They’re back … angling to take over Montclair’s local government once again.
It’s the same political “crew” of former council members and their appointees who ran Montclair between 2000 and 2008 — Mayor Ed Remsen, 3rd Ward Rep Don Zief and a core group of supporters who came together behind former Deputy Mayor and mayoral hopeful Joyce Michaelson — only to lose to Jerry Fried’s Unity slate in the last election.
Viewed today for adding a massive, $130 million increase to the township’s debt and for a wave of huge, double-digit tax increases authorized under their watch, new research shows that it’s the fiscal policies of this old guard Remsen “crew” that effectively brought Montclair to the brink of financial insolvency.
Undaunted, hoping to run again against the missteps and immobilization of the current council – for worsening a crisis the “crew” effectively created — the Remsen-Zief-Michaelson supporters are again promoting new lead candidates for 2012: Tim Barr, Ed Remsen’s former Board of Education appointee, and Harvey Susswein, their appointee still on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Susswein is the crew’s anticipated mayoral candidate.
Despite efforts to reposition themselves as fiscally responsible under a reported “Smart Government Montclair” web moniker, both of these candidates have track records as defenders of the crew’s earlier, out-of-control Board of Ed spending and waste, while providing cover for that system’s prior insular central office unresponsiveness and lack of financial transparency.
Insiders say what’s behind the political move is also former Mayor Remsen’s need for a new, sympathetic council that will allow him to return to public life after the election — this time as a town manager.
Susswein is telling people it’s not true. However, from many who have met with the crew, either as prospective candidates or potential supporters — it’s clear Remsen is still in charge and continuing to run their show.
Remsen and the crew left office in 2008 with the kind of negative perceptions that would keep most ex-councilors on the sidelines. From questionable PILOT tax breaks and land-use handouts to the Siena, DCH Auto Group and others, some of which were not set up properly or ultimately proved contractually more helpful to developers than the town, to the creation of Parking and Sewer Authorities that started with large, hidden deficits and unplanned operating expenses, to the quality-of-life failure to save the Marlboro Inn as a historic property, by the end of Remsen’s term, he and the crew had created a “back-room maneuvering, help-my friends” perception of decision-making — that prevented the politically savvy pol from trying to run again.
At the time, the cumulative impact of their destructive fiscal policies was not fully apparent. Nonetheless, the crew’s $130 million in added debt, escalating BOE and municipal budgets and double-digit tax increases, combined with a town-wide property tax revaluation conducted at the height of the market, certainly didn’t help.
Council watchers believe these policy and fiscal results cost the crew the mayoralty for Joyce Michaelson and her team running in 2008 — ushering in the winning Fried ‘Unity’ slate as the town’s new reformers.
Today, the crew’s goals are clear: try to rehabilitate their negative images from the past, take back political control and help Ed Remsen regain power.
Just who makes up this old guard political “crew”? In addition to the former elected officials Remsen and Zief, and newer lead players Barr and Susswein, some of the other core supporters past and present include: Parking Authority hold-over appointee Jay Church, Ed Remsen’s former campaign treasurer David Grill and his wife Shirley, another former Remsen BOE appointee, former Montclair Economic Development Commission chair Dale Jacobs (an organization Remsen created but was defunded by this council), Jerry Kapner, the crew-appointed current chair of the Township’s Communications Committee, Kapner’s wife Fran, a member of the Transportation Committee, former Montclair Arts Council Chair Phoebe Pollinger, and Bucky Schnarr, Joyce Michaelson’s reported behind-the-scenes campaign manager.
Susswein and Barr are the apparent leaders of their new coming slate.
Given the current council’s obvious malfunctioning, in particular, the Fried Bike Team 3 as they’ve come to be known, the crew are out smelling blood. And yet, most are oblivious to the huge fiscal monkey now hanging off their own backs. There is little self-awareness that the electorate effectively said “no thanks” in 2008. Instead, core supporters are chomping at the bit to return as kingmakers again and to regain their former influence and control.
Tim Barr and Harvey Susswein have been working behind the scenes with political godfathers Zief and Remsen as their reported “brain trust” (sans Michaelson who’s been MIA). And all are hunting new bodies to fill out the slate. Both ex-pols are staying quiet and remain intentionally in the background, continuing to distance themselves from criticisms of the crew during the last two election campaigns.
What were those campaign criticisms?
In short: that the 8-to-12 year reign of this Remsen-Zief-Michaelson political crew is really the underlying cause behind Montclair’s slide into the fiscal poor house. That it was their policies which helped perpetuate losses to the township’s economic and racial diversity — forcing many working class and minority residents to leave. And further, that this crew’s governance was ultimately characterized by gross fiscal irresponsibility — both in overseeing the management and expenditures of the municipal government and for allowing the Board of Ed Administration to run wild — with scant academic improvement to show for it.
The question for the 2012 Council election is: do these critical views of the crew and their now headlined Barr-Susswein coming slate still hold water?
Based on data from the Concerned Citizens for Montclair (CCM) and the Township’s own Operating Budget Advisory Committee (OBAC), it appears to be so. So much so that one can argue anyone working with them this time should be embarrassed and their judgment questioned — for even attempting to help the “crew” try to come back from the re-packaged political dead.
Martin Schwartz is a Montclair local business owner. He was a lead policy advisor to the Effective Government Council slate in 2004 and an advisor to 2nd Ward Councilor Cary Africk in his successful 2008 council campaign.
Anyone want to guess who else will be running next election?
I’ll take a guess – Jerry, Nick and Kathryn. Maybe Ted will come back. And Russo is making noise.
No, martin will be running. Probably on a slate with Cary and rich and Roger, but definitely with cary. Isn’t that right Martin.
@romanempire whose campaign will you be managing?
Why would Cary run with Roger? Do they support the same issues? Please show us where.
The last thing we need is a return to the cronies and policies of councils past. But neither is Schwartz’s invective filled rant useful.
Profligate local spending doesn’t help but the real reason municipalities across the state are hurting is because unfunded mandates in housing, education and the environment propagated by the state. Along with a cushy-symbiotic relationship between “progressive” politicians and state employee unions.
Progressivism is expensive. If you order the meal you have to pay the bill.
You’ve got it wrong Right of Center. This story is precisely the kind of insight we need to see who and what caused our problems and to help avoid those who may only make things worse. It’s not about progressivism. It’s about waste, incompetence and unprofessionalism. I’m glad Mr. Schwartz has the knowledge and the details to really tell it like it is.
ROC,
I have to respectfully disagree as Mr Schwartz’s commentary is politically shrewd and effective. Without anyone formally declaring, he has put a potentially formidable group of opponents on the defensive by framing the dialog, undermining their municipal experience, and disrupting their timeline. He has also, indirectly, affirmed the current BOE’s position on the high ground because of their budget accomplishments this past year.
His challenge will pressure these contenders to put out a numerical plank on the Muni expenses and debt before the 2012 budget specifics and alternatives are clear. Philosophically, this could create friction within their traditional core constituency. With that said, an increasing crime rate or change in the magnet system are my dark horse issues that could trump the financial ones.
What’s the insight? Ok, they’re all idiots and bums. Fine. How again would Mr. Schwartz like taxes to be lowered?
We’re long on complaints and very very short on solutions.
“We’re long on complaints and very very short on solutions.”
ROC,
Solutions that are necessary will not be touted, they would be construed as “draconian” or “harmful” to our “special” place called Montclair.
Saying things like:
Hiring a Municipal Manager that will negotiate with Unions with taxpayers in mind
or
Outsourcing of jobs like trash/recycling, janitorial services, municipal grounds maintenance, the parking authority, municipal pools, etc
or
Appointing BOE and BOSE members that will negotiate with the MEA with taxpayers in mind
or
Keeping Capital Budgets at bare minimums(only needed repairs) for at least 10 years to reduce new debt obligations
The list could go on and on, but i have heard no one that is considering running even begin to say what the “HARD” choices that will need to be made are?
Actually, what would be useful would be some investigative reporting — Martin’s charges are just that — charges. he does not have one single thing to back up his rant. His “insight” sounds a lot like sour grapes, or something. There are a lot of names on his list of people who have made terrific contributions to Montclair. So, Baristas — can you report back what you find?
I agree nomo, it reads more like a conspiracy theory.
Personally I’m sick of bitter factionalism. I’d like pragmatic realism. I’m more interested in people putting forth concrete proposals with specific ideas rather than character assassinations.
If indeed Mr. Schwartz is running, he’s lost my vote.
A word of advice to Montclair voters:
“fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”
I didn’t find Schwartz’s piece a rant. Frank is right. It’s a political framework that showed the people behind this ‘Smart Government’ slate and their own connection to the Town’s problems.
Nomo..how about these for specifics. Everyone knows them anyway if you’ve been here for a few years:
- The split off Parking Authority with multi-million dollar deficits intentionally kept hidden from the government. Many of those on that Board who allowed it were appointed by the Remsen Council – and he is on Susswein’s brain trust it said in the Montclair Times.
- The Board of Education and Councils then hiding who really had to pay for the new Bullock school. It was announced first as like 80 or 90% covered by the state. Instead, today’s taxpayers have to pay most of the real costs plus all the long term interest to cover. And they lied about the reason — class size, because the BOE was ready to close a school this year over the budget.
- Around a 40% increase in property taxes while those same politicians Schwartz mentioned were in office, then passed on yearly…plus what was reported as over $130 million in new debt during their time.
- The same people supporting a knock down of the Marlboro Inn even though the town Historic Committee voted to save it, just so their friend Steve Plofker could make a big profit. He then sold his piece off to other developers. We got the Crisco buildings after with ugly houses like 2 inches apart. They had real concern for Montclair’s landscape.
Martin’s reminded us what really happened here in the past and how these same folks are trying to come back and take over once again.
This all reminds me of Willard Romney’s bone-headed promise to put Bush/Cheney officials back in charge of foreign policy. Swell. So instead of Obama shredding the Constitution to win the war on terror, we’ll shred the Constitution to lose it like Bush did for seven years. About as great an idea as putting the bankers in charge of fiscal policy in 2009.
I hereby promise my vote to the presidential candidate who promises not to put anyone in charge who has been in charge before.
Ugh. Looks like we don’t have to worry about when the elections are held, because they will be partisan and ugly either way.
While his points are well taken, Mr. Schwartz lost me with the tone of his opinion and by incessantly referring to this group as a “crew.” Is he really equating Remsen to Paulie Walnuts? Lose the theatrics, please.
Let’s all realize that the “huge fiscal monkey” is hanging off all of our backs, not just the 14 or so individuals who’ve sat on the council for the past 8 years. Take a few minutes to read this article from Michael Lewis in this month’s Vanity Fair about the disaster that is California’s state and municipal finance… and, more likely than not, you may begin to agree a little more with ROC’s comment above (8:57am).
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111
That said, the Township of Montclair needs candidates to come forward in the next 6 months who are creative in thought and disciplined in financial matters. That’s price of entry. Perhaps more importantly, they must be willing and able to work together no matter who ultimately makes up those 7 seats, because it’s highly doubtful that any one slate will win all of them.
Those candidates will be much more effective as councilors than the ones who simply point out the other guy’s faults or spew vitriol.
Why doesn’t Concerned Citizens turn up the burner and field a slate of mature adults as an alternative to these Far Side cartoon characters that are, incredulously, actually elected politicians?
“Those candidates will be much more effective as councilors than the ones who simply point out the other guy’s faults or spew vitriol.”
What I most vividly recall about the previous administration is the change of sewage from a tax to a fee. Taking this out of the tax rate let them claim a tax reduction – or, if I recall correctly, less of an increase. But we still had to pay it, tax or fee. Only now we can’t use the fee as a deduction on federal taxes.
I don’t mean to imply that this was the most extreme example of mismanagement, but it was the one that left me feeling most insulted. Are we Montclair citizens really supposed to be that unaware as to fall for this sort of chicanery?
…Andrew
Richullman is saying we should take the high ground and not get too mad or point blame. That sounds great in theory.
Maybe he wasn’t here when these folks were in power. People should be angry…very angry. That Remsen-Susswein group did act like a CREW. They killed off the the Capital Finance Committee. It was the only resident safeguard to watch how their government spent our tax money and much debt they were taking on.
Now Montclair has $230 million in debt and it’s still climbing. Glen Ridge has almost none. People can’t afford to pay the taxes here anymore and they have to leave. My home values continue to drop because there is not enough demand. And no one wants to really come to our community right now because our finances are still out of control.
This Remsen group behind Susswein was a big part of it. Not all…but a major portion. I think they had even higher tax rates and bigger budget hikes than this current Council.
If that doesn’t warrant ‘vitriol’ and pointing out what they did, or warning others that they’re trying to come back…well, let’s instead all just hold hands and talk about how special Montclair is because we really care and can all get along.
What amazes me about this thread is that a commenter yesterday “respectfully disagreed.” I think he got lost on his way to the watercooler.
Thank you, I think.
Here is some info regarding property tax changes in Montclair from the year 2000.
By Percent:
http://php.app.com/proptax/results_perc.php?COUNTY=Essex&MUNICIPALITY=Montclair+Township&Submit=Submit
By Dollars:
http://php.app.com/proptax/results.php?COUNTY=Essex&MUNICIPALITY=Montclair+Township&Submit=Search
What does the old saw say about fooling me dozens and dozens of times?
What kind of a crazy world do we live in where deadeye is the voice of reason?
Look! Over the hill! It’s the Headless Horseman!
If someone were to do some actual investigative reporting, I know that one of my big questions would be about the use of those debts where we were paying interest only. What was the justification for this? Given the games we saw in the previous administration of hiding tax increases by moving them to “fees”, I naturally wonder if this was another way to try to fool taxpayers.
…Andrew
@spotontarget:
Uh… no. On several levels.
1. I said that if you’re going to be A CANDIDATE and you’re expecting to govern, manage and LEAD the township, then you should lose the venom. Tell us what you’re going to do. If you’re going to grandstand… then stay in the grandstand.
2. I’ve lived and owned here since 1996.
3. I think the township has been mismanaged for quite some time (and continues to be). Few, if any members of this council nor the last one are worthy of another shot at it, for reasons including incompetence, arrogance, naivete and more.
4. I’m angry about it.
5. The “Kumbaya Montclair” attitude you mention is nauseating to me. Yes, we have some nice things here, but we also have a municipal financial mess. That’s reality. You want to keep those nice things? Fix the mess first.
6. I’ll acknowledge being a little uninformed about the history of the CFC, but… I see that it exists now. I see it was reaffirmed at the beginning of the current council term http://bit.ly/qQOlVr , and I see that in late 2006, “… both the Capital Finance Committee and the Public Events Committee are looking for additional members.” http://bit.ly/qpJxAa .
Maybe it was “killed off” or maybe it died from atrophy. Maybe “it’s baack!”
Regardless, there are currently two organizations (OBAC and CCM) with financial chops and a willingness to volunteer their time and expertise to wade through the financial mess and advise both the council and township management. They were seemingly ignored in the last budget process. That’s infuriating. If you think I’m letting the Remsen administration off the hook, go back and read #3 above.
7. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You’re not on target.
“The split off Parking Authority with multi-million dollar deficits intentionally kept hidden from the government. ”
That’s a good reminder. It would be interesting to learn just how the Parking Authority ended up with a debt that it could not repay. That’s money that the town expected to see, but didn’t – missing money that needs to be covered by taxpayers. So, how did this default on PA obligations occur?
Was this structured improperly so that the default was inevitable? Or is there something wrong with how the PA has been operating?
…Andrew
If someone were to do some actual investigative reporting…
By the powers vested in me, I hereby appoint you, Andrew Gideon, Baristanet’s Chief Citizen Investigative Reporter. Raise your right hand…
I’m afraid my magic OPRA wand is in the shop.
…Andrew
Though…how would one even get this information? I mean: what would one request?
Perhaps it is necessary for some reporters to actually perform interviews?
Are video archives of the meetings from the Remsen administration available from TV34?
…Andrew
Though…how would one even get this information? I mean: what would one request?
You’re asking me? You’re the Chief Investigative Citizen Reporter for crying out loud. Figure it out!
Perhaps it is necessary for some reporters to actually perform interviews?
What in God’s name are you waiting for?
Are video archives of the meetings from the Remsen administration available from TV34?
Ask them!
Geesh.
I wouldn’t know how to do an interview. However, I can get the answer to at least one of these questions. Checking now…
…Andrew
Is Remsen qualified to be a Town Manager which requires –
Article VII. Office of the Manager
§ 3-24. Chief administrative official; qualifications; office organization.
[Amended 5-23-2000 by Ord. No. 00-19]
A. The chief executive and administrative official of the Township of Montclair shall be the Manager. The Manager shall, prior to appointment, be qualified in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:69A-92. The Manager shall have the authority to appoint Deputy Managers with functions to be determined by the Manager.
B. Within the office of the Manager, there shall be the following functions:
(1) Budget.
(2) Human Resources.
(3) Data Processing/Information Systems.
(4) Civil defense and disaster control.
§ 3-25. Annual budget.
The Manager shall prepare the annual budget and maintain continuing review and analysis of budget operations, work programs and costs of municipal services.
§ 3-26. Human resources program.
[Amended 5-23-2000 by Ord. No. 00-19]
The Manager shall establish and maintain a comprehensive human resources program, including recruitment, classification, compensation, organization design, promotion, benefits administration, labor relations, employee training and development and affirmative action and related elements, which shall be approved by Council. Editor’s Note: See Ch. 48, Personnel Regulations.
§ 3-27. Purchasing system.
The Manager shall establish and maintain a centralized purchasing system.
§ 3-28. Civil Defense and Disaster Control Director.
The Manager shall be the Civil Defense and Disaster Control Director.
B. Within the office of the Manager, there shall be the following functions:
(1) Budget.
(2) Human Resources.
(3) Data Processing/Information Systems.
(4) Civil defense and disaster control.
Here’s a job listing for a Town Manager for South Orange- a town with a population of
Village Administrator/CAO – South Orange, Essex County, NJ
Seeking full-time Village Administrator/Chief Administrative Officer to fill position as of January 1, 2012. Candidate must have excellent organizational skills, finance expertise, project management skills, and IT competency. Candidate will be responsible for overseeing Village departmental operations, preparation of the budget, interfacing with project managers and helping coordinate public relations. Must possess Bachelors degree, Masters preferred, and demonstrated experience in NJ municipal government with experience in economic development or shared services a plus.
that should have said- South Orange, a town with a population of 16,198
Whoever was mayor when the town ran up a $100 million tab is eminently qualified to do it again.
Thank you Kevin57 for the only piece of useful factual information in this thread.
… for the only piece of useful factual information in this thread.
We’re into high concept here, nomo. We prefer to be unencumbered by facts. They only get in the way of the creative process.
TV34 has video of town council meetings going back to about 2004. That’s going to make this interesting. I expect each side will be going over the video archives looking for useful material pro and con.
I still hope some journalist decides to look into the various questions raised on this thread (and I’m sure there’ll be plenty elsewhere).
…Andrew
While I appreciate what @Keviin57 has posted, it is incomplete. I know that in one year – when the sewage charge was removed from taxes and made a separate usage fee – the tax rate was artificially reduced. To properly compare, one would have to add that fee back into the total “charge” of owning property in Montclair for all subsequent years.
I’m not sure how one would account for the obligation to the town on which the Parking Authority defaulted. As the PA didn’t pay, taxpayers “unexpectedly” had to cover that cost. Did that come from operating expenses, in which case it does appear in the tax rate? Or did it merely increased either debt or sit on the books as a receivable?
I’m similarly unsure how to account for the “loan” to the pre-k that’s apparently not being paid back.
For what other games with the numbers would we have to account?
Another consideration is the amount of debt on which we’re paying only interest. While this keeps immediate financing costs down, in the long term we will have to pay back the principal. Shouldn’t a comparison of town finances include the state of our debt?
I found this: http://gomeztooker.com/content/MontclairDebt.pdf which has some interesting comparisons (as well as other information).
…Andrew
Who is going to pay “some journalist” to do this reporting? Last I checked, most journalists now work in PR.
This was an excellent discussion thread folks. The next council election blog will have more of the financial $ and policy details some of you are asking for, a few of which were already mentioned within the comments. Please realize that you can’t throw everything in at once into these blogs, or they just become too long. This first commentary, as the campaign season starts, was an overview and a viewpoint. More specifics coming…
The “interesting comparisons” in the slide shows that @gideon found have inaccuracies in the comparison chart- specifically the chart that shows population. I haven’t had a chance to check the income chart but it also bears checking.
The report of “comparisons” was prepared by a principal of a leading municipal finance firm. He is a member of the Capital Finance Committee, a Committee that the Manager and Mayor have dismissed.
The numbers are from 2006.
I was hoping that we’d get an update for 2011, but there seems to be much more interest in hiding Montclair’s numbers than evaluating them.
If we were to go out and set no limit to the amount of money we spend to get analytical advice on debt, we could not do better than the people on the Capital Finance Committee.
Like many committees of residents, this one isn’t valued.
Cary,
I wasn’t trying to be overly critical – 2006 – no wonder the comparisons are not spot on.
Is there more of the work of the Capital Finance Committee that is available?
Have some of these folks joined Concerned Citizens of Montclair?
http://www.concernedcitizensofmontclair.com
http://gomeztooker.com/index.htm
I haven’t had much of a chance to take a look at the CCM website but there are some interesting (and current) numbers there:
http://gomeztooker.com/content/Slide+Show+CCM+11.11.10-1.pdf
Concerns noted by Moody’s Analysis:
– Financial position remains challenged and further narrowing could
negatively affect credit quality.
– Debt burden is above average
There is a CCM meeting on November 11th
“Like many committees of residents, this one isn’t valued.”
Help me understand here Cary. It is the same CFC which highlighted the $131,000 in planning and design fees for South Park Street. Costs highlighted in a report made in-person to the council in-chambers in Feburary. The same $131,000 you yourself, Cary, now refuse to discuss or acknowledge. You won’t even tell us if those costs are included in the recently proposed increase in the project “budget”.
From where I sit, it seems like EVERYONE in the council ignores CFC findings when it’s inconvenient for their pet projects.
What am I missing Cary?
RoC
I think your missing any appreciation for the only Town Councilor that tries for transparency!
Why not call Fried, Weller etc to task? When have you ever posted about Baskerville?
Transparency? Ask Africk about the design costs and view for yourself his commitment to transparency.
Why don’t I engage the others online? Because they’re not online.
I totally agree with ROC. There is serious denial regarding transparency. (Perhaps to “shut me up”) I was given the wrong answers several times…in the real world, this would be considered lying.
Martin might want to get a “fact checker” before posting his opinions. He identifies me as part of the Remsen Crew, yet I have communicated with Ed only once in the last year, and that was at the Farmer’s Market talking about which stand had the best white corn. I have not communicated with Don Zief or Joyce Michaelson in over a year, the same with Harvey Suswien. I don’t even know Tim Barr. I can’t imagine how Martin gets “endorsement” from this kind of contact or lack thereof. Martin gets an A for vivid imagination and an F for accuracy.
Dale Jacobs
Dale: The list of names did specifically said PAST and present.
However, in fact. Bill Hurlock, who is identified by Harvey as their 1st ward candidate, told me directly that he knew you well…and that’s why he was considering working with this group. So while your direct communication may not have been there of late in the short term, that is splitting hairs. Clearly you were closely connected to this group in the past – both through the MEDC and other town related interactions.
The point that I made very clearly, is that this Remsen-Zief-Michaelson political crew is comprised of a group of main players and supporting actors whose decisions and philosophies operated in relative consort. They cut across both the Council, connected boards, commissions and even outside 501C3 groups which they initiated – like the Montclair Economic Development Corporation – which you chaired.
Residents will have to determine if the fiscal and policy repercussions that we face today, in large part as a result of the “crews” efforts – are such that they want to return your group to power.
So the F that you are awarding me for accuracy – does still need to remain an A — both for fact and political perspective.
RoC
They are most assuredly online. Jerry Fried has been posting on the Montclair Patch!
i comment on those pat. Fried does not engage in the comments. (much like Cary when that pesky $131,000 comes up.)
Wonder why the Concerned Citizens site has gone “Go Daddy”. They can still be found via gomez link above but they haven’t updated since March.
If the Township Manager or the Council knew nothing about the $130,000., where did the $$$ come from…and who issues the payment? And the Concerned Citizens? Why are they not conserned?
All I know Frank, is that in terms of transparency, the $131K issue is like a lit torch inside the pyramid. The mummy approaches, you wave the torch, he grunts and hobbles away…
The mummy approaches, you wave the torch, he grunts and hobbles away…
Funny! I’m writing the MacArthur Foundation today.
Brilliant!!! (The Mummy & the Torch)…but completely unacceptable… who do we call to come to grips with the Mummy in this case? GhostBusters? Oprah Winfrey?
The ballot box.
Hmmm, is it possible to get a MacArthur genius grant and remain anonymous? Have to look into that…
@walleroo If anyone can do that it will be RoC who demands that others be accountable but still posts anonymously so he isn’t held up to the standard of those he attacks.
No wonder you don’t post on the Watercooler RoC, you might actually have to defend your ideas as a real person!
Funny. I found a third-party, post-dated, out-of-state, temporary check for $131,000 in my trash this morning. Can’t quite read the signature, but it starts with “w-a-l-l-e-r-o…”
Pat,
Anonymity or not does not make a argument less valid. If you mean ROC will have to defend himself on the watercooler, then fine. However, I though WC had moderators to protect from character attacks. I also noticed every time you get frustrated, you bring the “anonymous posters comments are less valid” argument. I don’t think this is a good attribute for a moderator.
You have a good point there, Frank, but ….
Anonymity often hides conflict of interest. An anonymous post can praise a project when the poster is really the contractor who stands to gain from the project. An anonymous poster who “bad mouths” a company can turn out to be an ex-employee who was fired for theft, or for conflict of interest. You just never know.
When the poster puts his name on the post, we can “know” we have a better chance to know where they’re coming from.
Again, a person in a “conflict of interest” situation may be right, but wouldn’t you like to know?
or you could just answer the simple question Cary. Which should be easy to answer for any politician truly interested in transparency.
It’s not a hard question.
Is the $131,000 in planning and design costs included in the new, revised estimate for the project budget? If not, why not?
Frank,
Why would having to defend his ideas mean that RoC was attacked. On the watercooler we discuss issues and not the person.
I’m not frustrated! Why would you think I was? I am merely pointing out that RoC holds Mr. Africk to a higher standard than he does the rest of the Town Council. I’m not sure why he does since cary tries so hard and the rest don’t…but he does.
Those who post using their real names take responsibility for their posts – RoC does not since he is posting anonymously and not even his neighbors know who he is.
RoC – or you could OPRA ir from the Town Manager. Or would that be too easy???
The mummy returns! Quick, wave the torch…
Frank, everybody knows that an idea or argument hasn’t been made until it’s been made on the Watercooler. Unless it’s been blocked by the moderators, in which case it never existed in the first place.
It will take a blowtorch to get RoC to file an OPRA request.
wave the blowtorch for the blowhard walleroo!
VIVA ROC!!!…he discloses more truth than an OPRA request….(not recently, but a while back, I had the impression that some of the opra requests that I had filed were not even being processed….)
So if I understand Pat correctly. I shouldn’t criticize Cary for criticizing the rest of the council for not “valuing” the CFC, when he himself selectively ignores the CFC?
Further, I don’t have enough “appreciation” for a councilor so committed to transparency she recommends an OPRA request to get an answer to a very simple question?
You can’t beat the master, pat.
No RoC – My point is that you don’t demand any transparency from the Fried crew and only harp on Cary. It is actually possible that since Cary is not in on the inner circle that he doesn’t have these numbers and has more important things to do than answer your anonymous postings. ie: he has real constituents to take care of
Instead of posting your anonymous blah blah blah here – you could have filed an OPRA request with the town and received a response in 7 working days. I do it in Bloomfield all the time – so I offer my help in writing any requests that you need written – or you can read the posting on the Montclair website. That should give you what you need
http://montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=208&Itemid=615
@walleroo
Master of Obfuscation? or was that Master of Anonyminity
“RoC – or you could OPRA ir from the Town Manager. Or would that be too easy???”
I’m not sure that it is possible. I recall an instance when an OPRA request for information about the payments involved in the Upper Montclair Station’s file was rejected with a curt “no such item exists”. The regulation, if I recall correctly, requires that the town “work with” the person seeking disclosure to identify the sought item(s). It would appear, though, that in practice one must identify a sought document perfectly to receive a positive response.
ROC is asking a question. That’s not “a document” (or “a record”) so I don’t think he could put it into the form of a [valid] OPRA request.
Again: In theory, he should be able to receive help from the town in identifying the document(s) he’d need to see to get his answer. In practice, this doesn’t seem to work – at least it doesn’t work some of the time.
…Andrew
and it certainly doesn’t work when you don’t even try…
Pat, If being a member of the township council isn’t part of the “inner circle” I don’t know what is? The “valuable” CFC told Cary and the rest of the council back in February about the $131K. If Cary thinks they’re so valuable, why doesn’t he listen to them?
Look, you can often discern much more with politicians buy asking the right question and gauging their LACK of response or their highly evasive response. It’s all in the question you ask. I’ve asked Cary this simple question a hundred times. I only ask it again when it’s germane. It’s pretty plain at this point what a non-response means.
Cary’s statement “…there seems to be much more interest in hiding Montclair’s numbers than evaluating them.” is so outrageous in light of his refusal to evaluate all the costs of the South Park Street Project that the subject HAS to come up again.
“and it certainly doesn’t work when you don’t even try…”
The document you cited agrees with me:
“You need to know what records you want and what government agency has them. The records request should include an accurate description of each specific record sought.”
There’s no “record” being sought here; merely a question being asked. There’s nothing to “try” with respect to OPRA.
…Andrew
“Pat, If being a member of the township council isn’t part of the “inner circle” I don’t know what is?”
Seriously? Then you’re just not paying attention. This council clearly has an “in crowd” and an “out crowd”. It’s like a poor reflection of High School.
I’m not sure of the practical effects of this. Council members are restricted to acting through the Manager, but I don’t know what this in crowd/out crowd nonsense does to “out crowd” members’ access to the Manager.
…Andrew
Very good, ROC, mummy and torch imagery will always float America’s boat.
Brendan Fraser for Congress !
RoC
yes- it’s a shame when a member of the town council can’t get numbers or an explanation…no I wouldn’t categorize Cary as a member of the “inner circle” to my mind that would be Fried, Weller and Nick (what’s his last name) who all vote together as a block.
Why do you refuse to call any of these Town Council members out on the numbers you want?
And YES I’d happliy help you write an OPRA request – I’ve been very successful in Bloomfield.
“I’m not sure of the practical effects of this.”
What would those be Andrew? Any council member can inquire of the Township manager as to budget numbers or what planning and design costs “already encumbered” amount to.
If a council person cannot make such inquires then they should be screaming bloody murder for the manager’s head. It would be illegal to withhold such information from a member of the elected body.
Or of course, Cary could have just asked Mr. Reinman the chair of the CFC in the meeting in February what those numbers represented.
But, really, can’t Cary make his own excuses for being uninformed? Is it really necessary to cast him as a bullied high schooler, and somehow excuse the issue?
Really though, is it
?
p.s.
That 131K number. was from February, BEFORE the redesign and “value engineering” phase after the bids came back too high. I’ll bet its 200k and climbing as we speak…
I’ve pointed out in the past that the Town Council cannot get the numbers from the Montclair Animal Shelter and that they had to be OPRA’d by a private citizen ($200 because the Animal Shelter would only provide hard copies).
And RoC I’m sure that you could have asked Mr. Reinman the chair of the CFC too. Did you? Did he refuse to answer?
Why should any town councilor have to provide anything to anonymous posters? Anonymous posters requesting information should not be a priority- and obviously aren’t.
Want something- ask for it with your name attached. Learn something RoC. You’re not in High School anymore!
Not in high school any more? That’s funny, pat, because you sound an awful lot like a schoolmarm.
Cary,
I have to say “conflict of interest” is pretty lame…and that is me being nice because I’m pretty surprised at your justification.
Yes, those with mens rea can hide cloak themselves in anonymity. But, you continue to post here.. why? The majority of people her are anonymous. The policy of this site welcomes both equally. I think you and Pat may have this “protective” thing that kicks in whenever conflict arises. Thanks, but I think most of us can break down the povs here and form our own judgements.
Let’s get back to the thread.
What he said! You go, Frank.
Yes, Cary does talk out of both sides of his mouth on occasion. However, and this can be either praise or condemnation, he is about the best incumbent councilor we have.
As for martin Schwartz running for council, that is the worst kept secret in Montclair. Whereas Cary can talk out of both sides of his mouth occasionally, Martin has an octagon for a mouth. The thought of him as a council member has me yearning for a Nick Lewis re-election.
I can hardly wait for his next free campaign ad, I mean blog, on Baristanet.
Octagon — ha ha! We should henceforth refer to Schwartz as Octopus Mouth.
Well here’s some hard news for you Waterloo and Justacitizen. I AM LIKELY NOT a candidate for the Township Council this election year.
My underlying intention has always been to provide information and insight into what the political actors have been doing, should be doing, or are not doing. The prospect of being a candidate myself has begun to interfere with how people viewed that information and the ideas presented.
In this Baristanet Blog piece, I tried to give an overview of the ramifications from potentially allowing the political Remsen “crew” back into power — a group that in my opinion have been destructive to the Township. I wanted to give a quick view of the downsides they fostered while they were in control. There will be more details coming out about them – tracking their specific decisions, votes and allocations and how it’s directly impacted our wallets.
In my opinion, the primary motivation of this Remsen crew was to help their friends and insiders, but they just didn’t see it. They skewed votes and decisions in ways that did not always benefit the Township overall. And yet, they convinced themselves that their friends needs were synonymous with Montclair’s. I believe, and I think the record shows, that they were not a positive force overall — especially fiscally.
In other blogs and cooler pieces, I’ve tried to demonstrate by fact and political perspective — what the Fried 3 have been doing, or not doing as the the case may be and how that’s impacted the Township. While well meaning, the Fried 3′s convolutions and immobilization have generally made a bad situation much worse.
For 2012, due to a lack of good individuals willing to run for the Council early on, or who didn’t know the details of our local government well enough to see what was really going down to make the hard calls needed to turn things around, I felt compelled to think about running myself — given our dire straights.
Today however, there are around 6-8 people kicking around in the wings now thinking about running who could get the job done for us at the Council level. Unless that group collapses or splinters badly, I am going back to doing what is a more effective role for me personally — providing political information and insight and trying to get those right people elected.
Analytic pieces about politics from a potential candidate are always suspect — rightly so. Political perspective and insight from someone not looking to get elected or ‘looking for love in all the wrong places’, is viewed very differently.
Unless something crashes behind the scenes among those readying to run — I will only be a commentator and advisor for 2012. Hopefully, all of you can then go back to debating the underlying POV’s and details presented and not waste time on my personal motivation or political agenda. Now you have it.
Let’s stay with the facts mam….
@roo what an instigator you are!
Instigator? Moi?
Yes you Roo!
Agideon:
You posted, “I’m not sure how one would account for the obligation to the town on which the Parking Authority defaulted.”
–From looking at the 12/31/09 audited financial statements, page 8 (most recent available on the town’s website), the town recorded $1.138mm in revenues from the PA, but only collected $785k and reflected accounts receivable for the remainder on the 12/31/09 balance sheet. The footnote information (page 56) indicates that the PA netted approx. $50 (no k or mm after this one!). If the authority or utility breaks even, then it can be deducted when calculating the town’s “net debt” percentages. So when Marc reports the net debt ratio, as he did at the last Town Council meeting, it excludes this chunk of debt along with the debt from the other “break even” utilities.
As for “the “loan” to the pre-k that’s apparently not being paid back”, they do not reflect any payback for this in the ’09 financial statements, nor do they reflect a receivable on the balance sheet. Instead, the footnote disclosure (on page 70) reflects annual loan principle and interest receivable due to the town from the pre-k for the years ’08-’14 totaling approx. $2mm. I should point out this is 12/31/09 financial disclosures, with a footnote reflecting a receivable from ’08 yet no formal receivable is included on the town’s balance sheet as one would expect. It should also be noted that when this loan was originally recorded in the audited financial statements (available for viewing in the Town Clerk’s office) 100% of it was also recorded as a reserve against it. Meaning, they didn’t anticipate any repayment. Too bad this was not the picture painted for the taxpaying citizens.
You asked “For what other games with the numbers would we have to account?” Clearly this is where the $131,000 in other fees relating to S.Park comes into play. We’ll never get confirmation from this town council on these numbers because they want it to happen. There may be a lot of other “games”, but as the other posts point out, it is very difficult to get the full picture because responses are rarely given. OPRA requests are the only way to get information.
You also suggest “Shouldn’t a comparison of town finances include the state of our debt?” Many would like this. The best analysis has been given by the CFC in their documents which are on the outdated CCM website. It may be outdated, but it contains the best financial information that is currently available. They probably stopped in March as the budget for 2011 was passed and the town manager showed a promising (LOL) worksheet for strategies to reduce the costs going forward. OBAC presented numerous, still relevant, suggestions for managing the town better to achieve savings. It is up to the current town council and town manager to manage. The Town Council has made it abundantly clear, they (as a group) don’t want help from the citizens when it comes to finances.
Can you remind me in what year the sewer utility was established? I’d like to determine the impact of removing this on the tax rate changes.
“I’ve pointed out in the past that the Town Council cannot get the numbers from the Montclair Animal Shelter and that they had to be OPRA’d by a private citizen ($200 because the Animal Shelter would only provide hard copies).”
What were the mechanics of this inability of the council to get the numbers? Did the Manager refuse to answer? Was the information somehow unavailable to the Manager? Did the council majority choose to block individual council members from receiving the information? Something else?
I get that there’s information being withheld, but I’m completely befuddled by the “who” and the “how” of this. What ROC has written about council members always having access should be true; why and how isn’t it?
…Andrew
“From looking at the 12/31/09 audited financial statements, page 8 (most recent available on the town’s website), the town recorded $1.138mm in revenues from the PA, but only collected $785k and reflected accounts receivable for the remainder on the 12/31/09 balance sheet. The footnote information (page 56) indicates that the PA netted approx. $50 (no k or mm after this one!). If the authority or utility breaks even, then it can be deducted when calculating the town’s “net debt” percentages. So when Marc reports the net debt ratio, as he did at the last Town Council meeting, it excludes this chunk of debt along with the debt from the other “break even” utilities.”
I’m having difficulty following this, I’m afraid, so I apologize in advance for the simplistic questions.
First: The document is http://montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/Audit_Report-2009.pdf ? I also see http://montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/2010_Annual_Financial_Statement.pdf on http://montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2923:montclair-township-2011-budget-presentations-to-council&catid=187:newsarticles&Itemid=491
The $1.138M is the “anticipated budget” number. The shortfall is $353K. Given that this is in Misc. Revenue, this translates to higher taxes, yes? The total shortfall of Misc. Revenue was $1.364M.
Continuing with the PA, I looked to page 38. This is the “Parking Utility Fund”. This seems to show a cash flow from the PA to the town that is separate from what is displayed under Misc. Revenue. Is that correct? There’s a shortfall there too (see pg 40), but it is much smaller.
Does this fund exist merely as a “placeholder” for the debt owed by the town for parking assets (eg. garages) and a line item for receiving PA payments against that debt? If I’m grasping this correctly, the town isn’t being left further in debt by the PA, but it is failing to pay it’s expected contribution against our operating expenses. Is the town providing some service to the PA for which the PA is [not fully] paying?
…Andrew
“It should also be noted that when this loan was originally recorded in the audited financial statements (available for viewing in the Town Clerk’s office) 100% of it was also recorded as a reserve against it. Meaning, they didn’t anticipate any repayment. Too bad this was not the picture painted for the taxpaying citizens. ”
http://montclairprek.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=28 still speaks of “funds loaned by the Township”.
I’ve also just realized that there are payments to the MECC by both town and school. The school is paying for placement of some special needs students. For what is the town paying MECC? I couldn’t find anything in the 2009 statement labelled MECC beyond the loan material on pages 69-70. Yet http://www.northjersey.com/news/100006754_Council_agrees_on_funding_cuts.html mentions payments by the town to MECC. Or have I misunderstood?
…Andrew
“Can you remind me in what year the sewer utility was established? I’d like to determine the impact of removing this on the tax rate changes.”
As a side note: The Montclair Times web site search facility is awful!
This site’s search was more fruitful. I found http://www.baristanet.com/2006/08/please-explain-my-water-bill/ so I’d guess that the change was around 2006.
…Andrew
agideon,
Thanks for the info. on the sewer. People have been reporting a 29% rise in costs covered by property taxes since 2007. So if we look back and incorporate the increase since 2005 (to account for the pulling out of the sewer & water utilities in 2006), the increase is going to quite staggering.
My take on the answers to your questions are:
The net debt ratio is probably used when looking at the details of the debt. It shouldn’t mean much to the “lay person”.
When “other” or “miscellaneous” revenues drop, or there are shortfalls, yet costs stay the same, or in Montclair’s case increase, I would think they first look to surplus funds to cover the shortfall. The surplus should be replenished the following year somehow, whether in other revenues or an increased tax burden on the citizens.
You are right, there are other instances shown of amounts due from the PA to the Township on pages 38 & (a shortfall) on page 40. I would think this serves as a placeholder. However, shouldn’t there be a placeholder for the pre-k on the town’s books, at least until it is formally written off or forgiven? I would think the Balance Sheet should have a receivable recorded from the pre-k. Will the placeholder from the PA disappear over time as well? Will the town council “consider forgiving” this debt also?
Although the town was not receiving principle or interest costs owed to it from the pre-k, the town was still giving annual amounts of money to the pre-k. It has been said that this was to fund scholarships for students in need.
I wonder if the Dec 6 class at the Adult School to be taught by Joe Hartnett will cover information like how/when/why these “funds” are used.
…Andrew
And The Montclair Times gives us a reason why the current crew is so dangerous: Renee Baskerville has apparently drawn up an ordinance — on her own, I assume, since no lawyer would have done this — that would terminate town employees for speaking ill of elected officials.
This is one of our mayoral hopefuls, people, and someone the county may be grooming for higher office. Beware.
Great job, Martin!