TheJCBoard.com Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne and North Jersey - Blogs

No elected BOE on the November Ballot

LDePinto — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:48:44 GMT

Hi All,

At this time I don't have enough signatures to get the elected board question on the November local ballot. Unless I can get help over the next two weeks, the petition will have to wait.�� This petition committee needs 10-20 dedicated people to get to the schools and public places� to obtain the correct number of signatures from Registered Voters in Bayonne and, if people aren't registered, to register them on the spot.

I do appreciate the signatures of the 350 people or so that signed and hope that they will courageously continue to support change in Bayonne

Laura�

Matrix Report

LDePinto — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:34:16 GMT

I have acquired a copy of the Exec Summary and the Draft.��Though requested, I was told I'm NOT��entitled to the entire unabridged, unredacted version.� Is there any interest in my posting them?� They are lengthy.

6/18 Bayonne City Council Meeting - Last Minute Fireworks

neilbarton — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:34:25 GMT

Box movers making $37 an hour. Some workers making up to $75 an hour. What are these rates for? Working the city elections. It seems that a "tradition" has been set up over time to give the city workers an extra "bonus" in their salary for working early & late hours on election day.

This issue came up as a last item on the agenda at the council meeting. The motion to pay the salaries was requested to be tabled until July. However City Clerk�Sloan requested that it not be tabled, and insisted on a vote quite adamantly. These workers were under his direction, and he wanted to see them paid. The tension rose quickly, with Mr. Sloan's assistant providing an emotional outburst agianst the city councilmen.

The debate apepars to be over the legality of Mr. Sloan to set the rates that are paid to the city workers. Councilman Chiappone (as well as other council persons) believe that, legally, the rates should be set by City Council.

At one point a city worker came up to challenge the city council, whio is obviously doing it's best to scrutinize any out of line expense. This worker said there would be chaos if not for the work the city workers do on election day, and that we would find no one to do the work if the rates were cut. Mr Lapilusa responded:�"I am pretty confident that at half the rate that you get paid, we can get someone in here"

Ultimately the resolution to pay the workers passed, with a promise that the issue would be looked into.

Time to get over big government

neilbarton — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:27:50 GMT

Thanks to Stan for finding this, I thought it should be reprinted here in full:

I have had a depressingly high number of conversations lately about New Jersey being a sinking ship. There are three themes. The most common is that the state is broke and that nobody seems to have the political will to fix it. The second theme, recently voiced to me by a veteran Democratic legislator, is that "nothing we've done is working anymore." In other words, we need new approaches to many of our key public policy challenges.

The third theme is that wasteful spending on big-ticket items is hurting priorities such as the environment, state parks, health care for our neediest residents and the like.

Democrats are supposed to be progressive. But lately, we look too much like defenders of the status quo. In fact, another Democrat with vast experience in Trenton re cently said to me that our system has become "of the government, by the government and for the government."

The Democratic Party here has to decide whether it is the party of the people or the party of the insiders. There is a conflict because a high proportion of those who vote in primaries benefit from the status quo. One out of eight New Jerseyans works in the public sector, and these people vote. They are mostly good and dedicated people. But we have overstaffed units of government and too many layers of it. That is the main reason we have such high property taxes.

Bloated government can be cut without harming essential services. It does almost no good to trim around the edges; closing state parks is primarily symbolic. We have to focus on the key items that drive the cost of government. The big tickets are education, public safety, the cost of retirement benefits, the cost of incarcerating nonvi olent offenders and overlapping units of government.

We are spending more money than ever on the Abbott districts despite evidence that hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted. Huge buyout packages appear to be only the tip of the iceberg. There are rigged contracts, construction cost overruns, administrative fat and expensive state mandates.

We are not allowed even to discuss productivity in education, and it is virtually impossible to get rid of incompetent teachers. Meanwhile, some of our best and brightest college grads can't get in to Teach for America because the education bureaucracy doesn't want too many of them.

The next big ticket is public safety. According to PoliceLink, New Jersey offers the highest law enforcement compensation in the country, with an average median salary of $70,470. Moreover, there are wide gaps within the state. Why does a starting patrolman in Princeton get paid 71 percent more than a new one in Trenton? Why can many cops get paid for four hours of overtime for as little as 15 minutes of work? Can we really call government efficient when our elected officials refuse to confront these expenses?

Another big ticket is retirement obligations. We're paying six-figure pensions even to people in their 50s and promising free lifetime health care to tens of thousands. Not surprisingly, the state pension plan is underfunded by about $28 billion. The state's post-retirement health care plan is about $80 billion under water. Together, those liabilities amount to about $21,000 for each of New Jersey's 4.7 million acres of land.

Labor leaders tell me that they don't want to deliver bad news to their rank and file; they have to run for re-election, too. So we have a lose-lose situation; the state can't afford these benefits, and government employees aren't being warned that they could be shortchanged when they retire.

The next big ticket is the cost of incarcerating so many nonviolent offenders, most of whom are small- time drug users. New Jersey has the highest number of nonviolent drug-law offenders as a proportion of its overall prison population, each costing more than $46,000 an nually. In other words, our drug laws are more draconian than the infamous Rockefeller drug laws. The Corrections Department budget is more than $1.3 billion. We could save tens of millions and rehabilitate some lives at the same time.

We also need to address overlapping units of government, but it is a mistake to think that consolidation is some kind of panacea. If Princeton Boro and Princeton Township combine but keep paying six-figure salaries to the same number of employees, we won't save much money. If firemen can cross borders to help in emergen cies, why can't cops? We don't need to staff every local department for simultaneous bank robberies.

It is not demagogic to say that government spending can be cut. Education spending can be reformed, penal laws can be modified, salaries and benefits can be made rational and units of government can be consolidated. Doing these things would free up money for the truly needy and for economic growth.

This is particularly important to do when private citizens and firms are being forced to tighten their budgets. We are kidding ourselves if we think that we can right the ship of state without addressing these big-ticket items.

The word "progressive" does not always have to be code for more government spending. It can mean thoughtful solutions, including cutting spending where it exists largely to benefit the "of the government" crowd.

The choice for the Democratic Party is going to be whether to risk offending some special-interest groups that are costing the taxpayers too much or to stay closely al lied with them and risk losing it all.

Tom Byrne, who runs an asset management firm, is a former chairman of the state Democratic Party. This essay first ran on NJVoices.com.

Very interesting site.

remo — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:24:36 GMT

I think what fascinates me the most is the break with reality by the blog owner. I appreciate the tension a good blog can cause, so here's hoping that the friction resulting from its existence burns the right people.

-Remo

The details of my Fri May 30th deposition

neilbarton — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:30:47 GMT

I arrived at the Port Authority offices at 225 Park Ave at about 4:15PM. I was awaiting a call from Couselor Steven Gorelick, attorney for Stern & Kilcullen representing the Port Authority. However, Mr. Gorelick failed to call me to advise me to confirm if we were still on for 4PM. Therefore I made an assumption that things were still a go. It was good that I did.

I was greeted by Port Authority attorney Jay Selcov. He was very gracious and polite. He spoke with me for a while, as we waited the current deposition to complete. I found Mr. Selcov to be the polar opposite of Mr. Gorelick. To meet Mr. Selcov is to meet a man who is congenial, seems to enjoy life, and has an easy going way about him. Mr. Gorelick, however, plays the part of a crafty/weasely/conniving lawyer straight out of Hollywood central casting. Short in stature with a direct manner with he had a smile that you just can�t seem to bring yourself to trust.

Also present with Mr. Gorelick was another attorney, Howard Tat. Other than appearing to handle the paperwork he spoke little. Representing the BLRA from McManimon & Scotland was Attorney Jamie Placek.

Mr. Gorelick did not let me down in his performance once the deposition began. I had suspected that my deposition would have little or nothing to do with the current case of Port Authority v. BLRA and everything to do with attempting to discover information that might allow the Port Authority to try and have my case dismissed. This soon became apparent to Mr. Placek as well, who, to his credit (and in his client�s interest) began a surprisingly heated exchange with Mr. Gorelick. He was adamant that Mr. Gorelick�s line of questioning had nothing to do with the current case. He instructed Mr. Gorelick that he should be advising me, as a witness without representation with a Pro Se complaint pending against Mr. Gorelick�s client that the questions he were asking me could potentially harm my own case, and that if the judge were aware of the tactics that Mr. Gorelick was attempting that he might not approve of such actions. Mr. Gorelick said that he was under no obligation to advise me of such, so Mr. Placek went on record and advised me of such, and then further stated that he would be objecting to the questions Mr. Gorelick would be asking me for the rest of the session.

Mr. Gorelick attempted to �Trap� me into admitting that I knew of the 45 day time limit on my ability to file. However, following the heated exchange between he & Mr. Placek, I told him directly that his line of questioning was ridiculous. I told him there was no need to try to trap me� that I freely admit to knowing that I am outside the 45 time limit. I told him, as is evidenced by my letter to the judge, that I was unaware until my discussions with Mr. Jay Coffey that any legal remedy presented itself to me as a citizen. I further told him that as I understand the law now, I had the right to file my motion, to be heard by a judge, who according to the law has the ability to extend the 45 day time period if the interest of justice would be served. And what is more just than a taxpayer attempting to prevent two public agencies from stealing $40 million dollars from the taxpayer�s pockets? I went on to say that the interest of justice would certainly be served, especially if I got the chance to question such players at Mr. Doria, and Ms, Susan Bass Levin, and attempt to expose the backroom deal created to cheat the taxpayer.

After I finished my emphatic statement Mr. Gorelick gave me a sneer as if to say �like I care about the taxpayer� and proceeded with further questions.

Now, it should be noted that I had provided Mr. Gorelick a digital copy of an email exchange that Mr. Jay Coffey and I had in mid February right after I wrote a letter to the Judge in the PA case. That email exchange detailed my questions to Mr. Coffey on what my options were as a concerned citizen. Because I was speaking to Mr. Coffey as a citizen to a public official and not as a client-attorney, I readily handed these over to Mr. Gorelick with no issue. I handed him these digital documents on Wednesday when I was originally subpoenaed. Mr. Gorelick saw fit to quote from these documents and question me on them. This was much to Mr. Placek�s surprise, who had NOT been provided a digital copy of them, and was only provided a paper copy at 5pm during the deposition. Again he strenuously objected to this and again said that the judge would not be pleased at all by this maneuver. At this point he also stated that Mr. Gorelick was very obviously asking me questions that had no relevance or bearing on the PA v BLRA case.

I then said to Mr. Gorelick that I had to agree with Mr. Placek�s statement. I said that I obviously had no inside knowledge about the land deal that occurred between the PA & BLRA. Furthermore I told him that all almost conversations that I had on the matter were public record, and that he was free to read this website as well as the archives of NJ.com to see what my thoughts on the matter were and how they progressed over time.

Mr. Gorelick�s conduct was so surprising that at one point he went so far as to shush his own client, Mr. Selcov, when Mr. Selcov appeared to want to intervene on my behalf.

During the break in deposition I asked Mr. Gorelick when he would be switching sides to come over to the good guys. Surprisingly Mr. Gorelick responded that he believed he is on the side of the good guys. Of course, I pursued this further, asking him how that could be, but he declined to comment further on the matter, only attempting to reassure me that at times when he was younger he had done pro bono work and had worked on such matters as my own. This would lead me to wonder how he could be possibly believe that he was on the right side now? Surely he must be lying to himself or me in this matter.

My deposition lasted just under 2 hours. There was some discussion prior to my deposition amongst the attorney present on accepting the �service� I had provided (notice of my legal action), as supposedly it was not served properly. I told them I was happy to make copies and hand them out to individuals personally if need be. They said no, but wished an extension on their reply until July 22^nd as the judge is due to decide on July 7^th on a motion to dismiss, provide summary judgment or allow the case to proceed. Even in the event that the case is dismissed, my case will still be able to move forward.

The Port Authority delays deposition

neilbarton — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:47:26 GMT

As I mentioned earlier, the Port Authority subpoenaed me to a deposition that was due to happen today at 3:30PM in Newark, NJ. At expense to myself I left work early from Manhattan in order to make it to the deposition on time, only to be told that they had served me the wrong subpoena. They requested I come back tomorrow at 12:30 in the afternoon, I explained to them that this was not possible. I am now tentatively scheduled to be deposed in the Port Authority offices in Manhattan on Friday at 4PM.

I complied with their order to produce any documentation that I had in relation to the case I filed. That documentation consisted of my original and final legal drafts and a short email exchange with city Law Director Jay Coffey, with whom I contacted after writing a letter to the Judge that presides over the PA v. BLRA case expressing my dismay/inability to have a greater voice as a citizen. In that conversation Mr. Coffey informed me that I was incorrect in my assumption that I was unable to get legally involved (as I detailed in the letter to the judge) and provided the legal statues that existed. Other than that email chain, all other communications other persons happened either on this website or in person. As always I hide nothing and continue to press for open & informed debate. I cannot imagine what the PA lawyers would need to know from me beyond this as it is all recorded here. I will post again after my deposition, if it occurs on Friday.

How much did the Bayonne Economic Development Corporation Pay in the Lawsuit?

neilbarton — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:40:53 GMT

The big subject of the day over at the nj.com Bayonne forum is attempting to solve the question: How much did the Bayonne Economic Development Corporation, a quasi autonomous agency, pay out in it's recent lawsuit settlement. You can read about it here.

Well folks, file this one under "RumorMill" because I don't have any hard evidence as of yet... but here is what I have heard from speaking with a few people. The estimates that were mentioned on NJ.com that have varied between $200K & $400K may be high. I have heard that it is more likely that the number is lower, under $100K.

However, even if I were to file an OPRA request to the agency, I will be unable to yield the actual dollar amount won in the suit, as an insurance agency most certainly paid out the bulk of the sum.

Based on this fact alone, I would make an educated guess that the amount of money actually paid by the BEDC was around $10-20K in the form of a deductible insurance payment.

I am going to attempt to follow up on this story however, as I have been told that there may be some interesting information that might be gotten from using OPRA to get a copy of the original complaint.

A question for the Public Advocate Admin

HappyPolski — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:15:03 GMT

Stan Writes: Hi Neil, as the Public Advocate how come you rarely write anything? Just curious!!!

Hey Stan, yes I have been more quiet lately, but that doesn't mean I have stopped caring about the website or it's mission. There are a number of things in the works right now that have taken up a lot of my attention.

As I mentioned last week I am due to be deposed tomorrow by the Port Authority lawyers. Part of my subpoena was to gather documents related to my case, which I have been doing.

In addition to that, my job has been busier than usual. What most people are unaware of is that when I started this website I was between jobs, which meant I had much more time to devote. Since then I have taken on a new consulting opportunity that has been more demanding than I first expected.

Another reason is that I have been looking to improve the format of this website for a while in order to facilitate an easier exchange of ideas. I know that many like how easy it is to use nj.com despite its deletions & censorship. I originally had one redesign idea in mind, but I have sine been in discussions with the owner of http://www.thejcboard.com, who happens to be a friend of mine. He created that website around the same time I created this one. We think that we might be able create a partnership, and I am thinking of utilizing the software that he is using on his website. This would give us more of a discussion board feel, and it would also link up with other area boards. What is taking me time is that I do not want the front page to look the way his does, I want to try and maintain a simple style similar to what I have. Also obviously I want to make sure all the content gets migrated over. Feel free to take a look at his site & play around with it! The discussion forum is here.<

Also, I am still committed to bring an interview with each potential mayor candidate to this website answering public questions. If I can manage it, I may also try to organize a debate, however I need to see what other people would be interested in being involved & helping out.

Finally, I truly appreciate the comments & opinions that everyone brings to this site. It is why I set it up. I think that when I started it was with the intent of being way more opinionated than I have been. However, if I have slowed down in opinion it is only because I realize that I need to listen to everyone else's thoughts more before speaking out.

YITZ SITS!

HappyPolski — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:24:15 GMT

Shortly after the council meeting started one member of the RAT pack informed me that someone who could be Mr. David was sitting in the back. I got up and asked if this stranger was Mr. David. IT WAS! Since the budget meeting was still in progress I just introduced myself and we chatted for about a minute. While I would have liked to speak with him after the meeting I was focused on a couple of questions that I forgot to ask during the meeting. Hopefully we�ll see more of Mr. David.

Repaving Duncan Court in Jersey City

R_Tirado — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:12:01 GMT

For 15 years I have been living on this magnificant brick road. However i am getting tired of my vehicle getting damaged by this unmaintenence road. Its located in Jerset City, NJ. Between West Side and Kennedy Boulevard, Duncan Court. In which a lot of us call it the yellow brick unwanted road.

Who can the street we all live in contact as far as repaving this wanted road.?

please contact me at my cell 551 208 4225 or e-mail me at RicardoEtirado@yahoo.com

Repaving Duncan Court in Jersey City

R_Tirado — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:11:26 GMT

A wolf in sheep's clothing???

LDePinto — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:43:33 GMT

New Jersey is slowly but surely taking away the rights of its citizens to vote on one of the largest spending of NJ property taxes.�� Gotta laugh though.....�This doesn't apply to Bayonne . We have�been stripped of any�say in our BOE or its budget.

�http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/stories/in...xml&coll=9

Municipal Council Caucus and Special Meeting Agendas for the meeting of 05/14/08

HappyPolski — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:28:39 GMT

Hi Folks:The office has been busy lately so my focus has been on getting projects off my desk and unto someone else's! I planned on sending this out Sunday but, as usual, my connection to the office workstation got clobbered. And since these files are on my C drive at the office I had no alternative but to wait until this now.

There are two meetings this week. The regularly scheduled Council Meeting on Wednesday at 7:30PM and a special meeting on the budget on Thursday at 5:30PM.

From my perspective although the Administration is working to reduce the size of the City government, a majority of the reduction stems from BLRA monies. And although the cry is NO BOND SWAPS, in my reality the City usurped the BLRA cash-on-hand and is forcing them to issue bonds to cover their debt. So, someone is still generating more debt.

However, I do want to commend the Malloy Administration for making the effort to regain control over the budget. I sense that it will be a slow and painful process.

Hope to see you at either or both meetings! Be there or be square!!

Warmest Regards,

Stan

municipalcouncilspecialagenda_20080514.pdf

municipalcouncilcaucusagenda_20080514.pdf

The Port Authority issues me a subpoena

neilbarton — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:21:30 GMT

I have been officially subpoenaed by the Port Authority in their case against the BLRA et al. This is a curious move to me, as I already have filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against them looking to intervene and/or consolidate their case. It is uncertain to me as to what light I may be able to shed on their case, as I was not involved in any way in the sale of land or negotiations or any issues pertaining to it. Perhaps this is an intimidation move on their part in order to dissuade me from the case I have filed. As of right now, I have not yet decided how to respond to the subpoena.