Intro of Laurel and Hardy

I would like to introduce to my readers two part time Point Boro residents. They are Stan and Oliver (who Stan often calls Ollie). Stan and Oliver have been friends nearly all of their lives. They were born, raised, worked and married in Camden, NJ. With kids all grown up and both of them widowers, Stan and Oliver decided to share the cost of buying a home in the Boro. They have held on to their homes in Camden and spend about four months each year in Camden and rest at the Jersey Shore.

Following is one of their recent conversations. Let’s join Stan and Oliver…

“Hey Stan, looks like the Council is giving us new cops”, Oliver quipped while reading the paper over one of the breakfast’s they always had together. Stan reacted immediately. “Well, it’s about time! I am sick of the scary feeling I have walking around town. The murder rate is too high, the number of rapes is up again, and everyone is talking about the awful new wave of drive-by shootings”.  Stan, “What in the world are you talking about?” Oliver asked. “You just said we were getting new cops” Stan responded. “And, they should help with some of the stuff like that”. No Stanley, “Not new cops for Camden...for Point Pleasant”! “Point Pleasant?” Stan exclaimed! But, we don’t see murders, rapes and shootings in Point Pleasant, do we? “No, of course not Stanley”, said Oliver. “But apparently, the Boro Council knows about something coming up”. “How could that be Ollie?” asked Stan. “I don’t know, answered Ollie, and neither does anybody else”!

Point Pleasant has 30+ policemen…that’s right over thirty (30) police officers for three (3) square miles. Stan and Ollie got it right…incredulous indignation about why a small little Boro needs thirty cops. There is no need for so many police in the Boro…Point is not Camden!

The newspapers reported the following comment from the Boro Mayor Schroeder… “I am glad to announce the employment of two new policemen, it is an outward sign that the Boro is in the midst of a financial recovery”. I want every reader to focus on the Mayor’s opinion, which is that he measures the fiscal condition of the Boro by how many policemen we have. It would be hard to script a more idiotic and disconnected statement. This is precisely how the Borough got into financial trouble to begin with…too much overspending in areas that are not high priorities. The Police Chief is guilty of “empire building”, and the Council is guilty of irresponsible use of tax dollars.

It is hard to believe that the Boro Council learned nothing from the fiscal disaster in which the Boro has found itself. Yes it is true we had almost forty (40) cops in the Boro in the past. And, that is among the reasons the Boro is broke! What got the Boro in financial difficulty was too many public employees, too many salaries to pay, and precious little to show for the extremely high taxation burdening most residents. It would be exactly correct to wonder what is in the minds of the Council members.

“Stan do you remember when Councilman Goss started meeting with local business people and the PP Chamber of Commerce screamed bloody murder, because they were not consulted?, asked Ollie. “Yea, I do”, Ollie, “And the best Goss could come up with to connect the businesses along Route 88 was to install Christmas lights”. “They made the same mistake again! The Council, through an Advisory Committee that no one knew about or who served on the Committee, decided that they are going to have a wine festival in River Park, Ollie told Stan. “But, Stan, that’s not the best part of the story”… “A PP Chamber of Commerce representative came to the last Council meeting to let them know that the business people in the Chamber thought the wine festival was a PERFECTLY AWFUL idea”! Stan immediately responded… “This Council simply can’t take NO for an answer, and they seem to think they can make a go of it without the support of the Chamber”! Ollie, “just one question, do you think cheese will be served?”

The Boro Council is simply clueless about what they are supposed to be doing. What’s worse is that this is the second time they insulted the local Chamber of Commerce, who should be a close ally. The Council has no political sense whatsoever.

During the dialogue with the Chamber representative Mayor Schroeder tried to convince everyone, including the Chamber representative, that the idea was a good one and would pay off for the businesses in town. How he would know is anybody’s guess, since he does not own a business in town. In fact, not one single person on the Council owns a business in town. That’s why they should rely heavily on the Chamber for advice on business issues. The Chamber person publicly disagreed by stating that local businesses would rather do business in their own shops…not in a park! This wine festival deal can not work without the support of local business, period! 

One last thing...Should everyone know how much this is going to cost? If the local businesses don’t support the festival, who will foot the bill for set-up, supplies, police coverage and of course the wine…the taxpayers undoubtedly! What do you think?

Another Job for the Council to Bungle

OK, let’s take a quick look at negotiations with the police unions.

First, with the exception of the Chief of Police, every single member of the Boro police force is a union member. In the case of the Chief, he talks and behaves more like a union member than a confidential employee and management representative. I am wondering if there was meetings with the lone management representative, the Chief, to discuss the contract negotiations, obtain his views on “management concerns”, and his general views on operations as they relate to work rules, overtime pay, etc. Based on the track record of the Council, I bet there were no such confidential management discussions.

Second, I am wondering if there was a Council meeting to discuss the police negotiations. For example, were parameters for the negations discussed? Were the Council members queried about their opinions about the operation of the police force, and what parameters for the negotiations that they would individually feel comfortable with supporting. I doubt it.

Third, not one person on the Council negotiating team has any public sector negotiations experience. It is very interesting that Councilman Leitner is quoted as saying that police negotiators “are doing what they think is right”…What in the world does that mean and how does that assist the Council in reaching an agreement? Councilman Sabosik is quoted as saying that the police force personnel are “hardworking”. What does that mean and according to what metric?

Fourth, what analysis has the Council undertaken? Has the Council negotiating team done any comparative analysis with neighboring towns, not only in terms of salary, but overtime costs, work rules, and general management prerogatives? Probably not. The League of Municipalities produces literature on negotiations with police unions, and a sample contract. They also offer courses on public sector negotiations. Has the Council negotiating team visited any of these resources? Probably not.

Fifth, the Council negotiating team has already broken a cardinal rule of negotiations, in that they are working exclusively from proposals that have been submitted by the unions. Does that mean that there is not one single thing that management does not want to change in the entire contract? What that does mean is that the negotiating team is reacting to union proposals. They are, in essence, negotiating with themselves using an existing contract as the starting point. That also means just a lot of “no’s” and “maybe’s”. No wonder the talks are headed to arbitration.

Even the most casual observer of the police salary schedule must note that it is extremely top heavy. That’s because most of the union members have been on the job for some time, and the Council let the old timer negotiators put the money where ever they wanted to. As a result, the schedule is lopsided and the Council let it get that way. This is dangerous because at some point the current union members will retire in a relatively short time frame. With beginning salaries having been neglected, the Boro may find itself in a position of not being able to attract younger highly qualified personnel.

The salaries of the unionized police are very high. A person with just eight years of service makes almost $100,000 in salary alone. If benefits are added in, the total cost of employment balloons to well over $150,000. And, that does not include overtime. How many private sector employees in any industry make that kind of money in just eight years?

Let’s be real about the police force in this Boro. Does anyone remember a murder in the Boro? The death of a policeman in the line of duty? A bank heist? No, which means that the police force is relegated to patrolling endlessly in squad cars, attending to petty crimes and misdemeanors, and issuing a lot of traffic violations. Not very heavy lifting as far as police work goes. So, what is the rationale for the high salaries? It is not for extremely dangerous work. It is not for extremely sophisticated investigations? It is not because no one wants the work. So, what are the high salaries for exactly?

The Council should take careful note that the Boro is broke! The Boro was also broke the last time of these negotiations, but didn’t know it. Now the Council does know it, so there can be no excuses for the giveaways like the last negotiations.

The last negotiations were conducted by attorney Dasti. He did a lousy and unprofessional job. When questioned, he could not answer the most rudimentary questions about the proposed contract. The Council that voted on and approved the proposed contract the last time was clueless about what they were voting on and what the costs would be. There was little or no comparative analysis, no management proposals, and as a result, the taxpayers were sold down the river. Those negotiations were a contributing factor to the necessity for a tax increase in the middle of a deep recession.

Now the negotiations are headed for arbitration. That requires a good deal of preparation. The Council has to present a well researched cogent proposal. Unless there are some proposals from a management perspective, the Council will be faced with the prospect that the arbitrator will be working from the union proposal. This is not a tenable position for the Council to be in.

There is good reason for the taxpayers to be concerned about these negotiations. No Council member has any negotiating experience. The Boro administrator is incompetent in these matters and his loyalties are suspect. The Chief is more of a union guy than a management representative, and the Boro counsel did an incompetent job last time in the negotiations. So, where will the Council turn for assistance and guidance. There is reason to believe nowhere, and that is where the problem lies.

Are the taxpayers headed for even higher salaries for police, which are already outrageous and another tax increase? The Council appears to be terrified of its employees, because their support is important to re-election. What do you think?

What Does Accountability in Governance Mean?

This opinion piece is the last in the series based on the the article about former Rutgers University, Greg Schiano, and his system for success...Trust, Believe and Accountability.

Accountability...now there is a word that no politician seems to understand. Let's take a quick look at the responses to some questions about governance in Point Pleasant.

Question #1: Who's is responsible for the fact that Point Pleasant finances were and continue to be in a state of disarray?
Answer: We don't know exactly. Probably those who left office. But, we are working hard to address the problem.
Question #2: What exactly does working hard on "it" mean? We have a million dollar debt and the Borough is working from cash flow to stay ahead of the fiscal challenges.
Answer: Well, we paid to call in our former auditor and former finance director to try to get a handle on the Borough's finances. As you may know, we found out that we depleted our reserves, our surplus, and the budget was running in the red. We averted having to institute employee furloughs, because we found excess funds in other accounts. We also voted to raise taxes to try to make up for some of the deficit spending. We are still working on a plan on how to recover financially. We hired a part time new finance person to try to help us sort through the challenges.
Question #3: Is someone among the professional staff being held accountable for the lack of orderly financial record keeping, the lack of oversight of the accounting practices and procedures and the lack of an early warning system that could have foretold of the pending financial difficulties?
Answer: No
Question #4: Just so we understand, the Borough had a highly compensated administrator, a highly compensated finance director, and an auditor, and none of these people knew anything, or if they did know didn't report it to the Council?
Answer: That is correct.
Question #5: One follow up question, no one among all the Council members asked any questions about the financial reporting systems to the Council that may have led to a full view of the extent of the problem?
Answer: No
Question #6: What is the plan to address this problem, so that this kind of thing never happens again?
Answer: As we said, we are working on a plan, but we have spent a lot of time on garbage collection?
Question #7: The citizens of the Borough are paying a surcharge on their water and sewer bills. Why has that occurred?
Answer: There was a miscalculation of the cost of water and sewer charges and we had to go back and correct the error. The only way to do that was through a surcharge.
Question #8: Is anyone being held  accountable for the error?
Answer: No
Question #9: Why is that? After all, the Borough has a highly compensated Director of Public Works...shouldn't he have had some responsibility to check the figures for water and sewer charges and brought the shortcomings to the attention of the Council?
Answer: Maybe, but that didn't happen.
Question #10 The auditor reported that the collection of taxes has dropped significantly in the Borough. Collections were typically in the mid to high 90% range and fell into the mid 80% range. Why did this happen?
Answer: The Council didn't know about this problem.
Question #11: Why didn't the Council know about this problem? Has anyone been held accountable for the lack of notification to the Council?
Answer: The problem was not reported to us until the auditor brought it to our attention. No, no one has been held accountable.
Question #12 What is the plan to address this problem, and to establish a reporting structure for the collection of taxes?
Answer: We are working on it.
Question #13 The mayor ran on a platform to address the problem of workforce issues, and more specifically, grievances filed by employees. There are still grievances being filed, Why?
Answer: We don't know.
Question #14 Is there a formal professional performance evaluation plan in place for the most highly compensated personnel, i.e., the Borough Administrator and Chief of Police?
Answer: No

Just from these few questions, the Council has outdone the Keystone Cops. Just ask yourself a simple question...Wouldn't you like to have a job where no one oversees your work product, there is no  accountability for errors you make, you don't have any responsibility to report on problems or challenges in your area of work, you are highly compensated, have a great pension and benefits, absolute job security, and no metrics to evaluate your success or failure? If that sounds great to you, all you have to do is get a job working for Point Pleasant Borough.

Our Council needs to learn what the word accountability actually means!

It appears to me that most people elect representatives to plan a future, address issues and solve problems...not bob and weave simply to get re-elected.


President Obama in 2008: "If I can't solve America's financial problems in my first term in office then I will be a one term President!"
President Obama in 2012: " I know that I said I would solve America's financial problems in my first term or face being a one term President, but I didn't know the extent of the problems. I deserve a second term to finish what I started!" Does such a refrain sound familiar to all of us in the Borough?


What do you think?

Not So Fast Mr. Robinson

Eugene Robinson recently opined in an Asbury Park Press Commentary of February 24, 2012, Diplomacy, not War in Iran, is the only option to address Iran’s relentless march toward attaining nuclear bomb capability. He went on to write about how unwise it would be for the US to support Israel in military action against Iran’s nuclear program. He also suggests that the Iran’s regime is not irrational despite the rhetoric.

Robinson has argued in the past that publicly funded programs to assist Afro Americans recover from the horrors and atrocities of slavery, and its aftermath of discrimination and inequality are absolutely necessary. In fact, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to these ends. He has supported programs such as Affirmative Action, public assistance housing and disproportional public funding for schools in urban areas where Afro Americans make up a large part of the population. Mr. Robinson has fended off any criticism of these programs by writing that no man should question the need and appropriateness of these programs unless he has walked in the shoes of an Afro American.

He may have a point about the inability of others to comprehend the disadvantages Afro Americans have had to endure as a direct result of slavery, but likewise Mr. Robinson should not presume to understand the mindset of the Jews of Israel unless he has walked in their shoes.

In the history of man, those practicing no other religion have endured the depths of discrimination and mistreatment leading to the ultimate price for a belief, extermination. How could Mr. Robinson presume to understand the fear and anxiety that the Jews in Israel have to endure each and every day? How could he suggest that Israel should simply wait and see what happens? It is not as though the wailings of the Iranian regime are unfamiliar. The very same rhetoric came from Adolph Hitler, a depraved and lunatic leader during the 1930’s and 40's in Nazis Germany. That rhetoric was roundly ignored throughout the world, and we all know how that ended.

What Mr. Robinson seems to suggest is that the Israeli’s should set aside their fears, the prospect of annihilation, ignore what has been said by the leadership in Iran, and embrace the concept that ultimately that leadership will act in their best interests. He further suggests that those best interests would not include attacking Israel. He seems to base his opinion on the notion that the irrational leadership in Iran will suddenly become rational. It is precisely this type of reasoning that lead to the Holocaust. Hitler did not act in the best interests of Germans, because he was a lunatic with a grand scheme of a thousand year Third Reich. The Iranian leadership will not act in the best interests of the Iranian people, because they have a vision of the restoration of the Persian Empire. The Jews of Israel are as much an ideal target to gin up hatred and hostility in the Mid East, as the Jews of Europe were for Hitler.

Mr. Robinson’s point of view is for America to stand clear of the Iranian crisis and discourage the Israel’s from taking any overt action. That is the precise course of action that was suggested for America prior to WWII.

Mr. Robinson, for evil to succeed all it takes is for good men and women to do nothing!

Something To Believe In

Ask yourself these questions...What has the Point Pleasant Borough Council given or asked you to believe in?  Have you ever heard an inspiring speech from any Council member? Have you ever received a cogent, profound, and well thought out idea from any Council member? Do you have any idea about what the Council as a whole, or any individual member really thinks about the direction of the Borough? Is there a strategic plan with specific objectives for the direction of the Borough?

If you are like me, the answer to all these questions is "NO". That being said, the only other question to be asked is "WHY". The answer lies somewhere in between the Borough Council is and always has been a reactive body, and sheer incompetence (not the kind of malicious incompetence, but rather the incompetence that comes form not knowing what you do not know). The fact that the staff is in the same boat doesn't help much either.

It is very hard to understand why there is such staunch opposition to strategic discussion and planning among the Council members. Let's turn to the literature to find a clue...

A basic assumption is that government in general, including local government, is bureaucratic in nature. That is to say, there are prescribed ways of doing things (laws), and there is a long history of doing things the same way time after time (written and unwritten procedures of conformity). Although the following contrast table is used to describe the conflicts among different orientations, it nonetheless, applies to the conflicts between the bureaucracy in government and individual Council members.

     Individual Council Member Orientation                            Bureaucratic Orientation                      

                  Service to the Public                                                              Service to the Organization

       Colleague-Oriented Reference Group                                                  Hierarchical Orientation

           Autonomy in Decision Making                                                         Disciplined Compliance

       Self Imposed Standards of Control                                              Subordination to the Organization

Herein lies part of the problem. Individual Council members see themselves as servants of the public, with a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the community in cooperation with other members of the Council. In order to best discharge this responsibility they view autonomy of decision making and self imposed standards of control as essential ingredients. However, these needs for good governance are frustrated by the bureaucracy, which requires service to the organization, not the people, hierarchical decision making and stern adherence to compliance with and subjugation to the organization.

These are REAL conflicts and bear heavily on each Council member. As a result, governance is frozen in place (doing things the same way over and over and expecting different results). For example, in turn the majority within the Council ushers in "their" team of consultants, and the minority gripes about it. There is an expectation that some time in the future this will all be different without actually ever addressing the problem. Council members can not act the way they should, because they are fearful of the bureaucracy and the way things have always been done. Good practices are unattainable, and bad practices are copied over and over.

Another example may make this point more clear... The Council may wish to meet to conduct strategic planning, which is a positive hallmark of all organizations, but can not do so because it is believed the Council can not meet to plan without public notice, inviting the public and conducting nearly all business in public. As silly as it sounds, the Point Pleasant Borough Council members actually believe the forgoing to be true. They cite state law as the determinant for this stringent management process. As you can readily observe, this is a classic struggle emanating from the the conflict between individual and bureaucratic orientation.

Does anyone really believe that the state enacted a law that made it impossible for sound organizational management (in this case a governmental entity)? I doubt that the law was structured in such a manner, because the state legislature often meets to plan, sometimes in groups, sometimes by party affiliation and sometimes all together in private. The only reason that the Council does not plan may be for the sole reason that someone long ago proclaimed it to be taboo, and mindless obedience has followed.

As I have often said to the Council, there is a reason why Spring Lake looks the way it does, why property values are unaffected by recessions, and even the smallest hunk of land sells for millions of dollars...A group of people PLANNED it that way!

President and Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "Plans are nothing, but planning is everything". That quote came from a man who led the way to the greatest land and sea military assault in all of history, which came to be known as D-Day.

The Council is guilty of giving us nothing to believe in as citizens and taxpayers. The Council is a reactive body mired in bureaucracy. The Mayor has not assumed a position of leadership. The ship is foundering with no apparent hope of righting itself and charting a course for the future. What do you think?

Let's Talk About Roles and Responsibilities

How dare anyone ask about police salaries? Just ask Police Chief Kevin O'Hara! O'Hara is an incompetent manager if he has no knowledge of the human resources concept of diminishing returns. There is a well documented body of knowledge of what happens to people when they focus on work-related tasks too long. Briefly, they can become disoriented and very tired, all of which can lead to very bad decisions and actions. I have been there myself. When working at U.S. Steel, I would occasionally try to put in 12-16 hours of overtime. By the end of the shift, I was like a dishrag...not much value to the company or myself. And, I was 20 something at the time. In case you are interested, the officer who earned more than just about everyone else in town ($200,000), Lt. Dikun, is no "spring chicken". O"Hara does not understand his role as a manager, and worse yet he was arrogant in his defense of Dikun. He apparently  has confused who pays his salary, and is further confused about the public's entitlement to ask any question they like about a town's operations and where their tax dollars are going.

You may remember Dikun's name from an episode in Point Pleasant Boro's recent past. Dikun sued Point Pleasant Boro in Superior Court, because he believed proper public notice had not been on occasion of a Council meeting to approve the budget. HE LOST! It would be fair to say Dikun is a cop who has too much time on his hands, and way too much money!

Chris Goss declared the actions of the Republican majority on Point Pleasant Boro's Council "insincere" and "shameless". These comments came in the wake of party-line votes to reject the Mayor's professional appointments and instead make their own. I suppose how voting is perceived is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently, Mr.Goss had no problem with the fact the Democratic majority did the very same thing two years before (and he voted as part of the block). There seems to be something inherently wrong with being lectured by someone who doesn't like the fit of the shoe when it is on the other foot. 

As far as Mr. Dasti's appointment goes...he is the attorney that negotiated a very generous raise for police and Boro employees in the middle of a hard recession. When asked a few questions about the settlement terms he appeared to have not even been there...couldn't remember a thing. He also has been around so long he likes to answer questions for the Council...almost like he is in charge. As the saying goes, when you have been around a long time you start to think you own the place. He DOESN'T and the hope is he will remember that!

Getting Along With Others

The Coast Star reported that Point Pleasant's Mayor, "had no problem with dissolving the shared services agreement with Point Pleasant Beach regarding the municipal courts". No discussion at a Council meeting, no comment from other Councilpersons...just it was all right by him.

There are nearly 600 separate municipalities in N.J. For a small state like N.J. that number is "off the charts". Most other states have many fewer separate legal entities. The reason? Simply because operating a lot of municipalities is very expensive and mostly redundant. Nonetheless, the Borough Mayor is among those who favors "home-rule" over efficiency and costs.

New Jersey has too many layers of bureaucracy...there is local government, county government, and state government. These layers cost money and lots of it. The layers of government and the tax dollars needed to support them has driven our state to near bankruptcy. The number of school districts is equally high and has contributed to insane property tax levels.

 As a reader, there is only one question you need ask yourself...Am I better or worse off living in a state that has the nation's highest number of local municipalities and school districts. If N.J.'s taxes weren't the highest in the nation, or if the schools were the best in the nation, you might say, "the structure is worth the expense". Unfortunately, N.J has the highest taxes in the nation (even surpassing "the Peoples Republic of California"), but we do not have the finest educational system in the nation. That being said, we here in N.J. are not getting much of a bang for all our bucks!

Enter Mr. Point Pleasant Mayor...he says consolidation is not a good idea. What does he base that on? Well, partly on the point of view of the shared court administrative staff. They suggest the beach got the raw end of the deal financially...and this is coming from a person who works for the Borough (in part). Sounds like she favors the Beach (in full). When did employees get the right to speak out on issues of "fairness" about policy issues that are supposed to be the exclusive domain of the elected officials. The judge also had "concerns". Just what they are was not explained.

 Once again the Mayor was speaking off the top of his head. Letting the shared service agreement go by the wayside is a perfectly awful idea for all the reasons stated above. If there are things about the agreement that need to be discussed and worked out, then Council representatives should meet and work them out. To toss the whole framework in the trash makes no sense whatsoever.
 
More shared services and consolidation is what N.J. needs to get our finances in order and put to best use precious resource dollars. What do you think?

Some Afterthoughts to the Last Post

I recently read Mark R. Levin's Ameritopia. I highly recommend the book as excellent reading, and a provocative resource on governance. Among the things that the book encouraged me to do was reread Plato's Republic, Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Karl Marx and Frederick Engle's Communist Manifesto and John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. My reread of these literary pieces was with an entirely new perspective, and resulted in this new post.

I remember that each of them were required reading as part of my education. But, I can't remember when and in what sequence I was required to read them. On reflection, they should have been read in historical sequence. Each of the authors lived in very different historical times. Despite that, however, the books have a remarkably similar theme...the creation of the perfect way to govern people, which is another way of saying the creation of Utopia. It is clear to me that the literary works of these men should form the basis of the political science segment of the study of history in our schools. A classroom discussion of the ideas of these philosophers, and a subsequent discussion of their impact on the thinking of many Americans would be a very useful basis for an  understanding of governance. I also contend they should be required reading for every elected official.

I keep asking myself the same question...Why would someone with little or no education about the very complex area of governance seek public office in the very area they know very little about? To me, it is akin to me applying for a position of diamond cutter, a trade for which I have no education or training. Since no one in my family has ever practiced that trade, who would hire me? The answer is simple...no one, especially with no family in the trade. Yet, we often elect people, who have direct control over our lives, but have absolutely no education or training on governance. Even worse, many elected officials actually resist education and training about governance even after they are elected. I just don't buy the notion that we can always sweep the uneducated from office if they under perform, because the harm they may do is too often irrevocable.

Regretfully, I believe that the current and past members of the Council of Point Pleasant Borough have been are seriously deficient in their understanding of governance, and therefore, have made mistake after mistake at the expense of those governed.

 Permit me to use a simple example. Some years ago, the Council decided to build a skateboard park. The reason for this government sourced undertaking was that it would provide a gathering place for children away from private property (think home driveways, shopping malls and commercial parking lots) and public places (think streets, and sidewalks). At first blush it sounded like a good idea, but where should it be built? The Council decided to build the park with public funds on prime commercial real estate.

What they did not consider follows:

• Without supervision, the skateboard park is as dangerous as skating in the street... Think $ for supervision
• To insure the Borough against liability claims... Think $ for insurance
• The facility has to be maintained... Think $ for upkeep
• The noise created at the site selected has raised the ire of nearby residents... Think time and angst.
• The facility is lighted... Think $ for electricity

But, that's not the worst of the decision. Why does the Borough even own prime commercial real estate? Why did the Borough feel it was necessary to use public funds for this purpose instead of relying on private enterprise?

I believe the reasons are quite simple. The elected officials who approved the skateboard park believed that the proper role of government to provide services that they think will make people happy and satisfied. According to this philosophy, government should undertake projects that may not economically feasible for business entities...all for the common good. The Council members of the time felt it necessary for the borough to build the park, because no one else would.

I suggest to you that the skateboard park is a perfect exemplification of a lack of basic understanding of the Council at the time of the role of government and the mechanics of fostering and encouraging private enterprise as opposed to replacing it. A much better approach would have been to use tax policy to achieve the same ends without the direct use of public funding (now and in the future). For example, the Council could have advertised tax incentives to encourage an entrepreneur to build and operate a skateboard park. In fact, tax incentives could have been used to partially fund the ongoing cost of such a park, and thereby, make the cost of use well within the reach of everyone.

You may conclude this example is a small thing...not a big deal. I say no! I say this example is a reflection of uneducated and untrained people in the seats of governance. A lack of understanding of governance and the lack of education led directly to a tax increase in the middle of a recession, a surcharge on water billing, financial disarray, a directionless way forward, and the stubborn refusal to develop a strategic plan for the Borough. What do you think?

TRUST, BELIEVE and ACCOUNTABILITY

Greg Schiano recently announced that he is leaving as Head Football Coach of Rutgers University. His parting comments included reference to his trademark T.B.A. for success, Trust, Belief, and Accountability.  If you're like me, and a lot of other Americans, you are asking for the same thing of government officials that the Coach asked of his players, his coaches and himself. I want elected representatives I can Trust to represent the best interests of all the people. I want elected representatives I can Believe in to do the right thing, including placing public interests above personal and political interests. And, I want elected representatives that are Accountable for their actions and those of  the employees that serve under approved policies.
I think it would be fair to measure the performance of the Point Pleasant Borough Council using Coach Schiano's standard of T.B.A. My next three posts will focus on each one of the Schiano ingredients for success.

Trust

I think serving as an elected government official requires trust. What does that mean? Well, it means always placing the interests of the public ahead of all other interests, including self interest. Can we trust the elected Council in Point Pleasant Borough? You be the judge!

Let's take a brief look at the recent record...

• Aside from the state of NJ being flat broke, Point Pleasant Borough is also flat broke. How did it get that way? Apparently no one knows, or at least no one is accountable for the condition. The finances of the Borough were in such a state of disarray that it took months just to figure out where all the tax dollars were exactly. As a result, the Council proclaimed that they would have to impose employee furloughs and other severe cost cutting measures. Then, magically there appeared "uncounted" revenue that made the furloughs unnecessary. All that can be gathered from recent Council meetings is they are still trying to figure out the Borough's finances.

          How could this be? After all, we live in the most heavily taxed state in the entire United States.

• An easy way to address the financial dilemma in Point is to use the taxing power of the Council. Would they do that in the middle of what President Obama has declared as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? The answer...Absolutely, and they did! The tax increase has covered up the terrible Borough financial condition at least enough to drive it off the last three agendas.

• The Council found out quite by accident that the percentage of taxes collected had fallen precipitously, from 97% to 88%. No warning, no reports...just a finding of the new auditor. What corrective action has been taken? Nobody knows...no public report has been given.

• The Council discovered that the water and sewer costs and billings were grossly underestimated. To correct the problem there would have to be a surcharge imposed for a year to correct the revenue shortfall. Nobody knows how this happened. It just did.

• Last year the Council approved union employee contracts (Police, etc.) after several years of labor negotiations. The settlement was for 11/2% in each of three years plus whatever eligible employees would receive as part of the longevity salary schedule. When asked about pay raises in a recessionary period when most Borough taxpayers were either being laid off or living with pay cuts (even Social Security recipients had received no cost of living adjustments for two full years), the response was that the Council was concerned that an arbitrator may have awarded even bigger pay increases. This response seemed to presuppose that arbitrators didn't know there was a recession was going on, and property values were plummeting like a stone in water.

          As it turns out the Council at the time the salary increases were approved did not know that the       
          Borough was flat broke with no excess funds, no reserves...literally broke. In other words, they spent
          taxpayer money they did not have.

          But, that is only part of the tragedy. Part of the concept of multiple year union contracts is to get
          expensive, disruptive and time consuming negotiations "off the table" for a while. In addition, such
          agreements are designed to relieve the angst of negotiations and promote employer-employee
          tranquility and harmony. That is not to be in this Borough, as the Council and the employee groups
          are right back in the throes of contract negotiations...no break in time or expense. Why is this so?
          Because the last contract agreed to just last year was two years late. This condition is unacceptable.

The last set of candidates ran on a platform all of this would be corrected. Corrected how? Nobody knows, because not a word has been reported about any of these missteps at any of the last six Council meetings.

What has preoccupied the Council meetings over the last six months is trash. First, the Mayor suggested a "bundle" (no pun intended) of money could be saved by collecting trash using full time internal staff. After considering that would require hiring more staff, add another collective bargaining unit, and purchasing trucks and other equipment he had to admit the idea was a bad one. Then, several Council members came up with the idea of a shared service agreement with Brick. When asked if Brick had the excess capacity to collect Point's trash with existing personnel and equipment, the answer was "yes". When asked if an agreement would have to be multiple years, thus encumbering the Borough, the answer was "no". When asked if there were any yearly escalators in the proposal, the answer was "no". In the meantime, the Democratic majority at the time went ahead with plans for a bond issue to raise about $850,000 for robocans (remember the Borough is broke). You see, in order to partner with Brick, Point would have to buy robocans, as the Brick collection process is automated. The Republican minority objected on the grounds that bidding for trash collection was still in progress, and the least expensive means to collect trash was still undetermined. Undaunted by the criticism, the Council went forward with the bond vote on first reading. At the very next meeting the bond vote was set. Meanwhile the bids had still not been received. Regardless, the Mayor put the bond up for a vote. The Council deadlocked at three to three along party lines. What the Mayor had not counted on was the fact he could not vote to break a tie on a bond issue. A week later the bids were opened, and the least expensive proposal was from the current trash collection company. Furthermore, it turned out that Brick did not have the capacity to collect Point's trash with existing personnel and they would have to buy used trucks from Rumson. Accordingly, Brick proposed a three year agreement with yearly escalators of 3%. Everything that had been explained to taxpayers was absolutely wrong.

The outcome? Trash will be collected by the current contractor, except services will be reduced. The Council has decided to experiment with single weekly trash collection during the summer months (it used to be twice each week). Lots of political bickering, misinformation, and deception to what end?...Same old, same old! In fact, the Council is still arguing among themselves as to just who should get the credit for reducing the cost of trash collection.

Even to the most casual observer, it appears that the Democrats were wedded to the notion of robocans to such a degree, they were willing to short circuit the bidding process by moving forward with the bonding process without knowing what the bids would be. If a Democrat had been elected in November, Point would undoubtedly have robocans and trash would be collected by Brick. Why were the Democrats so wedded to robocans? No one really knows, because so much information was withheld until the last moment, and up until then, the information given to taxpayers was wrong.

The Republicans on the Council managed to forestall the trash collection change, but not without considerable consternation. Political barbs went back and forth. Is there little wonder that when the Republicans captured the majority, the first thing they did was reject all the proposed political appointments of the Democratic Mayor.

In terms of trust the Council image has been badly damaged. There appears to be considerable in-fighting, a series of very, very serious mistakes, miscues, and even negligence. The Council seems immune to these truths. When challenged, the Council members are defensive, arrogant and even impudent. Some among them apparently see themselves as blameless for all the mistakes and miscues, and do not even feel obliged to share the plans for a "way out". It appears that the Council is less interested in representing what is best for the taxpayers, and more concerned about power and control.

Does the council deserve the trust of the Point Pleasant Borough taxpayers? This writer thinks that public trust is something this Council is lacking, and the Council needs to focus a lot of attention on rebuilding it, literally from scratch. What do you think?

















   

Why This Blog?

The genesis of this blog is a near absence of reporting on what the Point Pleasant Borough Council actually does, and regretfully, what it doesn't do!
Sure there is reporting in the newspapers about the Council affairs, and one report is even on-line, but such reporting is extremely limited. There are several reasons for this fact...Lack of print space and the lack of resources to cover the workings of any local governing body.
You are probably asking yourself several questions by now...Why would I have any interest in a blog like this? And, do I really want to spend any time on learning what my local government is doing or not doing?
The answer to both questions is the same. The most valuable possession of most people and the largest investment most people make in their lifetime is their HOME. The group of people who have the greatest influence over that possession and investment is the Borough Council. If you want to buy a home in Point Pleasant you have to pay to visit the records maintained by the Borough (and by the way, the Borough Council valued your home and property). Add a fence...Borough Council, put in a pool...Borough Council, chop down a tree...Borough Council, and the list goes on. However, all the foregoing pales by comparison when one considers the areas of control that make the ultimate difference in home ownership and residency...TAXES AND FEES (think water and sewer rates, among others). The Borough Council has unrestrained power to tax, set water and sewer rates and set all other fees within the Borough. Knowing what the Borough Council is doing and not doing is of the utmost importance of every homeowner, business owner and other type of resident.
So, here we go...a new blog exclusively devoted to Point Pleasant Borough government...the good, bad and ugly in a fair and balanced way, but most importantly, telling how things really are. The plan is to publish a report on local government every week. The report will be opinion oriented, much the same as the Bill O'Reilly cable TV show each night. Like that show, opinions will be solicited, polls will be taken, and the issues will be debated. While the Point Pleasant Guardian is a computer based opinion outlet, who knows, there may be a print version some day for those who don't use computers. 
Finally, this new blog is designed with one goal in mind...Watching Out For The Folks...and that means you.
Hopefully, you will find time to read and participate in this new blog, and get in the know about YOUR community, and the group of people who are guiding your personal destiny.

Welcome and Good Reading