Courier News coverage of June 8, 2009 Council meeting
June 10, 2009 · 5 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
-
Recent Comments
Steve on Update on the School Regionali… npadministrator on School Regionalization Update … Concerned Citizen on School Regionalization Update … matt miller on School Regionalization Update … Frank N. D'Amore Sr. on “The Beat Goes On: Waste… npadministrator on Update on the School Regionali… Steve on Update on the School Regionali… npbull on Clothing Bin Ordinance –… Mark Williams on Update on the School Regionali… HOW ARE WE EFFECTED on Update on the School Regionali…
5 responses so far ↓
Barbara Habeeb // June 10, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
Quote from the Courier News by Mr. Stabile:
“I will not allow a council meeting to turn into a melee. I will not allow council members to be baited or targeted,” Stabile said. “Some (residents) would have gotten answers to some of their questions . . . but unfortunately, they’re not here, and I think that says a lot about the people who spoke.”
What DOES it say about the people who spoke Mr. Stabile? Be more specific. Are you insulting your constituents? Are you cracking on the very same people whose votes you asked for last November?
This is what I think it says about “the people”. It says “You didn’t listen to us, you didn’t try to reach a compromise and you didn’t give us your respect, so why should we stick around to listen to you?” Respect is earned, it is not an entitlement.
Those people were passionate. They poured their hearts out and you all just sat there not even pretending to care. The people, including myself were disappointed, angry and disheartened.
I can’t speak for everyone else, but I didn’t want to stick around to listen to any more of the same stuff you’ve been shoveling.
Greg Hatala // June 11, 2009 at 6:31 am |
“I will not allow council members to be baited or targeted”
The words of Council President Stabile. Now, I just got done conversations with Mayor Giordano over a situation where it’s fairly obvious that an employee of the borough was “baiting and targeting” ME (to his credit, Mr. Giordano ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS and took action). Your concern, Mr. Stabile, sounds good in a a sound byte — but it’s pretty darn selective. Your concern appears to lie with six elected officials who, by being politicians, should KNOW that public criticism goes part and parcel with the job.
I just want to make sure I have this right: the voting and taxpaying public can’t ask questions and expect answers of the people who make the decisions that impact each and every one of us … because they might be, what, called on to be “open and transparent,” like President Obama says politicians should be? How can they be ‘targeted’ any more than what’s gone on in this town in the OTHER direction for years, and you’ve shown absolutely NIL concern over?
“Your” council members are big boys and girls, Mr. Stabile. If you or they can’t handle the heat, get the heck out of the kitchen. None of you had any problems criticizing your opponents last November.
npadministrator // June 11, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
I find it more interesting that Mr. Stabile stated that “Some (residents) would have gotten answers to some of their questions . . . but unfortunately, they’re not here, and I think that says a lot about the people who spoke.” So… Mr. Stabile knows which residents would’ve gotten answers to their questions–he knows what questions each person in the audience would ask and that the ones that were present wouldn’t have gotten answers? He’s full-on acknowledging prejudice against a portion of his constituents here by saying that he knows what the people present were going to ask and wasn’t interested in hearing it.
And what residents would’ve gotten answers to some of their questions if they weren’t there? I don’t understand that. And if ANY residents would’ve gotten answers to their questions–how do you justify cutting ALL of them off simply because you’re sick of hearing it?
So much for a change.
Stancheck // June 12, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
I agree with your sentiments, however the room should not have emptied out the way it did. I understand some people who go to the town meetings not wanting to hear the excuses that were given by the council because they truly have already heard them. But most of the people who went to this particular meeting have never or have rarely gone to the town meetings. They get angry, and righteously so, about a definite increase in taxes on top of a further overcrowding of the schools. Never -theless, they show up at the town meetings once in a blue moon and when they arrive they believe the local government should just listen to them directly and do as they’re told. The council should have listened and voted no on this ordinance. But, regardless whether you like them or not, you can’t expect them to take the grievances too seriously when most of their constituents don’t even show up throughout the year. It’s one thing to show up; it’s another thing to be consistent so as to let them know you’re paying attention. We lose some of our credibility when we leave prematurely only because we didn’t like the outcome.
As I wrote before, I’m not critiquing those who show up to the meetings and you know who you are. As a community our power lies in the ability to move and approach the government as a group. We can’t expect them to be responsive if the majority of us only show up once a year and the other three-hundred and sixty four days stay home. They will never be scared and forced into action if every town meeting has about four to ten citizens present. They know there will be no need to obey the citizenry because most of the citizens, as the council sees it, are not that concerned with community affairs. All they had to do on June 8th was to hear the citizens voice their grievances, vote against them, watch the people leave, and that would be the last time they would have to see or hear from them for a long time.
However, I’m sure those living in town realize that would not be enough. North Plainfield is a permanent Democratic town and it will vote that way for many years to come regardless of what happens. It’s the same with permanent Republican towns. Though this is not limited to only towns, it also happens in counties, states, and districts.
The council should be sorry for voting yes after hearing the spirited comments by our citizens against the age-restricted ordinance. I don’t see why they couldn’t postpone the vote for four weeks so that in the next meeting the council could have set up some kind of forum with a Q & A session so that all questions could be answered and the council could have made their own arguments with citizens being in a position to question those arguments. The council claimed in the end, after most of the room left, that they had not received any bribes or taken any benefits from this vote. How can they expect people to think they haven’t when it just breeds suspicion that the entire council after hearing such deep comments, especially the one from Mr. Gatto regarding the new state law that recently passed, voted unanimously for the ordinance?
npadministrator // June 13, 2009 at 9:22 am |
“But, regardless whether you like them or not, you can’t expect them to take the grievances too seriously when most of their constituents don’t even show up throughout the year. It’s one thing to show up; it’s another thing to be consistent so as to let them know you’re paying attention. We lose some of our credibility when we leave prematurely only because we didn’t like the outcome.”
This is dead on. And isn’t this what we accuse them of doing: not waiting to hear the whole thing simply because they don’t like the source?
The citizens need to lead by example.
And they need to start getting their neighbors involved. We have a town with a LOT of citizens who are really unaware of what happens in the nitty gritty here. Many simply don’t have time. We need to start bonding as a community and making changes based on the majority–because as one poster noted: majority DOES rule. We just don’t happen to have a very “educated” (and that is meant in terms of “knowing what’s going on in the town”–not formal schooling) citizenry.
When we can start educating our citizens, perhaps we can make it easier for them to be engaged in what’s going on. And maybe when we can see that the citizens and gov’t are not supposed to be working against each other, both sides will start changing in response to one another.
Because there’s certainly no progress being made with the current method of operation. And it’s time to stop blaming the other side and start changing it.