Grassroots Groundswell

By Emory Layne

Spring is here, and so are the door-to-door idiots.

Look, PLEASE, someone tell me if it IS or ISN’T legal to go door-to-door selling things in North Plainfield?

I really have to know. Because the next time some shmuck comes to my door, with the exact same “Don’t worry I’m not selling anything” schpiel, I would very much like to tell him or her … or IT … that they should hightail it out of my yard because what they’re doing is against the law.

Or is it?

I mean, we have to have permits to have yard sales, and we can’t post any signs on telephone poles for them. Okay, that’s cool. No stupid signs uglying up the neighborhood. But we do have to be all legal and on the up-and-up to have a yard sale.

And there are all sorts of rules about where we can park what, and what you have to do if your dog dumps anywhere but in your own yard and such. What about these people?

Of course, they’re never selling anything. They’re just asking you to buy something. Remember the old TV show “It Takes a Thief?”

“I’m not asking you to spy,” says Noah Bain to Alexander Mundy, “I’m asking you to steal.”

Just like that. They NEVER have anything to sell - just some product or service for you to pay them money for. Oy.

The ones that particularly bother me are those that ask you if you have an alarm system on your house. Why not just say, “Say, is there a time you’re not going to be around for an extended period?” “Do you mind if I come in and look around to see where your valuables are?”

Don’t these people need a permit or something? In this day and age, shouldn’t they be required to, like, SHOW such a permit to the people whose houses they come to who haven’t ASKED them to ring the damn doorbell? At least the kids who were “collecting” for a “church” would attempt to validate it by presenting a crumpled-up piece of paper with a church’s name on it. Hey, that’s good enough for me, right? I mean, not everyone can have a crumpled-up piece of paper with the name of a church on it, can they?

If there is a law or ordinance related to this, would someone please tell me so that I can just start with “let me see your permit,” and follow up with “excuse me while I call the cops” if they don’t have one?

And if there ISN’T an ordinance about this, uh, SHOULDN’T there be one? Or do these irritants steer clear of politicians’ neighborhoods and houses?

By Emory Layne

This discussion is predicated on a concept from the NPCCR-sponsored “Meet the Candidates” night.

At that meeting, GOP candidate Frank D’Amore noted that he had ideas about reducing expenditures to free up approximately $500,000 a year in the Borough , but said he didn’t want to “give away” the “secrets” of his plan at the time, lest the incumbent democrats (his opponents) steal them.

Unfortunately, this is what North Plainfield has become.

And I’m calling on the challengers to the incumbents to walk the walk and change it.

You can look at Mr. D’Amore’s sentiment from two sides. He may feel very strongly about his ideas, and, as a candidate, seriously fear that his opponents (who are in power and would have the means to implement good ideas) would use them and ‘steal his thunder.’

Or, he might be playing the same kind of game that politicians inevitably play, hinting at wonders that never come to fruition.

I lean strongly toward the former. Mr. D’Amore has made enough personal effort without compensation (money or votes) over the years, to support the conclusion that he simply doesn’t want to be ripped off.

But in my opinion, Mr. D’Amore, it’s a baseless fear.

A year ago, you might have had more to worry about. Now, there’s this blog. Now, there are monthly town meetings. If you clearly delineate your ideas, they’ll be a clear part of the public record, with clear dates and a clear source.

IF seated officials were to implement those ideas, wouldn’t that be a benefit for the taxpayer? And then, no matter how many claims to the contrary they might make, it would be abundantly clear where those ideas came from. “I was going to do that anyway!” might still fly in kindergarten arguments, but it wouldn’t carry any weight here.

It would be a win-win situation for both you and the residents of the town.

If the incumbents did “steal” your ideas, there would be immediate savings for the taxpayer … and the source of the ideas would be right here in black-and-white.

Truth be told, I think the challengers are missing a golden opportunity here.

For elections going back more than a decade, North Plainfield voters have been provided with little more than table scraps. Puffy election pieces come out shortly before voting, blowing smoke about “pride” and generalities, but providing no real substance. Candidates state their positions in the newspapers, and the profiles read like the same person wrote them all. On occasion, a last-minute election piece is rushed out, making claims that are at best too all-encompassing, and at worst, false.

Too often, come Election Day, voters choose the party of the people they’re voting for in state and national elections anyway.

In a sense, voters can’t be blamed too mercilessly; rarely do they have anything substantive to go on at the local level.

Of course, this has become the general nature of politics. To this day, media classes in college are still shown the ‘classic’ Daisies ad that the Lyndon Johnson campaign ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964 as an example of mass persuasion. And since that time, mainstream candidates have been scared of taking too firm a position on any issue, for fear that it could backfire on them.

I think what they all forget is that when the voting is done, 50% of them go home losers.

Being a campaign manager has to be a better job than being a weather forecaster. As the ‘brains’ behind a political campaign, if you win, you’re assured of lifelong employment (”He’s the guy who got so-and-so elected!). If you lose, you just make a lot of excuses and end up a talking head on any of the scores of political talk shows … with pay.

I’ll do it here for nothing.

Challengers - DIRECTLY address the issues. Between the information you’ve dug up on your own and the information unearthed by Katherine “the Excavator” Watt, you have a wealth of source material previously unavailable in these dust-ups.

What do you possibly have to lose? If there’s something going on in town that smells like feet, say exactly what you plan to do about it.

It is now June of 2008. In exactly five months, voters will make their decisions. I will say with a lifetime of experience as backing that those who’ve been in power for years and years in North Plainfield are NOT capable of ‘raising the Titanic’ in that brief period of time. They do NOT have a stranglehold on information in town; too much has come out on various websites to believe that people would actually think YOUR ideas were theirs.

But let’s hear it.

There are perks up and down the system at Borough Hall. Instead of saying generally that you can “save money,” for example, list out who’s getting what, by name, item and cost; show that it’s waste; and state you will put an end to it. How many votes do you specifically lose by doing that? Two - the person getting the perks and his or her spouse. Heck, in some cases the answer would be none, because some of these beneficiaries don’t even live in (and, thus can’t vote in) North Plainfield.

If you address an issue, sure as shooting someone will come along bleating inanities against you.

That’s politics.

As this blog showed in the debate about illegal housing, the complainers are usually (a) lacking in facts and (b) alone.

Talk about flawed legal services.

Talk about do-nothing committees.

Talk about employees without oversight.

Then, state specifically what you’re going to do when elected.

Because if you do that, I honestly believe the word will be “when,” not “if.”

[Editor's Note - This Layne post has a companion post addressing the need for more specific proposals from the challenger candidates, which will be put up early afternoon on Friday.]

By Emory Layne

No matter what is posted on this blog, no matter what the NPCCR makes an effort to do, there are two distinct lines of — I don’t know what it is, but it’s not reason — that I keep hearing.

Position Number One:

“Is that all you people with NPCCR / Grassroots Groundswell can do? Complain? Be negative? All this criticism is creating a negative atmosphere!”

Position Number Two:

“That’s not just a problem in North Plainfield; that’s a problem in other communities in New Jersey and across the nation. Why are you spending so much time on that?”

Let’s start with a response to Position Number One:

“And your point?”

A slate of GOP candidates is running against a slate of incumbent democrats. The republican candidates are criticized for criticizing the incumbents.

Looking back a reasonably short period of time, the only reason there have been democrat incumbents in the majority for about ten years or so is because they SHREDDED the republican office holders in order to get in.

It’s easy to “not recall” that now … when it’s YOUR people who hold the reins.

Remember when the challenger democrats wanted to hijack the stage?

They claimed the GOP had the town’s finances in an absolute mess.

And, as we all know, they’re now clean as a whistle.

The challenger democrats shouted that the GOP practiced favoritism.

And, of course, they’ve been nothing but robotically objective since taking office.

And the challenger democrats screamed that the GOP was doing nothing about issue ‘A’ or issue ‘B’, and since then, the only thing they’ve accomplished, if it’s imaginable, is to do LESS about said issues.

Why now do you want the challengers to praise their opponents profusely?

Why this sudden allergy to criticism, since it was all the rage before any of the current democrat incumbents were seated in power?

If anything, the challengers, to date, have done MORE than the incumbents … from the outside looking in.

You claim they need to present “ideas,” “solutions;” Like the people currently holding office?

The people on the inside, with the information and authority, certainly appear to have a short checklist of potential approaches:

1. Discuss matters in private.
2. Form a committee.
3. Ignore the issues on everyone’s minds.

Sometimes, when they’re feeling really political, they manage to do all three at the same time!

Please stop.

I have become so tired of this political game whereby something is justifiable for one and abhorrent from another.

Using this same “logic,” no one should have said one discouraging word about George Bush for eight years, because that would be fostering negativism; Jim McGreevey should still be governor, because, hey, we should focus on the positive, not the negative.

Sheesh.

Any number of us have had people in Borough Hall look us directly in the eye and tell us a bald-faced lie.

We’re supposed to accept that?

We’ve witnessed or discovered completely idiotic actions or inactions, treats and tricks, and you want us to say: “Hey, good one, man! You totally faked me out that time!”

Falling back on a ‘negativism’ posture is like playing the race card.

When you can’t possibly make a sensible point that would be true regardless of who or what was involved, the only remaining (ahem) “argument” left is to whitewash the whole situation and find something the other guy is doing that your guy isn’t - in this case, communicating.

Oooooh, the challengers are too “critical.”

Well, I’ll see your critical, and go all in with “the-incumbents-haven’t-done-a-damn-thing-to-praise.”

As for Position Number Two: that an issue, like illegal housing or whatever, is a problem “everywhere,” so applying some quantum leap of belief that only lunatics understand, we shouldn’t try to address it here.

Double sheesh.

You know what? Pollution is a problem here in the U.S. - but there are countries all over the world that don’t give a geedee about it, so to hell with it. Since they aren’t doing anything about it, why should we?

Yeah, I’ll bet you’re on board with that approach.

It gets to the point where people will accept not only flawed arguments, they’ll completely miss insulting ones.

When the whole illegal housing issue was being rhetoricized by those who saw racists under every GOP bumper sticker, they, at one time, made the argument that the issue affected a certain percentage of the borough’s population.

Did anyone besides me see that the argument, for all intents and purposes, lumped all people of one ethnicity into a group of “illegal dwellers?”

Dude, the only people at risk of having laws enforced against them are the admittedly smaller proportion of residents (not hyphenated residents) illegally using single-family homes as apartments. The broad-brush approach was an insult to any number of people.

Imagine how many seconds it would take for someone to blast ME if I so much as implied that. I’m betting on four.

Sometimes people argue: “It’s a big problem, there’s nothing we can do.”

That argument works just fine when your plank is to cater to those involved in the issue du jour.

Suppose we apply that argument to various other issues past and present?

Jim Crow racism? Hey, it permeated the South. Why integrate?

Gas prices? Shoot, they’re high everywhere! Why break a sweat worrying?

Of course those scenarios are ridiculous.

But then say “illegal housing,” and back comes a load of horsecrap bigger than the one Big Brown dropped at the Belmont.

What would it take for readers tired of the “negativism” and “it’s a problem everywhere” to finally say:

“You know what? These people who’ve had the means and opportunity to make things better have made things worse. I have this INKLING that a good approach might be to give someone else a chance. A real chance; not one vote out of seven, or just replacing one body in the mayor’s office with one of identical mind if not appearance.”

What would it take?

By Emory Layne

“Developer Robert McNerney is notifying neighboring homeowners that he plans to apply for Planning Board authorization and permits to build 55 single-family homes at Villa Maria. More info posted as it becomes available.” — Grassroots Groundswell, June 5, 2008

A look back:

“The age-restricted developments would require at least one resident in each unit to be 55 years old or older and would not allow children younger than 19 or those who would attend a borough public school. As with (an earlier) proposal, that provision would reduce the burden on taxpayers,” Councilman Dan Glicklich said, but he added that, at most, 250 units would be permitted at the Villa Maria site. “Which is big. We’re also able to cut back on the height of the buildings, and North Plainfield would meet its affordable income, its COAH obligations here,” Glicklich said. — Courier News, April 23, 2005

Dan Glicklich left office and moved out of town

“Nathan Rudy, a democrat, said partisan ‘fear-mongering’ has led to charges that any development on the site would be high-rise construction - which is not true - or that it would markedly increase traffic. He said the Somerset County Planning Board has found 300 units could be built on the site, and age-restricted housing helps reduce the impact on borough schools to almost zero. “It’s unfortunate that an issue such as this needs to be politicized to this point when the Republican county and Democratic municipal planning boards both agree this is a good plan,” Rudy said. — Courier News, October 8, 2005

Nathan Rudy left office and accepted a high-paying job in the private sector.

“If left under its previous zoning, 60 to 100 single-family homes could have been built on the site, bringing a strain on the school system and other borough services. Democrats, including Mayor Janice Allen, supported the rezoning to allow the age-restricted development, which they argued would be a defense against more invasive construction. Allen could not be reached for comment.” — Courier News, November 26, 2005

Janice Allen opted not to seek reelection in 2008, and has been unavailable for comment on just about everything related to the Borough since then.

“The Borough Planning Board has approved a final site plan for what will likely be the borough’s largest construction project in decades. The board unanimously passed a resolution August 8 to grant approval for Glen Rock-based developer Watchung Hills at North Plainfield to construct 225 units for people 55 and older at the former Villa Maria convent. Board Chairman Tom Fagan said there is a provision in the resolution excluding school-age children from living in the development so no impact will be felt by the borough’s schools.” — Courier News, August 17, 2007

Anyone who was/is an elected or appointed official during this fiasco, and genuinely believed he or she was “doing good” for North Plainfield by yammering on and on about “age-restricted housing” and how “good” it would be for the borough, only to end up having been completely played like a sucker (55 single-family homes, no age restrictions) by the developer should either resign IMMEDIATELY if for no other reason than that their detachment from reality is highly dangerous.

But anyone who participated in this con job from the start and who knew what was going on all along is, in the opinion of many, criminally liable for staging this big dog-and-pony show when, all the while, the developer was going to get what he wanted all along and non-collection of back taxes were going to be thrown into the package as a sweetener.

We have been conned, and our neighbors (not friends) currently holding office or formerly holding office downtown and those appointed to Planning Boards and the like are the grifters.

Anyone want to bet they all get off scot-free?

By Emory Layne

As in “North Plainfield, Zero Responsibility Corporation.”

A lot of people think running a town like a business is talking dirty. I’ve had this discussion with folks, and those opposed start tossing out a lot of the traditional soapbox-and-megaphone tripe about how you can’t see a municipality like a business because companies are cold, unfeeling and bottom-line driven. They say they’d fear that people’s concerns and services would get shunted aside as bean counters and balance sheets became all that mattered.

Of course, people who talk like that do so from that wonderful place called What If, South Dakota.

If you live there and want to oppose a position, you don’t have to have any facts or data - you just throw out a lot of hypothetical thoughts, the more ominous the better, and act as if they prove something. It’s funny how such people always know exactly what’s going to happen in the future, but can’t even get tomorrow’s Pick-3 right.

It’s a shame, though, that people hired by North Plainfield don’t seem to be able to count beans very well. Sometimes, it seems as if the jar with the beans spilled the beans all over the floor and they just swept them up and tossed them out.

At the end of 2007, North Plainfield’s municipal debt stood at $13,010,183.00

In 1999, North Plainfield filed a lawsuit against the Fidelity Land Development Corp. over the Watchung Square Mall project. The borough attorneys failed to meet the deadline for responding to an offer of a $2.2 million dollar settlement from the developer. By the time the Allen administration managed to mail a piece of paper to the developer accepting the offer, the suit had already been heard and the Borough lost.

No settlement!

If the borough attorney had done his job and put a letter in the mail on time, and then if that settlement had been deposited in a passbook account with 2% simple interest (as opposed to shoving it in a mattress), the borough would have had $2,575.000 by 2007.

That would have reduced the debt to $10,435,183.

Once the Villa Maria stopped being a not-for-profit entity, the owners owed taxes. That tax debt to the borough reached approximately $1,500,000. While everyone else in North Plainfield pays their taxes or suffers late fines and penalties, these went uncollected. We still have absolutely no idea why.

But we do know that applying them to the borough debt would have reduced it further to $8,935,183

Renovation of Borough Hall was originally budgeted for $3,828,000. While obtaining information on what’s actually being spent on this project is nearly impossible thanks to a combination of administrative secrecy and creative bookkeeping, it can be very safely assumed that the project is at least $1,000,000 over budget.

Add to this the $300,000 in late fees the contractor - Dauti Construction Co. - was legally obligated to pay (heck, Dauti put the late fees in his bid package, which seems to have helped him win the contract in the first place) until he managed to pull off the oldest trick in the book and not sign the contracts …

… and we reduce the municipal debt to $7,635,183.

There’s the question of why at least $316,000 has gone uncollected in back fees and citation fines. The ‘explanation’ provided is that there’s no credit card processing system available … so how, may we ask, were such fines collected back when there were no credit cards? The violators don’t have checkbooks? CASH?

And let’s not forget about the $500,000 (minimum) that the administration admitted went ‘missing’ while John Katilas was the Borough Administrator (admitted, that is, when it appeared there was going to be an investigation; then, David Hollod did the investigation and BLINK! No more issue!)

The debt is down to $6,819,183.

And that, my friends, is a smidgeon over HALF of what it currently is.

And I never even touched on years of uncollected fines for zoning violations, and years of a “warn but don’t violate” policy being practiced by the police department. Both of those areas bring in borough income. Individually, they’re small; collectively, they add up to large numbers that would have further reduced the debt.

This is not voodoo economics.

This is the simple, basic premise of collecting money that’s owed, obtaining money that’s offered, and managing money that exists.

Let me ask some equally simple questions.

Is Janice Allen’s preschool in bankruptcy?

Is Eric Bernstein’s law firm in debt?

Are Borough Administrator David Hollod, Council President Frank Stabile and Councilman/Mayoral candidate Mike Giordano fending off creditors?

I’d make an educated guess that the answers are no, no, no, no and no.

When it comes to their OWN businesses and personal finances, I strongly believe that the people who handle the borough’s money are a great deal more conscious of who owes them money and a great deal more committed to getting it. I believe they value the concept of being financially healthy.

But when it comes to the money you and I provide them, they apply an entirely different set of standards.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with expecting those who claim to have the skill sets to make the important determinations about borough finances to either do it or explain why they aren’t. This isn’t Monopoly money we’re dealing with, though the way Borough Hall ‘plays’ at their tasks they’d likely trade Boardwalk even-up for Mediterranean.

And it’s not as if they can’t do it when it’s their own money.

The people who have been managing OUR money for a long time don’t have the commitment and willingness to do it wisely. Just like someone who pays off one credit card’s debt by using another one, there’s always next year’s tax income, there’s always a spreadsheet that looks great but means nothing, and there’s always someone or something a finger can be pointed at.

Pyramid schemes inevitably fall apart; Ponzi schemes inevitably crash.

At what point does all this come back to haunt the taxpayer in North Plainfield … at which time, the perpetrators will either be long gone or will just have found new excuses to replace the old ones?

By Emory Layne

There is one consistency, more than any other, that personifies officials in North Plainfield: elected, appointed or hired.

It is the inability to ever do anything wrong.

When you take into account your own personal experiences, and combine them with the revelations of foul-ups, bleeps and blunders in town over an indefinite period, you can only conclude that no one who holds any authority in North Plainfield EVER does anything wrong.

At least, that’s what they seem to believe.

When was the last time you heard ANYONE in these positions say “I screwed up?”

The answer is the same as the one for the question of when you ever heard any of these folks apologize - how long is forever?

We’ve all known these types of people, in social situations, in clubs and organizations, but especially in the workplace. People for whom errors are impossible, poor judgment is unthinkable, and blame invariably falls elsewhere. We’ve all marveled at how people with little or no skills at problem solving, administration or actually DOING anything themselves have risen to positions of responsibility. It takes lots and lots of years, and lots and lots of frustrating experiences with them, before it becomes clear that to them, honesty is a liability, integrity a handicap.

To them, as Motorhead sings, “It’s all about control, and who’s gonna take it.”

Appropriately enough to North Plainfield, the very next line of that song is “It’s all about big debt, and if you can pay it.”

It certainly appears that it’s been ages since North Plainfield has made a ‘bad hire,’ because everyone gets raises and promotions, and no one gets fired or disciplined.

It certainly appears that only the cream of the crop are consistently appointed to boards, committees and commissions, because their positions are renewed year in and year out, and they’re only replaced when they choose to leave or move onward and upward.

And listening to the absolute, echoing SILENCE coming from our elected officials as news of all these financial and administrative … oddities … come to light, we must conclude that they either (a) think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, or (b) are simply searching for the proper ‘Jonah’ to blame it all on.

Someone who isn’t one of them.

Revisit the concept of your superiors and your brethren in the workplace. When you encounter someone unwilling to accept any responsibility for anything that goes wrong, how long do you shoulder the responsibility yourself before you get fed up?

How often have you found yourself covering for someone else’s ineptitude - and then watched that person claim the results as their own?

Don’t sit there and tell me you don’t mind it; it sucks and you know it sucks.

And a lot of people have unfortunately experienced firsthand how it can progress from simple frustration to financial crisis, as companies downsize or go under because legends in their own minds get used to believing they’re infallible.

Now, revisit Borough Hall.

Our Mayor has never felt it necessary to say “I made a mistake.”

Instead, she’s provided provably inaccurate excuses, and tried to lay off the blame on faceless, nameless “theys.”

Our Borough Administrator seems oblivious to literally millions of dollars scattering to the four winds, and if he ever manages to bring himself to discuss finances with us peons at all, he blathers about county and school budgets taking up the largest portion of our tax bite. Who cares?

We want to know about the money that’s getting flushed down the terlit.

Our multipurpose Zoning Officer and DPW Director does little unless you count getting bad press an accomplishment.

Our Borough Attorney apparently can’t handle the simplest basics of his assignments.

The mayor’s Administrative Assistant seems to feel it acceptable to spread lies and slander about residents to other towns.

And while all this is going on, Borough Council acts like those floating heads on the old Star Trek TV series, discussing inanities while appearing to remain oblivious to what’s going on a few rooms removed from where they meet.

Do we ever see someone at a Council meeting even APPEAR to be upset about the goings on in town, the goings on that have to do with the people who make the decisions?

Over the course of a LOT of years, I can only recall four times when the officials in this town ever got pissed enough to speak up, speak out, and take action. One involved loving concern for an old building - when tearing down the Vermuele Mansion was discussed, people in power got up in arms and acted. Another involved changing the name of the town; people in authority screamed ‘racism!’ and talked of their pride and mustered the effort to defeat it. A third involved a crowd of residents showing up at Borough Hall to protest potential cuts in school services - the Council rudely told them they had to leave or the meeting would be cancelled. And the fourth? When a police officer ran a license plate of one of the Borough Hall insiders; swift action followed.

There’ve been a few examples of action recently. Eric Bernstein felt it necessary to threaten recovery of a few thousand dollars from Katherine Watt, and Tina Totten felt it important to badmouth the NPCCR to Green Brook Flood Control Commission officials.

Meanwhile, a few hundred thousand dollars flitters away from the Villa Maria property, and a few million dollars are being tossed in the Borough Hall renovation money pit, and silence reigns.

As this goes on, Borough Council is discussing parking, new members of committees and massage parlors.

What is WRONG with you people? I KNOW you don’t act this way about your own checkbook:

“Honey, $10,000 is missing!”

“Oh, well. C’est la vie!”

I KNOW how you’ve reacted when you think someone ELSE is doing something that’s not kosher. What’s with all this turning your back to the approaching tornado and saying “Wow, it’s sunny over there!”

I hope I’m speaking for a number of other people when I call on Borough Council to sever the social and political ties and TALK about all this ridiculousness that’s literally being handed to you by this blog.

We can see pretty clearly that the Mayor has no interest anymore in dealing with anything related to the Borough except awards and her legacy. It’s time for you people to shoulder what goes with your fancy titles - dig in, speak up, or get out.

Quit passing the buck - accept your responsibility, or step aside.

By Emory Layne

A point I raised in a recent dispatch, and the counterpoint that followed, got me thinking about a concept that is so basic, so simple, that it amazes me that there is any debate at all that doesn’t first consider it and conclude that some of this arguing is so much idiocy.

I was thinking about those people who put together the Fourth of July parade and the fireworks program. But as I write about them, I guess I could also be saying the same things for the people who put together school fairs, or class activities at the schools, or scouting programs, or similar activities.

The parade is for everyone. One of my fondest memories of the parade in North Plainfield was the year those guys with all those tricked-out Hondas were in it, with the headlights winking up and down. That was so cool. There isn’t any “their” agenda and “our” agenda in it.

Same holds true for fireworks - hey, if you have a problem with the celebration and its intended symbolism, well, you can stay home and deal with the noise for 15 minutes, but people from 4 to 94 can be enthralled and enjoy it without having to figure out which ‘side’ they’re on.

I’ll bet it takes a lot of work to get that thing done, year in and year out. And I can believe with certainty, without having to review budgets and documents, that there’s not some open-ended budget to pull it off. No one’s got the option of just boosting a tax rate or a sewer fee, or putting through a bond issue, to get more money to do what they’d like to do - if they have an idea, it’s accomplished within the confines of a static budget and with sweat and effort.

People in this town … and towns like it all over America … do this all the time.

Sometimes, people need something, and instead of submitting an expense voucher, they just reach into their pocket and pay for it. Ten bucks, twenty bucks, shoot, you can burn through that and still have 15 minutes left in Happy Hour; why not for a good cause? No one keeps track of the hours they put in, because there’s no reason to. The end goal - a successful parade, or project, or event, or whatever, is the target, and reaching it provides great satisfaction.

This is a small town. A lot of the people you see involved in so many activities around town will never run for political office. They’ll never be appointed to a committee, and won’t even seek it. And the vast majority will never see one thin dime of their tax money come back to them in the form of a paycheck or expense check cut downtown.

They do it for the best reason of all — because it’s the right thing to do.

WHENEVER debate starts up about things that go on with our elected officials, our appointed officials, and our paid employees, does it occur to many of the people who angrily claim that ‘names are being called’ or ‘unfair criticism is being leveled’ that a whole lot of the people bringing the stuff up know from whence they speak?

That they’ve been there, and in many, many ways, done that and done it better.

Whatever happened to anonymous pride? Knowing that no one’s going to pay you for something … or pay you extra, that no one’s going to give you an award or a perk, and that no one’s probably going to even notice — but doing your best anyway?

People all over this town do that day in and day out, year in and year out, and not only do they “get” little or nothing for it (and here’s the big point coming) they don’t expect to, yet they do it anyway.

That little extra.

People want to see documents, budgets, contracts.

Of course, long ago in this peculiar society, the concept that someone who works FOR someone, i.e. the taxpayer, OWES them something remotely similar to respect has pretty much disappeared.

WHY can’t we just see them? I mean, every time there’s a Borough Council meeting, I’d think it was just a knee-jerk no-brainer to just put up what was talked about on the Borough website. Even if it’s not word-for-word, maybe just the highlights? “A fee to put a POD in your driveway was discussed.” How long does it take? Seconds.

I recall how upset a lot of people got when the salaries of public employees became available on line, seeing it as an ‘invasion of privacy.’

If you don’t want that happening, go work in the private sector. But when you do work for the taxpayer, and because the taxpayers have witnessed SO MUCH abuse of the system over decades, complaining about public access to public salary information is a cake-and-eat-it situation.

It wasn’t the taxpayers who wasted their own money on so many ridiculous things, yet you also want your cohorts to be allowed to continue doing it in privacy?

I’m really tired of the extended violin concertos played by elected officials and public employees when the very people who put them there and/or allow them to draw their beloved paychecks seek information. Someone wants to see a document? “The NERVE of them! How can someone possibly process public documents (and get paid for doing it) when the public keeps asking to see the documents? Why don’t they just TRUST us?”

Why, indeed?

No one seems to want anyone to know anything. “Trust us, we’re experts.”

Fine. I trust experts - especially when those experts are proud enough of their work that they share it with me.

When they demand I accept their expertise, but act offended if I ask to see their bona-fides, do they honestly expect me to feel bad, and apologize for questioning them? Why not just show me? If you’re as clean as you demand we believe, it’ll be as plain as day. AND WE’LL APPRECIATE IT.

“Of course I’m a surgeon. Of course I can cut out your gall bladder for $50,000. How DARE you ask to see my diploma!…”

By Emory Layne

The Borough Attorney is, of course, Eric Bernstein. Here’s how he’s supposed to be compensated for that position, according to Borough ordinances:

2-8.1 Director.

The Director of the Department of Law shall be an attorney of the State of New Jersey who shall also serve as Borough Attorney. The Director shall not be a full-time employee of the Borough and shall receive a salary or retainer plus such fees as are authorized by the Council and by the Mayor. (Ord. #667, S 8.1; Ord. #667-L-87-4, S 5)

Mr. Bernstein receives a “retainer” plus “fees” that totaled about $200,000 in 2007.

That’s a lot of scratch. Do the math any way you’d like, but that’s about $850 A DAY for every work day of the calendar year.

And since I’m not in the market for any New York bridges or New Jersey swampland, please don’t try to get me to believe that he works for the borough each and every day of the year. Nice work if you can get it.

‘Borough attorney,’ brings to mind some pretty basic duties: represent the borough in any court or legal actions, review the verbiage of ordinances and resolutions, that kind of stuff.

But there are some things that this person — a person we NEVER vote for, a person who NEVER interacts with the residents unless he’s threatening them, and a person who gets paid very, very well whether he’s dotting i’s and crossing t’s or just surfing the net all day — gets to do that trouble me.

2-8.2 Powers and Duties.

The Department of Law shall:

c.) Review and approve all contracts, deeds, documents and instruments.

Does this mean contracts like the Borough Hall renovation contract?

Does this legal review and approval apply to situations when there’s a contract provision that isn’t met, and the contract calls for the contractor to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties?

[Editor's Note: The Borough Hall renovation penalty total, not counting interest and other fees for things like inspections, is about $209,000 as of May 30, 2008.]

Of course it does: it’s right there in the holy scripture - borough ordinances.

e.) Subject to the approval of the Mayor or the Council, the Borough Attorney or such other attorney acting pursuant to the provisions of this Administrative Code shall have the power to enter into any agreement, compromise or settlement of any litigation in which the Borough is involved, provided, however, this subsection shall not limit or abridge the discretion of such attorney handling the matter in regard to the proper conduct of any trial, action or proceeding or deprive him of the powers and privileges ordinarily exercised in judicial proceedings by counsel acting for private clients.

Wow, that’s a mouthful. Legalese doesn’t know anything about punctuation. Does Rosetta Stone offer “lawyer?”

If I read it right, it says the “power to enter into any agreement, compromise or settlement of any litigation.”

Would that include agreements pertaining to property owners who, say, lost their tax-exempt status, but didn’t want to be bothered with the nasty, lay-world necessity of paying taxes?

Are we really saying to some lawyer, “Go ahead - do what you think is best!” when we’re dealing with the town’s coffers?

Part of the reason I get touchy about this stuff is because these all-powerful ordinances also state the following:

f.) Maintain a record of all actions, suits, proceedings and matters in judicial litigation or arbitration which relate to the Borough’s interest, and submit written monthly reports of same to the Council; and submit written reports to the Council of any new litigation or arbitration concerning the Borough at the next Council meeting immediately following service of process.

As Butthead might say, “huh, huh … it said written.”

Do these things ever show up in the minutes of council meetings?

If they’re written, somebody in Borough Hall could scan it right in, ya know? (Ask Katherine Watt: she’ll dumb down the technology for you.)

But please don’t tell me that we have to submit yet another stupid form to see what we’re paying for. The ordinance says the guy must submit these written reports.

Can we see them?

Please?

Pretty please?

Pretty please with a martini olive on top?

Because there’s a final part of this ordinance:

g.) Have such other and different functions, powers and duties as may be provided by general law or ordinance. (Ord. #667, S 8.2; Ord. #667-L-87-4, S 6)

“Other and different functions?” “As MAY BE provided?” “General law and ordinance”

Can it be any more vague?

Why not just insert a section into the borough ordinances that says:

“Anyone at Borough Hall can do whatever they please whenever they please however they please.”

I’m not going for a yuk. That scares me.

Remember, Bernstein is a very well paid fellow.

Suppose someone comes up to you and says, “Hey, I’m worried about what’ll happen if I take this drug test; could you whiz in a cup and let me use it as my own?”

Suppose you respond: “What’s in it for me?”

Suppose the answer is: “Five bucks.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……

Now, suppose the answer is “$200,000 a year for an indefinite period.”

Might tempt you, huh?

I guess the thing that irks me the absolute most is that this fellow does this kind of work for a number of municipalities. It could be North Plainfield, North Arlington or Northfield - the only commonality is money. Getting paid. There’s NO accountability to the residents, no INPUT from the residents.

A guy shmoozes a mayor and enough of the council to get a majority, and he’s in like Flynn … or, in this case, Bernstein. And after that, we have no say in what he does.

A note to whoever wins the equally holy ‘mayor’s office’ this year: Mayor Allen has never actually had to go out-of-pocket on that $200,000 a year. Those legal fees were and are still paid by the TAXPAYERS.

That makes us the borough attorney’s “clients;” all 21,000+ of us. Not one mayor and seven Council members.

So let’s exercise a little of that good ol’ “attorney-client privilege” in the near future, and see what we’ve been paying through the nose for. See, we’re the clients, and he’s the attorney.

Any particular reason why we can’t see what we’re paying for?

You’ll be the mayor. You can do it.

By Emory Layne

Not too long ago, democrat candidates for office in North Plainfield chose not to attend a “Meet the Candidates” event sponsored by the NPCCR. Instead, they eventually agreed to submit written statements, which arrived at the last minute.

Written statements are very handy for people who want to just “say” without having to “prove.”

In the world of literature, the legitimacy of a work of non-fiction is directly related to the depth and volume of its attributions and sources. Allegedly ‘factual’ works can’t be taken seriously when the author provides no sources for his information, or provides sources with the respectful standing of things like “The National Enquirer,” or unrecorded conversations.

But we’re not talking about non-fiction here. North Plainfielders don’t have to go the library to check out great works of fiction - they’re regularly hand-delivered to your doorstep. Case in point: the election promises and positions of the democrat candidates seeking election or reelection this November.

A year and a half ago, democrats seeking votes in the next election distributed their promises of what they were going to do if they won. They did win. Here’s what they had to say before the November 2006 elections:

“Continue to enter into shared service agreements with surrounding communities for greater tax savings.”

Here’s what Mike Giordano said earlier this year:

“Believes Borough needs to continue to explore and expand shared service arrangements, especially with public works and fire department, because shared services also make service providers eligible for more grants.”

Fact or fiction?

These candidates keep using that word “continue,” but I’m not seeing what shared services agreements we’re involved in … the basis for proper use of the word ‘continue.’ If something hasn’t started, it can’t ‘continue.’

But of greater importance, just when will these things actually begin to happen? It sure sounds great on paper, but so would “no taxes ever again for North Plainfield residents.” I think I could win a run for mayor making that promise - but people would kind of expect me to deliver, wouldn’t they? In all the years these candidates have been involved in North Plainfield government, there’s been a lot of sizzle on this issue, but no steak.

FICTION.

In 2006, they said:

“Expand commercial tax base through downtown revitalization to relieve burden on homeowners.”

Here’s what Frank Righetti had to say earlier this year:

“Pleased with tenants and renovations at K-Mart Plaza, Siperstein’s Paints and VIP Honda. Notes that downtown is “very busy also.” Asserted that “these ratables stabilize taxes on residents.” Advocates asking businesses for input about their needs.”

Fact or fiction?

Siperstein’s and VIP Honda are existing businesses, and have been for a long time. Not new ones. Kmart plaza replaced an old business with a new business … but Mr. Righetti apparently missed the two yawning spaces that have been empty for years and years. And they aren’t renovating to please residents; they’re businesses in the business of making money.

Downtown is “very busy?” All kinds of wisecracks could be made about that (some involving sirens), but the simple fact is that if one business closes and another opens, there is no gain. And ratables ‘stabilize’ taxes only in this way: without businesses, taxes are higher. You don’t DECREASE taxes until you INCREASE the ratables. Empty buildings are NOT an increase. The downtown revitalization project has been a running stink bomb in this town, with nothing ‘revitalized’ except Borough Hall.

FICTION.

In 2006:

“Ensure proper enforcement of maintenance and housing standards.”

Righetti and Giordano readdressed this earlier this year in their Meet the Candidates statements. One can only imagine that they alluded to it because, oh, I don’t know, perhaps it’s been the number one issue in North Plainfield for about 20 years, after we shrug our shoulders and accept that we’re going to be taken to the cleaners with our tax bill going up each year?

So, naturally, in 2006, when these people were running for office, they said this was a priority. Nearly two years later, they say it’s a priority.

Having to take A LEAK is a priority too, and you don’t just stand there talking about it. YOU DO IT.

It has become painfully obvious from the lip service paid to this topic in election years that the people who ARE in office and HAVE BEEN in office have no plans whatsoever to do anything about it except put a fresh coat of paint on it every now and then.

FICTION.

We aren’t talking about ending the war in Iraq here, or ending hunger and poverty or creating national healthcare. We’re talking about DOABLE things. Am I sure they’re doable? Darn tootin’ I am - these people told us they were doable, when they sent out campaign materials that said they were going to do them.

Unlike big national issues, there aren’t 435 congressmen and 100 senators who have to be assuaged to get legislation through, to get action taken. Here, there’s a mayor, and seven Council people. And since seven of those eight people have all been saying the same things in their campaign materials, how the hell can any of them say they encountered “opposition?”

They can’t.

They simply blew smoke up our butts.

That’s why I didn’t vote for them before: solely and simply, because I was developing lung cancer of the rectum.

How many times are there in a “will continue to” before it becomes a “have accomplished?”

Three?

Seven?

Forty-nine?

The absolute proof is in the resistance to information dissemination - when people actually accomplish something, you can’t shut them up from bragging about it.

“Continue to” is a very appropriate phrase for this current group of candidates.

Each and every one has had the opportunity to accomplish the things they promised they would.

Each and every one had circumstances that would make it super-easy to get things approved … a majority on the Council and committees stocked with their supporters. The atmosphere for accomplishment has been as perfect as it could be for this group in town, and they’ve gotten squat done on the issues residents are most concerned with.

Each and every one of these candidates has shown that the only thing they’re interested in continuing to do is spread bilge about what they’re going to do, which they never do no matter how many times they win.

By Emory Layne

Here’s a link to the full text of a letter written by former Borough Council President Nathan Rudy, posted on May 25, 2007 on Grassroots NJ7, a Google group.

Rudy Blue7th Letter

It discusses, completely unedited, the formation of ‘Blue 7th’ a politically active group.

Isn’t May 2007 around the same time that Katherine Watt started blogging for North Plainfield?

Read the letter - this is an AMAZING incident of synchronicity, kind of like all those “Lincoln-Kennedy” things that float around in emails.

I mean, just look at the first sentence:

“In February 2005 a small group of central New Jersey grassroots activists decided we’d had enough.”

Small group … grassroots … activists … astounding.

Right here, before Katherine Watt came along, we had a person who once had all the access to information, data and documents NPCCR have been going out-of-pocket for; the guy was Borough Council President! And not long after that, he decided he’d “had enough.”

Unfortunately for all of us, the things that this fellow had “had enough of” were George W. Bush and Mike Ferguson. And, fortunately for Mr. Rudy, the mayor’s administrative assistant wasn’t writing any emails to other towns at the time.

It’s a darn shame, really. Because if Mr. Rudy had ever “had enough” of the silliness and ridiculousness in North Plainfield, imagine what he might have laid the groundwork for?

Commenting on the website he began, DumpMike , he said

“It was the one place on the Internet where people could go for an alternate opinion about Ferguson when previously all there was were his own sites.”

Even though no one in North Plainfield has deigned to co-opt that website for a mayoral candidate, or ever started one that was called “DumpJanice,” there is a tremendous similarity. Until ‘Grassroots Groundswell’ came along, North Plainfielders had nowhere to see alternate opinions to the mayor’s office, nowhere to get information other than what the mayor’s office dictated and approved.

Read more about his activities:

“We organized monthly meetups, with as many as 45 people in a room to hear from candidates. We built an e-mail activist list of 1200 people in the district. We coordinated with NJ for Democracy and other groups to hold meetings with potential candidates.”

Here was a guy that ALREADY HAD the experience doing remarkably (almost chillingly) similar stuff as the NPCCR, PLUS the knowledge of what had been going on all these years!

Unfortunately for Mr. Rudy, all good things must come to an end. When he accepted the position of Executive Director of the Tri-County Red Cross, he felt it necessary to end his political activism, explaining:

“However, the position is non-partisan in nature. While I was not asked to do so by the Red Cross, I have decided to step down from partisan politics so that it doesn’t affect my ability to raise the funds, make the contacts and do the work necessary to help the people of our service area. It would be hard to campaign against a person as Nathan Rudy while approaching them for support as Executive Director, and I do not want to do that.”

And we encounter the one and only difference between Mr. Rudy and Ms. Watt - and it’s that damned word again - partisan. He was; she ain’t.

For (insert your favorite expression of amazement here), Watt has worked toward many of the exact same causes and goals that Mr. Rudy did - the only difference was, when Ms. Watt smelled fish in Borough Hall, she didn’t just spray Glade.

Because, as we unfortunately discover when our dreams explode into a gooey mass of yecch, Mr. Rudy was a partisan. He’d “had enough” of George Bush, and of Mike Ferguson. Coincidentally, they’re both not democrats.

It’s very sad, really. All that energy, all that skill at organization and activism, and it just got BLINK! Switched on and off when convenient.

When Mr. Rudy was a part of North Plainfield government, he encountered things away from town that created righteous indignation in his conscience; (click) ON!

But while serving in a position to which residents of North Plainfield elected him, with the belief that he’d be as attuned to what was going on at home as much as to what was going on elsewhere, (click) off.

When he no longer wanted to be an elected official in North Plainfield, and felt that continued indignation, (click) ON!

But when he got a job with the Red Cross, (click) … off.

Anyone who still wants to argue the “democrat versus republican” drek should go to some other website or blog where people sit in front of computers in their underwear, trumpeting their headstrong beliefs while wiping the Cheez Doodle residue off their hands onto their skivvies.

Because it should be pretty bleeping obvious NOW that if you continue to ascribe to this “which party” imbecility when it comes to North Plainfield, you’re pretty much writing a free pass for hypocrites to continue to smile in your face, all the time wanting to tax your place - the backstabbers.

We’ve all had at least ten years of watching what happens when too many voters vote geometrically instead of intelligently.

Ten years of “nudge, nudge, know what I mean?” administration.

Ten years of “I hired you, you know what that means, don’t you?” management.

Ten years of “I defy you to find that in writing” passing for openness and honesty.

In all that time, I’ve heard one, count it, one, elected democrat in North Plainfield who “might” say something that “might” be construed as not being 100% in agreement with Janice Allen and her Board of Misdirection … “Skip” Stabile.

Sorry, Skip, I probably just brought you some dirty looks at the regular wine-and-cheese executive meetings.

But going back years, including people with high and mighty indignation like Nathan Rudy, I haven’t seen nor heard one of them so much as utter a contrary peep.

North Plainfielders haven’t been electing democrats; they’ve been electing one of those Hindu deities - one head and a dozen arms.

Do you LIKE that? Like I said, if you’re all about defending the indefensible, try another blog. We’re not into cowflop here.

There’s been enough stupidity at Borough Hall to have kept a local edition of the Weekly World News thriving for years. Yet the only thing that the people directly involved in it ever seem to get pissed about has little or nothing to do directly with North Plainfield. To them, heck, it’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood, a wonderful day in the neighborhood ….

I’m sure it is, when you can pretty much do whatever you want, keep it all under wraps, go after the people who try to find out about it, and go so far as to demand to approve freedom of information - I mean, how allegedly Bushian is THAT?

If you WANT to vote for incumbents who have either participated in this stuff, helped it along, or simply looked up at the clouds while it’s gone on, I can’t believe anything except you’re getting something out of it. Because voting for a crook, or a deceiver, or a withholder of information, or a lazy bum, or someone who won’t so much as answer a question simply because they have a “D” after their name is as ASININE as voting the same way for an “R,” and that’s something you all have expressed righteous indignation over time and time again.

Dammit, vote for change. If you don’t want change around here, we can make a really good guess as to why.