Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges mayor appointed friends to assessment board tied to dam project; officials and neighbors dispute charge
Summary
During public comment, a resident alleged that Ordinance 17-2024 and appointments to a new board of assessment commissioners were arranged to shift costs for replacing the Lake Reality Dam away from a mayoral family property at 71 Kinnelon Road; other residents challenged the claim and the meeting chair denied any corruption.
A public commenter accused borough leadership of a conflict of interest over appointments tied to a project to replace the Lake Reality Dam, prompting heated responses from neighbors and a direct denial from the meeting chair.
Randy White, who identified himself during the public-comment period, said Ordinance 17-2024 to establish a board of assessment commissioners will allow the borough to assess property at 71 Kinnelon Road to fund dam replacement and alleged that the mayor appointed friends to the board to reduce his family’s financial burden. "This is a conflict of interest," White said, urging the mayor to recuse himself from appointing assessment commissioners.
Other attendees disputed White's accusation. A resident, Andrew J. Sanfilippo, challenged the allegation and asked for proof: "Show me the proof," he said, defending long-serving town officials and urging commenters to take concerns offline before making public accusations. Multiple people in the audience and speakers on the dais pushed back on the claim on grounds of the mayor's years of service and volunteer work.
The meeting chair, while presiding over the public-comment exchange, rejected the charge. "I am not corrupt," the chair said, adding that he has no financial vested interest in the property at issue and that he has told appointees to "do what is right." He told commenters to stop using the word "corrupt" and to provide specific evidence if they believed wrongdoing had occurred.
Council documents referenced in comments included Ordinance 17-2024, described by the commenter as establishing the board of assessment commissioners; those ordinances and the assessment process were discussed only as background during public comment, and no formal action or vote regarding recusal or reappointment was taken during the meeting.
The public-comment exchange ended without a council action to review appointments or to investigate the allegation. The council chair reiterated that the public comment period is for remarks and that the borough attorney had advised there is no obligation to reply on the spot. No evidence of impropriety was introduced during the comment period, and a resident who defended the council urged critics to present proof if they wished officials to pursue an inquiry.
Next steps: The council took no formal action in response to the accusation during the meeting; members did not vote on recusals or on changing the assessment commissioners. Members and residents indicated disagreement over the matter, and the issue may reappear if written complaints, formal requests for investigation, or follow-up agenda items are submitted.
