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
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
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
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Scott Gallopo 9 Nelson Lane, Montville NJ 07045
Monday, September 13, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Rumors and Disinformation - the true enemy of transparency and open government
As promised, a bullet point summary :
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:
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.
- 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.....
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.
Friday, July 9, 2010
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)