Official Request?

Recently I received the following request from a council member:

I was looking at your website.  I am just curious why you have all of the Democratic Councilmembers and the Democratic Club reports but not for the Republicans?

Thank you.



As a result, the folder has been updated to include all R-1 forms filed with ELEC by all council candidates running in the 2010 Primary and General Elections in the Borough of Dumont filed in calendar year 2010.

Pay for Performance?

Paying for performance is a perfectly acceptable practice.  For example, some folks will go through great lengths to put their children through private school even if it strains their finances.  Why?  Because they feel it is worth it.

According to the borough audit summary for 2008 (completed in July 2009), the outside auditor issued nine "recommendations" relating to borough financial operations.

Fair enough.

One would think that the borough audit summary for 2009 (completed in August 2010) the same auditor would have either fewer "recommendations" or at least have different ones, right?

Here are auditor identified financial deficiencies from 2008 that carried over to 2009:

• Internal controls regarding the preparation of the Borough’s general ledger be reviewed to ensure that the general ledgers for all Funds are complete and reconciled with the subsidiary ledgers and records on a monthly basis;
• The encumbrance system be enhanced to ensure that materials be ordered only after a purchase order has been executed;
• Internal controls of the Recreation Commission financial activities be reviewed and enhanced;
• The General Capital grant receivable balances be reviewed and action taken to collect or clear of record.
• The Borough review its procedures relating to developers escrow and ensure that procedures comply with New Jersey Statutes.

I am no expert; however, these recommendations suggest a history of poor record keeping.  While in and of itself poor record keeping is not considered wrongdoing; however, it does open the door to future trouble, possibly exposing the borough to financial risk.  Did this deserve a 3.5% raise?  But hey, I am just a "misinformed" dopey resident.  What do I know?

Full audit report is here.

The 2009 Audit Corrective Action Plan is here.  As taxpayers, how do we know that the actions will prevent identical "recommendations" by the auditor next year?  Is this the performance we are rewarding?

It appears the auditor agrees that several deficiencies have not been corrected from 2008:

2009 Dumont Auditor's Report (Full)

Again, there is a lot here.  I thank the SEC for the disclosure.

Dumont's "Very Good" Financial Condition?

As you may be aware, it has been difficult for an average citizen to obtain borough financial information, even via OPRA.  This is because the borough is only required to publish current and previous year data.  This has made longer duration analysis challenging as many different documents must be stitched together in order to determine whether the many declarations from various elected and appointed officials whether the borough's financial condition has vastly improved can be confirmed.

Until now.

Because of the borough's seemingly insatiable appetite for debt in the past five years, they have been seeking short term financing.  Short term financing, those of duration of about a year or so, are not subject to financial disclosure requirements.  With regards to long term financing, loans obtained from other agencies such as the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) are also not subject to financial disclosure.  This year; however, the borough instead sought long term financing independently in the municipal bond market.

Bingo.

Going it alone has exposed an opportunity to the public:  While the mere declaration that borough finances are improved from the mayor or finance committee members would probably satisfy most residents, federal regulators require a far more comprehensive disclosure to potential investors.

The entire document is here.  Some observations:

On page 31, the municipal tax rate increased 25.3% over the period, yet on we see that total debt grew 25.4%.  Even with interest rates being nearly zero, having debt grow faster than revenue is unsustainable.  With a steadily decreasing population and increased foreclosures, remaining taxpayers will be squeezed even harder for tax revenues.  With all the noise about runaway education expenses earlier this year, school tax rate from 2005 to 2009 increased 20.4%.  How ironic:  Taxpayers can vote the school budget up or down, yet it is the municipal tax rate that has been running away.

Bond Prospectus

This is a big document, so feel free to look through it and see what else you might find.

Mixed Bag on Salary Raises

On the August 17 M&C Public Meeting, ordinance #1455 was passed 5-1-0.  While it was a relief to hear that council members decided to keep their salaries unchanged, it appeared that salaries were increased 3.5% for the staff at borough hall not under collective bargaining.  Though the borough administrator added that the staff now contribute 1.5% of their salaries into their healthcare benefits (where there was no contribution before), I consider myself very fortunate that I do not have to try justifying that these are "tough terms" to someone who is either underemployed or unemployed and struggling to make ends meet.

Big deal, you say.  Why is this crazy blogger making a big deal out of seemingly nothing?  So we just pay a few dollars more, the staff is doing their job.  Is that not worth the aggravation?

For those who saw the estimated tax bill and can easily handle the new payment, let's see what our administration is paying for "performance" in a future post.

P.S. Those seeking adventure may find instructions on repealing this ordinance via referendum here.  By the time you have figured out how, it is probably too late.

Email Correspondence with Councilman Matt Carrick

The following is an email exchange with Councilman Matt Carrick when I asked him to instead oppose  Ordinance #1415.  The body of the correspondence appears without editing.  Keep in mind that Councilman Carrick served on the Dumont BOE as a board member before he was elected to the borough council:

KC:  I am writing today regarding Ordinance #1415 that passed first reading at the July 20 council meeting.  I recall that you voted to oppose the resolution to approve the amended budget because you felt that the cuts at borough hall were not deep enough considering the steep cuts imposed on BoE.  Do you find it troubling that the CFO, who prepared the ordinance, was cited two years in a row by the auditor as deficient in internal controls and record keeping according to public records?  Would it be appropriate to reward this performance with a raise? 


KC:  I respectfully ask that you oppose #1415 on second reading so that you may show the residents you feel their pain and show your shared sacrifice in this difficult economic climate.


MC:  Mr Chen you are a funny man. Ordinance #1415 is just a guide line. The budget is what sets the Raises. As I remember I was the one that abstained from the Budget Vote. Also the MONEY I receive as a Councilman is given back in DONATIONS to families in Dumont that are need. I do not like that you attack my fellow Council People with your incorrect information please get your facts straight before you put pen to paper. If you can not get the correct information feel free to call me. As Council Members are job is to keep the public informed let's us do are job that we were VOTED into office to do 


KC:  Thank you for responding.  Are you objecting to my speaking out?  What are you suggesting?  Kindly cite the specific statements I made that you feel were incorrect.


MC:  I have no problem responding to you. Just don't try to bait me as you have on your BLOG. Ordinance #1415 is just a guide line the BUDGET is what sets raises.  Your article in the twin boro states that the Council received raises not true for the last 10 years the amount has been the same. I know for a fact that Councilman Stylianou and myself Donate are SALIERS back to people or organizations in Dumont who need it.  


MC:  As far as PAY to PLAY you were at the meetings and you how hard me and Harry fought for it. Instead of writing something negative try write something positive. I take pride in being on this Council and also put what's best for this town first.  


MC:  Freedom of Speech is great and I like that you use it.


KC:  The accusations pile on, yet I am unable to see specifics.  While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there is only one set of facts.  


KC:  With all due respect, It seems now you are telling me what types of stories I should write.  Feel free to write your own if you don't like mine, or simply stop reading my posts.  No one is forcing you to do so.  All I wrote in the email is respectfully requesting you to oppose ordinance 1415.  Either respond yes, no or ignore my request.  


KC:  You claim you are responsive to my requests.  If so, then what is the disposition of my request and sample resolution to enter closed session I emailed the mayor and council members last month?  Was there any discussion in the meeting last month, or is this the 'bait' you claim I am setting for you?

KC:  Mr. Carrick, I was very hopeful and optimistic when you came on board in January.  Based on the O&R committee meetings and the recent email exchange; however, I am left disappointed.

MC:  I can see this only goes one way your way good luck sorry you are Disappointed

Keep in mind we elected this person into office just months ago.  I think the conversation speaks for itself; I wish I could make this up.