hedy- I am still waiting to hear from Hedy, Michael, or Randi to tell me that they weren't ok with appointing Liebmann up until about Jan 1. If they were ok with Liebmann up until that point, they cant think there is a conflict.

Because I genuinely just want this to go away without it costing taxpayers money, I will bring up a point that would probably favor Ms Grant's argument. Here it is:

A condition of Liebmann accepting the borough attorney position was to stop representing Ashley as an objector. However, there was no agreement that Ashley would stop objecting. There was a ZB meeting last night and there wasn't another attorney there representing Mr Ashley's interests. Assuming Ashley hired Liebmann, it would stand to reason that he would have hired someone else.

Ms. Casey, I agree with you we're in a sad state of affairs and we need a leader to emerge to put an end to this. I wish Mayor Subrizi would be that leader. All she needs to do is request another vote on Liebman's appointment and cast the deciding tie breaking vote against this appointment (Mr. Liebman is not worth fighting for, he's even instructed all M&C members to not speak about the UW property, eventhough they've written their opinions all over). If the Mayor did this, she'd be admired as the adult in this ordeal and get credit for putting the people's business first over all this political postering that's going on. But, that is unlikely to happen and we're stuck with the bill over 'quid pro quo' between Ashley and Liebman.

Thank you TommyIce, but bare with me please. I’m still not following.

Understand that I understand the dynamic, that’s not where I’m lost here. I can’t see how Ashley’s appointing Liebman is different than any other appointment.

Are you saying that the fact that Ashley participated in the vote for Liebman is the problem here?

Does that mean that there is a clear and written rule that anyone who appoints someone cannot then participate in the vote, yet Ashley decided to ignore that rule and voted anyway?

In practice, in the past, did people refrain from participating in the vote when they made appointments? In the case of the wife of the River Edge mayor appointment, did the person who appointed her refrain from the vote, or did that appointment not come to a vote?

Thank you!

The question of impropriety comes in if there is a reason to believe that there was payment or some other form of favor given to the public official in return for the nomination, appointment, or vote. It is the responsibility of the public official to not engage in this type of activity, it also his responsibility to avoid doing anything that could create the perception of this type of activity.
Earlier I mentioned how it is important to shift the priorities of the Democratic Party from just winning to producing the better solutions to the problems that face this community. The first step in accomplishing that is gaining the trust and respect of the people in town. There are those in the Democratic Club who understand that, Austin was one of those people. To ignore what could have been perceived as an unethical act and just let slide, in the name of friendship, is to plant the seeds of the next generation of cronyism. Having said that, Austin is my friend, I can’t tell you how much I hope that he is vindicated. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about what I think occurred.
There are people who have over the last few years who have left the Democratic Party or feel they were driven out because they have had differences of opinion with some of the more powerful personalities of the party. Whenever I see these friends I urge them to come back. No one person owns the Democratic Party; no one has the right to drive anyone out. continued...

More than one individual who posts here seem to believe a political boss controls every Democrat in town as though they were puppets. If you believe that to be true, I have a suggestion for you. Join the Democratic Club and change it, get enough people together and create a new majority within the party.
It is very easy to post opinions on the patch. Criticizing from anonymity accomplishes almost nothing except to vent your frustrations. If you really want your ideas and opinions to make a difference participate in the political process, join one of the political clubs, or as Ulises has suggested help start an Independent movement, help select the candidates that will run in the primaries and elections, If you think you can stomach it run for office or as Mr. Drake has suggested run for county committee. If there are such things in town as political bosses, they only exist because the people have allowed it by their lack of involvement.

Hi John, you are a valued mentor to me, and I trust your perceptions and insights. The problem I am having with this is, I’m not sure where the integrity has been compromised in this situation. On one side, I understand the dynamic. On the other something doesn’t seem right, and I think it’s because the rule of impropriety is not being applied fairly across the Board, which puts the integrity of the system in question.

If Liebman was a dunce, and Ashley voted him in because he was his friend, the ethical issue would be well-defined for me (cronyism). (The fact that Liebman is sharp and well-qualified negates the cronyism charge.)

If there was a rule clearly stating that no one was allowed to appoint friends, or cast a vote for their appointees, and Ashley disregarded these rules, the ethical issue would be well-defined for me (as long as this rule applied to everyone).

If Ashley promised the job to Liebman and somehow paid off or coerced the other Council members to vote for him in order to guarantee that Liebman would get the job, the issue would be well-defined for me.

continued...

I can’t seem to separate out what the difference is between any other council person nominating a friend, and Ashley offering Liebman a nomination in return for him helping him with the Hekemian case (not saying he did this, just speaking again to the accusation being lodged against him). If Ashley did do this, then it just seems more direct and honest to me. Because there is always some favor or gratitude or benefit or mutual hand-washing occurring between “friends,” whether it be before or after favors, even if it’s not always obviously apparent.

There’s a saying: There’s people who sh_t in the well, and then there’s people who sh_t beside the well and slowly kick it in. I’m using this saying to illustrate that there is no difference to me between someone who nominates a friend, and someone who nominates a friend in exchange for help with another endeavor, except that the latter is more honest and direct. The saying doesn’t work completely for what I want to express though, because I don’t feel anyone has sh_t in the well here.

continued...

I’m just wondering if Ashley is being held to a higher standard than everyone else. And I question whether the standard is a practical one, or an ideal that no one in truth ever adheres to since it goes against human nature.

I also can’t help but wonder if this whole thing is fueled by anger because the other person who was lined up for this position got knocked out of the position by Liebman’s nomination. Because I’m not seeing where the punishment is fitting the crime here. There are so many ways this can easily be rectified without it becoming the drama it has become.

I think Hedy did exactly the right thing. As an attorney, she has sworn to uphold the law and what she saw was the law being swept aside for mysterious reasons. Austin Ashley is a good man. However, that doesn't excuse his breaking the rules.

....Example #1: A man owns a business and needs to hire a lawyer, and a friend says “hire my son”. The man replies “I don’t know I was thinking of hiring someone else or simply not filling the position.” His friend responds “come on give the kid a break. You know he’s qualified. If you give him the job, I’ll give you that old Chevy truck of mine. I know you like it.” The man thinks about it a minute, he’s had his eye on that truck for some time and he knows the kid is more than capable to perform the job. The kid graduated from Harvard at the top of his class. The man smiles a little. “Sure, the kid’s got the job.” They shake hands, they are both happy and the transaction is complete.
This type of transaction, if conducted, between private individuals it is harmless and perfectly acceptable behavior.

Example #2: A man is a member of the town council. The town needs to hire a lawyer, a friend of the councilman says” “nominate my son”. The councilman replies “I don’t know I was thinking of nominating someone else or not making a nomination at all.” His friend responds “come on give the kid a break. You know he’s qualified.” (Up to this point in this scenario everything that has occurred is perfectly legal. If the conversation ended here and councilman decides to nominate his friends son, I don’t believe any wrong doing has occurred.) The friend continues, “If you nominate him for the job, I’ll give you that old Chevy truck of mine. I know you like it.” (At this point of the conversation, in my opinion, the friend has broken the law or at least engaged in unethical behavior by offering a bribe. The councilman has not yet done anything wrong.) The councilman thinks about it a minute, he has had his eye on that truck for some time and he knows the kid is more than capable to perform the job. The kid graduated from Harvard at the top of his class. The councilman smiles a little. “Sure, I’ll nominate the kid.” (At this point of the conversation the councilman has accepted the bribe and now, he too has broken the law or at the very least has engaged in an unethical manner.) They shake hands, they both are happy and the pay for play transaction is complete. continued...

The two examples are almost identical. The first one is perfectly acceptable and these types of transactions take place all the time. The second example is at the very least unethical and possibly a crime and unfortunately, these types of transactions also take place all the time. The fact that the Kid is a capable lawyer has nothing to do with the issue as to whether anything inappropriate had occurred.
The other issue is as Lori has said. Leibman was involved as Austin’s attorney in a huge litigation occurring in town. The potential for the perception of a conflict of interest is clearly there.
You asked If Austin is being held to a higher standard than everyone else. The answer is yes, all of our elected officials are held to a higher standard than the general public. They have been given the peoples trust. They hold office to conduct the public’s business, not to create opportunities, profits, or favors for themselves. Even if they are skilled and very proficient at their duties as public officials, it is not OK to excuse unethical or illegal behavior. continued....

If you were asking is Austin being held to a higher standard than the other council members, the answer is no, or at least he shouldn’t be. There was another candidate being considered for the position. There is absolutely no doubt that this individual is a friend to many of the council members, especially the Democrats. Both of the candidates that were being considered for the position are capable attorneys. The difference is that there is no evidence that any type of payment was promised to the councilmember who nominated the other individual. If there was that is equally wrong. Nominating or voting for a friend is not the unethical act. Offering and accepting payment or services for that nomination or vote is.

You asked if the code of ethics or laws that create these standards are practical. The answer is yes. We need more laws to keep money out of politics. We cannot have our elected officials for sale. That is an issue that touches politics across the board. That is what the debates over campaign finance reform are all about. Our Democracy is being threatened by special interests groups, lobbyists and corporations and the monies they use to influence our politics and elections.
You asked if the punishment fit the crime. I don’t think anyone wants punishment to be administered. I think folks just want to correct what could be perceived as an impropriety, and move on.
You asked was this being fueled by anger? The answer is yes. People were angry at the very beginning of the mess and the anger is growing amongst people on all sides of this issue. If just for a moment folks could set their anger aside, I to believe a simple solution is possible.

Can someone tell me why Austin had to actually pay Liebmann? Lets assume they are friends. Ever help a friend install a sink, rip out shrubs, or set up for a party? Did they pay you? In fact, lawyers often do pro bono work, do they not? I don't think pay to play exists, or even could exist, because one vote cannot give someone a job and his running mate didn't even vote in concert with him. This is why I am so disgusted by this lawsuit. The taxpayers of new Milford are the only victims. The spirit of the lawsuit is to protect the people of New Milford, but we are literally paying for it. At the end of the day, can liebmann effectively do the job is the only question that needs to be asked. if he is qualified, lets save the money and move on. If he can't, that is another story.

Grant should blame herself for not having a candidate other than liebmann with experience and no political ties like being the wife of the river edge mayor. My gut tells me that had there been another candidate nominated without political ties, Robalino and Colucci, or at least one of them would have voted for that candidate. Take responsibility for poor planning ms grant, instead of holding new milford taxpayers hostage for your mistake.

Joe:

Ed Koch had a statement that judicial controversies should never be held in the court of public opinion.

Simply put - if this does get as far as the bench and Austin is found in violation of the ethics mandate, He's done. Permanently.

If he is found not guilty, he will be a pariah.

I just wish he and Mr Liebman would do as I suggested and make it all go away. Ho harm and no foul.

With the lesson never to be forgotten.

Joe I think you hit the nail on the head.Check out there choice was it promise for someone helping the mayor of RiverEdge to get his wife in.Ask them at next meeting and stop wasting tax payers funds.John De santis stop with your statues and laws you quote like your writing a novel.The truth will come in court with egg in all demacraps party face.Austin is an honest trust worthy man.Pay to play no way all you negitve people should start apologizing now.

Good Afternoon Everyone - Anyone tired of this yet? I know I am. TIred of "arm-chair" attorneys, negative banter for and against our Councilpersons. Silence is golden. Lets see what happens in Hackensack...

If we stop with our statutes and laws what are we left with, anarchy? It cannot be left up to each individual in our society to decide which laws apply or when.

Hi Lori! and John! Thank you … I guess in this scenario, if it were to be the case, given the givens, though I see the problem I don’t see what the big deal is. Pay-to-play became an issue politically because large donations lead to political favors in the form of the skewing of policies, the granting of contracts, unqualified people gaining positions, etc. The potential harm in these scenarios is obvious.

Could someone define for me what the actual harm is in what Ashley has been accused of doing if it were to be the case, other than the fact that the M&C voted for his nomination, and the other person who was set for that position did not gain the vote. Also what law was broken if Ashley were to have done this?

Because I think the problem I am having is how can a law allow you to nominate a "friend" when the fairest thing is to have it be open to the public at large, and nominating "friends" should actually be disallowed if we're going to apply the ethical standard purely. Extending that, if nominating a "friend" is allowed, then I feel that is what Ashley may have done, and it should be allowed for him to. Because no matter what anyone says, there are benefits to being "friends," and if a rule is to apply to one, it should apply to the other.

The council didnt have to vote for either person that was nominated. They could have tabled the appointment, brought the old lawyer back for a while and asked for more names at the next meeting. That's what the mayor should have done when their was a tye vote. That would have shown leaadership.

Michelle, I think it's all in appearances. Austin should have recused himself from voting since Liebman represented him in a high profile case. By not recusing himself and nominating him...blah, blah, blah. It's all been said here before. I don't want to repeat what everyone has said. He can easily defuse the situation by proving that he did pay Liebman to represent him at the hearings. Remember, the Borough Attorney doesn't do his work for free and Mr. Liebman is being very well paid in his new position. There should be absolutely no questions regarding his and Austin's integrity.

Alexandra, I think you're right. I am done here.

Hi Miriam! thank you. I understand the appearance of impropriety -- that if Liebman wasn’t paid, then his services were a favor. It just seems that it’s a relative thing for me. If impartiality is the goal to stave off corruption, then it should be applied across the board, not just to Austin.

The fact that they were nominating a friend (the mayor’s wife from RE), shouldn’t be allowed either, because how is a friend truly qualified to qualify a friend for such a position other than the fact that they are friends.

Because isn’t the end goal, and the whole reason for the protections, to get the most qualified person in there -- one who would serve the interests of NM rather than those of the friend who nominated him (or her)? Since the act of nominating a friend in and of itself is a “favor,” there is no way to tell whether these type of nominations would be based on merit, as would be more the case if no friends were involved. The fact that Liebman helped with the Hekemian hearings at least establishes his merit.

continued...

For me, too many things are absent to truly make it a pay-to-play in perspective relative to everyone else’s choices and the rules that govern them. Have all of the other friends who have ever been nominated, never done their friends favors? Seems a behavior inherent in the relationship, and if the process is truly to be preserved, then the whole “friend” thing needs to be removed. If Liebman and Austin weren’t friends, the gesture would be more suspect, however I would still put the integrity of the system into check rather than those who take advantage of it.

To kill the point, there's no telling how far into it Austin got the idea to nominate Liebman. He very well could have said, wow, Marc is doing a stellar job, I think I'll nominate him. There is not enough information to come to a conclusion.