On January 31, 2007 the Union County Watchdog Association announced that it will be posting complete video coverage of Union County Freeholder’s meetings on its website. A press release stated: “Union County government accounts for 1/4 of our property tax bills and constituents have a right to see and hear what goes on during local government meetings,” said Tina Renna, president of Union County Watchdog Association.

In January 2008 we announced that we would be lobbying towns to show freeholder meetings on their local cable access channels. The freeholders stopped distributing meetings to towns a few years ago. We have been very successful and most cable viewers can now access freeholder meetings on at least one channel.

Our website has always been a model of which we would hope that county government would want to emulate. When we started obtaining public records and posting them on the Internet the county did not post any public documents on their taxpayer funded site. The county now posts their meeting minutes and past meeting agendas on their site.

Big whop-de-do and I’ll tell you and show you why I believe that.

The county controls what is recorded in their meeting minutes. The last meeting I tagged for our Veotag account, a video enhancement service, was a good example of how the county twists words made by residents who are critical of them. As with everything we post on our website, it is hoped that the county would get the message and use their million dollar public information department and post this information themselves. This will never happen because even if they spent a hundred million dollars on public information they can never spin a live performance.

Here is two examples how the county is dis-informing the public with their meeting minutes.

Union County Freeholder meeting March 13, 2008:
The official meeting minutes state: Tina Renna, Cranford, New Jersey, does not support the idea of the Board sponsoring and attending the African Heritage Parade and other Parades. She also commented on the Presentation to Mr. Lynch and said that although he is a great guy, he should not be honored at Freeholder Meetings.

THIS IS WHAT I REALLY SAID

The official meeting minutes state: Tina Renna, Cranford, stated that she is the President of the Union County Watchdog Association and commented about the audio equipment for Freeholder Meetings, she spoke about the proposed budget and quoted County Manager Devanney who stated that the increased budget is due to mandated expenses, such as health insurance, pensions and increase in salaries for the Union County Sheriff and Police Departments.

THIS IS WHAT I REALLY SAID

500 and 99 yesterdays ago …..

On July 7, 2006 Senator Raymond Lesniak’s nephew, who is the appointed Union County Manager, was quoted in a Star-Ledger article headlined “Board Heads back to TV” …. “This investment in our sound system, PA and taping system will ensure that the public, our constituents and all entities that do business with the county will continue to receive information about our meetings in a timely and accurate manner,” County Manager George Devanney said yesterday….

The article went on to quote me as the President of the Union County Watchdog Association “…$78,000 seemed like an extraordinary amount to pay for new equipment …. “For 80,000 she said, “I would hope they would be Webcasting meetings too.” …. “Actually, the county is looking into that” said Delia (county public information officer).

The county replaced their equipment in 2006 but they never distributed the meetings to the local cable stations, nor did they ever Webcast their meetings. The bills the UCWA eventually obtained through OPRA show the county spent $110,000 for the new equipment.

The UCWA has been Webcasting freeholder meetings as well as county budget hearings since January 2007.

One 2008 Union County Watchdog Association initiative is to have freeholder meetings broadcast on the local cable channels. Many towns have already moved to request these meetings and will begin to air them shortly.

Channel 26 programming is controlled by Comcast and is broadcast to most Union County towns. The UCWA will routinely request the meeting tape from the county through OPRA (pay $15.00 for it) and drop it to Comcast. The Dec. 20 meeting will be the first (the one the county claimed didn’t exist until the UCWA asked the Prosecutor’s office to investigate) it will be aired on February 28th @ 9:30 pm.

Things that make you go Hmmm…..

In response to the UCWA’s recent efforts to return freeholder meetings to the public cable viewing audiences throughout Union County the county’s extensive office of public information has revamped their efforts to distribute the freeholders taxpayer funded infomercial and have begun dropping off their ½ hour “Freeholder Forum” shows to cable stations – BUT not their meeting recordings.

The county has been promoting this show, which usually features a freeholder who is up for re-election, steadily on their website since approximately a million yesterdays ago.

____________

Freeholder meetings are avialalbe on the UCWA Veotag account

Board heads back to TV - Star Ledger 7/7/06

Freeholder Forum Show county website promotion

County Watchers “What were they trying to keep from you?”

Earlier we reported that after the county claimed that the Dec. 20th freeholder meeting wasn’t recorded, despite the camera’s visibly rolling, the UCWA issued a press release and asked the prosecutor’s office to investigate. The county then changed their script and the Clerk emailed “Please be advised that the response form I faxed to you on December 28, 2007 stating “No recording to provide”, was inaccurate. A VHS tape is in fact available ….”

What were they trying to keep from you?

See for yourself at our Veotag account HERE.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Union County Watchdog Association has requested an investigation by the Union County Prosecutor’s Office into the malfunctioning of the recording equipment during the December 20, 2007 freeholder meeting. The county recently spent $110,000 on updating and installing new video equipment.

The UCWA routinely requests a copy of the meeting recordings and then has them converted to be available to the public on the Internet. An Open Public Records Act request for a copy of this meeting was returned “no document to provide”. Also not available to the public is a written statement which was read by the County Manager regarding the county’s response to the recent prisoner escapes.

During this meeting there was input from the public on many important subjects both on and off the agenda. It is the county’s habit of taking care of messy business such as retroactive pay raises at their end-of-the-year meeting. This meeting was held 5 days before Christmas.

Although the announcement hadn’t been made yet regarding the done deal of Richard Childs becoming the new County Public Safety Director the freeholders were asked repeatedly what qualifications Childs had for this position considering he was currently a part-time investigator in the County Counsel’s office and why a national search wasn’t performed to fill this position as was being done to fill the Jail Director position. The new Jail Director will be reporting to Childs.

No explanation was given or public statements made regarding this all-important position of public safety. There is no record of this position being discussed during public or closed session meetings of the freeholders.

Consider that Childs will now be in charge of a department with about 400 employees, including 74 County Police. The Public Safety Department also includes the operations of the county’s Divisions of Correctional Services, Emergency Management, Medical Examiner, Weights and Measures, and Health. Childs will also be responsible for the supervision of the Bureaus of Domestic Preparedness, Hazardous Materials, the Fire Training Academy and Fire Investigations Task Force, and the Office of Consumer Affairs.

The UCWA is requesting an investigation because we believe there may have been statements made during this meeting that could aid the current investigation into county management’s role in the prisoner escapes as well as past practices in the jail. Namely, prisoner health care, politically connected prisoners being given preferential treatment and the lack of cameras inside the facility.

Other important business during this meeting was the creation of 6 new captain positions in the Sheriff’s Department. This will bring the total number of captains to 11 and will allow for 6 Sergeants to be promoted to Lieutenant including the Union County Democrat Chairman, Charlotte DeFilipo’s daughter-in-law. Sheriff Ralph Froehlic’s step-son will be promoted to Sergeant. There are also 7 Lieutenants and 10Sergeants under 1 Sheriff and 3 Undersherriffs (one undersheriff is an assemblyman and another is the son of an assemblyman).

The main function of the Sheriff’s department is to guard the Courthouse which doesn’t include the prison. The freeholders were asked why six new Captains were needed. No explanation was given. These new captain positions and the other promotions will cost approximately $300,000 annually. Also created were 3 new lieutenant positions in the County Police Department.

Raises for the County Manager, who is appointed by the freeholders and is Senator Raymond Lesniak’s nephew, and the freeholders were also on the agenda and voted on as well as raises for all constitutional officers - including the prosecutor and sheriff.

The county allows citizens 5 minutes to speak. Freeholder Chairwoman Bette Jean Kowalski repeatedly tried to keep me from speaking on all of the above, and I repeatedly asked her why I wasn’t allowed to speak the truth. Kowalski eventually had me escorted from the meeting by a county police officer. Now the recording of the meeting isn’t available. hmmmm

Union County government takes approximately ¼ of our property taxes and can not be held accountable to the public. Citizens of Union County should be very concerned about their public safety as well as their Democratic freedoms as dictated by the county freeholders.

View OPRA response HERE

The Union County Watchdog Association has posted the 2007 Union County Budget Hearing’s on their Veotag site. You can view them HERE.

You may recall that the UCWA wanted to tape the budget hearings but the county refused to grant permission. After a Star-Ledger reporter asked them about it the county decided to tape the meetings themselves. The UCWA then purchased the meeting tapes ($90.00 worth) and veotaged them and placed them on the web for free and easy public access.

I attended budget hearings last year, and this year and I believe the camera rolling made a huge difference in the process. For one, this year there were six freeholders in attendance who tried their darnedest to look like they were paying attention, when in last year’s hearings I only counted up to three who seemed to barely stay awake. Although they didn’t discuss much internal hard stuff (the freeholder handouts were not offered to the citizens in attendance), there were many more questions asked of the department heads this year which made the process a little bit more informative for the public.

In a Star-Ledger article about the county not wanting the public to tape their budget hearings the county tried to paint my motivation for being a watchdog as political in an attempt to discredit me. This does a disservice to not only me, but to all the board members and active members who contribute to the UCWA. There is no way just one person could accomplish all that we do on their own.

In the article the county pointed out that the Union County Republican Committee has been a supporter of the UCWA. This is true, but they are by far not the only contributor as many of you know. The UCWA would not refuse any monetary donation from the Union County Democratic Committee or any other political group who is interested in bringing about good government practices to Union County government.

The county’s Office of Public Information claimed that I am the only person who wanted these hearings video taped; However, I’d like you to know that hundreds of people have been viewing our web-posted freeholder meetings.

Comically this department, which is charged with informing the public, claimed that the county’s taping of the budget hearings, was going to cost the tax-payers money. The employee who taped the meetings was the same employee I spied sitting in the audience last year. According to the county’s claim employees who are involved in a task cost more to tax-payers than employees who are just sitting around. It must be a union thingy. That Carla Katz is such a minx.

Thank you for your continued support, without which none of the UCWA’s activities would be possible. I view these budget hearing tapings and consequent free internet access as a victory for open government and ask you to consider why the county doesn’t make this sort of information available on their website. What do they have to hide? It’s another reminder of how county government is connected to their powerbrokers and not the residents.

View article Blogger, freeholders feud on videotaping
County to do its own taping after refusing woman
Star-Ledger Thursday, February 22, 2007
HERE

Submitted by: George DeCarlo
Board Secretary of the Union County Watchdog Association & State Chair of the Green Party of New Jersey

The Union County Watchdog Association puts considerable time, energy and funds into shining a light on Union County government.

Our newest endeavor is making freeholder meetings available on our website www.unioncountywatchdog.org. According to a study conducted by the UCWA, the county of Union is spending more on public information than any other county in the state, outside of Ocean County, who maintains a booth in the Ocean County Mall.

Taxpayers need to demand to know why it takes a volunteer citizen group to offer state-of-the-art public information. For much less than the cost of one taxpayer-funded glossy mailing featuring freeholders at election time, the County of Union could be providing citizens with web-access video meeting minutes as the Union County Watchdog Association is doing.

In a Worrall Newspaper editorial this week the county complained that we present the meetings with a partisan slant, I’ll let their examples speak for themselves. One example was “The $110,000 new video equipment malfunctions”. This was tagged because the video equipment cost $110,000, and it did malfunction during their February 15, 2007 meeting (see for yourself by clicking HERE).

Another example was “chairwoman says you can comment but we will not answer questions.” This was tagged because Chairwoman Kowalski actually stated this during the meeting. This statement by freeholders has been made countless times through the years. In fact, during the February 15 meeting a Linden resident asked a question and was told this; and what was tagged were the Freeholder Chairwoman’s exact words, “There is a misunderstanding this is for public comments if you want to raise questions we have a procedure for that which you can discuss with the clerk afterwards. But if you have something you’d like to comment on we’d be happy to listen”. The citizen then just sat down without commenting. (See for yourself by clicking HERE.)

Mrs. Renna then approached the microphone and explained the procedure to the Linden resident, “The procedure is that you place an Open Public Records Act request with the Clerk and if the answer to your question isn’t in a document than you don’t get an answer.” (See for yourself by clicking HERE.)

Worrall’s editorial was correct stating that videotaping public meetings is only one tiny step toward truly open government because most county decisions seem to be made behind the scenes. The UCWA is striving to expose the lack of public information at the county level of government which spends well over 1-million of our tax dollars a day and is in charge of our public safety. What better way than making freeholder meeting videos conveniently accessible and allowing the freeholders to speak for themselves without the expensive taxpayer-funded ad campaigns and press releases they call public information?

These meetings show residents more of what isn’t happening at public meetings than what is happening.

The Union County Watchdog Association recently requested permission of the County of Union to video tape their budget hearings. It was our intent to then upload the hearings to our website for free public access.

The county will not allow the UCWA to record the hearings. The County will not be recoding the hearings either despite recently spending $110,000 tax-dollars upgrading their audio and visual equipment.
——————–
Re: Your notice of intention to video record the Budget Hearings of the Fiscal Affairs Committee

Mrs. Renna:

Receipt of your February 11, 2007 notice of your intention, pursuant to the “Guidelines For The Utilization of Recording Devices During Open Public Meetings of The Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders” to video the meetings of the Fiscal Affairs Committee scheduled for February 21, 2007, February 24, 2007, February 28, 2007 and March 8, 2007 is hereby acknowledged. Please be advised that, for the reasons set forth below, you will not be permitted to video the aforementioned meetings of the Freeholders’ Fiscal Affairs Committee.

Please be advised that the referenced “Guidelines” do not apply to working-Freeholder Committee Meetings, which are routinely held in conference rooms; but rather they apply to Open Public Meetings of the Board as a whole, held in the Freeholder Meeting Room. As you well know, the committee meetings in question relate to the County’s 2007 Budget and historically such budget meetings are attended by Freeholders that are not committee members. With the probability that 5 or more Freeholders will attend some or all of these meetings, the County, pursuant to the “Sunshine Law,” publicly notices same. These Committee meetings do not constitute traditional “Open Public Meetings” and there is no public participation permitted at these working meetings of the Committee. Additionally, the conference room, where this Committee convenes, is not conducive to videotaping activities while Committee hearings are being conducted. Of course, the public is given every opportunity to participate and comment at the public, budget hearings conducted by the full–Board of Chosen Freeholders.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and anticipated cooperation.

Nicole L. DiRado
Nicole L. DiRado, RMC, MPA, Clerk of the Board
Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders

Worrall Community Newspapers
Officials embark on budget process

By Lauren DeFilippo, Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:29 PM EST

UNION COUNTY, NJ - The county’s 2007 budget is expected to be introduced to the freeholder board this week.

County Manager George Devanney announced his $415 million executive budget last month, which included the elimination of 50 positions and, for the fifth year in a row, an increased tax levy.

After the executive budget is announced, a copy is sent to the state for approval. Following that approval, the freeholders commence budget hearings, and make amendments. The revised budget is then introduced during the month of May.

The freeholder board typically adopts the budget in June. The county’s fiscal year begins on Jan. 1

Those hearings, which are open to the public, are set to begin Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. on the sixth floor of the County Administration Building, located on Elizabethtown Plaza.

During each hearing, department heads present their budget requests to the finance committee and propose potential cost saving measures. The schedule of departments has not yet been released.

Other hearings are slated for Feb. 24 at 9 a.m., and Feb. 28. and March 8 at 5:30 p.m..

Following the hearings, the freeholder board will make changes and recommendations to the budget.

The county budget is typically adopted in June.
Lauren DeFilippo can be reached at 908-686-7700, ext. 119, or unioncountyb@thelocalsource.com.

The January 18, 2007 video meeting minutes of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders are now posted on the Union County Watchdog Association’s website. Although the county spent $110,000 on new video and audio equipment you will see that the footage is blurry and the audio is scratchy. It’s just what we’ve come to expect of Union County services.

You can view the meeting by clicking HERE.

The next regular meeting will be held this Thursday, February 15, 2007. The UCWA will make every effort to broadcast this meeting on the web as soon as the county releases the tape.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Tina Renna, President UCWA 908-709-0530

Union County Watchdog Association Posts Freeholder Meetings on Website Using Veotag, a Service That Makes Web Video More Useful and Convenient

Union County, NJ – The Union County Watchdog Association announced today that it will be posting complete video coverage of Union County Freeholder’s meetings on its site, www.unioncountywatchdog.org. “Union County government accounts for 1/4 of our property tax bills and constituents have a right to see and hear what goes on during local government meetings,” said Tina Renna, president of Union County Watchdog Association. “Posting video of Union County Freeholder’s meetings on the web gives constituents an easy way to stay informed and it helps government be more responsive and connected to their constituents.”

The Association is using Veotag, a video enhancement service, to make the video footage of the meetings more convenient and useful for constituents to view. With Veotag, constituents can see a clickable table of contents alongside the video as it plays on their screens. They can click on any item in the table of contents to jump to that moment in the video. This table of contents is also searchable on search engines. A search for “Union County Freeholder Meeting”, or any other word or phrase that is in the table of contents will provide a link to the video.

“Because freeholder meetings can be long and cover many topics, we were concerned whether people would watch the videos” continued Ms. Renna. “By enhancing the video with Veotag, citizens can click directly to the parts that interest them and skip the rest. We believe Veotag is an essential tool for governments to use online video to be transparent to their constituents.”

“Last year Union County government spent approximately $110,000 to replace their audio and video equipment and $6,000 to upgrade their website without providing for web-cast meetings” said Renna, “Currently only a small amount of the 21 towns air freeholder meetings on cable. This new technology is an opportunity for county government to leverage their tax-dollar investment and be connected to anyone with a computer.”

The Union County Watchdog Association utilizes the Open Public Records Act to obtain and then post to their website for free public access many records that aren’t available on the county’s official site. “I’m proud and excited to add video meeting minutes to our extensive on-line library which shines a light on Union County government” said Ms. Renna.

An example of a Union County Freeholder’s meeting video that has been enhanced using Veotag can be viewed by clicking HERE.

Union County freeholder meetings will be a lot sunnier now that the freeholders have been told by Assistant Union County Prosecutor Ann Rubin to adhere to the Open Public Meetings Act by keeping more comprehensive meeting minutes as well as to pass resolutions at open meetings which would inform the public of what they will be discussing when they adjourn into Executive Session.

In a complaint filed with the Union County Prosecutor’s Office on March 27, 2006, the Union County Watchdog Association charged that the Freeholder Board had been routinely violating N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. That statute requires a public body, before going into closed or executive session, to first adopt a resolution, at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted: a. Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed; and b. Stating as precisely as possible, the time when and the circumstances under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body can be disclosed to the public.

Rather than pass the required resolution, the Chairman of the Board would simply “call for a motion” to go into executive session which is then approved unanimously. As a result, the public is deprived of any knowledge of the topics that the Freeholders are privately discussing behind closed doors or when those discussions would be made public.

During a public meeting held on February 10, 2005 the freeholders simply “called for a motion” and without any further explanation adjourned into their private chambers to discuss, among other things, a tawdry sexual harassment law suit that had been filed a month prior, involving a freeholder who would be facing re-election that year and a county employee who he was allegedly having an extramarital affair with. The law suit was filed on January 26, 2005. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 b. states “when a lawsuit has already been filed with the court and is, therefore, a matter of public record, there is no reason why the title of the case cannot be set forth in the resolution and in the Executive Session minutes”.

Instead what the minutes reflected in this matter was: Minutes redacted under Attorney-Client privileged communication in a matter involving on-going litigation.

If the freeholders were following the law that day, they would have passed a resolution and this resolution would have been recorded in the meeting minutes which would have stated:

RESOLUTION: 2005-123 Introduced by Chairman Sullivan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Board Member X Be It Resolved by the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders that the Board met in private session from which the public shall be excluded, to discuss the following personnel matters: Alyssa Scala v. The County of Union, v. Rick Proctor, v. Denise Santiago…..

Rubin has also instructed the board to continually review and cross-reference the matters discussed in Executive Session so that the minutes can be updated in a timely fashion and the redacted portions of the minutes disclosed to the public to reflect with their current status. In a letter dated November 17, 2006 Rubin states “Based on my review of the minutes provided, there is a need for improvement in this area which can be accomplished through better communication between the Board and its counsel and those persons responsible for updating the Executive Session minutes and releasing them to the public. By copy of this letter, I am advising the County Counsel’s Office of our position on this matter. I trust that County Counsel will act upon the contents of this letter and that further action in this regard will not be necessary.”

The Union County Watchdog Association maintains that there should be better communication between the Board and the public. The Board has only recently started posting their regular meeting minutes on their tax-payer funded official website. They do not currently post their Executive Session minutes which we therefore, find it necessary to tediously post for them on our volunteer funded and staffed website.

A good open government practice would be for the Board to not only post their Executive Session minutes on their site but to indicate which minutes are redacted as well as indicate when they have been updated with new information.

In an open democratic society it shouldn’t take an independent watchdog group to monitor government meeting minutes to be sure that government is complying with the law and disclosing information to the public in a lawful manner.

View complaint to UC Prosecutors office by clicking HERE

View second correspondence to UC Prosecutor’s office by clicking HERE

View Executive Session minutes dated February 10, 2005 by clicking HERE

View Prosecutor’s response to UCWA complaint by clicking HERE

View previous post regarding the Freeholder Proctor/Scala sexual harassment law suit, by clicking: Dontcha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?

View previous post regarding Freeholder Rick Pric-tor and sexual harassment in Bloomfield: Freeholder Rick Pric-tor Appointed and elected twice with no mention of abusive history