Here’s the audio from last night’s meeting.
Bob Gatto provided an update on the NPCCR Sunshine Law petition. NPCCR contends their version of the petition is significantly different from the one passed by the borough council and wants their version of the ordinance to be voted on by the residents. In order for that to happen, Somerset County needs to rule in favor of NPCCR, in that the petition is significantly different. The ruling was originally intended to take place on October 19th. However the judge postponed the ruling because the municipal court clerk needed to recuse himself, due to his coincidental acquaintance with some of the petitioners. The judge wants no perception of bias. The new ruling date has yet to be filed.
Following Mr. Gatto’s comments, Republican candidate Jim McGarry introduced himself to audience and spent the next hour taking questions. Incumbant democratic candidate Everett Merrill declined the invitation to participate, on advice from borough attorney Eric Bernstein, given the outstanding Sunshine Law litigation.
8 responses so far ↓
npadministrator // October 21, 2009 at 11:54 am |
I was truly disappointed that Mr. Merrill opted out. I want to believe Mr. Merrill would’ve participated, if it wasn’t for Mr. Bernstein’s ‘over protective’ advice. I think it was a real disservice to the residents that took the time to show up, wanting to hear all the candidate’s views and wanting to have the opportunity to ask questions in an organized forum. With regard to the outstanding litigation, Mr. Merrill could have just declined to comment on any question relating to the Sunshine Law ordinance. All of the questions put to Mr. McGarry were about property taxes, commercial investment and municipal budget management. I really missed not hearing Mr. Merrill’s views on these important topics. I’ve often heard from council members, that there’s an open invitation to any resident to call them individually. While I personally think that kind of access is important (and should be required), these organized forums are a much better environment for residents to get comparative views on a host of different topics viewed important by the citizenry. (Hal Hirsch, co-editor)
morganmarathon // October 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0
Joseph // October 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
I feel that Mr. Bernstien time and time again has overstepped his bounds and should be dismissed. He IS THE BOROUGH ATTORNEY and not the MAYOR yet he still tries to act as the chief executive. Thats partailly janice allens fault for the amount of power she allotted him. Giordanos no better theyre purely mout pieces for the democratic party chair tom fagan.
Greg Hatala // October 22, 2009 at 7:27 am |
There appears to be no logic (what else is new) to Mr. Bernstein’s proclamation; does that mean that Mr. Merrill has to decline to speak to ANY resident if they ask him a question about ANY topic because of the issue involving the sunshine law ordinance? Knowing Mr. Merrill, I can safely assume he would have willingly participated in the discussion, so only one of two conclusions can be drawn: (1) Bernstein was the mouthpiece for someone else who didn’t want a forum before the election (plausible but not terribly likely), or (2) Bernstein can pretty much do what he chooses and no one reigns him in. How much de WE, the taxpayers, pay HIM again?
Mark Williams // October 22, 2009 at 10:49 am |
It is reasonable to understand why Mr. Merrill took the advice of the Borough Attorney and declined to participate in Tuesday’s NPCCR sponsored candidates for NP council Q&A. Any attorney, due to on-going litigation between Borough Council and NPCCR regarding the Sunshine Law, most likely, would have advised the same. In addition to Mr. Bernstein, (who is just doing what he gets paid to do, advise) I’m sure Mr. Merrill consulted with Council President Skip Stabile as well as NP Democratic Committee Chair Tom Fagan and his was not a decision made in a vacuum. Just my guess, I don’t know this for a fact.
What may not be reasonable actions by Mr. Merrill is his failure to make a more direct statement as to his choice not to participate in the candidate Q&A. And let’s be clear, it was his choice not to participate. All we know is what was reported by Antoinette Rinehart, that he would not be participating on advice of the Borough Attorney. We don’t know when that message was delivered to her or how.
It seems to me that there was enough time for the Borough Attorney and Mr. Merrill to review the situation and notify NPCCR leadership of his intent not to participate well before Tuesday night. Perhaps the reason for the eleventh hour notice was the fact that the case currently under review in the courts was expected to be settled this week but a last minute issue arose and will delay the judge’s ruling. Perhaps Mr. Merrill did reasonably notify NPCCR leadership, which means they were in control of the message. NPCCR has a recent history of a relaxed attitude about updating its membership/followers as to ongoing activities of the organization. There failure to notify Sunshine Law petition signers that the case was scheduled to be heard this week, is a case in point, (this in no way relieves Mr. Merrill of the responsibility to connect with the people he represents).
What’s really scary is that the election is less than two weeks away and I have no idea what Mr. Merrill stands for. I only know what he has or has not voted on during his short time of appointment to the council. It would not surprise me if Mr. Merrill was elected to Borough Council not having participated in a public Q&A. I’m sure someone will inform me how many opportunities I missed to engage him in conversation and my lack of information about Mr. Merrill’s priorities is my responsibility. However, it should be noted that we are not seeking Mr. Merrill’s leadership he is seeking our vote. That’s why they call it campaigning.
It is my feeling that Mr. Merrill should have immediately announced his intent to participate in another Q&A sponsored by another group that poses no conflict. This he could have done, this is what he should do on his own without advice of the Borough Attorney.
Barbara Habeeb // October 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
I’m not a gambling woman, but if I were, I would bet that Everett Merrill would have gladly participated in the “meet the candidates night” had he not been “advised” by Counsel AND Council not to. Too bad. It would have been nice to hear his ideas on the important issues.
Greg Hatala // October 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
And here we go again — note to all involved downtown: this is a SMALL TOWN. It’s not Washington DC, it’s not New York, it’s not Newark. COMMON SENSE says that a simple explanation at the start of the meeting that Mr. Merrill cannot discuss the sunshine law issue due to pending litigation SHOULD HAVE sufficed. I stand on my previous statement and challenge anyone involved in that decision to respond: If I ask Mr. Merrill a question about his position on taxes at the soccer field next weekend, must he not respond? Has an official “gag order” been issued?
Candidates didn’t participate in an initial “meet the candidates” night before the 2008 elections either (not the debate, the scheduled event prior to that) and they had “reasons” for that too. I’m giving Mr. Merrill the benefit of the doubt that he would have participated; so who’s pulling the strings here?
Sometimes I get the distinct impression that some of our local politicians and officials think that the Monopoly money is real; in other words, folks, you’re NOT as important as you think you are. You get awfully chapter-and-verse about SOME things, and pretty darn lackadaisical in others (like cracking down on those people downtown who see us as a convenient paycheck and little more).
Just another example of how a simple chance to see what candidates think goes down the toilet due to bureaucracy.
Barbara Habeeb // October 23, 2009 at 11:13 am |
I agree with Mark. Mr. Merrill could and SHOULD have agreed to do a Q and A with another organization in town. What did candidates do before NPCCR? Some club or organization took on the responsibility to do a “meet the candidates” night in the past, right? Mr. Fagan should have contacted one of those organizations.
Does the LOCAL Democratic Party think that it isn’t important for their constituents to know where their candidate stands on the important issues in town? Or are they afraid that Mr. McGarry has better solutions?