Meeting closed, despite dissent

Borough Council takes up Nassau HKT issues in private

By: Nick Norlen
   Despite a dissent from Councilman Roger Martindell, Princeton Borough Council entered into a special closed session Tuesday and spent nearly four hours attempting to determine where the majority of council members stand on outstanding negotiation issues with Phase 1 downtown redeveloper Nassau HKT.
   The next step is to have a summary of the closed session reviewed by council and submitted to Nassau HKT, Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi said Wednesday.
   Also issued during the meeting was a brief presentation by Nassau HKT principal Jack Morrison and his attorney, Mr. Bruschi said. "At some point, after we’ve looked at the document from a staff standpoint to make sure it’s inclusive of what our discussions are, we’re going to get that back to Jack Morrison from NHKT and see where we go," he said.
   Although no votes were cast during the session, Mr. Bruschi said the intent of the meeting was to determine the board’s direction on proposals to resolve outstanding issues — "something formal that we’re all comfortable with," he said.
   "We tried to get a majority consensus and hopefully we’ve read everybody correctly," he said. "We’ve got to come to an agreement on (the issues) sooner or later, or agree to disagree and go through the process of mediating them."
   But Mr. Morrison will be unavailable in the coming weeks — one of the reasons Mr. Martindell protested the closed session in an e-mail to council members and borough officials Friday.
   "Jack (Morrison) had over a year to negotiate this," the e-mail reads. "We, on the other hand, have been spending thousands of dollars of legal time, hundreds of hours of our professionals’ time, and then we schedule a special meeting to offer more than we last offered Jack, so we can wrap this up before Jack goes on vacation. What’s wrong with this picture?"
   But prior to the closed session Tuesday, Mayor Mildred Trotman said the "bottom line" of the meeting was to continue "what we have done over a period months in closed session."
   She added, "We wanted to do it in an atmosphere where everyone could have their say and we could kind of, hopefully, come to some kind of consensus on where we are."
   And although he said he was "fully prepared to engage in closed session," Mr. Martindell voted against entering into the meeting Tuesday.
   He reiterated his belief that such a session would constitute the "the unfortunate position of negotiating against ourselves," and said he advocated waiting to see if the developer responds to the coming deadline — Aug. 17 — to apply for a necessary building permit.
   "We’re essentially in the position of being asked by the developer to make a deal that’s sweeter than either our finance committee or our staff has recommended," he said.
   But his fellow council members disagreed.
   Councilman David Goldfarb said the closed session would be a "useful process" — one that would serve to inform the council about outstanding issues, rather than constituting negotiations.
   Councilwoman Wendy Benchley agreed.
   "I think if we don’t meet and we don’t talk and we don’t go over these issues, then that would be negotiating against ourselves," she said. "I think that we owe it to ourselves and to the developer, who, after all, has put in at least $2 million to, in good faith, try to move this project along."
   While he said he agrees with most of what Mr. Martindell said, Councilman Andrew Koontz said he strongly disagrees with his assertion that the session would somehow "make the deal sweeter for the developer."
   Despite his opposition Tuesday, Mr. Martindell said Wednesday that the meeting was "productive in the sense that we covered a wide variety of issues."
   He added, "I’m not saying that this is all ice cream and candy. I’m saying that a decision-making process was set up, decisions were processed and there was a good result."
   However, he said it’s too early to say where the majority of council sits on most issues.
   Mr. Bruschi said Thursday that a closed session is scheduled prior to Tuesday’s council meeting, but that it may not be needed.
   He also confirmed Mayor Trotman’s statement prior to the closed session that the two promised meetings to inform the public on a proposal will not take place in August.