Gratitude and Recognition - it is OUR victory !

To my friends, family, Campaign committee (Zen Dawidowicz, Kathy Fisher, Brian Fucetola, Christina Renfer, and Lisa Simunovic) and "army of supporters" who came out to vote for me- Thank you for all your support, guidance and well wishes throughout this campaign.  Your efforts had a huge impact on the outcome of the race, and I could not have done this without you!!

To my wife Michele and sons Scott and Matthew - thank you for putting up with the countless meetings at our home, and for enduring a seemingly endless campaign (hard work, drama and at times "organized chaos")

Again, thank you all for everything you have done to make this campaign a success.  I look forward to keeping an open dialog with all Montville residents, and delivering on my campaign promises over the next three years.  Please periodically check my Blog and website ( www.scott4montville.net ) for updates on my progress.

All the best,

Scott

Re-post of my blog post on Ordinance 2010-31 : Rumors and disinformation - the true enemy of open and transparent government

As promised, a bullet point summary :

• Democrats sent an email claiming that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27
• The email and YouTube video were vetted by one of the Democratic candidates for Township Committee, made a date correction, and approved the content of the message.  Both the video and the email contained information that was factually incorrect and misleading.
• When a group of supporters, a campaign committee, or one of two candidates who are on the same "ticket" pen an opinion piece, the ENTIRE campaign and both candidates OWN the view.  If either candidate feels that a piece does not represent their view, it is that candidate's responsibility to write a retraction.  There is NO plausible deniability.
• Their lack of understanding of the basic procedural process for introducing and passing an ordinance (including the public discussion piece) led to the development of an uninformed opinion that created an issue out of a non-issue.
• The Ordinance in question (2010-31) was a proposal to REDUCE the salaries of personnel replacing recently retired department heads (a list of the ranges and current salaries is included in this post). 
• Dissemination of factually incorrect information is irresponsible and should NEVER be tolerated, especially from candidates, campaign committees, and elected officials.  Misinformation could be accidental, but it becomes disinformation once the candidates recognizes that they are wrong, but continue to push the lies for their own benefit.  This take the level of irresponsibility to the next and worst level.
• Local government watchdogs and candidates have an obligation to develop informed opinions based on the facts. Misrepresenting the facts to the public damages us all, since it undermines the credibility of everyone who challenges the status quo.  
• Without this credibility, elected officials can easily neutralize public dissent.

Recently (in August), an email written by the Democrats began circulating around town getting everyone excited.  In essence, the authors claimed that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27.  They also stated that this was done after the general public left the building, implying that the Township Committee's intention was to slide this one through without the taxpayers noticing.

Anger.  Frustration.  Blood pressure spiking..... Break out the pitchforks and torches!!

On second thought, let's save all that emotion and direct it towards generating some intellectual curiosity that is focused on the real issues we are facing here in Montville.  Why?  Because the Democrats report (which was vetted by one of the Democratic candidates running for Township Committee) regarding the topic and content of the discussion was factually incorrect.  There will not be a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads"..... period.  I guess sometimes you hear what you want to hear at the TC meetings...

Why write about this in my Blog?

Dissemination of misinformation, whether it is deliberate, due to intellectual laziness, or a result of "errors of omission" can never be tolerated.  I firmly believe that EVERY citizen has the right, and quite frankly the obligation, to challenge our government's tax and spending policies.  Having said that, we should all strive to develop informed opinions supported by the facts.  This especially holds true when the intention is to "spread the word" via mass emails and YouTube videos.

They should have done their homework before blasting the community with emails and posting a YouTube video.  I feel very strongly that candidates and self appointed local government watchdogs should validate their views and positions through a rigorous analysis of public documents to uncover the "facts".  This should be done PRIOR to publishing views and issues, particularly when these views and so-called issues are pushed out to the community via email blasts and YouTube videos.

AN EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS:

• There is a difference between an "ordinance introduction" and a "public hearing on ordinances for final adoption". 
• The introduction of an ordinance is a simple summary of the intent of the ordinance, and provides the TC the opportunity to express their initial views as to whether or not the ordinance is ready for phase 2.  There is no actual "vote" for or against the ordinance itself, and no public participation.  The vote is whether or not to officially introduce the ordinance and schedule phase 2 of the process for the next TC meeting (public hearing and final adoption).  Sometimes it is prudent to table the issue if the TC feels the ordinance requires fine tuning before moving to phase 2.
• Ordinance No. 2010-30 and 31 were "introduced" at the July 27 meeting.  This "tee-ed up" the  public discussion and final vote phase for the August 10th meeting.
• This is process for adopting new ordinances and has been the standard operating procedure for our local government for many years.
• BOTTOM LINE - a candidate MUST be able to understand "how a bill becomes a law" before he or she can develop an informed opinion on an issue that they intend to bring to the public's attention.  It is irresponsible to do otherwise.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ORDINANCE No. 2010-31 (the so-called broad salary increase):

• Due to the recent retirements of department heads and other Township employees, the TC took the opportunity to propose new salary ranges for potential internal replacements and future new hires.  
• The salary ranges needed to be established for replacement hires, and for new lower level positions that reflected the revised table of organization.  That's fancy jargon for "the Land Use Director retired, so we reorganized the department eliminating this position, and we can hire someone for a lower salary instead of replacing the Land Use Director".   
• This was an administrative exercise that resulted in expense reductions.
• This was NOT a proposal for raising salaries.

What the Democrats failed to mention:

Retired Land Use Director's old salary - $94,760

Replacement's proposed salary range - $60,000-$75,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Principal Planner)

Retired CFO's old salary - $102,082

Replacement's proposed salary range - $65,000-$85,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Finance Officer)

Retired Secretary's old salary - $70,783

Replacement's proposed salary range - $35,000-$55,000

salary decrease for the same role

The Democratics continue to misrepresent the facts, and have yet to correct or retract their statements and YouTube video.  

If you have been following my Blog since June, you know that I have never been and never will be shy about criticizing the TC when I feel they are on the wrong side of an issue.  You probably also know that I "do my homework", and provide the facts that support my position.  I feel strongly that I have an obligation as a candidate to develop an informed opinion and deliver the truth.  Spreading rumors and false information to whip up a frenzy is simply irresponsible and should never be tolerated, especially when it is done by candidates or elected officials.  It is counter to the core values of community watchdogs who we count on to provide transparency and uncover the issues that have a meaningful impact on our community.

As of October 29, 2010 there has been NO official retraction or email with corrections, and the video can still be found on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu3-n8UqSrk

FYI - When submitting an OPRA request for information regarding Montville public records, meeting minutes, and audio CD recordings of the TC meetings -  submit the form to Trudy Atkinson, Township Clerk.

Transparency and Open Government - action items and deliverables

If you have been following my campaign since the Primary, you already know that transparency and open government has been a part of my platform from the beginning.  At this point, it is important to begin to deliver more than just the concept.

How do we achieve a more open and transparent government in Montville Township?  Can it be done in a way that does not drain the pockets of the taxpayer?  How can we ensure that this goal is accomplished once everyone agrees this should be a priority for the Township Committee?  If these questions are not asked and answered, we risk keeping transparency and open government a concept, and not something that can and should be delivered.

I firmly believe that Montville residents should have access to as much information as possible in order to help them develop informed opinions. So how do we do this?

• Pass an ordinance that establishes a set of action items for the business administrator and the TC, along with a timetable for delivery.  This ordinance, at a minimum, should call for an outline of the tools we need to develop to deliver information to the public, and a date for each to be implemented.
• Once the outline of deliverables has been established, each and every item on that list must have a delivery date - no exceptions.

Why put this in an Ordinance (a new law)?  Because we do not want to see this on a priority list that can change over time, and inadvertently slip through the cracks as other issues crop up that require attention. If the ordinance is put together in a thoughtful manner (as it should be), we can "guarantee" a more open and transparent municipal government.

How can we deliver more information?  Here are a few items that can facilitate the delivery of certain types of information the public is asking for:

• Webcast all public meetings - rather than televise township committee meetings (which really isn't a viable option), we could "broadcast" the meeting via a website and then "archive" (save) the video on our website.  You would have the option to view it "live" via the internet, or just click on the archived video on the website when you have the free time to watch.
• Provide access to the same information the TC has at their disposal during the meeting - sometimes it gets difficult to follow the discussions on the dais because the audience does not have the documents the TC is using to form their views.  Summary documents can be posted on the website and printed by the residents prior to the meeting.  There are other ways to deliver this info during the meeting, but I will let the Mr. Braden expand on these ideas (since they are his) in the proper forum (I really like the ideas, but it's not my place to introduce them on my Blog).
• Scanning and posting all contracts, major expense items and budgets - again, this would be part of a new section of our website, and we should all have access to this information.  Since the budget and the annual audit contain hundreds of pages of information, we should also create an easy to read summary of the expense and revenue items.  If residents want to "drill down" to the details, they can have access to the entire document, but summary sections should be the starting point (I think even the TC members might enjoy the summary too!).
• Feedback loop - OK, so now you have access to all this information.  How are you going to use it to make a difference?  Participation during the public portion of the meetings has always,and will always be an option.  There should be, however, a way for Montville residents to ask questions and have both the question and answer posted on our website, particularly if the same question is being asked by many residents.  This idea needs to be thought through a bit more, but the concept of a forum type interrogatory between Town hall and the community has merit and should be considered.

These are a few starting points, and they clearly require further discussion and input from both the community and  the TC.  ...but you have to start somewhere...

MORE TO FOLLOW over the next week.

Here is how NOT to deliver transparency and open government to the people:

http://scott4montville.blogspot.com/2010/08/rumors-and-misinformation-how-to-create.html

A BLOG post from August

A thoughtful email penned by Lisa Lobiondo, Montville Republican Municipal Chair

Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:34 PM

Subject: Montville Township Committee Candidates

Fellow Republicans:

Here is a reprint of an article on MontvillePatch.com.  I know that there has been a lot of talk and speculation surrounding the fact that Tim and Scott are running separate campaigns and I would like to briefly address that issue.  While they are running separate campaigns, they are not running against each other.  They support and endorse each other.  They were invited to and attended each other’s successful fund raisers.  They openly endorsed each other at the debate this past Thursday and in fact worked very well together as a team.  They shared the Republican booth at the Towaco Jazz Festival.  Their campaigns are putting up signs for both candidates and soon you will see signs around town with both names on them.  And look at the picture in the article below.  If that is not enough to convince you, just ask them.  So don’t speculate or listen to anyone that says that they do not support each other, just look at their actions and read their campaign literature.  Like the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  Remember to spread the word, vote for Braden & Gallopo on November 2^nd.  And let’s not forget the rest of the republicans on the ballot either.

Working towards a Republican Victory on November 2nd,

Lisa LoBiondo

Montville Republican Municipal Chair

Republicans Show Support for Gallopo, Braden

Frelinghuysen, Webber on hand to support the GOP candidates for township committee.

By Nate Adams | Email the author | October 8, 2010

Despite the number of prominent state, county and local Republicans on hand at Suppa's on Thursday, township committee candidate Scott Gallopo almost seemed more interested in reaching out to the people he didn't know.

"There are a lot of familiar faces here, but a lot that are not familiar, too," he said. "Having these people here tonight is very important to me. It shows that people are starting to stand up and take notice, that they want to get involved, and a lot of them are in here tonight."

Despite his praise for the lesser-know, it was hard not to notice the bigger names at Gallopo's campaign event, a fundraiser with a guest list that included Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman of the New Jersey State Republican Committee Jay Webber, as well as a majority of the Montville Township Committee.

"It's an honor to participate in an event like this," Webber said. "If you get the opportunity to contribute to a good ticket, I want to jump at that opportunity."

Webber praised Gallopo's ability to bring new people into the party.

"New people [are] the life-blood of a strong, vibrant party," he said.

The event served as an opportunity for Gallopo to outline his political beliefs, which he said reflected "basic core republican values, like fiscal conservancy."

"It's not our money and we have to remind ourselves of that every day," he said. "It's your money. It's our responsibility to spend it wisely and to make sure that maintain a high level of services to the community.

"It's a balancing act, particularly when dollars are scarce. When we get elected, we will get this done in a way that serves your best interests."

Gallopo also stressed the importance of educated discourse in politics, a facet of local government that he fears has been overtaken by emotion-based reasoning.

"Too many rumors, too many emotionally driven opinions make it difficult for community members to really get their arms around what's needed in the township," he said. "It's incumbent upon all community leaders to make sure every resident has the opportunity to develop an informed opinion."

He said that, if elected, he would want to make sure information is readily available and he would be visible and available to residents to "make sure information is dispensed as easily as possible."

"You have to have people feel like they can get involved, like their voice count for something," he said. "Respectful debate makes for good government."

Mayor Jim Sandham supported Gallopo, saying he was "exactly the type of young leader we need to shape and secure Montville's future."

"I know he will act with integrity," he said. "He's exactly the type of new blood we need on the township committee."

Frelinghuysen echoed Webber and Sandham's comments.

"There's been a lot of good talk tonight," he said. "I want to wish you Godspeed, Scott and Tim [Braden]."

Gallopo and Braden are both running for the two open seats on the township committee against Democratic candidates Mike O'Brien and Truscha Quatrone.

Sandham was enthusiastic about the Republican’s chances in November.

"Scott and Tim are exactly the people that should get your vote on November 2," he said.

Webber shared the mayor's enthusiasm, but cautioned the potential committee members to "govern like republicans."

"Don't lose sight of our values, of what makes us republicans.," he said. "When we govern [like republicans] we make people's lives better."

Last night's debate

Last evening's Republican/Democratic candidates debate hosted by the Montville Tea Party


Montville Township Committee candidates debate over town issues

Recent interview with Patch.com - Smart Spending and transparency key to Republican Candidate

Patch.com interview : smart spending transparency key to Republican-candidate

As promised, a bullet point summary :

• Democrats sent an email claiming that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27
• The email and YouTube video were vetted by one of the Democratic candidates for Township Committee, made a date correction, and approved the content of the message.  Both the video and the email contained information that was factually incorrect and misleading.
• When a group of supporters, a campaign committee, or one of two candidates who are on the same "ticket" pen an opinion piece, the ENTIRE campaign and both candidates OWN the view.  If either candidate feels that a piece does not represent their view, it is their responsibility to write a retraction.  There is NO plausible deniability.
• Their lack of understanding of the basic procedural process for introducing and passing an ordinance (including the public discussion piece) led to the development of an uninformed opinion that created an issue out of a non-issue.
• The Ordinance in question (2010-31) was a proposal to REDUCE the salaries of personnel replacing recently retired department heads (a list of the ranges and current salaries is included in this post). 
• Dissemination of misinformation is irresponsible and should NEVER be tolerated, especially from candidates, campaign committees, and elected officials.
• Local government watchdogs and candidates have an obligation to develop informed opinions based on the facts. Misrepresenting the facts to the public damages us all, since it undermines the credibility of everyone who challenges the status quo.  
• Without this credibility, elected officials can easily neutralize public dissent.

Recently, an email written by the Democrats began circulating around town getting everyone excited.  In essence, the authors claimed that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27.  They also stated that this was done after the general public left the building, implying that the Township Committee's intention was to slide this one through without the taxpayers noticing.

Anger.  Frustration.  Blood pressure spiking..... Break out the pitchforks and torches!!

On second thought, let's save all that emotion and direct it towards generating some intellectual curiosity that is focused on the real issues we are facing here in Montville.  Why?  Because the Democrats report (which was vetted by one of the Democratic candidates running for Township Committee) regarding the topic and content of the discussion was factually incorrect.  There will not be a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads"..... period.  I guess sometimes you hear what you want to hear at the TC meetings...

Why write about this in my Blog?

Dissemination of misinformation, whether it is deliberate, due to intellectual laziness, or a result of "errors of omission" can never be tolerated.  I firmly believe that EVERY citizen has the right, and quite frankly the obligation, to challenge our government's tax and spending policies.  Having said that, we should all strive to develop informed opinions supported by the facts.  This especially holds true when the intention is to "spread the word" via mass emails and YouTube videos.

They should have done their homework before blasting the community with emails and posting a YouTube video.  I feel very strongly that candidates and self appointed local government watchdogs should validate their views and positions through a rigorous analysis of public documents to uncover the "facts".  This should be done PRIOR to publishing views and issues, particularly when these views and so-called issues are pushed out to the community via email blasts and YouTube videos.

AN EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS:

• There is a difference between an "ordinance introduction" and a "public hearing on ordinances for final adoption". 
• The introduction of an ordinance is the first step.  It is a simple summary of the intent of the ordinance, and provides the TC the opportunity to express their initial views as to whether or not the ordinance is ready for phase 2.  There is no actual "vote" for or against the ordinance itself, and no public participation.  The vote is whether or not to officially introduce the ordinance and schedule phase 2 of the process for the next TC meeting (public hearing and final adoption).  Sometimes it is prudent to table the issue if the TC feels the ordinance requires fine tuning before moving to phase 2.
• Ordinance No. 2010-30 and 31 were "introduced" at the July 27 meeting.  This "tee-ed up" the  public discussion and final vote phase for the August 10th meeting.
• This is process for adopting new ordinances and has been the standard operating procedure for our local government for many years.
• BOTTOM LINE - a candidate MUST be able to understand "how a bill becomes a law" before he or she can develop an informed opinion on an issue that they intend to bring to the public's attention.  It is irresponsible to do otherwise.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ORDINANCE No. 2010-31 (the so-called broad salary increase):

• Due to the recent retirements of department heads and other Township employees, the TC took the opportunity to propose new salary ranges for potential internal replacements and future new hires.  
• The salary ranges needed to be established for replacement hires, and for new lower level positions that reflected the revised table of organization.  That's fancy jargon for "the Land Use Director retired, so we reorganized the department eliminating this position, and we can hire someone for a lower salary instead of replacing the Land Use Director".   
• This was an administrative exercise that resulted in expense reductions.
• This was NOT a proposal for raising salaries.

What the Democrats failed to mention:

Retired Land Use Director's old salary - $94,760

Replacement's proposed salary range - $60,000-$75,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Principal Planner)

Retired CFO's old salary - $102,082

Replacement's proposed salary range - $65,000-$85,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Finance Officer)

Retired Secretary's old salary - $70,783

Replacement's proposed salary range - $35,000-$55,000

salary decrease for the same role

The Democratics continue to misrepresent the facts, and have yet to correct or retract their statements and YouTube video.  

If you have been following my Blog since June, you know that I have never been and never will be shy about criticizing the TC when I feel they are on the wrong side of an issue.  You probably also know that I "do my homework", and provide the facts that support my position.  I feel strongly that I have an obligation as a candidate to develop an informed opinion and deliver the truth.  Spreading rumors and false information to whip up a frenzy is simply irresponsible and should never be tolerated, especially when it is done by candidates or elected officials.  It is counter to the core values of community watchdogs who we count on to provide transparency and uncover the issues that have a meaningful impact on our community.

More on this later.....

As of September 20, 2010 there has been NO official retraction or email with corrections, and the video can still be found on Youtube

On September 26, I made an adjustment to this blog post in an effort to clarify WHO wrote the email, and to make it clear that the content was vetted through ONE of the two candidates.  The fact remains that if a campaign committee, one of the two candidates running on the same ticket, or a group of supporters blast out a email or video - both candidates and their campaign own it.  Your only option is to write a retractment.  There is no plausible deniability.

FYI - When submitting an OPRA request for information regarding Montville public records, meeting minutes, and audio CD recordings of the TC meetings -  submit the form to Trudy Atkinson, Township Clerk.

A great evening with Jay Webber and Morris County Republicans at Suppa's on Oct 7th

Click on this link for the Montville Patch.com article:

http://montville.patch.com/articles/republicans-show-support-for-gallopo-braden

more on this later

sg

My key platform points.... more action points and detail to follow

My key "issues" and platform points.  I will add more detail and action points over the next 10 days.....

·        In order to do my share to reduce the cost of municipal government, I will not accept any monetary benefit from my Township Committee service – including salary, pension and healthcare benefits.

·        Accelerate Township debt reduction (Montville’s mortgage).  Do not borrow over the next three years except for emergent items and replacing of essential equipment.  The resulting expense reduction would enable us to deliver essential services and avoid unnecessary layoffs while reducing the tax burden on our residents.
·        I will advocate for complete transparency and open government.  This should be done via a new local ordinance that adopts Senator Joe Pennacchio’s “Transparency in Government Act” legislation.

·        Establish a 3-year operating budget plan.  This tool will enable us to forecast expenses and taxes beyond the current year in an effort to mitigate the impact of “surprises”.  Effective and efficient government through better planning.  This 3-year operating budget plan should be published and made available to the public.

·        Eliminate waste from the municipal budget while avoiding both unnecessary layoffs and cutting basic services

·        Responsibly deliver necessary services and programs within the same budget constraints we experience in our own personal lives

·        Bring a new perspective to local government through his innovative ideas, financial background, business leadership skills, and proven approach to problem solving

·        Set a friendly environment to encourage and support businesses in Montville for long term stability

·        Support and recognize all volunteer/civic groups, emergency services and public services

·        Embrace citizen participation within the government decision making process

·        Truly represent the interests of the citizens of Montville Township

Born and raised in Bergen County, Scott Gallopo is a 1985 graduate of Lehigh University and holds a BS in Finance.  He is a 9 year resident of Montville where he resides with his wife of 23 years Michele, Scott Jr. (19) and Matthew (11).  Scott volunteers a great deal of time to various local organizations and remains committed to being an active member of the Montville Community.  His contributions to the township include many leadership roles for children and young adults.

•          Coach, Montville Bronco Football
•          Coach, Montville Warrior Lacrosse
•          Coach, Montville Flag Football, Wayne league
•          Vice President, Montville High School Marching Band Boosters Association (M.M.B.B.A.) 2007-2008
•          President, Montville High School Marching Band Boosters Association (M.M.B.B.A.) 2008-2009
•          Member, Lehigh University Alumni Wall Street Council 2002-2010
•          Student Mentor, Lehigh University 1995-2010
•          Class of 1981 Fund raising Chairman, Bergen Catholic High School 1988-2010

A self-employed management consultant and portfolio manager since 2006, Scott previously served as a Managing Director at JPMorgan Chase from 1989-2006 in the Foreign Exchange and Commodities Division. He played a key role in successfully managing several large international businesses through four major mergers and numerous financial crises. This required a strong focus on reducing expenses while maintaining a high level of service to his clients.  He has held multiple positions in the financial sector throughout the course of his career (currency and commodities products only), and was an active member of the Federal Reserve Foreign Exchange Chief Dealer Committee from 1995-2002.  He helped develop best practices and ethics guidelines that were adopted by the FX trading industry.  In 2006, he retired from JPMorgan to spend more time with his young family.

Hot off the press - links to a few articles in our local press

Here are 3 links to articles in the Star-Ledger and Daily Record worth a read.

NJN funding Op/Ed -

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100929/OPINION01/100928054/1094/OPINION/Taxpayers-like-NJN--but-...

Tax Foundation property tax report
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100929/COMMUNITIES/309290006/1005/NEWS01/Census--Incomes-down-2.3-percent-in-NJ--still-ranked-2nd-in-nation

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_fairing_better_than_rest_of.html

Our October 7th event with special guest Jay Webber

                          You are cordially invited to join                              

Scott Gallopo

Republican Candidate for Montville Township Committee

and special guest

Assemblyman Jay Webber

Chairman, NJ Republican State Committee

Thursday, October 7, 2010

6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.

Suppa’s Restaurant

17 Old Bloomfield Avenue Pine Brook, NJ 07058

Hors d'oeuvres, carving stations and drinks

$75 per person

CLICK on this link for a printable version of the invitation

Paid for by the Committee to Elect Scott Gallopo   9 Nelson Lane, Montville NJ 07045

The right view, but there's something else to consider - the BOE and TC working relationship

What was considered a well intentioned, carefully worded public plea for review of an unpopular and controversial policy has now resulted in unintended negative consequences for the BOE and the ongoing effort to promote a good working relationship between the TC and the BOE. My views on the issues remain unchanged as a parent of a 6th grader and as a taxpayer, as a candidate I also have to strive for a better working relationship between the TC and the BOE.  No relationship results in no influence.

There is a clear line between the business of the BOE and the business of the Township Committee.  When the two intersect on an issue that falls under the domain of both governing bodies, both groups have the right and obligation to voice their views in the appropriate forum.  This is the structure of our local government, and there is a clear separation of powers and responsibilities understood by all the elected officials.  This is not to say that the Township Committee has no right to raise issue with BOE policies, or that they have no recourse to do so - the joint TC/BOE meetings is the venue for all the elected officials and candidates to speak their mind when addressing such matters.  This is the best way to promote robust debate between the two bodies and to maintain a good working relationship in the process.  

I suppose the best way to crystallize the message of this blog post is to use this analogy - A letter to the editor printed in the newspaper asking for a review of the Township's Water and Sewer fee policy penned by and signed by Karen Cortenlino and Jon Alin, Board of Ed members would be inappropriate for the same reasons.  Jon and Karen have the right to pen that view as residents, but not as BOE board members.

Ignorance on my part is no excuse, and a phone rather than a pen would have been the better choice.  As I mentioned earlier in this post, my views as a resident and parent of a 6th grader on the issue remain unchanged.  Expressing those views in a public forum as a candidate for Township Committee was inappropriate. A strong working relationship between the Township Committee and the Board of Education based on trust and respect is critical, and serves the taxpayer, parent and children's best interests.  Voicing my views as a candidate on the activity fee policy at a BOE meeting, or via email or phone call to BOE members would have been the wiser and more appropriate choice.

Rumors and Disinformation - the true enemy of transparency and open government

As promised, a bullet point summary :

• Democrats sent an email claiming that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27
• The email and YouTube video were vetted by one of the Democratic candidates for Township Committee, made a date correction, and approved the content of the message.  Both the video and the email contained information that was factually incorrect and misleading.
• When a group of supporters, a campaign committee, or one of two candidates who are on the same "ticket" pen an opinion piece, the ENTIRE campaign and both candidates OWN the view.  If either candidate feels that a piece does not represent their view, it is that candidate's responsibility to write a retraction.  There is NO plausible deniability.
• Their lack of understanding of the basic procedural process for introducing and passing an ordinance (including the public discussion piece) led to the development of an uninformed opinion that created an issue out of a non-issue.
• The Ordinance in question (2010-31) was a proposal to REDUCE the salaries of personnel replacing recently retired department heads (a list of the ranges and current salaries is included in this post). 
• Dissemination of factually incorrect information is irresponsible and should NEVER be tolerated, especially from candidates, campaign committees, and elected officials.  Misinformation could be accidental, but it becomes disinformation once the candidates recognizes that they are wrong, but continue to push the lies for their own benefit.  This take the level of irresponsibility to the next and worst level.
• Local government watchdogs and candidates have an obligation to develop informed opinions based on the facts. Misrepresenting the facts to the public damages us all, since it undermines the credibility of everyone who challenges the status quo.  
• Without this credibility, elected officials can easily neutralize public dissent.

Recently (in August), an email written by the Democrats began circulating around town getting everyone excited.  In essence, the authors claimed that the TC discussed a proposal for a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads" during the TC meeting on July 27.  They also stated that this was done after the general public left the building, implying that the Township Committee's intention was to slide this one through without the taxpayers noticing.

Anger.  Frustration.  Blood pressure spiking..... Break out the pitchforks and torches!!

On second thought, let's save all that emotion and direct it towards generating some intellectual curiosity that is focused on the real issues we are facing here in Montville.  Why?  Because the Democrats report (which was vetted by one of the Democratic candidates running for Township Committee) regarding the topic and content of the discussion was factually incorrect.  There will not be a "broad salary increase for Township executives and Department heads"..... period.  I guess sometimes you hear what you want to hear at the TC meetings...

Why write about this in my Blog?

Dissemination of misinformation, whether it is deliberate, due to intellectual laziness, or a result of "errors of omission" can never be tolerated.  I firmly believe that EVERY citizen has the right, and quite frankly the obligation, to challenge our government's tax and spending policies.  Having said that, we should all strive to develop informed opinions supported by the facts.  This especially holds true when the intention is to "spread the word" via mass emails and YouTube videos.

They should have done their homework before blasting the community with emails and posting a YouTube video.  I feel very strongly that candidates and self appointed local government watchdogs should validate their views and positions through a rigorous analysis of public documents to uncover the "facts".  This should be done PRIOR to publishing views and issues, particularly when these views and so-called issues are pushed out to the community via email blasts and YouTube videos.

AN EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS:

• There is a difference between an "ordinance introduction" and a "public hearing on ordinances for final adoption". 
• The introduction of an ordinance is a simple summary of the intent of the ordinance, and provides the TC the opportunity to express their initial views as to whether or not the ordinance is ready for phase 2.  There is no actual "vote" for or against the ordinance itself, and no public participation.  The vote is whether or not to officially introduce the ordinance and schedule phase 2 of the process for the next TC meeting (public hearing and final adoption).  Sometimes it is prudent to table the issue if the TC feels the ordinance requires fine tuning before moving to phase 2.
• Ordinance No. 2010-30 and 31 were "introduced" at the July 27 meeting.  This "tee-ed up" the  public discussion and final vote phase for the August 10th meeting.
• This is process for adopting new ordinances and has been the standard operating procedure for our local government for many years.
• BOTTOM LINE - a candidate MUST be able to understand "how a bill becomes a law" before he or she can develop an informed opinion on an issue that they intend to bring to the public's attention.  It is irresponsible to do otherwise.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ORDINANCE No. 2010-31 (the so-called broad salary increase):

• Due to the recent retirements of department heads and other Township employees, the TC took the opportunity to propose new salary ranges for potential internal replacements and future new hires.  
• The salary ranges needed to be established for replacement hires, and for new lower level positions that reflected the revised table of organization.  That's fancy jargon for "the Land Use Director retired, so we reorganized the department eliminating this position, and we can hire someone for a lower salary instead of replacing the Land Use Director".   
• This was an administrative exercise that resulted in expense reductions.
• This was NOT a proposal for raising salaries.

What the Democrats failed to mention:

Retired Land Use Director's old salary - $94,760

Replacement's proposed salary range - $60,000-$75,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Principal Planner)

Retired CFO's old salary - $102,082

Replacement's proposed salary range - $65,000-$85,000  

salary decrease due to downgraded new title (Finance Officer)

Retired Secretary's old salary - $70,783

Replacement's proposed salary range - $35,000-$55,000

salary decrease for the same role

The Democratics continue to misrepresent the facts, and have yet to correct or retract their statements and YouTube video.  

If you have been following my Blog since June, you know that I have never been and never will be shy about criticizing the TC when I feel they are on the wrong side of an issue.  You probably also know that I "do my homework", and provide the facts that support my position.  I feel strongly that I have an obligation as a candidate to develop an informed opinion and deliver the truth.  Spreading rumors and false information to whip up a frenzy is simply irresponsible and should never be tolerated, especially when it is done by candidates or elected officials.  It is counter to the core values of community watchdogs who we count on to provide transparency and uncover the issues that have a meaningful impact on our community.

More on this later.....

As of October 14, 2010 there has been NO official retraction or email with corrections, and the video can still be found on Youtube

On September 26, I made an adjustment to this blog post in an effort to clarify WHO wrote the email, and to make it clear that the content was vetted through ONE of the two candidates.  The fact remains that if a campaign committee, one of the two candidates running on the same ticket, or a group of supporters blast out a email or video - both candidates and their campaign own it.  Your only option is to write a retractment.  There is no plausible deniability.

FYI - When submitting an OPRA request for information regarding Montville public records, meeting minutes, and audio CD recordings of the TC meetings -  submit the form to Trudy Atkinson, Township Clerk.

Montville Retains S&P AAA rating - beneath the numbers...

Great news !!! .... and a potential yellow flag


The great news is that Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services assigned its ‘AAA’ long-term rating, and stable outlook, to the Township of Montville, NJ’s series 2010 general obligation (GO) refunding bonds and affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR), with a stable outlook, on the Township’s existing GO debt.


Why?

The rating reflects the Township’s:

• Mature, primarily built-out and residential community with access to the deep and diverse labor markets of New York City and northern New Jersey
• Strong property tax base supported by high wealth and income levels
• Solid financial performance with good reserves
• Low debt burden and aggressive amortization schedule

The Yellow Flag -

• Standard & Poor’s considers Montville’s management practices “standard” under its Financial Management Assessment (FMA) methodology, indicating the finance department maintains adequate policies in some, but not all, key areas.
• Though the audit has not been complete,fiscal 2009 unaudited results indicate an unreserved fund balance reduction of $1.08 million, less than the $2.14 million appropriated in the budget.  Management attributes fund balance use to tax appeals that resulted in refunds of approximately $900,000.  This draw down brought the unreserved fund balance to $1.55 million, which we still believe to be a good 6% of expenditures.  Property taxes generated nearly 70% of revenues in 2009, and the Township collects in excess of 98% of the levy annually.
• The stable outlook reflects the Township’s stated intention that after drawing down in fiscal 2009 to fund one-time tax refunds, it plans to restore the unreserved fund balance to historical levels, which has averaged 10% over the past four audited fiscal years. The local economy’s affluence, the Township’s low debt burden, and the Township’s experienced management further support the stable outlook.

Montville is one of only 14 municipalities in NJ that has maintained a AAA bond rating.  This is terrific news because a AAA rating allows us to fund future capital expenditures via bonds more cheaply.  

Kudos to Fran Vanderhoof, Frank Bastone and the LTFPC for their efforts on this.

The yellow flag of caution: 

One of the metrics used by the S&P for assigning a AAA rating to Montville's debt is the level of our "reserve account" funds.  This money would be used to help service the AAA rated debt if there is another gap in revenue (more tax appeals etc.) in the future.  The S&P is looking for us to replenish this reserve account so that we can have a 10% buffer, not the current 6%.  This would mean either "topping off" the account from your tax dollars, or a major cut in expenses, to get back to historical levels.  However, if we DO experience another drop in tax revenue due to tax appeals in 2010 or from a cut in State aid, it would become difficult to maintain the 10% funding, and this would perhaps put our AAA rating in jeopardy.  

Great news regarding our AAA bond rating, but we must remain vigilant, and become more fiscally conservative going forward if we hope to maintain this rating and the "Stable" Outlook.

For the complete article from Montville's website, click here