State fines U.F. deputy mayor for ethics violation
Couple who filed complaint urge Miscoski to step down
BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP
Staff Writer

The state has found Upper Freehold Deputy Mayor William Miscoski guilty of violating a state ethics law.

The Local Finance Board of the state's Department of Community Affairs rendered its decision on March 29 and fined Miscoski $500 for violating the law when he voted in March 2002 to include property his mother and business partner owned on a list of properties for possible purchase using public funds. The deputy mayor has 45 days from the date of the decision to file an appeal.

"My attorney and I did not receive any official notice of any decision," Miscoski said on Monday.

He said that it is more than likely he will exercise his right to go to the appellate division.

Upper Freehold resident Chris Berzinski, who previously ran against Miscoski for a seat on the Township Committee and lost, said his advice to Miscoski as a result of the state's decision is to pay the fine and resign.

"Miscoski violated the ethics law, and he has no business spending another day in public office," Berzinski said.

He continued, "If he doesn't immediately resign, the Township Committee needs to get some backbone and demand he step down."

The matter first went before the Local Finance Board due to a complaint filed on Sept. 18, 2002, by Berzinski and his wife, Sue Kozel, alleging that Miscoski was involved in a conflict of interest when he voted affirmatively on the bond ordinance to provide funds to purchase open space, including a 51-acre parcel owned by his mother and business partner, Ellen Miscoski.

On Jan. 14, 2004, the board determined that the allegations were not frivolous and decided to investigate. The board determined on Dec. 8, 2004, that Miscoski violated a state statute that reads that no local government officer or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family or business organization has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.

Miscoski appealed the decision on June 8, 2005, and the board transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, which heard the case on Jan. 17, 2006. The office concluded on Feb. 24, 2006, that the action Miscoski took was for the benefit of the entire township and consistent with its pre-existing, established master plan and therefore not a violation of the ethics code. The office based its recommended decision partly on Miscoski's testimony that the list he voted on contained all of the township's farmland assessed properties.

On May 10, 2006, the board determined to reject the office's recommended decision partly upon review of additional documents that showed the number of farmland assessed properties at the time of the vote was 543 and not the 93 Miscoski testified to in the previous hearing. The board upheld its previous decision and the $500 fine.

Kozel said she's very pleased the state has said that no one should personally profit from their public office.

"Miscoski is another poster child for the lack of ethics among our elected officials in Monmouth County," she said. "He's a new member of the 'Ethics Hall of Shame' and needs to step down immediately from the Township Committee."

Kozel said Miscoski should recuse himself from the township's current master plan review.

"How can someone who has violated the ethics laws legitimately vote on and participate in the master plan review?" she asked.

The Examiner account of the Sept. 18, 2002, meeting noted that the ordinance appropriated $2 million for outdoor recreation and conservation, and authorized the issuance of $950,000 in bonds or notes for the township to finance part of the cost. Four votes were required to ensure the funding mechanism for the matching grant for open space. Due to a family emergency, then-Mayor David Horsnall left the meeting in question early.

During that meeting, Kozel said there were "controversial pieces" on the list. The Township Clerk told Kozel that the list was put together by two nonprofit groups, the Monmouth Conservation Foundation (MCF) and D&R Greenways.

Township Attorney Granville Magee told Kozel, "The town entered one-and-a-half months ago into an agreement with Green Acres. We must match funding with them."

During the meeting in question, the Township Business Administrator told Kozel, "Adopting a bond ordinance tonight is not purchasing anybody's property; it's giving assurance that Green Acres has $1 million set aside for Upper Freehold Township."

Miscoski has said there would have been no financial gain to him or his mother as a result of the vote in question. He said his mother could have received more money for her property from a developer than from open space funds.