Ethics board probing complaint about email

MARLBORO — The Marlboro Ethics Board has accepted jurisdiction of a complaint concerning what is being described as an “inappropriate” email.

The story involves Marlboro Zoning Board of Adjustment member Paul Schlaflin and former zoning board member and Marlboro Republican Club President Robert Knight.

Knight filed an ethics complaint against Schlaflin last fall after Schlaflin submitted an email to an Internet website.

The website to which Schlaflin sent the email sprang up during the 2009 election sea- son. The website contained rumors and defamatory statements about various Marlboro residents and officials, some of whom were clearly identified.

Those statements were subsequently removed from the website and the Internet page has not been updated since late last year.

When the message board came online, the website’s manager, who has never been identified, posted a message on the site and welcomed people to submit rumors they had heard around Marlboro to an email address. The message stated that the identities of the people who submitted information would remain anonymous.

Schlaflin said that after he read some of the rumors that were eventually posted on the website, he had a good idea of who the anonymous website manager was and decided to give that individual a taste of his/her own medicine.

In a letter to Marlboro Ethics Board members Schlaflin said, “I composed a vile and nasty email, nothing I would post or utter in a public forum, with elements of various things I have heard said about him (the alleged website operator) along with some silliness and sent it to the aforementioned address from the website.”

What happened next was that Schlaflin’s email to the website — which was never posted on the website for the public to read — was distributed to various individuals who then brought the email and its contents to the attention of the public.

Knight was one person who received a copy of Schlaflin’s email to the website manager. During a November 2009 Township Council meeting, Knight informed the governing body about the email and said he would be filing an ethics complaint against Schlaflin.

Knight has said, “It is a privilege and not a right to sit on any municipal board. With that comes a duty, or responsibility to behave in an upstanding manner. If we allow persons who hold these positions to say and do the offensive things said by (Schlaflin), then we undermine the very integrity of the governmental body which is supposed to be unbiased.”

The matter was eventually referred to the Marlboro Ethics Board, an independent panel made up of six appointed members (three registered Republicans and three registered Democrats).

Schlaflin has stepped down from his position on the zoning board until the matter is resolved.

For the past few months the Ethics Board has been trying to determine if it has jurisdiction in the matter. During their Feb. 24 meeting, board members weighed the concerns of the complaint to determine if the contents of a private email from a public official fell within their realm.

Previously, the Ethics Board members asked their attorney, Andrew Hamelsky, to review case law and determine if the issue fell under the township’s code of ethics.

Hamelsky said there was no clear-cut answer. He said that if the alleged violator’s actions could affect his capabilities to perform his duties on a public body, then the board could retain jurisdiction of the matter. Whether that pertained to Schlaflin was something the board members had to determine.

As board members debated whether they should take jurisdiction, many issues were broached.

One area the board members began to focus on was whether Schlaflin’s email itself would create discord among zoning board members. The email Schlaflin sent to the manager of the website did not mention any members of the zoning board.

Ethics Board member Rabbi Donald Weber asked who the email was addressed to and whether an expectation of privacy could be expected.

Weber said sending an email to a family member is different from sending an email to a public address. He noted that determining whether the website was public or private would be done during the investigative process.

Ethics Board member David E. Wolff pointed to a section of the township’s code regarding public trust and said he believes Schlaflin’s action was in violation of that portion of the code.

Ethics Board members Robert R. Salman and Hassan Elmansoury shared the opinion that the email in question was never meant for public viewing and was therefore a private matter unrelated to Schlaflin’s responsibilities on the zoning board.

Salman said that while Schlaflin’s email may have been filled with language the board members would condemn, it was not the board’s job to be the moral police.

A 4-2 vote led to the Ethics Board taking jurisdiction of the complaint filed against Schlaflin.

Chairman Michael Cali, Wolff, Weber and Allan Sugarman voted to accept jurisdiction. Salman and Elmansoury voted against accepting jurisdiction of the matter.

The board accepted jurisdiction of the complaint under sections of the code which state that stability depends on the public’s confidence in the integrity of appointed representatives and that governments have duties to give their citizens standards of behavior while they conduct their public responsibilities.

The investigation into the ethics complaint is expected to continue at the board’s April 14 meeting.