Councilman's action described as unethical Maher contends there was no conflict with nomination to MUA BY JESSICA SMITH Staff Writer OLD BRIDGE - Two members of the Township Council are alleging that Councilman Dennis Maher acted in a conflict of interest when making a nomination for a commissioner's post on the municipal utilities authority (MUA) Monday. Councilwoman Lucille Panos, who cited Maher's pending application before the MUA, left the dais in anger while the council voted to appoint Nicholas Smolney at its reorganization meeting. "I cannot be on this council with such an unethical vote going on," Panos said. The vote to appoint Smolney passed 5-1, with Councilman Richard Greene voting against it. "I'm going to file an ethics charge against Mr. Maher, and I think I'm going to win," Greene later told the Suburban. Both Panos and Greene, who are the only Republicans on the council, took issue with Maher's nomination because he has an application pending before the MUA, and their problem is not with Smolney, they said. Maher owns a lot in town that is being subdivided and is then to be sold for development. "I believe I don't have any conflict of interest, and the township attorney concurred with me," Maher later told the Suburban. "If any [MUA] commissioner feels they have a conflict of interest, they can recuse themselves." That is beside the point, according to Greene. "That's after the fact," Greene said. "I'm talking about now. Let's address the situation now. This is all about good government." Both Maher and Township Attorney Jerome Convery argued that the MUA is a monopoly, and anyone in the township who wants water or sewer services must go through them. Convery also pointed out that Smolney was already a sitting MUA commissioner. "It isn't like Mr. Maher walked in and took some name out of the sky," Convery said. "A position was available for a board, so it's part of his duty to participate in appointing board members." The crux of the issue is that Maher stands to gain financially if his application is approved, Greene said. He also noted that Smolney was an accountant for Maher's campaign when he was running for office. "I think Mr. Convery is wrong," Greene said. "He's supporting Maher's position because it's a political move on his part." When the nomination first took place at the meeting, Panos asked Convery whether he thought it presented a conflict of interest. Convery did not see an ethical dilemma with Maher's nomination. "The mere fact that someone has an application pending before a board does not mean that there is a conflict of interest," Convery said. Greene disagreed. "You can tell me your legal nonsense, and I'll tell you, it's all about ethics," Greene said. The issue is a matter of interpretation, Maher said. He said he is not personally developing the land in question, and that he was "quite shocked and surprised" by the way Panos and Greene reacted. "If it's gray, say nay, stay away," Panos said, referring to ethical dilemmas. "This is a gray area." Resident Linda Seiler voiced her displeasure with the nomination from the audience, echoing the sentiments of Panos and Greene. After two warnings, council President Patrick Gillespie ejected her from the meeting, threatening to have her removed by the police. Despite the lack of Democrats' support for his cause, Greene is standing by his argument. "I've been in the minority before," Greene said, "and I'm not afraid to fight for what I think is right. Not only didn't he have the conscience to walk off the dais or abstain, he actually nominated the person."