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.

As we get closer, it goes from bad to worse - Meeting of April 11, 2011

In preparation for this meeting, I sent an email to the Town Council regarding all the issues I had with both the salary ordinance and the budget - the two items of most note on the Conference agenda.  This was the last scheduled meeting that we would be having prior to the budget vote on May 2nd and I wanted to be sure that all the issues were out on the table.  [I have posted the email below for you diehards who actually read the WHOLE thing each week!  What I have not included is the spreadsheet attachment as that contains private information regarding the Township employees.]  The issue I had with the salary ordinance was not the ordinance per se - which is merely a listing of salary ranges for job titles within the Town.  But when I matched the ranges with the actual salaries being paid to the employees, I was struck by the fact that 13% of the employees were being paid salaries higher than the highest level of their range - and by more than could be explained by merit increases (which is supposed to max out at 2%), longevity bonuses, and annual increases (which were 1.5%).  The other thing that struck me is that the Township salaries range from  $26,834 to $201,414.  Hourly wages run from $12.50 per hour to $36.13 per hour.  These wages are VERY comparable to industry - these are not the governmental pittance salaries of yore.  I respect the jobs that our Township employees are doing but I’m not quite sure why we are paying private industry salaries AND doling out public industry perks.

[The Township Manager responded to my concerns regarding the out of range salaries with the fact that we had been provided with incorrect information - that the schedule provided did not have updated titles.  I have since asked for additional corrected information - see below as well.]

My fellow Republican on the Council also raised the issue of holding the library budget to the level of 2010 instead of increasing it by $100,000.  When I supported this issue, we were voted down by the other Council members who did not want to go back to the Library board - even though the Library board had stated – and I’m paraphrasing here – ‘give us a number and we will work with it.’

Needless to say, Mike Rieber and I have pitched a number of suggestions that would lessened the budget increase without affecting services – all of them were shot down.

Email sent 04/08/2011:

I have performed an analysis of the salary ordinance in conjunction with the 2010 salaries.  [I am aware that the 2011 salaries have not as yet been finalized; and that the 2010 salaries should be falling toward the minimum range given that this is an ordinance that should cover salaries for 2011 and 2012.]  That being said, I find it very puzzling that approximately 13% of the non-CBA salaries exceed the maximum levels of the ordinance – some by a very significant amount.  Therefore, I am not quite clear as to what this min/max ordinance is supposed to accomplish if we can merely pay more by calling it a merit or longevity increase.  If the fact is that someone is paid much higher than the pay range on an ongoing basis, de facto that is his or her ‘base’ salary.

Now, I did not have the previous 3 years with which to perform a comparison – which would be helpful.  Michele – if you would provide me with that data, I would be happy to plug it into the spreadsheet.

So – why are these salaries so far above the range?  What are the bonus amounts/percentages that are awarded and on what basis?  If we just look at the salaried employees, we are paying over $150K over the max range (and the max range is higher than the 2010 one – so the difference is actually higher.)

Second, in looking at these wages, we are not looking at ‘poor’ public sector wages that are lower than private sector.  To me, it appears to be private sector wages with public sector perks – which is a very, very expensive way to go.  I would like to discuss again the option to increase the employees’ contribution to the health benefits.  If I recall correctly, increasing the rate of contribution from 1.5% to 3.0% will result in a $107K savings – or almost a 20% reduction in the current tax increase.  Maybe a rollback of ‘merit’ or ‘longevity’ pay as well could be discussed – that $150K (not including hourlies) would also go a long way in reduction of the tax increase.

Third, if I recall correctly, personnel are paid a sum if they do not subscribe to the insurance plan.  Why?  It is a benefit that is offered.  If it is declined, there is no legal requirement to pay them for it.  How many people do not take the insurance and how much would that save the town if that benefit were expunged?

Finally, the parties and (2) ½ days paid – another issue that I would like to raise again.  When times are good, everyone shares.  But times are tough – do we really want the taxpayers shelling out for this?  Even if it comes out to a $2 a taxpayer – that’s THEIR two dollars to spend, not ours.  And, when things are getting better, it can be reinstated.  I think it would be good PR for the Town to show support for the taxpayers in this.

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please don’t hesitate to call me.

Email sent 04/27/2011:

Michele:

Thank you.  Would it be possible, then, to get a corrected 2010 salary schedule along with a projected 2011 salary schedule based on the assumption of the 2011 budget being passed?  Are people being paid the 1.5% projected increase now or is that being held off until the budget is finalized?  Also, what is the total impact in 2010 of the merit increases in actual dollars and as a percentage of salary?  What is the (proposed?) impact of merit increases for 2011 in dollars and percents?

Also, why was there a decision to give xxx a stipend?  He is a full time employee of Livingston - which is providing shared services to Milburn to get a revenue source.  Is there a need to keep giving him this stipend?

Also, may I have a list of all employees who are given the usage of automobiles as part of their compensation package?  And, do we have a cost (which I'm sure we must for tax purposes) broken down by employee for this benefit?

I am also looking forward to seeing the costs for the benefits as requested by Mike Rieber.  If we assess a 5% premium charge for each non-CBA employee - based on the plan in which they are enrolled - what would that save us?  Also, what would be the savings for changing the benefits package and eliminating the bonus for NOT taking benefits?  How much are we paying out in this benefit now?

Thank you again.

Budget meeting on May 2^nd.  Should be fun.