Politics can be a brutally tough game. In order to get anything done, an elected official has to work with a team of peers. It’s even tougher when, in his or her heart of hearts, a politician veers away from the group on a particular topic and acts upon insights that some colleagues may not possess or do not have the will to act upon.
That is why I think that it would have been easy for Jack Ciattarelli, one of five people on the Somerset County Board of Chosen Freeholders, to have voted with the rest of the freeholders in maintaining 15 paid holidays for county employees in 2010.
Instead, he was the sole dissenter claiming, as reported by Martin C. Bricketto in the Courier News on Monday, that, “…our holiday schedule is excessive,” two more than even State of New Jersey gets.
Showing posts with label Somerset County Freeholders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Somerset County Freeholders. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
McConnell Retires to the Bay State
Monday’s Courier News article by Martin C. Bricketto about Rose McConnell held one item that especially caught my eye: where she chose to retire. After serving many years in public office in Somerset County NJ, McConnell moved to Groton, Massachusetts to be near her family.
Coincidentally, Groton is less than half an hour from our old stomping grounds in Lowell. Priscille and I remember it fondly as one of those quaint, quintessential New England communities.
Indeed, on our way back from vacationing in New Hampshire this summer, we stopped in Massachusetts to visit with two of Priscille’s nieces and their families, one of whom relocated from Lowell to Groton with her husband and children. With a population of about 11,000 in an area of 33 square miles, it’s one of those small big New England towns ideal for raising a family.
The entire area – geographically, politically, and socially – is very different from what former Somerset County Freeholder, Rose McConnell, has been accustomed to in this part of New Jersey.
One example: Groton operates under an open town meeting form of government – once each year the budget plan is presented to voters at a town hall meeting. The community asks questions, debates, considers the proposals, and makes recommendations; then the entire year’s budget is voted upon – no absentee voting! To prepare for the meeting, voters are presented in advance with a printed budget proposal.
I could go on, but I won’t keep you with any more details. Thanks for reading and may the wind be at your back. Rose McConnell: If you see this, enjoy the change of venue – it’s been a long, good run.
Coincidentally, Groton is less than half an hour from our old stomping grounds in Lowell. Priscille and I remember it fondly as one of those quaint, quintessential New England communities.
Indeed, on our way back from vacationing in New Hampshire this summer, we stopped in Massachusetts to visit with two of Priscille’s nieces and their families, one of whom relocated from Lowell to Groton with her husband and children. With a population of about 11,000 in an area of 33 square miles, it’s one of those small big New England towns ideal for raising a family.
The entire area – geographically, politically, and socially – is very different from what former Somerset County Freeholder, Rose McConnell, has been accustomed to in this part of New Jersey.
One example: Groton operates under an open town meeting form of government – once each year the budget plan is presented to voters at a town hall meeting. The community asks questions, debates, considers the proposals, and makes recommendations; then the entire year’s budget is voted upon – no absentee voting! To prepare for the meeting, voters are presented in advance with a printed budget proposal.
I could go on, but I won’t keep you with any more details. Thanks for reading and may the wind be at your back. Rose McConnell: If you see this, enjoy the change of venue – it’s been a long, good run.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
B-R School Budget Rises as Enrollment Drops
On April 21st, Bridgewater and Raritan residents are scheduled to vote on the school budget. Unless changes are made, that budget will rise by $4.5 million to $133.3 million, a 3.5% increase.
The B-R Board of Education and its Administration may remind you that this is the lowest percent increase in seven years. What they may not emphasize is that the $4.5 million hike occurs as school enrollment has slowly and steadily decreased from 9,197 students in 2006 to an expected 9,128 students in the fall of 2009.
Meanwhile, other governmental entities are also struggling with budgets – at least one with better results. The Somerset County freeholders are decreasing spending by 2.6%, from $220.2 million last year, to a proposed $214.4 million – no increase in your taxes from this source. In Bridgewater, the Mayor and the Township Council anticipate a drop in state aid of $327,154, a 4% decline from last year. Raritan will see its aid drop by $21,352.
Out of 40 school districts in Somerset and Hunterdon counties, only one in four is seeing any increase at all. The B-R School District is one of the lucky few to receive a $573,141 (5%) increase, for a total of $12 million, or 9% of next year’s budget. How would you like to have someone pay 9% of your annual expenses?
The money well in Trenton is drying up, and the B-R School District has done a less than stellar job of linking its budgets to the economic conditions that the rest of us have had to deal with each year and every day. The B-R School Board needs to envision its role much more holistically: It is merely one among other legitimate claimants to the resources of the residents of Bridgewater and Raritan.
The B-R Board of Education and its Administration may remind you that this is the lowest percent increase in seven years. What they may not emphasize is that the $4.5 million hike occurs as school enrollment has slowly and steadily decreased from 9,197 students in 2006 to an expected 9,128 students in the fall of 2009.
Meanwhile, other governmental entities are also struggling with budgets – at least one with better results. The Somerset County freeholders are decreasing spending by 2.6%, from $220.2 million last year, to a proposed $214.4 million – no increase in your taxes from this source. In Bridgewater, the Mayor and the Township Council anticipate a drop in state aid of $327,154, a 4% decline from last year. Raritan will see its aid drop by $21,352.
Out of 40 school districts in Somerset and Hunterdon counties, only one in four is seeing any increase at all. The B-R School District is one of the lucky few to receive a $573,141 (5%) increase, for a total of $12 million, or 9% of next year’s budget. How would you like to have someone pay 9% of your annual expenses?
The money well in Trenton is drying up, and the B-R School District has done a less than stellar job of linking its budgets to the economic conditions that the rest of us have had to deal with each year and every day. The B-R School Board needs to envision its role much more holistically: It is merely one among other legitimate claimants to the resources of the residents of Bridgewater and Raritan.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Heading Off Problems at the Park Commission
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
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
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.
Friday, January 4, 2008
County Freeholders: Ready, Get Set, Go for 2008
On Friday afternoon, the reorganization meeting of the Somerset County Board of Freeholders took place in the Historic Courthouse on East Main Street in Somerville. It was an occasion for a festive celebration, and the renovated courthouse was packed with family, friends and well-wishers.
Not having attended one of these meetings before, it did not escape my attention that some of the heavy guns of the New Jersey State Legislature and of the U.S. Congress which represent the various districts of Somerset County were in attendance, as well as the majors of some Somerset County cities and towns. Bridgewater’s own Mayor Patricia Flannery was there, representing the township.
What was probably the best aspect of this meeting, though, were the families and friends of the public servants who were being sworn into office. An especially human touch made its presence felt in the form of all the kids who were there to see their moms, pops, grandmoms, and grandpops sworn in. Instead of merely adult voices breaking the room’s silence, the cries and antics of kids who will not be denied were heard throughout the event.
For about an hour and fifteen minutes, all politics were put aside (they really were!!), and elected officials got to enjoy a brief period of celebration. I don’t want to get too mushy about this but, sometimes, we do need to pause and to acknowledge people whom we’ve elected and who do their best to serve us – at least most do.
Here are a few vignettes: Judge Thomas Dilts swore in all of the new and re-elected officials, beginning with Sheriff Frank Provenzano. When Brett Radi, the Somerset County Clerk took his oath, he said, referring to his re-election, “You don’t do this alone. You don’t do anything alone in life.” Amen to that. Patricia Walsh (a new face on the board replacing Denise Coyle) garnered laughter when, about halfway through her swearing-in by Judge Dilts, she just took off and recited by heart the last two-thirds or so of the oath. No flies on her.
Denise Coyle, former freeholder who is moving on to the State Legislature, was present to accept formal recognition of her 12 years of service on the Freeholder Board. Expressing her views on speaking publicly she said, “Don’t talk unless it improves the silence,” but quickly followed up with, “but not today.” In her new position, she expressed her intent to “use the power of government to improve people’s lives.”
Peter Palmer was installed as the new Director of the Board of Freeholders, replacing Robert Zaborowski, while Rick Fontana was sworn in as its Deputy Director. Fontana removed several dollar bills from his wallet, held them up, and claimed that a few bucks a day per citizen – what it “takes to buy coffee at Starbucks” – is what Somerset County runs on. He commented that the County provides the “best quality of services for the best price,” and that it is “the model (county) for the state.”
True to character, Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli commented that, “My remarks reflect my beliefs,” that he would “provide oversight of our agencies,” and that he would look into a “senior citizen property tax relief program.” He also spoke about creating “a model for municipal services," and mentioned “the (potential) consolidation of agencies.”
Robert Zaborowski devoted most of his comments to lauding the accumulated achievements of Somerset County’s Park system. If you listened carefully when Peter Palmer spoke, you would have found out that his family roots in Somerset County date back to 1908 and, interestingly enough, that he played clarinet while in high school and at Cornell. At one point towards the end, there was a mass swearing-in of dozens of people who serve on various councils, commissions, and advisory boards.
Well, that’s the kind of meeting that it was – light, yet serious enough. Everyone had to go through a security check to enter the building, and uniformed officers were prominently in sight everywhere.
See the county web site at http://www.co.somerset.nj.us/
Not having attended one of these meetings before, it did not escape my attention that some of the heavy guns of the New Jersey State Legislature and of the U.S. Congress which represent the various districts of Somerset County were in attendance, as well as the majors of some Somerset County cities and towns. Bridgewater’s own Mayor Patricia Flannery was there, representing the township.
What was probably the best aspect of this meeting, though, were the families and friends of the public servants who were being sworn into office. An especially human touch made its presence felt in the form of all the kids who were there to see their moms, pops, grandmoms, and grandpops sworn in. Instead of merely adult voices breaking the room’s silence, the cries and antics of kids who will not be denied were heard throughout the event.
For about an hour and fifteen minutes, all politics were put aside (they really were!!), and elected officials got to enjoy a brief period of celebration. I don’t want to get too mushy about this but, sometimes, we do need to pause and to acknowledge people whom we’ve elected and who do their best to serve us – at least most do.
Here are a few vignettes: Judge Thomas Dilts swore in all of the new and re-elected officials, beginning with Sheriff Frank Provenzano. When Brett Radi, the Somerset County Clerk took his oath, he said, referring to his re-election, “You don’t do this alone. You don’t do anything alone in life.” Amen to that. Patricia Walsh (a new face on the board replacing Denise Coyle) garnered laughter when, about halfway through her swearing-in by Judge Dilts, she just took off and recited by heart the last two-thirds or so of the oath. No flies on her.
Denise Coyle, former freeholder who is moving on to the State Legislature, was present to accept formal recognition of her 12 years of service on the Freeholder Board. Expressing her views on speaking publicly she said, “Don’t talk unless it improves the silence,” but quickly followed up with, “but not today.” In her new position, she expressed her intent to “use the power of government to improve people’s lives.”
Peter Palmer was installed as the new Director of the Board of Freeholders, replacing Robert Zaborowski, while Rick Fontana was sworn in as its Deputy Director. Fontana removed several dollar bills from his wallet, held them up, and claimed that a few bucks a day per citizen – what it “takes to buy coffee at Starbucks” – is what Somerset County runs on. He commented that the County provides the “best quality of services for the best price,” and that it is “the model (county) for the state.”
True to character, Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli commented that, “My remarks reflect my beliefs,” that he would “provide oversight of our agencies,” and that he would look into a “senior citizen property tax relief program.” He also spoke about creating “a model for municipal services," and mentioned “the (potential) consolidation of agencies.”
Robert Zaborowski devoted most of his comments to lauding the accumulated achievements of Somerset County’s Park system. If you listened carefully when Peter Palmer spoke, you would have found out that his family roots in Somerset County date back to 1908 and, interestingly enough, that he played clarinet while in high school and at Cornell. At one point towards the end, there was a mass swearing-in of dozens of people who serve on various councils, commissions, and advisory boards.
Well, that’s the kind of meeting that it was – light, yet serious enough. Everyone had to go through a security check to enter the building, and uniformed officers were prominently in sight everywhere.
See the county web site at http://www.co.somerset.nj.us/
Monday, December 17, 2007
Key Meetings
There are two important governmental meetings tomorrow, December 18. The first is the Somerset County Freeholders meeting (7:00 p.m.) at the county administration building in Somerville. The second is the regular meeting of the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education (8:00 p.m.) at the Wade Building on Newmans Lane, Martinsville.
Freeholders’ Meeting: Although I couldn’t find what could be the most interesting item on the county’s agenda for tomorrow, there most likely will be a vote concerning the continuation of the Somerset County Park Commission.
The outcome is hardly in doubt since, for all practical purposes, the decision to retain the Park Commission was cast several months ago, when the Freeholders decided not to place that topic on the November ballot. Legal counsel advised the Freeholders that they had the power to decide the fate of the Park Commission. A vote by the Freeholders was then delayed until now.
School Board Meeting: Tomorrow evening, Bridgewater-Raritan Schools Superintendent Michael Schilder, and Peter Starrs, Business Administrator, will give a preliminary budget report for the next school year, 2008-2009. Although you won’t be voting on this until next April, the administration is working hard to get this information before you as soon as possible.
An important factor in this equation is the teachers’ contract which is currently in the midst of negotiations. The result is usually a multi-year agreement, the first-year impact of which will be felt in the 2008-2009 school year budget
Freeholders’ Meeting: Although I couldn’t find what could be the most interesting item on the county’s agenda for tomorrow, there most likely will be a vote concerning the continuation of the Somerset County Park Commission.
The outcome is hardly in doubt since, for all practical purposes, the decision to retain the Park Commission was cast several months ago, when the Freeholders decided not to place that topic on the November ballot. Legal counsel advised the Freeholders that they had the power to decide the fate of the Park Commission. A vote by the Freeholders was then delayed until now.
School Board Meeting: Tomorrow evening, Bridgewater-Raritan Schools Superintendent Michael Schilder, and Peter Starrs, Business Administrator, will give a preliminary budget report for the next school year, 2008-2009. Although you won’t be voting on this until next April, the administration is working hard to get this information before you as soon as possible.
An important factor in this equation is the teachers’ contract which is currently in the midst of negotiations. The result is usually a multi-year agreement, the first-year impact of which will be felt in the 2008-2009 school year budget
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Missing Question on the November Ballot
The Open Slots: Nine days from now on November 6, we the voters of Bridgewater get to cast our ballots for one of three candidates for the mayoral spot and for four guys vying for two council seats. As you examine your ballot, you’ll also see candidates competing for State Senate, New Jersey Assembly, County Clerk, Board of Chosen Freeholders, and for Sheriff.
The Questions: There are also four questions seeking your approval or rejection. The first deals with dedicating 1% of the state sales tax for property tax reform; the second asks for $450,000,000 for stem cell research; the third wants $200,000,000 for purchasing land and property for the public interest; while the last question proposes a constitutional amendment which would change the language denying the right to vote for certain persons.
The Missing Question: What you won’t see on this ballot though is what would certainly have been a critical fifth referendum question: “Do you approve the elimination of the Somerset County Park Commission and the realignment of all its responsibilities directly under the Somerset County Board of Chosen Freeholders?”
The Background & Analysis: On August 21, the Somerset County Freeholders reversed their prior position and voted 3 to 2 to postpone until December any decision on whether or not to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission. This move disfranchised you, the voter, because it took away any possibility that you would make this decision as you pull the lever in the ballot box on November 6.
Just as important, it prevented a potential backlash of voter turnout which might have affected the outcome of the election for some of the candidates’ open slots. No incumbent party wants this, because controversial public issues on a ballot tend to swell voter turnout and can often injure incumbents. We saw this in the last national election when the Administration lost control of the Congress.
Understand this: I am an independent voter and have no skin in this game. However, I like to see the public as involved in all aspects of direct decision-making as it is possible and reasonable to do so.
It was a good move for the Freeholders’ own interests to have pushed aside the Somerset County Park Commission ballot question. But it was demeaning to you – it seems to eliminate any lingering doubt about the faith that elected officials might have had in your judgment to do the right thing.
There were many passionate pleas made by a lot of prominent people on the evening of August 21 to pressure the freeholders into making the decision not to place the fate of the Somerset County Park Commission into the hands of you, the voters, on November 6.
The freeholders blinked. Jack Ciattarelli and Denise Coyle were the only two elected officials who voted against the majority that night. In an op-ed piece that appeared subsequently in the Courier News, Ciattarelli has since further justified his well-thought-out rationale for dissolving the Park Commission
It’s exasperating, isn’t it, thinking that you will vote a week from next Tuesday – some of you will stay away from the polls in disgust – and won’t have the option of deciding on one of the highest-profile issues affecting Bridgewater and Somerset County?
The Questions: There are also four questions seeking your approval or rejection. The first deals with dedicating 1% of the state sales tax for property tax reform; the second asks for $450,000,000 for stem cell research; the third wants $200,000,000 for purchasing land and property for the public interest; while the last question proposes a constitutional amendment which would change the language denying the right to vote for certain persons.
The Missing Question: What you won’t see on this ballot though is what would certainly have been a critical fifth referendum question: “Do you approve the elimination of the Somerset County Park Commission and the realignment of all its responsibilities directly under the Somerset County Board of Chosen Freeholders?”
The Background & Analysis: On August 21, the Somerset County Freeholders reversed their prior position and voted 3 to 2 to postpone until December any decision on whether or not to dissolve the Somerset County Park Commission. This move disfranchised you, the voter, because it took away any possibility that you would make this decision as you pull the lever in the ballot box on November 6.
Just as important, it prevented a potential backlash of voter turnout which might have affected the outcome of the election for some of the candidates’ open slots. No incumbent party wants this, because controversial public issues on a ballot tend to swell voter turnout and can often injure incumbents. We saw this in the last national election when the Administration lost control of the Congress.
Understand this: I am an independent voter and have no skin in this game. However, I like to see the public as involved in all aspects of direct decision-making as it is possible and reasonable to do so.
It was a good move for the Freeholders’ own interests to have pushed aside the Somerset County Park Commission ballot question. But it was demeaning to you – it seems to eliminate any lingering doubt about the faith that elected officials might have had in your judgment to do the right thing.
There were many passionate pleas made by a lot of prominent people on the evening of August 21 to pressure the freeholders into making the decision not to place the fate of the Somerset County Park Commission into the hands of you, the voters, on November 6.
The freeholders blinked. Jack Ciattarelli and Denise Coyle were the only two elected officials who voted against the majority that night. In an op-ed piece that appeared subsequently in the Courier News, Ciattarelli has since further justified his well-thought-out rationale for dissolving the Park Commission
It’s exasperating, isn’t it, thinking that you will vote a week from next Tuesday – some of you will stay away from the polls in disgust – and won’t have the option of deciding on one of the highest-profile issues affecting Bridgewater and Somerset County?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
A Model Meeting
Tuesday night’s meeting of the Somerset County Freeholders at the Administration Building in Somerville was a model of effectiveness. The agenda was relatively short, and all items of business passed, except for a resolution dealing with the county’s upgrades to its security systems. That topic was tabled until the freeholders’ next meeting.
There were only a handful of people in attendance, most of whom were the subjects of citations and awards given out at the beginning of the meeting. At least one of the other persons was a county employee who raised a few points about security issues, which, in turn, led to its postponement.
Robert Zaborowski, Freeholder Director, ran a good meeting. He was prepared and moved the agenda along with no distractions. Too bad more of the public wasn’t there to see how things get done in the absence of controversy. It shouldn’t take a scandal for a public meeting to become filled to capacity once in a while.
We elect public officials to do their jobs and we don’t want to look over their shoulders at everything that they do. Integrity is still expected, even though today’s skeptical public may have become a tad jaded, given recent events.
There were only a handful of people in attendance, most of whom were the subjects of citations and awards given out at the beginning of the meeting. At least one of the other persons was a county employee who raised a few points about security issues, which, in turn, led to its postponement.
Robert Zaborowski, Freeholder Director, ran a good meeting. He was prepared and moved the agenda along with no distractions. Too bad more of the public wasn’t there to see how things get done in the absence of controversy. It shouldn’t take a scandal for a public meeting to become filled to capacity once in a while.
We elect public officials to do their jobs and we don’t want to look over their shoulders at everything that they do. Integrity is still expected, even though today’s skeptical public may have become a tad jaded, given recent events.
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.
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)