Experience vs. fresh ideas in North Plainfield council race
By Stephen Stirling/For The Star-Ledger
October 25, 2009, 6:05AM
Jim McGarryNORTH PLAINFIELD — A North Plainfield Republican is making a renewed bid for a borough council slot he held nearly a decade ago.
Jim McGarry will face-off against Democratic incumbent Everett Merrill for the sole open position on the North Plainfield council in the Nov. 3 election. Though McGarry has more council experience, having served from 1995 to 2000, Merrill, who was appointed to the post in January, says he brings fresh ideas and will work to continue what he says has been a progressive Democratic administration.
“There’s a lot of good things happening in North Plainfield,” Merrill said. “I feel very strongly about how the mayor and how our administration have guided the borough. Although we’re in a tough economic climate, these are very exciting times and because of the work we’ve done I’m very optimistic about our future.”
McGarry contends just the opposite.
“My boss has an expression that I’m very fond of: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging,” he said. “Well one party rule in this community over the last 12 going on 13 years has left us in a hole, so that’s just what we need to do.”
McGarry blasted the Democratic administration, saying they have increased spending annually, which he said is short-sighted in a troubled economy.
“It’s remarkable to me that our community leadership continues every year to run up the debt, run up the spending,” McGarry said. “It has to stop.”
Everett MerrillBut Merrill said in his time on the council he has worked to help insulate North Plainfield from the economic challenges plaguing the state.
“We have an aggressive tax collection in town at 97 percent. Our debt reduced by 7 percent in 2008. Our town is in very good fiscal shape,” he said. “This year the average taxpayer is going to receive a $300 tax reduction. So the argument that we’re overspending, I don’t agree with at all.”
Merrill said, if re-elected, he hopes to bolster relationships with not only surrounding communities, but also increase cooperation with the North Plainfield Board of Election so that the two governing bodies can work together to insure the fiscal stability of the borough.
“Sometimes we’re so immersed in individual issues that we forget that we can serve a greater value working together,” he said. “We’re having our our second joint meeting with the Board of Education on [Oct. 26]. I think that’s very important because we can not only broaden that relationship but get a feel for where the largest amount of tax dollars are going.”
McGarry, meanwhile, said it is integral for the borough council to take a proactive role in the coming years to not only attract new businesses to the area but work with existing businesses who may be struggling.
“Look at the closing of Pathmark. Losing that store is a problem,” McGarry said. “I was surprised to learn there wasn’t an effort to reach out to the ownership. You have to be willing to listen and be proactive. If there’s an opportunity for the town to do something, we need to take it.”
© 2009 NJ.com. All rights reserved.
23 responses so far ↓
morganmarathon // October 29, 2009 at 11:44 am |
Mr. Merrill said, “This year the average taxpayer is going to receive a $300 tax reduction. So the argument that we’re overspending, I don’t agree with at all.”
that was all I needed to know to make my voting decision.
npadministrator // October 29, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
Yeah, really… no acknowledgment that the school district received an extraordinary amount of aid (which I found out from Mayor Mike… maybe they should talk)
npadministrator // October 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Yes. The municipal government had nothing to do with any kind of tax reduction for residents. It was all school aid. Municipal tax revenue (excluding schools), to be raised by taxes, for 2009 will be $14.4M. In 2008 it was $13.8B. That’s an increase of 4.3%. Four significant areas of growth: 1. ~$700K set aside for pending tax property tax appeals. 2. ~$250K for police wage increases. 3. ~$150K for fire wage increases
4. ~$100K increase in ‘other expenses’ for department of public works
5. A combination of aide and cuts limited the increase to $600K.
Hal Hirsch (co-editor)
Steve // October 29, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
I guess I’m not average because my taxes went up almost $1500 for the year… A lot more budget cutting needs to happen. I pay twice as much in taxes than my parents do for a similarly sized house in Clark – and they’re school ranks much better than North Plainfield. Something is not right.
Jim McGarry // November 2, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
A number of North Plainfield residents have suggested that it would be helpful for me to comment on the recent article in the Star-Ledger and I appreciate the opportunity to do so through the NPCCR community forum.
I believe strongly that there are many positive efforts underway in our community and that we can be generally optimistic that the ill effects the worldwide economic recession is having on our families and friends will diminish over time. For example, I joined a number of residents in a non-partisan initiative to help clean-up the Stony Brook earlier this year. This is an annual effort and a great opportunity to work with a terrific group of community activists. In addition, there are a number of faith-based and other groups working to help our friends and neighbors stretch limited food and clothing budgets. These are only two of a number of initiatives that North Plainfield residents can be proud of.
My opponent and I disagree, however, when he says that he and his Democrat colleagues on the Borough Council and in the Office of Mayor have been doing a good job of guiding our community through the worst recession in seventy years:
The all-Democrat Council, including the mayor, doubled the cost of our local government in just ten years. The authors of this spending plan cannot hide behind the Board of Education, nor the County, and seem not to understand that indiscriminate spending leads always to more borrowing and higher taxes. One hopes that my opponent and his friends are not trying to demonstrate that we can borrow and spend our way to economic prosperity.
The same Council and mayor have run-up our community’s debt from $3 million to $13 million and have recently authorized an additional $3 million of new debt. Presumably, this is not one of the “fresh” ideas my opponent is offering the voters on Election Day.
My opponent takes credit for a tax collection effort that would be the envy of any third-world dictatorship and claims the “average” taxpayer will receive a substantial reduction in local taxes. As any tax assessment professional will attest, any reductions in local taxes that follow a community-wide revaluation typically apply to one-third of the taxpayers, with the other sixty-six percent receiving no benefit at all, or, worse, an increase in their tax burden.
North Plainfield voters have an opportunity to send a strong message to our local and state elected officials that the policies of the last twelve years are simply not adequate in this time of economic and political upheaval.
The membership and leaders of NPCCR are to be commended for providing this important, non-partisan community forum.
Thank you.
Greg Hatala // November 3, 2009 at 8:25 am |
so they’re proud of ‘aggressively’ collecting 97% of taxes … too bad that that same kind of aggression didn’t apply to the Villa Maria developer and the taxes on that property. And it’s a shame that they could never ‘aggressively’ collect outstanding court fines, nor ‘aggressively’ write traffic tickets instead of warnings, nor ‘aggressively’ crack down on perks and unprofessional management in departments. Seems to me the only time the folks who’ve run this town for a decade-plus can be ‘aggressive’ is in gathering up mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money from taxpayers and pursuing grants (funded by those same taxpayers). A little of the same ‘aggression’ in areas aimed at targets other than the hardworking residents of this town would be greatly appreciated … but we won’t hold our breath.
FD // November 9, 2009 at 10:51 pm |
North Plainfield Democrats always break the law. For instance, David Brennan the Board of Education Vice chair illegally holds borough appointments initially appointed under Mayor Allen and now giordano.. State law stipulates that school board members may not hold other offices, especially not in the borough where they are elected
npadministrator // November 11, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Dear Editors,
I kindly request that you publish this reply I have prepared.
Kind Regards,
David Branan
Dear FD,
It is not illegal for a member of the local Board of Education to be a member of the local Planning Board at the same time. North Plainfield has a 9 member Planning Board and this is covered under the provisions of the New Jersey State Municipal Land Use Law. (L.1975, c. 291, s. 1, eff. Aug. 1, 1976.) Section 40:55D-23. Planning board membership, subsection 14 Planning Board Membership paragraph a.. I quote:
14. Planning board membership.
a. The governing body may, by ordinance, create a planning board of seven or nine members. The
membership shall consist of, for convenience in designating the manner of appointment, the four following
classes:
Class I–the mayor or the mayor’s designee in the absence of the mayor or, in the case of the councilmanager
form of government pursuant to the Optional Municipal Charter Law, P.L.1950, c.210 (C.40:69A-1
et seq.) or “the municipal manager form of government law” (R.S.40:79-1 et seq.), the manager, if so
provided by the aforesaid ordinance.
Class II–one of the officials of the municipality other than a member of the governing body, to be appointed
by the mayor; provided that if there be an environmental commission, the member of the environmental
commission who is also a member of the planning board as required by section 1 of P.L.1968, c.245
(C.40:56A-1), shall be deemed to be the Class II planning board member for purposes of this act in the event
that there be among the Class IV or alternate members of the planning board both a member of the zoning
board of adjustment and a member of the board of education.
Class III–a member of the governing body to be appointed by it.
Class IV–other citizens of the municipality, to be appointed by the mayor or, in the case of the councilmanager
form of government pursuant to the Optional Municipal Charter Law, P.L.1950, c.210 (C.40:69A-1
et seq.) or “the municipal manager form of government law” (R.S.40:79-1 et seq.), by the council, if so
provided by the aforesaid ordinance.
The members of Class IV shall hold no other municipal office, position or employment, except that in the
case of nine-member boards, one such member may be a member of the zoning board of adjustment or
historic preservation commission. No member of the board of education may be a Class IV member of the
planning board, except that in the case of a nine-member board, one Class IV member may be a member of
the board of education. If there be a municipal environmental commission, the member of the environmental
commission who is also a member of the planning board, as required by section 1 of P.L.1968, c.245
(C.40:56A-1), shall be a Class IV planning board member, unless there be among the Class IV or alternate
members of the planning board both a member of the zoning board of adjustment or historic preservation
commission and a member of the board of education, in which case the member common to the planning
board and municipal environmental commission shall be deemed a Class II member of the planning board.
For the purpose of this section, membership on a municipal board or commission whose function is advisory
in nature, and the establishment of which is discretionary and not required by statute, shall not be considered the holding of municipal office.
b. The term of the member composing Class I shall correspond to the mayor’s or manager’s official tenure,
or, if the member is the mayor’s designee in the absence of the mayor, the designee shall serve at the
pleasure of the mayor during the mayor’s official tenure. The terms of the members composing Class II and
Class III shall be for one year or terminate at the completion of their respective terms of office, whichever
occurs first, except for a Class II member who is also a member of the environmental commission. The term
of a Class II or Class IV member who is also a member of the environmental commission shall be for three
years or terminate at the completion of his term of office as a member of the environmental commission,
whichever occurs first. The term of a Class IV member who is also a member of the board of adjustment or
board of education shall terminate whenever he is no longer a member of such other body or at the
completion of his Class IV term, whichever occurs first. The terms of all Class IV members first appointed
under this act shall be so determined that to the greatest practicable extent the expiration of such terms shall
be distributed evenly over the first four years after their appointments; provided that the initial Class IV term
of no member shall exceed four years. Thereafter, the Class IV term of each such member shall be four
years. If a vacancy in any class shall occur otherwise than by expiration of the planning board term, it shall
be filled by appointment, as above provided, for the unexpired term. No member of the planning board shall
be permitted to act on any matter in which he has, either directly or indirectly, any personal or financial
interest. Any member other than a Class I member, after a public hearing if he requests one, may be
removed by the governing body for cause.
c. In any municipality in which the term of the municipal governing body commences on January 1, the
governing body may, by ordinance, provide that the term of appointment of any class of member of the
planning board appointed pursuant to this section shall commence on January 1. In any municipality in
which the term of the municipal governing body commences on July 1, the governing body may, by
ordinance, provide that the term of appointment of any class of member appointed pursuant to this section
commence on July 1.
L.1975,c.291,s.14; amended 1978,c.37,s.1; 1979,c.216,s.12; 1985,c.516,s.7; 1990,c.130; 1991,c.256,s.4;
1994,c.158.
Kind Regards,
David Branan
Greg Hatala // November 11, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
does such a law/exception apply as well to other commissions and committees, or is it peculiar to the school board and planning board only?
NORTH PLAINFIELD CITIZEN // November 13, 2009 at 4:10 am |
Mr. Branan’s incorrect again :
NJ sets out the legal requirements to serve as a New Jersey School Board Member.
Among them are :
A. Be Able to Read and Write demonstrated by possession of a High School Diploma or Equivalency
B. Be a United States Citizen and District Resident and Qualified Voter of There Of.
C. Not Hold the Office of Mayor or Councilman
D. NOT HOLD ANY INTEREST IN ANY CONTRACT, SUIT, OR LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE BOARD.
I find that last requirement particularly fascinating, considering the fact that on several occassions, the Borough Council, Board of Ed, and The two main landuse boards hold joint sessions. Hmmm… Am I Delusional, or would such a meeting constitute a direct and present conflict of interest, especially when the Assistant Superintendent is going before the adjustment board for varianance approval and in the near future may have to go before the planning board for others building matters…It makes you wonder if his true loyalties lie as a direct representative of the people of North Plainfield or another democratic party puppet.
In addition with this possible conflict, there is a certain moral dilemma involved in dual-office holding in this very scenario. North Plainfield is governed by a Type II School District, along with the vast majority of other municipalities in the state of new jersey, which in essence means that the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AS TO RESTRICT ANY INFLUENCE BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL IN EDUCATION AFFAIRS. Use your heads people, by allowing the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ED, NONE THE LESS TO BE APPOINTED TO A SECOND MORE POWERFUL POST BY MIKE GIORDANO WOULD ALLOW A PARTISAN, MONOPOLY OF MUNICIPAL POWER, which would in effect circumvent us even having a Type II School Board.
Thus said, Do the Right David… resign from the Board or tell your buddy Tom Fagan the Democratic Party Chair you can’t help him and mike passively exert their agenda through the board of education
npadministrator // November 13, 2009 at 9:53 am |
Actually, whether or not Branan was sitting on anything other than the BoE is irrelevant to the fact that any member of the BoE may at some point have to be in front of one of the land use boards in town. Just like any council member or member of Historic Preservation, etc., might wind up in front of those boards. The restriction on BoE members on the Planning Board is that they can’t make up the Class IV requirement. I think what Mr. Branan posted was an incomplete citing but it looks like Class II actually WANTS a member of the Board of Adjustment or BoE on the Planning Board.
And this makes sense: decisions made on the Planning Board affect total land use in the borough. There should be representation of the school district in those decisions so that the district and the PB are working together and not against each other. Joint meetings with all the boards are the give a forum for everyone to discuss the issues that individual PB reps have brought back to their group so that the entire group can be involved in finding solutions or discussing options that benefit EVERYone.
opposition // November 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
I strongly disagree… 1. I wasnt referring to board members personally GOING BEFORE THE BOARD FOR PERSONAL MATTERS…but RATHER BOARD EMPLOYEES GOING BEFORE THE BOARD… allowing Mr. Branan to make a dual decision
2. In Addition to this, what you’re ceasing to realize is that Vice President of the Board of Ed is a very powerful local office. The Board of Ed is intended to be an independent body that manages almost 60% of our tax dollars. Having the school board’s second in command, in so close with the Mayor and his cronies would allow Mike or the party chair Tom Fagan (who both sit on the planning board) to request favors from time to time and there’s a good chance that David would feel obligated to meet those favors, as a thank you for his appointment to the planning board
3. I never said that the Board of Ed shouldnt be represented at the planning or zoning board I just said I dont feel that one man should be able to cast votes on school board and land use issues. The equivalent of this would be if Governor Corzine appointed a member of the Legislature to serve as a County Prosecutor or County Schools Superintendent , which is strictly prohibited by law.. because then the Governor could get a thank you vote on any legislation he sought to have in response for putting somebody in that position.
The same holds true for the local government. Mr. Branan is in a position to accomodate the democratic agenda on the Board of Education. I can not stress strongly enough the subterfuge that has to be in place between the mayor and council and the Board of Education.
This doesnt surprise me one bit though, that this is going on. For far too long the Board of Education has been a rubber stamping committee for the superintendents whims and desires. We have the highest paid superintendent in Somerset county who isnt worth her salt. We’re also the poorest town in Somerset County. We spend absurd amounts of money on Bilingual education, ( more than the state requires) and on children who rarely live in town and still have snow white and her seven elected dwarfs running that institution.
This is just one more thing that an inept public official has done. Come April Im not sure who Im casting my vote for… Whether its Szaroleta or the independent candidate Miller… I dont know..
npadministrator // November 13, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
1. If you are applying before any board you are appointed to, you have to recuse yourself from the decision-making. Happens plenty here on PB & BoA. You’re right: I’m totally not getting where any “dual decision making” is going on. If someone on the BoE who ALSO sits on the PB has a personal matter in front of the PB and therefore cannot decide as a PB member on that matter. I must be missing something because I’m not sure where a second decision on something comes in. I can’t think of an instance where something is decided on at the Planning Board and also at the BoE. But the council has (by law) a representative on the PB and there are many things that the PB votes on that then have to also be voted on by the council. And in that instance, yeah–someone has a vote at the PB and the council for the same issue. I don’t see where that happens with the BoE and the PB. Can you give an example (if this is what you mean)?
2. What YOU fail to realize is that ANY BoE member could be equally or MORE tied into the mayor or whomever on whatever board. So really, it doesn’t matter what role Branan plays on the BoE or that it’s a “position of power”. Anyone from one group could “call in a favor” from anyone in another group. In fact, more than one person on the council or PB could know more than one person on the BoE… and each of them “lobby” for their desires. Illegal only if there’s a quorum.
3. Then what you’re saying is that the representative of the BoE that sits on the PB shouldn’t be able to vote on PB issues? Because I think that’s about the only way to get the BoE’s “weigh in” on the PB issues. And that would also be akin to saying that the council rep on the PB shouldn’t be able to vote on PB issues, too–right?
There are PLENTY of people on the BoE who are in a position to accommodate the Dems OR the Republicans agenda.
And being a rubber stamp committee for the Superintendent is a separate issue from the other issues you’re bringing up regarding the mayor. If you want to know who to vote for in April, hunt these people down and ask them questions about things that mean something to you in terms of the office they’re running for.
And personally, I think that in this town (and especially in this forum) the assumption of conspiracy carries over to situations where there legitimately needs to be some level of coordination. But here, the sentiment that if there is any sharing of information or coordinating it is immediately conspiracy.
Since there NEEDS to be some level of sharing ideas, having some boards/entities represented in other boards/entities to speed the process of getting anything done–then what exactly do you propose? I mean, realistically–since cleaning out everyone involved and starting over… attempting to ferret out who’s not part of McCarthy’s organization… is not exactly a realistic answer.
npadministrator // November 13, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I noted in the most recent comment you made that you felt I had omitted part of the Municipal Land Use Law in my reply. Here is a link to the full text of the entire law which you can refer people to on the site. I included only the section relevant to the original question at hand which concerned the accusation that I was breaking the law. I omitted the other sections as not relevant to that question and in the interest of brevity. Nothing sinister was intended by the omission.
http://www.goleader.com/wf-masterplan/land_use_law.pdf
Kind Regards,
David Branan
David Branan // November 13, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
Hello All,
I will give this one try and see how it goes but I am not entirely sanguine. There is a distinct tendency here to use the same measures of justice exhibited at the Salem witch trials. One is guilty until proven innocent. If you throw me in water with a stone tied around my neck and I drown, that is God’s judgment on me. If I float, that is my witch powers preventing my death. I suppose there are people who believe my habit of decorating my house for the all the kids in town on Halloween justifies a witch hunt.
First, the quote from the School Ethics act in no way precludes a Board of Education member from serving on the Planning Board. The section of code within the Municipal Land Use Law I cited is quite clear and specifies that I am allowed to serve on both boards. You are welcome to disagree with this law, but then we have a well known legislative process you can take advantage of to have existing laws changed to meet your satisfaction. Second, the assistant superintendent of schools owns no property in town and has no pending cases before the Planning Board. Why make up things that are simply not true? It does not help your argument to make up facts which meet some criteria you feel prove your point. Third, can you please point out to me and the audience what items that were passed within the last year by the Board of Education were done at the behest of Tom Fagan or Mike Giordano as you say has been done? You can find the minutes of the Board of Education meetings conveniently on the School District website so you can copy the resolutions you claim were passed to serve their interests.
I find this remark by the second respondent of particular interest:
“We spend absurd amounts of money on Bilingual education, (more than the state requires) and on children who rarely live in town and still have snow white and her seven elected dwarfs running that institution.”
Do you have the details of what the expenditures are? Perhaps you are willing to share this information here. What determines the level of absurdity? I suspect the motivation for this comment is more racial than rational.
The last paragraph talking about Nancy Szaroleta running against someone named Miller is also interesting. Candidates do not file until February 2010. Do you know something the rest of us do not? There are also two other seats that will be up for election at that time. What is your position on the folks holding those seats?
I want to publically call upon the leaders of the Republican Party to disavow the behavior of these individuals who claim to be your supporters. I think it is sad that such allegations, made without any proof or even a basis in fact, go unaddressed by you. Mr. McGarry, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Ms. Carly, Mr.Gatto, Mr. D’Amore, Mr. Haggerty, I have known some of you for many years. I find it hard to believe that you condone this type of behavior. Please address this so that it ends.
Kind Regards,
David Branan
npadministrator // November 13, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Mr. Branan,
The Democrats and Independents that follow this blog would (and do) take offense to your assumption that this is a Republican blog. And your assumption that any of the people you named are consistently involved in this blog are presumptuous. Furthermore, to say that they condone some of these comments is unfair–not every person reads or follows every post and it’s commentary. And since you don’t appear to acknowledge that there have been two sides to this banter even without you, clearly you’re not following it very closely, either.
None of the people you named are editors of this blog. That is left to Heather DeGeorge and Hal Hirsch. We walk a difficult path trying to keep the forum open to discussing things that people are bothered by without getting to outright bashing. We have been accused of being too limiting to that end. And that’s not an issue for either of us. But we are facilitators, not “owners” nor are any of the people that you named, nor is any party.
Furthermore, if you go backward in the blog there have been infinitely more instances of accusations made with evidence provided than the contrary. I don’t mean to imply or state that there has been evidence stated here–clearly there has not; but if you were a regular follower of the blog you would know that this is not the modus operandi of the blog. Katherine Watt and another regular poster stopped posting about a year ago and thus most of that research and discovery has ended.
But I think we frequently (and have here) do a good job of pointing out when there are difficult situations to navigate given the climate of bitterness that exists. If you will go back and read the rest of this commentary, you will likely see this.
Thank you for participating in the blog.
David Branan // November 13, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Dear Editors,
My last paragraph was not directed at you or the members of NPCCR. I did not assume that the two individuals who have been accusing me of criminal acts on the site were members of the NPCCR or the writers. They may not even be members of the Republican party. I assumed they were simply audience members who decided they needed to voice their opinion that I am a criminal. I did not intend to imply that NPCCR condoned the accusations. However, I do feel that as civic leaders, one needs to take a stand against the outrageous behavior of people who support you. It is reasonable to disagree with positions taken by politicians or members of local government. It is not reasonable to accuse them of criminal acts without any basis in fact. Perhaps it is the way I was brought up being from the extreme southern portion of the state, but that type of behavior would have elicited a response from either party condemning it had it occurred there. This was not meant to imply that any of the individuals named are responsible for the content or are anything other than audience – reader participants. In fact, some of those I named have come in for their own share of lambasting at the hands of anonymous and named posters on this site. I just believe this has gone far enough. When baseless accusations are posted as fact, perhaps by an extremist minority in the town, and do not evoke a condemnation from either side of the aisle, then one has to really think hard about the character of the community one lives in.
Kind Regards,
David Branan
Greg Hatala // November 14, 2009 at 8:22 am |
well, that’s been a highly verbose exchange that, basically, accomplished nothing at all.
To Mr. Branan — I’m personally offended that, yet again, an elected official in North Plainfield resorts to “those people” arguments. The Salem Witch Trials analogy was also a nice touch. In all the posturing and finger-pointing, it’s obvious that the important issue got buried under a mountain of rhetoric. It’s become repetitive; there was an elected official in this town years ago who lied directly to my face, and then was offended terribly when I referred to the person as a liar.
There should be no need for a relatively small number of people in North Plainfield to hold multiple positions of authority. Whereas it’s all nice and wonderful to climb up on a high horse and act shocked that people would suggest impropriety, that doesn’t wash considering North Plainfield has repeated examples of deals made and agreements reached in ways that don’t follow the proper processes. Yet somehow, you apparently would like us to believe that none of this ever takes place.
As far as “recusing” oneself from votes, that’s one of those lawyer-pleasing situations that butts up against reality; does that mean the person involved also ‘recuses’ him or herself from discussions away from the official meetings? Oh, right, I forgot — we’re not supposed to accept the evidence of our own eyes that some people regularly meet and socialize away from the scheduled meetings. That never happens. Everything is perfect and wonderful.
The original topic had to do with rules and regulations. They’re SUPPOSED to be clear cut, and we’re SUPPOSED to have a $200,000 a year lawyer who clarifies things like this. IF someone is NOT supposed to hold such multiple positions, they need to be removed, and the manner in which they got put there in the first place — at odds with official rules — should be investigated. If it’s proper under the rules, then it should be allowed.
npadministrator // November 14, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
Greg,
If you can find a listing of the law that opposes that which Mr. Branan posted (which he posted to explain why a BoE person is on the PB) then please feel free to do so. And if you think he’s not in compliance with the law, then please get our lawyer to remove him. I’m guessing you also didn’t understand my explanation of why people from one board would serve on another (by law). Or did you skim through these posts and pick out what you wanted to see or was easy to attack?
Seems like without Katherine around, there’s a lot of complaining and not much research to back any of it up anymore. She didn’t inspire anyone–she picked up the slack.
opposition // November 15, 2009 at 5:53 am |
I agree completely and uneqivocally with Mr. Hatala. There is no need for multiple office holding in a small borough such as North Plainfield. Everybody has made an issue of proving inpropriety, when the facts speak for themselves. The Giordano Administration is a repeat of Janice Allen’s folks and I can personally tell you that nobody gets appointed to the planning board without the democratic chairman, Tom Fagans blessing. Mr. Brenan is included in this demographic. For the record, nobody accused him outright of being a criminal either. all that was said was that it was ” illegal” to hold both offices. Things that are illegal are not always necessarily criminal, but also civil wrongs such as this case.
But None the less, I am very disheartened of the monopoly of municipal power.North Plainfield used to be a town we could all be proud of, and where our families could flourish regardless of partisan affiliation. This is no longer true. For sake of argument I have taken the liberty to list a couple of local officials, who hold multiple offices in ranking of their power and authority.
1. Tom Fagan – Chairman, North Plainfield Democratic Committee, Chairman, North Plainfield Planning Board, Supervisor Somerset County Board of Elections ( HE RUNS THE TOWN FOLKS — and the mayors office is his pet puppet)
2. Eric Bernstine- Borough Attorney — he makes obscene amounts of money off of the municipality, yet he isnt a full time borough employee, but rather runs a prosperous municipal law firm and profits greatly off the borough. As well as other duties, he has been a driving push, and catalyst behind each and every one of Mayor Allen’s executive appointments.
If we could seek an independent charter I would strongly suggest that we have an election for a full time paid borough attorney elected by North Plainfield’s residents who would be responsible for preventing any conflicts of interests as well as prosecuting our ordinances in municipal court, which has been quite laxed.
3. James Rodino – He’s another non-north plainfielder. He holds three jobs, in town makes over 100 K serving as code enforcement official as well as superintendent of public works. My only real argument against this is that the town is in a state where overcrowding runs rampid and code enforcement is a serious problem. Can this guy really juggle all these positions devoting the required dedication to each one ? I dont think so and each of the illegal housing structures in North Plainfield are evidence of that.
4. David Brenan – He isn’t paid. I’ll grant him that. But hes still a Janice Allen/Mike Giordano Crony. Theoretically, the Board of Ed has the most FINANCIAL CLOUT in the borough. they have 60% of our tax dollars. In some circumstances, Mr. Brenan can be in a position to preside over meetings of the board of ed, and the situation could arise where he presided over planning board meetings too which is unlikely, not strictly illegal but still too close for comfort for me. The Democrats always show their true hide when they refuse to stand up to any issue and try to silence us with their lawyers, just as they did by ducking out of the council debate under the scape goat of “on going legislation”
Yours Truly,
M.T.M — I am catalyst behind the whole brenan issue which I still feel is just one more area where the tax payers of North Plainfield are getting screwed. Nobody can probably guess who I am because Im a young guy. I’ll tell you one thing we need a better system of government in the borough.
Greg Hatala // November 15, 2009 at 8:36 am |
“If you can find a listing of the law that opposes that which Mr. Branan posted (which he posted to explain why a BoE person is on the PB) then please feel free to do so. And if you think he’s not in compliance with the law, then please get our lawyer to remove him. I’m guessing you also didn’t understand my explanation of why people from one board would serve on another (by law). Or did you skim through these posts and pick out what you wanted to see or was easy to attack?”
Wow … this is what the blog has become, huh?
Okay, let’s do this the way professional organizations do it. It is NOT MY JOB to research things like that. I do MY job in this town – pay taxes, abide by the law, and volunteer my time. The question was raised as to whether someone could or could not be on a certain group — and the ‘explanation’ was a very long, address of the usual legalese-filled mumbo jumbo. My question was how things OUGHT TO be dealt with — if something is proper, say so briefly and clearly; if it’s not, say that clearly, and then headline how it comes about.
The line about “please get our lawyer to remove him” borders LOL, since ‘our lawyer’ has never shown the slightest interest in ILLEGAL things that have been done to me and numerous other people in this town; name one instance where “our lawyer” has bucked the people who hired him.
Your “guess” about not understanding something is, as usual, self-serving. In some areas, it’s also called an insult. No one in North Plainfield except the “intelligent people,” of course, have the ability to grasp anything. As far as “skimming,” no, that’s not the case … but it does take a certain amount of skill to condense explanations instead of what was presented.
This explains a great deal to me about why pieces I (and I assume, others) have sent in to this blog never get published on it; why statements I and others make get edited to remove what are said to be “unfounded insults” but the administrator (how about an actual name?) can make derisive comments.
To reply to yet another unfounded comment, there’s PLENTY of research around with or without Katherine Watt; just because you don’t publish it doesn’t mean it’s not there. What’s lacking are the guts she and others showed in being willing to address topics without falling over themselves apologizing to the small group that runs the town.
That sound you hear is the usefulness of this blog going down the toilet. This exchange pretty much shows why.
npadministrator // November 15, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
Simply stating that there are so many things that you and others have sent to the blog that haven’t been published doesn’t make it reality. We CRAVE things to be sent to be published. Don’t try to pull your conspiracy nonsense on the editors of the blog, now, too. What, I guess now WE are “Allen/Giordano cronies”, too? Because we don’t have the time to devote to researching that Katherine Watt did and nobody else is doing it?
And if it’s not YOUR job, then whose job is it to gather the evidence of wrong-doing in the gov’t? That’s exactly the attitude that gets us NOWHERE in this town: I pay my taxes, so I’m done with my responsibility.
Do you honestly think the people who are doing the wrong are going to just magically stand up and fix it?? Give me a break.
Not your job? Fine. But then you’ll just have to sit around and wait for someone else to do it.
Katherine Watt and the others that previously went digging and exposing research were taxpayers, too. And it wasn’t their job, either. But they got a LOT more done.
npadministrator // November 13, 2009 at 10:42 pm |
Completely agreed.
That being said, this blog and NPCCR are two separate entities. NPCCR uses this blog as a means of communication to the community; but it is not an NPCCR blog per se. In fact, there has been at least one blog entry that criticized NPCCR no differently than what you are seeing here. It’s an equal opportunity blog.
And many of the civic leaders don’t come to this blog–which really only fuels the problem. So it’s a vicious cycle: they won’t engage here because they’ve been bashed, but the lack of involvement only perpetuates the image of having something to hide.