A kinder and wiser Mayor Giordano attended (as has become his habit) the July 13th Borough Council Meeting. Kinder, because he listen to the observations of a concerned Borough resident without becoming defensive and hostile when the resident reported the need for improved owner maintenance of a property located in the Borough. Wiser, because he just shook his head in acknowledgment, stated he was aware of the problem and it was being addressed.
Lets take a moment to rewind the tape to the May 26th Borough Council Meeting. This same resident had expressed concerns, during the public comments section, that the expansion of the Green Brook multi use trail (an agenda item under New Business) would place additional maintenance responsibilities on the DPW, who has shown, based on the resident’s observation as a frequently user of this area, that the DPW was not able to maintain the area as it currently exists.
The Mayor responded that the resident was mistaken because he, too, is a frequent visitor to the area and the DPW does a “good” job of maintenance and perhaps the focus should be on the people who thoughtlessly discard trash on the trail. He went on to say that this was his opinion based on his experience and he was entitled to his opinion as the resident was also entitled to theirs.
Now, my description of the Mayor’s response in the absence of a visualized affect does not do the moment justice. You had to see the Mayor’s face and hear the tone of his speech to fully appreciate how hostile his response was.
Mr. Mayor, as a resident I am not primarily interested in your opinion. I need to trust that you will lead with an open mind that pays serious attention to all the concerns of residents brought to your attention. That my concerns are welcome and will be treated with all the respect that your office should afford. The employees of the DPW are not little boys who need defending by you; let their work speak for itself. They get paid an excellent salary and the quality of their work should reflect that salary. They should be doing excellent work for the excellent salary they are paid. Not “good” work. Poor choice of words, on your part, Mr Mayor.
It is my hope that the Mayor will continue to display this more welcoming leadership style towards residents who take the time to participate and express pride in the community.
9 responses so far ↓
Frank N. D'Amore Sr // July 16, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
I think it would be very enlightenig if the borough residents actually heard the tone and demeanor used by Mayor Giordano at the May 26 th. meeting when he addressed the concerns of the resident making the comment about the amount of trash and debris on our municipal streets. It just so happens that little sound bite was captured on our tape. Let see if we can get it on the blog. Perhaps there are people that would not find a problem with it.
Greg Hatala // July 17, 2009 at 10:41 am |
I’ve gained respect for Mayor Giordano, but have difficulty figuring out why it appears to be a necessity for our elected officials to be apologists for those who work for the borough, paid by the taxpayers. People are losing their jobs all over town and the state, as well as accepting reduced hours, reduced pay and reduced benefits; meanwhile, think of the last time you ever heard of any kind of “difference of opinion” between our elected officials and departments of paid employees. Why are they different than everyone else in the working world?
The response is that there hasn’t BEEN any “butting of heads” over ANY issues between those two groups since Janice Allen cleared out all the old GOP hires and replaced them with her own choices. I find the current situation to be impossible from a practical standpoint; NO business or organization can operate for years without ANY issues concerning responsibility (or lack thereof), job performance, or related situations.
Are these ‘disputes’ taking place “behind closed doors?” I personally doubt it, since their is NIL turnover in jobs, no noticeable alterations in the practice of performance, and, if anything, slippage in what’s getting done. Yet if any criticism is leveled, the almost predictable response from Borough Hall is to defend the departments in question — curious at least to me, since some individual elected officials have expressed disagreement with departmental practices … but always in private.
Folks, YOU’RE the ones in charge; IF you feel that individuals and departments aren’t getting the job done, YOU’RE the ones who can do something about it; and if you think everything is rosy golden and it’s all unfair criticism, where can we bring the proof otherwise — with the understanding that after it’s proved, you will stop being enablers and start cracking down?
npadministrator // July 17, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
First, I wouldn’t expect any elected official to publicly bash town hall employees. I WOULD expect them to say that they would look into an issue (although really, outside of the borough clerk, the rest of the staff is the mayor’s responsibility). But I certainly wouldn’t expect them to be publicly venting about borough hall employees. If you have an issue you take to them then yeah, you’d expect them to discuss it with you… but off-the-cuff publicly doesn’t really present a professional image and isn’t good management practice.
Second, don’t assume that a lack of turnover down in borough hall means there are no disputes or disagreements between the employees and the administration. Because that’s absolutely NOT the case. Yes–these ARE private matters that SHOULD be handled behind closed doors. Despite the fact that we pay their salaries, they are still employees with rights of privacy… just like you have at your job.
Frankly, most people don’t leave their job unless the issues are insurmountable and there aren’t a lot of jobs to be had these days. So people in all industries are, to some degree, tolerating more than maybe they would during better times.
That’s not to say that if something is just wrong it shouldn’t be fixed–it should. Certainly we should bring it to the attention of the appropriate people (mayor for borough hall employees, council for the clerk or regulations).
Greg Hatala // July 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
“Frankly, most people don’t leave their job unless the issues are insurmountable and there aren’t a lot of jobs to be had these days. So people in all industries are, to some degree, tolerating more than maybe they would during better times”
Well, you lost me with that one. If we’re talking about people LEAVING their jobs (which I wasn’t), who, in their right mind, would leave a municipal job with almost guaranteed raises and a nice pension and little or no accountability? No, we’re not talking about LEAVING…
…so are you trying to say (and this really makes no sense) that with tons of people out of work (thus, making the available workforce LARGER, not smaller), employers are “tolerating” more? Sorry, that’s completely, totally, 100% wrong.
In the REAL non-government world, employers are trying to get rid of long-term, low-performance employees. Fair? Depends on whether you’re the long-term employee or the person looking for a job, doesn’t it? Everywhere else, someone making a big, fat salary who can’t perform the tasks the position entails becomes a liability … except in municipal jobs. And in what sounded to me like a very politician-like non-response, the concept of an employee being HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their work was completely ignored. In my job and in the jobs of everyone I know (who don’t work for the taxpayer), you can LOSE your job if you don’t perform or if you goof off, or make excuses, or do worse.
NO ONE has been fired in North Plainfield for eons. I’m supposed to accept that means “nothing fire-able has happened for eons?” Hardly — tons of us know better. And, if I recall correctly, the last time any Borough employee was “punished” was that whole scam the ex-mayor set up with Frank D’Amore.
WHY should residents have to “report” things when, as you yourself said, the employees are the Mayor’s responsibility? Can you honestly say to me or anyone else that some of the situations that have been raised around here are GOOD, rewardable performances? Like, for example, selective enforcement of zoning rules (and publicly embarassing run-ins with merchants)?
The 800-pound elephant in the room that no one ever mentions is that proclamations and raises and promotions happen regularly … but we never see anything remotely resembling punishment or a crackdown or even stern oversight. I reiterate — this means that North Plainfield has perfect employees? No, like everywhere else in the world, it has some great ones, some good ones, and some poor ones. And this business about Council “not being able to do anything” is bunkum. They CAN institute hearings, they CAN call people in and ask questions; they choose not to. If Council doesn’t have the sand to question people, where are the checks and balances?
During the election, there was talk (by those defeated) of “time and motion” studies. ANY organization could stand a look, from time to time, as to whether it’s getting its money’s worth. Instead, we hear rhetoric, excuses, don’t pick on these poor people.
Yeah, personal issues are private. But let’s not forget that these are civil SERVANTS — meant to serve the people who pay their salaries; it’s NOT vice-versa. We ALL have families. But WE also have to meet criteria or they’ll find someone else.
npadministrator // July 17, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
My misunderstanding… I thought you meant that because nobody downtown quit their jobs meant they were thrilled with being there and never had an issue with what the borough administration does. And I meant that employEEs are tolerating more–not employERs. And thanks but I’m already way familiar with “REAL non-government world”.
I also never said that the council can’t do anything, I said it’s not in their responsibility. Sorry, but they’re not able to hire, fire or reprimand downtown staff other than the clerk. It’s not a cultural thing, it’s a clearly defined limit of who does what. Yeah, there are checks and balances but there is also the distribution of responsibility. Just because you don’t like the way the mayor is handling HIS job doesn’t make it the council’s job. That’s like saying the janitor doesn’t like the way the landscaper does his work. Well, it’s not exactly the janitor’s job to do the landscaper’s job simply because the landscaper is either doing it wrong or not to the janitor’s liking. The council approves things the mayor is required to put before them. THAT is the check and balance. They can decide not to vote for it. They can ask questions and call people in about it. They can prevent it from happening if it’s in front of them. If it’s not in their hands, it’s not their place (as a position) to interfere with it. That’s the mayor’s job.
I honestly haven’t seen the promotions and proclamations other than Rodino moving up a few years ago and people took issue with that. Were there more? I honestly just haven’t followed it and hadn’t heard any “to-do” about anyone else. Did I miss one (or more)?
And being a paid employee of the borough (or any public entity) does not eliminate someone’s rights to privacy with their work. I wasn’t clear what your last paragraph meant because I agree that if you don’t do your job and meet the criteria, they find someone else. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about work performance records being private–not non-existent… not unimportant… just private. So any “butting of heads” wouldn’t really be visible to the public and therefore not seeing them may not mean they don’t exist. That’s all I’m saying. I pay them, too. I have to deal with them, too. I’m not interested in lazy crap from them when I’m paying them, either. When I have an issue I totally complain. But I don’t expect that correction or reprimand (if it’s made) to be something visible to the public. I just EXPECT that it should never happen again (assuming I wasn’t being unreasonable–and generally, I try not to go about causing a stir unless I know that what was done would be a problem anywhere). And if it continues to happen, I continue to complain (and I did when Janice was in office and eventually, the issue was finally resolved).
Greg Hatala // July 18, 2009 at 7:15 am |
All right, we’re coming closer to being on the same page.
Here’s an example — was it a year ago when our zoning official PUBLICLY made some ridiculous comments and “determinations” to a local businessman, which resulted in a lawsuit? That was PUBLIC news — yet we all wonder whether the employee in question received anything more than a finger-wagging (if that). Sometimes, this “right to privacy” is carried to unrealistic extremes. If a PUBLIC employee PUBLICLY does things that result in detrimental situations for the PUBLIC which pays the taxes (and this includes non-performance of duties, duties the PUBLIC is paying someone to perform), why do we also not have a right to know what’s being done to correct the situation? Why does some “right to provacy” kick in after very public actions?
I disagree totally with the concept in any way of Borough Council being “powerless” or anything similar. When they ran for office, it was NOT on a platform of “we can’t do anything, but vote for us anyway.” They can and should address ANYTHING important to borough residents — and if they choose to pencil whip through mayoral appointments, that’s problem number one (someone please point out to me, for example, the last time council didn’t automatically approve any and all mayoral appointments and hires).
Problem number two is that they appear to be completely disinterested in any investigation, fact-finding or anything remotely similar. A year ago, this blog opened up some borough financial records (the blog, not borough council), and there were a LOT of very simple questions that SHOULD have been asked of employees: why so many borough-paid car washes? What’s with all the different cell phone accounts? These SHOULD be the domain of the Borough Administrator, yet when we, the public, ask questions, we get non-answers and b.s.
Agreeing that there are tough economic times, why can’t borough hall (and, in some ways, you) agree that these time call for INTENSE scrutiny of just where money is going? Perks should never be a part of the taxpayers’ burden, even in the best of times, but that’s often seen as “part of the game” during good times; now, there’s absolutely no excuse why any and all perks should be CUT completely. We’re not “hurting” anyone’s family by eliminating extras and luxuries. And they’re there, and when we ask about them, we get rather lame ‘explanations.’
The simple fact is that there really isn’t an atmosphere (and hasn’t been for a long time) of TRUE concern for North Plainfield downtown. Everyone talks the talk … but when push comes to shove, everyone ALSO has an excuse for inaction. Too many pals, too many long time buddies, too many excuses, too many reasons for NOT doing things instead of actually doing things.
Those “time and motion” studies are looking really appropriate — too bad no one downtown APPARENTLY really cares about where every dollar is going.
npadministrator // July 18, 2009 at 11:12 am |
Well, you’re right that I disagree about tough economic times forcing scrutiny because I believe that it’s MY money and shouldn’t be wasted and therefore scrutiny should be ONGOING… ALL the time… good economy or bad. I’m not sure where you felt I disagreed with you on any of that…?
Again, stop saying that I think the council is powerless. I never said that. I said that there is a clear definition of what their responsibilities are and the things that you’re talking about are places where their responsibility and ability to intervene are not what you’re asking for. In my last post, I noted where they are able to interfere and the check and balance. It’s not the same as being able to go in and rearrange policy/procedure and/or hire and fire and/or tell the mayor what to do.
If people aren’t doing their jobs it doesn’t change what their jobs are. Someone, somewhere thought the council should’ve been in the middle of the school district’s issues. That’s not their role. Just because the district isn’t doing things right doesn’t make it the council’s job.
And you can’t just hand it over that way because there is a reason all this stuff is divided up among different entities: each role has a portion of work that is enough for the people assigned to it (when done well). Each role in and of itself has enough research, meetings, etc. to keep their assigned people plenty busy. You can’t just have them veering off and doing OTHER groups/people’s work ON TOP of that simply because it’s not working the way it should. You need to change the way it works–not hand it off to someone else. THAT is my point.
I’m not saying it’s working. I’m saying that the answer is in seeing who is truly responsible for these things and addressing it at it’s source instead of all of us wasting our time barking up the wrong trees… which will amount to nothing more than wasted time, effort and aggravation. My posts were written to point that out so that we can all direct our efforts in the most productive fashion… not to DEFEND anything or anyone. To CLARIFY so that we can move forward and make change using the very limited resources we have (motivated citizens) in the manner that will be most productive.
Greg Hatala // July 21, 2009 at 11:29 am |
I keep getting stuck on one argument that’s made quite a bit in this town — a borough employee’s “right to privacy.”
I wholeheartedly agree that someone’s personal information related to their job IS indeed a private matter. Any number of things fall under that heading — health issues, leaves of absence, and so forth. No argument from me there.
But there are OTHER areas in which there is most definitely a “one-way street” approach being taken, with the taxpayer-funded employee holding the upper hand.
Suppose (this is not hypothetical) a borough employee files a complaint against a resident (legitimate or not) about a zoning issue. I’ve already been told (by borough officials) that the person filing the complaint can remain anonymous — even if he or she works for the borough; the reason given has to do with “potential retaliation.”
But the complaint ITSELF (and the resident against whom the complaint is filed) becomes public knowledge, almost immediately upon the complaint being made. Paperwork related to such a complaint is legally obtainable through OPRA requests (i.e. zoning violation reports). Further, if the resident feels he or she must fight the complaint in court, THAT too becomes a matter of public record.
According to officials, this is standard and totally acceptable.
Now, here’s the rub.
Suppose a resident files a complaint against an employee? Our previous mayor once told me of at least one instance where an employee’s file was “bulging” with complaints (her word). In this imbalanced situation, residents are NOT allowed to know about this, because of the sudden need for “privacy.”
I defy anyone to tell me this makes sense. Complaints against residents — real or bogus — immediately become a part of the public record, even when made BY employees. Complaints by residents ABOUT employees, however, become shielded under this “privacy” excuse.
When it comes time for pay increases, it appears to be across-the-board in the town … yet all the while, I’m thinking about those “bulging complaint files.” What, because a resident complains in a letter, it’s silly, insignificant, petty … but if an employee makes a complaint against a resident, it’s serious business and believed to be 100% accurate and just? Right — no civil servant has EVER taken action against someone for anything but the most noble reasons. Right.
Somehow, there’s a protective screen built around municipal employees that often appears to be designed primarily for their benefit. Sure, privacy is important; but when the situation is easily comparable (complaints, for example), how come only residents have to operate out in the open?
Anyone in public service is, of course, going to have someone gripe about them at some time or another. I’m not talking about someone who’s had a complaint or two over the years. I’m talking about the “bulging” files (if they haven’t been regularly ’sanitized’ as one might expect). At what point do those employees have to “answer in court” like a resident does?
Once again, common sense SHOULD be the applicable approach. For the sake of the GOOD employees, we need to stop carrying and covering for the bad ones. As their ACTUAL employers (as taxpayers) we SHOULD have some say in that. We have none.
Greg Hatala // July 22, 2009 at 6:53 am |
Oh, and I should have highlighted that it’s kind of ridiculous that borough employees can make anonymous complaints against residents because officials claim there might be “retaliation” (their word) against the employee … but any complaints residents make with the guts of signing a name to it couldn’t POSSIBLY result in ‘retaliation,’ I guess, because NO ONE downtown would do that.
Ask any number of people in North Plainfield over the years if they agree with that. Once again, the only concern about ‘retaliation’ downtown is with the employee in mind … but NOT the resident. Bull. It’s been pulled for years in a number of different ways.
And NOTHING ever happens to the employees involved.