One of the problems that still faces the Somerset County Park Commission is its apparently sloppy practice of awarding contracts. The prognosis is not good.
The current batch of commissioners, acting as a whole, cannot seem to grasp the simplest concept that the public is able to judge its recent behavior in awarding a $225,000 contract and clearly perceive it as wholly inappropriate. That advertising contract is the latest example in the denouement of the park commission’s ongoing missteps. Three vendors were in a pool, but only one bid on the project. Doesn’t that mean that the solitary bid should not have been accepted and that the commissioners should have gone back out and found more bidders?
Was Rick Fontana, Somerset County Freeholder and liaison to the park commission, at the meeting when this occurred? If so, what did he say? If he wasn’t present, what is he doing about it? According to press reports, park commissioner Robert Horowitz seemed to be the only one present who argued forcefully and “protested the method used to solicit professionals to join a commission pool to vie for such work.”
I’ve observed Horowitz at one or two prior commission meetings, and it’s usually discernible when something is bothering him. He seems to have a sense when all is not right and he is not bashful about expressing it to his colleagues on the commission.
Interestingly enough, the same Courier News article which quoted Horowitz, disclosed that a large chunk of the contract “would pay for newspaper, magazine and signage advertising, including (to) the Courier News and Home News Tribune.” That’s a good example of getting something out on the table for all to see.
The park commissioners should be bending over backwards to choke off even the slightest appearance of what could be perceived as conduct unbecoming of public servants.
See Courier News article, “Park Commission contract generates questions.” at http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/NEWS01/801180338/1006/NEWS06
Showing posts with label Park Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Park Commission. Show all posts
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Newspapers Deliver
Several days ago, in two area newspapers, I read about how the Somerset County Park Commission still seems to be having difficulty in making fundamental changes to its procurement practices. That underscored to me how we rely almost exclusively on the accurate reporting of two journalists, Martin Bricketto and Joe Tyrrell, to stay on top of what’s going on with the behavior of the commission and with the oversight responsibilities of the Somerset County Freeholders.
When the Wolff and Samson report was released to the public last year, a furor broke out over the policies and practices of the park commission. I attended several public meetings and heard supporters of the status quo walk up to the mike, talk about how things weren’t that bad at the commission and that “media frenzy” was largely to blame for stirring up the pot. The message seemed to be that if only the press would go away, the bad news would go away.
Well, when a tree falls in the forest, it still makes a sound, even though no one is there to hear it. It just so happens, in this case, that when the trees of the park commission scandal began toppling over, somebody was there to listen to the crackling of the branches. Some of those who heard the noise, like it or not, were reporters sitting in public meetings of the freeholders and of the park commission, taking notes, asking questions, digging up facts, and bringing that information back to newspaper and Internet readers.
There was no media frenzy. I read all of the columns and attended many of the same meetings at which reporters were present. I don’t recall them writing about anything that did not actually happen, or that the public did not deserve to know.
When the Wolff and Samson report was released to the public last year, a furor broke out over the policies and practices of the park commission. I attended several public meetings and heard supporters of the status quo walk up to the mike, talk about how things weren’t that bad at the commission and that “media frenzy” was largely to blame for stirring up the pot. The message seemed to be that if only the press would go away, the bad news would go away.
Well, when a tree falls in the forest, it still makes a sound, even though no one is there to hear it. It just so happens, in this case, that when the trees of the park commission scandal began toppling over, somebody was there to listen to the crackling of the branches. Some of those who heard the noise, like it or not, were reporters sitting in public meetings of the freeholders and of the park commission, taking notes, asking questions, digging up facts, and bringing that information back to newspaper and Internet readers.
There was no media frenzy. I read all of the columns and attended many of the same meetings at which reporters were present. I don’t recall them writing about anything that did not actually happen, or that the public did not deserve to know.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Somerset County Park Commission Gets to Stay in Place.
At tonight’s work session of the County Freeholders, there was a spirited debate about the fate of the Park Commission. The new face of the commission showed itself in the presence of its members. Steven Fuerst, commission president, made his case for keeping the commission intact.
No vote was taken by the freeholders on whether or not to dissolve the commission. However, as the evening wore on, and as some freeholders made their opinions known, notably Jack Ciattarelli and Rick Fontana, it was clear where that body stood. Next Tuesday, seven days before the Christmas holiday, the freeholders will make the decision at their regular session.
Here is my prediction for what will happen next week, unless there is a complete sea change in sentiment by a few freeholders (there are five in total):
A motion will be re-introduced to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission, and this is the most likely outcome:
Voting Against Dissolution will be:
Robert Zaborowski, Director
Peter S. Palmer, Freeholder
Rick Fontana, Freeholder (Swing Vote)
Voting For Dissolution will be:
Denise Coyle, Freeholder
Jack Ciattarelli, Freeholder
In a prior blog, several months ago, I had stated that Rick Fontana is the swing vote on this issue. He still is. His decision will carry the day. Denise Coyle is recently on record as having said that the Commission structure is outdated and needs to go: only political expediency will make her change her mind. Jack Ciattarelli has made a near-impregnable case for why the Commission has served its purpose. He is unlikely to move from that position. Tonight’s silence by Zaborowski and Palmer, together with their prior voting records, has cemented their stance.
Last fall, Rick Fontana had lined up with Coyle and Ciattarelli to dissolve the commission, but Fontana had a last-minute change of heart. Together with Palmer and Zaborowski, he voted instead to delay a decision until December.
Rick Fontana could make a last-minute turnaround, but that is very unlikely, especially considering his strong defense this evening in favor of maintaining a “hybrid structure” which calls for keeping the Somerset County Park Commission intact
No vote was taken by the freeholders on whether or not to dissolve the commission. However, as the evening wore on, and as some freeholders made their opinions known, notably Jack Ciattarelli and Rick Fontana, it was clear where that body stood. Next Tuesday, seven days before the Christmas holiday, the freeholders will make the decision at their regular session.
Here is my prediction for what will happen next week, unless there is a complete sea change in sentiment by a few freeholders (there are five in total):
A motion will be re-introduced to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission, and this is the most likely outcome:
Voting Against Dissolution will be:
Robert Zaborowski, Director
Peter S. Palmer, Freeholder
Rick Fontana, Freeholder (Swing Vote)
Voting For Dissolution will be:
Denise Coyle, Freeholder
Jack Ciattarelli, Freeholder
In a prior blog, several months ago, I had stated that Rick Fontana is the swing vote on this issue. He still is. His decision will carry the day. Denise Coyle is recently on record as having said that the Commission structure is outdated and needs to go: only political expediency will make her change her mind. Jack Ciattarelli has made a near-impregnable case for why the Commission has served its purpose. He is unlikely to move from that position. Tonight’s silence by Zaborowski and Palmer, together with their prior voting records, has cemented their stance.
Last fall, Rick Fontana had lined up with Coyle and Ciattarelli to dissolve the commission, but Fontana had a last-minute change of heart. Together with Palmer and Zaborowski, he voted instead to delay a decision until December.
Rick Fontana could make a last-minute turnaround, but that is very unlikely, especially considering his strong defense this evening in favor of maintaining a “hybrid structure” which calls for keeping the Somerset County Park Commission intact
Monday, December 10, 2007
A Scapegoat in the Desert?
Joseph Lucas is a former Somerset County Park Commission Construction Manager. On November 16, he was convicted on a charge of official misconduct. Is Lucas taking the fall for a few elected and appointed officials, as well as for certain park employees who may have been part of the same corrupt system?
In ancient Judaism, there existed a ceremony attached to celebrating the Day of Atonement. There is a very old Jewish tradition in which the community came together at the Jerusalem Temple to offer sacrifice intended to make amends for sin. As part of this solemn ceremony, the high priest laid his hands on a goat and confessed the sins of all Israel over it. The goat, now burdened with community transgressions, was led into the wilderness, never to return. This represented transference of guilt and sin – a cleansing of conscience.
The paragraph you have just read is a synopsis of how the word ‘scapegoat’ evolved into modern English to mean, “One that is made to bear the blame of others.”
So I ask again: Is Joseph Lucas a scapegoat?
Note: The religious definition – the etymological basis for the modern meaning of the word, ‘scapegoat’ – is described in all good dictionaries and encyclopedias.
In ancient Judaism, there existed a ceremony attached to celebrating the Day of Atonement. There is a very old Jewish tradition in which the community came together at the Jerusalem Temple to offer sacrifice intended to make amends for sin. As part of this solemn ceremony, the high priest laid his hands on a goat and confessed the sins of all Israel over it. The goat, now burdened with community transgressions, was led into the wilderness, never to return. This represented transference of guilt and sin – a cleansing of conscience.
The paragraph you have just read is a synopsis of how the word ‘scapegoat’ evolved into modern English to mean, “One that is made to bear the blame of others.”
So I ask again: Is Joseph Lucas a scapegoat?
Note: The religious definition – the etymological basis for the modern meaning of the word, ‘scapegoat’ – is described in all good dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Park Commission Sets Market Values; Establishes Rents Below That
Tonight, at 7:12 PM, the Park Commissioners for Somerset County adjusted rents for 12 rental properties occupied by park employees. The resolution was passed unanimously and without discussion by all seven of the Park Commissioners who were present. Voting were President Steven Fuerst, Vice-president Joanne Jaeger, and Commissioners Paul Consiglio, John Gillen, Dorothy Paluck, Gary Walsh, and newly-sworn-in Peter Schoberl. Absent were Robert Horowitz and Rose McConnell.
Here’s a summary: Fair market rental values were established for each property. However, an adjustment was made lowering the actual rental that will be charged park employees to below market value. The director’s home is the only exception. This new policy is retroactive to October 1.
Previously, the average rent paid for all twelve properties was an average of $357 per month. $2,067 is now the average monthly fair market rental value for these properties agreed to by the Park Commission. But that is not the average of what employees will be charged.
In its decision, the Park Commission consented to reduce the average fair market rental of $2,067 by $1,453, bringing the actual rental for park employees down to an average of $614 per month. This will result in a 72% increase over what these employees are now paying. Nonetheless, it will still leave the actual average monthly rental charged to park employees 237% below the fair market rental value which the Park Commission has used in its own calculations.
The Park Commission is reducing the average fair market rental value of $2,067 by $1,453 down to an actual of $614 to be charged on average to its employees. The reason given for this is that the reduction of $1,453 is considered to be a “lease obligation adjustment” given to park employees as an “offset” to account for the fact that these properties are “located on government owned property and occupancy is restricted to full-time employees.”
Consequently, the Park Commission claims that, “this restriction substantially reduces the rental value of the property.” Additionally, the Park Commission states that, “There are additional employee occupant obligations”… and that, “All obligations carry clear additional rent offset duties.”
Note: I emphasize that I have compiled the detailed information provided by the Park Commission into averages to provide a bird’s-eye view. At least one park employee has seen his rent increased significantly, while another, whose rental home carries a fair market rental value of $3,700 will continue to pay no rent at all.
Here’s a summary: Fair market rental values were established for each property. However, an adjustment was made lowering the actual rental that will be charged park employees to below market value. The director’s home is the only exception. This new policy is retroactive to October 1.
Previously, the average rent paid for all twelve properties was an average of $357 per month. $2,067 is now the average monthly fair market rental value for these properties agreed to by the Park Commission. But that is not the average of what employees will be charged.
In its decision, the Park Commission consented to reduce the average fair market rental of $2,067 by $1,453, bringing the actual rental for park employees down to an average of $614 per month. This will result in a 72% increase over what these employees are now paying. Nonetheless, it will still leave the actual average monthly rental charged to park employees 237% below the fair market rental value which the Park Commission has used in its own calculations.
The Park Commission is reducing the average fair market rental value of $2,067 by $1,453 down to an actual of $614 to be charged on average to its employees. The reason given for this is that the reduction of $1,453 is considered to be a “lease obligation adjustment” given to park employees as an “offset” to account for the fact that these properties are “located on government owned property and occupancy is restricted to full-time employees.”
Consequently, the Park Commission claims that, “this restriction substantially reduces the rental value of the property.” Additionally, the Park Commission states that, “There are additional employee occupant obligations”… and that, “All obligations carry clear additional rent offset duties.”
Note: I emphasize that I have compiled the detailed information provided by the Park Commission into averages to provide a bird’s-eye view. At least one park employee has seen his rent increased significantly, while another, whose rental home carries a fair market rental value of $3,700 will continue to pay no rent at all.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Beauty and the Park Commission
If you have ever appreciated the random symmetry of a well-stacked wood pile, then perhaps you can relate to its applicability in other spheres of life.The author, Pearl S. Buck, in an article for a Sunday newspaper insert – it may have been PARADE – was asked what beauty is. Quite simply she responded, “Beauty is order.” Consider an example: The essence of the beauty of a rose is the shape and color of its petals, together with the geometrically proportioned manner in which they are arranged, that makes an enthusiast gaze upon it in focused admiration.
In a different dimension, think about how many times you yourself may have uttered the expression, ‘beautiful!’ when you have concluded a successful meeting, completed a job around the house, or have watched children cooperatively at play. Was it really the physical aspect of the situation that made you consider the event ‘beautiful,’ or was it the experience of having felt a well-ordered human process at work?
Translated to other ordinary events in life, such as a political assembly, a key factor that can make such a meeting ‘beautiful’ is the consideration and respect for the public interest which should be inherent in open deliberations and in the outcome of that gathering.
Perhaps that is why, when we see that Somerset County Park Commission employees have been provided homes at below-market rates, we instinctively feel that the proper order of things has been disrupted, and we cry, “Foul!”
Not so beautiful.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
A Frustrating Somerset County Parks Commission Meeting
Tonight’s meeting lasted about 15 minutes short of three hours and, although the six commissioners present (the commission now has a full complement of nine people) did their best as a group to hammer out specific proposals to major issues confronting them, they managed not to implement a single one of the critical recommendations made by individual commissioners tonight on four items of major concern.
Commissioners Steven Fuerst, Joanne Jaeger, Paul Consiglio, John Gillen, Robert Horowitz, and Gary Walsh thoroughly discussed the issues now facing the new parks commission. However, the commission as a whole could not agree, and significant resolutions to address the issues below were either returned to committee, soundly defeated, or hung up in a 3/3 vote.
1. Process improvements relating to the commission’s approval of bill payments.
2. A new policy for county employees who currently have vehicles assigned to them.
3. A housing policy for county managers who now occupy county homes at below-market rents.
4. A recommendation made in the waning minutes of the meeting to adopt a high-standards ethics policy.
It wasn’t fun observing so many talented people trying so hard and, yet, just not seeming to be able to come to closure on matters of urgency to Somerset County. As an observer, I came out with the impression that things will definitely change, but not necessarily in the direction that most residents of this county seem to be demanding that they should.
It’s late. More to come . . . . .
Commissioners Steven Fuerst, Joanne Jaeger, Paul Consiglio, John Gillen, Robert Horowitz, and Gary Walsh thoroughly discussed the issues now facing the new parks commission. However, the commission as a whole could not agree, and significant resolutions to address the issues below were either returned to committee, soundly defeated, or hung up in a 3/3 vote.
1. Process improvements relating to the commission’s approval of bill payments.
2. A new policy for county employees who currently have vehicles assigned to them.
3. A housing policy for county managers who now occupy county homes at below-market rents.
4. A recommendation made in the waning minutes of the meeting to adopt a high-standards ethics policy.
It wasn’t fun observing so many talented people trying so hard and, yet, just not seeming to be able to come to closure on matters of urgency to Somerset County. As an observer, I came out with the impression that things will definitely change, but not necessarily in the direction that most residents of this county seem to be demanding that they should.
It’s late. More to come . . . . .
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Park Commission’s Executive Session
If the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education had decided at one of its public meetings to suddenly go into executive session without having previously posted the legally required 48-hour notice, and without stating the topic of the closed session, all hell could have broken loose.
Yet, at its very first public meeting last week, the newly-reconstituted Somerset County Park Commission violated one or both of those requirements, and not a peep has been heard from anyone in a position of public responsibility. Reports by Joe Tyrrell noted this occurrence in the Star-Ledger. Other than for such media vigilance, probably few would even know.
The six new commissioners are an impressive group. Among them there should be at least several who understand the requirements of New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act. Certainly the remaining incumbents must. So, why the closed-door meeting? What was discussed?
At last Tuesday’s meeting of the Somerset County Freeholders, everyone who spoke about the newly-appointed park commissioners praised their qualifications -- deservedly so. Yet no one questioned the commissioners about that executive session.
The newly-reconstituted park commission may be made up of blue ribbon people, but that does not give it the privilege of ignoring the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. Two of their representatives, Rose McConnell and Robert Horowitz committed themselves on Tuesday evening to restoring the integrity of the park commission. This is not the way to do it.
Indeed, that closed session, whatever its purpose may have been, may have caused a hairline fracture to the nascent integrity of the new Somerset County Park Commission. It’s repairable, but it needs attention.
Yet, at its very first public meeting last week, the newly-reconstituted Somerset County Park Commission violated one or both of those requirements, and not a peep has been heard from anyone in a position of public responsibility. Reports by Joe Tyrrell noted this occurrence in the Star-Ledger. Other than for such media vigilance, probably few would even know.
The six new commissioners are an impressive group. Among them there should be at least several who understand the requirements of New Jersey’s Open Public Meetings Act. Certainly the remaining incumbents must. So, why the closed-door meeting? What was discussed?
At last Tuesday’s meeting of the Somerset County Freeholders, everyone who spoke about the newly-appointed park commissioners praised their qualifications -- deservedly so. Yet no one questioned the commissioners about that executive session.
The newly-reconstituted park commission may be made up of blue ribbon people, but that does not give it the privilege of ignoring the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. Two of their representatives, Rose McConnell and Robert Horowitz committed themselves on Tuesday evening to restoring the integrity of the park commission. This is not the way to do it.
Indeed, that closed session, whatever its purpose may have been, may have caused a hairline fracture to the nascent integrity of the new Somerset County Park Commission. It’s repairable, but it needs attention.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
County Freeholders Delay Decision to Disband Park Commission
This evening the Somerset County Freeholders voted 3 to 2 to postpone until December any decision on whether or not to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission. They also called for a joint meeting(s) of the freeholders and of the park commission itself to discuss the matter further. It was not clarified whether there would be one or more joint meetings, nor when or where they would take place.
This decision came after lengthy public input before a large turnout. Many of the persons in attendance urged the freeholders not to dissolve the park commission and to give the new commissioners more time to make things work.
Several prominent citizens were in attendance, including Raymond Bateman, who offered that, “If it were me, I would never abolish the park commission. It is dangerous. It is wrong.” He went on to say, “I feel very strongly about this subject,” and that, “…we will have a citizens committee to help you make the decision.”
Robert Horowitz, one of the six newly-appointed park commissioners asked the freeholders to, “Give us time – five to six months – for the newly-reconstituted commission … to show what we are going to do.”
Patricia Walsh, Green Brook mayor, and a proponent for disbanding the commission, stated, “I don’t see how you can be half in and half out,” a reference to the fact that the engineering, finance and procurement operations of the park commission are already in the process of being folded into Somerset County government, directly under control of the freeholders.
Only freeholders Denise Coyle and Jack Ciattarelli were clearly and unequivocally in favor of voting this evening to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission and to bring its functions directly under county management. However, Rick Fontana, who appears to be emerging as the potential swing vote on this crucial topic, made a motion to defer this evening’s vote until December.
Freeholders Peter Palmer, Robert Zaborowski, as well as Fontana all voted to put any decision on ice until December. Denise Coyle and Jack Ciattarelli strongly opposed that move.
This decision came after lengthy public input before a large turnout. Many of the persons in attendance urged the freeholders not to dissolve the park commission and to give the new commissioners more time to make things work.
Several prominent citizens were in attendance, including Raymond Bateman, who offered that, “If it were me, I would never abolish the park commission. It is dangerous. It is wrong.” He went on to say, “I feel very strongly about this subject,” and that, “…we will have a citizens committee to help you make the decision.”
Robert Horowitz, one of the six newly-appointed park commissioners asked the freeholders to, “Give us time – five to six months – for the newly-reconstituted commission … to show what we are going to do.”
Patricia Walsh, Green Brook mayor, and a proponent for disbanding the commission, stated, “I don’t see how you can be half in and half out,” a reference to the fact that the engineering, finance and procurement operations of the park commission are already in the process of being folded into Somerset County government, directly under control of the freeholders.
Only freeholders Denise Coyle and Jack Ciattarelli were clearly and unequivocally in favor of voting this evening to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission and to bring its functions directly under county management. However, Rick Fontana, who appears to be emerging as the potential swing vote on this crucial topic, made a motion to defer this evening’s vote until December.
Freeholders Peter Palmer, Robert Zaborowski, as well as Fontana all voted to put any decision on ice until December. Denise Coyle and Jack Ciattarelli strongly opposed that move.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Integrity and the Park Commission
“First you say you do, and then you don’t. Then you say you will, and then you won’t. You’re undecided now, so what are you gonna do?” Those words, taken from the lyrics of a popular '40's era song, encapsulate the shenanigans of at least two of the Somerset County Park Commissioners .
I was at the meeting a few weeks ago where four of the seven commissioners tendered their resignations to the county freeholders. The only stipulation that I remember any of them making was that they would step down as soon as their successors are appointed by the county freeholders. Yet, according to last Saturday’s article in the Courier News, several of the commissioners now seem to be backtracking.
The new twist is that at least two of the commissioners, Doyle Hunsinger and Rocque Dameo, are predicating their resignations on maintaining “the integrity of the park commission.” What does that mean? Institutions don’t have integrity -- only people do. It is the people who run an institution who put a public face on it, thus establishing the group’s credibility -- or lack thereof. In this case, that’s the Somerset County Park Commission. So, what, exactly, are these two gentlemen saying?
Dissolving or retaining the Park Commission is a decision that belongs to the public which created it. That is self-evident, and the Somerset County Freeholders should acknowledge that by putting the question on the ballot for the November election. That is the best way to maintain the integrity of Somerset County’s park system.
NOTE: I will be on vacation, returning sometime during the week of August 20th.
I was at the meeting a few weeks ago where four of the seven commissioners tendered their resignations to the county freeholders. The only stipulation that I remember any of them making was that they would step down as soon as their successors are appointed by the county freeholders. Yet, according to last Saturday’s article in the Courier News, several of the commissioners now seem to be backtracking.
The new twist is that at least two of the commissioners, Doyle Hunsinger and Rocque Dameo, are predicating their resignations on maintaining “the integrity of the park commission.” What does that mean? Institutions don’t have integrity -- only people do. It is the people who run an institution who put a public face on it, thus establishing the group’s credibility -- or lack thereof. In this case, that’s the Somerset County Park Commission. So, what, exactly, are these two gentlemen saying?
Dissolving or retaining the Park Commission is a decision that belongs to the public which created it. That is self-evident, and the Somerset County Freeholders should acknowledge that by putting the question on the ballot for the November election. That is the best way to maintain the integrity of Somerset County’s park system.
NOTE: I will be on vacation, returning sometime during the week of August 20th.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Park Commission Moves Ahead on Bids for Legal Assistance
Friday morning, at 7:30 am at its headquarters in North Branch Park on Milltown Road in Bridgewater, the Somerset County Park Commission held a brief, sparsely attended meeting where it agreed to pursue three subsets of the same topic: legal representation for its problems and issues.The commission gave the go ahead for writing up two legal services contracts. The third item was – in the Commission’s own words – for a “List of Pre-qualified Attorneys for the ‘Pool’ of Legal Services.”
Translation: Thunder clouds are on the horizon, and there will be a lot more of your tax dollars spent by the Park Commission on attorneys.
A. The first proposed contract will be to hire legal representation concerning current investigations into the commission’s activities. The submission by a Chatham law firm specifies a $210 hourly rate for attorneys; $100 an hour for paralegals and law clerks; and, “separate billing … for any out-of-pocket disbursements.”
B. The second proposed contract – with a Morristown law firm – is to help the commission “to update and refine its policies and procedures.” The anticipated cost is $260 hourly for partners’ services; $250 hourly for associates; $100 hourly for paralegals; and, as with the first law firm, reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses.
C. The third item agreed to by the Park Commission was to establish a pool of six pre-qualified law firms from which the commission may draw. Two of those law firms are the ones mentioned above.
Out-of-pocket expenses are not trivial, as they could include legal research, investigation expenses, travel, expert fees, postage, messengers, photocopying, deposition transcripts, telephone charges, court costs, etc... Most of the hourly fees quoted above have been stated as blended rates.
Remember, all this is in addition to the cost of the Park Commission’s own in-house counsel who, up to now, has been advising it.
Whew!! It will take a Philadelphia lawyer to sort this out.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Housing for Somerset County Parks’ Employees
In yesterday’s posting, I discussed the notion of winning and losing in politics, and of how the results are rarely decisive. Some of the rationale was based on an essay entitled “How to Understand Politics,” by Harvey Mansfield. (See previous post.)
Despite the proposed evaluation of rental levels for commission-owned property – in one case, there is no rental charge – the anticipated adjustment of rental levels still may not meet normal criteria for establishing rents at fair market value. That is, not unless there is a paradigm change regarding such benefits in Somerset County Government, both at the Freeholder level, as well as at the Parks Commission.
As Mansfield explains, the reason for this is straightforward: “Politics is not an exchange between the bargaining positions of a buyer and a seller in which self-interest is clear and the result is either a sale or not, all without fuss.” If the proposed transaction between buyer and seller – in this case, between the Parks Commission as property owner and the employee as lessee of the property – is not on the open market, then politics get in the way of free-market workings and alter the outcome.
With regard to Parks Commission property, it’s arguable whether the commission should even own housing for rent to its employees, at any price. There is too much room for actual or perceived conflict of interest.
That the Parks Commission owns homes is simply an accident of its land acquisitions for open space and for recreation. The current situation is not the result of a direct intent to purchase housing for employee rental – at least we all should hope it isn’t.
Inadvertently ending up with a stock of publicly-owned homes situated on recreational and park property creates the problem of what to do with these assets. Such a situation makes it much too easy to find reasons for why a few Somerset County Parks’ employees have been offered these homes at below-market rents – properties which otherwise might be used in the public interest or disposed of.
And it becomes just as easy for the commission to make claims for why one or more of these rentals may have been part of negotiated packages when employees were hired. At least one tentative reason put forth in the press is that the salary (or salaries) of employees may have been discounted, as part of an arrangement which included housing. If this is the case, there should be written employment contracts on file which definitively state that, as well as what the higher imputed salary would be in the absence of such a rental.
Despite the proposed evaluation of rental levels for commission-owned property – in one case, there is no rental charge – the anticipated adjustment of rental levels still may not meet normal criteria for establishing rents at fair market value. That is, not unless there is a paradigm change regarding such benefits in Somerset County Government, both at the Freeholder level, as well as at the Parks Commission.
As Mansfield explains, the reason for this is straightforward: “Politics is not an exchange between the bargaining positions of a buyer and a seller in which self-interest is clear and the result is either a sale or not, all without fuss.” If the proposed transaction between buyer and seller – in this case, between the Parks Commission as property owner and the employee as lessee of the property – is not on the open market, then politics get in the way of free-market workings and alter the outcome.
With regard to Parks Commission property, it’s arguable whether the commission should even own housing for rent to its employees, at any price. There is too much room for actual or perceived conflict of interest.
That the Parks Commission owns homes is simply an accident of its land acquisitions for open space and for recreation. The current situation is not the result of a direct intent to purchase housing for employee rental – at least we all should hope it isn’t.
Inadvertently ending up with a stock of publicly-owned homes situated on recreational and park property creates the problem of what to do with these assets. Such a situation makes it much too easy to find reasons for why a few Somerset County Parks’ employees have been offered these homes at below-market rents – properties which otherwise might be used in the public interest or disposed of.
And it becomes just as easy for the commission to make claims for why one or more of these rentals may have been part of negotiated packages when employees were hired. At least one tentative reason put forth in the press is that the salary (or salaries) of employees may have been discounted, as part of an arrangement which included housing. If this is the case, there should be written employment contracts on file which definitively state that, as well as what the higher imputed salary would be in the absence of such a rental.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The Freeholders, the Parks Commission, and Politics
I like to get up early on weekends, before anyone else is up and about. It’s time for a shower and shave, brewed coffee, a light breakfast, and a table set for my wife. It’s also a time when the rest of the town is mostly still getting its Z’s – a good occasion to do some quiet reading and thinking.
In so doing, I came across an essay in the August/September issue of FIRST THINGS, entitled, How to Understand Politics. I suppose we could all use some of that knowledge; certainly, I could. The article was authored by Harvey Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard – but I won’t hold that against him, since his thoughts seem to be particularly cogent, and he seems to express a genuine degree of humility in articulating them.
Mansfield claims that, “Politics … is a series of victories and defeats in which every victory for one side is a defeat for the other … many of them ephemeral, but some of them decisive. He goes on to say, the struggle, “… rarely ends in final victory. The left will never finally defeat the right, nor vice versa.”
The contest now taking place in public meetings, as well as in the back rooms of Somerset County political power brokers about what to do with the Parks Commission, fits that description. It is also prophetic. Institutions don’t go down easily, and that applies to the Parks Commission and its supporters.
By transferring purchasing, procurement, finance, and engineering responsibilities to the county itself, you might think that there is not enough left for the Parks Commission to remain intact, and that the Commission should be dissolved.
But you would be wrong, because the factors which go into the final decision won’t be the normal ones which you might expect. To completely eliminate the Parks Commission would, as Mansfield outlines above, involve a decisive defeat for the political forces in the community who don’t want to see that happen. They may or may not have good reasons for their choice – we don’t know, because, so far, the debate is not being conducted in the public square, and we are not participants.
What we should recognize is the probability that, when the dust settles, there will be a compromise which will leave the Parks Commission still intact, but outwardly crippled.
That’s not a good role for any public body. And, if this is the direction which the freeholders decide to pursue, then it is their responsibility to define exactly what they expect of this down-sized Parks Commission; because, remember, under the law it will still be a completely autonomous body acting in that capacity, and not in an advisory mode. So, then, will there be enough real work for 9 appointed commissioners to do?
In so doing, I came across an essay in the August/September issue of FIRST THINGS, entitled, How to Understand Politics. I suppose we could all use some of that knowledge; certainly, I could. The article was authored by Harvey Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard – but I won’t hold that against him, since his thoughts seem to be particularly cogent, and he seems to express a genuine degree of humility in articulating them.
Mansfield claims that, “Politics … is a series of victories and defeats in which every victory for one side is a defeat for the other … many of them ephemeral, but some of them decisive. He goes on to say, the struggle, “… rarely ends in final victory. The left will never finally defeat the right, nor vice versa.”
The contest now taking place in public meetings, as well as in the back rooms of Somerset County political power brokers about what to do with the Parks Commission, fits that description. It is also prophetic. Institutions don’t go down easily, and that applies to the Parks Commission and its supporters.
By transferring purchasing, procurement, finance, and engineering responsibilities to the county itself, you might think that there is not enough left for the Parks Commission to remain intact, and that the Commission should be dissolved.
But you would be wrong, because the factors which go into the final decision won’t be the normal ones which you might expect. To completely eliminate the Parks Commission would, as Mansfield outlines above, involve a decisive defeat for the political forces in the community who don’t want to see that happen. They may or may not have good reasons for their choice – we don’t know, because, so far, the debate is not being conducted in the public square, and we are not participants.
What we should recognize is the probability that, when the dust settles, there will be a compromise which will leave the Parks Commission still intact, but outwardly crippled.
That’s not a good role for any public body. And, if this is the direction which the freeholders decide to pursue, then it is their responsibility to define exactly what they expect of this down-sized Parks Commission; because, remember, under the law it will still be a completely autonomous body acting in that capacity, and not in an advisory mode. So, then, will there be enough real work for 9 appointed commissioners to do?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Park Commission Makes Early-Morning Decisions
Today’s 7:00 am meeting of the Somerset County Park Commission at its headquarters in North Branch Park, Bridgewater, was filled to capacity. Of about 80 attendees present, 50 filled all the chairs in the meeting room, while the remainder spilled out into the corridor and reception area. At least half of the audience wore either the distinctive green jerseys of Somerset County Park employees, while several sported the brown shirts of county park rangers.
The meeting opened with four commissioners offering their resignations. (See Martin Bricketto’s 9:30 am breaking news story at http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage).
Most of the meeting, however, was taken up with a review of recommendations made to the Somerset County Freeholders as contained in the Wolff & Sampson $150,000 report. Freeholder Rick Fontana went down the list, point-by-point, as the Somerset County Commission responded to each one, either agreeing or not.
The commission concurred with most of the recommendations, with some notable exceptions. One of those is that the rents to park employees on commission-owned homes should be reviewed for increases to fair-market value. However – and this could be a loophole – it was proposed that the rents charged to county employees should be set at what is “the custom and usage in the industry.”
Interpretation: Charge Somerset County park employees a rental in line with what other counties in New Jersey charge their park employees for renting publicly-owned homes, not what a New Jersey citizen would pay to rent similar properties on the open market.
Furthermore, some of the other park entities in New Jersey don’t even rent public property to their park employees. There is no open competition for Somerset County Commission-owned rental property (you have to be a park employee to get a home!). Therefore, fair market value needs to be assessed by an evaluation of rental values established in the real world, not by a contrived evaluation that does not represent the real market for housing.
The meeting opened with four commissioners offering their resignations. (See Martin Bricketto’s 9:30 am breaking news story at http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage).
Most of the meeting, however, was taken up with a review of recommendations made to the Somerset County Freeholders as contained in the Wolff & Sampson $150,000 report. Freeholder Rick Fontana went down the list, point-by-point, as the Somerset County Commission responded to each one, either agreeing or not.
The commission concurred with most of the recommendations, with some notable exceptions. One of those is that the rents to park employees on commission-owned homes should be reviewed for increases to fair-market value. However – and this could be a loophole – it was proposed that the rents charged to county employees should be set at what is “the custom and usage in the industry.”
Interpretation: Charge Somerset County park employees a rental in line with what other counties in New Jersey charge their park employees for renting publicly-owned homes, not what a New Jersey citizen would pay to rent similar properties on the open market.
Furthermore, some of the other park entities in New Jersey don’t even rent public property to their park employees. There is no open competition for Somerset County Commission-owned rental property (you have to be a park employee to get a home!). Therefore, fair market value needs to be assessed by an evaluation of rental values established in the real world, not by a contrived evaluation that does not represent the real market for housing.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Renting a $1,500,000 Home in Bridgewater
In the last posting of this blog on Saturday, July 21, we saw how a home in Bridgewater valued at $500,000 and renting for $2,000 monthly would provide a 4.8% yield to the owner. This was based on the criterion that the rent for a home needs to be kept in line with its worth. It was also pointed out that 4.8% is the gross yield, and does not include any estimated costs for grounds maintenance, upkeep, utilities, taxes and mortgage interest, if any.Now, let’s turn to a $1,500,000 property and its potential rental value. After applying the same computations, I had to catch my breath; because, in order to achieve the same 4.8% yield as that for a home valued at $500,000, the rent needs to be $6,000 monthly. That’s right! It may sound like a great deal of cash – and it is – but prestigious properties don’t come on the cheap, and the economic concept of keeping the rent charged for a home in line with its value still applies.
Hypothetically, if the owner of a home valued at $1.5M wants to be generous, ignore business and economic realities, and decide to charge $2,000 monthly (the same rent as in the previous example for a $500,000 home) the gross yield drops to a mere 1.6%.
Raising the rent on a $1.5M property to one of the following amounts, $2,500, $3,000, $3,500, $4,000, or $5,000, would yield returns of 2.0%, 2.4%, 2.8%, 3.2%, and 4.0%, respectively.
The report issued by Wolff and Sampson implies that certain Somerset County Park employees are being charged below-market rents; it also questions “the circumstances surrounding various improvements, paid for by the Commission.” If so, this begs the question: What other, non-economic factors may be in play for why this is happening?
The photo above is that of a Bridgewater property owned by the Somerset County Park Commission. It is being rented to its director at $500 monthly. If, as has been reported in the press, this home has a value of $1.5M, the yield is only 0.4%.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
What’s a Fair Rent for Parks Employees?
On July 15, an area newspaper reported that the Somerset County Parks Commission Director, “…pays $500 a month for a $1.5 million historic colonial home on 25 acres in the Martinsville section of Bridgewater.” It also stated that there are 10 more homes rented to employees; another one is occupied rent free.
Should homes be rented to park employees? Let’s, for a moment, assume that the answer is yes – at least tentatively. The next question then becomes: What should the rental fee be? Is there an economic answer to the question? Yes. There are valid formulas for computing rate of return (or yield) on a real estate asset, based upon maintaining a proper relationship between the value of a home and its rent.
One of these formulas is simple and provides direct results. For example, let’s assume that a property in Bridgewater is worth $500,000 and is rented to someone at $2,000 per month: The yield to the owner is 4.8% per year.
Example #2: If the rent on this same $500,000 property is reduced to $500 per month, the rate of return to the owner plunges to 1.2%, an unacceptable return to the owner, under any reasonable business scenario.
Moreover, in order to keep these examples plain, none of the owner’s cost, such as grounds maintenance, upkeep, and taxes, if applicable, have been factored in.
In the next posting, you will see the results of a similar analysis for a home worth $1,500,000.
Note: Detailed explanations and spreadsheet formulas are not in this blog to keep it as brief and clear as possible.
Should homes be rented to park employees? Let’s, for a moment, assume that the answer is yes – at least tentatively. The next question then becomes: What should the rental fee be? Is there an economic answer to the question? Yes. There are valid formulas for computing rate of return (or yield) on a real estate asset, based upon maintaining a proper relationship between the value of a home and its rent.
One of these formulas is simple and provides direct results. For example, let’s assume that a property in Bridgewater is worth $500,000 and is rented to someone at $2,000 per month: The yield to the owner is 4.8% per year.
Example #2: If the rent on this same $500,000 property is reduced to $500 per month, the rate of return to the owner plunges to 1.2%, an unacceptable return to the owner, under any reasonable business scenario.
Moreover, in order to keep these examples plain, none of the owner’s cost, such as grounds maintenance, upkeep, and taxes, if applicable, have been factored in.
In the next posting, you will see the results of a similar analysis for a home worth $1,500,000.
Note: Detailed explanations and spreadsheet formulas are not in this blog to keep it as brief and clear as possible.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Parks Management: The Story that Won’t go Away
Tonight, when I stepped out of the Somerset County Freeholders meeting on Grove Street, into the fresh evening air of Somerville, this is what the freeholders decided to do about the reported management abuses of the Somerset County Parks Commission:
-- A list of 14 demands read to his peers by freeholder, Rick Fontana, will be presented to the Somerset County Parks Commission at its next meeting, Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m.
-- These demands were taken directly from the Wolff and Sampson Report costing taxpayers over $150,000. One item, for example, calls for a review of below-market housing rentals – three of which are in Bridgewater – to certain park employees, as well as their free use of vehicles around the clock.
-- Another initiative, not originally contemplated by the freeholders, will be to direct Wolff and Sampson to perform a forensic audit of Park Commission employee expenditures and policy. It was not made clear at the meeting just how extensive this forensic audit will be, and it will come at additional cost.
-- If the Parks Commission rejects the freeholders’ recommendations, then Rick Fontana recommends that the county move immediately to dissolve the Parks Commission under a referendum put to the voters in the fall. All Freeholders agreed to this.
Of the 16 speakers who came to the mike (a large proportion were from Bridgewater Township) most were highly critical of the policy and practices of the Park Commission, some of its key employees, and of the freeholders themselves. Only a few were sympathetic, citing a “feeding frenzy by the press” as the cause of this problem. Baloney!
My Conclusion: There is no doubt that the average Joe or Jane working for the Parks Commission is a hard worker and keeps his/her nose clean – many probably knew what was going on and would not have approved, had it been their call to make.
The issue is that the Somerset County Parks Commission, established by referendum in 1956, is a quasi-public, non-transparent entity of appointed people, accountable to no one but themselves. So, over the years, abuses have crept in, one by one. Under law, the freeholders have no direct say in parks management, except to fund it to the tune of over $8 million yearly, as of last count.
Even if the Parks Commission accepts all of the recommendations of the freeholders on Thursday morning, it will not solve the problem. The freeholders want to make the engineering, procurement, and accounting functions of the Parks Commission subject to their direct oversight and control. This should be done immediately. But it will lead to other problems: overlap; redundant personnel, especially at the management level; poor morale; and a questionable role for the Parks Commission.
Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli, visibly distressed and seemingly sincere about wanting to fix this, referred to political feedback he was getting about, “…not throwing the baby out with the bath water.” There no longer are any babies left: It simply looks like dirty bath water. It’s time for the freeholders to recommend that a referendum be held calling for abolition of the Somerset County Parks Commission. Its duties should be folded directly under the accountability of elected Somerset County Freeholders
-- A list of 14 demands read to his peers by freeholder, Rick Fontana, will be presented to the Somerset County Parks Commission at its next meeting, Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m.
-- These demands were taken directly from the Wolff and Sampson Report costing taxpayers over $150,000. One item, for example, calls for a review of below-market housing rentals – three of which are in Bridgewater – to certain park employees, as well as their free use of vehicles around the clock.
-- Another initiative, not originally contemplated by the freeholders, will be to direct Wolff and Sampson to perform a forensic audit of Park Commission employee expenditures and policy. It was not made clear at the meeting just how extensive this forensic audit will be, and it will come at additional cost.
-- If the Parks Commission rejects the freeholders’ recommendations, then Rick Fontana recommends that the county move immediately to dissolve the Parks Commission under a referendum put to the voters in the fall. All Freeholders agreed to this.
Of the 16 speakers who came to the mike (a large proportion were from Bridgewater Township) most were highly critical of the policy and practices of the Park Commission, some of its key employees, and of the freeholders themselves. Only a few were sympathetic, citing a “feeding frenzy by the press” as the cause of this problem. Baloney!
My Conclusion: There is no doubt that the average Joe or Jane working for the Parks Commission is a hard worker and keeps his/her nose clean – many probably knew what was going on and would not have approved, had it been their call to make.
The issue is that the Somerset County Parks Commission, established by referendum in 1956, is a quasi-public, non-transparent entity of appointed people, accountable to no one but themselves. So, over the years, abuses have crept in, one by one. Under law, the freeholders have no direct say in parks management, except to fund it to the tune of over $8 million yearly, as of last count.
Even if the Parks Commission accepts all of the recommendations of the freeholders on Thursday morning, it will not solve the problem. The freeholders want to make the engineering, procurement, and accounting functions of the Parks Commission subject to their direct oversight and control. This should be done immediately. But it will lead to other problems: overlap; redundant personnel, especially at the management level; poor morale; and a questionable role for the Parks Commission.
Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli, visibly distressed and seemingly sincere about wanting to fix this, referred to political feedback he was getting about, “…not throwing the baby out with the bath water.” There no longer are any babies left: It simply looks like dirty bath water. It’s time for the freeholders to recommend that a referendum be held calling for abolition of the Somerset County Parks Commission. Its duties should be folded directly under the accountability of elected Somerset County Freeholders
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Park Commission’s Bridgewater Home
If you regularly read Courier-News editorials, you may conclude, as I did, that they are not all as blunt and direct as the one which appeared in Sunday’s edition, entitled, Time to Dig Deeper at Park Commission. When was the last time you saw the editorial team use the following words all in one opinion piece? Alarming. Disturbing. Scathing. Shocking. Sweetheart bargains. Gets your attention, doesn’t it?
That editorial followed an earlier account of an independent report which, as stated in the heading of a July 6 article by Martin C. Bricketto of the C-N …rips Somerset County Park Commission. Why, that’s enough to make you want to keep reading!
Among others things, the report revealed that 11 homes which are owned by the commission are rented to some of its employees. One of these homes is on Mitchell Lane, in the Martinsville section of Bridgewater, and is reportedly rented for $500/month. Not bad. I don’t know what type of property this is or what condition it’s in, but Martinsville isn’t exactly known for being on the wrong side of the tracks.
I wonder how many other dwellings are available for rent or lease in Bridgewater for $500/month.
That editorial followed an earlier account of an independent report which, as stated in the heading of a July 6 article by Martin C. Bricketto of the C-N …rips Somerset County Park Commission. Why, that’s enough to make you want to keep reading!
Among others things, the report revealed that 11 homes which are owned by the commission are rented to some of its employees. One of these homes is on Mitchell Lane, in the Martinsville section of Bridgewater, and is reportedly rented for $500/month. Not bad. I don’t know what type of property this is or what condition it’s in, but Martinsville isn’t exactly known for being on the wrong side of the tracks.
I wonder how many other dwellings are available for rent or lease in Bridgewater for $500/month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)