Point Pleasant Local Government... In Trouble?

Look, people with good intentions and good spirits can still get into a lot of trouble. This is the case of the Point Pleasant Borough Council.
How does this happen? Well for starters, being an elected official is a time-consuming, and often thankless VOLUNTEER effort. Then too, people get elected and they are under the mistaken impression that all they have to do is show up at meetings, use common sense in making decisions and try to be true to their values and beliefs. Elected officials soon find out that that common sense and long held beliefs don't help them very much. Instead they discover that politics is a different world and there is a lot to learn! Most elected officials then resort to learning by observation, i.e., watching and observing what happens at meetings...formal and informal. This approach has some value, but not that much. Take for example that the Council was not entirely sure about the law regarding the vote of the Mayor, and neither did the Council's attorney. The confusion occurred when the Mayor cast a vote on the budget approval as a tie-breaker. More recently the Council made a mistake about about appointing a Special Committee. Obviously, learning by observation got newly elected Council members in an embarrassing situation. Misimpressions about and misinterpretations of the law governing municipalities has gotten the Borough Council in trouble time and time again. Legal counsel of the Borough is partly to blame for these problems.
Despite repeated suggestions about how to become "educated " about how boards and councils operate successfully and establish "good practices", the Council has resisted learning. The business of government operations is complex and there is no substitute for reading and attending classes on the subject. There are many very good books on the subject of local governance and the League of Municipalities has regular classes on all the aspects of local governance. A good question to ask any candidate for local office should be asked if he/she has read any books on local governance or attended classes on the subject. When current Council members are asked that question they respond by saying that, "we are always researching and learning about government topics". The response is NEVER specific, which leads to the conclusion that they have not undertaken any "education" about the job they signed on for, and are learning by "observation".
Even more disastrous is fact that there are outstanding books on the topic of how boards and councils of all kinds can operate at optimal efficiency. The authors of these books have spent their entire careers studying and writing about the most successful ways to operate not for profit organizations, including local government. Have any of the Borough Council members read them? NO!
Regretfully, the Borough Council is under two (2) separate court imposed Gag Orders. That means they can not speak about the context of pending court actions, which include a a recent forced "retirement" and a a law suit on abusive working conditions at the Borough Administrative Offices. The Borough is also under investigation for financial irregularities and possible embezzlement. A accounting firm has been working on the finances of the Borough for over a year and has recently requested more funding for it's continuing forensic audit. Essentially, that means they are having a lot of difficulty figuring out the Borough finances. They have already reported that the Borough has insufficient, and some cases completely missing, accounting practices in place. Much of this could have been avoided if better good practices were in place.
Additionally, the Council has been bombarded with requests for a strategic planning. All the best organizations plan as a matter of good business and some corporations have a full time post in their organizations for a Director of Strategic Planning. Does the Borough Council Plan. NO! This is a serious mistake.
Let's take for example the recent purchase of land by the Borough Council. It's almost as if the Council collectively said...Hey, there is land for sale,so let's buy it. We can figure out to do with it later! Each Councilperson probably had some vague notion in mind when  they voted for the purchase. Furthermore, there was some vague idea about a recreation center given to the newspapers...but a strategic plan...NO!
Was there a comprehensive review of all the Borough land holdings and what is done on the already existing land? NO, or if there was where is the report? Was there any consideration given to selling some of the existing land or changing uses? NO! There is a committee working on the plan now...who is on the committee? The Council has never informed the public in some specific way. Finally, with the Borough finances in a complete state of disarray is this the time to spend money?
The Council needs education, strategic planning!

What do you think?

Off the Beaten Path...

 

 

Anyone who is thinking about entering college or who has a kid thinking about entering college knows what the SAT and ACT are all about...OR....do they? Both the SAT and ACT are NOT a test of intelligence! They are designed to be a very powerful indicator of the likelihood of a person's ability to start AND finish a college curriculum. In other words, an indicator of an ability of the test taker to obtain a college degree.

As you may know SAT and ACT scores have been dropping for US educated children. Recently, the owners of the SAT, the College Board, decided to adjust the test to different standards, most notably to return to standards of years ago.

To me this is a meaningless act. Why, you may ask? Because, in my view, the SAT and ACT both measure mostly irrelevant information and always have. Albeit, a college entrance examination should measure whether some level of information has been attained and retained by an applicant for college entrance, but an indicator of success in college in order to be accurate has to go much further.

I am suggesting that higher education shakers and movers ought to completely re-examine the basis on which decisions are made for acceptance in the halls of college. I believe that the real determinants of student success in higher learning are as follows:

SENSE OF PURPOSE...Do I really appreciate the opportunity of higher education and the doors that it will open for me as I pursue a means to make a contribution to society instead of becoming a drag on it?
CHARACTER...Can I get "knocked-down" in life and get right back up to start over using the experience of disappointment as an energizer instead of a reason for further disappointment?
INTEGRITY, HONESTY AND GRIT...Personality traits, personal values and attitudes compose the inner being of all people. How people conduct themselves in myriad circumstances are largely dependent on traits, values and attitudes.

Each of the foregoing characteristics CAN BE measured and assessed. Therefore, I suggest that a large portion of college entrance requirements should be based on the measurement and assessment of an individual's PURPOSE, CHARACTER and INTEGRITY.

MOST of the college failures (which are not measured and reported openly) are because of unacceptable grades. But, the grades are the symptom NOT the reason for most failures in college. The kids accepted into college are NOT stupid. The real reasons are a total lack of purpose, ie, Why am I here? Further, a lack of character...I have been knocked down in life and didn't know getting back up was an option. Finally, I am still in high school and I have brought the same attitudes and values with me...self reliance is a foreign term to me.

Don't agree with me? Okay, tell me why! But, first search out a parent of a kid who was a disappointment in college and ask what happened. Read about the drinking and social integration problems (read rape) in colleges. And, find out about other bad behaviors that are manifest on college campuses.

Regretfully, something failed the unsuccessful student. Probably, public schools, home life, street life or a combination of these factors. I have argued for years that the children who need it most are not taught about the things that count for a lot in life...attitudes, values, honesty, integrity and character, which when positive build a pathway to success, but when negative destroy any chance for opportunity and purpose.

My greatest worry is that some teachers took the time to instill the foregoing positive attributes in children through personal anecdotes, remembrances, and by other means. Now teachers are held to very strict content/subject matter attainment standards as per student testing. And, since the attributes I have suggested are nowhere to be found in the curriculum, the load falls on parents...you know home, where nearly 50% of black babies are born to a single mother, or where English is a distant second language or where discipline is unknown.

Council Will Not Learn!

Mr. Mayor...What have you read lately?

Below are just a few of the books that are out there on Governance. Have any of you taken the time to learn about governance or are you flying by the seat of your pants? Learning to govern well is not innate...it is an acquired skill. These books and many others are the key to learning about your volunteer work. I caution you to not "learn by doing" or "learn by observation". Both of these techniques have led to disaster! 

Both of these men are friends of mine and they know what they are talking about!

The Will to Govern Well: Knowledge, Trust, and Nimbleness 

by Glenn H. Tecker (Author), Paul D. Meyer (Author), Bud Crouch (Author), Leigh Wintz (Author)

Be the first to review this item

Any look inside an association reveals challenges that require change in governance systems. These challenges include shifts in the balance of power, in policy making, and in measures of success. Associations must understand increasingly complex member segments and need to be able to respond to specialized needs. Increased demands for tangible benefits and bottom-line measures mean that associations need to think differently about how they create value for their members and how they measure success. The Will to Govern Well presents research into associations that have shifted from more traditional governance structures created with the intent to predict performance and replicate past successes to knowledge-based governance systems, which can more reliably function in a world characterized by rapid change. This book is about developing strategies for change in governance. It rejects the idea of wholesale revolution in favor of rapid evolution, which has the added benefit of decreasing resistance among members and stakeholders, who similarly reject such terms. The book presents three critical themes that have emerged as key to developing the will to govern well knowledge, trust, and nimbleness providing definitions and strategies for incorporating them into governance. This second edition updates the original edition with information and insights that have been gleaned in the 10 years since its first publication. Furthermore, it includes a whole new chapter on the intelligent association, providing an evolved process for associations that have been using knowledge-based governance so routinely it has become part of the fabric of their operation. Another new feature of this edition is an emerging theory about the value proposition of associations in the 21st century.

Boards That Make a Difference by John Carver

I’ve heard a lot of people talk about “the Carver Model,” but never really knew what it was. Well, now I do, and I’d have to say I’m a pretty big fan. At least on the theory side of it. But how much of it is practical? I don't know, but why don’t I start by just trying to digest the 24 dogears I added as I went along?

In fact, the importance of the owners-to-board link is so great that the proper board job is best described as ownership one step down rather than management one step up. This concept alone completely changes the nature of governance.

That pretty well sums up Carver’s Policy Governance Model. The board is not a group of “super-managers,” it is a group of “mini-owners.” It does not manage anything. It determines what success looks like and holds the staff accountable for getting there.

Certain common practices are such obvious drains on board effectiveness that one does not need a sophisticated model to recognize them. Although some boards may avoid a few of the following conditions, rarely does any one board avoid them all.

Time spent on the trivial. Items of trivial scope or import receive disproportionate attention compared with matters of greater scope and importance. Richard J. Peckham, on joining a major public board in Kansas, found it so lost in trivia that “I thought I’d been banished to outer darkness.” Major program issues go unresolved while boards conscientiously grapple with some small detail. An Illinois school board proudly proclaimed the “active role the members of our board take in purchasing decisions…The administration [in replacing desks in two classrooms] was directed to select three chairs from different companies and have them available for the next board meeting. The board then made the decision on warranty, durability, price and color.” A national survey found that almost half of America’s school boards made the purchasing decisions for tape recorders, cameras, and television sets (National School Boards Association, n.d.). Little wonder that Chait, Holland, and Taylor (1996) claim, “Trustees are often little more than high-powered, well-intentioned people engaged in low level activities” (p. 1).

Short-term bias. The time horizon for board decisions is more distant than anywhere else in the organization. Yet we find boards dealing mainly with the near term and, even more bizarre, with the past. Last month’s financial statement gets more attention than the organization’s strategic position.

Reactive stance. Boards consistently find themselves reacting to staff initiatives rather than making decisions proactively. Proposals for staff action and recommendations for board action so often come from staff that some boards would cease to function if they were asked to create their own agenda.

Reviewing, rehashing, redoing. Some boards spend most of their time going over what their staff has already done. “Eighty-five percent of our time was spent monitoring staff work,” says Glendora Putnam, Boston, about a prominent national board. “We can’t afford that. We have too much wisdom to be put to use.” Just keeping up with a large staff can take prodigious hours and even then can never be done fully. But the salient point is that reviewing, rehashing, and redoing staff work—no matter how well—do not constitute leadership.

Leaky accountability. Boards often allow accountability to “leak” around the chief executive. Having established a CEO position, the board members continue to relate in their official capacities with other staff, either giving them directions or judging their performance, rather than allowing the CEO to do his or her job.

Diffuse authority. It is rare to find a board-executive partnership wherein each party’s authority has been clarified. Often, a vast gray area exists. When a matter lies in this uncertain area, the safe executive response is to take it to the board. Instead of using this opportunity to clarify to whom the decision belongs, the board simply approves or disapproves. The event has been settled, but the boundaries of authority remain as unclear as they were before.

Complete overload. Unless a board rubber-stamps decisions or just ignores issues, it is likely to be overwhelmed by a seemingly impossible job. The board just cannot get to everything and is likely to miss important red flags.

This is a great list of dangers to avoid.

In constructing a new wisdom of governance, I found it necessary to create categories to guide a board’s debate and pronouncements, groupings not derived from administration but from the nature of governance. These categories also serve as vessels to contain board policies as they accumulate, and thereby become divisions of the board policy manual. The categories embrace board policies about (1) ends to be achieved, (2) means (defined simply as non-ends) to be avoided, (3) the interface of board and management, and (4) the practice of governance itself.
A big part of the book is about these four areas of appropriate board action and policy setting. I like their elegance, but find the formal adherence advocated in the book a little unrealistic unless the whole model is willingly embraced by the board. Still, the can serve me as guideposts as I work with my board and help shape their agendas. Essentially, they should define (1) what we should achieve, and (2) what we should not do in pursuit of that achievement. What Carver means by (3) and (4) is a little fuzzy for me right now. Those lessons may reoccur to me as I continue to transcribe.

Remember that the most effective governance controls what needs to be controlled, yet sets free what can be free.

Yeah, that’s what I just said. The board should have complete control over what success looks like, but only control how to get there by proscribing those strategies that it finds objectionable.

As construed by the Policy Governance model, then, all board policies fall into these groups:

1. Ends. The organizational swap with the world. What human needs are to be met (in results terms), for whom (outside the operating organization), and at what cost or relative worth. It is important that no means be included in this category.

2. Executive Limitations. Boundaries that limit the choice of staff means, normally for reasons of prudence and ethics. While means includes practices, activities, circumstances, and methods, the most comprehensive definition for means is simply “non-ends.”

3. Board-Management Delegation. The manner in which authority is passed to the executive or staff component of the organization and the way in which performance using that authority is reported and assessed.

4. Governance Process. The manner in which the board represents the ownership, disciplines its own activities, and carries out its own work of leadership.
And here’s the (3) and (4) I was a little fuzzy about before. As described in a diagram on page 74 that’s too hard for me to reproduce here, the Board sets policy in each area until the point that any action based on a reasonable interpretation of policy is acceptable to it. The whole organization is represented as a circle, divided into four quadrants, one for each policy area. The Board defines its policies “downward” toward the center of the circle from the boundary of each quadrant, delving more deeply in some areas than in others. The space between the inward edge of these policies and the center of the circle is the territory of action and implementation, which the Board has no direct role in. For (1) and (2), authority over this zone is given to the chief staff executive, and for (3) and (4) that authority is given to the chief governance officer.

The most insidious counterfeits are activities associated with good intentions or with well-accepted reasoning. For example, because making more handouts available for training sessions shows good intent or sense, the number and quality of handouts might come to be judged as more important than the effect of training. The areas to which such confusion can extend are endless. In response to public clamor to compensate teachers on the basis of competence, it is not uncommon for the education establishment to propose incentives for teachers who take more graduate courses!

In the social service field, a revered counterfeit is unit cost. Unit cost is the cost in dollars of providing a time unit of service. Pupil-day expenditure is a comparable public school term. Unit cost comes to be the measure of whether a service organization is doing as much per dollar as it should. But unit cost is not related to the effectiveness of a service, so it does not measure productivity (efficiency in producing benefits per dollar), as social programs pretend it does. For example, the unit cost mentality leads to the assumption that $80 per hour or professional activity is better than $110 per hour, although there is absolutely no reason to believe so. Perhaps the $110-per-hour serve is 150 percent more effective in attaining the results sought! Unit cost would simply be an innocuous measure if institutions had not come to believe it to be a true productivity measure.

An organization can become so permeated by the belief that well-intended or reasonable actions (rather than results) are the reason for existence that no one realizes something is awry. A striking example is the allegiance given to services and programs as if they were results. Services and programs are often treated as if they have value in themselves; however, they are only packages of prescribed activities. In Policy Governance, services and programs are always and only means. The ends concept prevents righteous busyness from becoming just as meaningful as results, or perhaps even more so.

The threat of good activity being perceived as an end is so great that it can hardly be overstated. Without constant vigilance and systems to support that vigilance, says Odiorne (1974), “People tend to become so engrossed in activity that they lose sight of its purpose… They become so enmeshed in activity they lose sight of why they are doing it, and the activity becomes a false goals, an end in itself… Falling into the activity trap is not the result of stupidity. In fact, the most intelligent, highly educated people tend to be those most likely to become entrapped in interesting and complex activities” (pp. 1-7).

It is not that good intentions or sensible actions by staff are unimportant. It is that they in no way constitute the reason for an organization’s existence. Commendable activities are only means.
Boy, do I hear that. In coming up with our measurements of quality, I had better make sure we are measuring ends and not means.

A deputy CEO to whom everyone else reports when the CEO is unavailable is almost sure to represent wasted managerial power. More than two executives vertically configured, each with supervision over only one person, almost certainly means someone has a position but no job.
Had to throw that one in, since that was exactly the situation I was previously in.

Though it is unlikely to do so, the board may choose not to address more detailed specifications after it has adopted the top statement. If the board agrees that any reasonable interpretation of the global ends language on the part of the CEO would be acceptable, then it need say no more. That is, if all the possible priorities among subresults, subrecipients, and costs are acceptable, there is no reason for the board to narrow the expected results by passing more policies. The board can simply refrain from further pronouncements and allow the CEO to resolve all smaller or narrower choices among ends. Most boards are understandably reluctant to leave such broad issues to the CEO, so they rarely stop at this point.

The top statement is the global ends statement, or the mission statement, so this means that some boards may only define that and leave all implementation to the CEO. Few associations would do that, but the point is an important one. They could. The board should only define as much as they need to and no more.

Further, the policies do not give the CEO power to do this or that. They take power or latitude away (“You may not…”). The CEO has whatever power the board does not withhold: the board is saying, “Go till we say stop,” rather than “Stop till we say go.”

This is truly how my new association runs things and it is a new dynamic for me to get used to.

Here’s a good summary of how Carver thinks the Board and the CEO (“president”) should interact with each other:

Garden City Community College, Garden City, Kansas
Board-Management Delegation Policy
“Delegation to the President”
All board authority delegated to staff is delegated through the president so that all authority and accountability of staff—as far as the board is concerned—is considered to be the authority and accountability of the president.

1. The board will direct the president to achieve certain results for certain recipients, at a certain cost through the establishment of Ends policies. The board will limit the latitude the president may exercise in practices, methods, conduct, and other “means” through the establishment of Executive Limitations policies.

2. As long as the president uses any reasonable interpretation of the board’s Ends and Executive Limitations policies, the president is authorized to establish all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions, establish all practices, and develop all activities.

3. The board may change its Ends and Executive Limitations policies, thereby shifting the boundary between the board and president domains. By doing so, the board changes the latitude given to the president. So long as any particular delegation is in place, the board members will respect and support the president’s choices.

4. Only decisions of the board acting as a body are binding upon the president.

5. Decisions or instructions of individual board members, officers, or committees are not binding on the president except in rare circumstances when the board has specifically authorized such exercise of authority.

6. In the case of board members or committees requesting information or assistance without board authorization, the president can refuse such requests that require—in the president’s judgment—a material amount of staff time or funds or are disruptive.
Wouldn’t it be great if it really worked that way? Careful what you wish for. Here’s more:

Board members and the CEO are colleagues. The relationship between the CEO and any individual board member is collegial, not hierarchical. Because the CEO is accountable only to the full board and because no board member has individual authority, the CEO and board members are equals. The relationship between the CEO and the board chairperson should be one of supportive peers as well. They are not hierarchically related, because to be so would shift the CEO function to the chairperson.
This is one I really need to work on. The Chairman is not my boss. The Board is my boss. The Chairman and I are peers, each working to achieve the Ends set by the Board. I should stop acting like he’s my boss.

If the board adopts the discipline of monitoring only what it has already addressed in policy, its anxiety will drive it to develop all the policies needed. “If you haven’t said how it ought to be, don’t ask how it is,” describes the principle that forces a board to monitor instead of meander.
Great advice. How do you implement it?

The importance of limiting CEO evaluation to the criteria represented by board policies on ends and executive limitations is so great as to merit repetition. It is common for boards to indulge their (or their CEO’s) need to assess CEO skills and personality. To be sure, CEOs, like anyone else, have areas that need improvement. It is to their benefit for them to seek the help of knowledgeable advisors and to continue their education and development. But if, commendably, they do so and ends are not achieved or executive limitations not observed, why should they earn points for self-improvement efforts? On the other hand, if they do no self-development but achieve the ends and observe the executive limitations, why should they be penalized? The purpose of evaluating the CEO is not to become the CEO’s coach. In fact, it is best for the board not to think of itself as evaluating the CEO at all. It should evaluate the organization based on relevant board policies and pin that evaluation on the CEO.

Here, here. And dammit, if that isn’t what my new Board is doing with me. They are giving me a mechanism to pursue my own professional development, but they are not tying my evaluation to it. I’m being evaluated on performance goals for the association.

Governing - Hands On!
Examples of What the Board Should Do Hands On
1. Set the board’s work plan and agenda for the year and for each meeting
2. Determine board training and development needs
3. Attend to discipline in board attendance, following bylaws and other self-imposed rules
4. Become expert in governance
5. Meet with and gather wisdom from the ownership
6. Establish the limits of the CEO’s authority to budget, administer finances and compensation, establish programs, and otherwise manage the organization
7. Examine monitoring data and determine where the organization has achieved a reasonable interpretation of board-stated criteria

Managing the Staff - Hands Off!
Examples of What the Board and Its CGO Should Keep Hands Off
1. Establish services, programs, curricula, or budgets
2. Approve the CEO’s personnel, program, or budgetary plans
3. Render any judgments or assessments of staff activity for which no previous board expectations have been stated
4. Determine staff development needs, terminations, or promotions
5. Design staff jobs or instruct any staff member subordinate to the CEO (except when the CEO has assigned a staff member to some board function)
6. Decide on the organizational chart and staffing requirements
7. Establish committees to advice or help staff
+ + + + +

The Board’s Responsibility for Board Performance

Board members, not staff, are trustees in a moral sense for the ownership and, consequently, must bear initial responsibility for the integrity of governance. “He that would govern others, first should be the master of himself” (Massinger, 1979). The board is responsible for its own development, its own job design, its own discipline, and its own performance. Before any discussion of board process to improve governance, this responsibility must be clear to board and staff alike. Primary responsibility for board development does not rest in the CEO, staff, funding bodies, or government. These other parties doubtless have an interest in better governance. They may even seize the opportunity to affect governance quality. But they are not where responsibility for governance resides.

Only responsible stewardship can justify a board’s considerable authority. Board members who do not choose to accept this breadth of responsibility should resign. If they do not, it is the responsibility of other board members to structure a board development system in which such persons are, if not “converted,” eliminated from the board. Being warm, willing to attend meetings, inclined to donate money, and interested in the organizational subject matter do not constitute responsible board membership. These characteristics are desirable but far from sufficient.

It is inviting to rely on the CEO to motivate a board. This scenario frequently extends further than the provision of an occasional motivational “fix.” It may extend as far as spoon-feeding. No matter how well the CEO tells the board what to do and when to do it, governance cannot be excellent under these conditions. Going through the motions, even the “right” motions, is fake leadership that transforms a CEO into a baby-sitter. Only a deluded board waits for its CEO to make it a good board.

Under these conditions, public-spirited and ethical CEOs prod the board to do and say what they think a responsible governing body should do and say. With time, observers of such a situation may questions the need for the board to be responsible: “If everything turns out well, what is the fuss? Getting the board to be truly responsible may be pedantic and perhaps unrealistic. After all, board members frequently are just volunteers; how can a part-time, outside group of largely nonprofessionals presume to tell a professional or technical staff what to do?” This litany impedes any further inclination to motivate leaders to lead.

The preceding unhappy scenario is the best-case scenario! What if the CEO is not public-spirited and ethical? The improprieties resulting from lackadaisical governance are easy to imagine. I have observed boards whose laissez-faire rubber-stamping came to an abrupt end upon discovery of misconduct. Most nonprofit boards are too private or too small for public embarrassment to be a realistic threat, but they must endure their own awareness of having been asleep at the throttle. Their failure may have been not in misjudging a specific issue but simply in not having realized that the throttle belonged to them. The debacles at Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations are prime examples of the failure of governance that are familiar to anyone who reads a newspaper.

Boards are responsible for their attendance, discipline, governance methods, development, agendas, and ability to envision the future. Others can help. Surely the CEO should even be required to help. Helpers, however, can only assist a body that has assumed full responsibility for itself; helpers can only marginally compensate when ostensibly responsible parties are not taking responsibility.

The board of the Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine has set the standards to be met in the conduct of board affairs. Notice how the board makes clear that it, not its staff, is responsible for the board’s governance performance.Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, Cleveland
Governance Process Policy
“Governing Style”

The board will govern with an emphasis on (a) outward vision rather than an internal preoccupation, (b) strategic leadership more than administrative detail, (c) clear distinction of board and chief executive roles, (d) collective rather than individual decisions, (e) future rather than past or present, and (f) proactivity rather than reactivity. The board will:

1. Deliberate in many voices, but govern in one.

2. Cultivate a sense of group responsibility. The board, not the staff, will be responsible for excellence in governing. The board will be an initiator of policy, not merely a reactor to staff initiatives. The board will use the expertise of individual members to enhance the ability of the board as a body, rather than to substitute the individual judgments for the board’s values.

3. Direct, control and inspire the organization through the careful establishment of broad written policies reflecting the board’s values and perspectives. The board’s major focus will be on the intended long term impacts outside the operating organization, not on the administrative or programmatic means of attaining those effects.

4. Enforce upon itself whatever discipline is needed to govern with excellence. Discipline will apply to matters such as attendance, preparation for meetings, policymaking principles, respect of roles, and ensuring the continuity of governance capability. Continual board development will include orientation of new members in the board’s governance process and periodic board discussion of process improvement. The board will allow no officer, individual or committee of the board to hinder or be an excuse for not fulfilling its commitments.

5. Monitor and discuss the board’s process and performance at each meeting. Self-monitoring will include comparison of board activity and discipline to policies in the Governance Process and Board-Staff Linkage categories.

This stuff really speaks for itself, doesn’t it? Do I really need to say anything?

Here is a summary of the board’s job products:

1. Linkage to the ownership. The board acts in trusteeship for its ownership and serves as the legitimizing connection between this base and the organization.

2. Explicit governing policies. The values of the whole organization are encompassed by the board’s explicit enunciation and proper categorization of broad policies.

3. Assurance of satisfactory organizational performance. Although the board is not responsible for carrying out the staff’s job, it must ensure that the staff as a total body meets the criteria the board has set. In this way, its accountability for that performance is fulfilled.

Each of these three products is a job output, not a job activity, though any number of attendant activities are implied.

Who Do You Think is Paying for the Lawsuit in Point Pleasant?

 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:                                            March 8, 2014

Time and time again I have forewarned the Point Borough Council’s negligence in failing to adopt specific goals and objectives for the Borough’s Chief Administrator and Police Chief together with meaningful formal performance evaluations of each of them would eventually lead to very costly penalties in some form. Well, the day has come in the form of a lawsuit that the borough will most likely have to settle for a tidy sum.

All of you on the Council are supposed to safeguarding the interests of the public you serve. You have failed…miserably so! During elections each of you has talked about your business experience, community service and common sense approaches to challenges. Problem is that none among you have managed a large, complex organization. Worse yet, not one of you will take the time to secure the knowledge, which is plentiful, about how to do so.

I encourage you to think about this…Do you think ANY CEO of ANY business or organization would permit a high ranking employee to maintain a list of underperforming employees in full view of other employees and refer to it as the “Wall of Shame”? Do you think any CEO would permit an Urn of Ashes to be maintained with the names of people on it who left the employ of the Borough and refer to it as those “Exterminated”? Well, because of a lack of oversight, performance evaluations and accountability that very thing may have happened.

If these allegations are true, I really can’t think of the appropriate words to describe these cruel and sadistic treatment of others, let alone in the workplace where a worker spends most of his/her time. What kind of person thinks that such behavior is good management or even humane?

I am most curious about the Mayor’s first words. When asked to comment, he said, “ I can’t comment, because it involves a personnel matter”. Apparently, the tax collector does not share the Mayor’s belief of confidentiality about personnel matters. After all she may have posted the names of people in view of everyone she thought were “underperforming”.

I am fully prepared for the answers the public will receive if these allegations prove to be true. CEO Maffei will assert he knew nothing about the Wall of Shame or the Urn of those Exterminated. The Mayor will say he knew nothing about it and every Council member will say the exact same thing. I call these exclamations the “Shultz Defense”…. “I KNOW ‘NOTTING’!”  

The Council should move forward immediately with an Independent Counsel to conduct a thorough investigation. I am suggesting an independent Counsel, because Dasti as a long term counsel may have known about these alleged practices and may have directly condoned them. The fact that the Council is conducting its own investigation will play well in court and with the public.

If these allegations are true, and CEO Maffei says he knew about them, he should be dismissed or demoted. If he says he didn’t know about them, he should be dismissed or demoted. That would be a good first step as the aftermath of the investigation if the allegations are true.

In any case Pearce MUST go if the allegations are true, as she may be guilty of professional misconduct!

A good second step would be begin work ASAP on a formal evaluation process of the top ranking and highly compensated executives of the Borough. I my view, the Council have been negligent in not more carefully examining the personnel practices of the Borough. The two men in whom you have invested unilateral control of the management of the Borough essentially answer to no one. Is it surprising then they may be conducting the Borough’s business in a manner that celebrates cronyism, nepotism, discrimination, unfair employee practices including hostility and human cruelty.

 Perhaps you have forgotten the adage that, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Remember, at least one of them has stated for anyone within earshot, that, “I have seen a lot of Council members come and go and none of them have been successful in changing a thing!” Furthermore, there is a sustained effort among the good ole boys to scare Council members from speaking to one another about Borough business EXCEPT in formal session under the guise of state law. This interpretation is wrong and ferments an inability to get anything done.

You have wrongly ceded absolute power in these chief executives with absolutely no checks and balances.

There was another single sentence in the Press article that should have caught your eye as a guardian of the public trust. That sentence suggested the Tax Collector encouraged her daughter to make the plaintiff feel uncomfortable in her job. Aside from all the cronyism in Point’s hiring practices, we also have nepotism? As the CEO of several large organizations, I steadfastly refused to hire family members in the same organization. The fact is “blood is blood” and if you have a personnel problem with one, you have a problem with both. I learned that the hard way very early in my career. Once again, not one of you has any experience with handling large organizations with work rules, unions and entrenched bureaucracy!

Now you may argue that I am jumping the gun and thus far all we have are allegations. Good point! However, what I am suggesting take place first is an Independent Investigation. This would put the Council in the “front seat” instead of in the “back seat” waiting for the courts to find out if the allegations are true. I have already explained other advantages.

I also ask that you consider these points.  It is hard to believe that the plaintiff just made up these allegations, because they are so easy to prove true or false. Too many people would have to lie to make a “Wall of Shame” and “Extermination Urn” to disappear if they existed. Additionally, if there is no formal evaluation process for your chief executives, what makes you think there any for other employees? If there aren’t any, that will play very badly in court. Finally, don’t you want to learn on your own terms about the possible mistreatment of employees?

This whole thing, if true, is incomprehensible to me. How would like to be tormented, subjected to psychological abuse, and threatened every day by and sadistic and abusive person, especially if you REALLY needed the job?

Ian R. Horen

Point Pleasant Borough Resident

Point Pleasant Council Got Our Town in the News Again!

                                                                                                            April 11, 2014

Dear Council Members:

Well you got us in the “news” once again…last Sunday’s edition of the Asbury Park Press. A couple of my friends who live elsewhere called me to ask if I lived in a cesspool of political corruption. I really didn’t know how to answer that and stop them from laughing.

You are making a laughing stock of our community!

In the same article the attorney for the Borough gloated about the “victory” he achieved in court. I am wondering if he skipped the law school classes on trial strategy…it is never a good idea to gloat after a court ruling…all it does is solidify the resolve of the other party…very bad mistake on his part.

On the same subject…when the Republicans regained the majority on the Council, among the first things done was to fire the counsel hired by the Democrats when they were in the majority and hire back the long term hack Dasti back. The reason cited by Mr. Sobosik was that the firm was sending people to represent the Borough other than the ones interviewed for the job. Then, what was the son of Mr. Dasti doing in the courtroom representing the Borough on a very important matter?  I keep forgetting what hypocritical means…can you help me out?

After the financial collapse of the Borough and an attempt by Mr. Leitner to remediate the situation, the citizens of the Borough were told, “we have the finances of the Borough under control”. In fact, Mr. Sobosik stated in a newspaper article, “…see, we are not in bad shape after all”. Not a word was uttered that expensive forensic type audits were on-going and actually not everything was quite right. Not a word was mentioned that there may have been THEFT of public funds! We have to read about that in the newspaper.

Nepotism is a problem in Point Pleasant Borough employment. The women named as a defendant in the personnel lawsuit hired her daughter. Neither Maffei nor the Council said a thing about how that appears. Then the Police Chief hires his own son as a police officer and not a word. Do you want to know why our Chief Administrator and Police Chief approved these hires? Because they could and neither one of them gave it a second thought. The fact that the Council has never given these highly compensated individuals any guidance about their performance essentially gives them free reign to do anything they want…no oversight, no personnel policies, no performance reviews! These are severe failings of the Council.

Despite the fact that Messrs. Schroeder and Leitner are of the opinion that the basis of the personnel lawsuit is untrue and the legal action is frivolous, the reason that the charges are so believable is that the Borough employees are completely unsupervised and as a result they believe they can do just about anything, including stealing and/or misappropriating taxpayer money. The really outrageous part of this is that taxpayers are now footing the massive accounting bills for failure of the Council to put in place the proper financial safe-guards, conduct proper oversight and set policies to guide the staff about their behaviors. Did this happen because the Council members don’t k now how to perform these tasks, or because the Council members are just not “doers”?

I have been led to believe that the Council is “working on” a performance evaluation process for highly compensated Borough personnel. Can I remind you that our Declaration of Independence (unmatched in its eloquence and expanse) was written by Thomas Jefferson overnight? What could possible take so long?

I have always been very curious about exactly what local elected officials think they were elected to do. I have served on many boards of many different types. Over the years my observation has been that there are “doers” and “loafers” on all boards and councils. Some take their jobs very seriously and get things done. Others simply show up and are there primarily for ego enhancement. The latter too often are not very interested in controversy and when the heat turns up in the kitchen they are nowhere to be found…making tough decisions and defending them rarely contributes to ego enhancement. There comes a time when each of the Borough Council members has to conduct a self-assessment and come to terms with who they really are. I can assure you that the next elections are not going to be a cake-walk…all of these recent developments and the continual shortcomings are going to be answered for either positively or negatively.

There are seven Council members (but only six for whom there are website pictures…thanks Mr. Borowsky for the picture on the website, finally). I have written to the current Council four times in the past few months. I have received responses from three and once four among Council members. Messrs. Wisniewski, Furmato and Borowsky have never responded to me. That is regretful for many reasons, but chief among them is that as a Borough resident, I am entitled to know what they are thinking and what they are doing. It is time for all the platitudes of electioneering to turn into action of some kind. If it is your opinion that you do not have to respond to your constituents, then start looking for a new volunteer activity. If someone told you that the Council job was easy and that you only have answer to people who are NOT critical of your actions, then you were seriously misled.

As a final note, I renew my criticism of the Borough Website. It is dull, boring, unrepresentative and riddled with errors. I suppose that I should simply just throw up my hands and admit… “par for the course”. I wish someone would simply explain to me how things work in Point Pleasant…everyone knows the Website is lousy. So what is the pathway to improvement…does the Council have to vote agreement that it is lousy? If the Council does, what happens next? Is the need for improvement request passed on to the staff? Does a Council person take on the responsibility? How exactly do things happen? Does anybody get a report on progress? Is there any oversight?

I have served as CEO of several national not-for-profit organizations. If someone brought up that the website is not up to standard I would be mortified that I hadn’t already reviewed the website, sought professional help for design and implementation, etc. That aside, if I were the highly compensated administrator of the Borough, I would take on the responsibility and get the improvements done. Then, I would report back to the Council that the task was done and stage a little “show-and-tell” for the Council and the audience at a Council meeting. In other words, make sure the job was done, demonstrate that I understand accountability and take credit for a job well done. Exactly what am I missing here? Would you take a moment and explain to me what I am missing and how things get done…how things work. Thanks.

Dr. Ian R. Horen

The Politician Two Step

Ever wonder why people "change" when they are elected to public office? I have, and it is on this point that I can not support President Obama for reelection.The President made a lot of promises during his bid for office. He has kept very few of them.

The same is true for the current crop of Point Pleasant Boro Council politicians.

Let's look at the record...

Sabosik on taxes as a candidate..." I think it is unreasonable for local taxpayers to continue to endure any further property tax increases given the current financial climate". Mr. Sabosik voted for a tax increase last year during the recession and appears to support a tax increase this year as well.

Wisniewski on taxes as a candidate..." NJ property taxes are already the highest in the entire nation, and something has to be done to curb the ever increasing tax burden for NJ residents. If elected, I will not support further property tax increases during these economic times". Mr. Wisniewski is apparently poised to vote for a property tax increase this year.

DePayola on taxes as a candidate..." The Boro taxes are too high and  local government spending needs to be brought under closer scrutiny". Ms. DePayola voted for a property tax increase during the recession and appears to be poised to vote for another tax increase this year.

Borowsky recently appointed to the Council...Don't know where he stands, but he belongs to a party (Rpublican) that has steadfastly maintained that it is bad public policy to increase taxes for any one under any circumstances in this economic environment. We will see what he stands for on taxes very shortly.

As for Schroeder, Leitner and Goss...They are typical tax and spend Democrats. As the saying goes...they never met a tax they didn't like.

The financial condition of the Boro continues to be a great mystery.

Let's not forget the immediate past...

• Several years ago the Council admitted the Boro finances were "a mess". Nobody AT ALL knew precisely what was the financial standing of the Boro. Financial records were wrong or missing, accounting procedures were non existent and thousands of dollars had to be spent to try to reconstruct the financial records of the Boro.
• Citizens were informed a property tax increase was necessary to correct matters even if it was in the middle of a recession.
• Water and sewer fees had to surcharged to correct errors. The following year the surcharge was made permanent...surprise, surprise!
• This year the Council announced that the financial recovery of the Boro had occurred. The Mayor announced that in view of the financial "come-back" the Boro would be hiring two new policeman.
• The Council members were so busy patting themselves on the back for their financial efficacy, they neglected to notice that the recovery disappeared as magically as it appeared. They also failed to mention that any so-called recovery was due in large part to the tax increase they hoisted on taxpayers during the recession.
• Whoops! The Boro's financial recovery didn't materialize, so we are going to have to increase your taxes again this year.

Let's note too that there has NEVER been  any accountability for the financial mess of the Boro...Not any of the Council members whose responsibility was the financial integrity of the Boro, not any of the highly paid executives we employ, no one! The Council has apparently taken the position that the financial problems JUST HAPPENED and let's forget it and move on.

Now, we are facing another tax increase in the Boro. It appears the Council added up all the expenses, including two new policemen, and found themselves short...so, let's just increase taxes!

The situation would be laughable if it weren't funny any longer. Towns and cities all over the nation are going bankrupt. There appears to be all kinds of reasons for such bankruptcies, but it comes down to just one thing...spending other people's money that the politicians don't have!

When the tax increase occurs, and it will, let's note who voted for the increase. The only accountability left for the Boro's taxpayers is at the ballot box!

What do you think?

PS Have you noticed that these very same politicians who profess to be "in touch" with the public fail to show up at any locally sponsored events. For example, a recent car show sponsored by the PPB Rotary Club had a prize called the Mayor's Award. It was an embarrassment that he was not there to hand out the award. In fact, the Council members show up for very few civic events. Ever wonder why? There is an answer...would you show up with the possibility that you might have to answer some questions about Boro policies and finances? Probably not!

The Power To Tax

Well, the Point Pleasant Borough Council is again taxing homeowners.

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

Two years ago the Council admitted it lost control of the Borough finances. The responsibility for the malfeasance was never actually pinpointed. The Democrats blamed it on the Republicans. The Republicans were mostly silent.The final numbers were always very fuzzy, but about a million dollars of red ink seemed to be the agreed upon number.

During the intervening election everyone running for office claimed "they would clean it up". They also ran on platforms of fiscal responsibility.

There was a "war" over garbage collection. To outsource or not to outsource, that was the question. Finally, a magic agreement appeared...one that would save hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, the Council decided it wouldn't be a good idea to stabilize taxes, or even reduce them. Instead, they decided that taxes would actually be raised (more on that later) and they would add the "savings" obtained to the Borough reserve funds. Lest we forget, part of the savings was obtained through a reduction of services...the summer garbage collection schedule was abandoned. Residents get the hoards of maggots from the superheated incubators called garbage cans and the Council gets more money to spend.

The Council announced this year that finances were back under control, and it appeared there would even be a surplus. Former Councilman Remig was the lone voice of "caution" about the news. That caution made good sense...after all how could a mountain of debt just simply disappear. During the same year the Council members took credit for carefully husbanding the Borough's finances. In fact, the Council was reported as saying that they "had saved the day". Not one of them mentioned that the primary reason finances may have been recovering was because they voted to raise property taxes in the middle of the most devastating recession in generations...something most economists agree is a terrible idea.

Let's not forget the special assessment for water use. That was blamed on another set of calculations errors. No one took responsibility for that "mistake" either.

Now, here we are again at budget time and what has the Council proposed? You guessed it...another tax increase! You may be wondering why the budget was so late before being presented. Oh, that is an easy question to answer. As it turns out, there was no surplus. In fact, the Borough's finances are still a mess, and a special session of the Council was convened to discuss presenting to the voters a proposition to EXCEED the State mandated cap. That meeting was abruptly cancelled. Why? Because there was not enough votes for such a proposition! Under legal pressure to present a budget, there was no choice...raise taxes or go further in debt.

So where is the Borough now? Well, two financial people have quit in the last year. That's probably a clear indication of where the Borough is financially. Despite protestations to the contrary, the last financial person probably quit because the finances are a mess, and felt she would be "thrown under the bus"...a usual tactic of this Council, after all, someone has to take the blame except the chief administrator or any sitting Council member. You have to ask yourself, what politician would vote for unpopular tax increases two years in a row? The answer to that question is also simple. Because, the "surplus announcement" was premature and did not turn out as expected, and the magic disappearance of the debt was just that...magic!  The truth is that there is still a mountain of debt, and huge deficits. But, our Council kept on spending. When the Mayor announced the hiring of two new cops, he proclaimed, "this is an indication that the Borough is back on a good financial footing". He forgot to mention that the Council's spending would be accompanied by a tax increase to pay for them.

Have you ever met a Democrat that doesn't like a tax increase? Or, a Republican that doesn't lie about taxes? You know that "temporary" water surcharge to correct "miscalculations". Well, now it's permanent! Another hidden tax in the middle of a recession.

As residents are learning to re prioritize their personal finances to cope with this financial disaster we all find  ourselves in...while Borough residents have to cope with the "new norm" of $3.00+ plus per gallon of gas, with grocery bills skyrocketing, and with electricity charges literally going through the roof...what does the Borough Council do? Add to the burden with a tax increase!

This Council, particularly the ones who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, have once again betrayed the Borough residents.

You have to ask what the Borough Council is doing for the residents? You may be very impressed that the Borough is now protected by the scourge of "puppy mills! What a great accomplishment! Was there a problem with "puppy farms" in the Borough? Most people know you are taking a chance buying a puppy from irreputable businesses. But, our Council thought the public needed specific government protection...by the way, the same issue is playing out on the national stage...should our government adopt regulation after regulation to protect us, even from ourselves?

There is not an innovative bone in any body on the current Council. There has not been ONE meaningful new idea proposed by this Council. There has not been one idea to assist the unemployed. Not one idea to assist businesses in the Borough. Not one new idea to increase property values. Not one new idea to stabilize the Borough's finances and provide for tax relief. And, what's worse is that the absence of ideas is not because they have not been offered...in this Blog alone there have been a dozen ideas proposed.

What do the citizens get from this Council? Sure, we get a failed Wine Festival...most people are still trying to figure out what that was supposed to do! Oh yes, we have a "puppy mill" protection. Yes, we have even more cops for a little town with little crime. But the important stuff, encouraging businesses to hire, increasing property values, even fixing the street sign problem go unanswered. It is hard to figure out whether the Council is lazy, dull or just incompetent.

But, there may be another reason. Next time you see Councilman Leitner ask him who REALLY runs the Borough. On occasion of presenting several of his ideas he was told by Borough employees that, "we have seen zealous Council members come and go, but rarely do they get anything we don't approve of done"...talk about the patients running the asylum. Of one thing you can be absolutely certain, there is not a single innovative bone in the body of any employee of the Borough, starting at the top! They are invested either in the status quo or empire building. And why wouldn't they be...they have good salaries, incredible benefits, massive pensions and let's not forget union and state civil service protection that makes them unable to be evaluated on performance, disciplined in any way and certainly never fired no matter how incompetent.

Towns around the nation are falling into bankruptcy like flies! Are you sure that Point Pleasant Borough might not be next? Well maybe not...they can just tax the residents every year to cover up their mistakes, miscues and fiscal irresponsibility.

Early in his term the Mayor suggested that the reason the Borough was in such horrible financial condition was because there was no strategic plan adopted by the Council...one that would be well known, and one that was adopted on a basis of consensus. That made good governance sense and was very encouraging. If you see the Mayor ask him where the "plan" is. There is no plan...shame on him...he is a failed leader.

What do you think?

A Hard Look at Our Council

Our Mayor is not a leader. He is a tired old man with no imagination, no expertise in government operations and appears to be defensive and disgruntled most of the time. He needs to retire to a rocking chair.

Why this opinion? Well, think about it...is there a strategic plan for the Boro? What is the vision for the future of the Boro? What are the priorities for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars?

The Mayor has no clue about constituent communications. Most companies now have full time staff to manage communications...the website, Facebook, Tweeter, newsletters. The Boro website is an embarrassment...no interactive capability, no comment area...not to mention that its appearance and content is antiquated and inaccurate. The only communication I have received from the Boro is a note to renew dog tags!

And, what is his leadership answer...a Wine Festival, that is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce.

He does have plenty of time though to complain about Republicans on the Council! Mr. Mayor there is a reason that they are there...you have failed in leadership 101!

The rest of the Council is composed of a couple of attorneys, a couple of businesspeople (none of whom run a business IN THE BORO), a few people we know little about. Not one of them has a bio or statement of principles on the website...probably just an oversight!

After attending a few events around the Boro, one of the things conspicuous by their absence...not one Council person was present, and no presence by the administration. That's like the Superintendent of Schools not appearing at HS sporting events...that's like the Board of Education members not attending the HS plays. This Mayor and Council have absolutely no "team spirit", enthusiasm for their Boro events, and no clue about why their presence at these events is important. The culture of Boro government is a throwback to yesteryear...We make decisions and "to hell with everything and everybody else".

I attended a Christening in south Jersey this past weekend. I drove through a small town called Robbinsville. I hadn't been there in many, many years. That town was plagued with the same issues as our Boro...no "town center", scattered businesses, and a just plain tired look. To my amazement, they are in the midst of a Renaissance, a rebirth. Nearing completion are two "Town Centers"...clusters of very attractive buildings that compose locations for businesses, a civic center, and attractive colonnade. Can you imagine a land locked small town had the foresight to encourage the construction such a community focal point?

Now, in our Boro what do we have? A meeting of business people sponsored by Councilman Goss to figure out how to increase business traffic along Route 88, and what do they come up with...Christmas lights along Route 88. Now isn't that the most imaginative proposal you have ever heard?

Or, worse yet the Mayor's proposal to stage a wine festival buried at a river park with light traffic and little support from the business community.

Now let's contrast that with the plan for a "Town Center" based on an innovative Jersey shore architectural theme, with shopping, restaurants, etc. Perhaps a center that is punctuated with a civic center and attractive gardens. I suggest there are lots of ways to finance such an undertaking...first, explore with a commercial developer such a plan... second go to the business community and talk about advanced location sales...third, local bank financing be explored... fourth, a fund-raising drive to build a civic center.

Where would you put it...how about the albatross skate park on Route 88 and all the land behind it that is now ball fields.

The vision might be to hold daily events at the "Town Center" over the summer months...a real draw for businesses all along Route 88. A civic center for the use of the residents. Relocate the skateboard park and ball fields to a more remote location.

Yes, there would have a lot of leg work to do. Yes there would have to be a feasibility study. Yes, you would have to seek out developer interest. Yes, if tax incentives are used to encourage such an undertaking, a tax study would have to be explored.

This is the kind of "stuff" the Council should be doing. Local government in Robbinsville seemed to find the time to make a town center a reality.

But, alas, our Council finds greater importance in arguing about professional appointments, coddling the Boro employees, and spending time on Christmas lights and wine festivals. There is no imagination, innovation, future thinking on this Council...just the same old, same old.

In my view, the Council needs to bear down on increasing property values (I have written about how to do that), increasing ratables, and thus reducing taxes. A town center would do all these things.

As I started out...the current Mayor and Council may not be up to thinking ahead of the next Council meeting.

What do you think?

Laural and Hardy Return To Point Pleasant

Oliver...Stanley, Looks like Point Pleasant is back in the "black" financially! Wow, what a turnaround!

Stan...Yea, a million dollars of debt wiped out in just a year. Wonder how that happened?

Oliver...Well, all the Council members are busy patting each other on the back for fiscal responsibility and good practices! Kudos though to Remmig for saying he wants to see the final numbers! Too bad he's not continuing on the Council. He is a good egg, and was just getting started with his knowledge of local government operations.

Stan...Not one of the Council members had the political courage to mention that the debt was reduced primarily because the Council chose to RAISE TAXES in the middle of a recession so bad that it is described as the worst since the great depression. Only the Mayor had the guts to say that he would not vote for a return of any of the surplus to the residents in the form of tax relief, because he has other ways he would like to spend the money! Maybe he wants to use the money to jump start the Wine Festival...you know the one that the Chamber of Commerce opposes. Wonder how he plans to get around the fact that without Chamber support, the Festival has absolutely no chance to get off the ground.

Oliver...Seems like the Council is still struggling to even consider a strategic plan for the Boro. No plan, no accountability, no results. They are just too busy with "other stuff". What that is nobody knows...there is no communication from the Council.

Stan...Ollie, you are wrong. There appears to be a plan...keep raising taxes and drive out of town as many senior citizens as possible. A few years ago a Councilperson publicly stated, "If you can't afford the taxes in the Boro, MOVE"! Now that is a perfect point of view! How dare anyone challenge the tax structure, spending, and accountability?

Oliver...Business as usual...a "usual" that is adrift!

What do you think!

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?