Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Plain Language

By Emory Layne

Here’s yet another of the countless things I’ve learned from Hard Knox University: the longer the explanation someone provides for why they did or didn’t do something, the higher the percentage of inherent cowflop in it.

At a certain point, it reaches 100% manure.

No, I’m not referring to Katherine Watt’s explanation; I’m referring to some of the commentary and positions it contains.

So we’re talking about the formation of a Shade Tree Commission as opposed to a Shade Tree Advisory Board.

From the available information, it seems that the difference between a ‘commission’ and an ‘advisory board’ here in town is that the former would actually have a reason for existence. The latter? Shoot, I’ve ‘advised’ any number of current North Plainfield politicians and employees, right here on this blog.

I’ve told ’em where they can go, how quickly they should go there, and what they can do once they arrive, and you can see how seriously my ‘advice’ has been taken. I’m thinking of Jim Mora coaching the New Orleans Saints: “Advice? Advice? Advice?”

Plain language:

If the current administration saw ANY benefit TO ITSELF (not necessarily the town) by having a S.T. Commission instead of a S.T.A.B., they would have done it years ago. The requirement of a simply majority on the Council would have been a breeze, back when just about anything passed with a unanimous 7-0 vote, including the lone Republican on the council, Mrs. M.M. Jones.

Proof? In Janice Allen & Co.’s own campaign flier from 2004, they state that they:

“Supported the planting of trees and just received from D.O.T. $20,000 worth of Spruce trees to plant along Krausche Field and Route 22.”

Let’s see.

It’s important enough to use valuable space on a campaign flier to announce that you received grant money to plant trees along Route 22 and an athletic field, AND that you “support” the “planting of trees.”

Yet when the opportunity to create a commission that would further “support” the planting of trees as well as fight the destruction of existing ones, AND obtain grant money … you do nothing.

My suspicion: “official” commissions in this town exist in their own little world of autonomous interest.

As Katherine Watt has shown, when some meet at all, they often behave more as social clubs than as handlers of important matters for borough taxpayers and residents.

Some don’t meet at all, or rarely.

Others have vacancies that go unfilled.

Still others have what amount to lifetime members.

Absolutely true story: Years ago, one member of an official commission, the Recreation Commission, decided that the borough’s sports programs weren’t ‘competitive” enough, and pushed long and loud for changes in rules and structure. ONE person. Those changes were adopted, and no one in the Mayor’s office or Council chambers so much as had to read through them. No petitions, no public debate, no input from the hundreds of parents whose kids also played in the program.

No, it would appear that the complete lack of action over the years in creating a Shade Tree Commission (which would join the, what is it, 22 other commissions we already have?) was something the current power brokers couldn’t abide.

As they’ve shown us over and over and over, when there’s something they WANT to do, they don’t let silly things like Sunshine laws and public opinion stand in their way. In this town, complete inattention clearly translates to “It is not in Her Majesty’s best interests.”

Something that stopped me dead in this chronological explanation is the statement that members of the S.T.A.B. “were strongly encouraged (by the NPCCR) to be the Committee of Petitioners, because they are the most knowledgeable and passionate tree advocates in the Borough,” but “they declined out of fear of retaliation.”

Plain language:

Please, folks, tell us more. MUCH more.

I’ve heard any number of residents talk about “retaliation” from the Mayor’s office (usually by way of different branches of Her Majesty’s Secret Service), and actually have been given documentation of this kind of behavior.

But this is the first time that people who were actually ON some kind of board or committee or whatever in town referred to it, in my experience.

WHY STOP THERE?

Tell us a little more about what you feared, i.e. what you’d experienced or witnessed that would lead to such concerns. PLEASE fill us in on this? What do you have to lose? They tried “retaliation” on Frank D’Amore, and he’s now an official candidate for Borough Council – fat lot of good their ‘retaliation’ did.

In other words, this ain’t the Mob, there’s no o muerta, and no one’s going to take you on a one-way ride. Heck, if Rodino was even assigned that task, his car would probably be at the car wash and he’d have to postpone it.

Another thing that kind of snags this whole discussion is the reappearance of the names Fred and Margaret Mary Jones. On this, I will be brief.

Plain language:

For a long time, Mr. Jones called the shots for the GOP attempts to achieve some input into the town’s operation. While he somehow managed to successfully help his wife, Mrs. Jones, win election and reelection to Council, everyone else was soundly beaten like a drum.

Mr. Jones had a rather questionable level of “expertise” qualifying him to be in this shotcaller position.

For example, he once claimed that the reason the democrats kept winning mayoral elections was that they fell in the same years as Presidential elections, and voters simply voted the party line – an explanation that works well in 1996 (Clinton) but sort of falls to the ground in 2000 and 2004 (Bush and Bush).

I have this in writing, guys, so don’t start a debate you’ve already lost.

Mrs. Jones served many years on the Borough Council.

One of her standard positions was that she was “only one” among six opponents.

But it’s funny; for the brief period Jenny Flynn was “only one,” she nonetheless managed to make a little noise in town. Currently, Barbara Habeeb is “only one” in the same position, yet she certainly appears to be using all possible avenues to address the concerns of her constituents.

Both of the above-mentioned Councilwomen availed themselves of their position to, at the very least, assist concerned citizens when asked to; Mrs. Jones was known to claim she “couldn’t do anything” without “being provided with the proof.”

Again, it’s in writing. Don’t get all huffy.

So what the eff are these two doing involved in this in the first place? I know it’s a nice and fair and loving concept to welcome one and all, but doesn’t someone’s “track record” come into play at any time? The Joneses, to me, fall into the same category as Mabel “Skip” Hansen, whose name also keeps coming up like indigestion in discussions and actions related to political topics in North Plainfield.

Your time is past.

You had your opportunities to do things for the public, and didn’t do them.

It’s that Jimmy Carter garbage at a lower level; be a miserable failure when you had the opportunity to do something, and then spend the rest of your life butting in where you aren’t needed or wanted. Give it up. Go blog on national issues or something, but stay out of North Plainfield’s business – you had your chance, and you chose not to do the right things.

Finally, though, the thing that would stick in my craw, if I knew what a craw was and whether or not I had one, is that it appears what we have here, in this whole Shade Tree issue, is failure to communicate (thanks, Strother).

And I find that almost expectable in the NPCCR. This is NOT an “official organization;” at their meetings, they have one microphone, not the personalized sound system Mr. Shevett referenced at Council meetings.

They don’t have a long-standing buddy system of “you line my pocket, I’ll line yours” that Borough Hall has maintained with its hiring and firing practices.

They are TRUE ‘volunteers,’ not the “look at my title” nudniks who bask in the glow of political office and then claim to be a bunch of poor Mother Teresas.

Plain language:

How come this has NEVER happened between/among the Mayor and Borough Council and the high-paid, high-perked officials in Borough Hall?

Never. En-ee-vee-ee-ar. Take the current crop of Council members, sans Mrs. Habeeb, pour in the 12-year Mayor, sprinkle in the Council members from the past who put in their time and remain active in the ‘background,’ and stir in the Borough Attorney, Administrator, Zoning Officer, Borough Clerk and Police Chief, and you have this Philosopher’s Stone concoction that agrees on EVERYTHING.

No dissension.

No contradiction.

No (God forbid) criticism.

How many lobotomies would one have to endure before this appeared to make sense? That for over 10 years in North Plainfield, there hasn’t been one single issue on which those holding authority differed?

It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?

To use another cheap “Cool Hand Luke” pop, for the last 10 years, you have to have your mind right to be ‘given’ any power in North Plainfield. I doubt that the retaliation referenced earlier has anything to do with literally being asked what all that dirt is doing in the boss’ hole, but conceptually, it’s probably similar.

I’ve referred to it before, and I’ll refer to it again – whether it’s Shade Tree Commissions, or Villa Maria properties, or School Superintendent’s compensation, or $200,000 a year lawyers, or $2 million wasted on renovations, ALL of it can only be addressed AFTER we first remove the “cult” that has practiced it for all this time.

The stench that has been coming out of Borough Hall for years needs to be cleared, and votes, not trees, will be the means to accomplish that.

See you in November.

Fred Jones on “The Art of Politics”

By Fred Jones, responding to the “Baffled to Fight Better” post:

The art of politics is the art of making friends. Airing dirty laundry seldom makes friends.

The NPCCR leadership posted a review of the Shade Tree Ordinance Initiative and assigned responsibility for its withdrawal. Not surprisingly given the NPCCR agenda, they missed a key concern – the proposed Shade Tree Ordinance was poorly crafted and needed a rewrite. The NPCCR seemed more interested in achieving a success and in teaching the Mayor and Council a lesson. The NPCCR leadership skipped right over the need for improving the town by passing a good Shade Tree Ordinance.

When we reluctantly signed onto the Committee of Petitioners for the Shade Tree Ordinance, we were assured that the proposed ordinance had been well written and reviewed. Katherine said that it was straightforward, based on widely used ordinances, “with no chance of being kicked out by the lawyers like last time”. She also said it was well-vetted by Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein. We were told the Council had no problems with the way the ordinance was written – their concerns were the loss of control and the regulation of private trees. Our mistake was in trusting the NPCCR.

When we read the ordinance line by line, it became clear that the proposed ordinance was a cut-and-paste job of other town’s ordinances which at times were inconsistent. It needed editing in many places. Simple example: Section 2.28.5 defines the Shade Tree Appeals Panel and Section 2-28.16c. refers to a Tree Preservation Appeals Panel. A well edited ordinance would not have two names for the same appeals panel and two ways to indicate the ordinance sections numbers. Another simple example is that “charged” is written as “charted” in Section 2-28.14. The ordinance needed a careful editing.

When the Municipal Attorney reviewed the ordinance, he objected to the requirement that the Mayor must name current committee members as the initial Commissioners because this was inconsistent with the state statutes. The proposed ordinance’s section 2-28.2 says:

“The first commissioners shall be those five (5) individuals currently serving.”

There are two problems with this:

1) There is no Commission and therefore no “commissioners currently serving.” (Presumably they wanted to say Shade Tree Advisory Board members currently serving).

2) The fact that the initial appointments were restricted shows that the ordinance had not been revised to take into account the Municipal Attorney’s recommendations.

There is real doubt whether the Attorney would have approved the proposed Shade Tree Ordinance for the fall election. He rejected an ordinance last year and would do it again.

We also realized that the ordinance was written with an appeals panel that would be dominated by the Mayor’s appointees and so would offer little protection to the town’s tree canopy, including the Villa Maria forest.

We brought these concerns up at the meeting last Thursday but the NPCCR leaders seemed more interested in their control and achieving a success than in creating a good Shade Tree Ordinance. In fact we were the only ones at the meeting with copies of the Ordinance.

I wish the Shade Tree Petition Committee well but will not be involved with it again. Being accused “deliberate sabotage” once is enough. And I hope the NPCCR has furthered its agenda by posting their comment. I will not be reading this blog or reading the NPCCR emails in the future. I have seen enough of their dirty laundry.

“Baffled to Fight Better”

By Katherine Watt, Mark Williams and Antoinette Rinehart
(former/current NPCCR Co-Chairs)

…..One who never turned his back but marched breast forward,
Never doubted clouds would break,
Never dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph,
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better,
Sleep to wake…

-Robert Browning

Airing dirty laundry is not always a bad idea.

Sometimes, it’s one of the steps to getting cleaner laundry later on.

There’s been some behind-the-scenes turmoil within NPCCR in recent weeks, and things are settling down enough to allow some reflection. So, this post is offered to readers as an airing of that dirty laundry, to clear the air, clarify the lessons learned, and highlight a key difference between NPCCR and business as usual in NP:

• Within NPCCR as a civic organization, community members go through difficult times, acknowledge them publicly, reflect on them, look at what worked and what didn’t, and incorporate that information to strengthen the work going forward.
• Within North Plainfield local government, business as usual is to ignore or categorically deny problems without investigation, competent policy or practice, or public explanation. Borough officials refuse to accept or acknowledge responsibility (their own or others), sweep problems under the rug and hope nobody ever comes looking. And if anybody comes looking, business as usual for North Plainfield officials is to blame the people who look, for whatever problems they find.

Here’s what happened:

Back in 1999 or so, Council and Mayor authorized formation of the Shade Tree Advisory Board (STAB), charged with supervising the protection of the shade tree canopy in the borough, and planting
replacement trees whenever possible.

According to STAB Chair Thalia Saloukas, the STAB has been a “political football” then to now, occasionally used as a Shade Tree “Commission” with enforcement powers, when it suited Mayor Allen and cronies, but usually marginalized as a toothless committee forced to stand by and watch shade tree destruction with no power to intervene, and attempt to play catchup by planting saplings to replace towering, healthy, leafy trees cut down on public and private land.

As Ms. Saloukas has often said, “We can’t keep up. They cut down trees faster than we can replace them, and we’re losing our shade tree canopy.”

Thus, for the last six years or so, the STAB members have been attempting to get Council and Mayor to convert the advisory board into a Shade Tree Commission, which would have authority, like such commissions in other communities, and be empowered to actually intervene to prevent shade tree destruction, implement workaround solutions (like sidewalk bump-outs to go around roots) and mandate
shade tree replacement, costs to be paid by those who remove the trees.

The consistent sticking point has been Mayor/Council unwillingness to share authority. The Shade Tree Commission ordinance has failed to move forward time and time again, inarticulate Council “debate” after
“debate,” subcommittee review after subcommittee review, draft after pointlessly-revised draft.

This spring, after the sixth revision, Ms. Saloukas and the STAB finally turned the ordinance over to NPCCR, seeking NPCCR support for an initiative campaign to cut through the bureaucratic crapola, end the delay tactics, and put the question directly to North Plainfield voters on the November ballot. Prior to mid-May 2008, NPCCR had supported the measure from the sidelines, advocating Council adoption.

With the STAB’s green light, the full sixth revision was posted on the blog on May 14, 2008.

Shortly after, NPCCR began recruiting petitioners for that measure and two others (Municipal Open Space Tax and Charter Amendment/Nonpartisan Elections). Each initiative and referendum measure must have a five member Committee of Petitioners to shepherd the measure through the process to the ballot.

STAB members were strongly encouraged to be the Committee of Petitioners, because they are the most knowledgeable and passionate tree advocates in the Borough.

They declined out of fear of retaliation.

Having experienced the Allen Administration’s delaying disbursement of shade tree budget money in the past, often moving on tree planting bid packages well past the optimum planting seasons, the STAB members feared tree money would be withheld altogether if they publicly signed on to the initiative measure as petitioners.

Thus, the volunteers who ultimately stepped up included Antoinette Rinehart, Barbara Habeeb, Christine Holman, Margaret Mary Jones and Fred Jones. That list was complete as of June 13, when the Joneses
signed on, and all five members had ready access to the Shade Tree Commission Ordinance draft as posted May 14.

On June 9, during public comments at the Borough Council meeting, Mr. Jones had urged the Council to adopt the Shade Tree Commission ordinance, as a way to prevent deforestation at the Villa Maria site.

At the June 21 Street Fair, signature gathering began. Jerry Jacala began an intensive course of self-education in the initiative process to help the Committee get the required number of signatures. By
early-July, after a coordination meeting and door-to-door campaigning, the signature count was approaching 200, toward the goal of 243 valid signatures.

And then, days before the deadline for submitting the signatures to the Borough Clerk, the Joneses suddenly came forward for the first time with multiple concerns and revision suggestions. Barbara Habeeb (now a Council member) began to have concerns about serving on the Committee of Petitioners while on the Council. Christine Holman began to question her own views on the ordinance.

The campaign quickly unraveled.

At an emergency meeting of the NPCCR shade tree campaign leaders and supporters on July 17, the Joneses stated that they had reluctantly stepped up to fill the remaining petitioner spots because no one else
was stepping up. They initially hesitated, wanting to keep the Shade Tree a bi-partisan activity, although they did not convey this hesitation when they volunteered. (Habeeb and Holman are registered
Republicans, as are Mr. and Mrs. Jones). The Joneses also said they felt that the Committee failed to communicate clearly and often as to the status of the petition, although they took no steps to initiate clear communication between themselves and other Committee members.

So, on July 17, the group was confronted with several bad options:

• Leaving the ordinance in its original form would mean putting an ordinance on the ballot without the full support of its own Committee of Petitioners.
• Debating and rewriting the ordinance within NPCCR would take time, and would have to be followed by door-to-door visits to the original petition signers, to explain the changes and get their signatures on the new draft.
• And replacing the non-supportive Committee of Petition members with supportive ones would also require additional rounds to get repeat signatures on new forms.

Following the heated July 17 NPCCR meeting on the matter, the Joneses withdrew from the committee, and the initiative campaign fell apart. They have described their action as feeling that they could not place their names on the document in its current form, but were willing to continue to work with the committee on the needed revisions. However, their names had been on the document from the start, as of June 13, and by July 17, needed revisions could not be made in time to meet the submission deadlines, which they well knew.

If the Joneses did not and do not support NPCCR, or if they didn’t like the ordinance as written, or if they felt the committee was not communicating clearly enough, then they had a responsibility to steer clear of the action, since it was NPCCR-sponsored; speak up early and clearly about their revision proposals; or take responsibility, as committee members effective June 13, for initiating clearer communication among themselves and the rest of the committee.

They did none of those things.

The Joneses are not solely responsible for what happened, but they bear a portion of the responsibility, along with fully supportive NPCCR members who failed to sign on to the Shade Tree effort, and along with NPCCR leadership who failed to intensely question and monitor volunteers, including the Joneses, to assess their level of commitment and discourage less-than-committed volunteers from signing on.

The unraveling of the Shade Tree initiative has been a bitter disappointment to many, who feel that a crucial opportunity to “learn by doing” the initiative adoption of ordinances has been lost.

And it has left some NPCCR members feeling betrayed.

Why did the Joneses – apparently well-informed about the ordinance and supportive as of at least mid-June (when Mr. Jones urged Council  adoption and both Mr. and Mrs. Jones joined the Committee of
Petitioners) wait until the last possible moment to make their concerns known and formally propose ordinance revisions? Was it an oversight due to the busy-ness of early summer family schedules? Or
deliberate sabotage? In either case, it seemed a failure to honor their commitment to the petition signatories and the initiative process.

What have we learned?

One of the things that can trip up an initiative campaign, very early in the process, is a lack of full commitment by the committee of petitioners. If the committee members are not fully on board from the start, or if fully committed people won’t agree to join the committee, don’t launch the campaign.

Could this outcome have been prevented? It’s hard to tell; it’s a complex situation, and, to paraphrase Robert Burns, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”

But there are many alternate scenarios that would have worked better, and considering them may help us plan future campaigns better.

If the Borough Council had voted, at any time in the last few years, to put the Shade Tree Commission on the ballot for a non-binding referendum, to gauge community support and give themselves political cover for adopting it after the community vote, then North Plainfield might have a Shade Tree Commission already, and the initiative campaign would be moot.

The Council could still do this for November 2008.

If the Shade Tree Advisory Board had given consent for NPCCR to move forward with an initiative campaign earlier than mid-May (as urged by NPCCR leadership many times over the last year), then there might have
been enough time to go through this incident and recover in time for the November 2008 ballot.

If members of the STAB had swallowed their fear and joined the Committee of Petitioners, then the Joneses would not have been on it, and the initiative campaign might be moving forward today.

If other NPCCR people with more passion for the shade trees and/or more willingness to put time and energy into coordinating the effort had stepped up sooner, then the the Joneses would not have been on it,
and the initiative campaign might be moving forward today.

If all five members of the Committee of Petitioners who did volunteer had read the ordinance draft carefully sometime between May 14 and June 13, and had got together to discuss their views and make revisions or committee changes before the signature campaign formally kicked off June 21, the initiative process might be moving forward today.

If NPCCR leaders (including the three of us) had anticipated the possibility of a breakdown like this, and supervised the Committee of Petitioners more closely, questioning the members intensely and regularly to gauge their commitment levels, then perhaps the problems could have been identified in time to coordinate revisions from outside the Committee of Petitioners. But we suspected nothing, mistakenly assuming that the volunteers had accepted full responsibility for their volunteering action; we attended to other
pressing matters instead, and got blindsided.

There’s no shortage of blame to go around.

The question is, who among us (active NPCCR people and sideline-watchers) will demonstrate the common sense to learn from this experience and build a stronger, more effective citizen empowerment movement in North Plainfield going forward?

Here’s to the hope that we’ve been “baffled to fight better,” next time.

Updates from the Chair

NPCCR Chair Mark Williams writes:

Hello NPCCR Folks!

Just a quick update on some of the things going on with NPCCR.

As always, check out and contribute to our NPCCR blog at http://www.npccr.org (e-mail communityrights@gmail.com) and contact me if you have any  questions, concerns, ideas, etc. at npccr@yahoo.com

RECENT ACTIVITIES – NPCCR had a booth at the North Plainfield Street Fair on June 21. Weather was good, turnout was good. Thank you to the Special Events people who organized the fair, and a BIG THANK YOU to our many NPCCR booth volunteers, Linda, Jerry, Robert, Barbara, Katherine, Antoinette. I know I’m forgetting one other person.

We talked to a lot of people, listened to their concerns, distributed business cards, brochures, buttons and forms, collected $5.68 in donations, signed up 15 for the e-mail alerts list, and got signatures on petitions (more on this topic later).

A few weeks later, NPCCR rolled in the Fourth of July Parade.Antoinette Rinehart drove the NPCCR-mobile (her flower-bedecked convertible), while I waved and smiled to the crowds along the way. A good time was had by all and thank you to the Special Events folks who organized the parade – hard work well done.

Then on July 15, several members attended a civic leadership seminar in Plainfield, sponsored by the Metuchen-based Center for Civic Responsibility. Lots of useful information that we’ll be implementing
as NPCCR continues to grow and strengthen.

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING – As I get more comfortable in the leadership hot-seat, I’m increasingly turning my attention to fulfilling the promises I made when elected for a six-month term back in March – obtaining 501(c)3 status, and formalizing how we at NPCCR initiate and carry out projects.

Although it will be discussed in more detail at a later time, the basic idea for project coordination is to have a clearly limited number of projects going at any one time, one responsible person coordinating each project and reporting in to the chair on both progress and problems, and a clear system for closing out each project on completion and reviewing each project to identify goals achieved and lessons learned for the future.

PROJECT UPDATES – Speaking of projects, we’ve had a bunch of things in the works these last couple months, including participation in the Save Muhlenberg campaign being run by the Plainfield chapter of the
Peoples Organization for Progress, an Economic Development Study of North Plainfield businesses, three initiative and referendum campaigns to create political space for the citizens of North Plainfield to
decide important local issues for themselves, citizen-journalist coverage of local committee meetings; active monitoring of the School Board’s administrator contract review and approval process, planning for a second Meet the Candidates Night (the August 7 Town Meeting) and planning for a Candidates’ Debate in October.

SAVE MUHLENBERG – On Monday July 7th I attended the regular meeting of the POP/Save Muhlenberg movement held at the DuCret School of the Arts, 1030 Central Avenue, Plainfield. Meetings are held there every Monday at 6:30 p.m. Despite the recent decision by the State Health Planning Board to recommend the conditional closure of Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center the movement is strong. Close to 75 Save
Muhlenberg supporters were in attendance. Spirits were high and voices determined.

People’s Organization for Progress, the Newark-based grass-roots organization that has lead the efforts to save Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center and its Plainfield affiliate have requested the allocation of monies from a special fund to help Muhlenberg remain a full services health care facility. Apparently the Health Care Stabilization Fund has available $44 Million to assist hospitals to maintain community access.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY – This activity is currently on hold. The team will resume its survey in
September.

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM CAMPAIGNS – Although we obtained many signatures on the three packages (Municipal Open Space Tax Referendum, Charter Amendment Initiative and Shade Tree Commission Ordinance Initiative), time and people-power constraints pushed NPCCR leadership to discontinue the signature drive on the first two items shortly after the Street Fair.

Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb has asked Council President Skip Stabile to add the Municipal Open Space Tax to the Council’s July 28 agenda for discussion, since the Council itself could, by a 4-3 vote (or
better), place the measure on the November ballot to measure voter support. (Collecting a small tax of $20 per year on a $200,000 valued home would make the Borough eligible for pots of county and state open
space purchase and maintenance money, thus saving money long-term by  limiting the need for new schools, police, fire, road and other public services.) Mr. Stabile has apparently agreed to do this. Keep an eye on the blog for signs that the discussion is scheduled, so you can attend the meeting and give the Council members your views on the subject.

The Charter Amendment campaign (which would have changed local elections from partisan to nonpartisan) has been postponed to give supporters more time to educate the public about the measure, and will probably be revived next spring to go on the November 2009 ballot.

As for the Shade Tree campaign, the project was unexpectedly waylaid after two members of the Committee of Petitioners withdrew their support for the measure as written, after 169 signatures had been collected but shortly before the deadline for finishing signature collection and submitting the signatures to the Borough Clerk. This has been a learning experience for NPCCR leadership, and we’re reviewing what happened to put safeguards in place so that future initiative campaigns can run more smoothly.

CITIZEN COVERAGE OF MEETINGS – Many thanks to Morgan Shevett, who attended the June 23 Council meeting and wrote up his impressions for the blog, and to me (!) Mark Williams, because I wrote up the June
School Board meeting and the July 14 Council meeting.

!!!VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITY!!! – Providing timely, relevant, useful information to North Plainfield residents is one of the main community services NPCCR provides, and we never have enough contributors. Step
up! (Morgan’s done his bit.) Commit to attend one meeting of one borough committee between now and Dec. 31 and send in a report on whatever catches your fancy. Your neighbors will appreciate it…like
you and me, they want to know what’s going on around here, but they can’t be everywhere at once. Many of you already serve on these committees. If you’ll be there anyway, it’s pretty easy to jot yourself a couple of notes and send a report on in. Just DO it!

UPCOMING EVENTS – MARK YOUR CALENDARS

JULY 23 – First off, two imminent and very important meetings are this Wednesday, July 23. Villa Maria Developer Robert McNerney will be at the Planning Board meeting, at 7:30 at Vermeule, submitting his
application to destroy the site and build 55 single family homes. Many North Plainfielders have been working hard, making contacts and learning the ropes at the NJ Department of Environmental Protection
and other agencies to rally support for protecting the site, and many will be in attendance at the Planning Board meeting to update the Board on what they’ve learned.

That same night, the School Board will be discussing contract renewals for school administrators at 7:30 p.m. at 33 Mountain Avenue. Draft contracts are posted at the blog. I will be attending this meeting.

AUGUST 7 – NPCCR Town Meeting, 7 p.m., Vermeule. Second Meet the Candidates Night. You may remember the first Meet the Candidates Night back in May, to which all candidates were invited but only GOP candidates attended, (covered at the blog under the Candidates tab up top). Some of the candidates have changed since then, due to Jenny Flynn’s resignation from the Council back in April. All current candidates have again been invited, and we expect RSVPs by July 31.

OCTOBER – NPCCR Town Meeting, 7 p.m., Vermeule. Candidates Debate.

Another VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITY!!! We need help planning this event for maximum attendance and usefulness to the voters, so contact me at npccr@yahoo.com if you’re interested in helping.

[Although it’s not always totally current, mostly because the Borough’s official online meetings calendar is often out of date, most community events, including committee meetings, are posted at the Community Events Calendar at the blog. Send event notices to communityrights@gmail.com to get them added to the calendar.]

That’s it for now. Keep up the good work for open, accountable governance in North Plainfield, keep in touch and keep cool in this hot summer weather.

Mark Williams, NPCCR Chair

School’s In Session!

By Mark Williams, Chair NPCCR

Enjoying the summer heat wave? Had fun on your weekend visit to the Shore or perhaps a little closer to home? Already starting to think about back to school supplies? OUCH! Sorry!

Well, tomorrow night, it’s time for adult education. School Board meeting, 7:30 p.m. at 33 Mountain Ave.

So we all felt warm and fuzzy towards the School Board when they announced the budget for the coming school year. They actually had saved taxpayers money.

That warm and fuzzy feeling, for me, went away when I started educating myself on the pending contracts of the Superintendent Birnbaum, Assistant Superintendent Rich and Business Administrator Donald Sternberg.

The current contract for the Superintendent expires on June 30, 2009 and has a five-year renewable term; Assistant Superintendent one year and Business Administrator one year.

Let me say this before I move forward. The following is in no way meant to bring into question the integrity or professional qualifications of the Superintendent; Assistant Superintendent or the Business Administrator. I would, however, question what the School Board as a whole as well as the Executive County Superintendent were thinking when the contracts were approved.

Let’s take a peek behind door number one!

Superintendent Birnbaum – Contract Expires June 30th, 2009

1. Yearly salary increases are automatically built into the contract, apparently for the five year life of the contract. The superintendent gets an increase equal to the highest increase given to any other administrator, or to any employee bargaining unit within the school district.)

2. Many extras are written into the contract (I had to read it two or three times to pick up on most of them):

• “$3,500 yearly contribution to an annuity” (apparently above and beyond the basic pension).
• “$2,000 additional stipend – in recognition of many years of service.” This means the five-year contract provides for $10,000 in additional monies above her negotiated salary. How about we give her a five year Certificate of Appreciation like they do in the real world?
• “$1,800 to defray costs of driving personal vehicle within the school district.” What! North Plainfield is 2.9 Square miles. The average distance from the Board of Education building to each school is, what, 10 to 12 blocks at the most! At the current (2008) IRS rate, for work related vehicle use reimbursement, at .585%, the vehicle would need to be driven 3,100 miles to use up the $1,800. (3,100 miles at .585% = $1813.50.) Be a good role model for our children. Walk.
• “The board shall provide the Superintendent with a state-of-the-art computer and other equipment for use when working outside of the office.” State-of-the-art. What’s that mean? Does my kid have state-of-the-art books in school? Does my kid have state-of-the-art resource materials? Does my kid have state-of-the-art computer access? Or do the teachers dig into their own pockets to make sure the kids have what they need to learn? Do the PTA’s and PTO’s have fundraisers to pay for extra supplies? When you go shopping, do you have your child’s teacher’s wish list?
• “At any time during the term of the contract, the superintendent may exercise the option of converting unused vacation days to salary.” As previously reported, 16 administrators cashed in unused vacation days for this past school year for a total cash reimbursement of $38,000. The Superintendent converted 6 unused vacation days into salary totaling approximately $2,500.

See you at the board meeting.

Reminders – Two Key Meetings Wednesday Night

Sorry about the slowdown in posting. There’s been a little behind-the-scenes turmoil in NPCCR, now settling out (details to be posted within the next day or so). And I haven’t had time to get to Panera’s and sort through e-mails to edit and post submissions for a few days. Hopefully Wednesday morning.

In the meantime, don’t forget that two key meetings are happening Wednesday night: Developer Robert McNerney will be presenting his Villa Maria development plan at the Planning Board, 7:30 p.m. at Vermeule Community Center.

And the School Board will be discussion contract renewals for school administrators at the School Board meeting, 7:30 p.m. at 33 Mountain Ave.

NPCCR members and supporters will be at both meetings, advocating for open, accountable, responsive  local governance and citizen participation. Join them if you can – more people better than fewer.

“Teachers’ pension fund loses billions in stocks”

By Mark Williams, Chair NPCCR

The above headline was taken from a July 16th Star Ledger article written by Dunstan McNichol. The article reports how during the past year the fund that underwrites the pensions of 700,000 New Jersey teachers and government workers has lost $5 billion on Wall Street.

According to the article, this leaves New Jersey taxpayers with the very real possibility of having to make higher contributions. Remember, this will be on top of the increases in contributions as a result of years of state pension underfunding.

In an article dated February 28th, 2008, the writer reported that Gov. Jon Corzine was proposing a budget that would continue the pattern of pension underfunding that has existed for the past 3 years.

All of this serves to increase the financial obligation of municipalities (=taxpayers) and significantly impacts the ever shrinking middle class.

So, why am I telling you this?

Because salaries affect pension benefits. With the contracts of Schools Superintendent Marilyn Birnbaum, Assistant Superintendent Robert Rich and Business Administrator Donald Sternberg currently in negotiation, it behooves us all to attend the next School Board meeting on July 23rd, 7:30 p.m. at 33 Mountain Ave.

It would be nice to know that our children are getting our money’s worth.

Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – The People v. The People: Part 3

We Will Not Be Those Who Forget the Past.

By Emory Layne

I’ve heard it too many times in this town for it not to send up warning flags:

“Why do you want to bring that up for?” someone will say. “That’s IN THE PAST.”

It drives me nuts. Invariably, when people who have been screwed try to ‘bring up the past,’ the people who did the screwing, or their cohorts, toss out this sentiment.

It’s over with … it’s done.

Which is exactly the sentiment you would expect from anyone who doesn’t want the cause-and-effect of whatever “it” was made clear. It reminds me a great deal of a legal system wherein some crook’s “rights” are violated if a jury finds out that he has been accused of doing the same thing he’s on trial for NOW a dozen times in the past. Only the guilty, it seems, want to live in a world of the moment, with no accountability for past actions.

Yes, North Plainfield is a “Faulkner Act” community, which, to quote the borough’s website, gives us a “strong mayor type of government.”

I, for one, don’t interpret that to mean that the mayor has dictatorial powers. I believe you can tell a lot about a person’s true character from how they use … or abuse … a situation of authority. Does anyone remember Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, who, like a complete ass, got up in front of the world’s media in 1981 following the attempted assassination of the President and stated:

“Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House….”

Naturally, any schoolchild who knew the Constitution was aware that this was NOT the succession of authority; but it showed us a heck of a lot about the dangerous mentality of this man.

Let’s not overlook that, whether we are talking about national government or a small community, the ‘power’ held by individuals does not preclude their being abusive of it.

From an elected standpoint, we still don’t know how some of the current and past candidates were selected to be in the position to run for office. It boggles the mind that something as important as the way in which individuals are selected to run for office is viewed as either (a) something the VOTER has no right to know, or (b) something that is so unimportant as to be ignored despite repeated requests for clarification.

But some things we do know.

As noted in previous installments of this series, the way in which people are APPOINTED to important positions in town is far from being out in the open. There is no clear method of interviews, no clear delineation of qualifications. When there are multiple people seeking available positions, it can be sensibly concluded that friendship and partisanship count for more than commitment and experience. And if there are vacancies, why the mayor isn’t energetically trying to fill them is equally confusing.

Has she run out of friends?

At times, political opportunities and employment seem to be handled in a similar manner. For a small town, there are an annoying number of situations involving this person who’s an official in such-and-such position having his or her spouse hired to a paying position or appointed to an important one; this relative wheedles a spot on the ticket for a son, a father, a daughter, whatever. It’s just so hard to accept that with so many thousands of people living in town, ‘coincidentally,’ this person gets hired or appointed who ‘just happens’ to be connected to someone else.

I’m writing this dispatch, about people who want to ‘forget the past,’ to emphasize the point that IT DIDN’T GET THAT WAY LAST WEEK.

Such shenanigans are the result of a long-term culture of favoritism, corruption, and mutual back-scratching. Here in 2008, there are people who want me and others to “lay off” Mayor Allen because she’s “retiring.”

I beg to differ; I strongly believe she INSTITUTED the process this town has followed for over a decade.

And I further believe that as long as people who have merrily played along during that time continue to hold positions of authority (paid or ‘volunteer’), there will be no change whatsoever in this 21st century version of Tammany Hall.

Once again, it’s time to take a walk down memory lane.

In 1996, Janice Allen ran for mayor with a number of issues she deemed important. In her own words, “Taxes are the number one problem in town. We’re paying for things, but the services are not there.” Borough taxpayers are paying more for the expenses of the health and law departments than ever before, she said.

On January 1, 1997, the first day she officially held office, Allen submitted attorney Eric Bernstein’s name for appointment as Borough Attorney, claiming he would be paid “the same” as the former attorney, $115 an hour. As of 2008, we still have no accounting for the 1,739 hours Mr. Bernstein would have to work for the borough (the equivalent of 43 forty-hour work weeks per year) to explain the $200,000 a year he now makes.

Also in 1997, on the second day of Allen’s tenure, she dismissed then-Director of Health, Housing and Property A. Vincent Agovino, who held the position from July 1993 through January 1997 (coincidentally, the term of former GOP mayor Haggerty). Agovino contended that he was given no cause or forewarning for the dismissal, and had never been reprimanded or disciplined in any manner during his employment.

In 1997, Mayor Allen used a confusing statute in local law to name two people, Borough Administrator Judith Tiernan and Public Works Superintendent Les Martin, to 120-day ‘acting’ appointments. At the end of those 120 days, Allen hired John Katilas as Borough Administrator; information has begun to surface that Katilas was quite possibly recommended by the law firm Allen rushed to appoint on the first day of her administration. Not long after that, James Rodino was hired and eventually came to fill the position of Zoning Officer (vacated by the fired Agovino) and Public Works Director (vacated by the temporarily-retained Martin). To this day, Rodino holds these positions.

But there was still work to be done.

In 2002, Mayor Allen approached then property maintenance and zoning officer Allan Reading and offered him the chance to resign or be fired. His crime? He did exactly what Allen had professed she would commit to doing when running for mayor – energetically enforced property maintenance and illegal housing violations. Apparently, the purpose for those campaign claims had been served by getting the votes to win the election; subsequently, actual enforcement had become problematic. Some of those people, apparently, vote democrat. Oh, and Reading was not offered any severance. Mr. Reading earned $45,000 a year.

In that same year, though, Administrator Katilas entertained thoughts of taking a similar post in Rutherford, but Mayor Allen convinced him to remain with North Plainfield, earning $89,000 a year at the time.

Three years later, Mr. Katilas died suddenly, and, in the words of the Courier-News, “North Plainfield taxpayers (would have to) brace themselves for a possible tax hike this year to cover for a budgetary shortfall exceeding $520,000 that was discovered last month after the sudden death of the borough’s chief financial officer.”

For those of you who don’t speak politician, a “budgetary shortfall” means that there was money somewhere once, but it ain’t there anymore. If you had a “budgetary shortfall” in your checking account, it would likely be because someone in your family tapped the account through an ATM and didn’t tell you.

At least one borough employee, at the time, thinking he needed to play CYA, told residents that the Borough Administrator had been juggling funds among accounts for some time. This all seemed to be VERY serious business, especially for a mayor who had campaigned in part on a platform claiming severe financial mismanagement by the previous mayor.

But hey, guess what? It wasn’t so bad after all. Somehow, the apparent financial shenanigans of Katilas, the person hired by and energetically retained by Mayor Allen on the advice of Bernstein, the attorney hired by Allen at light speed, were pronounced as ‘not a problem’ by David Hollod, a long-time Somerville democrat power broker who was hired to join Allen, Bernstein, and the rest of the crew to look into the books and serve as the new Borough Administrator. Hollod and Bernstein also hold their positions to the present day.

Since then, we’ve had any number of poor decisions made by the administration.

But the CONSISTENCY has been the relatively small circle of people who participate. We see, from previous actions, that there seems to be no ordinance or law against asking for someone’s resignation without due cause – yet we also see that there has been nothing of the sort done SINCE the administration got the people it wanted into the positions it wanted them in.

There are, currently, people running for Council seats who have already been on the Council.

We would be wasting our breath asking them to do certain things if reelected, simply because they’re already there and aren’t doing those things.

Here’s something I ask of both candidates for mayor, Mr. Giordano and Mr. Gatto.

When elected, will you allow the NPCCR complete and total access to borough records, without the tap dance of having to submit requests and pay for copies, so that we can clear up some of the past questions? So that, if there is nothing there that’s untoward, we can then describe that to the residents? And so that, if there IS something there that’s questionable or criminal, we can pursue it as has been done in any number of other communities?

I don’t know what Mr. Gatto will do, because he has not yet had any opportunity.

I think, however, I can make an educated guess about Mr. Giordano. Since there has never been so much as a peep of opposition to any of the mayor’s decisions and actions since these people, including him, have obtained their positions, I’m hard pressed to find any optimism that things would suddenly change.

If everything at Borough Hall isn’t open for our perusal, we must draw the conclusion that some people don’t want it to be. And those people can’t be anyone except the same people who have been doing the same things for years. I, personally, have had my complete fill of that.

Unlike Mulder, I don’t want to believe. I want to see it with my own eyes.

Report on July 14, 2008 Borough Council Meeting

By Mark Williams, NPCCR Chair

Last night’s agenda conference was fairly short, lasting less then 30 min. That was followed by the regular council meeting which ended at approx 8:15 pm. No new business was listed on the agenda and 3 items of old business were open for discussion by the council.

Council Agenda Conference

1. Revised Taxicab Ordinance – Language was changed to reflect VIN # as the taxicab’s primary identifier instead of serial number.
2. Revised Tanning Booth Establishment Ordinance – Mr. Hollod reported that he is not currently aware of any Tanning Booth(s) in the Borough.
3. Rental Occupancy Ordinance – Still an open item
   

Regular Council Meeting

Ordinance NO. 08-11 which basically revises Chapter IX of the Borough Code entitled “Personnel” as it relates to, among other items:

• defining Full Time employee as someone who works at least 35 hour week
• recalculating how unused sick time will be monetarily compensated for upon
  retirement…sick leave shall be charged to an employee for the first seven days of an injury pursuant to the Borough’s temporary disability code. The sick days are to be restored if the employee is placed on temporary disability.
•  Borough employees will be limited to one year of unused vacation time eligible to be carried over into the next year.

The above are just 5 of the 17 additions, deletions or revisions to the above mentioned Borough Code. As at the June 23rd Council Meeting the North Plainfield Fire Department and Rescue Squad were present to urge the council to vote “No” on the revisions. Item 4 above of the revised ordinance was of outstanding concern for the fire and medical personal in the room.
A Mr. Holt from the fire fighters/rescue squad bargaining unit asked the council to vote “No” or delay any vote as they are currently in the middle of new contract negotiations. Mr. Jack Fowler reported that it has been his experience as a teacher, in the Piscataway School system, that you limit the right to sue for job- related injury if you are placed on workmen’s comp or temporary disability. He went on to say that should an injured employee not be satisfied with the medical care given by a workmen’s comp medical provider and seek private medical attention that the injured employees should not have to use sick time to attend to their work-related injuries.

The ordinance does not apply to current Borough employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. However, the issue may become a negotiated item when current contracts are renegotiated. The ordinance passed by a 6 to 1 vote with Councilwoman Habeeb voting “No.”

Ordinance NO. 08-13 to revise amend and /or supplement the section under General Licensing, specifically taxicabs. Basically new rules governing the issuance of taxicab licenses in the Borough were added to the existing ordinance.

Mr. Fowler brought it to the council’s attention that he has noticed the monopolizing of metered parking spaces in Plainfield which reduces available consumer parking for local business use.

Comments by Mayor, Administrator and Council Members

Business Administrator – Borough Business Administrator Mr. Hollod reported that North Plainfield has been awarded $500,000 in extraordinary aid which is double the amount received previously. He estimated a tax bill savings of $80 for Borough residents. A review of Extraordinary Aid awarded North Plainfield revealed the following:

• North Plainfield CY 2008 Extraordinary Aid Award $500,000
• North Plainfield CY 2007 Extraordinary Aid Award $250,000
• North Plainfield CY 2006 Extraordinary Aid Award $400,000
• North Plainfield CY 2005 Extraordinary Aid Award $400,000
• North Plainfield CY 2004 Extraordinary Aid Award $250,000
• North Plainfield CY 2003 Extraordinary Aid Award $200,000
• North Plainfield CY 2002 Extraordinary Aid Award $170,000
  Source: Division of Community Affairs State Aid to Municipalities

Councilwoman Forbes stated that neither she nor the other members took any pleasure in their vote to pass Ordinance NO. 08-11. “We were not being mean or anything.” She noted the growing trend of bringing public sector benefits into the “real world” reality of the private sector. Councilman Hitchcock noted the need for fiscal restraint in this time of economic uncertainty and questioned how many people representing fire and rescue personal, present at he meeting, actually lived in North Plainfield.

Perhaps we could see some of the same type of fiscal restraint and “real world” reality applied to the Borough School District at the administrative level. Reimbursement of $38,000 dollars in unused vacation time is gross fiscal irresponsibility.. Use it or lose it!

Various members of the council praised the efforts of Joe Irovando and Marie Kushnir for their work to make the 4th of July Parade and Fire Works a success. Several members of the council would like to see the parade return to Somerset Street.

And so it was on July 14th, 2008.

School Administrator Draft Contracts

Birnbaum – Superintendent

Rich – Assistant Superintendent

Sternberg – Business Administrator

Subject of School Board discussion at the Board’s July 23 meeting, 7:30 p.m. at 33 Mountain Avenue.

Interesting stuff. Did you know, for example, that if the Board were ever to decide to eliminate the position of Assistant Superintendent, as many taxpayers have suggested, the Borough would owe the current occupant of that position his monthly salary times the number of years he’s held that position in the district?

Did you know, also, that there’s apparently no way for the district to disentangle itself from employing Marilyn Birnbaum other than notifying her, by June 30, 2008, that her contract will not be renewed at the end of June 2009? She’s currently almost finished with a five-year contract (salary increases are not specifically noted in the contract documents obtained) dating from 2004-2009. And if the Board didn’t notify her three weeks ago, then their hands are apparently tied for the foreseeable future.

I may be reading the contract wrong, but it doesn’t even look like the board could fire her for cause, and if they did decide to eliminate the assistant superintendent position, the contract requires a renegotiation to up her salary to take on those additional responsibilities, whatever they are. What a job to have! No belt-tightening required!

Next documents to obtain: job descriptions.

Thank you to Donald Sternberg for supplying the contracts, Linda Darge for obtaining them, and Antoinette Rinehart for mailing them.