Robert, you have a mighty ax to grind. No where in your rant, as you call it, do I see you offering any solutions.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 19, 2008 4:29 PM
If I had an axe to grind, then instead of bringing this to the Township Committee's attention (twice), I'd have simply gone to the attorney general or county prosecutor. I did neither.
As for a solution, I said, "I call upon the Township Committee to get us into compliance with this {the law} immediately, and to consider whether we have been ill served by our attorney." The law is very specific about how it must be carried out. We don't need a procedure to be developed - it has been handed down to us.
Robert, Why don't you run for office and straighten this mess out. You seem to have all the questions and all the answers. Montville needs someone like you to step up and........I'm not sure what the problem is but I am confident that you will find the solution. You go boy!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 20, 2008 11:12 PM
Where is the response by the lawyer that you refer to?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 21, 2008 12:43 PM
How is it that the TC didn't know about this? Doesn't the lawyer need to tell them if they're breaking the law? Isn't that why we pay him?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 21, 2008 1:31 PM
The lawyer addressed this at about 68 minutes into the meeting.
Can one of the members of the TC address this? Why are we paying this lawyer for his help, when he tells us that another town that he represents is being sued for breaking this law?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 21, 2008 11:13 PM
On a technical note, thanks for changing over to flash video. I think that the video is much clearer than your earlier attempts.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 22, 2008 10:46 AM
Can Art or Dan comment on how long this situation has existed? Have we had other lawyers give us similar advice?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 22, 2008 1:36 PM
Robert,
Your summary of the TC meeting was very informative. I'm shocked as well that the TC has been out of compliance yet has taken little action.
On top of that, our attorney is involved with litigation for just such a violation yet he hadnt already advised our TC they were in violation and recommended appropriate policy change?
This is outrageous!! How can this law firm continue to represent our town under these circumstances?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 22, 2008 2:48 PM
Law firms for elected bodies become creatures of those bodies. They count on yearly appointments for large sums of money and as a result should be reviewed on a regular basis. In know I tried on several occasions to open the process to Law Firms and other professionals. Part of what they do is to protect the Elected Officials from the public. That doesn't make it right but it does make it so. The Open Public Records act has a procedure for the release of closed session minutes and the simple truth is that most Governing Bodies don't follow it unless some particular issue is pressed by a member of the public and it has been that way forever. Again that doesn't make it right. What I would freguently do is stop closed session discussion that I felt did not qualify and often used my own judgement and brought things public when I didn't feel they were legitimate closed session subjects. You see the same thing ocurring on the Board of Education. Both bodies use closed session to hide issues from the public and to build consensus privately that ought to be discussed in public. Very little ought to remain in closed session. On going litigation and personal issues are but the results once the issue is decided are not and ought to be made public. John Alin for example read half a letter from the Prosecutors Office on the issue of the Mayors Alarm Contracts. What he did not read (under the guise of personal) was the portion that was critical of the Board of Ed and an employee in regard to how those contracts were awarded. That is just one example. The real problem with Open Public Meetings Law is that there really is no particular penality for violating it so elected officials get away with murder.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
February 23, 2008 12:48 PM
Dan -
You are incorrect about the penalties. From the Open Public Meetings Act: N.J.S.A. 10:4-17. Any person who knowingly violates any of the foregoing sections of this act shall be fined $100.00 for the first offense and no less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 for any subsequent offense, recoverable by the State by a summary proceeding under the "Penalty Enforcement Law" (N.J.S. 2A:58-1 et seq.).
Dan, During your tenure on the Township Committee, how may times did you push for closed session minutes to be released?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 23, 2008 7:48 PM
While that is a valid question for Dan, it is also a valid question for every TC member who has held office for the last 30 years. However, only the members in office now have the ability to rectify the current situation.
Robert, You are right but a penalty that is never imposed is no penalty. The Prosecutors office has very low priority for violations of this nature and most elected officials know that. I don't think that Montville Township is alone in this kind of violation but the Attorney knows full well what the procedure is. So do the Committee members and Board of Education members. I went to the Prosecutor a few times in my tenure but quite frankly they could care less. When I went to the Open Public Records Commission and tried to get the billing records of the Board of Education Attorney (Clearly Open Records) it took almost a year and a hearing for which the Attorney billed the Taxpayers $3000.00 before I got an incomplete record. The Board could have released then at any time but they chose to keep them secret. All the public can do is keep the pressure on the elected officials. Many times I insisted that improper closed session discussions be stopped and continued in public.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
February 24, 2008 10:11 AM
Much of what Robert wrote is correct, but as he acknowledges, from 'his' perspective. I obviously do not agree that going into closed session was wrong - we had matters that are allowed to be discussed in closed session. Typically, closed session is appropriate for current activities re: the following items (not an all inclusive list): litigation, negotiations, property acquisition, personnel issues. And in certain instances we are under restrictions NOT to discuss particular items in public (e.g.: employee issues). As much as it's frustrating to the public, that is why the BoE can not comment on the Supt's FMLA - it's his right to privacy. As to past closed session minutes, the analogy of 'hearing a tree falling in the forest with no one around' comes to mind. While we should have & follow a policy (now drafted & to be discussed on 2/26), if no one had asked for the closed session minutes where is the issue? That was the case during my first 2 years on the TC. Robert has recently asked and we are in the process of creating & clarifying the process. I believe in open gov't, but I can tell you that if we discussed items in closed session 2 weeks ago and published minutes now, 100% of those minutes would be redacted. That's why we had to go into closed session to begin with! I admire & appreciate Robert's advocacy and diligence - certainly he is entitled to keep us in line & on our toes. But that doesn't make all his postings gospel. As to Dan's insinuating comments - since he left & we took office 2 years ago we have instituted a review of our contracted professionals on a rotating basis. We started with Municipal Prosecutors (and eliminated their right to benefits) and we just voted to change Bond Counsel at the last meeting. In 2007 we asked and they all agreed to freeze their rates at 2006 levels. And oh yeah, we changed Township Administrators and now have a highly effective Chief Executive for our Town! We may not have addressed all the issues in the priority that certain citizens would want, but I believe we are moving in the right direction and making decent progress.
Jim, While many of us appreciate your addresssing these issues, you failed to address the most important one. It seems that the TC's attorney has guided the TC to violate the law. He/his firm have apparently done this to other towns too, and in his own words -- his firm is currently involved in litigation regarding these violations.
Doesn't this law firm now have a HUGE conflict of interest re: advising the TC on this matter? Moreover, it seems that an attorney that counsels you to routinely violate the law is at the best ineffective, and at worst committing malpractice. It doesn't matter if no one has been adversely affected -- aren't you the least bit concerned about the quality of your attorney? Why would you trust that he is properly advising you on any other issues?
The TC has a responsibility to the public that includes following the law whether or not there are damages. This attorney/firm should be immediately dismissed!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 24, 2008 10:11 PM
I never objected to the TC going into closed session. My objection at the 1/22/08 meeting was to the manner in which the mayor announced that closed session. The Open Public Meetings Act requires that the governing body announce what they're going in to discuss. That way, if she says that the TC is going in to discuss litigation with ABC Corp., then ABC Corp. knows that this is a meeting where (eventually) they should request the minutes of the meeting. Without that information, no relevent party knows the particular minutes that they should be interested in.
As for the closed session meeting minutes, the law doesn't require that they be made available within a specific timeframe (i.e., 2 weeks after the meeting). However, it does say that it should be made available as soon as possible. I recently requested minutes from a meeting that occurred over 2 years ago. Some portion of those minutes is still confidential because of ongoing litigation. However, the other information took 4-5 weeks to get to me because the current procedure requires the TC to first approve them prior to releasing them. That portion should have been available within a week according to the Open Public Records Act. Quite frankly, in the interest of more open government and in reducing the workload of the Town Clerk, I'd suggest that they should be made available on the internet with the other town meeting minutes. There are plenty of people in town who don't want to file OPRA requests demanding information, and it would benefit them to have the information available.
It is an unfortunate commentary that I have discovered only recently that the best way to get information from our Township is not to request it from Township personnel, but to demand it via OPRA requests. It took me 6 months to get Montville Messenger information via multiple requests that I could have had in a week by filing OPRA requests.
One thing we don't need here is a lecture from Dan Grant on this topic. How many closed session meeting minutes were published during his multiple terms in office. Zero. He never seems to be shy to voice his opinions publically so why would he be silent on this topic while in office? Me thinks Mr. Grant is trying to rewrite history.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 25, 2008 11:50 AM
Residents deserve timely answer Sunday, February 24, 2008
2 Comments To the Editor:
At the Feb. 11 Mount Arlington council meeting, the borough attorney stated that town meetings are not the forum to answer residents' questions. Perhaps this is. I would like our elected public servants to respond to the following:
1.Why does the attorney say residents' specific questions are too time-consuming?
Exactly what are they being paid for, and when they ran for elected office, did they think it would not require work/dedication/time? Why is their time more valuable than mine, when I'm sitting waiting to get information, and I also have to go to work the next day to pay my taxes to pay their salary?
2. Why is the mayor allowed to take questions about toll hikes to Trenton so the governor can be held accountable, but residents cannot question where their tax dollars are going?
3. The borough attorney stated, "Residents can be charged up to $15 per hour for requesting archived information." If our questions were answered at meetings, residents wouldn't have to fill any OPRA requests.
4. Why are some elected officials being asked to vote on issues without prior information or discussion?
5. Why has one council member been instructed to request information only from the mayor? When questioned twice by residents, the mayor answered: "I don't think that's something I'm going to respond to right now."
6. Why can questions be asked on the phone; or in person at borough hall to salaried staff, but not asked at town meetings or within e-mails?
We (as residents) need to unite! Remember the result when our police were in jeopardy of shared services? Tell the governing body: You work for us!
VERONICA SILKES
Mount Arlington
Add Comment | View All Comments
Timely Answer? Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:24 pm I don't think the issue is a timely answer, but simply an answer. I've been at these meetings, and there is definately an issue with getting answers. "I'll take that underconsideration," or "Thank-you" is the standard mayorial answer if a question is asked, aloong with an "how dare you question ME" attitude. Who died and made him dictator?
He is rude to citizens, yells at citizens, and simply refuses to speak to citizens. He refuses to use e-mail because it is documentable (per a public meeting, go listen to tapes of the meetings if you don't believe it).
If a paid civil servant behaved in such a fashion, he or she would be reprimanded, if not fired. I too wonder if he behaves this way at work.
The new reply answer when submitting OPRAs is that the request is "overbroad and vague". I asked for reciepts from the local Holiday Inn and Marriott from 2002 to the present because of a rumor that when there is a snowflake, the administrator refuses to go home (the arduous trek to Florham Park) and stays on taxpayer dime at the hotel. I was told the request was overbroad and vague. Seems a pretty straigt forward request to me. All bills in the last 5 years (I submitted it in December, 2007). We shouldn't have ANY spending at these places, and if we have any, it should be minimal. Since, according to the 3 state agencies I've contacted, everyone uses an accounting program that is essentially a database, and producing bills is a matter of using a tax ID and hitting print, I have to wonder what they are tryinng to hide.
I hired an attorney to challenge the NUMEROUS "overbroad and vague" rejections I received.
Another trick used is to delay responding until the 7th day of the GRC deadline, even if some items in the request are "on demand" items such as bills (oh, why did we send flowers to the administrator's boyfriend, and spend more money on the boyfriend than we spent the previous month on flowers sent to a hospitalized employee? Ask to see the 2005 August Angel florist reciepts.). The letter then says to contact them if you want the items. Of course, sending a letter rather than giving someone a call and informing their request is ready gives them a few more days. It's a disgusting game. I think they hope that if they make the process hard enough, and expensive enough, people won't ask questions, and will lose interest.
Oh, and they appear to run these requests through an attorney, which wastes even more taxpayer money. When I questioned the assistant clerk as to why I wasn't given "on demand" documents, as defined by the GRC, she told me she had not looked at the GRC website in a "long time" but relied on the attorney. OK... it's her JOB to know this stuff, and she apparently doesn't know the rules to make a decision without an attorney, and doesn't consult the GRC (agency which oversees the open puiblic records process) rules? Or, is the attorney consultation merely a way to send unnecessary money that way, as well as a delaying tactic?
I'm also not sure why some of this stuff, like bill records, isn't on-line. But, then we'd know how quickly the mayor used 3,000 business cards, and details of the other questionable spending, like sending an employee retiring in 6 weeks to a week long conference in Atlantic City. Did I mention the request to attend the conference was submitted in the same meeting as the resignation? When I questioned the taxpayer value of this "retirement junket" the borough administrator told me "he knows people." What kind of an answer is "he knows people"? It was a vacation at the expense of taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford almost a week, including 3 meals a day, at an Atlantic City casino. And, at a conference that keeps no attendance records unless the attendee needs certification hours (have the e-mail from the conference administrator confirming the lack of attendance in response to my question asking for attendance records).
People need to wake up and pay attention. Start attending the meetings, and start asking questions of specific council members. It's your money they waste. Your lack of interest permits the waste of taxpayer dollars. And, believe me, you would be suprised at for what you are paying.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 25, 2008 4:14 PM
Thank you. Please post a link, rather than pasting the whole page, if possible.
"One thing we don't need here is a lecture from Dan Grant on this topic. How many closed session meeting minutes were published during his multiple terms in office. Zero. He never seems to be shy to voice his opinions publically so why would he be silent on this topic while in office? Me thinks Mr. Grant is trying to rewrite history."
The other thing we don't need is cowardly Republican Club members who post nasty comments anonymously. Why don't you deal with the issues at hand and use your name.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
February 25, 2008 6:47 PM
To Anon 2/24 10:11 pm - your points were not lost, they are just not valid. While I do not need to defend our legal counsel, they did not provide any prior advice on closed session minutes, period. Normally needless to say, but on this blog necessary, I can state without hesitation that during my tenure on the TC our legal counsel has never advised to violate any law! Litigation occurs for all reason's, including frivilous ones. If there is a sin, it's a sin of omission. It is only when Robert asked for them that we learned that we did not have a policy nor process. That said, we have moved quickly (well, relatively quickly for gov't) to draft a policy and it will be discussed at tomorrow night's public session. I am all for open gov't (with the restrictions allowed by law for 'confidential' issues) and this TC will get us there. Maybe we should have realized this sooner (along with all the prior TC's) but we will now get this improved. Robert - maybe things haven't moved as fast as you would like, but you have/will get all the info you want that is allowed by law. As to the Mayor's manner in moving to closed session, that is an issue to resolve with her. Dan - I do not post anonymously, so here's the same question - how many closed session minutes were made public during your 15 years in office? Dare I say none or next to none! So please do not take a holier than thou attitude -None of us were 'spot on' on this issue. If you are going to pontificate & throw stones, at least be without sin on the issue yourself...At least you'll be more credible.
Posted by
jimsandham
on
February 25, 2008 10:41 PM
Jim -
When I requested the closed session minutes, I was told the procedure that was in place. I was also told that the town was working with the attorney to modify the procedure. This all ocurred prior to the meeting where I brought this to the TC's attention.
If the attorney knew - prior to my making my request - that we were not in compliance, then didn't he have an obligation to tell the TC? I think that he does in fact have a conflict of interest, because he represents another town that is being sued over this. Think about it: presumably, his firm makes the same recommendations on these types of procedures to all the towns they work with in NJ. If another town is being sued for this, and he recommends a change to us, then he is essentially admitting that the procedure that he recommended to the other town is inadequate. If so, he opens his firm to a malpractice lawsuit. His conflict is whether he should be looking out for the best interests of our town or his firm.
As for drafting a new procedure, I should point out that the procedure is defined in the law, and the state regularly offers classes for municipal clerks and other record custodians. They even have a toll-free hotline to assist them.
Finally, to clarify, my issue with the mayor was not a personal one. She didn't follow the law (as seen on the video) and I objected. As per the Open Public Meetings Act: "Whenever a member of a public body believes that a meeting of such body is being held in violation of the provisions of this act, he shall immediately state this at the meeting together with specific reasons for his belief which shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting." I made my objection, and it was ignored. I'm surprised that the attorney did not notify the TC then of the issues at hand.
Jim, I think I made it clear that all governing bodies tend to violate the laws regarding closed session meeting and as you pointed out, if no one asks for them then it doesn't become an issue. I have requested documents under OPRA from the Township and they complied. Trudy and Fran followed the law in a timely manner. I also on occasion would ask if a matter brought up in closed session was legitimate and the Attorney would either give the reasons it was or we would stop the discussion. I did state that this was a common problem amoung all elected bodies including the ones I served on. I had a much bigger problem with the Board of Ed not just refusing to comply but in actually paying their attorney to fight the release of clearly public records for purely political reasons. That is an issue that ought to be of concern to any resident of the Township.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
February 26, 2008 8:04 AM
Jim, This post is not meant as an attack and hopefully you will consider the issues that I am going to raise:
1. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. I believe that the TC members did not know that they were in violation of the law. However, if prosecuted that is not a valid defense.
2. The TC is made up of a group of elected citizens who have no training or special knowedge of the law and/or government. (this is not meant as an insult -- point is you are regular citizens). Therefore, the TC hires a municipal attorney, a township clerk, a township administrator, etc. -- all with specialized knowledge.
3. Your attorney is not expected to know everything that the township does. However, the attorney, who is present at all TC meetings, is expected to observe what occurs at these meetings. Clearly the TC (and this began many years before you took office) was not handling the approval and release of closed session minutes in accordance with the law. This is something that the attorney should have observed. He is paid not just to answer questions, but to correct something that is observed by him. Your attorney, who has been the TC attorney for many years watched the TC routinely violate the law. This IS both ineffective and I suspect malpractice. If not, then why do you need him there?
4. Our township clerk is supposed to be the keeper of the records and is supposed to have specialized knowedge in and familiarity with the laws governing his/her job. If the clerk was doing an effective job, then this issue should have been brought to the attention of the TC years ago. If not, then it seems that our clerk is not doing an effective job.
These are issues that the TC should be investigating quickly. After all, a good governing body hires competent and effective people to guide them. A governing body that has incompetent and ineffective people advising and guiding them, will ultimately be an incompetent governing body. I am sure that is not your goal.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 26, 2008 8:55 AM
Our government is led by a committee of ordinary citizens. It should not be expected that are well versed in either the law or municipal procedures. That's why they have the attorney present. In fact, that's why they have a professional administrator and a professional clerk - each of whom has support staff that presumably have some background in running their departments. Isn't it the job of the clerk to maintain the town's records? These things should be second nature to him, and he should have known that the town was breaking NJ law. Doesn't our new administrator - or the old one, for that matter - know how this is supposed to be done? If any or all three of these individuals have put our town into jeapardy of a lawsuit, then shouldn't some disciplinary action be taken?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 26, 2008 9:03 AM
Robert, Thank you for video taping the sessions. Sometimes we can't get to the meetings as we are working and trying to "pay the bills". The ability to have a taped video/audio is so very valuable to the citizens of Montville. Thank you!! You are appreciated! Michele Caron
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 26, 2008 10:54 AM
Michelle -
Thank you for the kind words. It is satisfying to hear that people are getting some value from this.
Robert, I don't think anyone disputes your right to access public information. In the spirit of open communication what, exactly, are you looking for?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 28, 2008 10:00 PM
To annon 2/28 10pm,
You stated "In the spirit of open communication what, exactly, are you looking for?"
What spirit of open communication are you referring to? Open communication would include YOUR name!!!!
Yes, I am signing this "anonymous", however, I am not "pretending" to foster a "spirit of open communication".
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 29, 2008 8:11 AM
Robert,
I thank you too. The new Township Committee has done an excellent job of reducing budget increases - from 18% recently to 6% this year.
Hopefully they'll be able to find the money so that this success story can be made available by video, as the Board of Education does, and you will no longer be needed to provide this service to our community at your own expense.
I'd actually like to see the Town's goals shift with regard to the budget. Instead of targetting, 5% or 6% increases per year as a reasonable change, why don't they target 10% decreases? I wouldn't expect that they could hit that target, but such a drastic goal would cause them to re-evaluate assumptions that today go unquestioned.
For instance, last year they budgetted money to replace the audio recording system that is used for all of the meetings held by the various town committees and boards. I had requested the exact figures (not via OPRA request) and never received them. However, I'm fairly certain that the amount paid was more than $1,000. They could have provided video equipment for much less than that, and gotten the benefit of video (along with audio, obviously).
At a recent TC meeting Committeeman Braden mentioned that one of the boards that he is laison to needs to hire a secretary at $100/meeting. Would a videotape of the meeting be sufficient for minutes? If not, then why not employ software to transcribe the audio rather than hiring someone? How much money would we save by cutting down the budgets for secretaries for all of the various committees?
From February 26th, 1:08 AM???? you stated: "I requested the closed session minutes". Exactly what are you looking for?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 29, 2008 7:34 PM
Robert is correct that the TC should focus on finding reductions, but the problem with government is that it is inherantly wasteful. Just look at how any project get completed, 1) go out for bids, 2) select the bid that is lowest, unless of course your in NJ, then you select the one that is submitted by a conection. 3) complete the project over budget and just pay the increased costs. In the business world step 2 would be followed up with negotiations to get the absolute lowest cost, and the project would be value engineered to vet additional ways to save. In gov't bidding contractors know that there will be no negotiations and therefore submit a higher bid usually 10-15% extra to start. So how can you cut the budget when your starting in a hole?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 1, 2008 1:26 PM
The question was: What were you {Robert} looking for in those closed minutes.
The answer is: nothing
The explanation is: at the end of the 1/22/08 meeting, when the mayor adjourned the public meeting to go back into closed session, I recognized that she didn't mention when the minutes would become available, as required by law. When I asked about that, the mayor said that she didn't know what the policy was on that. When I pointed out that I was not aware of minutes from any of those meetings being released, the mayor left the room without responding.
From all that, I concluded that if the mayor, after 2 years on the board, had no idea about minutes being released, then they probably weren't being released (despite the fact that the attorney said that minutes were released when matters are concluded).
If minutes aren't being released, then the town is in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. To test that, I requested the closed session minutes from a meeting 2 years ago. Not surprisingly, my suspicions were confirmed: the minutes hadn't been released, and the town was violating the law. When I asked about that at the following meeting, the attorney admitted that they were in violation, and 2 weeks later he submitted a proposal for a new policy to the TC.
For those who may say that I'm just yanking the chain of our township employees by making them scramble for information due to OPRA requests, I will say that I've submitted approximately 3 OPRA requests. This one resulted in changing town policy; the others yielded information that I find disturbing.
Robert, Don't be put off by the naysayers. The fact is that the type of Government and it's improvements are the result of a very few people that ask questions and pursue information. Most people don't get involved or have a negative view of government in general. Other then political positions taken at election time the day to day operation of government escapes the notice of the majority until some issue which affects them comes forward. Keep asking those questions.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 3, 2008 10:28 AM
Robert, you wrote "To test that, I requested the closed session minutes from a meeting 2 years ago. Not surprisingly, my suspicions were confirmed: the minutes hadn't been released, and the town was violating the law."
Are you saying
a) that you were refused minutes from a matter that was concluded two years ago?
b) that the matter in question was not in fact concluded and accordingly you were properly refused the minutes?
c) that the matter was concluded two years ago but the minutes were not "released" until you requested them?
d) something else?
How are the minutes supposed to be released after the matter is concluded? If they are not requested then is the town really in violation of anything?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 3, 2008 5:31 PM
Robert, Why don't you volunteer your time, energy and talent to a cause, any cause. It doesn't appear that there is much corruption in our local government, if any at all. If you are so posessed with finding fault in your elected officials, why don't you attack the real villans in Trenton?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 3, 2008 7:02 PM
I am saying that the there were elements of the minutes that should have been released a long time ago and weren't. The law calls for minutes to be released as soon as possible. Obviously, the complete minutes cannot often be released, but the public is supposed to be informed of all information that is releasable as soon as it is releasable. In this case, not only wasn't the minutes released, but there were items that were discussed that were not on the agenda, and couldn't be anticipated.
For instance, I had no way of knowing when I requested these minutes that the TC would be discussing their compensation package. Did you know that Committeeman Sandham suggested one level of compensation, but was overruled in favor of higher compensation? Now you know it - two years after it should have been published.
The answer to the question of whether the town is in violation even if nobody requests the information is 'yes'.
Anonymous (March 3, 2008 7:02 PM) - Is broadcasting the TC meetings not a valid cause in your opinion? I know that all of the TC members have gone on record supporting it; they even approved of doing it themselves in 2006. The school board pays to have their meetings taped - I do it for free, saving the taxpayers money.
Who said anything about corruption? I am looking to stop a practice that aside from being illegal could cost the taxpayers of Montville Township (i.e., you and me) hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you can think of a better cause than that, I'll be happy to consider it. Better yet, why don't you?
Why would anyone (anonymously, of course) suggest that Mr. Lefkowitz spend his time in other ways? He is doing a public service here for us all. Is there a reason that he shouldn't be watching our local officials?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 4, 2008 5:24 PM
Robert, you may have overlooked an important item you commented on relating to the minutes of the closed session. I cannot find anything in the Open Public Meetings Act that indicates that discussion of the compensation for members of a public body (Township Committee) is a subject to be discussed in closed session - compensation of employees, yes; members, no. Where was the attorney during that discussion?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 4, 2008 9:33 PM
"Whenever a member of a public body believes that a meeting of such body is being held in violation of the provisions of this act, he shall immediately state this at the meeting together with specific reasons for his belief which shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting."
The law specifically refers to "a member of a public body" (the Township Committee), not "a member of the public" (you) as the ones to state their belief that a meeting is being held in violation of the law. The reason for this, when taken in the context of the rest of the paragraph of the law, is to permit that member to participate in the meeting without penalty under the law if the remainder of the body votes to proceed with the meeting despite his objections.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 4, 2008 9:45 PM
Re TC compensation: I think that you're correct. Initially, I had thought that given the context of the discussions, that this information could have qualified for closed session, but after further consideration, I agree with you. The attorney should be pointing out that these conversations should not be occurring in closed session.
Re Public body: I think that you're correct too. It was not my responsibility to point out the OPMA violation to the TC when it occurred. However, it is always the TC's responsibility to obide by that law. Upon hearing someone point out that they were violating the law, wouldn't you think that they'd address the issue?
Robert, although the previous poster is right on the fact that objection to a closed session has to come from a member of the governig body the fact that it is required that the objection be entered in the minutes leads directly into part two and that is the release of the minutes. That is where the public gets a chance to understand what is occuring in closed session. If an objection is granted then the public has a right to know what topic was ruled open and what did the governing body do about. Was discussion dropped because it was not valid for closed or did the governing body continue it in open session. It speaks to the conduct of who wants to hide what facts from the public. To be Frank we never released closed session minutes and of course should have but the other side of the coin is that no one ever asked us to. No of which absolves anyone including the Attorney.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 5, 2008 11:33 AM
I had a chance to look at the proposal that the attorney submitted for the new closed session minutes procedures. Ironically, I think that they may actually violate the Open Public Meetings Act. Beyond that, I think that they don't serve the public, and will maximize the time wasted by the TC (who already spend enough time at these meetings for us).
Essentially, the plan calls for the Town Clerk to present the minutes for approval as soon as possible after the meeting, and also present a set of redacted minutes at that time. She will then keep a running list of all the topics that have been redacted, updating the list with the dates that they were discussed. At each executive session (i.e., closed session), the TC will review that list to see which items can be released. When the TC votes to release a subject, the clerk will then 'un-redact' that information.
This doesn't serve the public to the best of the town's ability. There is no provision for alerting the public that new information has been released, as that is discussed in closed session. It would be very easy to configure the town's website to alert any interested parties via email or RSS whenever new information is released. Further, the website should be updated with the minutes of these meetings. The meetings are closed for a reason, but once the information is released, it has potential value to everyone in the town. Some might point out that this is not precluded by the procedure, but as the procedure will become the bar that we measure ourselves by, we should not set it below a useful level.
Further, this procedure is cumbersome for the members of the TC, as they will need to review the list of redacted topics at every meeting. The Open Public Meetings Act requires that the TC announce when going into closed session when the minutes for the items being discussed will be released (to the best of their ability). We should just task the clerk with tracking those events/deadlines and only then bringing up the topics for release.
Thank you once again for keeping us informed Robert. One question: You mentioned that the policy may be in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. How so?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 7, 2008 12:34 PM
Certain types of discussions that are allowed to be held behind closed doors. For instance, negotiations with the condos from last year were confidential. However, the fact that the town was negotiating with the condos was not confidential, and would have been reported on the public agenda (e.g. 7PM: closed session to discuss ongoing negotiations with the condos).
The part of the procedure that calls for the TC to review the list of closed items each meeting in order determine if any can be released doesn't fall into any of the categories that qualify for discussion in closed session. This discussion could occur in two manners: 1) a topic is read (e.g., condo negotiations) and the response is given (e.g. negotiations are still in progress). There is nothing confidential about that. 2)a topic is read (e.g., condo negotiations) and someone asks for any additional information on it. That information, in order to be discussed, would have to be confidential. As such, the topic should have been listed on the meeting's agenda. If it wasn't listed, then the participant couldn't ask about it without going back into public session and announcing that this additional topic was being discussed.
Does anyone know how much we pay these attorneys? They don't appear to be proactive, and they don't seem to really be on the ball.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 10, 2008 12:28 PM
I don't know how much we pay the attorney. Those details are not discussed in the budget meetings, and the public is not provided with the details behind the budget. The budget is essentially discussed in plain site, but in secret. Prior to this week's meeting, I sent an email to the mayor requesting that the meeting be held at the dais, so that the public could hear what was going on, and I requested that copies of the budget be made available to those in the audience. Neither request was honored.
The attorney did report that he'd been to court this past week for another town, and that the judge said that closed meeting minutes could be handled as is dictated in the procedures that he recommended to us. Of course, I'm not sure if that was a ruling or an opinion, and if there's one thing that I've learned from watching these meetings, it is that just because someone says something on the record from the dais, it doesn't mean that it's the truth. We've already seen from the whole Montville Messenger overhaul process that lies and personal agendas are alive and well in Montville, and that some line items in the budget are beyond scrutiny.
"What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" is a song by the rock group R.E.M. from their 1994 album Monster. It was the first single from the album, released three weeks later. It peaked at #21 on the Billboard Hot 100 and at #9 on the UK Singles Chart.
The title refers to the question one of two unknown assailants (one later identified as William Tager) asked former CBS anchorman Dan Rather while assaulting him on Park Avenue in Manhattan in October 1986. The phrase Rather reported actually hearing was "Kenneth, what is the frequency?".
According to lead singer Michael Stipe, this song is an attack on the media, who over analyze things they don't understand.
Tager later claimed that he had come from a parallel universe some 200 years in the future. He also claimed that because everyone in the future had a double in the past, he had mistaken Rather for his future double, Vice President Kenneth Burroughs, and that he attacked Rather in an attempt to recover the information needed to stop the television signals being sent to his brain and return to his own time.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 15, 2008 4:10 PM
Okay, so either you're threatening me or saying that I'm the media, over analyzing things I don't understand. If it's the latter, then please explain what I don't understand.
Can somebody tell me what's going on here? What are the lies that you're refering to?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 16, 2008 12:15 PM
By lies, I'm referring to the fact that when I asked the township administrator at a TC meeting why we hadn't contacted any of the publishers that I'd found that met our needs, the mayor interjected that many local residents and businesses provided their input to the decision. However, there is no record of that input, nor did anyone know what she was referring to when I filed an open public records request. In fact, no alternate publishers were considered.
Now you understand why they won't tape the town's meetings.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 17, 2008 1:03 PM
Mayor,
Are you going to respond to this, or should we just assume that it is true?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 17, 2008 1:47 PM
We know that the members of the TC read and respond on this board. Their silence is deafening!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Robert only gives a snippet of what may have been said at the meeting. Without knowing what was said either before or after this comment, we have no way of knowing the actual context of the discussion.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 17, 2008 8:44 PM
To Annon 3/17 8:44pm: I regularly read the minutes of the meetings on the town website -- clearly, you don't. Here is a link to the 1/22/08 meeting: http://www.montvillenj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=353
It says exactly what Robert Lefkowitz says and is not taken out of context. But don't take my word for it -- read it yourself.
Robert -- Thank you for trying to keeping the public informed!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 18, 2008 2:33 PM
I don't mind if Robert puts a little spin on the minutes. At least he attends the meetings and tapes them for us. Go Robert!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 18, 2008 6:02 PM
I haven't seen any spin in Roberts comments. It is good to know that someone is watching and at the very least it can make us all more aware even if we don't agree with everything.
