The Hoboken Housing Authority voted to censure Commissioner James Sanford for violations their communication policy, which caused a heated discussion at last night’s meeting.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
“This is an allegation, who is making this allegation,” Sanford questioned.
“First and foremost, I believe you were not here at the beginning of the meeting where a statement that was submitted and it was read into the public portion. Every commissioner here received a copy of it, I’m not sure if you received a copy of it, I believe it’s right in front of you, it was read into the record,” replied HHA Board Chair Barbara Reyes.
Sanford then asked if 1st Ward Councilman-elect Paul Presinzano is the one who told the board that he had violated agency policy, to which Reyes said “various complaints were received,” though acknowledged that Presinzano submitted a public statement.
He asked why none of the complaints were brought to his attention, to which Reyes responded that he is an adult and he knew the policy when he sent out an email to council candidates and press identifying himself as a HHA commissioner the day before the general election.
She also said he received the agenda packet on Friday and therefore he could have contacted her or Executive Director Marc Recko if he had any concerns.
“Who met to consider these allegations? What kangaroo court got together to make this resolution?” Sanford bristled, to the dismay of Reyes.
“Listen, I’m not gonna sit here and allow you to speak in that manner, because for the most part, I try to be as respectful as possible if I can, I do, I try, you really know how to push my buttons to be honest with you, but at the end of the day I’m not gonna let you just speak to me in that manner, so I refuse to answer your question.”
He then asked who met “to come to this insane conclusion.”
HHA Commissioner Mike Russo, also the 3rd Ward councilman, jumped in and said there is no court, discussion, or decision, until a resolution is considered by their board.
“You sir are part of what you called a kangaroo court. You sit here, you participate in this discussion, and depending on how this vote goes, whether it’s in the affirmative or in the negative, that will be the decision as to if this resolution stands or it does not. No one met before this. No one had discussions before this. There was no ‘kangaroo court.'”
Sanford completely disagreed, noting that the resolution lists his violation as fact, nowhere stating allegedly, and therefore asked who wrote the resolution.
Board Counsel Harold Fitzpatrick interjected, stating that four candidates approached him in confidence, with one indicating that they may file a lawsuit over it.
“Can you try to at least be a little objective instead of being combative,” Sanford declared.
“I am being objective: what you did is a complete, utter violation of the policy, you know that, you actually put out a mistaken version the first time you put it out in 2023 with the old candidates for school board and you corrected it and you knew very well what the policy was and I’m very concerned on behalf of the authority because these complainants have indicated that we may have liability for what you did, which is exactly the reason we adopted this policy.”
Fitzpatrick added that the policy was “blatantly ignored” and did the same thing he did last year before the policy was in adopted, adding that he was the one who wrote the resolution currently before the board.
“I am advising the commissioners, the entire seven commissioners of the board of the authority, that this resolution is totally appropriate and that it would be negligent on their part not to adopt it, given the blatant violation that you committed.”
Upon further questioning from Sanford, Fitzpatrick indicated that no one was trying to curb free speech, instead they simply wanted him to add a disclaimer that he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a member of the housing authority.
Fitzpatrick then began to get frustrated when Sanford claimed he was unaware of what communication was being scrutinized here.
“Talk about disingenuous and misrepresenting: you know what the statement was, you sent it out! Where do you think these people got it from?” he exclaimed.
“This is an attempted censure of this commissioner, I’m here to defend myself, and you can’t even bring forward the accuser: that’s not a U.S. court,” Sanford stated, still insisting that he was still unaware of what he was talking about.
He ultimately demanded that the communication be read into the record, to which Russo obliged.
“The first line reads ‘2023 election integrity pledge’,” Russo said. Sanford wanted him to continue reading the email, but instead Reyes said enough is enough and Russo began to get fed up as well.
“You sir are quite absurd,” the councilman chided.
“Am I? That’s quite fascinating from a man who declared bankruptcy,” Sanford hit back.
Reyes shouted that such a comment was inappropriate before Sanford asked Russo if he thought this is a joke.
“I think you’re a joke! I’ve put it on the record multiple times!” Russo quipped.
“I’m glad you think I’m a joke, I’m glad you underestimate me,” Sanford answered.
Russo continued that 19 people were sent Sanford’s email, therefore he knows what is being called into question. Sanford remained steadfast that he was unaware of what was allegedly problematic.
“Can we just call the vote director, this is absolute nonsense. Okay, you don’t have to call the vote, I’m asking the director to call the vote,” Reyes asserted.
Sanford said that he was not noticed, nor did he received a reply from counsel when he asked what was on the agenda. Fitzpatrick said he had no obligation to give him a head up, as well as that he’s told him multiple times he’s not an employee of the authority.
As Reyes struggled to get the vote called, Sanford said that Russo, along with former HHA Chairs Dana Wefer and Dave Mello, have all made public statements about the authority in the past, before Reyes shut him down.
The resolution passed 6-1, with only Sanford voting no, before he claimed “the actions of this board are criminal.”
