Underwood Case

[Editor]

A recent article in The Record reports that the State Local Finance Board censured Mayor Zisa for his role in "Underwood".  Click here to read the article.

Many people have tried to explain Underwood to me, but I still don't quite get it. The chronology of events (according to the Record):
 
1.    City needs parking
2.    City buys State Street lot for parking spaces. 3/00
3.    Underwood buys nearby property from College. 6/00
4.    Underwood requests 45 spaces for property from the City. 8/00
5.    County leases building from Underwood for $1.6M. 9/00.  (Why lease back a building it just sold?) [Update: I understand there are several different county entities (Special Services School District being one) and that one entity did not necessarily know what the other was doing.  Also, there were issues of timing that influenced the decision. -  More on this later.]
6.    City leases 45 spaces to College. 10/00.
7.    City votes to pave lot. 11/00.  
8.    City votes to pay contractor 5 times in 2001. (What does this have to do with it? - simply because Mayor Zisa had an interest?)
 
The Record article says the deal cost city taxpayers $213,031. How is this figure calculated?  Didn't the city benefit from the leased spaces at $55 per month?  How did this deal cost the City money?
 
Did the County do anything wrong?
 
Did the mayor push the city into purchasing the State Street property knowing full well that the county would be interested in leasing that space if it had adequate parking?  Or, - did the mayor simply benefit from the city's decision (with or without his vote or influence) to purchase that property?  
 
In short, what is the net harm of the transaction(s)?  I'm trying to understand the level of Mayor Zisa's alleged culpability.  What did he know and when did he know it?  What should he have done?  What is his defense?

I hope the comments to follow address these concerns in a reasonable way.  I would also hope to hear from some Mayor Zisa supporters.  

Also: Please note that the determination by the Local Finance Board is only the first step in rendering a final decision.  

[Ruffio]

It seems to me that if anything, Mayor Zisa should be applauded for renting spaces from the city, thus helping to fill the city's coffers.
After looking at the chronology of the events, nothing illegal or unethical could have taken place. It would also seem apparent that the ethics board that heard the case didn't fully take the time to go over the chronology. I believe that when all is said and done, Mr. Zisa will be fully exonerated of these basesless charges.

[Eric Martindale]

For better or for worse, today's article about Underwood is probably not the GRAND FINALE regarding the issue. I am privy to information that would be best not to air fully on this website. Simply put, there are much higher authorities than the State Ethics Board who are actively looking into what happened with the Underwood real estate deal. Underwood isn't over.

The editor had one major error in his analysis in the prior post. The Mayor didn't "push the city into purchasing the State Street property knowing full well that the county would be interested in leasing that space if it had adequate parking. " It was Zisa himself, via his corporation UNDERWOOD, that was interested in leasing those parking spaces. And they did lease them. Whether or not Zisa pushed the city into purchasing the State Street property specifically so his own corporation could use the parking spaces (the parking spaces were a necessary condition of a very lucrative real estate deal), is the essence of the controversy. As for my opinion on Zisa's guilt or innocence on that specific matter, it really doesn't matter. State and Federal authorities will have their own opinions, and that's what matters.

There's another agenda going on here that has deeply troubled me. And that agenda is to destroy the Mayor of Hackensack so that county and private social service organizations can build homeless shelters, low income housing, drop-in centers for the mentally in, AIDS housing, and YOU NAME IT in every corner of the City of Hackensack. This battle is what really matters right now in the City of Hackensack, not the Underwood Scandal. Issues should always be more important than politics. And when the time comes for politics, (Spring 2005 city election), will there be credible opposition candidates? Will these candidates PLEDGE TO THE RESIDENTS OF HACKENSACK to continue Zisa's fight in the ongoing battle against the subversion and destruction of Hackensack by social service agencies. If those opposition candidates can't or won't, does anyone expect me to vote against the Zisa administration?

[Kath1948]

I've known Jack Zisa for about 20 years, and in all that time, his behavior has always been that of a very compassionate, caring person.

   I couldn't think of anyone else that I would want to be mayor of this very complex city, that I have lived in for 55 years now.

   Jack has always been honest & ethical and it would be hard for me to imagine that he would involve himself in anything that would be for his own personal good.

   I feel privileged to have him as my mayor. Thank you, Jack Zisa.

                                 Sincerely,
                                  Kath1948

[tuscany]

the underwood scandal is only the " tip of the
iceberg". the mayor is in office too long &
is out of control.it is time for a change, 15 years
is long enough. john gotti was boss only 1/2
that time.

[Kath1948]

Gee Tuscany, If you're comparing John Zisa to John Gotti, I think all they have in common is their first name. It sounds like you have a personal vendetta, to me. Keep away from the Gallo!

[midniteangel]

LOL....the mayor of Carlstadt was mayor for something like 30 yrs! and all the cops are related in one way or another and soooooooooooooooooo corrupt....there's only 5,000 ppl in the town and ther almost as many cops...LOL...they make thier own laws too....Hack waaaaaaaay out does other towns in just about everthing!

[Editor]

As reported by the New Jersey League of Municipalities:

In a decision handed down on May 1, 2006, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a mayor's right to rely on the advice of his municipal attorney concerning a possible conflict of interest, in the case of In the Matter of John F. Zisa, Mayor, City of Hackensack (Docket No. A-3219-04T5), the Court reversed the holding of the Local Finance Board that the defendant mayor had violated the Local Government Ethics Law by participating in a vote concerning the paving of a planned municipal parking lot in which the mayor planned to rent spaces for the use of a tenant in a building he owned. In deciding that the mayor's participation did not constitute a conflict of interest, the Court also reversed the Local Finance Board's holding that the mayor did not have the right to use the defense that he relied upon the advice of counsel.

The Court stated that while it was in agreement with the Board that the advice of counsel is not an absolute defense to violation of the Local Government Ethics Law, it was reasonable for the mayor to rely on such advice in this case. The Court did not find the basis for the Board's decision, that there was no written notation or opinion setting forth this advice by the attorney and that the mayor was a long time public official, persuasive.

Instead, the Court looked to the Opinion of the Executive Commission on Ethical Standards, In re Howard , 93 N.J.A.R. 2d (Vol. 5A) 1, affirmed as modified, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d (Vol. 5 A) 1 (App. Div. 1994). It held that there were four requirements for reliance on the opinion of counsel defense, They were: 1) that the advice was received prior to the action taken 2) that the individual who offered the advice possessed authority or responsibility with regard to ethical issues 3) that the individual seeking advice made full disclosure of all pertinent facts and circumstances and 4) that the individual complied with the advice, including all the restrictions contained in it.

The Court found that the advice given to the mayor by the municipal attorney in this case met all of these requirements, and that therefore the mayor had the right to rely on the advice of counsel in this case. The opinion can be accessed here.

Other news sources:

WNBC: Fine Against Former Mayor Dismissed By Court

The Record:  Ex-mayor not guilty of ethics violation

[average Joe]

congratulations Mayor Jack!
so  the "record" was behind the whole thing?
why am i not surprised??

[ericmartindale]

Now that the Underwood Case has been resolved, I have a suggestion for our new mayor, Marlin Townes.  Perhaps he can do a similar deal associated with the new Transit Village planned around the Essex Street train station transit village project.

Let’s get more specific.  Mayor Townes could purchase the Edna B. Conklin orphanage at Essex and Green Street from the County for $3 million.  Then he could lease it back to the County for $1 million a year.  That’s $10 million a decade, a profit of $7 million just in the first 10 years.  And who cares if the County taxpayers are getting screwed in that deal because he, the mayor, would be making personal profit.  And it gets better. Mayor Townes wouldn’t have to worry about the enormous expense of buying land for the parking for his new property. There’s a way to avoid that cost, and also evade the cost of paying property tax on the parking area. Since he knows that the city is building parking for the new redevelopment, all he has to do is lease 45 spaces from the proposed Transit Village project at Essex and Green Streets.

If he does get fined and accused of having a conflict or interest, all he has to do is deny any wrongdoing and keep appealing the case. Eventually, he'll be able to raise both arms in the air, with two fingers on each hand spread open to form V's.

Any interest, Mayor Townes, in doing your own little tag-along project?  The precedent has already been set, and the courts have ruled that it was totally legal. It looks like you could definitely get away with it. So go ahead, do it.

[hamburglar]

I wonder why Eric seems so upset that some people are actually found not guilty of things that they're accused of.

[average Joe]

hamburglar guess eric and mayor Jack have different views of what":community service" means

[ericmartindale]

I thought my post would be amusing.  I was talking about Essex Street, of course.

Since you want to know, I still have some doubts about the whole thing. I guess its one of those areas of gray that will never be resolved.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence on the Underwood issue, Jack Zisa will probably be remembered more for his contributions to the city over 16 years. Those accomplishments were many.

[average Joe]

gee eric,heres the funny thing,if one looks back on your postings here in the so-called "underwood" matter from the very beginning it is quite clear that you were talking through your hat."higher authorities' eric? as it all turns out,zisa said from the beginning that that he did nothing wrong.now the court of appeals says"we agree".frankly you owe an apology.because from the beginning yours was the same "bs" political agenda as the taxpayers group you now condemn.you turned on zisa you turned on them.youre not my first choice to be in a foxhole with ,as the expression goes.in other words, people should not turn their back on you

[ericmartindale]

Those are pretty harsh words, Mr. Average Joe.

People who really know me know what I stand for, (1) I'm a straight shooter, and (2) I always put HACKENSACK ahead of any political agenda or loyalty to any politician. 

The enemies of the Zisa administration set their agenda simply as the opposite of whatever the administration stood for.  In a similar way, there are many people who blindly supported whatever the adminstration wanted, without any analytical thinking or free thinking. Sort of a "stay the course" old-guard mentality exactly like the die-hard supporters of President Bush. Frankly, I disdain both life perspectives, although I feel the greatest disgust towards all the "anti" people out there.

I'm more than willing to give the Zisa administration credit for many things they helped bring about, whether it was the Railroad overpass, the new DPW, the Sanzari Medical Arts building, the preservation of Borg's Woods, the establishment of an environmental commission and a business improvement district for Main Street etc, etc.  The list could go on and on.  And I'm a straight shooter who might be critical, for example, of the Atlantic Street parking garage setback 18 inches from the property line of adjacent apartments, or how the river pathway was botched on the property of the city-owned Anderson pump station.

That's what being an HONEST and CONSCIENTIOUS citizen is all about. It's my civic duty to be an "independent voice of reason" with no political allegiance. Quite frankly, I'm proud to be fulfill that role here in the City of Hackensack, since nobody else is doing it.  I want people to follow my lead in that regard. 

I've had my share of life's problems, including marriage problems in 1999 that brought me to the brink of insanity. But through it all I've remained LOYAL to my community. I've overcome tremendous adversity to turn my life around, whether you respect it or not.

I'm still here, I'm still civic-minded, I still have great pride in this city, and I'm still working to help make Hackensack a better community. Sorry to tell you, but someday there will be more people involved in Hackensack's civic affairs who are independent-thinking and not aligned for or against any administration. There's not a doubt in my mind about that. My problem is I'm way ahead of my time ,and I might not see it till I'm a very old man ---- and still living in Hackensack.