The last NPCCR agenda meeting was pretty eventful. Mark Williams resigned as co-chair after trying unsuccessfully to work with Antoinette Rinehart. In December, Antoinette publicly stated that she had difficulty communicating with Mark because she gets somewhat intimidated by his direct nature. Mark had been bringing to the groups attention (over and over) his constant attempt to get bylaws done–begging the group to help and intervene to get it done. There was a meeting in January that was hopefully going to help resolve some of the communication issues between them, but it truly didn’t. We all showed up Thursday night to find that the Founders of NPCCR had drafted bylaws and never even told anyone (but especially Mark) that it was being taken care of–which was directly against the agreement Antoinette made to at least keep Mark informed of what was going on. He didn’t care that they were doing it and truly didn’t care to be involved–but it was done unbeknownst to anyone; and for Mark–it really DID look like a complete slap in the face. So he resigned. Clearly, there was going to be no “working together” and he was done trying to do so.
But the discussion of the bylaws went on pretty eventfully, too. The major bone of contention being that the Founders of NPCCR (listed as Frank d’Amore, Robert Gatto, Gary Lewis, Antionette Rinehart, Thalia Saloukas, Bart Thomas and Katherine Watt) would have voting rights long after leaving the borough–even though they may have no idea what’s going on. We went on to clarify that “snowbirding” and living here part of the year is not the same. For instance: Katherine Watt, as a Founder, continues to have voting rights on NPCCR business even though she’s no longer here–and will for the rest of her life. (editor’s note: Katherine’s direct quote on this was “I’m mystified as to why I’d have voting rights”). The sentiment was (through much clarification and outright statements) that the Founders wanted to control the direction of the group for their lifetimes–no matter where they were. Someone pointed out to them that we complain about not hiring officers in town for their lack of “pulse on the community”, etc. but they didn’t care: it’s their vision. Period.
Likewise (and this was actually not argued, but interesting to note) the bylaws call for one of the co-chairs to always be a Founder. So essentially, the group is heading in the direction of the administrative and local political policies they’ve sworn to fight against. The control is always to be at the mercy of the small group of “in” people.
Isn’t this exactly what this group formed to fight against: one small group making all the rules and decisions based on their idea of what life should be like in this community?
Is it something in the water here?
We were told over and over again that “It’s like our child” but in reality, nobody controls all of the actions of their children until the day they die. Well, okay–maybe some try, but I don’t think anyone can argue that it’s the most productive method of raising an independent and responsible child to a healthy adult.
It was brought up over and over that the Founders would have countless ways to continue to be involved if they so desired without the privilege of a vote. No matter: they “earned” the vote. And apparently, to deny them the lifelong voting privilege if they left the borough meant denying their work and all they had endured to make NPCCR exist.
Sounds eerily familiar. Uncomfortably familiar, actually.
In reality, NPCCR is not the be-all-end-all to change for this town. But their mission and vision (as stated in all of their literature) is an important one: dedication to open and transparent government. Accountability. The existence of an organization to make that happen isn’t necessary. The desire and dedication of the residents is.
This blog has certainly lacked for the kind of constant, research-based articles that Katherine Watt had the time to take on. The new co-editors offered to keep the blog alive and hoped that Katherine had inspired the community to take action… and therefore, they might contribute more going forward. She was a lone force trying to change the culture and tide here. There have been plenty of people looking for change and looking for ways to make change. GET INVOLVED. Not every form of involvement requires administrative appointment. You can volunteer for countless things without the government’s approval. If you don’t know ANYone that would be “with you” on a topic–by all means, submit it here to solicit a small group of people (or even just one other person) whose motivation and drive can make the small changes–all of which add up to big change. Use this blog to make public your obstacles and seek out help. Find what bugs you and tackle it–because if it bugs you, it likely bugs someone else in town.
Not everyone has a lot of time to give from their life; but we all live here and we need to find at least a LITTLE time to making it work. The “entitlement” mindset in this town runs two ways. Katherine recently pointed out the sense of entitlement on behalf of the administration; but there is a keen sense of entitlement among a contingent of residents. They shouldn’t have to call in overcrowding because “that’s the borough’s job” or “nothing’s going to happen anyway”. It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s become the culture.
Enough.
Pick one thing that eats at you about the borough and try to make SOME kind of progress towards fixing it. Find your brethren here. Post your stumbling blocks here. Draw on the resources of your community here. Because together, we CAN fix it. It won’t be fast and it won’t be easy, but it has happened in places in far worse shape than North Plainfield (and yes, in NJ–anyone driven through Red Bank lately?).
Enough with the “it will never”s and “I shouldn’t have to”s. Onward with the “what can we do”s.
