Conflict of Interest ? - A Citizens' Unconstitutionality Complaint That Begs Hopatcong to Answer...

I can relate to the expression “Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right”. We see it so often in the news and we are appalled when powerful and wealthy people are allowed to be unscrupulous and legally damage others without any condemnation.  In fact, some of these people get to keep their reputations intact as being outstanding members of our community.  Self-serving people can slip by the public with their motives undetected.  It is hard to judge if the people we elected or the ballots we voted really made our lives or the community we live in better.  Who is following up and providing the due diligence of the actions of our elected and appointed officials and the results of their programs .  It seems the average citizen has so much on their plate trying to make ends meet and supporting their family that they don’t have the time to turn the proverbial stone even in their own town.     

I am one of the few people in Town who regularly goes to our public Town Council Meetings.  However, despite the lack of attendees, the courtroom was recently renovated with new courtroom windows, granite top council desk counters etc. This renovation work I was told was a donation from the non-profit HudsonFarm Guild.  It is in this very room I get to hear the favorable votes to pass resolutions on behalf of The Hudson Farm Guild.  There is always a period where one can give public comment.  Without having a pre issued detailed listing of these Ordinances and Resolutions it is hard to judge them for any comment.  I wished that in these moments I had knowledge beforehand so I could quickly comment.   It is only after researching the issues do I find the grist for public comment. 

The public comment that was too late for these Town meetings is: How does the interest, involvement and public comment from Councilman Richard Bunce, Councilman  Howard Baker and Borough Attorney John Ursin (defender in related case) regarding Hudson Farm ‘s commercial shooting license relative to serving the people of  Hopatcong.  Why did they become involved with the DFW to grant Hudson Farm a license to operate a commercial shooting preserve (CSP)?   How does this relate to the positions they were appointed or elected to perform and that is to serve in the BEST INTEREST TO THE PEOPLE OF HOPATCONG?  How did taking a public stance in favor of acquiring a commercial shooting license for Hudson Guild (a tax exempt recreation site) a benefit to our community, the environment, the tax revenue or the economic development of Hopatcong?  How did a commercial shooting license to a tax exempt entity become a need for Hopatcong representatives to be present on our behalf?  What did the people of Hopatcong gain from this action?  When they expressed their public opinion on this matter was it the view of all the citizens of Hopatcong?  Apparently there were citizens who felt this license was unjust. 

Why is John Ursin our Borough Attorney the same attorney that argued the cause for respondents MMK Reinsurance, Ltd., Lee Kellogg, and Hudson Farm.  Why did he accept this case that fought against our neighbors and the regular citizens of our area and defended a wealthy entity embedded in Hopatcong?  He is the Borough Attorney that the taxpayers have employed.  Now he is defending a client that may be causing harm to our community.  Is this not a moral contradiction?  He could have handed it off to some other attorney. There is no benefit to the people of Hopatcong to employ John Ursin as our Borough Attorney when he accepts contradictory cases that actually tackles with concerned citizens in the community .  Here is an example to ask if he should remain an employee of the taxpayer:

ROSEFF v. MMK REINSURANCE, LTD. HARVEY ROSEFF, FRED GILLESPIE, JOSEPHINE LEE, ADRIANGONZALEZ, MERWYN LEE, and LORNA LEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

 MMK REINSURANCE, LTD., LEE KELLOGG, HUDSON FARM, and STATEOF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY AND DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT,Defendants-Respondents.

No. A-6209-07T1 

Here is the plaintiff citizen view of this case:

“The gist of plaintiffs' challenge is that DFW did not adequately consider the environmental and other harms that would, according to plaintiffs, result from the operation of a CSP in proximity to a residential neighborhood and related recreational facilities. They also challenge the constitutionality, on vagueness grounds, of one of the licensing criteria in the governing statutes, specifically the requirement that "[t]heoperation of such shooting preserve shall not conflict with a prior reasonablepublic interest." N.J.S.A. 23:3-29(d)(1). Although we uphold the constitutionality of that statute, we have determined that DFW has misinterpreted the statutory language at issue. Consequently, we remand to DFW for reconsideration of its licensing decision”. 

And what was our Councilman Richard Bunce and CouncilmanHoward Baker involvement in this?  Well, did you know that they gave their public written comment regarding DFW to grant Hudson Farm a license to operate a commercial shooting preserve (CSP)?  http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2011/hudson_farm_dep_response.pdf

Ask yourself was Councilman Howard Baker and Councilman Richard Bunce’s public comment - your public comment on the matter?  If it wasn’t should they still be representing you?  Why should they be giving any written public comment on this CSP issue at all?  This is an act of biasness from local governing officials that will make future voting judgments on behalf of our borough.  Do you see an ethical problem here?

If you would like to read something from the Plaintiff Citizen’s point of view that some of Council members and our Town Attorney would find contradictory, then read the report by Joe Tyrrell reported on  NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM -

 http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/court-shoots-down-commercial-hunting-preserve-in-sussex

Ask yourself why we put up with Officials that don’t truly represent us and whose actions have NOT been for the greater good of all its citizens.  On June 5^th you get an opportunity to vote in a Republican contested primary for Town Council.  Use your power and change the “Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right” folks from playing their game on you.  It is the first step in giving citizens back
their own Public Comment.