It’s a mindset

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

I like nothing better then getting a call or email from a client or referral source when I’m in the office after hours or during the weekend since more work means more money.

Not so with public employees, or at least the one in this example.

An email to the editor I sent to the Westfield Leader, with copies to the parties mentioned therein, elicited this exchange.

The contact information has not been redacted but I would be chary with using sdelia@ucnj.org if you know what’s good for you.

Prosecution of former Garwood Police Officer Gennaro J. Mirabella???

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Hon. Andy Skibitsky and members of the
Westfield Town Council
425 E. Broad Street
Westfield, NJ 07090

RE: Prosecution of former Garwood Police Officer Gennaro J. Mirabella

Dear Mayor Skibitsky and Council Members:

We write to learn the reason the Westfield Municipal Prosecutor declined to prosecute Gennaro J. Mirabella on October 14, 2009. This matter is of public interest because Mirabella, until October 5, 2009 (1) , was a seventeen-year veteran of the Garwood Borough Police Department and is also the brother of Union County Freeholder Alexander Mirabella. Since the Municipal Prosecutor is an appointee of the Mayor and Council, we are directing our question to you.

Attached to this letter are six numbered pages of exhibits that reveal the following:

1. On September 3, 2009, Captain Leonard DiStefano of the Garwood Police Department filed two disorderly persons charges against Mirabella. One alleged that Mirabella was caught on video “purposely tampering with” two currency-to-coin changers at the Jumbo Wash laundry facility (Exhibit 1). The other charged that Mirabella was caught on video opening the drawers of Garwood Borough’s Chief Financial Officer (Exhibit 3).

2. On September 14, 2009, the matters were transferred from the Garwood Municipal Court to the Westfield Municipal Court due to a “judge conflict.” (Exhibit 5).

3. On October 14, 2009, both charges were dismissed against Mirabella because the “State elected not to prosecute in the interest of justice.” (Exhibit 6).

Upon this record, we believe that some members of the public might suspect that Mirabella was spared prosecution due to his status as a police officer and a Freeholder’s brother. A belief that justice was subverted is specially easy to embrace given that Mirabella’s guilt apparently would not have been difficult to prove since both of the offenses were reportedly caught on tape.

Under the circumstances, we believe that the public would benefit by having answers to the following questions:

1. What is the name and title of the person who decided on October 14, 2009 that it would not serve the “interest of justice” for Mirabella to be prosecuted for charged offenses?

2. Upon what factors was the decision not to prosecute based? Please be specific.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response.

Very truly yours,

Tina Renna
President Union County Watchdog Association

John Paff
Chair Libertarian Party Open Government Task Force

(1) The Garwood Borough Council, at its September 22, 2009 meeting, passed Resolution 09-265 which accepted “the resignation of Police Officer Gennaro Mirabella effective October 5, 2009.”

Exhibits

Freeholders diss Westfielders

Friday, September 21st, 2007


DO THESE LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THIS????

It appears that the ugliest government building in Union County is soon to have a sibling that could possibly nudge the Froehlich monstrosity, on North Avenue East in Westfield, out of first place and into second, much like when mom brings home a newborn bumping big brother out of the limelight. Artist’s renderings show that the new construction which will house county vehicles and office space unfortunately bears a striking family resemblance to its big brother, neither one fitting into the ambiance of charming downtown Westfield.

Coming before the Westfield Planning Board in early September Noel Musial, president of the Musial Group, of Mountainside, the county’s fav architect, spoke at length about how the building would be different than the existing garages and the doomed Venneri bldg on North Ave which will be demolished for what appears to be additional parking. The new buildings will be energy smart, which is certainly a good thing, having for instance solar panels on the roof for heating, but also up there will be rooftop parking at the second floor level. The office building will have yet a third floor which according to the rendering will have those porthole windows just like “Big Brother”. So upon completion, there will be the original Queen Mary and what looks like a barge towing a flush deck for your cruising pleasure. Whoever decided on the style of these buildings ought to be keel hauled.

Though Westfield residents send more of their tax dollars to the county for it’s operation than they keep to run the town, they have no say as to what will be built on county owned property within the town and the presentation to the planning board was a courtesy at best. It has been reported in all of the local weekly papers that Planning Board members were a bit taken aback by the magnitude of the buildings but were assured by Musial that some of their concerns will be addressed by planting shrubbery. It could just be speculation but will they be bringing in giant redwoods to hide this miserable looking building from sight?

The county contends that they want to be “good neighbors” and appear to think that by announcing that they are using a lot of recycled materials in the construction they will be able to get on Westfielders good side and glean acceptance for the project; like that would make it more visually appealing. However, if they were good neighbors they would have given more consideration to the hard work that officials have put into the planning and guidance of suitable construction styles appropriate for their town. Further, good neighbors are sensitive to the trials and tribulations of those in residence near to them, so one would think that the county would recall the well publicized parking garage issue which had brother fighting brother in Westfield. To quote former Mayor Garland “Bud” Boothe, “this just doesn’t do it.”

The bottom line is that Westfield, paying some of the highest taxes in the county, doesn’t seem to matter to the Freeholder Board as they surge forward awarding no bid contracts to political contributors like The Musial Group and Joseph Jingoli & Sons, who are also on board with the project. Looks as though they are thumbing their noses at the good taste and sensibility of the town’s residents while blatantly picking their pockets and telling them “we are connected to you”.

UPDATE: UCWA Public Event

Monday, September 3rd, 2007

This event has been rescheduled for October 4th.
Union County citizens are invited to attend a screening of the PBS Point of view Documentary “Thirst” Fighting the Corporate Theft of our Water, on Thursday, October 4th, 7pm, at the Cranford Community Center, 220 Walnut Avenue, Cranford, NJ.

The free event is being sponsored by the Union County Watchdog Association (UCWA) in response to the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority (RVSA) entertaining the possibility of privatizing its Cogeneration Facility that is currently under construction. The RVSA serves the communities of Clark, Cranford, Garwood, Kenilworth, Mountainside, Rahway, Roselle Park, Scotch Plains, Springfield, Westfield, Winfield Park (a customer to Clark) and Woodbridge.

Privatization of essential public services such as wastewater treatment may be contrary to the best interests of the ratepayers it serves. This fact has been very well documented in the documentary “Thirst” and the book “Thirst” by Alan Snitow & Deborah Kaufman. The main adverse impact to the ratepayers is increases in user fees which may be accompanied by a reduction in the quality of service. Based on the information presented in the documentary film and book “Thirst”, the viewer (or reader) may likely conclude that the main benefit of privatization is kickbacks and payoffs for the politically connected.

Preceding the documentary will be a presentation of the facts pertaining to the actions of the Authority regarding privatization to date including the Authority’s General Counsel (Weiner-Lesniak) and financial consultant (NW Financial Group) have already issued a preliminary facts report on privatization at RVSA. The report itself has cost tax-payers $40,000, and has indicated that the “procurement costs”, i.e. costs for work performed by the legal, financial and other consultants, will run about $500,000 regardless of whether or not the Authority enters a contract with a prospective vendor.

“Hosting events such as this one in Union County gives us the opportunity to educate the public and give them the necessary tools to participate in the legislative process thereby holding elected officials accountable at all levels of government” explained Tina Renna, President of the UCWA. “The decision to privatize the RVSA not only will affect our water rates but our drinking water as well. Citizens need to arm themselves with the facts and participate in this important decision.”

Space is limited. Reserve your seat early by calling (908) 709-0530, or email at TinaRenna@UnionCountyWatchdog.org.

The Union County Watchdog Association believes that good government can only be achieved through a checks and balance system that includes the watchful eye of the people. They strive to make county government more transparent by gaining access to public records and being a public resource for information. www.unioncountywatchdog.org

The negative impacts of privatization can be summarized as follows:

• Rate Increases. (When Rahway Water was privatized by United Water in 1999, the rates went up over 56% in the first year alone.

• Reduction in life expectancy of process equipment as a result of deferred maintenance. Privatization firms skimp on required maintenance in order to increase their profits. The result is a reduction in life expectancy and an accelerated schedule for capital replacement. Capital replacement is at the expense of the ratepayer not at the expense of the privatization firm.

• Privatization firms reduce costs by reducing staff, which usually has a negative impact on the quality of service.

• Privatization firms address certain operation and maintenance needs on a regional basis in the name of efficiency and reduced costs. This results in reduced response time and a reduction in quality of service. If you are experiencing a sewer back up or discolored potable water do you really want to wait for someone to respond from several counties away?

• Loss of direct control and operating philosophy. If you let a private, for profit firm run your essential utility, you are at their mercy to a very large degree.

• Additional charges for out of scope work. This includes equipment replacement costs. (A privatization firm will be more inclined to replace equipment than repair it. Repairs are at their expense, replacement is at your expense.) This is very significant in a poorly written contract. In Rahway, the City is liable for any maintenance amount in excess of $5,000.00. In addition, the Water Agreement between the City of Rahway and United Water provides for a 15% profit on top of their costs to deliver all water in excess of 5.109 million gallons per day. On their web site they claim that they are currently delivering 5.5 million gallons of treated water per day. This means that they are receiving 15% profit on 142.7 MG. They are currently treating 7.7% more water then the threshold amount. This additional fee is in addition to their fixed management fee. If the markup in their fixed management fee is 15% of their total costs, then the excess water that they are treating increases their profit by 7.7%.

Writing to elected officials had $8 an hour consequence

Sunday, April 29th, 2007

Update as of 5/18/07:


Since sending our last email to elected Union County Officials regarding the County’s newly instituted $8.00 an hour service fee to show us back-up documentation for vouchers ranging from catering bills to travel expenses for the County Manager, Union County Officials have been offering their support for our county watchdog efforts.
Westfield Councilman Sal Caruana has donated $1,000 to the Watchdog Association to cover these and any future service fees. And a statement of support was sent to the press today from the District 21 Legislative Office as well. Their correspondence follows.

Regards,
Tina

Statement from District 21 Legislative Office regarding UCWA’s Concerns about County Public Records Fees

We believe all levels of government should be committed to transparency in spending so that taxpayers can truly understand how their tax dollars are being used. That is why we are very concerned about recent reports from the Union County Watchdog Association that the County of Union might be hampering access to expense vouchers incurred by county employees by charging a newly instituted service fee to provide such records. Under Title 47 (Public Records), immediate access is ordinarily granted to budgets, bills, vouchers, contracts, including collective negotiations agreements and individual employment contracts, and public employee salary and overtime information. We encourage the Watchdog organization to challenge the legitimacy of this fee for service practice&nb

Senator Thomas H. Kean, Jr.
Assemblyman Eric Munoz, M.D.
Assemblyman Jon Bramnick

——————————————————————————–

Dear Tina,

I applaud your efforts to expose wasteful spending and abuse on the part of Union County government.

A few years back I attended a Southside Johnny concert in Echo Lake Park and frankly I was shocked at the self-indulgence on and off stage of some connected to county government. Are these events really for taxpayers, or are they opportunities for some over-aged groupies on the public dime to rub wine glasses on stage with rock acts? Like many others I love Southside Johnny, but should the public foot the bill for elements of a private VIP event for elected officials and their friends? Were campaign contributors VIP’s too? Perhaps the VIP guest list should be released as part of the public record.

As for the newly instituted $8.00 per hour service fee to obtain what should be freely accessible public documents: please send me an address to mail a $1000 contribution to your organization to cover these and future “service” fees, and do not hesitate to contact me when and if you need additional funds for this purpose. There is one condition: please pass on all evidence of obstruction and/or abuse to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Enough is enough.

Sal Caruana
Westfield Town Councilman
P.S. You have my permission to circulate this e-mail as you see fit.

Original Post:

Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

Since paying nearly $300.00 in early 2006 for the county to convert their check registry data base into a format that could be transmitted electronically to the public, the Union County Watchdog Association has been requesting the county’s check registry on a monthly basis and reviewing their vouchers. We then place OPRA requests for any vouchers we think the public should have further information on. We also publish the registry on our website for free public access.

There hasn’t been a month that we haven’t found some questionable spending item. Last month, for the first time, we reported to all elected municipal officials our latest finding, the $930.00 catered staff meeting which was held on December 22, 2006 but not processed until 2 months after the meeting occurred.

Since reporting this to you, we have been informed by the county that there will now be an $8.00 an hour service fee to retrieve back-up documentation for our monthly voucher inquiries. This month we asked for documentation on 35 vouchers and the county is estimating that the fee will be $56.00 for an employee to retrieve the documents.

All of this months requested vouchers (35) were for employee reimbursements and travel expenses which totaled $12,085.74 including: $1,112.78 reimbursed to the County Manager; $519.78 to the Sheriff; $210.31 to the Prosecutor. Eleven vouchers totaling $3,857.02 paid for refreshments including $1,773.75 for Gourmet Dining c/o Kean; $42 was paid for a cake for a ‘nutrition’ meeting (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried). $1,200.00 went for in door plants.

From a public relations standpoint even I find it incredible that the county would have the arrogance to charge the public $56.00 to hand over this spending information. But as we all know, it is a sad reflection on our Union County media who will most likely not find this fit to report on, therefore, there will be little to no consequence for the county’s latest lack of transparency and contempt for the taxpayers.

In our last correspondence to you we called for greater participation in holding Union County government accountable to the people. We informed you that in 2006 taxpayers picked up a $10,510.83 tab for 27 freeholder meeting refreshments and we have since obtained the catering bill for the Music Fest.

We previously reported to you that over 300 people attended the Freeholder’s VIP tent. The bill obtained shows that catering was provided for 425 people at a cost to taxpayers of $5,525. The bill for the VIP tent alcohol hasn’t been provided to date. The county has written that this was an in-kind contribution and no documentation has been offered as to who the contributor(s) were.

Again I will ask you to imagine your own town council participating in these questionable spending sprees and then attempting to charge a citizen watchdog group $8.00 an hour for the privilege of you explaining how you’re spending their tax-dollars.

Imagine further that you provide a free concert in your town and while your residents are setting up their lawn chairs in the mud, you along with your colleagues, family and friends are enjoying a $5,525 feast provided by your tax-payers in a VIP tent equipped with ‘Celebrity’ port a potties and kegs of beer and cases of wine.

I’m sure your constituents and your local media would hold you accountable in a manner that would be fast, quick, in-a-hurry and furious. It is apparently beyond the scope of any one citizen, or even the Union County Watchdog Association, to hold county government accountable for the $413-million tax-dollars they are currently spending annually.

As you know county government takes almost as much money from your residents as your town council does. Some towns, such as Westfield and Summit, pay more property taxes to the county than their town. It is long past due for all good elected men and women, no matter what your party affiliation, to come to the aid of their beleaguered tax-burdened residents and demand accountability from a county government that is clearly out of control and unconnected to their residents.

Sincerely,

Tina Renna
President
Union County Watchdog Association, Inc
http://www.unioncountywatchdog.org/

(908)709-0530

View requested voucher list HERE
View county’s OPRA response HERE

Freeholder’s Music Fest VIP Tent port a potty:

Our Mission

The UCWA is a nonpartisan nonprofit 501(c)3 organization working on behalf of the residents and taxpayers of Union County monitoring the activity of county government and advocating change to eliminate waste, corruption and incompetence.

The UCWA will act as a vehicle for the public to make their voices heard in the political forum, and to participate in the legislative process, holding elected officials accountable. We strive to make county government more transparent by gaining access to public records and being a public resource for information.

The UCWA believes that good government can only be achieved through a checks and balance system that includes the watchful eye of the people.

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their government, for whenever things go so far wrong as to attract their notice, they can be relied on to set things right.” - Thomas Jefferson

Holding the Line

Sunday, July 9th, 2006

Most everyone passing through Westfield using a cell phone has had the experience of losing a bar or two.

The husband of a friend of mine does a lot of outdoor work in town and she finds herself usually amused but admittedly sometimes annoyed as her spouse attempts to remedy the situation by raising his voice considerably. She tells him to stop yelling and wait till he gets home however more often than not he persists but we know that that is futile.

We have found ourselves living our lives “wired”. Cellular phones, PCs, lap tops, Blackberrys, answering machines, cordless phones and the like, we are in an age of “immediate communication gratification”. We can’t seem to wait to get our message out or learn who has been trying to get their message to us regardless of where we are, who we are, and in some cases who is picking up the tab.

Union County government has armed it’s employees to the hilt with land lines, cell phones, Blackberry’s, Nextels, pagers, PCs, home internet service, via cable, dial-up and DSL with the bill being fully footed by the taxpayers.

One Verizon bill, in May of 2005 for Freeholder phone service and charged thru the county Communications Dept. showed $459.69 for long distance charges alone. It is no wonder that the Board of Chosen Freeholders voted affirmatively to have the county telephone service audited to uncover areas that the county can save money.

Certainly a step in the right direction but there is however one little thing missing from the plan. The firm conducting the audit, XTEL Communications, of Marlton, will only be looking at the “land lines” service and equipment and not the cellular phones or Blackberrys.

On Election Day 2004, I spent the morning outside the polls in my hometown.

I shared my station with a representative of the opposing party, a county employee who works in the Division of Information Technology. She indicated that her party candidates on the ballot for the local election had to work and since the county employees had the day off, she was available to greet the incoming voters working the polls on their behalf.

At that time Blackberry’s were the newest gadget in the form of wireless communications and I watched as she took one in and out of her pocket all morning. Not having actually seen one before I felt compelled to inquire about it.

She related that the county had given it to her “for work” as she happily checked Emails, sent communications, and answered calls all while stationed outside our borough hall.

Later that day, I pondered the Blackberry. Since it was for work, and she worked for the county and the county was closed for business, who was she communicating with?

I can only speculate, but I later learned that a national campaign was using just this type of technology to heavily monitor and direct election day GOTV activities.

One of the fastest growing companies in NJ, XTEL according to their website, has been providing business customers, municipalities and townships nationwide with telecommunications services such as long distance, toll free numbers, local service and DSL. Contracted by the county they will only get paid if they find ways to save money, their fee is 35% of the savings realized. This is very nice but still does not address what can be a very large expense and one very easily and widely abused, as evidenced last year when someone racked up the over $400 bill.

Seems it is time to bring in an outside company to audit this area of communications as well. A company that can review the entire shebang and be capable of crafting an all-comprehensive package deal too good to pass up.

The banana republic of Union County

Thursday, November 10th, 2005

The numbers in Union County freeholder races don’t change much from year to year. The Democrats win by the same margins. The only thing that causes a fluctuation in freeholder race numbers is the top of the ticket; presidential and gubernatorial elections bring out more voters who more than likely will vote straight down their party line.

The Democrats don’t win because of “their services”; they surely don’t win because of their charming personalities, or good looks for that matter. They win because all nine freeholder seats are at-large and Union County is overwhelmingly Democratic. The Republican freeholder candidates win the race in most of the towns but the large population of just a few cities outdoes the efforts of the rest of the county.

Using 2003 numbers:

Towns in which Republican freeholder candidates won the election were:
Berkeley Heights, Clark, Cranford, Fanwood, Garwood, Kenilworth, Mountainside, New Providence, Roselle Park, Scotch Plains, Springfield, Summit and Westfield.

A breakdown of registered voters of the above towns by party affiliation is: 54 percent unaffiliated & independent; 22 percent Democrat; 24 percent Republican. With a combined total of 106,306 registered voters.

Towns in which Democrat freeholder candidates won the election were:
Elizabeth, Hillside, Linden, Plainfield, Rahway, Roselle, Union and Winfield.

A breakdown of registered voters of the above towns by party affiliation is: 49 percent unaffiliated & independent; 41 percent Democrat and a paltry 10 percent are Republican. With a combined total of 142,600 registered voters.

It’s not just the numbers that are stacked against the chance of ever having a watchdog on the nine-member freeholder board. There’s the pay-to-play money and misappropriation of tax dollars for freeholder campaigns. There’s also the county employees being used to work on campaigns. These campaign abuses are what make Union County a banana republic.

This year it was politics as usual around the county with the Democrat machine getting out the vote in the urban areas. They rent white passenger vans and stick Column ‘B’ posters in the window and drive people directly to the polls. They probably give them lunch or a light snack on the way.

In many places like School Nos. 1 and 3 in Elizabeth there were election board workers who steadfastly marched voters into the booths and told them to vote the Democrat line. In spite of a large Republican poll challenger presence. The workers were written up and we’ll soon find out if it was worth all the bother. Nothing less than these workers being bared from working the polls ever again would be an acceptable outcome. Including Freeholder Dan Sullivan’s beastly mother-in-law who relentlessly harassed the poll challenger assigned to her booth. Sullivan family gatherings must be a delight with that cast of characters.

There were the usual literature hand outs outside of the polls. Most likely if you approach a polling place in one of the urban areas you will be approached by some greasy looking goon trying to hand you a card with the local Democrat candidates’ names on it. The goon will say something to the effect of “Don’t vote for George Bush - Vote the Democrat B Line”.

George W. Bush has been a favorite campaign tool for the Democrats these past two years. Apparently New Jerseans aren’t taught in school that there are several layers of government with the federal government having all but nothing to do with freeholders or local municipal governments.

In Union County, the dead people apparently have suffrage.

Its been reported that 325 dead people voted in Union County last year. At this writing there is no count on how many rose from the grave to cast their votes this year. People being marched into voting booths and told how to vote might as well be considered dead voters.

This year’s election has convinced me that people aren’t reading newspapers much. However, the apathetic media always takes its toll on Union County elections. The Star-Ledger’s county coverage has been awesome as of just recently, but Worrall’s has slipped way down with its endorsement of powerbroker/Linden Mayor John Greggorio’s appointment of Nancy Ward for freeholder.

The highlight of the debate this year was Nancy Ward responding to the question, “What is a freeholder’s salary?”, she replied in that little blonde way of hers, “I don’t know, I have direct deposit.” This little cutie replaced John Wohlrab after his arrest for domestic violence, almost a year ago to the date, and has supposedly been making decisions about the $390 million county budget ever since.

Worrall endorsed Daniel Sullivan last year. I don’t know what criteria they use for endorsements but if they are going to continue to endorse these empty-heads (Ward), who have utter contempt for the public (Sullivan), who are the powerbrokers’ puppets - I’d like to see Worrall ask and then publish the response to the question “Which powerbroker anointed you and what will you be expected to do for them in return?”

County employees, including the million-dollar taxpayer-funded public information department, were seen out and about on Election Day as well as on the campaign trail. I counted at least ten county employees at the Cranford freeholder debate where they behaved like the low-class baboons that they are.

The room was packed with spectators and several reporters, yet this didn’t cause the county employee/campaign workers to act like they deserve their blotted taxpayer funded salaries. For my entertainment, they placed a stooge right behind me to make comments and cough throughout the debate. I easily ignored him, after all I have teenagers and can block out juvenile girlish banter. Afterwards he was seen running to his car and locking the door behind him.

I considered it an honor when the Public Information Department took souvenir photos posing behind me. Next debate I’m going to wear my F.B.I. hat for their photo shoot.

I was amused at all the attention I received, so I was a good sport about it. I even wanted to join in the fun. I thought a swift knee in Seb D’Elia balls in a crowded room full of people would be hilarious. This isn’t cruel or violent on my part, because I don’t think it would hurt him much as apparently he doesn’t have any balls, seeing as he sent his underlings to harass me while he kept himself clear across the room from me. Funny, but I didn’t see him leave the building. He must have been hiding in the ladies’ room ’till the coast was clear.

Then there was the pay-to-play (extortion) money - Republicans were outspent 42 to 1 according to a recent Star-Ledger article.

The taxpayer-funded commercial and mailers kept pace with what the Democrats spent of our dollars on their campaigns in past years. They’ve spent upwards of $327,769.85 to date this year. This year, the Republican County committee has filed ELEC complaints. Good for them - and me. They saved me all the paper work of having to file a complaint for the Watchdog Association.

The Democrat freeholders win in landslides in the banana republic towns. No wonder between the sheer number of registered Democrats and the way they are manipulated by the machine.

This was my second year working as a poll challenger in Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s polls are lawless in many spots. Without the poll challenger presence it would have been much worse. No doubt Plainfield, Union, Rahway, Linden, Hillside and Roselle were just as lawless.

Of course it’s illegal to use taxpayer’s money to promote campaigning freeholders; county workers working on campaigns during working hours; marching people into voting booths and telling them how to vote; pay-to-play is a nice term for extortion which is highly illegal in the business community; and the rest of the shenanigans that go on Election Day. But this is New Jersey and our tolerance for corruption hasn’t changed much in the past 100 years since the days of Frank Hague.

Despite all of the major newspapers and talk show radio hosts warning about Corzine, we now have another governor who is a friend of the powerbrokers and, barring a scandal, he’ll be in office for the next four years. Don’t expect a thing to change in the banana republic fiefdom of State Sen. Raymond Lesniak under Corzine. In fact, if the county follows the same course as previous years, they will up it another notch and be even more arrogant than ever.

They’ll be upping our taxes another notch too. Somebody’s got to keep feeding the baboons their bananas.

“Back Room Politics Appears to be Alive and Well in Union County”

Saturday, August 27th, 2005

Note: Appeared in the Westfield Leader/Scotch Plains Fanwood Times and the Cranford Chronicle Thursday, 8/25/05

Discussions about “back room” politics generally conjure up the vision of a bunch of whiskey drinking men sitting around a table smoking fat cigars while carving up the political pie. It has been said that decisions about government such as who would or would not be in positions of power as well as what they were going to do were decided in just this manner.

History has shown that this was certainly the case in some places and that sometimes it worked and other times it didn’t. Most people would probably think that this method of getting things done went out with the “Lindy-Hop” and that these days there is no one behind the scenes pulling the strings, but it would appear that they are wrong.

There are those here in Union County who would insist that back room politics does not exist and I have to admit that the visual image is different, the players have changed and what is decided and how is not quite what it was back in the day. One need only to attend 3 or 4 meetings of the Union County Board of Choosen Freeholders to get the feeling that most of what that goes on is obviously decided behind closed doors and not in the public view.

Since I have been attending freeholder meetings I have yet to hear anyone on the board cast a dissenting vote, ever. Even at agenda meetings, those are the ones held to review what is new and what will be voted on at a regular meeting, everyone appears to be in agreement and knowledgeable about everything.

The department heads come before the freeholder board with proposed resolutions in hand and say something to the effect of: resolutions 414-2005 thru 416-2005 refer to two bridges which should be replaced, one on Martine Avenue, Scotch Plains and the other on Elm Street in Westfield and while we are there we will be replacing the curbs and resurfacing the roads. The chairman asks the board if there are any questions, usually there aren’t any so the proposed resolutions become actual resolutions on the consent agenda at the following meeting and are approved unanimously.

I have yet to hear any disagreement among the freeholders, no one ever gets annoyed with the next guy and things move along all too smoothly with the board approving millions of dollars in expenditures at every regular meeting, which is usually two times a month except in summer or around holiday time. It is mind boggling when one realizes the scope of issues which are addressed without any discussions in public and the amount of money that is spent with almost no questions asked.

It would be comforting to think that our elected county officials are experts on everything and understand all the ins and outs of civil and mechanical engineering, finance, human resources, social services, legal issues and the like. However it would appear that this is not the case evidenced by the blank stares as their eyes seem to glaze over when an actual presentation is made by a department hoping to glean a few extra dollars for some special project. Yet when the project finally hits the agenda they all vote yes!!

Now, I am not saying that the group shouldn’t be cohesive and able to work together what I am saying is that it has been my experience that generally when two or more people get together to make a decision there is some sort of verbal exchange, some disagreement from someone who needs to be persuaded to see things the same as the rest of the group.

It is very apparent that more is being discussed in closed executive session than should be and that all is decided and ironed out before the board takes their assigned seats on the dais. Actually it would be refreshing if just once, just one freeholder would think for themselves and vote NO!!