Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recusal Allegation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilman D'Amato calls alleged prejudgment and asks planning board to affirm impartiality
Summary
Councilman D'Amato read a public statement rejecting a recusal demand and said he has evidence that some officials urged a prearranged vote on the Islamic Center application.
Councilman D'Amato addressed the Clifton Planning Board before the hearing of the Islamic Center of Passaic County application, rejecting a public recusal request and accusing some colleagues of having prejudged the matter.
“I flatly deny every single word in, former city manager Villano's lawsuit,” Councilman D'Amato said when reading a statement he asked to enter into the record. He told the board he had been told by “no fewer than 4 individuals on this dais that we, or I, must vote yes on this application” and said he has “names” and corroboration; he characterized his remarks as a whistleblower disclosure. “I have names. I have dates. I have corroboration, and I am coming forward as a whistleblower,” D'Amato said.
Why it matters: D'Amato publicly rejected the lawsuit allegations as “baseless” and objected to what he described as improper attempts to force his recusal or a prearranged vote. Because adjudicatory panels must avoid prejudgment to protect administrative fairness and limit legal exposure, his statement prompted the board chair to ask planning commissioners on the record to confirm they had not prejudged and would decide only on evidence presented.
Board response and procedural follow‑up Chairwoman Kolodzie asked each board member to affirm their legal duty to listen to testimony and to refrain from prejudgment. The chair put the affirmations on the record and proceeded with the hearing; several commissioners explicitly stated they would make decisions based on testimony and the law. For example, Commissioner Pedaso said, “I make the decision based on the information that we receive,” and Mayor Grabowski said the board must “do what's legally right” and would base a decision on testimony from both sides.
No formal recusal vote or transfer occurred at the hearing. Councilman D'Amato offered a remedy — transfer the application to another body to be heard de novo if necessary — and said any further inquiries should be directed to his attorney; the transcript shows D'Amato said, “That is my motion tonight,” but the board did not adopt a transfer at this meeting.
Discussion only vs. direction vs. action - Discussion only: D'Amato’s public statement and the subsequent affirmations by board members were recorded as testimony and assurances about impartiality; the planning board took no formal disciplinary action or transfer vote. - Direction/assignment: The chair directed members to affirm their impartiality on the record and to base any decision on the evidence presented at the hearing. - Formal action: None regarding recusal; the board continued to hear the application and proceeded to the applicant’s testimony.
Ending The public recusal allegations remain part of the record; board members affirmed they would decide based on hearing testimony, and the board proceeded with the scheduled hearing and continuation dates.
