Grassroots Groundswell

Entries from January 2008

Villa Maria Deed and Charters

January 30, 2008 · No Comments

The first document is the three-page original deed to the Villa Maria property, sold by Justice Cooley to the nuns on September 28, 1938.

Villa Maria Deed

The second document set includes charters of incorporation for the holy order as a non-profit entity.

 Villa Maria Charters

There might be additional charters filed after 1993 to create a for-profit entity. I haven’t yet requested those charters from the NJ Division of Revenue Corporate Records Department.

Last time I did a search at the NJ State Business Gateway Service, I turned up four filing numbers for the Congregation of the Holy Infancy of Jesus or “Villa Maria”: 0100012507 (Domestic Profit Corporation), 0100482927 (Domestic Profit Corporation), 0600104022 (Domestic Limited Liability Corporation), 0900065848 (Nonprofit Corporation).

This time I also got 0900013198 (Nonprofit Corporation).

For all I know, some of those for-profit corporations may be pizza shops in other corners of the state, but they might be the latest incarnation of the holy order’s corporate structure.

Categories: Municipal Finance · Public Information · Villa Maria

Tools for Action: Town Meeting 1

January 30, 2008 · No Comments

Most of the Tools for Action information presented at the first Town Meeting in August. I pulled it out of an earlier post to make it a stand-alone.

FAULKNER ACT PROVISIONS - N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 et seq.

Initiative: The voters of any municipality may propose any ordinance and may adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. Any initiated ordinance may be submitted to the municipal council by a petition signed by a number of the legal voters of the municipality equal in number to at least 15% of the total votes cast in the municipality at the last election at which members of the General Assembly were elected. (For North Plainfield, that’s 4,133 votes cast in the 2005 General Election; 413 signatures equals 10%; 620 signatures equals 15%).

Updated 1/30/08: There were 2,432 votes cast in the 2007 General Election, so 10% is 243 signatures.

Referendum: Voters also have the power of referendum, which is the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance submitted by the council to the voters or any ordinance passed by the council, against which a referendum petition has been filed. No ordinance passed by the municipal council, (with a few exceptions), shall take effect before twenty days from the time of its final passage and its approval by the mayor where such approval is required. A petition must be filed within 20 days after final passage and approval. The petition must be signed by registered voters equal to 15% of the total voter who cast in November 2005 general election.

Petition papers for initiative or referendum must be uniform in size and style and must have the full text of the proposed ordinance. The signatures to initiative or referendum petitions can be on more than one page, but each separate petition has to have an atttached statement of the circulator, saying that he or she personally circulated the petition, and that all the signature were made in his or her presence. Signers must sign their names in ink, and include their street address. There has to be a Committee of the Petitioners, showing the names and addresses of five people responsible for circulating the petition and responsible for making decisions about it as the process goes on.

All petition papers for initiative or referendum must be given to the Borough Clerk at one time. The Clerk then has 20 days to check and make sure the signatures and affidavits are proper. Once the Clerk is done with that review, she certifies the result to the Borough Council at its next regular meeting. If she says the petition is insufficient, she has to say what defects the petition has, and notify at least two members of the Committee of the Petitioners. After that notification, the Committee of Petitioners has 10 days to recollect signatures on a corrected petition and refile. After the refilling, the Clerk has 5 days to check again. Once the Clerk has presented a proper petition to the Borough Council, that counts as a first reading, and provisions for public hearing must be made.

The council then has 20 days to either pass the requested initiative ordinance or repeal the referendum ordinance. If they don’t act, the Clerk submits the ordinance to the voters no less than 40 days but no more than 90 days from the council’s failure to act, requiring a special election if need be. Ordinances going to voters must be published in at least two of the newspapers published or circulated in the municipality, no less than five days and no more than 20 days before the election.

If a majority (greater than 50%) of the qualified electors voting on the proposed ordinance vote in favor of it, that ordinance becomes a valid and binding ordinance of the municipality and is published other ordinances are. No such ordinance can be amended or repealed within 3 years immediately following the date of its adoption by the voters, except by a vote of the people, either brought about by another citizen petition drive or a council submission of a ballot question.

NOTE: NJ Senate Bill 1762, which was introduced in 2004, and came back this session as Senate Bill 1177, would severely restrict citizen rights of initiative and referendum, and would add a step to the initiative process, sending each proposed ordinance to the municipal attorney to review and discard citizen-driven laws that conflict with state and federal laws. The 2004 version passed the Senate and died in Assembly committee. But this session, S 1177 (the same bill) passed in the Senate and is currently in Assembly committee (A 3436). Full text here.

OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT - P.L. 2001, CHAPTER 404 N.J.S. 47:1A-1 et seq.

New Jersey State Law, passed in 2002, to expand public access to government records and thereby improve accountability and transparency in government.

According to the law:

“Government record” or “record” means any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that has been received in the course of his or its official business by any such officer, commission, agency, or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof. The terms shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.”

There are a few exceptions to the law – things that don’t have to be made available for inspection and copying, or things that can be redacted to black out personal information, for example. And the government agency can charge you for the copies, regular copying fees of $0.10 to 0.75 per page.

But overall, OPRA can be a powerful information-gathering tool.

To comply with the law, every state agency, town and other government entity has to have a custodian of records – In North Plainfield, that person is the Borough Clerk, Gloria Pflueger. At the clerk’s desk at the municipal building at 263 Somerset Street, there’s a stack of the forms. All you do is walk in, fill out the form and wait seven to 10 business days for the Borough Clerk to call back letting you know what information she’s been able to gather for you. You go in and look at it, you get whatever copies you need, and that’s that.

The key is asking the right questions – knowing what information you want, from which department, and then phrasing the question to get that information.

If the response from the department is that you can’t have the information you want, the law also established an informal mediation system. You place a toll-free call to the Government Records Council at 1-866-850-0511 and tell them what records you were trying to get access to, what the government agency said when they denied your request, and then the GRC looks into it to see if the denial was authorized or not.

ENFORCEMENT

This is a key problem for North Plainfield, because many of the ordinances already on the books are not enforced by the Department of Public Works and Police Department.

However, citizens are allowed to enforce laws themselves. It may make us wonder why we have town employees, but it’s a possible solution anyway.

First step is to file a written complaint about the problem – noise, trash, speeding, whatever. The full text of the North Plainfield Borough Code is on-line, so you can go there and find the exact number and provisions of the ordinance being violated.

Complaint forms are also available on the Borough Clerk’s desk, at least for property violations, and we can find out how to file a complaint about something like speeding.

After you submit the complaint, wait awhile to see if the Police or DPW enforce the law and correct the problem: how long is up to you. If they don’t correct the problem, then you can follow-up with a complaint in the North Plainfield Municipal Court, currently being held Tuesday and Thursday evenings up in the Watchung Municipal Building (during construction), although the Court Clerk is still working in the 263 Somerset Street building, phone: 908-769-2265.

It’s easiest to do this with very simple violations that don’t require much legal interpretation but do require someone to show up in court and demand compliance with the law. For example, if hedges at corners can be no taller than 30 inches, but your neighbors’ hedges are more than six feet tall, take a photo, file the complaint and if nothing is done by the town administration, go to court, tell the Judge, and the Judge will order the homeowner to trim the hedges and possibly pay a fine and/or court costs.

This is something we need to explore and try and find out more about. It’s not something everyone will be interested in doing, because it puts you in a public position of enforcing laws that your neighbors may want to continue violating. But it is an option.

CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

Great timeline showing how mess started and got as messy as it is. Our proposed local ordinance.

Great letter from Thomas Linzey of CELFD on the subject, concluding with this quote from Virginia Rasmussen:

“We’re fed up with behaving like subordinates content to influence the decisions of corporate boards and the corporate class. Having influence is valuable, but influencing is not deciding. We’re weary of waging long, hard battles simply for the “right to know.” Knowing is critical, but knowing is not deciding. We’re tired of exercising our right to dissent as the be all and end all. Dissent is vital, but dissenting is not deciding. Influencing, knowing, dissenting, participating — all are important to a democratic life, but not one of them carries with it the authority to decide, the power to be in charge.”

Categories: Tools for Democracy · Town Meetings

Special Charters

January 30, 2008 · No Comments

One of the key problems inherent in the local form of government (strong mayor-weak council) is that the mayor is so strong, and the council is so weak, and the citizens matter not at all, except as a revenue source and, at long intervals, as participants in the charade that is electoral politics.

Unfortunately, the other forms of government permitted by the Legislature seem to be just a shell game of titles, moving the power around among the same handful of people who are willing to play the schmoozy, backroom, fundraising games, but never actually cracking open that closed group to let in some actual fresh air, sunshine, citizen oversight and accountability.

That’s one reason it’s difficult for me to advocate for a Charter Change Committee and the time-consuming effort it would take for some group of local people to sit around comparing the pros and cons of the various charter forms, put together a new proposal, get it on the ballot, and get something slightly different but really pretty much the same: an amusing distraction with little actual impact.

However, the Faulkner Act has a provision for “Special Charters,” in which citizens can actually draft the whole thing start to finish themselves. There’s a little information about this possibility on page 16 of this manual on charter change. Detailed procedures are outlined here.

In general, those special charters are still granted by the Legislature, which means that, if a citizen-drafted charter truly protected the local self-governance rights of all North Plainfielders, the Legislature would probably refuse its’ blessing.

That would make for interesting democratic fireworks, particularly if a majority of the residents were involved in the drafting of the new charter, understood it fully and enthusiastically supported it.

More food for thought…

Categories: Tools for Democracy

Letter to the Editor

January 30, 2008 · 1 Comment

Barbara Habeeb’s letter to the editor:

This letter is in reference to the letter to the editor entitled “Citizens and Government Clash over Groups Rights,” dated 1/28/08.Attorney Philip George, representing North Plainfield’s town attorney Eric M. Bernstein & Associates, LLC, has written an interesting letter to Katherine Watt, the co-chair of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights (NPCCR). The letter indicates that the Borough “may pursue collection of the substantial legal fees” from Ms. Watt. The letter appears to be in retaliation for a complaint that was filed and taken to court by Ms. Watt.Ms. Watt proposed an ordinance, which would deter large corporations from coming into North Plainfield and building on any remaining open space in the Borough. This proposal was done legally and openly. 650 signatures were gathered and the Borough was petitioned to place this ordinance on the ballot so the voters could decide. Since the mayor and council did not agree with this ordinance, they refused to consider it. A complaint was filed by Ms. Watt, and it was taken to court. The court ruled in favor of the Borough. So be it.Maybe it wasn’t the best idea, but the ordinance was proposed as an honest effort to try to preserve the Villa Maria property. It was neither “frivolous” nor “unfounded” as the town attorney states in his letter. With the exception of our newest councilwoman Jenny Uptegrove, I think the current administration have a lot of nerve to even suggest a collection of money. Maybe the taxpayers ought to have the very same town attorney write a letter to Mayor Janice Allen to try to collect from her. She is currently appealing the Campbell vs. North Plainfield judgment that ruled against the Borough because the Borough Council did not properly vote for an ordinance to rezone the Villa Maria property to build 225 condos. Bill Campbell took the Borough to court and won the judgment. The Mayor is appealing that judgment and yes, my friends, it is coming out of the taxpayers’ pockets.So here is my point. Why is it OK for the Mayor and Council to incur court costs, but not OK for a taxpaying citizen with a legitimate complaint? Don’t we, the people have a right to express our views? James Otis once said “taxation without representation is tyranny.” Folks, we’re being taxed, but what kind of representation do we really have? Something for you who live in North Plainfield to think about next election.

Barbara Habeeb
North Plainfield

Categories: Readers Write

Post-Mortem

January 30, 2008 · No Comments

I’ve been playing around with PowerPoint to create a draft flow-chart showing the various decision points where things could have gone differently for North Plainfield citizens’ self-governance rights.

The ordinance provisions proposed for North Plainfield and passed in Pennsylvania can be thought of as deliberate citizen acts of “disobedient lawmaking,” because they challenge an injustice that is protected by current state and federal law: the power granted to corporations to override local people’s rights and harm local people’s well-being.

Perhaps the clearest historic parallel is to slavery, an unjust system protected by state and federal law until citizens began deliberately disobeying those unjust laws and, after a long struggle, the laws were changed.

In another New Jersey municipality, perhaps one with a Mayor and Council who agree with their citizens that actors with ill intent should be prohibited from engaging in harmful activities within municipal borders, an ordinance like the one proposed for North Plainfield would have a better chance, because the decisions at the decision points would go a different direction.

For interpreting the diagram, yellow boxes are decisions actually made by local decision-makers. Green boxes are citizen attempts to live the democratic ideal and follow the legal procedures set forth for active local self-governance. Dotted lines to white boxes are the paths not taken, the choices not chosen.

Acronyms:

NPCCR is North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights.

ARC is Age Restricted Condominium ordinance.

BC is Borough Council.

PB is Planning Board.

Although I didn’t show it on this draft, there were many intersections where citizens could have given up in despair, but didn’t.

Food for thought.

Here’s the chart: Post-Mortem Chart

Categories: Tools for Democracy · Villa Maria

Courier-News Publishes Antoinette’s Letter

January 28, 2008 · No Comments

Link here.

Categories: Readers Write

February 2008 Updates

January 27, 2008 · No Comments

1) The ethics grievance about Philip George’s letter was declined by the District Secretary of the Office of Attorney Ethics because she believes the underlying matter (the ordinance) is still the subject of “pending litigation” even though the final order was signed by the Judge on Jan. 15. So, I’ve asked the attorneys who informally advised me to file the ethics complaint for their informal guidance about what to do next - I don’t want Mr. George, or North Plainfield residents, to be left with the impression that Mr. George’s chilling behavior was acceptable or appropriate, or that our exercise of free speech, free assembly etc, are unacceptable or inappropriate.
2) Informal negotiations are underway to set up a joint Town Meeting of NPCCR members and local elected officials, to create a forum for citizens to ask questions and for elected officials to answer those questions in a more full and forthcoming way than at Borough Council meetings. Our hope is to have a format, agenda, etc., figured out in time to schedule this joint Town Meeting for sometime in early to mid-March, and I’ve reached out to the NJ Association for Professional Mediators for referrals to people who might be willing to assist us in making the meeting a constructive exchange of concerns and ideas, rather than a volatile shouting match free-for-all.
3) I’ll only be able to give full support to NPCCR work until the end of June, because my husband has been offered and has accepted a new job in Pennsylvania, and we’ll be moving our family there at the end of June or beginning of July. With that in mind, I’m working on some ideas about clarifying the roles that various people have taken on in the group so far - i.e. Communications; Treasurer; Fundraising; Economic Development Subcommittee; Environmental Protection Subcommittee; Local Government Relations and so forth. To this point, all of the most active people have comprised an informal steering committee.

So, my main goals for the next six months are to:
  • Continue the information gathering and dissemination work and make sure that the blog is as comprehensive and user-friendly as I can make it before I leave, and
  • Support more formalization of the rest of the group’s working structures through helping get the tax-exempt organization stuff figured out, clarifying what roles people already fill and what they’d like to focus on as the group settles in and matures as a significant presence on the local political scene, and formalizing steering committee membership and roles etc.

Categories: Public Information · Tools for Democracy · Town Meetings

FOIA News

January 27, 2008 · No Comments

FOIA - the Freedom of Information Act - is the federal version of OPRA, New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act.

Faced with increasing secrecy barring public access to records of executive actions, Congress unanimously passed legislation strengthening FOIA in December 2007.

Article about executive pushback here.

Categories: Public Information

Illegal Apartments

January 25, 2008 · No Comments

One of the main reasons so many Borough residents are concerned about proper enforcement of housing and fire codes is that improper enforcement, by permitting overcrowded or unsafe conditions, opens the Borough up to liability in a potential wrongful death suit if a fire destroys an overcrowded dwelling and kills or injures people living in those unsafe conditions.

Just such an incident happened in Bayonne last summer, and last fall, the family of the man killed in the fire filed just such a lawsuit.

I don’t know how that lawsuit is going, or what the odds are of such an incident, or such a lawsuit, happening in North Plainfield. But so long as there are unanswered questions about inconsistent or improper enforcement of local housing and fire codes, there’s some level of risk.

This topic - including step-by-step information about how the local code enforcement process should work to penalize the landlords by imposing fines (payable both to the tenants, to assist them in relocation to safer dwellings, and to the Borough) will be one of the subjects on the agenda for the February 7, 2008 Town Meeting, 7 p.m., Vermeule Community Center.

Categories: Affordable Housing · Property Maintenance

St. Joseph Elementary School Closing

January 25, 2008 · No Comments

A month or so ago, I heard that this will be the last academic year for the St. Joseph Elementary School, a private Catholic elementary school (kindergarten through eighth grade) in a beautiful old stone building over on Westervelt Avenue.

When I first heard about it, the discussion revolved around whether this would be another opportunity for land developers to move in and raze a historic structure integral to the history and culture of the Borough, to put up single family homes or condos, or whether the Borough would take steps to place the site under historic preservation protections, for purchase and re-use by another school, or history-preserving conversion into offices, shops, studios, or apartments.

But another implication was raised by a local resident at Tuesday’s Borough Council meeting during discussions about the fate of the historic structure at 40-42 Washington Ave.: what proportion of St. Joe’s current 160-some students will move from the private school into the local public schools next fall, and how much capacity do the schools have to absorb that increase?

Probably many of those children will go to other Catholic schools in the area, although the closest one appears to be St. Michael’s in Cranford, so some parents will probably enroll their children in the NP public schools.

Categories: Education · History