Dialogue – Mark Messinger and Emory Layne

Mark Messinger (a North Plainfield police officer whose salary was $88,616 in 2006) wrote the following comment in response to Emory Layne’s “Shovel, please:”

Please check your facts.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2006/pdf/2006-sect-7.pdf

Emory Layne responded:

Dear Mark,

I did not know of the link you provided, and I will most certainly look into it further. Also, in no way (although it’s weird to feel the need to say this) am I getting into a “it’s not a big deal to be a cop in North Plainfield” realm.

But I also don’t think it can be argued, sensibly, at least, that fiscal responsibility doesn’t apply in all areas of municipal government, including the salaries paid to administrators and the rank-and-file in any department.

I accessed information from DataUniverse and IDcide. I compared North Plainfield with its neighbor and quasi-namesake, Plainfield.

According to those figures (and I’m not going to get into a lengthy report here), police salaries average 20.7% higher in North Plainfield than in Plainfield.

According to those same sources, the ‘violent crime rate per 1,000 residents’ (their heading, not mine) in 2006 was 1,198  12.0 per 1,000 in Plainfield, while in North Plainfield, it was 203  2.0 per 1,000.

I even tried to see if this was an unfair contrast by trying to quantify the difference using the number of employees compared to the incidents reported. For example, perhaps the workload is heavier.

But I came up with 9.04 incidents per employee for North Plainfield, and 8.88 incidents per employee in Plainfield – practically the same.

And Plainfield did show far more of those ‘incidents’ being violent (murder, rape, assault, etc) than of the type such as burglaries and car thefts.

In other words, I always check my facts. My suspicion is that this is one of those topics that causes one to be automatically lambasted simply by bringing it up. I am a strong supporter of police and fire employees. I simply ask how it comes to be that, in our town (and that’s all I can realistically be expected to be concerned about), salaries are much higher than in a nearby community.

Again, I ask – is there a benchmark used when such negotiations take place, or is it a situation where an individual or group can make subjective decisions?

I think that’s a fair question, but I don’t think I should be expected, as a taxpayer, to accept that it’s done the way it is because it’s done the way it is.

Dialogue – Emory Layne and Robert Gatto

Emory Layne posed a follow-up question in response to Robert Gatto’s post on Open Government:

As far as FUTURE Borough Hall information, we would welcome the kind of openness you talked about.

But since bringing up PAST Borough Hall actions and information around this town is seen as “politically incorrect” by supporters of the current administration, would you also be willing to allow citizen groups (oh, one comes to mind, you know…) to research records without having to go through the costly and tightly gate-kept process of asking for/paying for each and every document?

In other words, would you be willing to allow volunteers, as soon as possible, to do the research of the paperwork their tax dollars created sitting in a Borough Hall their tax dollars maintain and renovated on a chair they paid for? To perhaps find where tax dollars have been wasted so that (a) they can stop being wasted in the future and (b) perhaps be recovered if they were improperly distributed?

Robert Gatto responded:

I don’t see why residents cannot have access to as much information as possible at little or no cost, and we would welcome volunteers to assist us in our reorganization efforts.

The question is what state is all this information in? Hopefully all this valuable documentation still exists and can be found. Case in point, Frank D’Amore was after Borough Hall for years to release a report on Economic Development. It wasn’t until repeated requests that the current administration finally admitted that the report in question did not even exist!

Finally the worst case scenario would be that if my team is elected the last thing the current administration would do before leaving is the same thing J Edgar Hoover’s people did after his long tenure. Fire up the shredders.

Going to the Mat for Democracy – Packer Township PA

Just got an update on how the citizens’ fight for local democracy is going in Pennsylvania.

The Packer Township Board of Supervisors adopted a Local Self-Governance Ordinance (like the one put forward by NPCCR last year and aborted by Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein and Somerset County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone) in June 2008.

In North Plainfield, the threat to the community addressed by the ordinance is rampant residential and commercial overdevelopment rammed down the residents throats by the preemptive NJ Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).

In Packer Township, the threat to the community is land application of the euphemistically named “biosolids” - hazardous human waste leftover after the sewage treatment process. The preemptive state law allegedly forbidding the community to adopt local laws protecting their own health, safety and welfare is “ACRE,” (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment) Law,  Act 38 of 2005.

In response to the Attorney General, the Packer Township Board of Supervisors has written an open letter, [Open Letter to AG from Packer], concluding:

…If the Attorney General’s office pursues this matter, please be aware that the Township is reviewing for adoption an amendment to the Ordinance that refuses to recognize that the Attorney General has any jurisdiction within this municipality to enforce a law which runs so contrary to democratic principles.

Additionally, should you determine it to be a matter of state interest to attempt to use the courts to deprive the people of Packer Township of their rights, including a right to self-government, and a healthy environment, any offer to meet with the elected representatives of this community to “negotiate” a voluntary surrender of those rights will be rejected…

 The proposed amendment to their Local Self-Governance Ordinance reads:

Section 7.9: The authority of the Pennsylvania Attorney General within Packer Township to enforce any State law that removes authority from the people of Packer Township to decide the future of their community, and to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of Township residents, natural communities, and ecosystems, is not recognized within the Township of Packer. 

The story has been covered at the Republican and Herald:

BY MIA LIGHT, STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Packer Township Board of Supervisors is holding its ground in defense of its Local Control Sewage Sludge and Chemical Trespass Ordinance.

The ordinance, drafted by Ben Price of the Chambersberg-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and adopted by the township on June 11, prohibits the use of treated sewage sludge, called biosolids, as fertilizer on township land. The ordinance also asserts the constitutional right of residents of the township to refuse “chemical bodily trespass” by corporations that would attempt to dump biosolids on the land.

In response to the township’s adoption of the ordinance, Packer Township dairy and crop farmer Clyde Hinkle Jr. requested that the office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett conduct a review of the ordinance.

The Hinkle family previously gained approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection to use biosolids as a soil conditioner on their 100-acre farm.

In nearby Tamaqua, public officials have contested DEP’s approval of biosolid use on the Hinkle property due to the farm’s close proximity to Still Creek Reservoir – a water supply source for Tamaqua.

Tamaqua Borough Councilwoman Cathy Miorelli, a vocal opponent of the land application of biosolids, encouraged the adoption of an anti-biosolid ordinance in the borough, and encouraged the Packer Township supervisors to do the same.

In response to Hinkle’s request for a review of the ordinance, the attorney general’s office recently notified Packer Township that a review is underway, and stated that Corbett’s office is authorized to file a lawsuit against the municipality if the office believes the ordinance “unlawfully limits or restricts a normal agricultural operation.”

In an “open letter” that has been distributed to daily newspapers in Hazleton, Harrisburg, Allentown and Reading as well as to the office of Tom Corbett, the Packer Township Board of Supervisors this week announced their intention to stand their ground in defense of the ordinance and the rights of township residents.

Pennsylvania’s ACRE (Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment) Law, known as Act 38 of 2005, allows the attorney general to review local ordinances when petitioned to do so by farmers, and then either respond to the petitions or bring action in Commonwealth Court within 120 days. An ordinance can be struck down if the court finds it exceeds local government authority.

The board of supervisors charges that ACRE was drafted and adopted by agribusiness corporate interests using the legislature as a vehicle, and was not passed to aid family farmers.

“It is an undemocratic and illegitimate law under a system in which consent of the people directly affected by such governing decisions is made irrelevant. The Attorney General’s office is administering an illegitimate and therefore unconstitutional law, and we refuse to recognize its enforceability,” the township’s open letter states.

Board Chairman Thomas J. Gerhard said the biosolids ordinance and the open letter to the attorney general were actions taken in the best interest of township residents.

“This is Packer Township. We should be able to do what is in the best interest of the people of the township. We are going to go full bore in defense of this ordinance because we put it in place for a reason,” Gerhard said.

Niles Frederiksen, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said Tuesday that a decision on the Packer Township position may have to come from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

“If they want to proclaim themselves sovereign to the laws of the Commonwealth, they are free to do so until the courts determine otherwise. At the end of the day, the Commonwealth Court has the final say,” Frederiksen said.

In its letter, the board of supervisors says it is prepared to amend the ordinance and refuse to recognize the attorney general’s jurisdiction in the municipality and its attempts “to enforce a law which runs so contrary to democratic principles.”

“Additionally, should you determine it to be a matter of state interest to attempt to use the courts to deprive the people of Packer Township of their rights, including a right to self-government and a healthy environment, any offer to meet with the elected representatives of this community to negotiate a voluntary surrender of those rights will be rejected,” the letter states.

The letter is signed by chairman Gerhard and supervisors Grover Gerhard and William Swinesburg.

Frederiksen said that the ACRE Law is doing exactly what it was intended to do statewide: “level the playing field so that farmers don’t have the uphill task of going up against municipalities that might have passed an ordinance that restricts a farmer from doing business.”

Tending to the cows on their 100-acre farm on Quakake Road early Tuesday evening, Mary Ann Hinkle said that she and her son, Clyde, successfully fulfilled a plethora of state requirements in order to gain approval for the use of biosolid fertilizer on their farm.

Clyde declined to make further comment on the controversy.

“It’s in the attorney general’s hands,” he said.

As Ben Price at CELDF emphasizes:

…this is not primarily about sludge or ACRE (Act 38) or any other single issue. It is about WHO DECIDES? WHO GOVERNS? And if the AG and the courts believe they and the corporations decide… democracy is dead in the eyes of the state, and it’s time for the people to take command of their communities and establish legitimate self-governance in every municipality…

Robert Gatto on Open Goverment (Or the Lack Thereof)

By Robert Gatto, Republican Candidate for Mayor

Even if people follow the NPCCR blog daily, it’s still hard to keep up on all the posts, let alone remember what questions were asked more than a few days ago.

I am writing in response to a question posed by Emory Layne to Candidates regarding Open Government.

If you click on the Candidates heading on the NPCCR’s home page and revisit my statements from the 1st “Meet the Candidates” night (the one that my opponent boycotted) you will see that Number One of my top 3 issues was Open Government.

The summary was accurate regarding my statements that night as to my belief that Government should be open and transparent, and that information should be easily available to the public.

Now, some people might say that statement is all well and good, but what about high taxes, non-enforcement of existing ordinances, lack of financial responsibility, and the list goes on and on.

The fact of the matter is that without Open Government, it is impossible to get to the root causes of all the other issues that are negatively impacting North Plainfield and I believe that is exactly what the current administration has cultivated, encouraged and achieved in the last 12 years: a closed government that distributes bits and pieces of data when it serves their purpose to do so.

If you want information on some new potted plant adorning the boulevard, Borough Hall will gladly supply you with the 411 on the genesis of this wonderful piece of public beautification.

However, if you want to know what the zoning officer is doing about overcrowding, you’d better bring a sharp pencil and a “perfectly executed” OPRA request form with you and then we’ll see…..

We live in the land of OPRA and ES (Executive Session), where only a privileged few are granted a glimpse at the information that could be used to improve everyone’s quality of life but alas, that may reflect negatively on the powers that be.

It’s just this simple:

If I am elected and someone asks a question, they are going to get an answer.

If I don’t know the answer I will find someone who does.

Enough with the broad strokes. I have also said that I will initiate a program to broadcast all Borough Council meetings, so if people are too busy working three jobs to pay their taxes, or just can’t get to Borough Hall (if the current construction project is ever finished), then they can watch it from the comfort of their homes.

We can also initiate an interactive “virtual” forum where they can also ask questions live over the internet and participate in the open public comment portion of our Council meetings.

Why has this not been done in the past?  The hookup from our local cable provider is free.

I think we all know the answer to that question, without an OPRA request.

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Shovel, please.

By Emory Layne

(Warning: Dispatch rated PG-13 for repeated use of one word.)

Folks, we’re losing focus again. We can’t solve the many offshoots of the root problem if we don’t solve the root problem itself.

The root problem, of course, is the bullshit.

Decision-makers, public employees and committee appointees in North Plainfield have raised their bullshitting skills to Trenton-D.C. levels. We haven’t had an honest give-and-take with these people for ages.

Instead, we’ve had silence (Unspoken Bullshit).

We’ve had rumors (Gutless Bullshit).

And on the rare occasions when someone actually will speak with their mouth facing the microphone, we’ve had good ol’ All-American Bullshit.

Let’s start with some recent topics.

The school system. We’re discussing ‘rankings’ and ‘ratings.’ Bear in mind, the people who created the ranking system also decided a long time ago that it was unfair to grade students with ‘A’s’ or ‘F’s’ and created the “curve.”

I’m don’t care where North Plainfield ranks when some random educational “expert” picks the criteria.

I want straight answers to questions that, until now, have always had bullshit slung at them.

If there are illegal students in our system, they cost us money. They are not homeless people and rankings didn’t force their parents to send them here.

So, ”YES” or “NO” - are there illegal students in our system?

To Superintendents and Such:

Suppose you respond, on the record: “No.”

Will you quit immediately if we find one?

Suppose you respond, on the record, “Yes.”

Then why have you been denying it for years and/or doing absolutely nothing about it? When I do something illegal, I get busted. Why do these lawbreakers get amnesty?

Ranking, ratings, charts and graphs.

Parents of kids in the school system here repeatedly point to one factor that may well influence those rankings. What’s with the “diversity” bullshit?

The kids in this town handle diversity as well as – often better than – anyone I’ve ever seen. They learn it day-to-day, so they don’t need it shoved down their throats at every turn. Nonetheless, they get readings about diversity, in-class videos about diversity and assembly presentations about diversity, although in all these scenarios, the diversity excludes Caucasian characters, except as the villains.

Shelve the bullshit.

Why is so much time, energy and money wasted on an issue the kids handle better than the grown-ups – time that ought to be spent on vocabulary, math and sciences? Why can’t you focus on the nuts and bolts  of education? Is it “cooler” and “more hip” to focus on this other stuff?

Yeah, my kid knows all about diversity and prejudice. He can’t divide numbers with more than one digit, but diversity? He’s a bloody diversity genius!

Note to y’all education adminstrators: the kids get it, as far as the diversity thing, as do plenty of us parents without masters degrees and doctorates and six-figure salaries. If you have a problem with the topic, that’s your demon. But don’t shove it down our throats on our dime. Educate, don’t indoctrinate.

Here’s another big bullshit pile downtown that’s been growing (and stinking) for 20 years – the illegal housing dung pile.

The politicians say it’s an issue until the votes are counted. Then they throw it on the heap.

Cut the bullshit. We’re not that stupid. You yourselves said it’s a problem, and the only explanation you’ve ever offered about why you do squat about it is ‘fear of lawsuits?’ Buck up. You did fine soap-boxing about it pre-election and then you hired your pals for the jobs responsible for dealing with it.

So why all the bullshit? Do your damn jobs! Lordy, people tell you where it is! How much easier a job do you want?

I read recently about historic preservation.

Hey, bullshit artists: You had no problem when Janice Allen did the “Save Vermeule” shtick; you got all the rules and regs just right on that one. That’s why it’s bullshit now, when you act like it’s too difficult and pretend you don’t even know how to do it.

Are you bullshitting me again? Are you trying to tell me you didn’t know historic preservation efforts were on the job description when you ran for office? Are you suggesting the “Save Vermeule” experts suffer from collective Alzheimer’s, and can’t remember how they did it?

You could fertilize acres with that explanation.

Mind you, these people also seem to know miniscule points about topics they oppose, but don’t even bother to read what they’re signing when it’s a topic they like.

Pure bullshit.

And by the way, Borough Hall renovation isn’t over budget. Why? Because if there was a budget, and the project cost more, the bullshitters just raised the budget.

That’s professional, all-star level bullshit.

They want more volunteer spirit downtown. But they’ve got a bunch of 100% volunteers (the NPCCR) working harder than any of the lifers in Borough Hall, to make North Plainfield better, and they try to sabotage them at every turn.

Bullllllll-shit.

I guess that’s not the kind of volunteerism they had in mind, because it’s not handing out Janice’s Last Minute Meeting fliers, or sending bulk emails to various communities badmouthing Katherine Watt.

How about the perks in the pay and benefits system?

We ask “Why?” and we get bullshit. Someone needs a vehicle because he’s a supervisor and on call 24/7/365. Is it bullshit to point out that there’s no good reason why the vehicle must be a snazzy chromed-up four-by-four pickup instead of a Ford Focus, since it never hauls anything even during business hours, and carries no emergency equipment?

No, in La-La-Land North Plainfield, that’s not bullshitting. That’s residents picking on Borough employees.

Borough leaders pick our pockets to waste it on bullshit, and they start crying for sympathy if we complain.

Why do we pay the Ritz salaries in North Plainfield when the work is more Woolworth’s Cafeteria?

Our police earn more than police in communities with very high crime, and, relatively speaking, person for person, there isn’t that much crime in the Borough.

Our fire department gets paid top dollar. How many calls are there here?

Borough employees have become so entrenched that they figuratively, and sometimes even literally thumb their noses at the taxpayers footing the bill.

“How about a little fiscal responsibility?” we ask. “How about you act like it’s your own business you’re running?”

No, we can’t suggest that. To them, that’s bullshit.

It’s old hat. If there’s a really ugly, pus-oozing issue you don’t want to address head-on, bury it in a thousand other topics. Sooner or later, people lose sight of Issue Number One, which is causing those 999 other problems in the first place.

Issue Number One is the complete lack of honesty, openness and balance downtown.

In 12 years of Janice Allen, her husband, and the In-Crowd, just about every important paid position down there has been filled by a Pal of the Party.

The buddy-buddy Council long ago decided the residents aren’t even worth talking to. But on the rare occasions when they have to, the bullshit tsunami comes a crashing in.

Folks: That. Is. The. Issue.

We matter to these people only when we cast a vote, pay our taxes and fees, and promise to clam up about the daily routine of “Heads we win, tails you lose.”

That’s the real bullshit.

And there’s a simple solution to the problem.

If someone has had years of opportunity to not bullshit, and has repeatedly bullshitted…get rid of ‘em.

If someone wants an opportunity, and bullshits, don’t give it to ‘em.

If someone has been paid to do something, and has instead bullshat their way from paycheck to paycheck, raise to raise, perk to perk, hire someone else.

We will be utterly amazed at how many of these other issues will be handled competently and will disappear by applying this simple approach.

Because people will be taking care of Borough business.

Not just bullshitting about it.

Cost Cutting for School Districts

A reader passed along this link to a Wall Street Journal article on school districts in Connecticut reining in their education budgets. The August 23, 2008 article begins:

On June 30, the board of education and the town council in Enfield, Conn., convened to hear the results of a citizen cost-cutting committee. Among its other recommendations, the 17 residents recommended replacing some public school teachers with low-cost college interns, restricting the use of school vehicles, and increasing employee contributions to benefit plans.

These may seem modest steps toward fiscal responsibility — but they are emblematic of a significant change in this very blue state: growing disenchantment with the price of government, especially of public education.

Over the past two and a half decades, the student population in Connecticut has increased only 10%. Yet the cost of schooling more than doubled — to $8.8 billion in 2006, up from $3.4 billion in 1981. Seventeen years ago, the state enacted an income tax with promises to cut other taxes. Instead, real-estate assessments soared, creating a massive income transfer from the private to the public sector, fueled in part by a state cost-sharing formula that uses taxes on residents in the suburbs to subsidize urban schools. Helping to soak up all that money were binding arbitration laws, skewed to give teacher unions an advantage in collective bargaining negotiations…

Mary Forbes on Villa Maria Historic Preservation

Editor’s Note: Following is the text of an e-mail Councilwoman Mary Forbes sent to Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb. Neither Mrs. Forbes nor Ms. Habeeb sent it to me – I received it through another e-mail loop (details below).

Advice from Mary Forbes pertaining to Villa Maria as a landmark…

Have you read our Historic Preservation Ordinance 22-122.34 Procedures for Designation of a Landmark and Additional Historic Districts?

It specifies that the process starts with a request to the Historic Preservation Commission, not the Council. In your presentation [to the Council] you gave the impression that property owners had no say. I am sorry if I misunderstood you but that was the real source of my confusion.

In the ordinance (22-122.34 b) it states:

“In case of district nomination, the interested parties shall send notice of intent to designate the historic district to all property owners within the district…The interested parties shall submit to the Planning Board a complete list of notified property owners in the district. In the event that fifty-one (51%) percent of the property owners object to the proposed district, it shall not be designated.”

Quick rundown of the process outlined:

Steps that need to accomplish this according to 22-122.34

1. Nomination of site to HPC
2. Review by HPC to determine if it meets National Register Standards
3. Approval by HPC
4. Referral to Planning Board
a. All property owners within district must be notified.
b. In the event that 51% of the property owners object to the proposed district, it shall not be designated.
5. If approved by Planning Board, to Borough Council to amend and supplement the Borough
Zoning Ordinance.

I don’t believe I used the word “red tape” but rather complications. It does require time to determine if the property meets the standards of the National Register — the people in Friends of Vermeule Mansion can tell you this is not an easy process. It does require documentation. Not everything that is old is historic.

One final note: 22-122.16, 22-122.17, and 22-122.18 deal with the possibility of demolition. You cannot say for a fact that a building in a historic district cannot be demolished.

Finally, in “Historic Preservaton Law” by Jerome G. Ross, distributed by the Historic Preservation Office, on page 196 it states: “Generally, historic preservation statutes take either of two forms: (1) regulation by a historic preservation commission with the power to designate historic places and prevent alteration and demolition or (2) regulation through the zoning ordinance that designates and regulates historic places as part of the system of land use regulation.” A third hybrid form creates an advisory historic preservation commission mentioned. However, according to the author this involves ambiguities that (at time of writing) had to be dealt with.

All this may show why we need a lawyer to interpret. From a statement in the blog I think you already know this.

Ms. Habeeb fought very hard to talk me out of publishing it, out of genuine respect for Mrs. Forbes’ apparently general wish not to have any information sourced to Mrs. Forbes posted on the blog (for reasons known only to Mrs. Forbes) and out of a genuine concern that publication might hamper future collaborative efforts between Mrs. Forbes and Ms. Habeeb.  

I refused Ms. Habeeb’s request. Mrs. Forbes is a public official and Villa Maria is a public issue; nothing in her e-mail is of a personal nature in any way. The childish “keep it secret” “protect the relationships” games are goofy, and disrespectful both to participants and onlookers (the public). Plus I’m just tired of being forced into the role of therapist, absorbing the well-founded complaints residents have, only to hear those stories finish up: “…but don’t tell anyone what I said.”

Readers may investigate all the claims made by Mrs. Forbes to decide for themselves if she is providing sound or false information. And Mrs. Forbes is welcome to write in to the blog anytime, to blast me for publishing her private e-mail, or, more helpfully to the people who actually matter (North Plainfielders) to provide her views and plans on local issues.

Barbara Habeeb on North Plainfield Schools

By Barbara Habeeb

YIKES! This is VERY distressing and VERY disturbing.

Someone brought this to my attention. So I found the NJ Monthly magazine website on New Jersey’s top ranking High Schools.  Out of the complete ranking of the 316 High Schools in the state, North Plainfield was rated #226.

That’s right! #226 out of 316.  That means there are only 90 schools ranking lower than our High School. AND we went from being #189 in 2006 to #226 in 2008. We’re getting worse instead of better.

Our neighboring town of Scotch Plains-Fanwood ranks #69 and Watchung ranks #49. Westfield ranks #27. We’re not even in the ballpark here.

What an eye opening shocker!  I knew North Plainfield wasn’t good, but I didn’t know how BAD we actually are. My brother has 3 kids. The school system is one of the reasons, (among other things) that he moved out of North Plainfield. Now I can honestly say I can’t blame him for that.

Think overcrowding has anything to do with it? Too many kids in a classroom? Too hard for a teacher to give each student what he or she needs? This just validates one of my reasons we need to do something with the zoning ordinances. Anyone who can’t see that needs glasses.

And to the anonymous blogger that said my ideas won’t work in “the real world”… Well, guess what? North Plainfield schools aren’t working in “the real world” either.

Dottie Gutenkauf on Muhlenberg Hospital

By Dottie Gutenkauf

The POP/Restore Muhlenberg Coalition will meet on Monday (August 25), 6:30 pm, at the duCret School of Art, 1030 Central Avenue in Plainfield (across from Cedarbrook School). POP attorney Bennet Zurofsky will be there, there will be a report on last week’s Council resolutions, and we’ll discuss where we go from here. The struggle isn’t over yet!

Have you noticed all the hospital ads that have appeared this week in the Courier and the Ledger? Seems like every hospital in the area recognizes that people in the Plainfield area need an acute-care facility within reach–too bad Solaris doesn’t think so. Now, after closing Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center, Solaris
is asking the state Health Care Facilities Funding Authority to subsidize even more money–this time, to increase beds at JFK due to the closing of Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center.

See the story in the Courier (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080808/NEWS/808080395). This is absolutely outrageous!

For a full list of all the money Solaris wants in bond funding (nearly $200 million), see http://www.njhcffa.com/financings.html 

The Authority meets Thursday, August 28, at 10 am in Trenton, but as of yesterday Solaris isn’t on the agenda–stay tuned!

Speaking of hospitals, I got directions from Google to JFK (65 James Street in Edison) and to Overlook (99 Beauvoir Avenue in Summit). Overlook is about 12 miles away from our house and takes only 6 more minutes more to get to than JFK, a mere 6 miles away. By the way, the Solaris “Advantage” program for seniors, started after they acquired Muhlenberg, is currently “on hold” due to “staffing changes,” according to their recorded message. And if you need your medical records from Muhlenberg, it will cost you more than filling your gas tank (but your doctor can get them free).

No–the struggle isn’t over yet. The Council is starting to take action and we hear that potential buyers are being allowed to look at the hospital. Now, if Solaris will only cooperate…we’ll have a chance to RESTORE MUHLENBERG!

Barbara Habeeb on Open Public Meetings

Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb forwarded this link to a publication by the New York State Department of State Division of Local Government Services called “Conducting Public Meetings and Public Hearings“

She emphasized:

INTRODUCTION:

It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it. (Public Officers Law, Sec. 100)

CONCLUSION:

From a legal standpoint, actions taken at meetings where open meeting procedures are not followed as required may not be valid, and those laws and ordinances so enacted may be overturned in court.

Fortunately, the goal of most local governments’ is service to the community, not the mere avoidance of legal hassles. For this reason, municipal officials should regard open meeting procedures as serving more than just the state’s objective for keeping local governments open to the public. They give the public the full opportunity to observe and participate in its own governance; they help to confirm local government’s accountability to its constituents; and they assist in the complete airing of public opinion on community issues.