By Victoria Hurley-Schubert, Staff Writer
A proposed conflict of interest policy that would apply to the Transition Task Force and retroactively to the Joint Shared Services Consolidation Commission (JSSCC) is causing a stir among members of both panels.
The task force approved a conflict of interest policy, copied from state statute, at its meeting last Tuesday; the commission had vigorous discussion on Wednesday and opted to refer to the governing bodies.
The policy includes clauses about using a position for personal or professional gain for the volunteers themselves, their families and business colleagues. It also covers political contributions and the handling and distribution of sensitive information.
The most ardent commission objector was Bill Metro, CEO of iXP, a consultant company for public safety and security organizations, who said had this policy been presented to him at the beginning of his service on the commission, he would not have participated.
”From the beginning I made it clear what my background is and what I do for a living and I think the commission has benefited from that and that’s good,” said Mr. Metro at the meeting on April 18. “I signed up as an individual and I made it very clear that I am volunteering as a private citizen and I think if this was presented to me at the time and I went back and shared this with my partners they would have been up in arms for me to get involved with this commission.”
His firm focuses on municipal government services, and his firm could be involved in a regional project that Princeton might be get invited to join.
Mr. Metro has an issue because the policy includes business affiliations of commission and task force members, which are not a party of either volunteer group. He strongly thinks the policy should be limited to each individual and not involve their employers or business affiliations.
”Would Princeton not join because of the conflict of interest that it was my project or my company’s project?” he said. “I said from the very beginning that if there was ever a problem with me being on this commission that I would resign and I wouldn’t be a part of it and I wouldn’t do anything to affect the efforts of trying to consolidate the Princetons.”
Two years after the application process and well into the process, Mr. Metro was upset that something like this is now being introduced.
”I think it’s unfair,” he said. “I think I would not be on the commission if it was this clear at the time. That bothers me,” said Mr. Metro. “I’ve spent a lot of time on this commission and never asked for anything in return. This is clawing back, unfortunately. I’ve had to tell other people in my company to back off on sales campaigns that are not directly associated with Princeton but Princeton could be associated with … I’m dumbfounded by it.”
Both he and Ryan Lilienthal, an immigration and nationality lawyer, agreed that the conflict policy is not good for people who might want to volunteer in the future and be very limiting because of its broadness for the types of people who could be selected.
Township Mayor Chad Goerner said the measure would memorialize what is in place for all standing boards and commissions in the township and will move forward with it from the Township Committee on Monday, April 23.
Councilwoman Barbara Trelstad said the Borough Council shares some of Mr. Metro’s concerns and is not sure the conflict policy would pass in the borough. To her knowledge, there is nothing like it in place in the borough.
Commission member Patrick Simon, who is running for council in the new municipality, abstained from the vote.
The measure has been a topic of multiple discussions and revisions for several weeks.
At the April 10 joint municipal meeting, Township Attorney Ed Schmierer explained the language in the policy was modeled after the local ethics law so when citizens do volunteer work it will not benefit them, their family members or friends.
”We have had since 2004 a policy, a code of conduct so to speak, that our municipal clerk will immediately send out to anybody who is appointed to serve on the various boards and agencies,” said Mr. Schnierer. “We ask people to sign it and to acknowledge receipt of the policy.”
If the township adopted the policy it would apply to the township people appointed to the two advisory bodies. If the borough adopted it, it would apply to the borough volunteers.
There are no overriding concerns with the task force members, said Mark Freda, chairman of the task force at the April 10 meeting.
”I feel the introduction of this at this late date is insulting,” said Councilwoman Jo Butler on April 10. “I was moved and impressed by our volunteers in our community who dedicated an incredible amount of time and to the extent that this somehow insinuates they have been behaving in any way that is less than impeccable is insulting. It would be my suggestion to the borough that we hold off on this, we don’t need to do what the township does, we can look at it separately.”
Ms. Butler also serves on the Transition Task Force.
The task force began discussing the issue at its March 21 meeting, where they received an opinion from their attorney, William Kearns.
Governing bodies who appoint citizens to a board, task force or commission have the ability to set standards, he said.
Local government ethics laws apply to municipal officials, employees and appointees. Mr. Kearns was not sure if it could be applied retroactively.
He was uncomfortable with the idea that a standard should be applied to the subcommittees because they are not appointed by the governing bodies. The Transition Task Force decided upon and invited members of the public to be on its subcommittees and did not need approval from the governing bodies for those actions.
Any standards set would be null and void on Jan. 1, when the new governing body takes office, said Mr. Kearns on March 21.
Councilman Roger Martindell said the ethics law does not apply to advisory bodies.
”The TTF arguably is an advisory body,” he said on April 10. “That doesn’t prevent the TTF from taking on the responsibilities of following the ethics law. It’s meeting a higher standard than state law would otherwise require.”
Signing the policy now does raise a couple of questions, said Mr. Martindell.
”We would be applying state law retroactively in the case of the consolidation study commission back to July 2010 and there may be individuals who don’t want to be so encumbered and might quit,” he said.
One stipulation in the document bars employment or service that might prejudice independence of judgment, and Mr. Martindell wonders if this clause would bar any members of the commission or task force from possible future employment.
For some, the public scrutiny they are all under and the election will be the public’s opinion about whether they have perceived a conflict.
”The public can weigh in in November and say ‘I think this person exhibited a conflict or didn’t exhibit a conflict’ and vote them in or out,” said task force member Jim Levine on March 21. “I think the public can see exactly what is going on here and I would encourage anybody to recuse themselves from anything that they think is even going to present a conflict. If we were going to talk about the pay of council members, I think anybody running for office should recuse themselves.”
Retroactive application was an issue for at least one commission member as the Joint Shared Services Consolidation Commission discussed the issue at its meeting last week.
Township Mayor Chad Goerner said he does not have a problem with the document and the township already has such a policy in place for all its boards, commission and committee members.
Both governing bodies will be discussing it at their meetings this week. The township was scheduled to address it on Monday night, as the borough on Tuesday night.
