Salary "Stimulus" on Resident Backs?

With the Mayor selectively vetoing Public Contracting Ordinance #1411 making a splash on the headlines, one is led to believe that a majority of the council is fiercely battling the mayor and his council support member minority.  According to the council president, the council is looking to protect the residents.

If that would have been the whole truth...

With the sole abstention coming from councilman Freeman, Ordinance #1415 was otherwise quietly passed with no public discussion.  Shrouded in vague doublespeak, this ordinance gives the ability to award salary raises for elected officials and top managers employed at borough hall without further discussion or approval public input or review.

Nevermind that we are in the middle of the most serious recession in decades, a doubling of unemployment in Dumont from recent years and scores of foreclosures with more on the way.  In an economic boom, these awards would appear rich.  In this climate, these awards seem unconscionable:

Council President's Salary - up to 50% increase;
Councilperson Salary - up to 50% increase;
Mayor's Salary - up to 20% increase;
Managerial & Confidential Title Salary - up to 20% increase.

Just weeks ago, the municipality of Bell, Calfornia, size modestly larger than Dumont, made national news because top officials were earning mid 6-digit salaries.  Though the appointed officials resigned in disgrace, I do not blame them.  As an employee, one has the right to negotiate a maximum salary and benefit for themselves.  The blame falls squarely on the elected officials who approved the lavish pay packages for those officials.

As a resident, you can show your appreciation to the council in the following ways:

- Email the council members.  Tell them how much they deserve the salary increase, after extracting concessions from our teachers and custodians in the BOE budget.  Never mind the public contracting ordinance was crippled by the mayor, it's the effort that counts, right?  Approve the raises!

- Tell the council members in person how much you appreciate them helping themselves at the expense of taxpayers.  Brings a whole new meaning to "Dumont Delivers", does it not?

- Attend the next council meeting scheduled at 7:30PM on Tuesday August 17 at Borough Hall.  Cheer them on with chants like "Full Rewards for Half Work" would give them the needed encouragement.

Anyone care to join?

The 2010 Municipal Budget

With the barrage of media coverage this year with everything related to local BOE budgets, the Dumont 2010 Municipal Budget seems to have received little attention.  Introduced on April 6, 2010:

The 2010 budget will require that municipal taxes increase $1,309,205 for support of municipal operations.  The 2010 municipal tax rate will increase 6.2 tax points or $237 on an average home assessed at $382,000.

Is my math incorrect or does that translate to a tax increase of 8.96% over last year?

Where is the outrage?

Recently the Council in Tenafly tried introducing their 2010 budget which had an 8% tax increase.  What happened?  According to the Record,

(Tenafly) Residents shared their concerns about a proposed 8 percent municipal tax levy hike at the May 6 budget workshop, causing the governing body to delay introduction of the spending plan.

The Dumont council held two hearings since the introduction, one at the senior center and another at borough hall.  Only one resident was present at borough hall to ask questions about the budget.  When asked whether the introduced budget reflected any cuts, the answer was no.  A number of other questions revealed that the Finance Committee seemed just as forthcoming as the BOE when it came to their respective budgets - if at all.  In addition, many practices seemed troubling as to how the municipal books were maintained.

When a request was made for the municipal budget's background information, this was the response:

...request for OPRA #29-documents that provided the background, details and basis for Dumont’s 2010 municipal budget introduction-is denied. The Borough attorney stated that it is considered deliberative work product and is not discoverable under OPRA and common law right of access.

Upcoming resolution being voted on the May 18, 2010 meeting appears interesting:

#10-156 Self-Examination of Dumont Municipal Budget *

How does that look when the council wants to "self-examine" a budget that they have refused to open to the public?  What does that say about their credibility?  Why are the budgets of Englewood and Mount Olive completely open and easily downloadable?  Is this similar to the BOE budget, where one resident thought it was "planned to fail"?

Since the council is reviewing the defeated BOE budget and suggesting further cuts, would it be fair to have the BOE review the municipal budget and suggest further cuts as well?

Every day I thank our Police for keeping our streets safe and our DPW for keeping our streets orderly.  I even thank all the staff in Borough Hall from Administrator to administrative assistants in all the various departments for keeping the borough's house in order.  Having said that, does this mean that our elected officials are relieved of their responsibility to negotiate new and re-negotiate existing labor contracts at every level to reflect the "shared sacrifice" currently experienced by residents?

Should the highest bidder get my vote, Parts II and III

In early February this year I wondered if the generous contributions of a borough professional influenced a council member's vote for the professional's re-appointment.

Apparently, two other council members seemed also to be beneficiaries at that vote.  On the February 2, 2010 council meeting, councilwoman Zamechansky could be heard praising the resident engineering firm:

Over the past year, I really have to commend especially Dominic for all the extra time that he took to stick with us to explain things, to do walkthroughs not just for the mayor and council, but for all the residents in town that the board members and I asked to do for them, the walkthroughs, really this helps everyone with the process, how, so that's my comment.

Councilman Manna chimes in later:

On the NJEIT Phase I project, uh, they've brought the project in ahead of schedule and the budget, so you know, uh, when we're looking at inputs and values and dollars saved, I can certainly, uh, both of us, Mr. Mayor, do thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Gentle readers, please feel free to correct for the record if I have misheard what the council members actually said.

Of the elected officials who spoke advocating the re-appointment of T&M Associates as the borough engineer, ELEC records show that a check for the state legal maximum of $2,600 was received by the primary campaign account of Ms. Zamechansky dated 01/11/10.  Records also show a check for the state legal maximum of $2,600 dated 01/05/10 was received by Mr. Manna's primary campaign account even though his primary election is not until June 2011.  Each campaign transferred $2,000 each to Mr. McHale's primary campaign account on 01/18/10, $525 each to Dumont Victory 2009 on 01/23/10 and $75 each to Mr. McHale's primary campaign account on 02/17/10 even though the mayoral primary election is not until June 2011.  All reports were filed with ELEC dated April 15, 2010.

If the endorsements were monetized, what was each word worth?  Ms. Zamechansky's statement came in at 68 words; approximately $38.24 per word.  Mr. Manna's statement came in at 46 words; around $56.52 per word.  Expensive words indeed.  Think that residents do not pay for this?  Think again.  Here is a recent quote for anyone wishing a copy of the proposed NJEIT Phase III project who wishes to take home a copy of the proposal plan and drawings since one need only look at the stack of documents and drawings to conclude that it seems hardly reasonable to review it in the clerk's office:  $63.50 for hardcopy and a whopping $276.00 for an electronic copy.  Apologies to folks who, like me,  received a letter that their property is affected by this construction project.  I would have considered shelling out $63.50 from my pocket for an electronic copy and sharing it with my neighbors, but $276.00 is a bit too rich for my budget.  Besides, what good is the borough website anyway, if it costs the borough $1500 per month for something that costs neighboring municipalities nearly 70% less?  I guess I will have to save that discussion for another day.

I must emphasize that the campaign contributions and the account transfers in this discussion, also known as "wheeling", are activities currently legal in the state of New Jersey; however, the Ordinance and Resolution Committee chaired by Councilman Stylianou is attempting to enact local legislation based on model ordinance supplied by Citizen's Campaign that would outlaw this practice.  The ordinance is already on the books in nearly a dozen Bergen municipalities and dozens of NJ municipalities and counties. 

One would think that coming off the heels of the Record investigative report and follow-up, council members might express concern in being seen as dragging its feet.  After two months and four meetings, green shoots of progress may finally be emerging.  But one has to wonder whether the green shoots cultivated by Mr. Stylianou can survive the trample of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), concerns expressed by Mr. Manna and Mr. McHale, both advocating the proposed ordinance's perfection over speedy adoption with future updates if and when needed.

Mr. Stylianou's excellent idea proposing the ordinance to be retroactive to 01/01/2010 signals his commitment to reform.  Will he prevail, or will he be unable to overcome opposition from other council members appearing either unable or unwilling to kick the habit of generous campaign fund injections  in 2010 and beyond from firms doing business with Dumont?

Connect the dots...

What Grows in Darkness?

As reported by the Finance Committee Chair (cue to 16:15), as of March 10, the borough received 22 foreclosure letters.  This raises the foreclosure total to 34 year to date. 

Yet the borough administrator reported in February (cue to 64:00) that "delinquencies are down" and "tax payments have gone up to 98.75%... a record in years".

The Finance Committee Chair continues (cue to 18:05), that the committee has already met five times, "looking at each line item and talk about... responsibilities going forward". 

Sounds like official business, right?

Yet a recent inquiry to the Borough Clerk as to the status of the next Finance Committee Meeting returned the following response:

The budget committee is scheduled to meet Monday. There will not be a quorum and no official business will be conducted. Therefore, it is not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act and not open to the public.

Two things stood out:

• No Quorum;
• No Official Business.

For the first point, when asked to confirm whether the committee comprised of three council members and inquired as to what constituted quorum, the response:

A simple majority of 4 members of the Governing Body constitutes a quorum for the purposes of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Huh?  Does that mean that when the full membership of the Finance Committee meets, it will never achieve quorum and thus not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act?

A further request to confirm whether there were three members in the Finance Committee has been unanswered as of this posting.

For the second point, if "looking at each line item and talk about... responsibilities going forward" does not constitute official business, what is?  Personally I do not care if council members want to shoot the breeze, but why meet at borough hall?  This seems to contradict the Sunshine Act provisions.

Why make such a fuss?

On March 16, when significant parts of Dumont was struggling with a power outage caused by the weekend storm, borough finance were far from everyone's mind.  Yet it was at this sparsely attended public meeting that the Finance Committee Chair reported that municipal revenues have decreased 23.15%, necessitating a proposed 9.99% municipal levy increase for 2010/2011.  Of course, we now know the assumptions of no change in state aid and keeping the surplus intact were far too optimistic.

How about the statement that taxes collected have increased?  Here is a pie chart of 2009 municipal revenue distribution.  If "delinquencies are down" and "tax payments have gone up to 98.75%... a record in years" (cue to 64:00), how could we have a overall revenue decrease of 23.15%?  What entire categories of revenue have we lost?  Even with the 20% loss in state aid, the share is still 7% (from 9%) of total revenue. Something does not add up here.  Does this make sense?

Would you vote on a 3.5% tax increase sight unseen, let alone 10%, especially if prices for consumer goods have decreased over the last year?

There is absolutely no way that in this down economy any additional tax levy requiring passage of a separate resolution be allowed without full disclosure!!!

Whatever happened to the mayor's pledge to open and transparent government?  Is there only openness and transparency when convenient? 

If there is nothing to hide, then prove it.  Show me the budget details, in advance.

Attention Finance Committee Chair Carl Manna, are you listening???

State Aid Figures

State aid figures for 2010 have been released.
The distribution to Dumont is as follows:

Aid to Municipality
2008:  $1,747,332
2009:  $1,703,648
2010:  $1,355,252 (-20% from 2009)

Aid to Board of Education
2008:  $8,882,768
2009:  $9,326,906
2010:  $7,361,216 (-21% from 2009)

Local Finance Notice 2010-8 notes an interesting provision to the aid:

In addition, budget language regarding State aid distribution is being modified to reduce aid payments to those municipalities that use formula aid reductions as an add-on to the levy cap calculation. In other words, any amount of state formula aid reduction used as a levy cap exception [N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45(b)(2), as shown on Line A-10 of the Levy Cap Calculation Workbook] will result in an offsetting decrease to CMPTRA/ETR formula aid payments.

In related news, despite past proclamations of tax payments being up from 2009, it appears they may have been merely semantic sommersaults from borough officials.  Borough revenues overall were reported down 9% from last year.

Enough of the silliness.  "We've cut to the bone on our budget' is no longer an acceptable explanation.
Let the residents see how far the budget should be cut.  After all, we're paying for most of it.

Also from Local Finance Notice 2010-8:

The March 31 introduction date is now modified only to the extent that the introduction date for budgets that cannot be introduced by March 31 is extended to the next regularly scheduled governing body meeting after March 31.

Looks like the budget will be introduced at the next M&C meeting April 6.  Will Finance Committee Chair Manna make the deadline?  I would not hold my breath...

How To Motion Reform Without Really Trying

After being caught in a scheme so complex that the Bergen Record had to use a flowchart to diagram the many donors and recipients of campaign cash while still being ELEC compliant, the folks at Borough Hall are finally considering reforming existing laws.

So how does one make the motions to reform without seemingly intent on doing so?

1.  Post Public Notice on Borough Website seven hours before meeting (page 2, items 7 and 8);
2.  Advise non-committee members that they are precluded from voting, effectively dissuading them from attending;
3.  Ponder about so-claimed restrictive code on public contracts in Lavalette;
4.  Whine about the long, arduous and the complex process to get the final product just right;
5.  Spend a good portion of time on unrelated issues;
6.  Punt "real work" to the next meeting.

Yeah, let's hear from from all those contractors who have been "hurt" from giving generously to their favorite elected officials.  Looks like Lavalette taxpayers have already spoken here (page 1, column 3) and here (page 3, column 2). 

Excerpted from Citizen's Campaign Fact Sheet:

Q:  What about a person’s 1st amendment right to contribute?

A:  Our pay-to-play law is constitutional because municipalities have the power to set the conditions of contracts for professional services. In other words, this is not broad campaign finance reform, but public contract reform.

Q:  Why are only professional contracts included?
A:  Professional Service contracts are “no-bid” contracts. This means that municipalities can set their own standards for hiring professionals- like attorneys, engineers, and auditors. Contracts for such things as snow removal automatically go to the lowest bidder. A town doesn’t necessarily want the lowest bid professional, therefore the council has broad discretion.

Q:  How does pay-to-play impact public tax dollars?
A:  It boosts costs to taxpayers by limiting competition and enabling the favored contractors to pad their charges to cover their political expenditures. It's corrupt and it should be outlawed.

Q:  What towns have passed pay-to-play reform?
A:  As of October, 2007, about 60 municipalities & three counties have adopted the model ordinance, they are: Asbury Park, Atlantic County, Atlantic Highlands, Belmar, Berkeley Twp, Bradley Beach, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Dover Twp, East Greenwich, East Windsor, Edison Twp, Emerson, Ewing, Evesham, Fair Lawn, Freehold Twp, Hamilton, Hasbrouck Hts, Hightstown, Highland Park, Hillsdale, Hoboken, Holmdel Twp, Hopewell Twp, Lawrence Twp, Lavallette, Manchester, Margate, Marlboro, Mercer County, Metuchen, Millstone Twp, Monmouth County, Monroe (Middlesex), Montgomery, New Providence, Newark, Ocean City, Oceanport, Oradell, Pennington, Ramsey, Red Bank, Ringwood, Saddle River, Sayreville, South Brunswick, Spring Lake, Teaneck, Tinton Falls, Trenton, Upper Freehold, Washington Twp (Mercer), West Milford, Washington (Gloucester), West Windsor, Woodbridge.

Q:  Should towns wait for Comprehensive State legislation?

A:  No, Pay-to-play reform is a simple first-step to reducing the municipal portion of property taxes. A recent state law was passed, giving towns & counties the authority to control how professional service contracts are awarded. By passing this ordinance, contracts would be awarded on merit and cost-effectiveness, and the result is likely to be significantly lower costs.

Q:  By adopting pay-to-play reform, won’t individually wealthy people only be able to afford to run for office?
A:  In fact, pay-to-play provides an insurance policy for career politicians. Since incumbent politicians award the contracts, they get the overwhelming majority of pay-to-play dollars. These pay-to-play funded war chests discourage challengers and eliminate competition. 

Even worse, pay-to-play helps build the power of party bosses. Since county party organizations can take up to $35,000 annually from an individual contributor or business entity, they become the best conduit for contributions aimed at winning or maintaining government contracts. 

These dollars go overwhelmingly to the party who controls county government and allows them to maintain that control and stamp out any opposition. This is why county freeholder boards that used to have a mixture of Democrats and Republicans have moved to nearly all Democratic or all Republican.

Eliminating pay-to-play will help level the playing field and restore competition to elections at all levels of government. It will reduce the advantage that incumbent politicians currently have in fund raising over potential challengers.

Further, ending pay-to-play may motivate some candidates to adopt new techniques for fund raising such as the very successful Internet fund raising from small-and medium sized donors pioneered by Howard Dean and used with tremendous results by Sen. Kerry and President Bush.

While candidates for state, county and local office cannot hope to duplicate the results of a presidential candidate, there is still much untapped potential in this approach.

Q:  Who wrote this ordinance?
A:  Constitutional law experts from the Brennan Center for Justice and members of the Citizens’ Campaign Legal Task Force.

To sum it up, if the reformers are to maintain their credibility, they need to:

1.  Show up (you know who you are, we see you);
2.  Remove your bluetooth headset - do you really need to take that call during the meeting?
3.  Pass ordinance by May 10, 2010 (29 day pre-election report, Primary Election, ELEC reporting).

Stop stalling, you have 60 days.  This is far from rocket science, folks.

Website Contract - The Truth?

On Tuesday evening at the 1/5/10 Reorganization meeting, I asked Mayor McHale whether the borough remained under contract with the website contractor. The mayor responded that the contract did not expire until the end of February.

I then looked at the recently passed resolutions and found Resolution 286 dated 11/24/09, which states:

"WHEREAS, the contract for the current Borough website shall expire in January 2010;"

As clearly seen on the resolution, it was offered by Zamechansky and seconded by Caspare. Councilmembers Caspare, Manna, Riquelme, Stylianou and Zamechansky voted 'YES'. The resolution was signed by Mayor McHale.

Surely I found myself even more surprised when I was browsing through the document repository on bergennow.com (registration required) and found a copy of the contract signed by the borough representative and the contractor C3 dated 12/31/07. According to the contract, the effective date is 1/1/08 with a two year duration. Without an extension provision present, would that make contract expiration on 12/31/09? As I was unable to locate documentation from the council approving a contract extension with C3, is the contract no longer in force?

I am concerned that when contract services like this runs out, the client can be cut off without warning, even if you are Microsoft. A recent Record article noted that when Teaneck switched contractors from C3, C3 encrypted website data that effectively seized access from Teaneck officials. No wonder they were fired. All this, despite C3 being paid over $100,000 for website development and maintenance. Looking at the contract signed by the borough, it appears that C3 owns all content on their servers. As bad as it sounds, C3 appears within its right to seize data produced by Dumont in the same way. Perhaps I have missed something, as I am not a lawyer. Where in the contract is Dumont's investment in content protected? Does $36,000 go down the drain?

I am also worried that the borough is paying excessive fees for a service that appears inadequate for borough needs. In the 11/5/09 minutes it was reported that the current website "does not have the capability to upload council meeting video". Yet the bills list on 12/15/09 listed a check to "C3 Communications" for $18,000. Meanwhile, neighboring municipalities pay a mere fraction for similar product. As for me, I pay $96 to upload council meeting videos for 14 months. Is $18,000 ever a valid expense? Does this line item belong in a bare bones budget?

Perhaps C3 made sense two years ago; however, now that GIS is provided by Bergen County and secure emergency notification offered to municipalities free of charge, how much longer must our elected officials continue to overlook opportunities to eliminate waste?

I am sure there exists a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this; however, please pardon me if I feel more cheated than confused.