CHICKEN VERSUS OSTRICH

At the Town Council meeting of December 5th, we passed a resolution to issue approximately $53 million in long term bond debt.  In my statement, I raised the issue of the severe impact that the servicing of that debt will have on subsequent Town budgets, especially as we will be adding $500,000 next year, $1 million in 2013, and $1.5 million in 2014.  Steve Santola’s response was to call me 'Chicken Little’.  The central theme of the Chicken Little story - The sky is falling! - has been applied to people accused of being unreasonably afraid, or those trying to incite an unreasonable fear in those around them. I, however, do not think it is unreasonable to expect that there will be an impact created by this increase in debt service.  Mr. Santola would rather be the ostrich and hide his head in the sand – neither taking responsibility for this debt (although the majority – if not all – was created on his too long watch) nor acknowledging its impact on our budget.

Of the $99.3 million in total debt that the Town currently has, over $31 million is directly related to the municipal complex.   Spending on roads and sidewalks, buses for seniors, cars for our police force is once thing.  However, it is no secret that I have disapproved of the profligate spending by the prior administrations on the buildings.  Over the course of both Steve Santola’s and Gary Schneiderman’s tenure on Town Council, they have overspent and overextended the Township resources.  But it is the Town residents that will have to put up with heating, cooling and maintaining these white elephants for the next 40 years.

Mr. Santola seems to have missed the point – just because you CAN take out this much debt, doesn’t mean you should.  So when you wonder what has become of rear yard pickup or leaf collection or free services for the elderly and underprivileged, you can thank Mr. Santola and Dr. Schneiderman’s “conservative” fiscal stance (not!).  So, Mr. Santola, I’d rather be a chicken with its eyes open than an ostrich with its head where the sun doesn’t shine…

DEER HUNT, FIELD FEES, AND NOR'EASTER - OH MY!

At the October 24th conference meeting, one of the items on the slim agenda was a deer management update.  Activity has already begun to start reducing the number of deer infesting Livingston.  With herds roaming through my backyard, and the children of several friends infected with Lyme disease over the summer, I look forward to a successful deer management season!

More discussion was held on field management fees and we will be hosting the stakeholders at the 11/14 meeting and, I hope, finally putting this to bed.  The Town has invested monies in the past several years to bring the fields more up to snuff; the fees to be charged to the users are not unreasonable and will be earmarked toward field maintenance.

I find it interesting that the Councilmen don’t see the difference between charging fees for field usage and waiving fees for the use of community resources.  The question had come from Cycle for Survival regarding waiving the fees for their usage of the Community Center for a fund raising event.  I voted no as the Township is NOT a charitable organization; however, the other 4 councilmen arbitrarily (to my mind) decided to waive the fees.

But, the great news was that LTV will finally begin taping and broadcasting the Regular Town Council meetings.  They will be presented uncut and unexpurgated at least twice after each Council meeting.  As far as I am concerned, they can run continuously  - all Council all the time!  Still pending is information on garage sale ordinances from other townships.  Given that some homes are abusing the ability to hold garage sales by having multiple sales per month, we need to figure out a way to stop the abuse without generating onerous requirements for the occasional garage sale holder. 

I was sorry to have missed the volunteer appreciation night; I had to make a choice between seeing my mother in the hospital and going to the event.  I heard a great time was had by all.  I did, however, make the dedication of the Library Endowment Fund quilt on Wednesday, November 2^nd and the Livingston Environmental Commission meeting on Thursday, November 3^rd.  Finally, I was delighted by the invitation from the Livingston Symphony Orchestra to be present at the kickoff of the 54^th season on November 5th.  My husband, Oliver, and I, very much appreciated the program and the LSO performed extremely well.

The great pre-Halloween Nor’easter impacted every household in Livingston.  On a personal note, we were without cable, Internet, and phone from Saturday until Friday with our power going out at least 5 times during that period.  But, we were VERY lucky as there were quite a number of people still don’t have power even I as write this blog.  In speaking with one Town resident whose power was not restored until Thursday, hearing that 95% of the Town has power is no comfort when you, as an individual, are 100% without!  I thank the DPW for their unceasing efforts on our behalf in trying to clean up the streets and dealing with the power lines alongside PSE&G.  Unfortunately, I think it will be some time before we can drive down the streets without dodging all the branches.

Trees, Trees, and More Trees

The main part of the conference meeting on October 10^th was to finalize the Tree Ordinance – which the Council has been working on since the Spring and which the Livingston Environmental Committee and the Planning Board have been working on for years.  The primary goal of the ordinance was to keep people from clear-cutting their property – as had happened in recent history on two properties in the town.   The hardest thing to do in the ordinance was to walk the fine line between intruding on how citizens managed their own private property and the Town’s desire to maintain the trees.  I was particularly happy with not being mandated to report every tree cut down that did not require a permit; the LEC will be tracking those trees where people voluntarily report it.

In keeping with the ‘green’ theme of that meeting, the Planning Board proposed an ordinance for Alternative Small Energy Systems that was approved by the Council and introduced at the October 17^th meeting.  The ordinance defines what and how alternative energy systems (i.e., windmills, solar panels) can be implemented in the Town.  So, don’t look for wind farms anywhere in town; they are prohibited by the ordinance!  And, do start looking for utility mounted solar panels – PSE&G will begin to install them in Livingston shortly.  The units will be 3’ x 5’ and will be 15’ above the ground.

Parette Somjen was awarded the contract without competitive bid to provide Architectural & Engineering services for the Monmouth Court Elevator construction.  I was the only one who argued against proceeding with a non-competitive bid and I had major issues with the proposed contract that Parette had provided.  I was assured that substantial due diligence had been done on Parette for previous bids.  I then expressed my concerns regarding the contract language that had been provided by Parette and was assured that the Town Counsel would be addressing those and that we typically utilized the ‘Town’ contracts and not the vendor’s.

The final item of concern regarding the environment was the issue of contaminated groundwater at Okner Field.  While this does not impact our drinking water (due to scrubbers at the affected wells close by), it must still be remediated.  The first step dictated by the DEP was to have Livingston hire a Licensed Site Remediation Professional to begin site investigation.  I am praying that this won’t turn into a soil remediation nightmare as occurred at the Town Hall site.  Stay tuned…

At the October 17^th meeting, we continued a conversation regarding both signage and garage sales that I had raised on the 10^th, based on a complaint that I had received from a Livingston resident about the biweekly garage sales taking place on her block.  I requested two action items from the Town Council:  a) to put in a public service announcement into the West Essex Tribune reminding people of the signage ordinance and that ALL signs must be out of the public right of way (i.e., the first 10 feet off the street) and b) to look at what other towns have in the way of controlling garage sales and see whether we want to adopt an ordinance limiting the number of garage sales an individual can hold a year.  In addition to the increased traffic and noise a garage sale brings to a street, we also want to avoid the situation of people running these as businesses out of their homes.

Believe me – I am not in favor of another ordinance.  We have a great many ordinances on the books that are imperfectly enforced.  Many of the ordinances are enforced only when a complaint is registered.  So – in the interest of maintaining good neighbor relations and keeping governmental interference to a minimum, your comments and suggestions as to how this issue might be controlled would be very welcome.

There were a number of presentations at the 10/17 meeting – and it is always terrific to be part of a group saluting a team of children who, as their coach said, ‘lived up to their potential.’  Congratulations to the 11 Year Old America Little League Williamsport team!  The Livingston Municipal Alliance Committee Chair was on hand for the proclamation of Red Ribbon Week – which is celebrated nationally from 10/22-10/29 – to bring greater awareness and support of drug free lifestyles.  And, we had a presentation from Cycle for Survival that is having a Livingston based event.  I’m not sure if Steve Santola, who announced that he has reached out to others to form a team of former mayors, is aware that his team would exclude the two newest members of the current Town Council.  Maybe he thinks Republicans don’t cycle?

Last but not least, the Community Outreach Committee – which started its life as the Asian Outreach Committee – was finally approved by the Council and adopted on 10/17/2011.  The citizens who originally proposed the committee were extremely disappointed that it took the Council this long to move this along and enthusiasm is somewhat dampened.  The other Councilmen objected to the original mission statement as they found it ‘not inclusive.’  Much of the hold up was trying to get the rewrite of the mission statement done (volunteered by Gary Schneiderman) so it would be more encompassing and not just geared to the Asian community.  I am looking forward to getting this off the ground.  There was one addition to the committee listing that I found very puzzling as that person had no involvement at all with the creation of the concept, the drafting of the original mission statement, and/or the original group that presented it and there were other individuals that had expressed an interest in joining.  However, I look forward to everyones contribution.

PAY TO PLAY - AGAIN (with a nod to the Livingston Patch for the great title)

Field usage fees have once again reared its ugly head.  Although the various organizations which are the big users of these fields have been polled regarding usage fees, and have had numerous discussions regarding the potential for fees, and theoretically have bought into the need for these fees – now there is apparently ‘push back’ on the actual implementation of field usage fees.  Given the need to implement these fees to help defray the growing cost of field maintenance and the negative response being received from the organizations impacted, there will be a meeting called of the ‘stakeholders’ in the fields (e.g., Livingston baseball, softball, football leagues, Township groups – Cerbo, Temple softball, etc.) to further discuss this issue. 

Also up on the 9/26 agenda was the review of the Vision 20/20 survey to be disseminated to the town.  Vision 20/20 is a town-appointed committee whose purpose “is to create a vision for the Township of Livingston that will improve the quality of life for the community, its residents, and businesses.”  I’m all for quality of life; I am obviously a Livingston resident as well.  However, given costs are rising, and we are trying to hold taxes down, rather than asking what more we should be doing for the Township, why not see what services might be cut back or charged a fee to use?  This, in fact, was the very sentiment raised to me by a member of the Vision 20/20 committee.  As the most basic Township expenses are rising (e.g., wages, benefits), and given an incredibly robust service offering we currently have, we have to realize that, while it is good to plan for the future, we may not be able to accommodate new services (or even maintain old ones) in the short term.  I do applaud the work that the committee has done and look forward with interest to the results from the survey.

Finally, I read with great interest the Zoning Board of Adjustment Annual Report for 2010.  The report provided a summary of the variances for residential lots and use variances requested.  It also made a recommendation regarding reviewing the accessory structure (e.g., garages, pool houses) provision – which engendered some lively discussion about 4 car garages.

The regular meeting gave me a sense of real satisfaction – we were giving citations honoring the 6 Essex County Senior Citizens Juried Art Show winners who were Livingston residents (the most winners from one township at this show) as well as the 2011 10-year-old National Little League Williamsport Team.  The art show winners shared with us information about their winning pieces or their art in general and the kids were just great!  I don’t remember the last time I saw so many ‘paparazzi’ in the room.

The rest was primarily housekeeping – including two change orders for road reconstruction/ resurfacing that were due to the increase in the cost of asphalt and passing a legislative appropriation in order to get $450,000 in funding from a Green Acres matching grant.

BUSINESS AS USUAL, ONLY LESS OF IT

In keeping with the winding down of summer, we have been having a lessening of the load on the Town Council.  Our September 6^th Conference and Regular meetings did not really bring anything unusual or controversial to the fore.  Closure on one issue, the construction of the Municipal Complex, was done through a final change order.  I still consider the building too overblown with a huge carrying cost for maintenance, property management, and energy costs – but at least there will not be any more change orders or costs to be paid for the building of the Town Hall.  I think this is a white elephant and will cost the town significant amounts of money over the course of its life.

Another item almost put to rest was the final hearing on the amendment regarding the posting of notices.  Given there had been some issue regarding religious symbols being placed in the Town’s right of way in violation of the ordinance, we had wanted to make sure that this issue was clarified so that there would not be any misunderstandings nor any inconsistencies regarding its enforcement.

One very important thing did happen in our Regular meeting on 9/6 – a post-Hurricane Irene thanks to the men and women of the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, and Police, who went above and beyond assisting the citizens with issue and problems created by Hurricane Irene.  In addition, and rightly so, kudos were given to the Mayor, Town Manager, and Deputy Town Manager for the activities during the hurricane weekend in disseminating information and assisting the townspeople.  Good preparation, well executed – Well Done!

I had the opportunity to ‘see the gang’ again at the very moving and poignant September 11^th ceremony on the 10^th anniversary of 9/11.  Bunnie Ratner did a wonderful job coordinating the solemn event and every note – from the selections sung by the LHS choir, to the Girl Scouts laying roses on the memorial, to the memories shared by some affected by the events on 9/11, to the playing of taps – was very affecting and rang true.  The number of townspeople who attended the memorial seems to have grown and it is good that the town could come together to mourn those lost and celebrate America’s triumph over adversity.

The conference meeting of September 12^th had two items, in my opinion, of major note.  First was the ‘Best Practices Inventory’.  State aid payment is impacted to a township based on implementation of these 50 best practices and, as Livingston scored 46 out of 50, the township will receive 100% of our 2011 State aid allocation.  One question, that I have raised before and will continue to raise, has to do with municipal health benefits.  At this time, Livingston does NOT exclude part time employees (less than 35 hours per week), elected or appointed officials.  That means that the Town Council members (excluding Mike Rieber and myself) get the same ‘cadillac’ benefits that full time employees receive.  It also means that part time employees (e.g., 20 hours per week) are also getting these benefits.  [In the first wave of health benefits reform in NJ in 2010, health and pension benefits were disallowed for part time employees (i.e., less than 35 hours on the State level and 25 hours at the local level).  Per the memo I received shortly after I was elected, this was going to be enforced for anyone not already covered as of May, 2010.  However, if you were already a part time employee or elected official as of that time, you would be grandfathered in.]

 There are two issues at stake – one is that the benefits plan currently offered to our Township employees is incredibly rich – with $5 copays, no deductibles, and no coinsurances.  This is unheard of in industry.  The second issue is that part time employees are included in the benefits plan – again, something that is not typically done in industry.  Why?  Because the cost of benefits is too high.  And the ‘richer’ the plan, the higher the premium cost.  At last blush, premiums for family coverage for one of the options in the plan were over $2,000 per month per member.  And this is coming out of our taxes – to the tune of over $3,000,000.  I think that this is something that we have to seriously look at and figure out a way to provide livable benefits to our employees without breaking the taxpayers’ back.  When I asked the question regarding bidding out the benefits, I was told that the cost (for the current plan) was cheapest through the State Health Benefits Plan as, so I was told, utilization was over 100%.  Well, people will use/abuse their health benefits when it doesn’t cost them anything!  We need to figure out a way to also ensure township employee wellness to bring our utilization costs down.  But, as is the issue is in America as a whole, most people will not properly manage their own healthcare and healthcare costs unless they have some ‘skin in the game.’ 

The other item has already caused some concern and controversy.  That is the issue of field usage fees.  My understanding – as was discussed in the meeting – was that the Youth Sports Council was involved in this proposal from the start.  The Town Council in previous years had allocated funds to the improvement of the fields so that, when usage fees would ultimately be charged, the fields affected would be in good condition.  The fees to be charged in no way cover all costs associated with their maintenance but begin to have the people who most benefit from and use these fields start to contribute toward their maintenance.  This issue is very similar to the one created when sports clubs and teams began charging fees to their participants.  We all pay high taxes and believe that all town services should be included.  Unfortunately, that is no longer a realistic viewpoint.  The Town needs to provide basic services to the entire citizenry; but field usage fees are only charged to those limited people who actually use the fields for sports.

This is not an easy change to implement and will impact unequally on our townspeople.  I encourage everyone who is opposed to this issue to make his/her comments known prior to our next meeting on 9/26.  At that point, it may be too late to be effective in changing the course of action currently set on by the Council.

Finally, the Council discussed an Anti-Idling resolution.  Now, I’m all for education regarding idling and support anti-idling law.  But to enact a resolution?  In general, the powers of a municipality are effected through the enactment of ordinances and resolutions by the governing authority of the municipality. The permanent rules of conduct or government of a municipality are enacted by ordinances. Ordinances are considered to be local laws and have only local applicability, unlike state laws which have general applicability. A resolution is a less formal and more limited action, not considered to be a law, usually dealing with administrative functions.  [See uslegal.com definitions.]  The proposed resolution provides some education on anti-idling and culminates in resolving that we enforce the existing laws and encourage activities limiting exhaust emissions.  I agree with the thought but would prefer that education be done through other means (public relations campaigns, schools, newspaper ads) than by wasting time discussing and passing this resolution.

Earlier start, long agenda, long meeting

It’s nice to have the two-week break between the August 15^th meeting and the September 6^th meeting.  But, we make up for it by having had substantial agenda items to go through on the 15^th with anticipation of sessions – both conference and Regular – on the 6^th.

Much of the session was taken up with discussion of the new tree ordinance that the Livingston Environmental Commission has been working on in conjunction with the Planning Board.  The motivation for updating the existing ordinance was an incidence or two of clear-cutting properties that were less than the one-acre threshold covered by the current ordinance.  The new ordinance primarily takes away the distinction between properties based on size (i.e., less than one acre, greater than one acre) and establishes parameters for which trees may be cut down with or without permits.  I applaud all those involved – with special kudos to Peter Klein of the Planning Board and Gary Schwartz, the chair of the LEC, and the entire LEC committee – for navigating all of the issues, including managing the delicate balancing of Township and environmental interests with citizens’ right to privacy and control of their own property.  Once the ordinance is introduced, the LEC will be very involved in organizing education and increasing awareness of the new regulations, including creating a registration of landmark trees.

There rest of the meeting was taken up with mostly administrative items.  One item approved was having Livingston participate in a National Moment of Remembrance on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 by issuing a proclamation and committing to sounding sirens for 1 minute at 1 PM on 9/11.  This resolution will be voted on at the September 6^th meeting – along with resolutions for NJDOT grant submission, a change order for landscape design services for the Town Hall (final change order we are told!), and for Title 39 (parking and other motor vehicle violations) enforcement at the Regency Club [which they requested and which is done for other private developments in Livingston.]

During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, three Livingston residents had questions for me regarding the release of the Township Counsel’s conflict of interest opinion.  I provided all of them with my personal contact information for additional offline conversation and thanked them for their continued interest in the matter.

And, in our packets, as had already been mailed to us, was the invitation to the 9/11 Ceremony of Remembrance taking place at 7:00 P.M. on September 11^th at the Living Memorial Garden on the Oval.  Among the thousands murdered that day by terrorists, seven of the lives were those of Livingston residents.  As this is the 10^th anniversary of this tragic event, I would expect a significant turnout – rain or shine.

During the roundtable discussion, I did raise several items – a few which had been outstanding from previous meetings.  First, Gary Schneiderman promised to have his revisions to the mission statement for the Community Outreach Program that has been outstanding since May.  Second, I inquired as to the status of televising the conference and Regular meetings.  Rudy Fernandez was meeting with LTV the next evening and I hope that we will have an answer on this soon.  This has been an ongoing issue with no resolution to date.   Third, I inquired as to whether we might be able to start budget talks before year end (as most businesses budget for the following year in the current year) and which I would hope would obviate having to approve an interim budget.  However, due to governmental issues/requirements of which I had been unaware, it cannot be done.  Oh well!  Finally, I raised the issue of going out to bid for other insurance coverages given the changes in the contributions now allowed by the State.  Michele Meade indicated that we would have difficulty in doing that as there is over 100% utilization of the current benefits (and, why not, as they are so rich and so cheap!) as well as a penalty that would be assessed should Livingston leave the State Health Benefits Plan.  I have found some information on how Parsippany saved $1 million by doing just that – and that was without increased premium participation by the covered employees.  This will be an issue worth coming back to and discussing more.

On another note:  At the August 1 meeting, Rudy Fernandez spoke about Soles4Soles, which is an organization devoted to collecting new and used shoes for charitable purposes.  I was pleased to see a collection box at the New York Sports Club on Northfield Avenue – which I am hastening to fill!

Conflicting views...but not interests

Charter school have recently become a hotly debated topic in Livingston and, I am afraid, a source of division in our community, as well as a wellspring of misinformation.  I want to take this moment to set the record straight regarding my beliefs on charter schools and my involvement with the Asian community.

As a candidate for council last year, I pledged that one of my priorities – besides cutting municipal spending and taxes – would be to create an Asian outreach program for Livingston.

About 16 percent of the township is of Asian descent – a sizable minority.  Many Asian-Americans face barriers to full integration into the community and it was my hope that a town council-supported Asian outreach program would break down communication and cultural barriers between our Asian neighbors and the community at large.   

Shortly after my election last November – as I sat down with leaders of the Asian community, I learned of their desire for greater communication with municipal officials and of their interest in creating a Mandarin language charter school.

I embraced the desire of our Asian Americans neighbors to pursue the feasibility of a charter school because I believed it was one way – and just one way – of helping the Asian-American community as well as the community at large.

Many Asian Americans had expressed to me their desire to retain their cultural identity as a minority population in our community – a concept I fully respect as Jewish woman whose family remains committed to following Jewish traditions.

 My support for a charter school was in no way meant to be an attack on the excellent public education offered by the Livingston School system, which I fully support.  Nor was it intended to divide the community along ethnic or political lines. I understand how much Livingston parents love their school system and the last thing I want to do is diminish the quality of education in the township. At the same time, I do not want to ignore the desires of our Asian community. It is their legal right to pursue a charter school in New Jersey.

A recent New York Times article highlighted the emotions churned up over charter schools, going so far as noting that some supporters of charter schools have received threatening e-mails from those opposed to charter schools.  I find that unfortunate, especially in an area that prides itself on its progressive diversity. This kind of heated community division is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I had hoped for when I embraced the idea of an Asian outreach program.  I want the community to come together to embrace its diversity, not be driven apart by that diversity.

For the record, you should know that despite what you may have heard, I have not been asked to raise funds, make any donations, or sign any bank guarantees for a charter school.  I have not been asked to sit on the board for the proposed Mandarin-language immersion charter school,  nor serve as a trustee, nor will I have ANY affiliation with the school when and if it is created.   My involvement has been purely as an advocate of school choice with a firm belief that this would be beneficial to Livingston residents and ANY town progressive enough to participate in this educational opportunity.

And, let me add, that any assistance I offered the charter school advocates is within my role as a private citizen.  My position as a Founder of the Hanyu school poses no conflict of interest (as some have mistakenly asserted and has been confirmed by Township legal counsel) since there is no personal gain for me if a charter school is approved. The faulty logic some are seeking to apply to the "conflict" issue could just as easily be applied to the council members who have children in our public school and oppose the charter school. They are acting in what they believe are the best interest of their families, are they not?

Rather than belabor the point, let’s just say that passions are strong on both sides and that everyone comes to the issue with a personal interest. Public debate is a good thing – and we need more of it in Livingston. However let’s keep the debate civil and on point and not use public forums for political bashing and character assassination.

Perhaps I have been naive in thinking that broadening school choice would be good for the community as a whole. Perhaps I have misread the depth of misperception that many parents have about the negative budgetary impact charter schools might have on the general public schools. It was never my intention to create such concerns and I welcome the opportunity to help allay them.

My goal from inception was to create a bridge to our Asian American neighbors, not to erect barriers to community tolerance. I hope that the community can move forward with respect for differing opinions and mindful of the fact that Livingston is a community composed of many interests and points of view – and we should be tolerant of all of them.

It’s not what Lola wants, it should be what Lola needs…

At our last meeting on June 27^th, time was spent discussing additional changes to the Christmas Tree Ordinance and the Tree Ordinance.  The Christmas Tree Ordinance was originally being changed to reduce the permit fee from $1,500 to $500 as this was felt to be too onerous for the vendors to pay.  The additional change now being passed is to waive the permit fee altogether for service organizations (e.g., Boy and Girl Scouts) holding such a sale.  I personally do not agree with that stance.  When fundraising is held by an organization, there are costs that are involved in whatever form that fundraising takes.  I don’t believe that Livingston, as a Township, should be making a contribution to those service organizations by waiving the fee.  Permit fees are in place to defray Township costs.  Individuals can make their contributions however they want; it is not the Town’s place to make the contribution for them.

The Tree ordinance is still being tweaked.  There is a fine line that needs to be drawn between having an ordinance that keeps people from clear cutting their property indiscriminately – to the detriment of their neighbors and the environment – and impinging on personal freedoms.  There is also a fine line to draw as to how much the Town can charge someone for cutting down “their own” trees.   We seem to be almost there – but not quite.

Members of the Deer Committee came to make a presentation regarding expanding the deer hunt.  This apparently is causing some concern in the Town, as people are afraid of harm coming to their property and/or themselves from the hunters.  My husband, who sits on the Deer Committee, and I have discussed this at length.  The hunters are very concerned for safety and are willing to abide by more stringent rules than legally necessary or mandated by the State.  They also understand that keeping good public relations regarding the locations of the hunt and its operation is paramount.  Therefore, I think we can be confident that this hunt will proceed smoothly and discretely.  The hunters all understand that it is more important to keep the Township populace’s good will and to maintain public safety than to bag the deer.

Finally, there was a discussion of the contract for architectural services for building a new Department of Public Works (DPW) facility and for a move of the Health Department from the Hillside Community Center to the Town Hall.  For those musical theater aficionados out there, ‘Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets’ is sung by Lola, the Devil’s assistant, in “Damn Yankees”.  I think that the scheme to start looking a build a new DPW facility at this time may be coming from the same place as Lola.  First, I think that starting to look for sites for a new DPW facility is premature when it will be years before the Town can afford a new one – if we even need a new one.  Some on the Town Council say that we need to be proactive, not reactive, and that it can take years to get permits and plans together.  In this case I think that it is still premature to be proactive.  There is no burning need to have a new DPW – other than that is what Lola wants.  The rationale I have heard regarding having a new DPW facility is that we can’t garage all the trucks and cars (poor cars have to be parked outside) and that there is insufficient storage.  There is also the fact that a stream runs through the current DPW facility location  - thereby not allowing usage of the land across the stream.  At this time, and in the foreseeable future, a new DPW facility is a ‘nice to have’ not a ‘need to have’.  And, when ‘shared services’ are spouted, I concur with the sentiment of “Let someone else build it and we’ll share theirs!”

The second part of the proposed contract is to move part of the Health Department from the Community Center to the Town Hall.  As I have been told, the second floor of the Town Hall was built in the hopes that we could share the facility with the Board of Education.  That didn’t happen.  Now we want to move Vital Statistics from Hillside to the Town Hall.  Why?  Because there is no public transportation to Hillside and people need to get birth certificates.  We’ve managed so far – and I don’t think we need to spend the money for moving and additional overhead that would be required to manage a ‘split’ department!

Finally, the Town Manager has requested a courtesy counter to be put in her office as an ‘add on’ to the contract.  This was to avoid people just walking into the area when no one was at the ‘service’ desk.   I was told that she would not debate her request and that I was free to vote No.  I will – given that I can think of three ways off the top of my head to take care of the issue that would not cost anything – let alone $1,900 for the plan and who knows how much for the execution.

So there you have it.  We all want many things – but I refuse to reach into the citizens of Livingston’s pockets to pay for it.  I know the contract amount is minimal – with a minimum of $14,800 to be spent.  But it’s $14,000 here and $14,000 there and pretty soon it’s real money.  Let’s turn our back on Lola and spend it when we NEED it.



Forgive me for I have sinned; it’s been about 3 weeks since my last blog

Not much has been going on at the Township Council meetings.  At the June 13^th conference meeting, and still to date, I have not been able to get agreement on the Community Outreach Committee.  At this time, the mission statement is being revised by another Councilman.  Perhaps this will facilitate closure on this!

We also had a discussion regarding leaf grinding which had been proposed by a concerned citizen.  The Township Engineer had indicated that the notion, under our current process, was not feasible – and that is before we even can deal with the financial aspects.  At this time, we consider the matter closed.

At the June 20^th meeting, we had a report from the Citizen’s Institute along with presentations to the members at the Regular meeting.  The only real discussion held at all was regarding the Christmas Tree sales ordinance and whether to exempt charitable organizations from the permit fee.

On another note, one of the privileges of being on the Town Council is being able to attend special events in the town.  So, on Thursday night, June 23, my husband Oliver and I went to Drew University to participate in Project Graduation.  Over 450 graduates of Livingston High School attended the event which was held from 11:00 PM to 3:30 AM at the Athletic Center.  Graduates enjoyed massages, use of the basketball courts, pool, Texas Hold ‘em tables, and more.  And, as a gift from Project Graduation, all the grads received a lovely towel – a memento that they will enjoy.  Kudos to the volunteers who participated in this great event!

It was supposed to be about school choice…

There has been a great deal of rhetoric over the past several weeks regarding the issue of the proposed charter schools and the Livingston public school district.  Needless to say, some of that rhetoric has been hate filled and vitriolic.

But it was supposed to be about school choice…

Thankfully, other voices chimed in – some for school choice, some against – which is what the discussion should have been about.  I applaud the West Essex Tribune (WET) for its thoughtful editorial on the issue.  While the WET is against the formation of charter schools in Livingston, it makes its position known respectfully.

It was supposed to be about school choice…

A group of motivated individuals came together to exercise their rights under the law to provide for an innovative choice to parents in three/five school districts to provide for a dual language immersion program.  [In fact, on May 30^th, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced that they have introduced, in both the House and the Senate, the Foreign Language Education Partnership Program Act, which would support revolutionary classroom programs that provide carefully sequenced foreign language classes from kindergarten through high school.]  Unfortunately, what happened after that became very ugly in that some people chose to make the issue both racial and political.

It was supposed to be about school choice…

Another voice, which was printed in this week’s WET and which I have included here, embodies my thoughts on the resolution that was passed by the Town Council last week in its effort to have a formal document be included in the response made by the Board of Education to the Department of Education regarding the outstanding charter school applications.  [The BOE letter to the Department of Education, by the way, was a reasonable, thoughtful, well-expressed argument against the inclusion of Livingston within the charter school purview.] 

We write as long time residents who have been active participants of the town and school events. Many of us are against charter school in town but we strongly condemn the stance the town council takes singling out one ethnic group.

This is a divisive resolution from the town council.  (1) The town council was sent a letter on Sunday 5/22 regarding racial sentiment, and ignored the issue; (2) they ignored the fact that the proposals are for bilingual education for everyone who believes in language immersion at an early age. Councilman Santola commented (on Tribune) that "the charter serves one ethnicity"; (3) Chinese community leaders wrote to the Council on 5/25 about Chinese residents' fear of retribution, after reading online inflammatory comments, Tribune editorial, and comments such as above; (4) Board of Education member wrote repeatedly online that the debate is NOT about ethnicity and many Asians have signed petitions against the charter schools; (5) Jean Guo noted at the 5/23 meeting (published on Tribune) that “in her opinion, the majority of Chinese people in the township do not support charter schools”.

It is regretful to have such a resolution passed in a town we love deeply. But what is more troublesome is the fact that the town council over stepped the boundary in passing this resolution. When the school budget close to $100 million was being discussed, did the town council pass any resolution one way or the other? When the $4.5 million was cut from last years' school budget with bigger impact than the proposed charter schools, did the town council pass any resolution? Aren't these all taxpayer issues? Where is the line drawn? And we, as proud residents in town, ask why a resolution now?

No one in this country should imply that an entire ethnic group is segregating a school system or the community. Those who voted yes to this resolution are not sensitive to the escalating racial sentiment in town right before the Memorial Day activity and Youth Appreciation Week. We ask the town council to issue a press release and post online statement retracting the resolution immediately.

At this time, things are quiet – at least until September 30^th when a decision is made.  I have hope that we can take steps to heal the rifts that have occurred in the community and come together.  Remember – it was just supposed to be about school choice.

Charter School - Letter to West Essex Tribune and other comments

The charter school issue is turning out to be a very controversial one in Livingston.  Many people voiced their concerns at the joint BOE/Town Council meeting that occurred on May 16th.  Apparently, as an offshoot of that, there is now a proposed resolution from the Town Council against the charter school.  Immediately upon reading it, I sent my opposition to such a resolution to the other members of the Town Council.

My reasons opposing this resolution are as follows:

• The BOE is tasked with responding to the charter school application, not the Town Council.
• The Town Council has ALWAYS taken the position that these matters are in the purview of the BOE, not the Town Council.  The Town Council has never commented on or generated a resolution regarding the school budget and/or school matters - why is it being contemplated now?
• The resolution gives the appearance of targeting a particular ethnic group.  The applications in front of the BOE are for Mandarin language immersion schools.  These charter schools are open to all residents of the districts the schools will serve - not 'a particular ethnic group'.
• Charter schools are not just for poor performing school areas - they are public schools intended to give residents a choice of the kind of education that their child will receive.  Many charter schools are founded to provide innovative educational options - such as language immersion - to students.

If it is not abundantly clear, let me make it so now:  I have provided my support and continue to support the Hanyu school application as a private citizen who believes in school choice.  I have no financial or personal interest in the school; my children will not attend the school; I receive no remuneration in any, way, shape or form from the school.

I am also including the letter being sent to the West Essex Tribune in response to their editorial in last week's paper as follows:

I am very gratified to see how many people are getting involved in the debate regarding charter schools.  Education of our children, and how it prepares them for life, is so important and I am glad that people are taking this opportunity – I hope – to learn more about it and get involved.  However, it continues to amaze me how fixated so many people, including the editor of this newspaper, are with my association with the proposed Hanyu International Academy Charter School. I have responded to these objections in a number of venues and places, and I will summarize some of my more salient points here.

¨      I do NOT sit on the Board of that embryonic institution, and - despite the egregiously libelous/slanderous, and totally false, statements that have been made by some parties - have absolutely NO financial or personal interest in it.

¨      I do NOT agree that my supporting the proposed Hanyu International Academy Charter School is in any way, shape, or form, in conflict with my being on the Town Council. No one has yet provided a concrete and reasoned argument as to why that stance may be mistaken.  I have been a supporter of school choice and school vouchers.  I have heard many people – even at the Livingston Board of Education meeting on May 16^th – state that they are in favor of school choice and charter schools but just not in Livingston.  Regardless, both members of the BOE and the Town Council have opinions on myriad issues on which they are called upon to vote.  As long as I have no financial interest in the outcome, there is NO conflict of interest.  [In fact, even if I did have a financial interest, I would simply need to recuse myself from any vote involving the school – just as other councilmen have recused themselves from votes in the past!]

¨      I do NOT agree that having this charter school is divisive.  In fact, the people calling it divisive are creating and deepening the perceived schism with the Asian community.  First, this charter school is open to everyone, not just Asians.  Second, the children in the charter school – which is at most a K-5 school – will be reintegrated with the ‘rest’ of the public school system in middle school.  That means that they will need to meet or exceed the academic standards set for entrance into middle school.  Where is ‘divisiveness’ in all this?  Or is this merely an attempt to put an emotional slant on this issue by using this buzzword?  

¨    Some have expressed disappointment in my supporting an activity that has the potential to cost the taxpayers of Livingston some money. The first thing to realize is that the commonly bandied about number of $3 million or more is simply and utterly false. If the charter school is approved, with an initial enrollment of 110 students, and assuming one-third will come from the Livingston district, and using $13,712 (as reported by the Superintendent during school budget meetings) with a 90% contribution – the math alone states (110/3) * (13712 * .90) = $452,496.  That is quite a far cry from $3 million.  Now, I agree that $452,496 is not a trivial number – in fact, although it is less than the total municipal tax increase for 2011, it is still large.  I truly believe, however, that a charter school is an investment in the future and will attract new families into our community – which will ultimately bring more tax revenues, business, shoppers, and opportunities.  I perceive this as NO different than when I, along with my fellow councilmen, approved $730,000 for solar panels as an investment in the Township infrastructure for the future that we hope will mitigate energy expense.

¨      Finally I find it interesting that those who have objected to this entire enterprise had no problems with the 2011 municipal tax increase at all – and indeed have voted for myriad school budget increases – but object to adding more educational choices for our children. (Anybody who wishes to take the time to do so can learn about the studies done on language-immersion educational systems, which have shown their efficiency and accomplishment to be very high.)  How do I know this? There were a number of very vocal people who came to express their opposition to the charter school, yet there were virtually zero objections to the municipal budget increase, in an actually greater amount, which will provide us with no lasting measurable benefits.

I encourage anyone who wishes to engage in civil discourse to contact me at his or her convenience; my contact information may be found at http://livingstonnj.org/councilmeetings.htm.

Um, I think “partisan” is the word you’re looking for...

I read Mr. August’s letter in this past week’s West Essex Tribune with some interest.  I can’t help thinking that, having attended none of the conference or regular Council meetings, nor any of the budget hearings, any information he may have on these matters is second- or third-hand at best. At any rate, it would seem that he is echoing some of the recently voiced concerns over so-called “politicization” of the budget process.  It’s worth pointing out that the budget process is necessarily a political undertaking.  According to Merriam-Webster, the word “political” is defined as “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government OR, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy.”  So, yes, the budget process is of necessity a political process.  It may be that he was trying to accuse me and Dr. Rieber of making it a partisan process by voting along party lines.

Regarding party affiliation, it bears reminding that Mike and I were voted in because the community was tired of the status quo of continual tax increases.  We worked very hard to try to keep the budget flat and kept presenting suggestions to the other members of the council.  ALL of our suggestions were shot down.  And, as previously stated in this blog, just because the Mayor thought he had consensus on the budget, he was, unfortunately, mistaken.  When Mike and I voted to introduce the budget, we did so because we had an obligation to meet a State timeline – not because we agreed with the budget.  [You can refer to earlier blogs regarding this.]  And, as I stated at the time of the budget introduction, I was NOT in agreement with the budget itself; I was merely approving its introduction for review.

But for seven votes, another fiscal conservative would have joined the Town Council and we would not be having this type of discussion.  Having Republicans on the Town Council now, for the first time in 20 years, may give the appearance of partisan activity.  Let’s put it down to ‘status quo’ vs. fiscal conservatives.  If that’s ‘political’, so be it!

On another note, the Council had the opportunity to discuss the proposed Asian Community Outreach Committee – first raised back on April 4^th  - at the 05/09 conference meeting.  The proposed committee members – about 15 of them – came to the conference meeting to speak to the council about the need for this committee to reach out to members of the community and to get them access to various services and to work to have them join Township committees.  The Alternative Press incorrectly indicated that Mayor Fernandez called for the creation of a diversity committee.  As we all are aware, Livingston already has a Committee on Diversity which has a completely different focus.  However, the comments from the Council to make the new committee one for outreach to ALL minorities is well taken.  As such, the revised mission statement calls for a Community Outreach Committee and, of course, will be open to all members of the community.  Let’s just get it started!

Three shorts and a long – not quite SOS – just SO …

Short #1 – ‘Politicizing the Budget Process’

What does that actually mean??  I attend meetings, ask questions, give comments and feedback, and, when I present my opinions in open forum, I am accused of politicizing the process.  It is true that the votes fell along party lines with the Republicans - Mike Rieber and me - voting NO and the Democrats – the other three councilmembers – voting YES.  Does that make it political?  Or does that just mean that Mike and I were more committed to ensuring that the budget that was passed was the absolutely best one we could have with no reasonable stone unturned.  I had not even considered the issue of party politics until it was raised and – even now – am confused by what it means.

If anyone out there thinks that I objected to the budget because of party and/or political considerations, you have another think coming.  Could we have gotten all the way to $0 budget increase without cutting services?  I don’t think so and I agreed with my co-councilmen.  But, could we have done better?  Absolutely.  Maybe as the new members on the Council, Mike and I are more willing to question everything and not willing to take things at face value or just because ‘that’s the way it’s always been.’  Don’t know.  But I also don’t know where politics came into this process either.

By the way, three weeks prior, my statement at the time was that I voted YES to introduce the budget for consideration to meet State mandated timing but NO to the contents of the budget.  Contrary to popular belief, there never was consensus on this budget.

Short #2 – School Choice and Charter Schools

My husband, Oliver, and I have long been proponents of school choice and the voucher program.  We believe that parents should have the ultimate say in the type and quality of education that their children receive.  We have met with gubernatorial candidates on this issue, attended rallies supporting this issue, attended meetings of E3 (Excellent Education for Everyone), and have been devotees of School Choice NJ.  That being said, I was delighted to be invited to participate as a founder of the Hanyu International Academy Charter School – the Mandarin language immersion school for Livingston, Milburn-Short Hills, and West Orange districts.

At the budget hearing – which was supposed to only cover the municipal budget and NOT the county or school budget – several people (and one councilman!) got up to accuse me of bamboozling the public by supporting charter schools because, after all, how can I be a bulwark against rising taxes when I am ready to spend $3.5 million of the Livingston school budget on a charter school that will benefit the few?  And, if everyone who expressed a concern about this at the budget hearing REALLY was concerned, why haven’t you approached me privately as this has been in the news for several weeks?

First – the numbers were nonsensical as ALL those who stood up (or sat down) to criticize should have known.  Just the facts, Jack – with 122 students to be enrolled, and assuming one-third will come from the Livingston district, and using $13,712 (as reported by the Superintendent during school budget meetings) with a 90% contribution – the math alone states (122/3) * (13712 * .90) = $501,859.20.  That is quite a far cry from the numbers being bandied about at the Council meeting. 

Now, I agree that $501,859 is not a trivial number – in fact, although it is less than the total municipal tax increase for 2011, it is still large.  HOWEVER, I truly believe that a charter school is an investment in the future and will attract new families into our community – which will ultimately bring more tax revenues, business, shoppers, and opportunities.  I perceive this as NO different that when I – along with my fellow councilmen – approved $730,000 for solar panels as an investment in the Township infrastructure for the future that we hope will mitigate energy expense.  Let’s take the long view on this, shall we?

 

Short #3 – Where are you?

It came to my attention recently that people have been missing me.  They wonder why I didn’t turn out for the Little League opening day or the Chamber of Commerce breakfast or some other community event.  I do appreciate that people want to see their elected officials and want to have an opportunity to hobnob with them at sundry events.  I do try to get to social and/or community events whenever possible.  But – if I’m not there – consider the following:

Ø      I am a Sabbath observer – which means that I don’t drive from Friday night until Saturday night, I don’t use electricity, and I don’t engage in business.  Most Saturday’s I can be found at home or my local synagogue – which is 1.25 miles from my house.  So, if the event is on the Sabbath, dollars to doughnuts, I will be observing Sabbath and missing the event.  If I can walk to an event and attend without violating the Sabbath, I do try.  But, the Oval is about 3 miles from my house, the Hillside Community Center is over 5 miles from my house – I think you get the picture.

Ø      I run a business – I am a small business owner and my business is located in Secaucus, NJ.  Most days I leave the house at 7:30 AM and don’t get home until 10 PM.  Many weekends find me working in my home office to take care of business I couldn’t get to during the week.  As for most working people out there, it is very difficult to just leave in the middle of the day to attend events.  I do it when I can.

Ø      I am a Councilwoman AND the Town Council Liaison to a number of Township Committees – This week, we had a conference meeting beginning at 7:30 PM, the regular meeting that began at 8 PM and I don’t think the festivities were over until well after 10 PM.  On Tuesday at 7:30 PM, I attended a special meeting of the HCHY to discuss Youth Appreciation Week.  On Wednesday at 7:30PM, I attended the HCHY monthly Board meeting.  On Thursday at 7:30PM (which lasted until 9:40PM), I attended the Livingston Environmental Commission Meeting.  I take my responsibilities very seriously – and commit my time to them.  This DOESN’T include the hours I spend on the weekends reading the materials given out on Friday in preparation for the Monday meetings.  I also make myself available by phone and email – and I return all calls and emails promptly.  If you want to talk to me, I am available.

Ø      Last but not least, I am a wife and a mother.  I have three sons – 24, 23, and 21 – and a wonderful husband of 31 years.  I also have a mother (my father passed two years ago, unfortunately) and 6 brothers and sisters. We are a VERY close knit family.  SO, any time not given to 1,2,and 3 above goes to them.  Okay?

The Long

For those of you who weren’t there to hear it, below is the statement I made at the Budget hearing.  The only thing I would change is the percentage that the employees get as an incentive NOT to take the health benefits.  When I asked the question, in a conference meeting, how much was given, I was informed that the number was 50% - which was when I asked if we could lower it.  During the budget hearing, it was related to me that the number was 25%.  I do not fault anyone for providing incorrect information – sometimes people misspeak.  But, the concept remains the same – no matter what we are giving, can we lower it?

We have spent numerous hours reviewing the proposed budget as assembled and prepared by our township administration. As we sit here at the end of the process, I must say: I am disappointed.

As everyone here knows, economic times in the world, the US, New Jersey, and yes Livingston are difficult. While there are some people in our town who are fortunate enough to feel the current pinch less than others, or perhaps even not at all, that unfortunately cannot outweigh the needs of the thousands of others.

In addition to having an MBA and consulting with a Big Four Firm in the public sector, I have been running a business successfully for the past twenty years.  If there is one thing that has been demonstrated to me repeatedly, it is this: people and entities cannot indefinitely spend resources, especially money, that they do not have.  And, during time of economic crisis, the need to economize where possible is paramount.

We find ourselves in the difficult position of maintaining as high a level of services as possible for the residents of this town, and at the same time refraining from taxing them to the point where they can no longer afford those services by maintaining a residence in Livingston. The proposed budget is continually miscast as a mere $44.03 per household tax increase; what it actually represents is over a half million dollars in additional municipal taxes.  Increase upon increase upon increase, year after year, after year is an untenable way to go; and is unsustainable in the long run.  It is precisely the mindset of explaining away “small increases” that led to $11.1 million in tax increases over the past five years.

 One of the areas that we attempted to look into for some financial tax easing was municipal employment compensation. It seems, to some of us, that to continually increase the compensation of workers who are already earning salaries and/or benefits that are at or beyond comparable pay scales in industry, all on the backs of the already overburdened Livingston residents, is an exercise in injustice of the highest order. I have no doubt that our employees understand the harsh realities of today’s economy. And, I am sure that they are grateful for the fact that while many private sector employees have foregone raises for the past several years, the town council has seen fit to continue to give raises to them.  In addition to ‘cadillac’ health insurance benefits that are provided, township employees contribute a token amount to their insurance premiums – where their private sector counterparts are contributing up to 30% of the cost of the premiums.  Not to mention that employees that don’t take the health benefits due to other coverage are paid 50% of the cost of these ‘cadillac’ premiums.  It does save the township from having to pay 100% of the cost of coverage, but surely some lesser amount might provide the same incentive. And, not to be the Grinch who stole Chanukah, while industry has been embarrassed to continue to have holiday parties for their employees (with some very public cancellations), Livingston not only has two parties with a budget of $25,000 but does it on “company” time and compensates employees for attending.  To date, Michael Rieber and I have been unable to obtain support in getting changes to these policies – and the concomitant reduction in budget – pushed through.

Some items had been previously proposed as potential areas for reduction – such as elimination of leaf collection or all social services – but these eliminations would either cost the residents more money by having to provide the services for themselves – in the matter of leaf collection – or would hurt the most vulnerable members of our community who are least able to help themselves.  It is right that these reductions are not supported.  However, to not insist that the Library remain at the same budget level as 2010 – which would result in not spending an additional $100,000 – does not make sense.

So, when services are not impacted and options to reduce the budget are presented, there really is no excuse not to take advantage of these opportunities.  Voting FOR the budget stating that this is the best we can do is not being honest with the taxpayer.  Mike and I know we can do better.  It is for these reasons that I vote an unequivocal NO and reject this budget.