Grassroots Groundswell

Entries from September 2008

Blog Editor’s Message

September 30, 2008 · Leave a Comment

Just a note about some changes in protocol for the blog. I’m going to stop commenting on new posts and linking to archived posts at Grassroots Groundswell for the rest of the campaign season, and my last day of blog editing will be Nov. 15. At this point, there’s tentative interest from one reader on continuing the blog past that date. If that volunteer commits, I’ll let you know.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to edit and post whatever comes in – all fact and logic-based contributions from all readers on all issues of interest to North Plainfielders are always welcome.

Anonymous posters/commenters are hereby limited to one alias apiece. (To date, there have only been a couple of people who use two or three different aliases, and they tended not to post comments on a single issue under more than one alias, so inflating the popularity of the positions they took hasn’t been a problem, but I no longer want to track those things to make sure.)

Please only send information when you are ready for it to be posted. Background messages about things that may or may not be in the works, things that people said off the record, etc. are of no use to blog readers.

Finally, if you are now or later become interested in taking the next steps beyond just reading the blog and discussing it with your friends and neighbors, drop me a line and I’ll be glad to point you toward areas ripe for citizen investigation, and how to get started.

Thanks again for all your hard work, and good luck with the changes you’re seeking.

-Katherine

Categories: Uncategorized

Rebecca Cavanaugh – Field Office to Collect and Transmit Voter Concerns to 7th District Congressional Candidates

September 30, 2008 · Leave a Comment

By Rebecca Cavanaugh, Esq. (North Plainfield-based Field Director for Working Families Win)

We are living through a frightening economic time. Monday’s failed bail-out plan signified to the whole world that many American’s financial futures are at risk, with no easy solution in sight.

Here, in the 7th Congressional District, we have a unique opportunity to elect a congressperson who will be committed to the financial interests of our district. We are engaged in a race that the Washington Post has named the 10th most hotly contested congressional race in the country!

This is an opportunity for voters in our district to let their needs be known to the candidates, to elect a congressperson with those interests in mind, and to hold that person accountable once we get them in office.

Working Families Win is a non-partisan non-profit organization committed to educating and engaging voters around economic issues in the 7th District, and informing the candidates on where the voters stand on these issues.

This election is about you, the voter, and what will work for your family, your neighbors, your community.

Working together is how we are going to get this done. If you are interested in becoming a part of this movement, we encourage you to get in touch with us.

We are eager to hear your opinions and concerns. We are even more eager to let the candidates know your opinions and concerns.

Thank you for your time and dedication,

Rebecca Cavanaugh
(646) 462-0101
Rebecca@WFWin.org

Angus McDougald
(732) 221-9574
AngusWFW@gmail.com

Working Families Win Office
17 Pearl Street
North Plainfield, NJ 07060
www.WorkingFamiliesWin.org

Categories: Uncategorized

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Give Me One Good Reason

September 30, 2008 · 2 Comments

By Emory Layne

Campaign signs for the local Democrats have appeared around town recently, now that the full slate was finalized with the addition of Larry LaRonde.

It’s odd, since the Democratic incumbents rushed through legislation limiting the time allowed for campaign sign displays (during a period when the Republican slate was full and ready for campaigning), only repealing that portion of the new sign ordinance when Robert Gatto and the NJ-ACLU pushed back against the First Amendment free speech violations, shortly before the Democratic slate was full and ready for campaigning.

Hypocrisy.

If you put a campaign sign in front of your house, you’re publicly supporting those candidates, and so far, I haven’t seen a lawn with both Democratic and Republican signs on it.  Putting a sign out means encouraging passersby to vote for that slate too.

So I’m asking for one good reason to vote for the Democrats, from the people with Democratic signs.

The candidates themselves aren’t giving that reason. Their campaign flier is essentially a photocopy of the same one reproduced every two or four years – same rhetorical handling of the same issues (“stabilize but never reduce taxes, obtain grants, address property maintenance violations, revitalize downtown, seek shared services”) and no mention of Villa Maria, identified waste in Borough Hall spending and self-dealing by Borough employees.

At the first Meet the Candidates Night in May, they boycotted and sent paper proxies with the same repetitive nonsense. At the second Meet the Candidates Night in August, Stabile and Giordano attended and restated the same mantras, adding bits of information that were, at best, confusing and, at worst, lies, i.e., Stabile claiming Borough Hall renovations are “not over-budget.”

They don’t participate in open discussion on this blog. There’s been an endless complaint that this blog is “partisan,” yet representatives of “the other side” have strenuously avoided joining in the intelligent discussions here.

And while blogs and webpages are free to start and easy to use, the Democrats don’t have one; they haven’t even created an uncontested, totally partisan forum in which to present their views.

Since the candidates won’t give the voters one good reason to vote for them, I’m asking residents who have put Democrat signs on their lawns to step up – real name or blog name, I don’t care. I just want the one good reason.

Not gossip reasons, like in past years, about why not to vote for Republicans. Some of the randomist unfounded gossip lines: prior GOP candidates allegedly “wanted to tear down all the apartments in North Plainfield,” were “racists; anti [insert racial category here],” or – my favorite – “had a drinking problem.”

None of these “reasons” dealt with important issues. But the gossip started somewhere, if not with the Democratic candidates, then their supporters. I need more than a lawn sign or a whispered rumor to influence me to vote for those candidates.

Please write in, with a thousand reasons, or one. I don’t want to argue your point either. I just want to hear it. If you “don’t trust” the blog editor, send your message to me at emorylayne@comcast.net.

Categories: Uncategorized

Barbara Habeeb Responds to Heather DeGeorge

September 30, 2008 · 4 Comments

By Barbara Habeeb, Councilwoman and Council candidate (R)

Heather says:

My understanding is that if a taxpayer doesn’t pay their local property taxes for 6 months-the town can foreclose on the property. Someone PLEASE look into this…

I’m TRYING!

I stated “on the record” at the 9/24 planning board meeting, that since the taxes have not been paid, I believe that the town should put a lien on the property. McNerneys attorney laughed and threatened to sue.

I am going to get a tape of that meeting, to hear EXACTLY what McNerney’s attorney said and what our people said. Believe me, this is FAR from being over. I will be doing some more investigating.

Don’t forget too, that the 2007 taxes are in appeal. If the nuns “lose” their case, McNerney owes for that too. (Law of the land says back taxes follow the owner.)

Any attorneys out there that are willing to help? Contact me through this blog.

Categories: Uncategorized

News from the International Self-Governance Battlefield

September 29, 2008 · Leave a Comment

CONTACT: Mari Margil, Associate Director

Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
(503) 284-2814
mmargil@celdf.org

September 28, 2008

Ecuador Approves New Constitution: Voters Approve Rights of Nature

Ecuador Follows Lead of Pennsylvania and other U.S. Communities: First Country in the World to Shift to Rights-Based Environmental Protection, Working With Legal Defense Fund

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – (September 28, 2008)

By an overwhelming margin, the people of Ecuador today voted for a new constitution that is the first in the world to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature, or ecosystem rights.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, based in Chambersburg, PA, is pioneering this work in the U.S., where it has assisted more than a dozen local municipalities with drafting and adopting local laws recognizing Rights of Nature.

The first community anywhere to recognize the inalienable right of natural communities to exist and flourish was Tamaqua Borough, in Schuylkill County. Other communities across the state, and now in Virginia and New Hampshire, have followed Tamaqua’s example.

Today’s constitutional vote marks the first time a national government has taken Nature out of the rights-nullifying legal status of property and moved the natural world into the realm of fundamental rights.

Over the past year, the Legal Defense Fund was invited to assist the Ecuadorian Constituent Assembly to develop and draft provisions for the new constitution to put ecosystem rights directly into the Ecuadorian constitution. The elected Delegates to the Constituent Assembly requested that the Legal Defense Fund draft language based on ordinances developed and adopted by municipalities in the U.S.

Ecuador is now the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights,” stated Thomas Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

“With this vote, the people of Ecuador are leading the way for countries around the world to fundamentally change how we protect nature,” added Mari Margil, Associate Director of the Legal Defense Fund.

Article 1 of the new “Rights for Nature” chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads:

“Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”

Legally Enforceable Ecosystem Rights: From the U.S. to Ecuador

The Legal Defense Fund has assisted communities in the U.S. – in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Virginia – to draft and adopt first-in-the-nation laws that change the status of ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities.

From Tamaqua Borough in Pennsylvania, to the Town of Barnstead in New Hampshire, to Halifax in southern Virginia, the Legal Defense Fund works with communities that recognize that environmental protection cannot be attained under a structure of law that treats natural ecosystems as property.

All of the major environmental laws in the U.S. – including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and similar state laws – treat nature as property under the law. These laws legalize environmental harms by regulating how much pollution or destruction of nature can occur. Rather than preventing pollution and environmental destruction, these laws instead codify it.

The Rights of Natures laws developed by the Legal Defense Fund for local municipalities in the U.S. represent changes to the status of property law, eliminating the authority of a property owner to interfere with the functioning of ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property for their existence and flourishing. These local laws allow certain types of development that do not interfere with the rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish.

These local laws – and now Ecuador’s constitution – recognize that ecosystems possess the inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish, and that people possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf of ecosystems. In addition, these laws require the governments to remedy violations of those ecosystem rights.

The Ecuador constitution operates in the same way.

Background

The Legal Defense Fund, founded in 1995, is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that specializes in building a body of law focused on establishing Rights of Nature.

The Legal Defense Fund has served as special legal counsel to over one hundred municipal governments across the U.S., and serves as a legal advisor to organizations and governments in other countries, including Ecuador, who are focused on driving similar laws into their governing frameworks.
Today’s environmental laws are failing. By most every measure, the environment today is in worse shape than when the major U.S. environmental laws were adopted over thirty years ago. Since then, countries around the world have sought to replicate these laws. Yet, species decline worldwide is increasing exponentially, global warming is far more accelerated than previously believed, deforestation continues unabated around the world, and overfishing in the world’s oceans is pushing many fisheries to collapse.

The people, communities, and governments that the Legal Defense Fund works with recognize that environmental protection cannot be attained under a structure of law that continues to treat natural ecosystems as property.

The Pachamama Alliance, with offices in San Francisco and Quito, played a key role in facilitating the Legal Defense Fund’s involvement in the drafting of Ecuador’s new constitution.

Categories: Uncategorized

Bird Droppings

September 29, 2008 · 6 Comments

[Bird Droppings is an occasional feature, comprised of information forwarded by "little birdies" who don't want to be attached to the information, even anonymously.]

SCHOOL BOARD LOCATES AND REMOVES TWO ILLEGAL STUDENTS

From the September 3, 2008 School Board Meeting Minutes, almost all the way at the bottom of the page.

Mr. [David] Branan moved, seconded by Mr. [Thomas] Allen and approved by a vote of 5 to 1 with Mrs. [Nancy] Szaroleta abstaining that

Whereas, a residency hearing was convened on September 3, 2008 upon the request of the Superintendent of the North Plainfield Board of Education (“Board”) with respect to students, M.S. and S.S.; and

Whereas, notice of the residency hearing was served upon the students’ parents by correspondence dated August 7, 2008; and

Whereas, neither the parents nor students appeared for the hearing despite having received notice; and

Whereas, the Board has considered the testimony and evidence offered by the Superintendent and her designees;

Now there be it resolved, that the Board has determined that M.S. and S.S. are not residents of North Plainfield, and are thereby not entitled to a free public education in the North Plainfield public schools pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1.

Thomas Allen – Aye Drew Elliott Smith – Aye
David Branan – Aye Nancy Szaroleta – Abstain
Sandra Dodd – Aye Linda Bond-Nelson – Aye

The minutes don’t say what town the students actually reside in or whether they were illegal residents of North Plainfield (i.e., living in illegal apartments). The minutes also don’t mention efforts, if any, to get reimbursal of costs from the parents or landlords of these illegal students.

To Grassroots Groundswell’s knowledge, this may be the first enforcement of residency requirements in school attendance in at least 10 years. Data-based corrections from knowledgeable readers welcome  – please provide the evidence of enforcements that have occured in the last 10 years when sending corrections -communityrights@gmail.com.

RACE/RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT IN NORTH PLAINFIELD 

Recently, during the day, witnesses saw a large group of about 30 African Americans enter North Plainfield from the Plainfield border and move toward the Yeshiva (the Jewish school in the former McCutchen Nursing Home) near the library. The group began shouting at and harassing the location.

At least some witnesses who saw the event did not call the police, apparently because they “didn’t want to get involved.”

The disturbance died down.

A short time later, after dark, the disturbance began again, and a patrol car arrived at the scene where the crowd was yelling and throwing things. The police on the scene reportedly shone a flashlight around at the crowd for a few minutes, until they dispersed, but did not take steps to arrest anyone for disturbing the peace, harassment, or hate crime.

Further reports on this incident would be welcome, especially from witnesses and from North Plainfield Police Chief William Parenti. 

Also, if Plainfield readers have any information about incidents in Plainfield involving Plainfield residents and Yeshiva students, please forward that information as well. Before I moved out of NP, I saw some tense street confrontations myself, and I’m sure others have as well. If there is a problem, ignoring it is not going to make it go away; that hasn’t worked in other places, and it won’t work in North Plainfield and Plainfield either.

Categories: Uncategorized

News from the Self-Governance Battlefield in PA

September 29, 2008 · 4 Comments

Background about how this relates to North Plainfield is here, including information about a Democracy School in Chambersburg Oct. 10-12, which I’ll be attending.

Press Release forwarded by Ben Price, Projects Director at the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

PA Commonwealth Court Denies Attorney General’s First Effort to Overturn Sludge Ordinance in Schuylkill County, but Declares: “There is No Right to Community Self-Government”

Three Judge Panel: “Municipalities are Creatures of the State and the Authority of the Legislature Over Their Powers is Supreme”

On Tuesday, September 23rd, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania handed down a ruling on the state Attorney General’s demand that the Court overturn East Brunswick Township’s Sewage Sludge Ordinance.

That Ordinance, adopted in 2007 by the Township Board of Supervisors in Schuylkill County, PA, banned corporate sludge hauling within the Township, and removed the authority of sludge corporations to override the ban.

The Attorney General had asked the Court to rule immediately on the suit, without waiting for the normal course of litigation to proceed. The Court denied the Attorney General’s request, holding that the Attorney General had not proven that the land application of sludge was a “normal agricultural operation” – a prerequisite to the Attorney General’s intervention into the dispute between the Township and a local corporation.

The Court , however, proceeded to rule that the Township did not possess a right to self-government, and that the State legislature acted constitutionally when it empowered the Attorney General to represent sludge and factory farm corporations in lawsuits against municipal governments.

The Court’s ruling echoed arguments made previously by Attorney General Thomas Corbett, in which he declared that “there is no inalienable right to local self-government.”

The Legal Defense Fund, as legal counsel for the Township, argued that the community retains an inalienable right to govern itself – and that when the State has shown its refusal to protect the health, safety, and welfare of a community, that the Township’s lawmaking must override that of the State.

The Township cited, among other provisions, Article 1, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and…they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”

In rejecting that argument, the Court declared that, “First and foremost, we are not prepared to reject one of the most basic precepts of governmental structure in this Commonwealth, i.e., that local governments are creatures of the legislature from which they get their existence.”

Ben Price, Projects Director for the Legal Defense Fund, characterized the Court’s ruling as “merely another reiteration that our communities cannot govern themselves under the current system of law. This decision should send another shockwave into communities that they will need to make some very difficult decisions about whether they will continue to surrender their abil ity to govern themselves to corporations and a legislature that have melded themselves together. It’s also a reason to support a growing understanding that a new State Constitution is necessary – one that codifies the right to local self-government, and which protects the rights of citizens against those rights claimed by corporations.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Robert Gatto – On Being Labelled “Persona Non Grata”

September 29, 2008 · 1 Comment

By Robert Gatto, Candidate for Mayor (R)

In towns like North Plainfield, taxpayers fund the majority of basic municipal services. The rest of the additional Boards, Committees, Positions (including the Mayor) and services are primarily driven by volunteers who donate their time and attention for the good of the community. This is why all North Plainfield residents are encouraged to volunteer.

Well, maybe not all residents. It seems that volunteer participation depends on many factors that we might not be aware of.

This Sunday was the Annual Senior Picnic. I, along with all the NPGOP candidates, volunteered to help with this event. Tina Totten (administrative assistant to Mayor Allen and Borough Administrator Hollod) was contacted by Frank D’Amore on behalf of our group for our assignments and she gladly accepted our help.

Then an unusual thing happened. On Saturday, the D’Amore residence received a call from North Plainfield’s Mayor Janice Allen. Mayor Allen stated that the NPGOP Candidates were not welcome to volunteer at this year’s Senior Picnic (We were Labeled Persona Non Grata).

The reason she gave for barring us from helping at the event was she did not want the picnic to become “political.” Therefore she stated that we would not be able to volunteer. However, all of the Democratic candidates could participate because they were members of the Borough Council and have volunteered at past Senior Picnics (and I’m sure that not one of them ever mentioned anything about politics or the upcoming election ….cough…..cough).

Council Member and NPGOP Candidate Barbara Habeeb could participate in the event because she also has a seat on the Borough Council.

I’m sure the Mayor would have liked to bar NPGOP Candidate Frank D’Amore from the event as well but since Frank is the President of the North Plainfield Senior Citizens Club, his absence would be so conspicuous as to raise every eyebrow at the Community Center.

Now the facts regarding this event are as follows:

The Senior Picnic is organized and sponsored by the Special Events Advisory Committee. This Committee raises public funds through public activities and encourages donations from citizens and local businesses alike. Therefore this is a public event and the Mayor has no right to restrict any individual from participating solely based on political affiliation.

But she did!

The entire NPGOP Team could have just shown up and demanded that we be permitted to assist in the festivities but then the event would have taken on an air of dissention which would have certainly detracted from the enjoyment that was well-deserved by all North Plainfield Senior Citizens and guests in attendance.

So, for the good of the event, we stayed away and prevented the fallout from a most assuredly hostile reception by the Mayor and Democratic Council members.

We constantly hear from the current administration that volunteerism is needed, but who do they want to volunteer? I guess it depends one whether there is a “D” or an “R” in front of your name on the voter registration list.

Well, there is one thing I can assure all residents of North Plainfield. If I and my team are elected, when it comes time for volunteers to help the community, that individual’s political affiliation will not be an issue. We will foster a true sense of unity where everyone can work together to help our Proud Community.

Categories: Uncategorized

Heather DeGeorge – Villa Maria Property Taxes, Planning Board

September 29, 2008 · 3 Comments

By Heather DeGeorge -

I just read some of the recent posts and found out that there are back-taxes owed on Villa Maria.Someone will need to double-check the legality of this, but my understanding is that if a taxpayer doesn’t pay their local property taxes for 6 months–the town can foreclose on the property (a mortgage company has to wait longer).

Someone PLEASE look into this because the only person I know who could put it to bed for me is out of the country until 10/7. Could we possibly acquire this property legally with no money out of our pockets through foreclosure? (okay–the cost of legal proceedings, but that’s not the $4-8 million it was appraised for).

Second, let me fill in the rest of the planning board for you. A reader comment put out there:

Tom Fagan – leader of the NP Domocrats in NP who will not divulge his secrets on how he selects candidates for the opportunity to run for office.

Frank Stabile – father to Skip and the “role model” mentor to our council president. Not to mention his previous service to the boro of NP.

Maureen Coxwell – wife of former council member/council president Nathan Rudy.

If 3 of the members of this committee are directly involved in the entire “Allen” legacy then what impartial decision can they make.

Oh yes, let’s not leave out Big Frank Righetti from this mess!

Some of the ones not mentioned by that poster:

Frank L. Kreder (Vice-Chair): who has been on the Planning Board for as long as I can remember. He generally does not oppose the “authority” but I don’t know if this is simply because he agrees, or because he’s following the unwritten rules.

Barbara Kreder: I believe this would be Frank’s wife? If so, how would that be allowable? I’m sure that when I asked about my husband and I serving on the same board, I was told it would be unethical.

Joseph Tevlin: is a local who is actually pretty involved in real estate and tries to keep abreast of the markets. He’s some level of officer in a real estate investors club. And he is considered a friend of the local Dems–although I think it is more by virtue of him being friendly with them and not outwardly bashing them as opposed to having an “in”.

I have made it well known that I would love to be appointed back to the Planning Board for no less than 2 years. I have never actually gone against anything the Dems wanted to do, but I did always put up a fight to be sure it was done the best way for the town.

The truth is: I never had an issue with things that were proposed. I took issue with some of the details. I know why I’m not on there, because someone broke down and told me that it was ego-related (not mine ;) ). So for the years I spent making sure nobody screwed us over, it comes down to ego first even when I was in alignment with the things proposed.

See? Being a team player isn’t enough. You have to sit back and allow someone else with seniority or better footing to look better than you. Interesting…

Categories: Uncategorized

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Who ARE these people?

September 26, 2008 · 1 Comment

By Emory Layne

It’s come to this.

At an OFFICIAL meeting of an official North Plainfield committee (the Planning Board meeting, not a soiree at someone’s house or a bar), the attorney for someone who doesn’t live in North Plainfield, but who owns land here and wants to make a nice profit from it, LAUGHS at the suggestion that his client pay his taxes.

Our mayor, in attendance at the meeting, who is always so quick to voice her “pride” in North Plainfield, apparently doesn’t even recognize this slap in the face to the town, and stays silent. Not even a whimper of righteous indignation.

Our Borough Administrator, who resides elsewhere but is paid a fat six-figure annual salary from North Plainfield TAXES (the things the guy’s client doesn’t want to pay) stands up for the town by asking to recuse himself from the issue.

Did he wet his pants, too?

Everyone reading this knows darn well that the only reason Hollod raised the issue was because Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb asked him to – but also posted her request to him on this blog. Kind of hard to not do it when the whole town knows you’ve been asked to.

Funny, though, how the OTHER SIX COUNCILPEOPLE never saw fit to bring this up until Ms. Habeeb did: Ms. Habeeb, the least ‘tenured’ member of the group, and the only Republican.

Real funny. Especially with all their campaign talk about ‘stabilizing’ taxes. I guess collecting them from deadbeats doesn’t count, because they didn’t use that word.

Quick summation on that topic: I want the same rights as Mr. McNerney. I want the right to own my property, but not pay any taxes on it. And when they get around to asking me for it, I want a mouthpiece to laugh in their faces, but go on getting a free ride. Fair enough, folks? It’s not like I can’t point to a precdent, is it?

Who ARE these people?

They used to try to get our votes by pretending to be “one of us.” Then, they went out and hired a bunch of people who have big-time authority in town, but don’t live here and don’t pay taxes here. An administrator from Somerville; a Zoning Officer from Westfield; a Police Chief from Green Brook; a Tax Collector from Hillsborough; a Construction Official from Green Brook, a Borough Attorney from Warren.

I half-wondered whether this was yet another example of Cover-Your-Ass politics, like when the whole administration was willing to sell John Katilas up the river and play Blame-the-Dead-Guy when the missing money scandal hit, but then didn’t have to when they found a white knight (Hollod) to pronounce everything hunky-dory. I wonder if all these non-residents provided a hedge against taking responsibility should the bubble burst on them and get ick all over their faces.

Of course, I could be giving them far more credit for slyness than is due.

Maybe the people who have run for office in North Plainfield, to this point, just don’t give a rat’s ass about North Plainfield. Maybe their social circles and backroom ties are scattered all over the state; we all know it’s small pickin’s here compared to the bonanza that’s available from state politics.

Maybe we’re all just beneath them in intellect and in social strata. Maybe we’re the trailer park to their Central Park-view penthouse.

Who ARE these people?

I’ve advised my closer friends to clam the hell up when they’re around not only any of these people, but around anyone who might be even remotely friendly with them. Stalin gave such a damn about the Soviet Union that he helped ‘thin it out’ by killing off about a quarter of its population. I don’t see these despots in too different a light.

 What do we know about these people? Well, we don’t have to look much further than this blog to answer that question.

 So far, in this calendar year ALONE, we’ve found out a lot about them.

The borough attorney, hired by the mayor on her very first day in office back in 1996, makes a cool $200 grand plus from the Borough each year. We learned that although he was ready and willing, at the mayor’s instruction, to have his firm threaten Katherine Watt with a lawsuit, he also believes strongly in the rights to free speech of pornographers, which he trumpets on websites around the world. And he has gone on record as believing that it isn’t feasible to go after back taxes on the Villa Maria property, but residents receive fines and penalties on their taxed properties.

The mayor and council approved a property reevaluation contract just before the turn of the calendar year. No great shakes, they were bound by law to pursue the reevaluation. In other words, they pushed papers through. But when residents began asking questions and showing well-founded concerns with what exactly was going to happen, did they step in as public servants and respond? Nope. A relatively-new community group, NPCCR, organized a town meeting to address the issue – with no help from Borough Hall, who laid every possible obstacle in their way.

As this independent meeting approached, the mayor and council suddenly realized there might be a need for such a gathering, and slapped together their own meeting; the announcements for it never so much as acknowledged the efforts made to that point by the NPCCR. Meeting notices were hand-delivered by union-salaried DPW workers, a service no one else in town seems to have access to (at least they didn’t hire limousines). And when the meeting actually occurred, it showed no leadership, no management skills, and resembled less an event sponsored by responsible representatives and more a free-for-all. Current mayoral candidate Mike Giordano certainly seemed to think so.

 We found out that, for years, attorneys involved with work for the Borough regularly made contributions specifically to the North Plainfield Democratic Organization. While pay-to-play legislation, passed and adopted by the Borough in 2006, is supposed to have put an end to that, we never saw any changes in the faces of the people who appeared to have bought their way in previously.
And we’ve discovered that the aforementioned NP Democratic Committee feels it has the right to name candidates to run for office here, but has no responsibility or even motivation to tell the residents how they do it. The GOP’s approach, while admittedly none-too-sweet-smelling in the past, was laid bare for all to see this year, and at the very least, the voters got a glimpse into how the system works. The Democrat Committee apparently believes we’re too stupid to understand it, or, perhaps, just stupid enough for them to continue keeping it a secret.

We learned that when scores of people show up before the Planning Board and express their opposition to plans involving the Villa Maria property, the entire board goes deaf, until one person, who doesn’t even live in North Plainfield anymore, Dan Glicklich (a former Allen crony) voices his support, then they hear every word, and progress along a path that eerily matches what this former Councilman supports.

 We began to discover a lot of information concerning public employees’ salaries, but ran into a complete stone wall when attempting to discover whether there are any oversight controls used in conjunction with these wage levels. We found out, for example, that the School Board had added some nice little perks to the Schools Superintendent’s compensation package, but never felt it was necessary to let us know they were doing that when we were voting on school budgets – then, they just told us to pass it or we were child-hating ogres.

 Speaking of salaries, we found that we, apparently, pay our zoning officer to not do his job. On the one hand, he seems perfectly capable of getting in locals’ faces and harassing them with imaginary zoning regulations (the most recent, but far from only, example being his dealings with Martin Greenblatt which led to a lawsuit), but seems utterly incapable of having proven zoning violations pushed through the courts to completion. And we found out that he’s supposed to exercise authority in granting or denying development permits in accordance with the provisions of Flood Prevention laws … but can we honestly count on this being done properly when the Greenblatt situation proved he doesn’t even know the zoning laws?

There was a lot of talk about illegal housing on the blog, but it certainly doesn’t seem there’s been any about it in Borough Hall, because in continuing a streak of 12 years of inaction, nothing remotely resembling a plan of action (let alone action itself) was implemented. Yet, once again, when the campaign fliers hit the doorsteps, there are the incumbents again raising the issue as if we’re supposed to believe, like Cubs fans, that This Is The Year.

We found out that when the position of Recreation Director came open in North Plainfield, the administration apparently felt there was not a single person in North Plainfield or currently in the department capable of handling the job … because, yet again, they went to another town to make a hire.

We found out that the Borough Hall Renovation Project is a complete mess. Mind you, we found all of this out only after strenuous digging, because after the current administration did their perfunctory digging by ‘breaking ground,’ all we’ve heard since are sounds that resemble breaking wind. Among things far too numerous to encapsulate here, official contracts went unsigned (our $200,000 attorney must have been busy with other things to eyeball them), a budget that we were told is not overbudget is way overbudget; the contractor may have gone bankrupt but work (and payment of bills) continues somehow; property was purchased for far more than its value and the bid process had that stink of “hand-picked provider” to it yet again. And amid all this, people who pushed the project along are running on a platform including sound fiscal management.

We found that the public library is about as important as a public bathroom to the people who run this town and the people paid to do work in this town, going by their delays and ignorance of needed repairs.

The bureaucrats downtown were busy stoking the rumor mill this past year. Among some of the beauts, they had Katherine Watt running up to a judge and threatening her, and having to be physically restrained by a bailiff. And they had our poor, sweet mayor possibly being subjected to a recall vote, and their rationale for why it would be wrong to do that (please try not to spray your computer screen)? Because it would cost too much money!

We find out that Borough Hall believes the fourth word in “Open Public Records Act” means that they can act like they give a damn. I don’t care if our Borough Clerk is a nice older woman or an 18-year-old wiseass kid – if she’s not doing what she’s being paid very well to do, she’s not doing her job. And if she’s doing what she’s instructed to do – or not to do – by our leaders, then perhaps she could open up and TELL US this someday before the next millennium. People being too apathetic to pursue information is one thing – the people who are legally obligated to provide it telling them to go pound sand is a whole ‘nother story.

The Mayor and Council were asked if they would be interested in holding a joint town meeting where residents could actually ask questions of them about town issues. They were most certainly not interested. When the NPCCR asked if they could meet with representatives involved with the whole Villa Maria fiasco, they were told, in as many words, yes, if only four of you come, agree to be frisked at the door for tape recorders and pads and pencils, and also agree to be hypnotized on leaving so as not to recall anything that was discussed at the meeting. Maybe not those EXACT conditions, but pretty damn close.

Folks, do you realize that I’ve gone this long so far, and I still have SIXTY-EIGHT pages of the blog to go through for this year?

I started off with a question, but I think it’s become a rhetorical question.

Who ARE these people?

I’m replacing that question with a new one.

Do I really have to wait another five weeks to get rid of some of them?

[Editor's Note: I didn't take the time to cross-reference all of Emory's cites, and I'm taking a break for the weekend - new posts Monday morning. Cheers.]

Categories: Uncategorized