Riche's Business Ties to Village Might be Investigated by Outside Agency

Ridgewood officials are exploring having a third-party investigate the business relationship between Councilman Tom Riche's telecommunications firm and the village over the last 15 years.

Since 2002, Riche's firm Extel Communications Inc. has received $170,000 from jobs with the municipal government, according to records. An anonymous letter sent to The Record and the council last month led the council majority to question an $8,000 "emergency" invoice received months after Riche's company was paid $24,000 to install phone systems on a state contract.

The extent of Riche's relationship might represent a violation of the village's conflict of interest guidelines. Village Attorney Matt Rogers contended Riche did nothing illegal when the $24,000 resolution came to a vote in June of 2012 (Riche abstained), though he did not speak to previous work performed by Extel. Riche said Rogers would have no reason to have offered him counsel on previous contracts since he was not a member of the governing body between late 2002 through mid-2010 (though he was a planning board member who volunteered at OEM/Central Dispatch).

In the interests of "good government," bringing in an outside agency to scrutinize the relationship should be considered, Mayor Paul Aronsohn said.

"I think what we need to look into the whole relationship between Extel and the village over the last ten-to-fifteen years and come back to us with some kind of conclusion," the mayor said Thursday.

Should a third-party become involved, the investigating agency may be the state's Department of Community Affairs' Local Government Ethics Board or potentially even an arm of the NJ Attorney General's Office.

Riche, who served on the council from 1998-2002 and then again from 2010 to present, said at the May 22 council meeting that the initial $24,000 bid in June of 2012 was to install phone systems at Village Hall and the Water Department, among other facilities. The $8,000 bill he sent came only because the fire department's entire phone system went down in August, he said.

Ridgewood Fire Chief Jim Van Goor said the fire department's 35-year-old phone system went down in May, adding that Riche brought over temporary phones to keep the system up operationally (at no charge). The system's server crashed again weeks later, and Riche's firm developed a plan within six weeks. The phones at the fire department are now Toshiba-based, like every other municipal phone system in town.

The lack of phones hindered the fire prevention bureau though it had limited impact on emergency responses since 95 percent of calls route from dispatch to the radio system, the chief told the council on Wednesday. 

According to Aronsohn, citing an email exchange he had with Riche on May 24 of 2012, the reason for the $24,000 resolution passed June 10 was to make significant upgrades to the phone system at fire headquarters. In other words, Aronsohn said, there was no emergency after the resolution (which he voted for) was passed.

Riche, in questioning networking administrator Dylan Hansen, said it was the village that approached him with other vendor quotes asking for his thoughts on them. Riche said the offers contained costly, unnecessary items. Hansen then asked Riche to perform the initial $24,000 job for the water department and Village Hall, among others, he said. Subsequent to that, the phone system at the fire department went down.

"I think it's important to understand you got the phone system back up again, I think, based on timing, May to the end of May," Riche said to Hansen. "And then it went down. Then sometime come June, beginning of June, the chief called me."

Following that, Riche said, he sent a technician (at no charge) and got a temporary system up before issuing and installing the total job in August. In total, he said he made $600 after his costs were factored in.

Addressing previous work with the village, Riche said the only large contract was when Village Hall had been flooded by Hurricane Floyd more than a decade ago. High labor costs moving phones from Village Hall to the other building were major factors in the price, he said. In recent years, according to Village Manager Ken Gabbert, bills from Extel were typically small repair charges under $2,000.

In the court of public opinion, speakers at the council meetings all agreed the public inquiry into Extel Communications and the municipal ledgers was "disgusting," but two separate camps emerged – those who found Riche's conduct unethical, and those who felt the council majority had "defamed" him "over nothing."

"It was disgraceful," Lorraine Reynolds said of the inquiry from Aronsohn, Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck. "It's outrageous how it was handled," added Ann Loving in support. She said the council should have had "all the facts" before it decided to question Extel's relationship in a public meeting. Others said the council inquiry rose to the level of "defamation" and was little more than a "witch hunt."

By contrast, other speakers said Riche's connections at worst appeared to be an impropriety and could even be criminal.

"I want to commend the council, because I feel we are entitled to know if any conflicts of interest are taking place," Ed Feldsott said. "Mr. Riche should be fully prosecuted. I am shocked at some of these comments."

Dan Johnson said Riche willfully chose not to disclose the nature of his business ties for more than a decade, calling it a "betrayal."

"This needs to be investigated," Johnson remarked.

Village Attorney Matt Rogers and Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli disagreed as to the legality of Ridgewood's business relationship with the town, likely moving the controversy to an outside agency.

Rogers said no ethics violations occurred so long as Riche abstained from the $24,000 resolution, which he did. Pucciarelli, an attorney by profession, said he thought it was clear that local law prohibits elected officials from financially benefitting with town contracts.

The statute of Chapter 3, Article 7, 3-53 reads:

A village officer or employee, elected or appointed, paid or unpaid, shall not:

1) "Be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the village for work done or for materials or supplies furnished to the Village or to any contractor or other person furnishing the same, nor shall he participate in any profits of such contractor or other person or receive any compensation, commission, gift or other reward for his services except the salary or fees established by law or by ordinance or resolution of the Council.

2) Accept or solicit anything of value as consideration for or in connection with the discharge of his official duties other than the fee or compensation prescribed pursuant to law.

3) Engage in any business or transaction or accept any private employment or commitment or have any financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties in the public interest or which would tend to impair his independence of judgment or action in the performance of his official duties.

3. Accept any gift or gratuity, whether in the form of service, loan or promise or in any other form, from any person or corporation which would tent to influence him in the discharge of his official duties.

B. No officer or employee shall represent, either directly or indirectly, private interests before the Council or before any board, commission or agency of the Village, nor shall any officer or employee represent or be employed by private interests in any action or proceedings against the interest of the Village in any litigation to which the Village is a party.