Trustee Rosner's daughter appointed as SO Public Defender

Congratulations!

did you ever consider the possibility that she might just be qualified and have the experience to merit the appointment?

The appearance of impropriety can undermine confidence as much as actual impropriety  

BaseballMom said:

The appearance of impropriety can undermine confidence as much as actual impropriety  

Yes, it can. But so can making the wrong decision for fear of the impression of impropriety. I have no idea what happened here and I don't have a perception of what Trustee Rosner's daughter's experience or background is other than knowing that she has some sort of legal background, but it does strike me that we live in a small town, which means that impropriety could happen legitimately AND that the appearance of impropriety could happen when none exist. I image that we should remain vigilant yet open.

I think it's great to accuse a public official of nepotism but to do it anonymously.  Its one thing to be anonymous when you talk about family or personal issues, but this is a low class attack.  I'm Dan Dietrich.   If I don't like something our officials do I will tell them to their face.

What you said, Dan  What's your name, NepotismSux?

Jeff Levine

it's worth noting that she's been working for the public defender for years and doing the job without anyone complaining.  I believe she does public defense work in other communities, too.

Steve said:

it's worth noting that she's been working for the public defender for years and doing the job without anyone complaining. I believe she does public defense work in other communities, too.

It also worth noting that she IS qualified and that the process was done in a blind interview process by attorneys not affiliated with the Village.

Thank you, marylago for that additional bit of information.

marylago said:

Steve said:

it's worth noting that she's been working for the public defender for years and doing the job without anyone complaining. I believe she does public defense work in other communities, too.

It also worth noting that she IS qualified and that the process was done in a blind interview process by attorneys not affiliated with the Village.

At the Dec. 14, 2015 BOT meeting, a resident asked whether her appointment was a conflict of interest. The responses of the Village President and Village Counsel begin at 1:32:30 on the video tape of that meeting: 

http://view.earthchannel.com/PlayerController.aspx?&PGD=southorangenj&eID=64

What I find interesting is that nepotismsux seems to have some sort of special MOL account...I can't click into his/her account to see if it is a new account (probably a second account).  Is that an account setting choice, or some other quirk of the new system?

I'm amused by the likelihood that one of our "regulars" is too chicken-livered to make a personal (and personnel) accusation under his/her regular screen-name.

NepotismSux, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to associate an accusation of impropriety with your normal user handle, then I don't feel the need to take it seriously, especially given the details of process discussed above.

I don't know if the banned condition has been discussed in this new rendition of MOL but maybe that is what currently happens when you're banned. Banished and disappeared? But that's just my scientific wild-assed guess.

bikefixed said:

I don't know if the banned condition has been discussed in this new rendition of MOL but maybe that is what currently happens when you're banned. Banished and disappeared? But that's just my scientific wild-assed guess.

I think you're right. I've noticed if I click on names of certain people in older threads I get taken to the Forum home page. I think that means their account is gone.

I get the sentiment that people should sign off publicly on their utterances, but there is a great long history of anonymous commentary in liberal democracies- and sometimes for very good reason are they anonymous- ask Publius.

Oftentimes the demand for an identifying of the person expressing the opinion is simply a step on the way to shifting the discussion to the writer- are they conflicted? Are they a disgruntled failed candidate? Are they a job seeker who was rebuffed? 

In some places it can be a tool to intimidate or threaten. 

I am not saying any of that is happening here. But the truest form of debate, a debate of fact, discusses ideas, not the people who hold them. 

Powerful, corrupt people would face a hell of a lot less criticism if everyone who had something negative to say about them had to sign their name to it.

So the question is, is it nepotism? Is it wrong? Those are the questions that need be answered- I personally know much too little to form an opinion, but in the spirit of free & open debate I imagine by the end of this thread I'll have one.

Taking the job of Municipal PD is often a favor to the Town. It pays very little and to my knowledge has no benefits. 

I agree absolutely with Jackson_Fusion.

Nepotism is only bad when someone else does it.

It doesn't seem to me the OP is looking for a reasoned debate on the subject. I understand the value of anonymous commentary on an issue. The post which started this thread to me seems more like a midnight graffiti tag on the side of Village Hall. Which of course is not where our Village government resides anymore. So an anonymous post here has about the same effect.

Fair enough Jackson Fusion...but I'm not even saying that the person needs to sign his/her real name. Just that I take the accusation less seriously in this context if the person isn't even willing to put his/her MOL reputation at risk to make it.

I'll also say that the accusation was made without any of the details to support whether this was indeed nepotism, or just picking the best candidate (shocking that a person who grew up in the Village, with a civic-minded parent, might grow up to want to work in local government...)

So I absolutely defend the right to anonymous public accusations (and to libel suits in some cases!). I also defend my right to take anonymous accusations less than seriously when they are made without any damning details.  If NepotismSux wanted us to discuss facts and ideas, rather than his/her identity, he/she needed to do more homework and give us more reason to take the attack seriously.

(Or maybe I'm just not afraid enough of the great power of our local officials?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism

nep·o·tism

/ˈnepəˌtizəm/

noun

1. the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs synonyms: favoritism, preferential treatment, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, ... moreantonyms: impartiality

"So the question is, is it nepotism? Is it wrong? Those are the
questions that need be answered- I personally know much too little to
form an opinion, but in the spirit of free & open debate I imagine
by the end of this thread I'll have one."

Jackson_Fusion  - If you looked at the link of the video that I provided above, the two lawyers in the Village Counsel's firm who were given the responses and made their recommendation were  not told that Ms. Friedman was Trustee Rosner's daughter. There was no favoritism or preferential treatment. 

As mentioned by the Village President, the BOT was not even involved in the process or in the selection other than acting on the recommendation of Village Counsel, who was acting on the recommendation of the two lawyers in his firm who made their recommendation based completely on qualifications.

 
eta - As mentioned by the Village President, they were well aware that the question of conflict of interest (and nepotism) would come up. They would have been extremely foolish not to make sure that there was no conflict of interest or a charge of nepotism.

If outside council is willing to sign off on the process, unless the implication is that THEY are "in on it", one, and willing to go to jail over it, two, then I find that to be compelling.

The only thing I see being an issue is if someone repped by her in her role as PD lost and decided to appeal based on the same argument- Daddy's a big wheel in town and she's incompetent, or she has a conflict with her Dad being part of town government (the plaintiff in anything that would end up in SO municipal court). I imagine that situation would not be novel and has been addressed at some point over the years in NJ. Still could be a headache.

In the absence of a argument beyond "you guys are crooks" I know where I stand, not that anyone is likely to care.

Jackson_Fusion said:



The only thing I see being an issue is if someone repped by her in her role as PD lost and decided to appeal based on the same argument- Daddy's a big wheel in town and she's incompetent, or she has a conflict with her Dad being part of town government (the plaintiff in anything that would end up in SO municipal court). I imagine that situation would not be novel and has been addressed at some point over the years in NJ. Still could be a headache.

Now that is an interesting question. If Dad was the Police Chief it would certainly be a conflict.

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:



The only thing I see being an issue is if someone repped by her in her role as PD lost and decided to appeal based on the same argument- Daddy's a big wheel in town and she's incompetent, or she has a conflict with her Dad being part of town government (the plaintiff in anything that would end up in SO municipal court). I imagine that situation would not be novel and has been addressed at some point over the years in NJ. Still could be a headache.

Now that is an interesting question. If Dad was the Police Chief it would certainly be a conflict.

If the situation is one that should preclude one's appointment as Public Defender, it seems that the only way to prevent it is by passing a resolution that prohibits anyone who is related to someone in Village government from holding the position.  I can't imagine that any municipality in NJ has such a law. 

You do not need a Law, just a policy.

Additionally conflicts of interest in legal representation would be covered by the Legal Ethics Rules.

LOST said:

You do not need a Law, just a policy.

How is a policy enforced if a municipality ignores it?  

That's interesting, because South Orange is presently going through the process of codifying all of its policies.