As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
8/7/2006
Mendham:
Town Stuff:
The Next Council Meeting:
8/7/2006
     By 06. 06. on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 6:48 am: |
Questions I will submit for the August 7th meeting.
1) In response to a formal (two page form) OPRA request for the employment contract the town has with the Borough administrator, I was advised that no such contract exists, and I was directed to secure relevant ordnances and salary resolutions for information regarding the conditions of the Borough administrators employment. I would first argue that it is inconsistent with the intent of the Open Public Records Act-- which states "immediate access should be granted"-- to oblige citizens to do extensive research to secure such basic facts. I would further argue that the relevant ordnances and salary resolutions I have been able to obtain copies of do nothing to define such conditions of employment as paid vacation, expense account, transportation expenses, vehicle use, health and pension benefits, payment of member organization dues...etc. I would inquire of the mayor and council, if this circumstance, is what they would euphemize as appropriately open and accountable government?
2) The mayor and town council has demonstrated a, clearly willful and deliberate, inconsistency in how they respond to comments and questions presented by the public during public meetings. It is also clear that this inconsistency is based on who asks the question and not on anything in the nature of the question itself. I would inquire of the mayor and council how this inconsistency in treatment can be defended as consistent with the civilian right to equitable treatment demanded by the United States constitution?
Questions previously asked and left unanswered.
3) How many town employees are provided with a "free" for their personal-use-vehicle, and does the town pay for complete accident insurance, and all maintenance?
4) Council members have advocated a "more equitable" change in the regional high school funding formula. Does the council have a similar disdain for the inequities inherent in the "progressive formula" used to assess municipal (local) taxes? Should, for example, local families with school-age children be taxed at a higher rate commensurate with the burdens created by their reproductive decisions ($8 million annually to finance grammar schools)? ...or in other words, should the town council use its power to provide a rebate, to make the excessive taxation of residents who do not have children "more equitable" in net impact? |
| By 06. 2....... on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
quote:[the mayor]: ....why is the tape on we took a five minute recess
I do have one other public comment that was not made before the five minute recess these are questions submitted in writing by a person who can't make the meeting
[the mayor reads the above questions]
I will take one shot at, comment No. 3
There are no free for personal use vehicles... we do have four employees who are given vehicles for use on town business, and they are allowed to commute in them. The town does pickup insurance and maintenance.
As far as the taxation question we have no power in that area, that is a state law, all taxes have to be assessed based on state law.... any other comments by the council
Somehow these answers look really extra anemic in the context of the council just spending 40 minutes responding to complaints regarding the revaluation.
The truth regarding the vehicle use is that the DPW superintendent's contract puts no limitations on use of the vehicle... It probably can be assumed that the truth regarding the other vehicles is as I stated it-- they are free "personal use" vehicles. I would estimate this job perk is worth no less than $10,000 a year... considering that these administrators are already preposterously overpaid, some "conservatives" in the audience should be a bit disgusted by this government waste.
Regarding the tax question-- the Mayor's response typically ignores the obvious truth... in this case, the truth, that they are attempting to change "state law" regarding the HS funding formula. If they're going to spend your tax dollars to change that state law, what is stopping them from applying simple logical consistency and at least stating (at no expense) that they believe municipal taxes should also be flat to protect wealthier citizens from "excessive and unfair taxation". |
|