A $78,000 'Oops' Could Cost Ethics Board Its Life
Ocean City taxpayers paid more than $78,000 for an abandoned ruling of an ethical violation.
The only breach ever identified in the six years of the volunteer Ocean City Ethics Board resulted in a $78,140 "nevermind."
Executive session minutes released this month (see attached PDF) reveal the reasons why the board vacated and dismissed the only finding of an ethical violation in its history: the board had promised anonymity to eight witnesses and when it came time for them to identify themselves as part of an appeal hearing, all but one witness "recant(ed) their original statements or refus(ed) to participate at all."
Ocean City taxpayers paid more than $55,000 in legal fees for a public employee, Ocean City Beach Patrol Operations Director Tom Mullineaux, to defend his name against the ethics findings, and it paid more than $23,000 for the Ethics Board to defend its decision before abandoning it altogether, according to invoices provided by the city.
The expenses set the stage for a discussion scheduled for the next City Council meeting on March 28: Will the city fund legal counsel for the board, and, if not, should the board continue to exist?
At issue are the potential costs and benefits of a five-member board comprised entirely of volunteer citizens. The board has broad powers that range from subpoenaing witnesses to levying fines. But it has no budget for legal counsel.
The Ethics Board was formed in 2006 under the administration of Mayor Sal Perillo as a way for citizens to file complaints about ethics violations among city officials and employees. The board is charged with investigating complaints and ruling on potential violations.
But the board had spent only $1,500 in the combined years before the Mullineaux appeal, according to former Chairman Stanley Pszczolkowski. The city had never funded any legal representation for the board before paying for an attorney in the Mullineaux case.
City Council will decide if the board is a greater asset or liability.
The Mullineaux Case
The case started with a former lifeguard with a long-standing grudge and ended with a beach patrol manager with a potentially damaged reputation.
Former Ocean City Beach Patrol member Michael Hamilton submitted a massive complaint — "six or seven inches of paper" as Pszczolkowski described it — alleging 10 separate ethics violations by Mullineaux and now-retired Ocean City Fire Chief Joseph Foglio, who was in charge of the beach patrol.
Hamilton, 68, filed the complaint in January 2009. He was convicted of harassment in January 2010 in Wildwood Municipal Court in part for calling the fire chief "Joe FAGlio" in a series of confrontations. He accepted a $50,000 settlement in 2011 to drop a separate age-discrimination lawsuit and all claims against the city related to the beach patrol.
In an August 2009 final report (see attached PDF), the Ethics Board found no violations by Foglio and two against Mullineaux:
- "The investigating team found supporting testimony and documents that provide convincing evidence that Chief Mullineaux did use his influence and his position as Chief of Operations in the waiving of mandatory testing of certain returning lifeguards, including excusing himself from mandatory testing as required by the OCBP's own policies and procedures."
- "The investigating team found supporting testimony and documents that provide convincing evidence that Chief Mullineaux did direct an OCBP employee to change official swim test documents by adding a check mark or the notation 'OK' next to the names of those not having swim test times recorded, attempting to indicate the person did take the mandatory swim test and passed."
The beach patrol requires physical requalification tests for returning lifeguards, including a 200-meter swim and a half-mile run.
Hamilton's original complaint includes documentation that shows 'OK' notations next to the names of some veteran lifeguards and some of the beach patrol's champion swimmers, runners and rowers. Hamilton's complaint focused on a rower he claims is not a fast swimmer.
The Ethics Board report noted that "the investigating team found that public safety was never compromised in any way." It levied two $100 fines against Mullineaux.
Mullineaux immediately appealed the decision.
The Appeal
As Mullineaux's appeal moved toward an Office of Administrative Law hearing, City Council approved funding for legal representation of the board in December 2011.
But in an August 2012 executive session closed to the public, Bridgeton attorney Beth White advised the Ethics Board that they had little case.
"Ms. White then stated that she had met with Mr. Mullineaux's counsel and that it no longer looked favorable for the Board because of the lack of credible witnesses, with most witnesses rescinding their testimony for one reason or another," according to the executive session minutes released this month.
"Opposing counsel maintained that the Ethics Board was flawed in its due process when a full hearing for Mr. Mullineaux was not held by the Ethics Board when they determined a violation occurred," the minutes state. (The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right to be "confronted with the witnesses against him" ... at least in criminal cases.)
"Ms. White stated that the board cannot adequately defend its findings due to the lack of recorded testimony and only one witness who was willing to testify to the same information originally provided to the Board."
In its final report of August 2009, the Ethics Board said its findings were based on written and telephone interviews from "eight (8) OCBP current employees and retirees who requested and were given the assurance of anonymity due to the stated fear of reprisal."
In the August 2012 executive session, "(Ethics Board Chairwoman Joan Farrell) said that the Board will have to review the Ethics Ordinance in detail in comparison with the board's Rules & Procedures and make changes as necessary. It might also be necessary to propose a revision to the ordinance. The board would also have to determine what kind of legal counsel is needed for Ocean City to have an Ethics Board, and present this to City Council and the administration. (Ethics Board member Frank Worrell) said there is still a lingering question if local ethics boards will be eliminated and moved to the state level."
The board ultimately voted to vacate and dismiss all findings against Mullineaux. At the time, the board announced only that it had "concluded that procedural deficiencies existed in the investigation" and that "there exists no record evidence of a violation."
Because the Ethics Board decision made the hearing moot, the Office of Administrative Law dismissed the appeal in a decision recorded Nov. 15, 2012.
The Future of the Board
Noting that the Ethics Board has no funding in the current draft of the municipal budget for the next fiscal year, City Council President Michael Allegretto at a March 14 meeting scheduled a discussion of the future of the Ethics Board.
"If there's not a will to put the funding there, I don't think they can function the way they're supposed to," Allegretto said. "It's something we need to start discussing."
City Council member Keith Hartzell asked the city administration for a report on costs and findings related to the board.
The board has dismissed ethics complaints against such public figures as former City Solicitor Gerald Corcoran and Councilman Jody Alessandrine. With the new dismissal of the findings against Mullineaux, the board has found no ethics violations in its history.
City Council considered abolishing the board in December 2011 when first asked to pay for the board's legal expenses, and it passed the first reading of an ordinance to do so in January 2012. But amid strong public opposition, the board reversed its decision in March 2012.
walt hays
7:11 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Thank the members of the ethic board for all their volunteer work in the past and let them go. Hire a good full time lawyer and avoid all these problems before they happen with proper avoidance and review tactics- need I mention the Beach Road lot easment problems related to beach replenishment? I do have an idea- I looked at the old Richards Stand on google earth-now called the North Beach Grill- why not build them a walkway over the dune which should be replaced- give them permission to build a second story deck for customer views in return for that easment? As for the two houses just North, ie., the old Beasley property and the adjacent old Meyers house let them build their walkway ect. for the same deal. If ya want to talk about MAD- if my grandma was still alive she'd give you a word or two about how she felt when they built the Beasley house across from our house at 34 Beach Rd-lol- probably could have sued the City, but back then I guess we were more civil?
walt hays
7:29 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Sorry last names wrong on the two houses- the one next to Richards was owned by McCullum, and the next one north was built by Blackley. We had many a good volleyball game next to that Stand- best hamburgers ever made - better even than 5 Guys! Man I miss those days!
Silver Mariposa
9:36 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Unfortunately, I again have to say "here we go again"... Sue the City = a big payoff.
Management and the Administration need ethics and harassment training (along with a bit of common business sense). I cannot afford this anymore!
One Duh Bear
9:40 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
50% raise for Mr. Mullineaux and $21,000 for car cleaning but we can't afford an ethics board? Hmmm what are this Council's priorities?
Raymond Schmidt
10:02 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
How about the free pickles and Jersey tomatoes for your wonderful burgers and dogs at "Richards"......and the nice women with the white hair at the register!!!!!!
Wonderful memories.......
betsy
12:08 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I'm with you, Raymond. What a special treat it was on the days our mother allowed us to buy a cheeseburger for lunch at Richard's rather than walk home from the beach for lunch. And how many happy hours did we spend walking up and down the beach collecting empty soda (Cliquot Club?) bottles to redeem for two cents each. Who knew we were ahead of the times when it came to recycling? Those, indeed, were the days...
walt hays
7:15 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
OH Ray and Betsy- I forgot about the condiment bar just in front of the register- pickles, onions, relish, ketchup, flies, etc. - I was also a Berts Beach boy on that beach for a few years before I was Moved to park Place to rent surf boards. To us, that place was a classic- just hope the current owners will allow that dune and work out any problems they have with the city w/o further ado!! Buddy Hays as I was known back then circa 1958-1967----
LINDA LAMONT
1:22 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Wow what a shocker. I can't imagine how that slipped past all those Rhodes Scholars in OC government.
sick of watching wasted tax dollars
5:25 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Ethics Board is a big problem. This board does not deter anyone from wrong doing. It is a joke - but obviously a very dangerous and costly joke for the city and the taxpayers and the people who are the victims of this board. It might look good on paper, but in practice - it is a huge problem and Ocean City does not have tax dollars to throw around cleaning up their messes. It is an unnecessary problem - doesn't OC have enough problems?
Hank Dubrowski
5:56 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Worrell quote is classic - reminiscent of Tagg Romney saying after the election that nobody in the world wanted to be president less than his dad...Frank is saying it before the vote.
The ethics board, from its dubious creation and through its troubled, malformed life has been one a big mistake. End it!
steve fenichel
6:17 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Keep and strengthen the Ethics Board and disband the City Government.
George Petrie
8:31 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Funny on both counts, Steve. In the even that you are not being funny on the first count, please let us know why you did not stay on the Ethics Board and try to work within to strengthen it, rather than take the path you did, which was to quit and trash it?
Regardless - long past the time to have put an end to this poisonous board.
One Duh Bear
8:31 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The ethics board does not cause the problems, the employees do! The biggest payouts on lawsuits are from lawsuits filed against the City before the ethics board was created! Musley and Yust both sued the City under the Knight administration long before an ethics board was created. Get rid of it, won't save a dime. Hamilton filed ethics charges but he also sued the City. Any employee who is treated unfairly will sue the City not file ethics charges with the State.
James
8:58 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
What is funny here? First of all, this is about a huge sum $78,000 in wasted tax money. It is about an Ethics Board that is ok on paper, but not in reality. Steven Fenichel - you quit the Ethics Board in disgust now you defend it? That's nuts. The rest of you, talking about pickles and onions. What a bunch of wackos
walt hays
11:26 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
perhaps you're not old enough to remember how much the old Richards stand and their delicious food meant to us old fogies- Wackos? As for you, were you even alive back then- I doubt not! as for fenichel I could not agree more. Very negative on many accounts, AND never has a viable solutions - I don't know about you, but i'm very tired of reading his tirads- If I ever meet you, you will pay for that Wacko comment-lol
Ellen
1:07 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I was alive and well and participated in the joys of OC back in the day (60's). And yes you come across as WACKOS IMHO! Oh and Mr. Hays, smart people don't put threats in writing. WACKO!
David Chick
9:07 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
You are right not funny at all .A lot of money down the drain.
walt hays
11:31 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I agree- I personally was not trying to be funny, read closely my posts, a lot of history in each post! Been in OC since 1949- And you???
Eric Sauder
11:30 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
There are two possibilities here. Either those witnesses were lying out of the gate, or the truth is being suppressed. Which is it? There is evidence but suddenly no witnesses. How did THAT happen?
The Ethics Board was set up to fail by not giving it legal counsel and was undermined in this case (in my opinion.) The City killed it. It now wants to bury it. There goes citizen oversight over government.
You go play along. You’re doing exactly what the City wanted you to do. Without citizen support the way is clear to get rid of it. The City defended itself and not the Ethics Board. Reread the article and think about it.
Lorne Somers
11:46 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eric - The ethics board had volunteer, actively enganged legal council during its first few years and the board's performance was just as poor as has been since losing those services. The problem with the board is inadequate candidate identification and selection processes, poor training, and lack of oversight. Add to that a weak governing statute and muddled ordinance. The result has been and will continue to be, as it has been argued convincingly here many times, that the board offers way more costs than benefits.
Eric Sauder
4:14 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I hear you. But I’ve heard some of this before. At one point it was a fairly competent group. And it did receive training. As far as I know it did not receive legal counsel until it was already embroiled in the case. It received $23,000 to defend its case. The City paid $55,000 (excluding the cost of settlements which more than doubles that amount) to defend itself and Mullinaux.
Maybe we should be looking at the case? I believe it would have gone forward if the principle witnesses hadn’t backed out. Why they did is disconcerting to me, and should be for anyone. Who offered the settlements to prevent witnesses from talking? How is it that other witnesses dropped out due to fear of reprisal? What does that say about what WHO was interfering in the case?
Nothing bad ever happens here in America’s Greatest Family Resort. You no sooner hear about a case than it disappears from off the radar. And the lawsuits and settlements go on and on and on. City council tried once before to remove local citizen over site. And let’s be clear. That is what is at the heart of this. Now it knows it can rely on the citizens to do the dirty work.
IF effective, IF supported, The Local Ethics Board could be a threat to City government in that it has the power to investigate and subpoena and bring charges. That is what you as a citizen stand to lose by not supporting it.
I agree with Dr. Fenichel. I don't think that it is the Ethics Board that is the problem.
Lorne Somers
4:46 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eric - I am not dealing out heresay...the board had a dedicated volunteer attorney from the start and for quite awhile afterward. I saw him at the meetings. I know who he is (a good man, and excellent atty, btw). I followed the board the first few years and its performance was abysmal. It has not improved. The atty has limited authority over how the board conducts itself. She/he is there in an advisory role only. And that advice is on matters of law only. I have seen your case in defense of the board. It is weak on the facts and the arguments and in the real world outcome; and your case has been repeatedly defeated on all fronts - right here on the Patch. Your impervious vehemance is not flattering, and hurts your credibility when you comment on other topics. Try to step back from your initial conclusion, reconsider subesquent information and arguments, and then return to the path to a fresh conclusion (some unsolicited advice, for what it is worth).
Eric Sauder
4:52 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Hey look I'm not happy with its performamce either. I'm just not sure I want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I think it COULD be useful. To me the solution is to make it effective. Is it your conclusion that that is not possible? What would it take in your opinion to make it effective?
Eric Sauder
4:56 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
And yes I know its not politcally expedient to be on the losing side of an argument. I'm not that political. And you never addressed the City's role in all of this. Your opinion is your opinion.
Lorne Somers
5:44 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eric - The city could conceivably have a study done to identify ways, working within the framework of the state statute, to find qualified candidates, develop and implement a reliable vetting and selection process of them, assess current training and have that improved upon, and set up and implement an effective mechanism for legal and proper oversight. And the city could determine if there is some way to mitigate its monetary risks (perhaps through enhancements to its indemnification against things like this, if they exist). If all of that could be accomplished then the board would have a slight chance of being more effective in the context of its purpose than are the existing mechanisms for that. So - not only will the citynot do all of that, but it should not do it.
As to the rest of your comment: I expected you to take offense at my suggestion. I do not regret making it.
Eric Sauder
8:52 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
No offense taken. I asked for your ideas. You gave them.
Local Nitwit
11:11 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I like Somer's point. I can drink at the restaraunts.
walt hays
12:02 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
This City will pay for years for the wrongs of the Longo manopoly of this town- It will take years to undo what that jerk did- Don't blame the current Council- As for Gillian- he and his family has done more for OC than you will ever imagine- I caught my first gold ring on his ferris wheel at the age of four 1953- free Christmas fireworks- think he even paid for FW on his Birthday one year- The man needs time to undo what the the mafia of OC did in the past- Give him some time and space-
Eric Sauder
7:34 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
What does the Longo administration have to do with this administration, this council? Its the one we have now thta needs to be held accountable.
Do you guys go to council meetings? Do you really know what's going on? What does it mean to you that 7 out of 8 witnesses backed off when (according to the story) they felt the could lose their jobs ("fear of reprisal?") On top of that there are the settlements to consider, particulalry Hamilton's who according to the terms of the settlement is prevented from discussing the case.
Hey maybe its better than when Longo ran the City but I can think of a lot of ways this adminstration could be better.
Frank
12:10 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Walt - I could not agree with you more!
walt hays
12:19 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thank you- the problem here is that a lot of these new OC residents don't realize what the guy ( for lack of a better word) Longo did to expose the city to numerous lawsuits. As I said- give Gillian some time and room.
Frank
12:49 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I agree. The issues were not created over night and will not be resolved over night. There are decades of issues and neglect that need to be addressed. Yes, please - everyone - "give Gillian some time and room".
James
7:21 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Happy to give Gillian time. But he does need to change the ways and he may not so much be changing as falling right into the old ways with no bid contracts and giving work to pals (off island even?) That is the old way - isn't it? Let's see some change then, shall we? And lets see some hard work from his highly paid business manager - when you get paid big bucks, you have to actually work - and work hard.
Frank
9:24 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
James - I happen to think that his as you stated "highly paid business manager" works extremely hard. People in OC tend to think that someone is not working hard if unable to deliver the answers they want or resolve issues in the time frame they would like...unfortunately this is often not reality.
Frank/AJ/Stevie
12:46 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Frank you never have one shred of evidence or clear information to back up what you say. A hard working person is one who shows results - simple as that. If a hard working person does not produce results - then they are not up to the task at hand. Are issues resolved? Are answers given? If not, then either someone is not working hard enough or they are incapable of doing the job.
Eric Sauder
4:26 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
We do crisis management here. Look at all the stuff that's going on now that could have, and should have been handled better than it was. I'm not going to say the administration is incompetent, but what I can say is that it has not been acting competently. As I stated before we have nothing but bad options because of it.
I can't help but think that if it focused more on what is truly important to the citizens here we'd be a lot better off. In the midst of this morass it is now contemplating yet anoter public / private "partnership" and is going to waste more time going after the Ethics Board? We have some pretty big problems we need to be addressing.
Eric Sauder
4:32 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
What is important to the citizens of this town has been, and still is, being neglected. Yes yes the builders can get back to work now. But what about our beaches??? I'm going on record as saying that if the sand they took off of my beach results in property damage or economic loss, I'm going to be the next person to sue the City.
I've been trying to get the City to simply paint lines on our streets for years now so I can see where I'm driving in fog. What do you have to do?
Eric Sauder
4:35 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Next time you feel like painting curbs can you paint lines on the streets?
Frank
1:40 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
You are all impossible to please!
walt hays
5:14 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Dear Ellen was only kidding- Frank until they figure out how to shore up the South beaches all will be impossible. Consider the fact that mayor Gillian arranged to truck in sand from the mainland to create dunes at the South end with the approval of FEMA and then gets Crap from someone who is not happy with the sand quality- too many pebbles/wrong color- PLEASE! And then he arranges to make it possible to pump around the old Richards Stand- and gets shit from the owners- perhaps not one person should buy anything from that business this summer, then we'll see what happens? On a brighter note, the replinishment of the North end beaches is in progress. If anyone who is interested and tired of bitching about a mayor who is trying to undo 50 yrs of LONGO, you can watch 24/7 on "at the shore.com/ the Heritage beach cam, and the 7th street surf cam- try to enjoy and realize that when I was a kid and lived at 34 Beach Rd- IT WAS UNPAVED and was regularly coated with oil. There were also NO dunes in front of our house. Me thinks - at the age of 63, the times are a changing and sea level rising is going to kick OC's ass in 10 yrs- hope I'm not around to see your demise
lizabeth
5:45 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Walt - where the sand comes from and the texture, etc. is important. That is another reason why trucking in sand is such a problem in addition to the fact that you can never truck in enough sand. NO - the south end should have been replenished the way the north end always has been. And all the cheerleaders like you and this guy Frank - cannot change the fact that there are no beaches in the south end and properties are at risk and this never should have happened. Something should have been done last fall - before the storm there should have been plans made. And gee Walt, you planning on dying before you reach 73 because of sea level rise? That's not that old, you know number one and it won't rise that much in just 10 years - its rising but not at that rate so don't take the pipe yet. buck up, man and don't waste your sympathy on this administration. They are getting what they need.
walt hays
5:59 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Can I call you Liz? Used to spend many a days at CISP fishing with a beach permit from Belleplain- I took very good care of that place- but, The fact is the City cannot get a permit to pump those beaches from the Core of Engineers- How Strathmere,and Sea Isle were able to get their sand replinished, I just don't know. I'm retired now and my main interest is the welfare of my favorite old home- Got a question or suggestion? My e mail is hayswalt@YAHOO.COM
walt hays
5:47 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Woops, I hope I am am around to see how Oc has raised the houses and weathered the big one- me and Bruce Wigo will surf those waves like we did in the 60'[s at North street jetty when they almost sent the Coast Guard out to get us! Late August 1967 We both got back in- my great aunt never again came to visit- I don't wonder why-lol
Eric Sauder
6:13 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
That's right. We can't do what we didn't do.
Eric Sauder
6:21 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
And ist a sad sad story what we can't do. We can't get beach replenishment, we can't dredge the inlet. Maybe we can't even get sand from where we're dredging now (the north end.) We can't find deeds for easements. All of this "can't.." Reminds me of Chris Berman when the Saints were horrible. He used to call them the New Orleans Aints. Aint got an offense, aint got a defense, aint go special teams. What we can do is truck dirty sand in from Woodbine or scrape it off our deteriorated beaches. Great.
Eric Sauder
6:28 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
What we CAN do is tell everyone everything is fine here in Ocean CIty ... that our beaches are in great shape and we're open for business. What we CAN do is keep development going. That's what we're trulygood at here. Making money for commercial interests.
walt hays
6:28 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I have one final comment on this subject- I have never met the mayor nor will I ever probably, but I surely believe he has a vested interest in this town And if I owned a business like his, I would certainly make sure the City and the home owners were in his and their best interest also- just a thought- all will be well IMHO
steve fenichel
6:40 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
When it is no longer possible to serve then then it is time to resign.
That was my realization with the Ethics Commission. It was allowed to operate until an insider was found guilty of Ethical Violations.
Below is the resignation letter.
steve fenichel
6:48 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
9/18/2012
Dear Mayor Gillian and Chairwoman Farrell,
When you, Mayor Gillian, appointed me to the Ocean City Ethics Commission it was a wonderful honor which I embraced with innocent idealism. Now some 10 months later with a heavy heart and great sadness I have no option but to resign my position.
I came to today’s Ethics Commission meeting to appeal to my fellow members to revisit their decision to drop the charges against Mr. Mullineaux and rescind the Amendment adopted on August 20th. I came to remind them of the high bar that is set for this Commission according to OC Ordinance No 2-78 . “Public officials and employees are agents of public purpose and hold office for the benefit of the public….They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office…recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern”.
Sadly, my conclusion at the end of my tenure is that instead of the common good and public interest being the ultimate master, entrenched politics and connections rule the day.
Before I left the country for a month our Commission was on point with its own legal representative, Ms. White, and was committed to standing up for the well-thought out decision rendered in the Ocean City Lifeguard’s case.
steve fenichel
6:51 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
On my return I read in the local newspapers that at the August 20th Commission meeting, ..” it had adopted an amendment to its original flawed final report wherein the board now admits that there was absolutely no evidence of any ethical violation by Chief Mullineaux and that procedural deficiencies existed in the investigation”. All charges were dropped. This information is on record and open to the public.
What behind-the-scenes machinations went on in that month that negated a well-researched and documented Ethics violation and decimated the confidence the public holds in this independent Commission?
steve fenichel
6:51 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Not only were the charges dismissed because of the tried-and-true, “procedural failings” (newspaper reports) but the attorney representing Mr. Mullineaux stated, “the new ethics board has finally acknowledged that its investigation and original findings violated Chief Mullineaux’s due process rights and failed to deliver a MODICUM of fairness or impartiality”. This kind of disrespectful statement to the work of the members of the Commission; the 3 respected attorneys who were advising over the years, and to the community of Ocean City is the height of arrogance and an indicator to me that we cannot function as an independent and impartial body.
The real victims in this whole tragedy are Hope and Trust. I respect the work of individuals on the Commission and my heart goes out to City employees/officials/citizens who fail to have their grievances redressed and there is nowhere else to turn
Respectfully,
Steven Fenichel, M.D.
George Petrie
8:28 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Steve - You could have remained on and tried to improve things within. You chose not to, and to trash that board and many others. And this from someone who strongly opposes this board's existance.
Eric Sauder
8:47 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Well George I know a lot of people who wanted to improve things that are giving up and getting out. If they find they can't effect change then I don't know you can blame them.
George Petrie
9:05 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I'm talking about Steve. As to your phantom "a lot of people who wanted to improve things...", if they indeed exist, then wanting is not trying. And trying to improve something like this abomination of a board would require broad, meticulous, and long term effort. Basically having the study Lorne describes done and then implementing it. And, as Lorne correctly points out, there is little chance that the outcome would produce significant improvement over the current mechanisms for keeping government officials in line. And that means that the effort is not worth it. And I saw that you asked for Lorn's comments on the city's role, got them, and had no response to them. Eric - it is OK to say you have been on the wrong side of an issue.
Eric Sauder
5:23 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of the issue. What I said is that I think I'm on the the losing side. There's a difference.
I know this is where I'm supposed to cave to someone else's opinion or risk being marginalized. There's a bit of a gang mentality here. I asked two questions ... how could it be made more effective and if (in the opinion of Lorne) it can be made effective. An opinion was rendered on both. I didn't comment further since both of my questions were answered, and I respect the opinion. And Lorne never did comment on the City's role in all of this.
You're taking a prosecutable air here, like someone else I know. Whether or not people stay on where they feel they can't be effective is a personal decision I can also respect. Some of us keep banging our heads into the wall. There are days when I want to give up too.
Eric Sauder
5:25 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
And there's nothing phantom about it. I could give you 3 names right off the top.
George Petrie
8:57 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
Eric - You have opinions. You post them. There is a tacit understanding that the act of posting them is an invitation to comment on the opinions - agreeing, disagreeing, etc. Whichever the case, some people will provide a basis for their comment. You often then engage directly in the discussion or debate. What you rarely if ever do is acknowledge when your premises are proven to be wrong, your arguments effectively rebutted, and your position proven incorrect. You are not alone in this. Many people find it extremely dificult to do any of that. What is unusual about your behavior is that you so often and so publicly create oppurtunities to behave that way.
Eric Sauder
2:33 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
That is because George (or Sam or whoever you are) you failed to do any of those things. I find that I'm constantly being misrepresented and falsely accused by a myriad of names who all sound and think the same. And for what? The sake of carrying on a pointless convoluted argument?
I admit I don't like being misrepresented or falsely accused. If you want to draw conclusions, there's one you can safely make.
I would be a fool to play meaningless mind games with you. We know each other's positions on this. I have better things to do. How bout you?
George Petrie
4:10 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Weak...and that's the parts that make sense.
Lorne Somers
4:24 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Eric - I must say this is largely incoherent. I can partly interpret if I substitute the word "Sam" with the words "factual, reasoned, and persuasive". Otherwise I cannot penetrate the anger or untangle the thought streams.
walt hays
9:08 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
dear steve- I no longer live in OC but have been keeping up with the news via the Patch. IMHO you have given a great deal of effort on a personal basis to this city- unfortunately, you have also been very negative in your thoughts concerning same. The ethics board is no longer needed in this city- nothing personal, but The current Mayor and council in my opinion don't need to be monitored by an outside board- the old days have expired, and the new days have arrived. I give the new Mayor and Council my best wishes and trust that the Days of Longo and his cronies shall never return- just hope I live long enough to witness all of the above- on the other hand, I live safely here in Mays Landing- out of harms way-
Eric Sauder
9:23 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Well Walt the negativity comes from living here and getting involved. Its an occupational hazard? I don't mean to sound dismissive or anything but there is overwhelming evidence for the need of oversite here.
vic
10:53 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
obviously, the ethics board is not the place to turn. secret, anonimous testimonies, no crosss examination of the witnesses, no transparency. is this what we want from an ethics board? seems like an exercise in futility to me.
chuck betson
8:55 am on Thursday, March 28, 2013
the establishment of the ethics board was well intended. but in this era of legalese it is simply not feasible to have it now. there is nothing to prevent ethic cases to become personal vendettas of citizens againt citizens. it is time for it to be disbanded.
OCLiving
5:17 pm on Thursday, March 28, 2013
You just don't the ethics board cramping your style. You like that good-old-boy network. without it you could not afford to live in OC doing that radio show.
You say right on the air how you want Hartzell to give you advertising contracts and free jobs. is that in exchange for promoting him on your show?
BTW - I heard how you got past the police blockades claiming you are media covering the story. Why does your station need reporters, doesn't that lady just read all the news from the astrological charts?
Eric Sauder
11:24 pm on Tuesday, April 2, 2013
I would still like to know how it is that the person whose bid was accepted for the marina incorporated for the project a month before the RFP's went out. Yes he could have known about the intent to go out to RFP had he attended the council meeting where it was announced (or was otherwise informed) but the article of incorporation was granted only days after that council meeting, and unless he was assured his bid would be accepted, I don't know why he would have incorporated. It really doesn't mean that much to me that other RFP's were sent out. If you already have your man would you accept another bid?