State agency approves Marlboro code of ethics Residents may now file a complaint against local officials BY TALI ISRAELI Staff Writer MARLBORO - A township code of ethics that establishes the standards of ethical conduct and financial disclosure requirements for local government officials and employees has been approved by the state Department of Community Affairs. In March 2005 the Marlboro Ethical Standards Board was adopted by the Township Council and Mayor Robert Kleinberg. A month later the council and mayor appointed six individuals to the board. The appointees for five-year terms are Michael Cali and Stanley Rosen. Rabbi Donald Weber was appointed for a four-year term and Gail Becker, Ibrahim Naboulsi and Maxine Perlman were appointed for three-year terms. Since that time the board members have been working on writing the provisions of the ethics code for Marlboro. Because the local code is more restrictive than the state's code, it required approval from the Local Finance Board at the DCA. In January the board submitted its code to the state and following several exchanges between the two entities the code was approved on Aug. 9 and became effective on Oct. 9. According the code, those officials and employees who are subject to the provisions of the code include the mayor, council members, municipal clerk, business administrator, all department heads, fire commissioners, township engineer, members of the zoning and planning boards, recreation commissioners, the clerks, engineers, attorneys and planners of the zoning and planning boards, the executive director of the Marlboro Swim Club, commissioners of the Western Monmouth Utilities Authority, commissioners of the Marlboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority, and all police officers above the rank of patrolman. The code specifies the ethical standards to which these individuals must adhere. The Ethical Standards Board's responsibilities include initiating, receiving, hearing and reviewing complaints; holding hearings with regard to possible violations of the code or financial disclosure statements; and rendering advisory opinions to officers or employees of the town. According to the code, an officer or employee may request an advisory opinion of the board as to whether any proposed conduct may be in violation of the code of ethics. Those advisory opinions may not be made public except when the board, by a unanimous vote, directs that the opinion be made public. Those opinions that are made public would not reveal the name of the officer or employee who requested the advice, unless the board decides otherwise. Residents who believe an officer or employee of the township is in conflict with the code of ethics can submit a signed written complaint to the board. The board has 30 days to initiate an investigation concerning the facts and circumstances named in the complaint. According to the code, the board will make a determination as to whether the complaint is within the board's jurisdiction, frivolous or without any reasonable factual basis. If it is determined that the complaint is within the board's jurisdiction and has at least a minimal factual basis, the complaint will be investigated further. According to the code, if the board determines that a reasonable doubt exists as to whether the officer or employee was in conflict with the code of ethics, the board will conduct a hearing concerning the possible violation. The board's decision has to be made by two-thirds of all members of the board. The officer or employee will have the option to appeal the decision to the Local Finance Board at the DCA within 30 days of the decision. If the board determines that the officer or employee is in conflict with the code, the board may impose a penalty. The code also states that the officer or employee is responsible for the expense of his own defense, including legal costs. If the accused individual is found not to have violated the code, the township will reimburse him for the costs of his defense. In regard to what portions of the complaint process would be discussed in public, attorney Jennifer Schwartz, of Gluck Walrath, said a final decision on that issue has not been made. Schwartz said due to the many phases of the process, the decision on what would be discussed in an open or closed meeting may have to be made on a case by case basis. However, the decision regarding whether the meetings will be open or closed to the public will not be Schwartz's decision. A new attorney for the ethics board is expected to be appointed within the next few months. Schwartz noted that the board's attorney may have a different opinion on the matter.