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.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 18, 2008 6:16 PM
If anyone wants to verify the context, you can simply review the video. You'll see that I ask questions of the administrator based on the report that I'd submitted to him, and when I start pressing, the mayor counters that input was received from many different sources other than me, yada, yada, yada.
I guess by this time, we've all figured out that the mayor won't be responding. After all, why should she? At $150/page, 30 pages/issue, and 4 issue/year, over the 3 years that she's been in office, her friend and supporter has earned over $50,000 from the town just for publishing the Montville Messenger. That's not bad for a part-time gig.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 21, 2008 10:49 AM
Robert, Doesn't it absolutely eat you alive when this post goes for a couple of days with no responses? How come no one cares?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 21, 2008 6:02 PM
Seems to me that most issues on this site don't get much in the way of responses. Just look at the board of ed blog. I don't know if people are appathetic or just disgusted. I for one am just disgusted!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 21, 2008 10:04 PM
Some of these anonymous posts should actually be signed 'anonymous and naive'. This is the way that politics works: a donor gives money to a political campaign, the victorious candidate works to make sure that his donors are rewarded, and then the rewards are funnelled back in the form of re-election donations. The mayor raised $30,000 last time she was running for office. That's a lot of favors to repay. For the donors, it would seem to be a pretty good investment. Like I said, it happens all the time - it's just unfortunate that it has crept down to our local government.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 21, 2008 11:15 PM
In my opinion, it is more than just a payoff to a political supporter. This guy has helped to create some of the more hatefull websites that have popped up in recent years. He has been part of a whole hatchet job on their opposition that lets the Township Committee Candidates from their side look clean and above the fray while they give him this job as a reward.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 22, 2008 10:54 AM
WOW - a lot has been wriiten since last I visited. Some observations: 1. While I try to keep up on this site I must manage my time and this blog is lower on my priority list than such things as my family, my job, Township Committee work, etc. and right now I'm extremely busy. So my lack of response should only be interpreted as a lack of time. 2. Please recognize that there is a distinct disadvantage to getting into debates with anonymous posters, which is multiplied for an elected official. Therefore, I carefully choose when to reply based on the tone of the posting. Polite, even passionate debate is great but sometimes it deteriorates... 3. Robert has taken on an unofficial public advocacy role, which is to be commended. Since it's unofficial, however, it doesn't mean ALL his questions are required to be answered or to his liking. 4. I try to post facts and corrections to bad facts - here's some: - TC members ARE Township employees. - The point I made about reducing TC salaries in closed session (it was awhile ago) I believe was in discussion of other closed session agenda items. Points made in closed session sometimes 'touch' on Open sessions items. It happens in the course of discussion and debate. However, the closed session discussion and debate must stay focused on the closed session item. We did have a subsequent Open Session discussion of TC compensation & benefits! - The $30,000 was raised in our (Deb & my) joint primary and general elecetion campaigns and was primarily made up of donations less than $300. (We hope to raise as much again in the same way for this year's campaign). TC members value our integrity and independence. I don't believe any 'donor' has undue influence over nor gets 'favors' from anyone on this TC. And for a few hundred dollars - come on now! - Municipalities are struggling with following all the aspects of the OPRA. Now that deficiencies have been brought to our attention we are trying to change process and procedure to conform to the law - altho all the aspects of how best to conform while protecting the right of privacy for certain individuals and legitimate Township confidential issues is the balancing act all are trying to get right.
I tried posting this last week, but apparently it didn't take. Sorry for the delay.
I’ve uploaded last week’s township meeting in two parts. The first part, http://blip.tv/file/755008, is the budget discussion. For the previous meeting I hadn’t included the video of the budget discussion because it was nearly impossible to understand due to the fact that the TC was not conducting their discussions from the dais. I’ve included it this time for exactly that same reason. I don’t expect that anyone will listen to all of it, but you should be able to get a feel for how it would be nearly impossible for someone in the audience to follow along. Prior to the meeting I had made a written request of the mayor that the meeting be conducted from the dais and that the audience be provided with the written material that was being discussed, but unfortunately that request was either ignored or denied. The upshot of the budget discussions is that the state has cut the town’s budget more than was anticipated, and we are now looking at a 6.7% tax increase. As such, the administrator is going to go back to the department heads and ask them to try to find more ways to cut. {The cynic in me wonders why they weren’t cutting as much as possible before.} The next part of the meeting, http://blip.tv/file/755078, was the main business portion. This began with a nice presentation by all of the ages of Montville’s girl scouts, in recognition of the anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts of America. This was followed by a proclamation honoring Mary Frances Forte’s 100th birthday. Among the items that caught my interest were:
* Cable franchises were given to Cablevision. No mention was made of the free video equipment that was promised to the town which would have enabled the town to record their meetings for broadcast. * The attorney reported that he was in court last week for another town, and the judge gave feedback stating that minutes should be presented and approved at the next meeting following when they were taken, that our 5-minute limit on residents for the public portion of the meeting is okay, and that our new procedure for the handling of closed session minutes is okay. There was no discussion of how to get the town back into compliance on old closed session minutes, nor the impractical nature of certain aspects of the procedure. * The town CFO reported that we are almost near the point when we can refund (i.e., refinance) our bonds. Apparently, a municipality is only able to refund their bonds if they can save at least 3% from the current rate. If we can refund them, she said that it would save us $500k over the next few years. It was unclear to me whether that meant $500k each year, but just for a few years, or if the cumulative savings over the next few years would be $500k. * The town will be trying to sell a small parcel of land adjacent to Milan on Old Bloomfield Ave. The market value for the land is $15,768. * In a change from recent weeks, the mayor conducted the public portion of the meeting interactively, with the TC responding to the questions that were raised by residents, rather than responding after the public portion was closed. Hopefully, this is a change in policy, rather than an arbitrary aberration. * During the public portion of the meeting, a resident raised the issue of all the problems that occurred when dealing with JCP&L during the recent power outages. The TC directed the administrator to update the website with some helpful information for residents so that they could complain to/about any problems that they had. * Two residents complained to the TC about their frustration dealing with the Rec. Dept. about getting a skate park in town. They complained that they could not raise money for a skate park unless they could tell potential donors that the Rec. Dept. would even sanction a skate park. Later in the meeting, it was revealed in the budget discussions that the Rec. Dept. was recommending proceeding with a skate park and tennis courts (if I heard correctly). * Committeeman Daughtry mentioned that the town should begin pressuring Verizon to deliver the FIOS service that they committed to give to all of Pine Brook, since the deadline for completing that work has passed.
Thanks Robert. To think, this all used to happen behind our backs. Great job!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 23, 2008 7:51 PM
Regarding the speculation of payoffs, payback, etc., let me just point out that there is a difference between actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Certainly, our town officials should know better than to wade into the muddy waters that they've gotten themselves into. To ask a vendor to research other vendors and come up with a recommendation for whether or not he's better than the others certainly appears like it would not result in anything other than a recommendation to continue with himself. If that is what occured, then it shows a real lack of good judgement on the part of the town. If, on the other hand, the town simply decided to not even investigate replacing this vendor given the information that they had in front of them and his past relationship with several TC members, then you have to hope that they're not making the rest of their decisions with such little forethought.
Jim, since the mayor was not willing to change the format of the budget meetings, could you use your influence to do so? Also, can you please try to have a copy of the current version of the budget placed on the town's website. After all, even though it has not been approved yet, it is still an official document.
Also, the question of the exact nature of the discussions about TC member compensation wouldn't be open to speculation if the minutes were posted on the town website. Here is the relevent excerpt: "Sandham suggested the Township Committee salary be $12,000 or $9,000 if benefits are taken. This shows we lead by example. Moscone asked if this was legal. Rompala stated he and Mr. Murphy talked and this meets Stated and Federal requirements.
Daughtry suggested salary of $12,500 or $9,000 if benefits are taken. Township Committee all agreed."
From the context, it wasn't apparent that you were suggesting a cut. If so, then even more kudos to you. What was the previous compensation level? Whether it was a cut or not, I think that it is a good thing for the public to know that your inclination was for lower compensation than others on the TC. Nonetheless, it is my contention that the conversation should have been halted by the attorney prior to any level of agreement being achieved. That would have resulted in the public getting a better feel for where there representatives stood. As a side note - and I hate to put you on the spot for actually responding, Jim (but I will :) ), can you provide us with some details on the results of the research that was concluded recently comparing the compensation levels of Montville town officials with other similar towns? I know that we came out at the high end, but the details of the report were never distributed, and it might be useful to know.
10:23 AM, March 24, 2008 Dan Grant said... "Everytime ithe issue of anonymous posting comes up the unnamed come out from under their rocks and say some of the stupidest things. Given the kinds of comments they make you can understand why they wouldn't want anyone to know who they are but Jeez".
It shouldn't matter whether someone is a campaign contributor or not - we should get the cheapest vendor who can do a good job. Why weren't other publishers researched? What is it that qualified the current vendor so much that somebody decided that without even looking they knew that nobody else could do the job?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 24, 2008 3:42 PM
Nice to know and everyone else should know that they may think that they are posting anonymously but you are keeping track and can identify them at will. I am happy to stand by what I posted and infact posted too quickly and left my name off. Find another post where I didn't identify myself. All anomymous posters are known by you and they are at risk from you. Now post this big guy.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 25, 2008 10:33 AM
Dan, You fell for his bluff.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Actually it isn't a bluff. Many people have told me they recieved unwanted e-mails from him based on their visits to his sites. Besides not identifing myself was accidental so what is the big deal.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 25, 2008 1:02 PM
Dan, That was no accident. You didn't admit it utill he tricked you.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 25, 2008 10:21 PM
Silly post, I have history on my side and there are many more important things to talk about. I have e-mails showing how these guys operate. The more important issue is what Robert is talking about. Call it a rant or what ever you want he is raising legitimate issues about the way in which money is spent and who benefits.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 26, 2008 8:06 AM
Facts: Muni tax increases from 2003 to 2005 totaled 36% , Dan's last 3 year on the TC - including 18% in 2005! Since then: 2006 - 7.9% 2007 - 6.9% 2008 - 5.43% proposed, including 1% due to cuts in state funding. Doesn't mean we should be satisfied nor stop looking for savings... But, it's a shame Robert wasn't raising those legitimate issues in 2005 & prior!
Jim, Where were you prior to 2005? Before your campaign you spent years not raising these issues. Let's give credit to Robert for raising these issues now with no ulterior motive -- that's right, I don't see his name on any ballots. Why didn't you speak up when there was nothing in it for you?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 27, 2008 9:28 AM
It is nice to see that we've gone down to a 5.43% proposed increase, but it raises the question of why these cuts weren't proposed prior to the state funding cuts.
There is more room for cutting. For instance, while most small line items aren't discussed in detail during these meetings, the topic of new chairs for some of the municipal employees did come up. The budget mentioned for replacing 7 chairs was $3,500. While the TC debated over whether we needed to replace the chairs, nobody objected to $500/chair. I went to the Staples website, and their fabric task chairs (the same type that we're replacing) run from $40-$279. That's a heck of a lot less than we're budgetting.
All the while, the public is not able to get a copy of the budget without filing an OPRA request. How much money could be saved if we looked into all of the details?
Jim, I absolutely agree that the Republican controlled Township Committee had it's problems although I don't agree with your numbers. It has always been Republican Controlled and always had it's problems. I did my best but they outnumbered me. Like anonymous I also don't remember any visits by you, Art or Debbie in that three year period but that is ok. Many people get involved when something they want is at stake. I really don't see any agenda on Robert's part other than trying to make a contribution to the Township. Maybe you guys could take some of his comments as valuable.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
March 27, 2008 12:34 PM
$500 a chair????!!!! Are you kidding me???? Members of the TC: Please say it ain't so!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 27, 2008 1:29 PM
To Anon on 3/27 at 9:28 a.m. - my point wasn't about Robert. It was about Dan NOW championing a watchdog for spending when increases are 5-6% but not when Dan was passing 18% increases! Robert - I can get into a whole discussion of price vs cost (ie: the price may be $279 now, but if you have to replace it twice as often the it cost you more). Not to mention we want ergonomic chairs for our employees for better support and to avoid workers comp/sick claims. But I choose not to micro manage our Administrator - we pay him to run the Town and make those decisions. I am confident that he will procure the most economical chair given each circumstance. And I do value you input and consider it along with all the other input I receive. Dan - I guess your last comment came from the right side of your mouth, blaming the Repub majority for all the Town's problems. Seems to me the left side of your mouth takes credit for all the good things that happened in Town despite the Repub majority. So which is it Dan - a.) were you a leader that controlled & should be credited with everything good or bad that happened or b.) were you just the casual observer of all the ills that occurred? You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try! And your memory fails you - don't you remember me speaking out against your plan to 'loan' the school board the money for the track & field, thereby circumventing the voters? Art, Deb & I were active on many committees (Long Term Fin'l Planning, Plan Bd, Bd of Ed) in that 3 year period. I just wish you'd be factual so that I could do something else other than correct your bad facts/perspectives on this blog!
This chair issue is a perfect one to discuss, as we all use chairs, purchase chairs, understand chair issues, etc. We could discuss the relative merrits of sand that we spread on the roads, but who among us knows anything about that?
Even the $44 chairs have 15 year warranties (the current chairs are 12 years old) and claim to be ergonomic. Are they right for our needs? I don't know. But you'd have to imagine that the right chair is closer to $100 than it is to $500.
You are right about the issue of micromanagement. While we can't micromanage our professionals, we need to establish the level of management that they require. There is a fine line between micromanaging and exercising fiduciary responsibility.
It occurs to me to wonder what happens if you budget $500 for a chair, but only spend $100 on it. Where does the $400 go? I assume that it goes towards items that had a budget of $100, but actually cost $500. Do we track our budget vs. actuals? Hopefully that is used as input for each year's budget. It would be interesting to see such a report.
Robert - several 'budget line transfers' were made at the end of 2007 from a surplus budget to where we had a need for add'l budget. It is public reocrd & you can get them from Fran our CFO. At the end of 2006 the line item where we had a surplus was legal fees! That was change from the recent past! In 2007, I recollect the major items of need were road salt and first aid squad funding. But again, check with Fran. As to your perspectives, I did not see you post that our Admininstrator & a Dept Head discussed the poor condition of the Public Safety Bldg stairs with the original builder and got a commitment from him to fix the stairs at no cost to us, thereby saving $50,000 that was otherwise slated as a capex item in 2008. So if they want to spend $5,000 on 10 chairs that match our existing chairs I think we can live with that. I have no problem with your pointing out areas to save or to improve, but fair & balanced perspectives & reporting is warranted.
Robert - The chairs are OK. We're getting a discount on them from the same people who made the $2,500 toilet seats for the B-52's.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 29, 2008 4:11 AM
So Jim, if I am living beyond my budget (as the township is) and I get my landlord to pay for repairs that I thought I was going to have to pay for (and budgeted for), then instead of using the extra money that I now have to pay down my debts, I should use it to grossly overspend on chairs??? I am sure you must be kidding!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 29, 2008 10:57 AM
I try not to reply to anon postings, but to correct the prior post - the point was that the TC was discussing which chairs to buy at what price for which employees. Instead of micromanaging, I suggested we set a BUDGET for 10 chairs at a total of $5k & let the Administrator handle it. Doesn't mean he will decide to SPEND $5k for the chairs. Anyone can pick any one item out of a budget and criticize it - even if it's wothwhile, necessary and obtained at a reasonable cost. While I pay attention to the detail, I also look at the big picture - is the Administrator delivering a reasonable budget that taxpayers will be happy with? At a 5.43% increase with most of that coming from increased state pension exp and reduced state funding offset by expense cuts, I think he is. This TC has reduced litigation, legal fees, employee headcount and other areas of spending as well as brought the debt down from $75 million to under $68M in 2 years. Doesn't mean we shouldn't budget & spend wisely or that we shouldn't seek savings and lower spending. We may not be as successful as some would want, but I believe we are moving in the right direction. And I don't agree we are living beyond our budget. But that's my opinion.
I have no idea where you work, Robert, and it doesn't matter, but if it's for anyone who cares even a little for their employees' working conditions, I'll bet they paid more than $44 or even $100 for your chair. Why are you pushing to subject your employees to sub-standard conditions? The fact that a $44 chair "claims" to be "ergonomic" does not mean that it is comfortable. Is it better that we save some money on the chairs and have the employees needing to take time off to visit the chiropractor? I'm not saying spending $500 for a chair is the right answer, but certainly $44 is not, either.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 29, 2008 3:34 PM
"So if they want to spend $5,000 on 10 chairs that match our existing chairs I think we can live with that."
The taxpayers can't live with that.
Buy $250 chairs and when the existing chairs have to be replaced match them to the $250 chairis.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 29, 2008 4:13 PM
I’m disappointed to hear that the only way to find out the surplus/deficit information from last year’s budget is to go ahead and request them myself. I interpreted your (Jim’s) advice to mean that I need to file an OPRA request. I would hope that this information would be publicly available, and I would have expected that the administrator would have provided you with that information so that you could more accurately participate in the budget discussions. For instance, I’m sure that you’d agree that it would have been useful to know not only that $12,000 was budgeted for the Montville Messenger last year, but that the final cost was closer to $30,000. Just knowing the prior budgeted amount paints an incomplete picture.
I haven’t posted my notes from last week’s meeting yet. I usually do that when I post the video. I wrote about the chair issue early because it was relevant to an ongoing line of discussion. However, I probably would not have mentioned the stair issue that you’re referring to. In my mind, it was not significant that we were getting a contractor who had done a job that had not held up properly to repair his work free of charge for us. I had similar work done to the stairs outside of my house two years after they were installed, and the builder redid mine free of charge too.
I don’t think that there should be any connection between the chairs and the steps. Savings on one line of the budget should not give us freedom to spend irresponsibly on another. Would that freed up money have justified spending $3,500 on a single chair? Of course not. As it stands, the CFO requested $3,500 for 7 chairs and the TC approved $5,000 for 10 chairs to be allocated across departments as the administrator sees fit. Setting that budget doesn’t mean that the administrator will spend all of it, but it says that the TC endorses spending that much.
As you’ve said, anyone can pick a line item out of a budget and criticize it. However, the line items are all being hidden from the public. Last year we had a line item of $5k for a videotaping system that wouldn’t have even worked for us had it not been stricken during the budget talks. Does anyone think that I’m spending that much to tape the meetings? The town was discussing $10k for its website – in the end we spent $0 on it after getting input from a single resident. My own pet project – the Montville Messenger – wasn’t even mentioned in the budget discussions this year. Of course, it’s in there somewhere.
To anonymous (3/29/08, 3:34) – I never said that we should buy the $44 chairs. In fact, I said, “Are they right for our needs? I don't know. But you'd have to imagine that the right chair is closer to $100 than it is to $500.” I stand by that. The fact that Staples doesn’t carry $500 chairs tells me that consumers aren’t looking to purchase them.
For the record the contractor that built the Public Safety building also known as our police department was Natoli construction from Montville.
The stairs were a problem during construction and Natoli did them over once during construction as well. Natoli has absolutely no obligation to fix them 8 years later, however because they are a well run company and a generous local business, decided to repair them again for the Township at no charge.
Thanks to Joe and Paul Natoli for their concern and generosity.
As far as the chairs I’m a strong supporter of getting some of the township chairs replaced. Gee I wonder how the bloggers would have handled it if I proposed one chair for $5000 to get the money in the budget?
The town employees know I have been looking on ebay – yes that’s correct, ebay – to purchase chairs and possibly donate a couple of them. Well in two years it hasn’t worked out for many reasons. However anyone can go on ebay and look at professional quality office chairs. I can assure you the costs are closer to $500 then $100. Sorry Robert. How many we buy depends on need and cost. Enough on this chair nonsense.
While I’m at it I pushed to spend more taxpayer dollars than what was requested. Our road department has limped along a few trucks over the last few years because the TC basically shut most of our typical spending down in 2005-06 to get a handle on our debt.
Now that we are managing the debt we are starting to put funds back into paving roads and equipment. The road department wanted two new steel dump bodies because two of our heavy salt truck bodies are rusted through. The two new dump bodies in steel as requested cost roughly $23,000. I pushed for stainless steel bodies that cost $20,000 more than steel. The stainless steel bodies are now in our budget. You can blame me.
Now if you have read this far this is the most important part of this blog. Please try to stop by at the 86 river road fields on opening day for MBSA with all of the little league and softball players. The date is April 19th at 10AM.
Even though I kept mispronouncing one of the prominent members of MBSAs last name every taxpayer in town should take much pride in the new 5th base refreshment stand with new bathrooms and storage and meeting rooms. This project was so cool to watch come together. MBSA sunk about $150K into the project as well as matching township funds. Not enough good news gets around regarding these types of efforts in town.
Again please stop by and take a look. Also please no idiot complaints that the tile in the rest rooms is over kill. It was all donated by standard tile. This stuff looks like in belongs in a house at Pond View!
To Larry Manfred oops Manfra and Tom Kruger as well as a host of others thanks from the citizens and I’m sure our mayor will recognize everyone after the dedication. I believe she is already practicing tossing out the first pitch!
I looked on Ebay too. There are 810 fabric office chairs selling for less than $350 (halfway between $100 and $500), and 49 selling for more than $350. Personally, I'd never buy a chair without sitting in it first, but that's just me. On top of that, I wouldn't pay for the freight to get it to Montville when Staples/Office Depot/OfficeMax has already done that. If you're looking for used chairs on Ebay, I've bought some great used office chairs from a surplus place on Rt. 46 - I'm sitting comfortably in one now.
This meeting can be viewed at http://blip.tv/file/786659. Sorry for the shaky camera for the first minute.
The meeting started off on what appeared to be a positive development. While there were no copies of the budget provided for members of the audience, there was a notebook computer hooked up to a projector, which I assumed would be used to allow the audience to follow along with the TC as they reviewed the town’s budget. Unfortunately, the projector was not used for this part of the meeting. Instead it was used later to show the projects that landscapers had donated to demark the entrances to the town. What a shame that we had equipment present that would have provided for a more open government, but chose not to use it.
I did not tape the budget discussions that occurred at the start of the meeting, as once again, they were held in round-table format with poor audio. I can tell you that the administrator was able to find $131,000 in new cuts after the last meeting, so the budget increase is back down 5.43%. Among the cuts that I was able to hear that enabled this reduction were closing Senior House one hour earlier, changing the holiday lights (I don’t know if the change is a reduction or elimination), and not getting an extra police car that had been requested. There were other components, but it was difficult to hear and I think that some were just reviewed on paper.
Also within the budget discussions was mentioned the use of SUVs by certain departments in the township (the health department was mentioned specifically) instead of smaller vehicles that were less expensive and more fuel-efficient. Apparently, the reason that we utilize SUVs is because we are able to capitalize the expenditures. I gather that this means that we can deduct the expenses over several years rather than in a single year. Perhaps someone with an accounting background can write in and explain the benefit of this. From a cash flow standpoint, for our taxes, would it make a difference? The administrator is going to look into whether a vehicle that did not have the drawbacks of an SUV could still be capitalized.
The regular business portion of the meeting began at 8:00 pm. After a proclamation about Arbor Day, the TC recognized the various landscapers who had donated their services to beautify the entrances of the town. At this point, the previously mentioned computer projector was used to show the work that each of the landscapers had done.
The township administrator reported that his office has spoken with the local post office and secured a deal that will give the town the bulk rate for the Montville Messenger without going to the bulk distribution center. He predicted that this would save us $400. He also reported that the Spring issue would be arriving next week, and that it was 32 pages and would be in the black.
The CFO reported that the county might be cutting back on their open space taxes by $0.01, and that the long-term financial planning committee was recommending that the town increase the open space tax by roughly the same amount. The net affect would be minimal.
The public portion of the meeting continues to be disturbingly inconsistent. The first gentleman reported a number of issues, amongst them that trucks were driving over graves at the cemetery on Hook Mountain Rd. The town administrator began to respond on the issue, which apparently he’d been speaking with the NJ DOT about, but the mayor suggested that the town would take the situation under advisement and the administrator both would contact the gentleman raising the question and would give the TC a report at the next meeting. Personally, I'd think that if the gentleman took the time to come to the meeting and the administrator has an answer for him, then it seems only fair that he be given the answer. After all, he is probably not the only person with some of these concerns, and a public answer could resolve the question for everyone interested. Two other groups of people raised questions to the TC and attending departments and received direct responses.
During the committee members’ reports, the mayor reported that the county has expressed that they will not be providing funding for a county-wide shelter. They will possibly help with bonding for a shelter, but will not share costs. The mayor has made it clear to the county that Montville will provide the land for the shelter, but will not provide funding.
This office chair issue is absurd. I equiped my office with half a dozen new chairs in January. I spent around $150/chair and they arrived assembled and ready to use. I thought that only the board of education would want to spend $500 / chair.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 31, 2008 8:46 AM
So let me get this straight. A local contractor does some work. They get it wrong so they do it over again. Eight years later (which shouldn't be a long time in terms of cement steps), there is a problem and they're replacing it again. That isn't generosity. It isn't even good business. That's a company trying to keep from getting sued for inferior workmanship. Add to that, the fact that the one that would be suing them would be the people responsible for inspecting all of their local projects, and it is no wonder that they're repairing their work for free.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 31, 2008 9:39 AM
let's get this right - we haven't spent a dime on any chair yet! We budgeted $5,000 for 10 chairs and left it up to the Administrator. Maybe he'll get 20 chairs for that amount. Point is, with a $20 million operating budget and $1.5 million for capex there is more important places for the TC to spend it's time. Like refinancing current bonding and saving over $400,000 thru 2015. This TC chooses to let the Administrator manage our town and, personally, I think it's working well. As to the step issue, maybe someone else would have either spent the $50k (a worse answer) or sued - in which case we would have spent legal fees & the steps would not be fixed until 2020(a much worse answer). You can look up at the glass being half full or look down and see it half empty. We were elected to lead and leaders take a positive perspective. It's amazing to me that we get ?'s on $5k worth of chairs or getting a contractor to fix something for free - I just wish there was that zeal when the Town incurred $75 million of debt - which currently straps our budget with repayments!
I don’t normally respond to anon posts however your comments were understandable based on what I wrote. Many times in the construction business the real culprit that causes construction problems isn’t identified. Many times the engineer or architect is at fault. If the contractor follows the bid specifications and there are problems the contractor typically wears it like a cheap suit.
In our line of work which is fire alarm and security systems we run into this many times and typically on public work. The engineers or architects are typically not held accountable for errors, omissions, or extras that are due to inappropriate designs.
Now I have no first hand knowledge of whether Natoli caused the problems or it was a bad design. If I had to bet it would be it was a bad design with improper drainage. Now before I prompt another anon post the better contractors would bring an inferior design to the attention of the building owner and the engineer. Now if everyone is reasonable it gets identified and corrected before it becomes a major problem. The reverse is the engineer gets upset because their egos are bruised and the building owner gets upset thinking the contractor is just looking for an “extra” to make more money.
Again I have no clue what the original problem was or who caused it.
To presume Natoli caused it and is a bad guy, in my opinion, is not appropriate.
$5,000 was authorized for 10 chairs. Was your intent to spend $5,000 on chairs or to buy 10 chairs for as much as $5,000? The two are not the same. If the TC authorized $40k for a new SUV, but the administrator was able to get two SUVs for that price, is it implied that he should get two? I don't think so. The request was made for 7 chairs for $3,500. The TC pointed out that there would likely be requests for additional chairs as soon as some were replaced, so $5,000 for 10 chairs was approved.
As to people (myself included) nitpicking about these smaller items, you're seeing people nitpick about the only items that they have information on. When a process is conducted in the shadows, you can't blame people for scrutinizing the few items that see the light of day. Open up the process and let the people see the budget. I sent the administrator (and I believe the mayor was CC'd) detailed instructions on how to create a file suitable for the website or email distribution several weeks ago. This isn't a matter of not being able to distribute the information - it is a matter of not wanting to.
Since when does the post office cut special deals? Doesn't the town get the same deal that I do?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 1, 2008 12:24 PM
The Administrator follows the direction given to him by the township committee. Does anyone really think that they're telling him to provide the budget and he's saying "No. I won't do it!" Of course not. The question is, who doesn't want it distributed?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 1, 2008 4:07 PM
Wouldn't it be illegal for the Post Office to give a special deal to someone (including our township)? Art, Jim, what's the story? Is the post office bending the law for us?????
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 1, 2008 8:25 PM
Robert -
You said that the town administrator was going to report back about the trucks driving over graves. I didn't see it on this week's meeting agenda. Did they talk about it?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 10, 2008 8:14 PM
I just received my issue of the Montville Messenger yesterday. It seems that nothing is as they promised - having them on video doesn't make them stick to their word any more than before. The magazine was longer than promised, and it seems to be on the same paper as always. If they're going to go to all this expense, then you'd think that we could at least get something that doesn't look like it was printed at Kinkos. What is with all that white-space???
Is it safe to assume that we're overbudget already?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 11, 2008 2:58 PM
Overbudget? A bad thing? Not in Montville. At $150/page x 8 extra pages, that's $1,200 extra in publishing fees. Wasn't it the publisher who just came up with the new plan for controlling costs?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 11, 2008 6:44 PM
I just returned from a week of vacation to receive a disappointing response from our township administrator regarding my request to see the current budget.
Over a month ago, I sent the administrator detailed instructions on how to create a PDF version of the town's budget. This would benefit the town by enabling the budget to be emailed rather than printed for distribution. Not only would this cut down on reprints and wasted paper, but would speed distribution and ease searching. After waiting several weeks without a reply, I sent a followup note on 3/31, saying: "...I just wanted to follow up on my email with the instructions on how to create a pdf of the town budget from a few weeks ago. Were you able to get it installed? If so, can you please send me a copy of the budget?"
His response was: "The budget is not in pdf format. During the budget process, it is a dynamic document that changes. Upon adoption we do post a summary on the Montville website. The hard copy documents are available for public inspection, in accordance with the open public records act."
The open public records act is a minimum standard set by the state for public disclosure. It is not a maximimum allowance that cannot be exceeded by our public officials. It is a shame that our public officials are hiding behind it.
I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever seeing a summary or other version of a previous budget on the town's website. Does anyone else remember this? Why would we disclose a summary but not details?
I'd like to call on our town's elected officials to sound off on this issue and take the necessary steps to get pdf versions of the budget distributed to those interested. If we are not able to put the document on the town's website, then I suspect that Ron would be happy to put it on ourmontville.com.
I was not able to attend last week's meeting, as I was out of town. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we'll have to wait for the meeting minutes to be published to see what was discussed.
Anonymous (4/11/08 2:58 PM) - The Messenger is currently budgetted at $8,000 for the year. Hopefully, we're still inside that budget. Of course, this illustrates one of my objections to our budget process. Last year, town officials knew that The Messenger was going to run more than the $12k budgetted to it. They allocated $12k as a 'goal' for the magazine. In other words, the item was intentionally underbudgetted. This year, the Messenger committee reported to the TC that the magazine would basically break even. Instead of reflecting that in the budget, the Messenger was overbudgetted by $8k. It has always been my understanding that the purpose of a budget was to estimate the costs and allocate financial resources accordingly. How can the budget be relied on if items are intentionally underbudgetted or overbudgetted?
It is very telling that you've got an individual here with no apparent agenda (and nobody accusing him of one) who is shouting about the municipal government keeping the public in the dark about supposedly open meetings, and not one elected official (or anyone else) is stepping up to dispute it.
The silence tells it all.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
April 17, 2008 3:41 PM
4-22-08 meeting notes:
o Town is looking into alternatives for health insurance providers for township employees. o Town is collecting annual financial reports from organizations that use township property. This is so the town can potentially recoup money for police assistance, etc., for organizations that can afford to pay for it. o The dome was sold by public auction, but then bid was withdrawn. It will be reauctioned. The winning bid was $18k. o The town is now accepting bids for paving Horseneck Rd from Changebridge to Passaic Valley Rd. o The Montville Museum was discussed. I learned that it is the 1st town-owned museum in the state. The total grants+town investment (both spent since 1997, plus funds allocated for the future)=$550k. The majority of this funding was taxpayer dollars. o Pine Brook cemetery was brought up again - there was no acknowledgement that it was brought up a month ago. During the public portion of the meeting, I pointed out that this was brough up a month earlier and was supposed to be addressed at the previous meeting. The administrator reported that he'd spoken with the state about it, and that it is a known issue, but like other things will have to wait for now due to budget issues. o The budget was introduced. It will be discussed in public on 5/27/08. It is available for inspection at the municipal building but not for easy distribution. Note: a summary is available on the town website.
PUBLIC PORTION: o TCA complained that they should not have to provide their finances to the town, and named other organizations that haven't been asked to provide that data. The TC responded that those other organizations should have been on the list and will be added. TCA also complained about part of the ordinance that said that the town can collect surplus revenues from the groups. o A complaint was raised that Home Depot in Pine Brook pays 50% of the rate that it does in other towns and that only one other town in NJ collects lower taxes from Home Depot. The administrator reported that an analysis is currently being done of the tax rate of Home Depot. The resident agreed to provide the factual info behind his statements to the town. The attorney pointed out that the taxes are not controlled by the town, but by a state employee. o I brought up that the budget process is essentially closed to the public due to the fact that the public can't see the budget documents when they're being discussed and can't hear the discussions. In addition, I cited my frustration that I was told to file an OPRA request when I asked to see the budget. I requested that the budget be put in a softcopy format for ease of distribution (such as posting on the website). The administrator said that it was not in that format. When I offered to show them how to do that, the attorney reported that their was no requirement to put it in that format. o I also raised the point that the new policy on the town providing timely minutes is not being adhered to. The attorney indicated that he was working with the clerk due to litigation sUrrounding these types of issues/requests. o The long term financial planning committee looked into bank charges for credit card processing of taxes. In 2007, Montville paid $180k in absorbed merchant fees for credit card processing. o The library board voted on their budget. It failed and will have to be reworked. The failed budget had a 47% increase from last year. o A resident has offered to pay half of the $25k that would be required to put a sidewalk on Pine Brook Rd, near Cedar Hill. The mayor asked if we could find money for this even though it was not in the budget. The engineer and CFO reported that the money exists in the form of excess funds that were in the account from previous work on Pinebrook Rd. o It was suggested to have the move of the animal shelter handled by the private sector. There is still an issue with asbestos, but committeman Daughtry is hoping to either get a company to donate their services for the asbestos remediation or to get the Township Committee to assist. Montville pet parents, with assistance, would then move the shelter (not build a new one) to 7 Church Lane. (The effort with the county was a bust).
How did Montville ever get a triple A rating from Standard and Poors without putting the budget in pdf?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
May 5, 2008 10:29 AM
S&P doesn't base their ratings on budgets. They base it on debt levels, and local ability to pay off that debt. The local ability to pay off that debt is based on things such as the local economy, the demographic of residents, access to jobs, real estate values, etc.
By the way, I think that it is terrific that we've gotten this upgrade. Congratulations to Committeeman Sandham and the Long Term Financial planning committee.
I wanted to offer some comments on my meeting notes, but felt that they were best left separate from the notes themselves so as to make the notes more factual than editorial. Here goes:
o It is a good thing that the town is looking into the finances of the organizations that receive town assistance. It is a good thing that they are laying the ground work to recover money from those organizations, based on the organizations' ability to repay. However, any ordinance that would enable such repayment should lay out the specifics of the town's collection rules. From what was said in the meeting, it was left as the town 'can' require payment. Ambiguity will only lead to problems.
o Why is the town in the museum business? If the majority of local museums can sink or swim on their own, then why don't we do the same thing with ours?
o Regarding the availability of the budget, while the town has refused to provide an easily viewable copy for its residents, I can say that Committeeman Sandham did offer to loan me his copy of the document to review. It's nice to see that at least one of the TC members is really in favor of open government.
o The Town's attorney mentioned that there was litigation surrounding requests for minutes. Was he saying that there was litigation surrounding the new procedure that the town just adopted a couple of months ago or was he saying that something in those minutes was problematic? If it was the procedure, then why did he recommend it; if it is content in the minutes, then why can't it be redacted?
o The Town 'found' extra money in an account that could be used for putting a sidewalk in at Pine Brook road. I believe that in the meeting, it was mentioned that there was around $60k found. You 'find' a penny - you don't 'find' $60k.
Isn't it ironic that the town wants private local organizations to hand over their balance sheets, but fights tooth and nail to hide their finances.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
May 22, 2008 10:22 AM
Robert -
Another good summary. Thanks for the insight. It is nice to be able to see/read what is going on, because I'm not able to leave my kids at night to attend Town meetings.
If I could offer one suggestion, though, it would be nice if you could put a notice in this blog that you have got a new summary on OurMontville's main page for those of us that don't always stop to see everything on the main homepage.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
June 6, 2008 10:47 PM
Ron -
Wow. Pictures are definitely louder than words. What is going on here? This 5 minute video is very troubling. Why does the town allow someone to hide money from it? Can't we get a court order to see the contents of the bank account? After all, it is our money!
By the way, Ron, this video should be at the top of your page, not lost in the middle. People need to know.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 18, 2008 9:55 AM
Back in my notes from the TC meeting posted here on May 6th, I said, "The Town 'found' extra money in an account that could be used for putting a sidewalk in at Pine Brook road. I believe that in the meeting, it was mentioned that there was around $60k found. You 'find' a penny - you don't 'find' $60k."
I would like to set the record straight on that. Committeeman Sandham mentioned to me in June or July that the money came from an account that essentially was dedicated by the contractors that built the homes in that area for projects that fall into this category. As such, it was not available for other general budget items.
I regret that I've not been able to post this explanation sooner, but other than posting my videos of the TC meetings, I haven't posted any messages here in the interim.
