MOUNT LAUREL- Things got contentious at Monday night’s township council meeting, with Republican members terming some of lone Democratic council member and state Assembly candidate Tracy Riley’s actions on council as “political posturing.” During the public comment portion of the meeting, resident Jim Keenan questioned Riley’s “no” vote on the 2007 municipal budget and asked why a video camera was present during the vote.
Riley said she had nothing to do with the camera and defended her “no” vote, stating she believes the township has a history of under-anticipating revenues, which she contends has led to a higher percentage of budget surplus than is necessary.
After a few minutes of back-and-forth between Keenan and Riley, the topic turned to township solicitor Michael Mouber and Riley’s suggestion at council’s reorganization meeting in January that he may have a conflict of interest because he also serves as the township’s GOP chairman.
Keenan said he is concerned with the “black cloud” left on council by that suggestion.
Riley said she has retained an attorney and is requesting an “advisory opinion” from the state to determine if a conflict does exist.
Also, after the meeting, she said she is still compiling information, such as tapes and minutes from meetings, to submit with the request for an advisory opinion.
In April, Mouber filed his own request for an advisory opinion from the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) – Division of Local Government Services.
In a letter, Mouber asked if it is a conflict or violation of state statute for him to hold the solicitor position and serve “as chair of a municipal political committee.”
Mouber said he has been serving as chairman of the committee for five to eight years.
“My goal is to comply in all respects with the New Jersey Local Government Ethics Law and all other regulations governing the conduct of attorneys” in the state, Mouber wrote.
In a response dated May 9, the DCA found that ethics law “would not prohibit you from serving as chair to a municipal political committee while employed as the township attorney…”
The DCA limited its opinion “to the specific matter” outlined in Mouber’s correspondence and wrote that “an advisory opinion may only be applied to the question at issue.”
“I believe that a conflict of interest may exist,” Riley said, arguing that as chairman Mouber has say on which Republican candidates are picked to run in the township, and thus, any of those candidates elected to council may be influenced by that when appointing solicitor.
Her colleagues on council were steadfast in their support of Mouber and questioned Riley’s motives. “I’m surprised that anybody questions your (Mouber’s) ethics” Councilman Pete McCaffrey said. “They obviously don’t know you.”
Councilwoman Virginia Devery called Mouber’s service “exemplary” and any questioning of his ethics as “unfortunate.”
“Now, I’m feeling this black cloud,” Mayor Mark Sanchirico said, questioning where Riley is in the process.
Riley limited her comment at the meeting to: “I have retained an attorney.”
Mouber termed Riley as sounding ‘extremely political,” “naive” and “mean spirited” in bringing up a possible conflict of interest. He added that he always tried to conduct himself with the highest ethical standards.
When he heard nothing further about Riley’s suggestion at the January reorganization, Mouber said he “began to get concerned” and is now “suspicious” of Riley’s motive.
“(Riley) challenged my integrity,” Mouber said. “I have suspicions now that she did that and didn’t follow up.”
Mouber suggested Riley might be “dragging” the issue out for political purposes.
After the meeting, Riley said she intends to file the request for an advisory opinion when she has all the necessary information.
“I’m taking the appropriate course of action,” Riley said.
A few residents at Monday’s meeting complained about the political back-and-forth.
“That whole conversation was just a waste of time,” said resident Debbie Fairfield
