Sunday, February 7, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Does Councilman Carrick's vote appear to go to the highest bidder?
At Tuesday evening's M&C meeting, what was traditionally a brief public session turned into an extended discussion between the public audience members on current events, campaign finance reform and pay-to-play.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, these are the facts:
1. According to ELEC filing form R-1 signed and dated 05/18/2009, Matthew Carrick acknowledged a campaign contribution of $5,200.00 on 03/04/2009 from T&M Associates on page 2 of Schedule A.
2. According to ELEC filing form R-1 signed and dated 10/02/2009, Matthew Carrick acknowledged a campaign contribution of $5,200.00 on 09/02/3009 from T&M Associates on page 2 of Schedule A.
3. On 02/02/2010 Councilman Carrick voted AYE on Resolution #10-70 to appoint T&M Associates as Borough Engineer.
I am told that Mr. Carrick broke no laws.
But what does that mean?
Is it okay to do something as long as it is not illegal?
What appearance does this create?
If I were in this situation, the easiest thing would be to ABSTAIN. The outcome would have been the same, yet I would be building CREDIBILITY because I was elected into office UNOPPOSED.
But that's just my opinion.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Councilman Carrick is encouraged to send me his rebuttal.
It will be posted right here.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, these are the facts:
1. According to ELEC filing form R-1 signed and dated 05/18/2009, Matthew Carrick acknowledged a campaign contribution of $5,200.00 on 03/04/2009 from T&M Associates on page 2 of Schedule A.
2. According to ELEC filing form R-1 signed and dated 10/02/2009, Matthew Carrick acknowledged a campaign contribution of $5,200.00 on 09/02/3009 from T&M Associates on page 2 of Schedule A.
3. On 02/02/2010 Councilman Carrick voted AYE on Resolution #10-70 to appoint T&M Associates as Borough Engineer.
I am told that Mr. Carrick broke no laws.
But what does that mean?
Is it okay to do something as long as it is not illegal?
What appearance does this create?
If I were in this situation, the easiest thing would be to ABSTAIN. The outcome would have been the same, yet I would be building CREDIBILITY because I was elected into office UNOPPOSED.
But that's just my opinion.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Councilman Carrick is encouraged to send me his rebuttal.
It will be posted right here.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Hybrids in Dumont - Rocket Science?
A Recent Record Article showcases the municipalities that are experimenting with hybrid vehicles for their municipal services. Sadly for Dumont, the mayor's committee on green initiatives chairman continues to lead the committee wandering aimlessly, signing off on WVO junk science which ultimately produced no useable results. What was he thinking by not applying for state assistance that offsets financial risk?
How much longer will it take for the Councilman Manna to get it, step aside and let someone else take the helm before further embarrassing all of us?
How much longer will it take for the Councilman Manna to get it, step aside and let someone else take the helm before further embarrassing all of us?
Saturday, January 9, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Dumont's Green Initiative: Force or Farce?
Since the announcement in October 2008 and the April 16, 2009 kickoff of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Green Initiatives, let's look back on what was accomplished in 2009:
Alternative Fuels: Despite grants available from the State of NJ and its mention in the December 2008 council meeting, no grants have been applied. The borough recently approved acquisition of conventionally fueled vehicles for the police department. This determination was made by running of only one Ford Diesel pickup on Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) mixed with varying percentages with Diesel even though no problems were reported. Is it just me or does it seem ironic that the very links offered by the committee regarding biofuels specifically caution against using SVO due to significant long-term risks? So why was the purpose of the ill-conceived evaluation again and it influenced the decision not to consider electric vehicles how?
Compost Containers: The program is run by Bergen County and has been going on for some years. Dumont cannot take credit for that, sorry.
Green Bins: I understand Dumont has some earned revenue (I guess currency counts as green) from sale of these containers. Can this revenue offset losses in other areas? For some reason I do not think so.
Recycling: Unless that commodity is gold, the market for common household recyclables such as cardboard, glass, newsprint, paper and plastic have collapsed. Revenues from these operations have been diminished, and in some cases have become an expense item. Will we be able to afford this?
Refuse Containers: The receptacles can be seen around town in public areas. How many are there again? It appears that what used to be a quality of life issue is now a green issue. OK, I guess...
Wind Turbines: There has been much talk about wind energy, but so far it appears to be hot air. Ordinances enabling construction and operation appear nowhere to be found. Wayne gets the credit here as a trailblazer in this area; however, a recent article indicates that the fiercest opponents to the wind turbine operator seem to be from nearby residents. NIMBY, anyone?
I think it's time to drop the Green Initiatives. The more it is discussed, the more residents expect results. Unless I missed covering something here, or 2010 is a blockbuster year for significant achievements that don't break the budget, this might become an albatross.
Alternative Fuels: Despite grants available from the State of NJ and its mention in the December 2008 council meeting, no grants have been applied. The borough recently approved acquisition of conventionally fueled vehicles for the police department. This determination was made by running of only one Ford Diesel pickup on Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) mixed with varying percentages with Diesel even though no problems were reported. Is it just me or does it seem ironic that the very links offered by the committee regarding biofuels specifically caution against using SVO due to significant long-term risks? So why was the purpose of the ill-conceived evaluation again and it influenced the decision not to consider electric vehicles how?
Compost Containers: The program is run by Bergen County and has been going on for some years. Dumont cannot take credit for that, sorry.
Green Bins: I understand Dumont has some earned revenue (I guess currency counts as green) from sale of these containers. Can this revenue offset losses in other areas? For some reason I do not think so.
Recycling: Unless that commodity is gold, the market for common household recyclables such as cardboard, glass, newsprint, paper and plastic have collapsed. Revenues from these operations have been diminished, and in some cases have become an expense item. Will we be able to afford this?
Refuse Containers: The receptacles can be seen around town in public areas. How many are there again? It appears that what used to be a quality of life issue is now a green issue. OK, I guess...
Wind Turbines: There has been much talk about wind energy, but so far it appears to be hot air. Ordinances enabling construction and operation appear nowhere to be found. Wayne gets the credit here as a trailblazer in this area; however, a recent article indicates that the fiercest opponents to the wind turbine operator seem to be from nearby residents. NIMBY, anyone?
I think it's time to drop the Green Initiatives. The more it is discussed, the more residents expect results. Unless I missed covering something here, or 2010 is a blockbuster year for significant achievements that don't break the budget, this might become an albatross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)