Dear Editor:
As if the Zimmer Administration isn’t wasting enough taxpayer dollars fending off endless lawsuits, this administration continues to defend Councilman Ravi Bhalla from a violation adjudicated by the Local Finance Board.
The facts. At the February 17, 2010 council meeting, Bhalla voted to award a no bid contract to Paul Condon. Prior to the next council meeting internet bloggers raised concerns that a close business relationship, the sharing of business office space and potentially expenses, placed Ravi’s vote in jeopardy, as it may have constituted a conflict of interest.
The next council meeting saw Bhalla fending off a resolution seeking to negate his vote, by raising, as he has done many times since, a conversation prior to voting with then-Corporation Counsel Michael Kates, wherein Bhalla had sought guidance on the propriety of voting. The resolution was tabled in favor of an investigation by Kates. In essence, this empowered Kates to opine on his opinion.
Witnessing this insanity, I took the facts to the Local Finance Board, and despite the close personal relationship the Mayor and Governor enjoyed, in August 2013 the state board issued a Notice of Violation, for not just sharing office space but for sharing the lease for said office.
Immediately, represented by the City of Hoboken’s Law Department, Ravi filed an appeal with the Administrative Law Division and on September 19, 2014 the decision was reversed and sent back to the Local Finance Board for final determination. Needless to say, on December 12, 2014, debunking point by point the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the LFB affirmed its decision restating Ravi’s vote constituted a Conflict of Interest.
What’s the big deal? After all, the LFB only levied a $100 dollar fine. History has taught us that it is not the behavior, but the seeming omission that is problematic. For years Ravi’s raised Kates’s conversation as an alibi but until Kates gave a certification in the Appellant proceedings, the public was clueless about what was said. In his May 6, 2014 certification, Kates swears that Ravi never disclosed his partnership in the lease with Condon, only that they shared office space.
Sure Ravi has ethics issues dating back years but what’s up with the Zimmer Administration using taxpayer’s money to defend Ravi? Why is the current Corporation Counsel continuing to zealously defend Ravi especially when it became apparent that a Conflict of Interest exists?
Is the Zimmer Administration shopping for a forum that condones voting for such a close associate or where an omission to the City’s Head Lawyer is acceptable behavior? Reform, what reform? It would appear when you are a member of Zimmer’s inner circle there is no end to taxpayer’s dollars wasted to justify conflicts and ethical issues.
That you for your many courtesies,
I remain
Peter Belfiore