Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – North Plainfield Best-Smeller List

By Emory Layne

Not too long ago, democrat candidates for office in North Plainfield chose not to attend a “Meet the Candidates” event sponsored by the NPCCR. Instead, they eventually agreed to submit written statements, which arrived at the last minute.

Written statements are very handy for people who want to just “say” without having to “prove.”

In the world of literature, the legitimacy of a work of non-fiction is directly related to the depth and volume of its attributions and sources. Allegedly ‘factual’ works can’t be taken seriously when the author provides no sources for his information, or provides sources with the respectful standing of things like “The National Enquirer,” or unrecorded conversations.

But we’re not talking about non-fiction here. North Plainfielders don’t have to go the library to check out great works of fiction – they’re regularly hand-delivered to your doorstep. Case in point: the election promises and positions of the democrat candidates seeking election or reelection this November.

A year and a half ago, democrats seeking votes in the next election distributed their promises of what they were going to do if they won. They did win. Here’s what they had to say before the November 2006 elections:

“Continue to enter into shared service agreements with surrounding communities for greater tax savings.”

Here’s what Mike Giordano said earlier this year:

“Believes Borough needs to continue to explore and expand shared service arrangements, especially with public works and fire department, because shared services also make service providers eligible for more grants.”

Fact or fiction?

These candidates keep using that word “continue,” but I’m not seeing what shared services agreements we’re involved in … the basis for proper use of the word ‘continue.’ If something hasn’t started, it can’t ‘continue.’

But of greater importance, just when will these things actually begin to happen? It sure sounds great on paper, but so would “no taxes ever again for North Plainfield residents.” I think I could win a run for mayor making that promise – but people would kind of expect me to deliver, wouldn’t they? In all the years these candidates have been involved in North Plainfield government, there’s been a lot of sizzle on this issue, but no steak.

FICTION.

In 2006, they said:

“Expand commercial tax base through downtown revitalization to relieve burden on homeowners.”

Here’s what Frank Righetti had to say earlier this year:

“Pleased with tenants and renovations at K-Mart Plaza, Siperstein’s Paints and VIP Honda. Notes that downtown is “very busy also.” Asserted that “these ratables stabilize taxes on residents.” Advocates asking businesses for input about their needs.”

Fact or fiction?

Siperstein’s and VIP Honda are existing businesses, and have been for a long time. Not new ones. Kmart plaza replaced an old business with a new business … but Mr. Righetti apparently missed the two yawning spaces that have been empty for years and years. And they aren’t renovating to please residents; they’re businesses in the business of making money.

Downtown is “very busy?” All kinds of wisecracks could be made about that (some involving sirens), but the simple fact is that if one business closes and another opens, there is no gain. And ratables ‘stabilize’ taxes only in this way: without businesses, taxes are higher. You don’t DECREASE taxes until you INCREASE the ratables. Empty buildings are NOT an increase. The downtown revitalization project has been a running stink bomb in this town, with nothing ‘revitalized’ except Borough Hall.

FICTION.

In 2006:

“Ensure proper enforcement of maintenance and housing standards.”

Righetti and Giordano readdressed this earlier this year in their Meet the Candidates statements. One can only imagine that they alluded to it because, oh, I don’t know, perhaps it’s been the number one issue in North Plainfield for about 20 years, after we shrug our shoulders and accept that we’re going to be taken to the cleaners with our tax bill going up each year?

So, naturally, in 2006, when these people were running for office, they said this was a priority. Nearly two years later, they say it’s a priority.

Having to take A LEAK is a priority too, and you don’t just stand there talking about it. YOU DO IT.

It has become painfully obvious from the lip service paid to this topic in election years that the people who ARE in office and HAVE BEEN in office have no plans whatsoever to do anything about it except put a fresh coat of paint on it every now and then.

FICTION.

We aren’t talking about ending the war in Iraq here, or ending hunger and poverty or creating national healthcare. We’re talking about DOABLE things. Am I sure they’re doable? Darn tootin’ I am – these people told us they were doable, when they sent out campaign materials that said they were going to do them.

Unlike big national issues, there aren’t 435 congressmen and 100 senators who have to be assuaged to get legislation through, to get action taken. Here, there’s a mayor, and seven Council people. And since seven of those eight people have all been saying the same things in their campaign materials, how the hell can any of them say they encountered “opposition?”

They can’t.

They simply blew smoke up our butts.

That’s why I didn’t vote for them before: solely and simply, because I was developing lung cancer of the rectum.

How many times are there in a “will continue to” before it becomes a “have accomplished?”

Three?

Seven?

Forty-nine?

The absolute proof is in the resistance to information dissemination – when people actually accomplish something, you can’t shut them up from bragging about it.

“Continue to” is a very appropriate phrase for this current group of candidates.

Each and every one has had the opportunity to accomplish the things they promised they would.

Each and every one had circumstances that would make it super-easy to get things approved … a majority on the Council and committees stocked with their supporters. The atmosphere for accomplishment has been as perfect as it could be for this group in town, and they’ve gotten squat done on the issues residents are most concerned with.

Each and every one of these candidates has shown that the only thing they’re interested in continuing to do is spread bilge about what they’re going to do, which they never do no matter how many times they win.

The Link Between Voters and Corrupt Public Officials

Article from Asbury Park Press, on U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie’s views.

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Nathan, where were you when we needed you?

By Emory Layne

Here’s a link to the full text of a letter written by former Borough Council President Nathan Rudy, posted on May 25, 2007 on Grassroots NJ7, a Google group.

Rudy Blue7th Letter

It discusses, completely unedited, the formation of ‘Blue 7th’ a politically active group.

Isn’t May 2007 around the same time that Katherine Watt started blogging for North Plainfield?

Read the letter – this is an AMAZING incident of synchronicity, kind of like all those “Lincoln-Kennedy” things that float around in emails.

I mean, just look at the first sentence:

“In February 2005 a small group of central New Jersey grassroots activists decided we’d had enough.”

Small group … grassroots … activists … astounding.

Right here, before Katherine Watt came along, we had a person who once had all the access to information, data and documents NPCCR have been going out-of-pocket for; the guy was Borough Council President! And not long after that, he decided he’d “had enough.”

Unfortunately for all of us, the things that this fellow had “had enough of” were George W. Bush and Mike Ferguson. And, fortunately for Mr. Rudy, the mayor’s administrative assistant wasn’t writing any emails to other towns at the time.

It’s a darn shame, really. Because if Mr. Rudy had ever “had enough” of the silliness and ridiculousness in North Plainfield, imagine what he might have laid the groundwork for?

Commenting on the website he began, DumpMike , he said

“It was the one place on the Internet where people could go for an alternate opinion about Ferguson when previously all there was were his own sites.”

Even though no one in North Plainfield has deigned to co-opt that website for a mayoral candidate, or ever started one that was called “DumpJanice,” there is a tremendous similarity. Until ‘Grassroots Groundswell’ came along, North Plainfielders had nowhere to see alternate opinions to the mayor’s office, nowhere to get information other than what the mayor’s office dictated and approved.

Read more about his activities:

“We organized monthly meetups, with as many as 45 people in a room to hear from candidates. We built an e-mail activist list of 1200 people in the district. We coordinated with NJ for Democracy and other groups to hold meetings with potential candidates.”

Here was a guy that ALREADY HAD the experience doing remarkably (almost chillingly) similar stuff as the NPCCR, PLUS the knowledge of what had been going on all these years!

Unfortunately for Mr. Rudy, all good things must come to an end. When he accepted the position of Executive Director of the Tri-County Red Cross, he felt it necessary to end his political activism, explaining:

“However, the position is non-partisan in nature. While I was not asked to do so by the Red Cross, I have decided to step down from partisan politics so that it doesn’t affect my ability to raise the funds, make the contacts and do the work necessary to help the people of our service area. It would be hard to campaign against a person as Nathan Rudy while approaching them for support as Executive Director, and I do not want to do that.”

And we encounter the one and only difference between Mr. Rudy and Ms. Watt – and it’s that damned word again – partisan. He was; she ain’t.

For (insert your favorite expression of amazement here), Watt has worked toward many of the exact same causes and goals that Mr. Rudy did – the only difference was, when Ms. Watt smelled fish in Borough Hall, she didn’t just spray Glade.

Because, as we unfortunately discover when our dreams explode into a gooey mass of yecch, Mr. Rudy was a partisan. He’d “had enough” of George Bush, and of Mike Ferguson. Coincidentally, they’re both not democrats.

It’s very sad, really. All that energy, all that skill at organization and activism, and it just got BLINK! Switched on and off when convenient.

When Mr. Rudy was a part of North Plainfield government, he encountered things away from town that created righteous indignation in his conscience; (click) ON!

But while serving in a position to which residents of North Plainfield elected him, with the belief that he’d be as attuned to what was going on at home as much as to what was going on elsewhere, (click) off.

When he no longer wanted to be an elected official in North Plainfield, and felt that continued indignation, (click) ON!

But when he got a job with the Red Cross, (click) … off.

Anyone who still wants to argue the “democrat versus republican” drek should go to some other website or blog where people sit in front of computers in their underwear, trumpeting their headstrong beliefs while wiping the Cheez Doodle residue off their hands onto their skivvies.

Because it should be pretty bleeping obvious NOW that if you continue to ascribe to this “which party” imbecility when it comes to North Plainfield, you’re pretty much writing a free pass for hypocrites to continue to smile in your face, all the time wanting to tax your place – the backstabbers.

We’ve all had at least ten years of watching what happens when too many voters vote geometrically instead of intelligently.

Ten years of “nudge, nudge, know what I mean?” administration.

Ten years of “I hired you, you know what that means, don’t you?” management.

Ten years of “I defy you to find that in writing” passing for openness and honesty.

In all that time, I’ve heard one, count it, one, elected democrat in North Plainfield who “might” say something that “might” be construed as not being 100% in agreement with Janice Allen and her Board of Misdirection … “Skip” Stabile.

Sorry, Skip, I probably just brought you some dirty looks at the regular wine-and-cheese executive meetings.

But going back years, including people with high and mighty indignation like Nathan Rudy, I haven’t seen nor heard one of them so much as utter a contrary peep.

North Plainfielders haven’t been electing democrats; they’ve been electing one of those Hindu deities – one head and a dozen arms.

Do you LIKE that? Like I said, if you’re all about defending the indefensible, try another blog. We’re not into cowflop here.

There’s been enough stupidity at Borough Hall to have kept a local edition of the Weekly World News thriving for years. Yet the only thing that the people directly involved in it ever seem to get pissed about has little or nothing to do directly with North Plainfield. To them, heck, it’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood, a wonderful day in the neighborhood ….

I’m sure it is, when you can pretty much do whatever you want, keep it all under wraps, go after the people who try to find out about it, and go so far as to demand to approve freedom of information – I mean, how allegedly Bushian is THAT?

If you WANT to vote for incumbents who have either participated in this stuff, helped it along, or simply looked up at the clouds while it’s gone on, I can’t believe anything except you’re getting something out of it. Because voting for a crook, or a deceiver, or a withholder of information, or a lazy bum, or someone who won’t so much as answer a question simply because they have a “D” after their name is as ASININE as voting the same way for an “R,” and that’s something you all have expressed righteous indignation over time and time again.

Dammit, vote for change. If you don’t want change around here, we can make a really good guess as to why.

A BIG Piece of the Property Tax Puzzle

Just in from Frank, this is an excellent overview of the pension mess in New Jersey. Like many other New Jerseyans, I’ve been aware of it for some time, but unable to find a really clear, comprehensive explanation, until now.

The article is written by Rob Nixon, of the NJ State Policeman’s Benevolent Association.

Frank headed his e-mail:

“At a recent budget hearing we were told that part of the property tax increase was due to payments that are required to be made into the police & fire pension program. They neglected to tell us why these large payments are due.”

PFRS Pension Holidays and Local Governments

“They Saved, We Suffer”

From 1998 to 2007, local governments were given an unprecedented and lucrative opportunity to skip or reduce their required payments into the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS). At the height of the Pension Holiday from 2001 to 2004, local governments contributed only 12% of their required PFRS pension and ERI contributions. This lack of funding not only crippled the health of the PFRS today but also has placed local governments in the situation of having to make up for this reckless practice now, much like the person who overspends on a credit card and who regrets it only when the bill arrives.

Now rather than admit they misspent the “savings” from skipping required pension contributions, local governments are threatening layoffs and mergers of police departments. This argument is not only irresponsible but dangerous for public safety. The position of local governments that PFRS pensions and police salaries are the cause of rising property taxes must be challenged and it is critical that PBA members be properly educated on the facts of why local governments are paying higher PFRS contributions today and what it all means to the health of the pension system and local taxpayers.

Legislative History

The local government PRFS Pension Holiday was not a onetime occurrence. In fact, four separate acts of the Legislature took advantage of both excess pension assets and local government complaints about PFRS pension payments:

P.L. 1997, Chapter 115

A companion the Whitman “Pension Bond” law, Chapter 115 changed the way assets in the pension system were recognized therefore increasing its value. Excess assets became available and the law for the first time allowed local governments to use those assets to make a slightly reduced pension payment starting in 1998.

P.L. 2000, Chapter 8

The law was meant to be a onetime accounting maneuver using excess pension assets to permit the State and local governments to reduce their PFRS pension contributions for 2000 and 2001. Local governments were expected to save $45 million of the $275 million PFRS contribution in 2000 and $22 million of the $249 million contribution for 2001. In reality they saved close to $65 million in 2000.

P.L. 2001, Chapter 44

Not content with the savings promised by Chapter 8, local governments were again given a massive break on their PFRS contributions in 2001. Chapter 44 provided a $150 million reduction in local government pension payments for 2001. The law was meant to “stabilize” PFRS pension contributions and “savings realized by counties and municipalities as a result of the reduction will be required to be used for property tax relief” (Assembly Appropriations Committee Statement to Senate Bill 1961).

In reality, local governments saved over $170 million in 2001 and they made zero normal contributions in 2002 and 2003 as a result of the use of excess pension assets.

P.L. 2003, Chapter 108

By 2003 the pension system was beginning to feel the effects of the lack of pension contributions and the dramatic losses in investment income. Excess pension assets dried up and PFRS local government employers were informed they would need to make full payments in 2004. The League of Municipalities once again went to the Governor and Legislature for relief and was granted a “phase-in” in their required contribution to PFRS rather than another holiday. Local governments were allowed to ease into their pension payments between 2004 and 2007.

The law required them to make up to a 20% payment in 2004, 40% payment in 2005, 60% payment in 2006, 80% payment in 2007 and a 100% payment for 2008 and thereafter. The money not paid during this phase-in period was added to the unfunded liability of the PFRS and is required to be made up by local governments in their future payments. This meant that even though local governments contributed over $869 million to PFRS between 2004 and 2008, they still made only 50% of the payments required of them to fund the System.

Police and Fire contributions keep system alive

During the same period that local governments were making limited or no contributions, members of the PFRS made every scheduled payment of their required contribution. PFRS members make the highest pension contribution of any public employee in New Jersey and in the nation (8 1/2%). In fact, when other public employee groups were moving legislation to lower their pension contributions, the State PBA rejected calls to lower the PFRS percentage. This fiscally prudent approach essentially saved PFRS from collapse particularly when considering that in 2001 and 2002, investments by the State for the PFRS lost over $2.8 billion and local governments contributed only roughly $80 million. PFRS members, however, made $1.8 billion in contributions between 2001 and 2007 . There can be little question that PFRS members paid their fair share for the pensions and that poor investment strategy by the State and lack of pension contributions by local governments were the primary factors for pension system losses and current payment requirements.

Where did the money go?

The primary purpose of the reductions in local government PFRS contributions was property tax relief. Yet statistics demonstrate that property taxes rose, despite the Pension Holidays and increases in property tax relief programs funded by the State, and New Jersey remains the State with the highest property taxes in the nation.

Local governments are quick to blame rising taxes on police salaries and pension costs but more than half of a property tax bill is collected for use by school districts to fund education NOT local government services. However, considering that local governments skipped nearly $1 billion in pension contributions from 2000-2008, taxpayers should be even more concerned with where this money was spent while their taxes were rising.

If the money was not used for direct local property tax relief, then what was it used for?

• Were the annual savings used for refund checks for property owners?
• Were the annual savings used to fund critical public safety programs, like hiring more officers or fighting gangs and drugs?
• Were the annual savings used to fund existing local programs?
• Were the annual savings used to fund new programs?

Whatever the money was used for, it is clear it did not result in a reduction in local property taxes.

No one to blame but themselves

Local governments complain repeatedly that taxes are too high yet when given significant opportunities for cutting taxes they wasted the money, damaged the pension system and now are demanding layoffs to meet their current obligations. To threaten layoffs of law enforcement officers to deflect the blame for rising property taxes is both shameful and dangerous to public safety.

Law enforcement officers met their obligations in funding their pensions. They did so while performing a job that is dangerous and that requires them to work 365 days a year. When City Hall closes on the weekends, the police department remains open. When municipal workers leave for the day, the police continue to work around the clock. When the Mayor and Council are home on holidays, law enforcement officers spend time away from their families keeping the community safe. When local governments refuse to properly staff a department, officers work mandatory overtime. Law enforcement is not a part time job, no community is safe from crime and officers in every county and to wn can be presented with a life and death situation for themselves or someone else.

After nearly a decade of fiscal irresponsibility it is therefore unconscionable for local governments to call for layoffs of law enforcement officers. Elected officials at the local level need to be held accountable for the billion dollars siphoned away from the pension system. They asked for the break in pension payments. They chose to spend the money while taxes went up. When finally presented the bill for what they owe the system, local governments have decided to blame law enforcement for their tax problems. After ten years and many wasted opportunities to cut taxes, local governments have no one to blame but themselves for their current budget problems. 

Editor’s Note:

If my understanding is correct, Borough Chief Financial Officer (and state pension double-dipper) Patrick DeBlasio said at the February 25 Council meeting that the municipal pension contributions have been increasing 50% per year for the last few years – presumably to catch up because of the bad decisions made to cut the contributions since 1998 – and that the Borough’s FY2008 budget finally has the Borough paying into the PFRS pension fund at 100%, and into the PERS pension fund at 80%.

Thus, Mr. DeBlasio said, this year is ”the last year of a large hit there.”

That’s misleading.

The 100% will have to be maintained going forward. The 50% owed for the shortfall in payments to the PFRS between 2004 and 2008 still needs to be made up, so the “large hit” won’t be followed in 2009 with any precipitous drop in the obligation, and the 80% on the PERS fund contributions will presumably have to get pushed up to 100%. NP will have to continue with the 100% payments and pay up on the arrears.

And, Mr. DeBlasio noted, if the stock market tanks (decreasing the value of the pension funds) then municipal taxpayers will probably have to make up those differences in the future too. 

Questions at the local level:

• Who made the recommendations and decisions to underfund the pensions, and when?
• And what did the decision-makers do with the money “saved?”

Looking forward to the reader comments on this one. If you’d like your comment pulled out as a stand-alone post, please make a note in the comment, and I’ll do that.

The Myth of Free Speech

Barry Nolan:

“…it all got me to thinking about the myth of free speech. In today’s America, speech is only “free” when you are talking down to someone less powerful than you. Speak “up” – and look out.”

I’m feeling it pretty hard the last few days.

More than a year’s worth of research and writing.

Dozens of newly energized local residents peering into the dark corners of Borough Hall, speaking out, and building relationships with their neighbors, and with county and state officials who might be able to help resolve our hostage situation – the community being held hostage by a runaway admininstration.

Higher and higher probability that what eventually turns up will be criminal activity and corruption along the lines of “theft of honest services.” (Heard a rumor yesterday that the Borough didn’t even bother to contest the Villa Maria attorney’s tax appeal, just kissed the chance to collect about $1.5 million in back taxes goodbye; documented refutations welcome, but not really expected, because it’s probably true.)

TIghter and tighter control of information…the new OPRA screening process, and the OPRA appeal I filed back in October – seeking the documents that would shed light on exactly who was involved when in the backroom drafting of the developer-friendly, community-destructive Age Restricted Condo ordinance – is  still pending a decision, because the Government Records Council meets just once a month and has a backlog eight months long and counting.

And still the unbroken silence of the people who know the most about what’s going on, either because they did it, they’re still doing it, or because they’re “friends” with the people who did it and are still doing it.

Unless they don’t know what’s going on, and they too learn more from the blog than from picking up their Council packets every other week.

Council meeting tonight, 7:30 at Vermeule.

Let’s all go watch the rats pantomime open and accountable local governance.

Barry Nolan again:

“So, when exactly do they think we have the right to speak up? To speak the quiet simple truth, to people who have more power than us?

Well, I think now would be a good time. The fog of fear is lifting. The balance of power is shifting. People are beginning to talk to each other again instead of shouting. I think it’s time to reclaim the right to free speech – even if it comes at a price.”

 

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Did That Cut Under Your Nose Close Up?

By Emory Layne

Wow, I hadn’t realized that North Plainfield had grown to such a humongous metropolis that our elected officials required spokespeople and representatives.

At Memorial Day activities here, Borough Administrator David Hollod appeared as the Mayor’s “representative.” There are four conclusions I can draw from that. This is multiple choice.

• Mayor Allen is far too busy with stuff unrelated to the Borough (what official business is being transacted on Memorial Day?) to be able to fulfill one of the simplest of mayoral duties, showing up at a Borough event honoring those who gave their lives for our freedoms;
• Mayor Allen has given up on North Plainfield, now that she won’t have to go out and glad-hand people to wheedle their votes for reelection, so much that she sends someone in her stead to conduct one of those ‘annoying’ responsibilities that goes with the office other than making closed-door decisions;
• Residents of North Plainfield should understand that North Plainfield’s upper management is a hierarchical corporation-like structure, in which the common grunt cannot just speak with the big boss CEO; contact has to be screened and filtered;
• David Hollod is pretty much running North Plainfield now, and has been for an indefinite period.

Take your pick.

And before someone who has pride in the borough leaps in with a blind defense — “She had other things to do!” — or something, recall that she was a no-show at her own meeting with the reevaluators, and has been a complete no-show in any public forum on topics important to the Borough – even those initiated by a newspaper reporter (“Mayor Allen did not return a phone call for comment”).

Here’s an open call to candidates Robert Gatto and Mike Giordano (alphabetically listed), though there’s as much chance of hearing from both of them as there is of gas prices dropping to 99 cents a gallon tomorrow.

When elected, will you make a CLEAR delineation of who is and isn’t doing what in North Plainfield?

Years back, Janice Allen hired a young fellow to be Borough Administrator – Katilas. She kept giving him raises, and pleaded with him to stay when he ‘considered’ a job with another municipality (‘pleaded’ by throwing even more gelt his way). When some major fiscal problems came up, she went out of her way to eliminate anyone who tried to dig into it and used the “uncooperative” media to spread misrepresentations about residents looking into it.

After Katilas’ death, Janice Allen brought in a Somerville resident – Hollod – offered him a big fat salary, and, in one of those amazing coincidences of life, he declared that he’d reviewed the books and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the borough’s finances.

Since then, Hollod, brought in by Allen, has experienced regular raises, and an alarming increase in authority in the Borough … even though not a single soul in town ever had the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for his being involved in the first place.

One of the very first things Janice Allen did on becoming mayor was to drop the Borough’s attorney services into the lap of Eric Bernstein’s law firm. Since then, his firm has profited very nicely from North Plainfield’s need for his services, and Janice has profited very nicely in having Mr. Bernstein and his staff provide the kind of “legal” muscle she needed to get some people off her back and keep other people on her side. Once again, the name ‘Bernstein’ never appeared on a ballot in the borough.

Yet every year, when glossy political materials circulated, there would be Janice Allen’s face … but not these people who wield such tremendous power in town. Not so much as even a mention of their names. We, apparently, were being told to vote for certain people without being clued into the fact that once we voted for those people, they were going to hand over a dangerous amount of authority to high-paid bodyguards. Not volunteers, mind you. Not residents sitting on committees or commissions. Well-paid people from other towns who had big power.

There’s this ‘thing’ that happens when an administration changes in politics. Happens all the time. Once the election results are in, some people immediately find some empty boxes and start packing up their stuff, because they know the gravy train has reached its final stop. There’s a new sheriff in town, and the old sheriff’‘s assistants’ know they won’t be keeping the same seats warm for much longer.

To candidates Gatto and Giordano:

As best as I can determine, Mr. Hollod and Mr. Bernstein are NOT union employees. There isn’t a state or national group that’s going to come in and protest if they are terminated. As best as I can determine, there are probably about 10,000 adults residing in North Plainfield – among them, I BELIEVE there should be a lawyer or someone who runs a law firm, and I BELIEVE there should be someone who is an accountant or financial professional or someone who runs a firm performing those services. Any chance you might decide it’s high time to get those ‘services’ back into the town?

Because there’s this eensy-weensy little ‘perk’ for residents if you were to do so.

If someone lives here in town, try as they might to be invisible, they can’t. Even Claude Rains left footprints. At some point, we would bump into them at an event, a ball game, at the supermarket, or just walking down the street. And we’d be able to ask, point-blank, about important situations. And they’d have to answer. Or they’d look like a fool, Porky Pigging their way through a pack of lies.

If you guys are running for Mayor, you have to have seen that a great deal of the running of North Plainfield is being handled by people who couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about North Plainfield.

The Borough Administrator has an agenda that doesn’t even intersect the issues residents are up in arms about.

The Borough Attorney seems more interested in going after residents than working for them.

And the borough’s Zoning Officer must have an awfully neat desk, because it doesn’t appear he does anything to earn his paycheck beyond rearranging it and dusting it year in and year out.

Are you going to accept your win and then say “Hey, I don’t want to upset anyone….”

We’re sure THOSE guys aren’t upset. Among them, including all the little perks and reimbursements, they take in about $500,000 a year in compensation.

Three people.

In a small town like this.

And up to now, they woke up the day after election day without a care in the world. I don’t know about you two guys, but when a few people are clearing that kind of money, I THINK there should be a touch of pressure, a smidgeon of anxiety involved with its continued flow.

Like, “Throw open your records.”

Like “Perform or perish.”

Like “Let’s see your hourly billings for services rendered.”

Little labor on your part – get the paperwork, forward it to this blog, and it gets scanned and posted for all to see. No picking and choosing, all the info is there, right down to the misspellings. And if they say “No?” Then how about “You’re fired.”

Put it in writing, guys.

Like those statements at “Meet the Candidates.” Put it in writing.

You WILL make the performance of NON-ELECTED borough officials public knowledge, and you WILL remove them from their positions if it’s clear that their performance was at odds with the majority of the borough’s residents, and you WILL find local people to replace them. Put it in writing.

Because then, if you do, you’ll be able to point to having done it with pride and they’ll probably build a goddamn STATUE to you in this town.

And if you don’t, we’ll just have to ask for YOUR resignation.

Because when you get your position through being voted in … instead of being appointed by the mayor … we CAN pull you out.

It’s one of the few things we’re still allowed to do.

Lawn Ornaments

Free to good homes – especially homes on heavily trafficked roads.

We already have two (blue ones) up – one on Greenbrook Road, and one on Warfield.

We especially need host lawns on the east side and downtown.

Free delivery is included. If you want to host one, e-mail me at communityrights at gmail.com.

If you decide to put one up, you may want to bring it inside after dark and keep an eye out for local government officials during daylight hours.

One family was ordered by DPW Director Jim Rodino to remove a sign from their lawn last summer, but it turned out there is no law prohibiting homeowners from displaying such signs on their properties so long as the signs don’t impede driver visibility along nearby roads.

Three signs have already been stolen, two from the Vermeule Community Center lawn, by Councilman Bob Hitchcock, who later admitted he took the first two and told us where to go to recover them, [background here and here] and another one from Barbara Habeeb’s house on Mountain Avenue, which has not been recovered.

Luckily, the signs appear to be Hydra-like: cut one down, two are created to replace it…

Disturbing Rumor

I just heard that Borough Clerk (and Custodian of Records) Gloria Pflueger has been ordered, by Mayor Janice Allen, to submit all Open Public Records Act requests to Mayor Allen and Borough Administrator David Hollod for screening before providing the information to the person requesting the documents.

We need to track down whether this is true, and if it is true, whether the screening step is a violation of the Open Public Records Act with the intention and/or effect of chilling citizen access to public documents – documents which may contain evidence that reflects negatively on official action and inaction by the same government officials now interfering to screen the requests.

Mayor Allen and Mr. Hollod:

This is one rumor you need to refute immediately if the rumor is false.

The public needs assurances that you are not trying to interfere with public access to government records.

We’re waiting to hear from you.

As a side note, although I’ve put in a lot of requests over the last year, in the long run, I think this will save time for Mrs. Pflueger, because the information is now posted in the Document Library, meaning other local residents who want those documents don’t have to file OPRA requests.

In the past, I’ve suggested that Borough officials simply release important information, rather than require OPRA filings. They have refused to adopt such a policy and practice of preemptive openness; thus it is their failing that burdens Mrs. Pflueger, not a failing on the part of the citizens of North Plainfield.

The more the Borough makes freely available now and in the future, the lighter the OPRA burden on Mrs. Pflueger.

Readers Write – Morgan Shevett on Amplified Obscenities

As the blog’s URL contains the words, “Community Rights”, I was wondering why I had not been informed that I had lost one of my community rights: the right to sit in my yard without being bombarded by an amplified repetition of the “F” word.

What occurred in Greenbrook Park this evening [May 25] was a disgrace. There was some sort of county-approved gathering that entailed a large group of people listening to incredibly loud music.

I live half a mile away from the park, yet every syllable was clearly heard by by myself and my wife.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy rap music. Some pretty hardcore stuff. I can also swear with the best of them. I am a union stagehand; it’s a requirement of the job. But to be sitting in my yard on a quiet evening and hear foul language amplified across the neighborhood is not why I recently moved to this town.

I drove over to the park and confronted the police, who had been in attendance of the event the entire time.

I was told, “Well, it’s over now so don’t worry about it”.

Why did they sit back and allow this? Is the airing of obscenities in a family community an acceptable matter to the law in this area?

I won’t even mention the tremendous amounts of trash left behind by the crowd, or the large numbers of small children in attendance.

Is this the sort of community event that I can expect in the future? If so, then I have made a terrible mistake in my recent home purchase.

Historic Preservation Meeting – June 14

Just in from Antoinette Rinehart, who is interested in carpooling with others who want to attend:

Saturday, June 14 from 10 am to 11:30 am at The Trenton City Museum, Ellarslie Mansion – Cadwalader Park, Trenton, NJ. – A Workshop on “Tips to Persist, Persevere and Preserve” Here’s their invitation:

PRESERVATION New Jersey, the statewide historic preservation advocacy group, is hosting a workshop for advocates of endangered historic sites. Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy (JCLC) board members will discuss efforts and strategies that have helped them navigate preservation battles to save landmark buildings and places in Jersey City.

The work of JCLC has become synonymous with historic preservation advocacy in Jersey City. The leadership has been successful in uniting citywide preservation campaigns, generating public awareness through tours and events and encouraging volunteerism for preservation. Join us to learn more about how JCLC has used these initiatives and others to create media and public interest towards preservation issues in the community.

A $10 registration fee will be charged. Call 609-392-6409 or email to swathy@preservationnj.org to register. For directions & information please visit, www.preservationnnj.org