This question is being asked of all four candidates. At a recent Township Committee meeting, it was revealed to the committee that the Montville Messenger was way over budget, with only 3 out of the 4 scheduled issues for 2008 published. If you were on the committee today, what action would you take immediately, and, if elected, what actions would you take?
He's around to put up signs; he's around for the TC meeting last week; according to a republican club mailing, he was looking for people to walk the town with him.
He's just out of town to take a position on anything.
Art, what do you think about the issue regarding the condos? Will you have an opinion on this prior to the election?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 15, 2007 8:54 AM
Art thinks he has got a lead and wants to sit on it. He is playing not to lose instead of to win.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 15, 2007 2:53 PM
I would like to know each candidates' platform regarding the Kelly Bill and services to condo communities.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 15, 2007 3:45 PM
I don't speak for Art, but again - he's out of town. And just to get the facts right - there is a campaign team behind both Art & Tim that put up signs. Art was not at the TC mtg on 10/9. And he'll walk when he gets back.
Posted by
JIm Sandham
on
October 15, 2007 5:11 PM
but Jim you ARE speaking for Art. He's no stranger to the blogs. He'll weigh in if he chooses. No need to cover his butt.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 15, 2007 8:39 PM
Since when is telling people whether the Mayor is in or out of Town covering his butt. This is a prime example of bashing someone when they don't deserve it. Grow up!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 7:44 AM
It's not bashing Art to recognize that he has become more and more silent as the election draws near. He has been very vocal on this board in the past, yet now he is suddenly disconnected from the online world.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 2:20 PM
Well then I WILL SPEAK FOR MY HUSBAND....he was out of town and not able to post on this blog or any other for that matter....it is not covering up for someone....Jim was being courteous, something that this forum, is having a hard time maintaining.
Tonie Daughtry
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 3:19 PM
Mrs. Daughtry, thank you for letting us know that the Mayor is out of town and unavailable to the constituency. In the past year I have often heard that Mayor Daughtry was away on business and unavailable. As a private citizen and a business owner this is his right. However, as our elected official, I would like to know how often he is unavailable and how many meetings he has missed(not just TC meetings, but meetings for committees that he is supposed to attend). His availability to do this particular job (township committee person) is something that I will take into account when casting my vote. I hope that this question will be answered by Mayor Daughtry, his wife, or someone else with factual information (please no speculation). Thank you.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 4:05 PM
My husband is back in town as of yesterday 10/15/07...he has ALWAYS been available to matters of the town, he always plans his time away from the town around his meetings and has his calendar with him. I can attest that he is out of the house on average 3 nights a week on town business and also at 7:30am for early meetings. He takes his responsibilites for his position as an elected official very seriously...to the detriment of our time together. As with ALL the elected officials of this town the job entails a lot more than just showing up for meetings, no one sees, or is aware of all the time and energy that is spent conducting town business. I have had to go to family affairs business affairs and social matters solo many times, because he is involved with matters of the town, some of which are planned and some that have come up suddenly.
From here on out, I will let Art speak for himself, it was just the rudeness of some remarks that compelled me to speak out. Everyone is most certainly entitled to a difference of opinion, but it would be so much nicer, if everyone remembers, that no matter which side of the fence you are on, the goal should be for the improvement of Montville.
Tonie Daughtry
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 5:00 PM
Mrs Daughtry, with all respect, Art is in security business, technology is his thing. While on a golf trip (rumored) surely he checks in on his business. Has internet access. If he chooses not to participate on this forum, thats fine. Its a choice he has made. He should find an alternate & effective venue to get his message out. I think he is a better choice for Montville. Don't let spin master Danny rule the day. (or govern) and thank u for lending your husband to public service. A sacrifice not many realize.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 16, 2007 9:16 PM
Hi folks
Thursday night I will get a chance to put something together regarding the Kelly bill. There isn’t much for me to add to the Montville Messenger posts from Robert since Tim responded and Robert received a copy of the cost analysis at the 9/25 TC meeting.
Tim Braden has already taken a position on anonymous posts and I agree with Tim and will do the same. The Kelly bill is very important to many citizens so my update on what is going on with the negotiations and timelines will be posted under that blog topic on Thursday night.
All of the folks that are concerned should be talking to their respective association representatives that are negotiating with our administrator. These folks actually have the most current info, not the TC. I also have to be cognizant of the sunshine law and respect my colleagues on the TC because we all are not informed daily (nor should we) regarding these negotiations. I’ll try to expand this on Thursday night.
To my Italian bride from NY – Thanks!
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 17, 2007 12:57 AM
Art,
Odd you've aped a stance regarding anonymous posts as Braden yet, the only response you make was to the Kelly Bill issue...authored by ANONYMOUS
I think I understand now, respond only to posts that may fetch votes and use the "anonymous poster catch all" to sidestep everything else.
At least Grant steps up to the plate with his ridiculous points of view.
Signed, Disappointed
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 17, 2007 8:00 AM
Art -
My questions weren't answered in the 9/25 meeting - they were the result of that meeting. I will reiterate: The Montville Messenger is way over budget. Let's ignore the issue of how this could happen with nobody noticing it. What action should be taken now? Should we publish the fourth issue of the year in the same manner as the other issues? Should somebody be held accountable for the over-run? Please don't say that you'll take responsibility for it, as that doesn't really answer the question unless you truly were aware of the financials for all these months. I believe that the numbers were "fuzzed up" once or twice when reported to the TC and the TC never picked up on it.
As I said on Dan's blog, we are overpaying for just about every aspect of The Messenger. Why don't we take any actions to lower these costs?
Also, can you please tell me how many copies of each issue we require so I can base my assertions on facts not assumptions.
I am not asking you to violate the open public meetings act. I am asking what you, as a candidate, independently think of the issue and what actions you advocate.
This question is being asked to all candidates: The Montville animal shelter is one of the town's few areas where we practice shared services. By sharing our shelter's service with 4 other towns, we keep the cost to Montville taxpayers down to approximately $15,000/year. In the near future, the animal shelter will be destroyed in favor of a new shelter that must be built. The preliminary cost for the new shelter is $750,000. I know that Montville Pet Parents are trying to raise money for this through fund raising and grants, and I know that the town wants to ask the county to chip in. ASSUMING that we must bond for a substantial portion of the new shelter, our annual costs would easily exceed $50,000 / year (after taking into account the payments from other towns). If it would cost us more to provide the shared service ourselves than to share another town's animal shelter, would you advocate providing the service ourselves or outsourcing?
I thought the number of issues of the messenger was included on that sheet we gave to you on 9/25. Obviously it was not so provided you are attending the TC meeting next Tuesday just ask me on the break and I’ll get the number for you. If you need it sooner call me.
I have known for well over a year that we were overrunning our budget on the messenger. We started out paying an agent to sell ads. To save money some adds were sold directly to the advertisers and ads that were sold by the agent were done at a reduced commission rate. We have played with the number of pages vs. ads to see if we could get to a break-even publication. The township committee discussed this for (in my opinion) far too long and decided to keep the adds at about 1/3 of the publication. Now please it is all in prior minutes from about a year ago. If you really want a copy to verify this I’ll get them for you but don’t call town hall and spin their wheels.
You are also well aware of the phrase what comes first “the chicken or the egg” well we need the new web site well before we finalize how we are going to improve communications with our citizens and cost savings surrounding the messenger. Both Tim Braden and yourself have stated we should distribute the messenger electronically. Of course we should and once the new web site is up that will happen. I’m sure in the years to come, as the middle-aged generation of today becomes the senior generation we won’t need a paper copy of the messenger at all. But for now many of the current seniors still relay on paper communication. Hey my 82-year-old mom got her first computer 2 months ago but she is still petrified of the “thing”!
Both Tim and yourself were told by me at a TC meeting that there is no real cost savings if some folks get the messenger electronically because you would print fewer copies but have to send them first class mail versus bulk if everyone gets them.
Robert here is some more tidbits for you:
- At one time the messenger was simply a black and white newsletter, maybe it should be that again. - At this years budget meeting back in March we purposely did not increase the messenger budget knowing it was almost impossible to bring the costs in line because we were over running even at that time on a per issue basis. We were simply setting some high goals that we haven’t achieved yet. - This entire discussion is revolving around a roughly $12000 over run on that line item in a 22 million dollar budget that is coming in right on target. Robert that is just something for you to consider.
To summarize our administrator is looking into getting the printing done in cooperation with Morris County College. I’m not on top of exactly what that means if its their own printing equipment and labor or they have some special contract we can take advantage of but whatever it is it is supposed to be less expensive than the current arrangement. The web site is a much higher priority, which might add to future costs saving with the messenger. Lastly Robert, as you did with the web hosting, please put something down on paper, after you get the number of copies printed, where you believe you can get it done cheaper and by whom. If you don’t mind why don’t you post your recommendations and sources on this website for all to consider.
See ya Tuesday! Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 18, 2007 11:53 PM
OK Robert here we go again.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here:
ASSUMING that we must bond for a substantial portion of the new shelter, our annual costs would easily exceed $50,000 / year
You know when you use assume to base a discussion on it makes a -------- No way are Montville taxpayers paying for the majority of the bonds necessary to construct the shelter. I have lobbied tirelessly with the county freeholders on this specific issue. I asked the Montville Pet Parents to come to the Freeholder meeting at our town hall a few weeks ago and they even had one of the pouches bark at the precise moment when the freeholders were stating support for a shared services shelter in Montville. There are still no guarantees but we are a lot closer to a new shelter with funding from the county and 5 neighboring towns then we were a few months ago. My hats off to MPP for a great showing and presentation.
Even with this momentum the county could still decide to regionalize the animal shelter in some other town however the freeholders have already advised me that a major consideration is if the town wants the shelter. So, provided there is little or no additional financial burden on the taxpayer and the neighbors concerns are addressed, we should be moving forward with the shelter. By the way MPP also has a site plan of the new shelter and is pursing locating grant funds.
So Robert to summarize your “assumption” in my opinion is completely unfounded.
We can talk more Tuesday
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 19, 2007 12:11 AM
Art -
Thursday has come and gone, and we've not seen your promised response. I understand that you've got other commitments. However, if you can't respond to citizens now, how can we expect that you'll be more responsive once elected?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 8:30 AM
Art, to be clear, are you telling the voters that you will not be in support of bonding for a new building for the animal shelter? Are you telling us that the animal shelter is not going to be paid for by the tax payers but rather by grants and/or donations? As a taxpayer, I am against spending money on a new building for the animal shelter.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 10:44 AM
Art -
Getting The Messenger within budget doesn't need to wait for the new website. We can print 9,000 copies of the magazine and mail them for much less money than we are spending today - and much less than is budgeted. We would just need to change the printer and the method of postage. There are many printers who can do this for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS less than what we are currently paying per issue. Changing the publisher would also save us a lot of money. $150/page is a lot of money to pay. This kind of work should cost $25/page.
The website is scheduled to be available in December. That said, if we are to make the option available to not recieve a printed copy, we should be beginning that immediately. Once that is in place, we can lower the price to advertisers and allow town organizations more space for information (both of which were stated as items of contention at a July TC meeting). In addition, the magazine could become self-sufficient.
I disagree with your assertion that there is no cost savings to distributing fewer mailed copies of The Messenger. The USPS threshhold for bulk mail is 500 items. If we are mailing less than that, then we'll be saving so much on printing that the cost of 1st class mail will not matter.
I was under the impression from the meeting 3 weeks ago that the Morris County College printing alternative had fallen through. Nonetheless, there are plenty of other printers available.
Art: To be clear I am FOR spending taxpayers money on a new animal shelter building...it is long over-due. This town seems to be able to find money for board of ed people, over-built police stations, etc. but the animal shelter is a disgrace. I have personally adopted several animals over the years from there and the people that work there do a terrific job in a cramped building. If it can be done with cost sharing that is great, but if the town has to foot part or most of the building cost, then so be it. It needs to be done and the town should bite the bullet and get it done.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 11:27 AM
Are you suggesting that the taxpayers of Montville foot the bill for a $750,000 animal shelter?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 12:56 PM
Who says that the town needs to have an animal shelter? In fact, a town animal shelter cannot be a no kill shelter like a private one can be. I am in favor of a no kill shelter, but not in favor of using taxpayer dollars. We have private shelters all over the country. If Montville Township "needs" a shelter, then those who feel there is a need can open one. Mt. Pleasant is a private shelter and does a great job of fundraising to keep it going.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 1:18 PM
Art -
You made improving communications between the town and its residents a highlight of your last campaign. Yet, our website was not updated in all that time (conveniently it is planned for updation after the election), your mayoral priority (published earlier this year) to put TC meetings on cable remains unaccomplished, and now you don't even respond to questions (anonymous or otherwise) from residents. Can you explain?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 19, 2007 2:16 PM
To save the expense of postage, is their a reason the montville messenger can't be distributed thru all the various businesses in town? Gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants in strip malls all could be touch points to the citizens of the town to pick up a copy.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 20, 2007 1:48 PM
Finally, a good thought, why not just distribute them through town, if one is intereted then they can be picked up. Sometimes all you have to really do is glance through, get any information you need and put it back for the next person. I like this idea because while the magazine is presented nice, once I have looked through it, out it goes into the recylcing bin ... sometimes in a matter of a half an hour, so it is an expense that is wasted on my household and I am sure many others.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 21, 2007 3:03 PM
Art -
While $12,000 may seem insignificant in the face of a $22,000,000 budget, I should point out that if we add this $12,000 to the $10,000 that was going to be overspent on the township's website, you're at $22,000. That would have been 0.1% less of a budget increase for this year.
Add to this the new audio recording system at the municipal building that we overpaid for, the video recording system that - while not part of this year's budget - was overbudgeted, and the message to take away is that the town should take advantage of individuals who are willing to work to help save the town money.
Distributing The Messenger via local businesses would save on postage, but it would require that we print more copies in order to ensure that it is always available. Since the cost for printing each issue is more expensive than the postage, that would actually increase the cost.
You wrote - I disagree with your assertion that there is no cost savings to distributing fewer mailed copies of The Messenger. The USPS threshold for bulk mail is 500 items. If we are mailing less than that, then we'll be saving so much on printing that the cost of 1st class mail will not matter.
Robert the way I understand this, which makes sense to me, is the USPS has to sort mail even if you have 500 pieces if you don’t send it to ALL in any postal route. You are taking one fact but not looking at ALL of the requirements to enable the bulk rate. We just sent a campaign flyer at the bulk rate. The postal inspector tells you need 500 pieces for this route and 432 for the next and so on. You CANNOT tell them you have a total of 500 pieces and you want them to send to 45 out of 500 and 120 out of 432 etc. They would need to sort, which means first class.
Like I said the explanation made sense to me but if you want to research further go speak to a post office manager. If you get a different version and you still believe you can do what you say then get back to me but I seriously doubt it.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 21, 2007 9:45 PM
Robert, What Art is saying makes sense to me. There is a huge difference between first class and bulk rate. I don't know hat your field is but it seems your out of your league.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 21, 2007 10:20 PM
Art -
I've done my research on this. In fact, last night, I just wrote this section of the proposal that you requested. You can get bulk mail (now called standard mail) rates by passing either the quantity threshhold or a weight threshhold (I think it's 50 lbs).
The problem with the way that you're doing your mailings (both campaign and The Messenger) is you're saying to the post office, "Give 'em to everybody." This doesn't allow them to use their automation features. To get real discounts, you need to have your mailings addressed, bar-coded, etc. By using software to sort the mail in the order that the carrier will deliver it, you get further discounts. For "flats" such as this, the post office further delineates their rates by the level of saturation of the mailing (saturated, high-density, basic). Then, finally, they'll give you better rates if you drop off your bulk mail at different levels of distribution centers. While it might intuitively make sense to you that it should be cheapest for you to hand your bundles to the post office that will be handling them, it is actually cheaper to bring them to a DBMC, DSCF, or DDU distribution center.
I've been doing some research for that proposal you requested. It looks to me like the publisher received a rate increase from $85/page in the Spring issue to $150/page in the Fall issue. Is that correct? Was that why the budget item was proposed to go up from $12,000 to $25,000? If so, then why was the rate increase approved if the budget increase was denied?
Art, I just read your post on the Kelly Bill blog. Basically, you are updating the public as to when you think negotiations will end and when an official vote on the contracts will be taken. That doesn't answer the question that was posed to you on this blog as to what your position is regarding how much services (if any) in excess of statutory requirements the condos should be given. Please answer the question on this blog. We the public want to know your positions. Yes I am signing this anonymous, just as I will cast my vote anonymously on election day. Thank you.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 22, 2007 11:00 AM
You passed a budget knowing that you were going to go over it? Isn't the budget supposed to be based in reality rather than wishful thinking?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 22, 2007 2:41 PM
Art -
Did we really double the fee that we pay to the publisher of the Montville Messenger this year? Why do we have money for that, but not for Kelly Bill reimbursements?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 26, 2007 9:33 AM
Art -- are you participating in this blog or only in Dan's blog. There are a number of legitimate, unanswered questions on this (your) blog. I (and I am sure many others) want to know your positions. I had intended to vote for you, but your silence is deafening. You are quickly losing my vote.
