Our mayor seems to take nearly every turn trumpeting his accomplishment of bringing transparency to borough hall.
A recent Record article seems to have some Dumont council members supporting bold initiatives concerning public contracting. The impression to the public is that council members want to go beyond that allowed by law.
How quaint.
What can the M&C show for after spending in excess of $45,000 on website services since 2008 besides posting council meeting agenda and minutes, hosting an events calendar and an emergency alert system that was absent during the March 13 storm when residents needed information most? While I applaud the posting of ordinances and resolutions since April 2009, why have past ordinances and resolutions before then not appeared? Why were the posting of commission and committee agenda and minutes intermittent or nonexistent? Could a flurry of Joint Land Use Board meeting minutes have been motivated by this gentle reminder?
Is it just me, or does it seem interesting that well-paid, full-time staff (who, by the way, appears to be receiving a 3.5% salary raise for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 along with all permanent municipal staff) needs to be reminded by a resident to do their job? What does that say about the teachers and janitorial staff from Dumont Board of Education who were pressured during the May budget talks, would they have agreed to concessions knowing the mayor had just signed some of those same collective bargaining agreements with borough employees around the same time? I would not be surprised if these folks, many of whom are also Dumont residents, join the residents who voted down the BOE budget back in April to remind the council incumbents in November, justified or otherwise, how they enjoyed playing three card monte?
The contracts are public information. They should be online for all to see from an official source. No resident should have to file an OPRA request to access them. No borough clerk should have to waste their time and taxpayer dollars servicing trivial OPRA requests other than to tell the requestor where on the website they can be found. Sadly, this happens in Dumont more often than one would like to believe.
Why? I forgot - the law does not require posting online. So much for appearing to go beyond the law for the sake of election year politics.
Residents should ask why ABetterDumont.com, a privately operated website having no affiliation to the Borough of Dumont, is hosting public information that should be accessible via the official borough website? How much public information will the current administration continue to withhold from the official website before residents see the facade for what it is and realizing money spent on this service, regardless of how small, is money wasted? In other words, if it is not required by law, then why have one at all?
Oh, that's right - Dumont wants to provide more than what is required by law.
Boy am I confused now.
Where can that transparent government, so often touted by the Mayor, be found again?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
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?
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.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
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...
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...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Select Borough Public Meetings
There have been many new additions this week on the video site.
4/27 Joint Land Use Board Meeting
4/28 Ordinance & Resolution Board Meeting
Part 1 - Revised Rent Leveling Board Ordinance, Park and Playground Ordinance
Part 2 - Campaign Finance Reform (Pay-to-Play) Ordinance
P2P Ordinance is the subject of a recent editorial and the meeting received some press attention.
Happy viewing!
4/27 Joint Land Use Board Meeting
4/28 Ordinance & Resolution Board Meeting
Part 1 - Revised Rent Leveling Board Ordinance, Park and Playground Ordinance
Part 2 - Campaign Finance Reform (Pay-to-Play) Ordinance
P2P Ordinance is the subject of a recent editorial and the meeting received some press attention.
Happy viewing!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Finally, some good news!
Motivated by Board Member Ken Melamed's letter to action, I attended the Joint Land Use Board Meeting on Tuesday April 27. Do you find it interesting that the board meeting could not be located on the borough calendar for any month in 2010? I hope this oversight is rectified soon.
Anyway, at the meeting it was announced that T-Mobile, the cellular operator applying for a variance to erect a tower on 75 Armour Place (Block 203, Lot 19), is in active discussion with the borough of Dumont to see whether the carrier can relocate the tower application to place it on borough property so the borough could earn some revenue and (possibly) offset future property tax levies. Do you see the ring of antennas on the radio tower about three-fourths the tower height? Currently MetroPCS is leasing that space from the borough and is paying $2500 monthly, their own utilities and a 3% yearly raise for the 5-year term.
Video is available here.
Please refer to this earlier post for background. Stay tuned for (hopefully) further progress and eventual success!
Anyway, at the meeting it was announced that T-Mobile, the cellular operator applying for a variance to erect a tower on 75 Armour Place (Block 203, Lot 19), is in active discussion with the borough of Dumont to see whether the carrier can relocate the tower application to place it on borough property so the borough could earn some revenue and (possibly) offset future property tax levies. Do you see the ring of antennas on the radio tower about three-fourths the tower height? Currently MetroPCS is leasing that space from the borough and is paying $2500 monthly, their own utilities and a 3% yearly raise for the 5-year term.
Video is available here.
Please refer to this earlier post for background. Stay tuned for (hopefully) further progress and eventual success!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)