As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
4/16/2007

Mendham: Town Stuff: The Next Council Meeting: 4/16/2007
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By 07. 07. on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 4:04 am:
Question to be asked at the April 16 meeting of the town council.

At the last meeting of the town council, the entire council through implicit consent, chose to censor, edit, and pervert through inaccurate paraphrase the "public comment" I submitted. Worse, the mayor willfully slandered the truth by characterizing the direct questions asked as redundant and unworthy of response. The executive privilege of self-serving immunity may provide the council the right to perpetrate such slanders as a matter of law, but as a matter of human right, I will not leave the lie unchallenged. I am willing to defend my honorable purpose, and the integrity of the questions I have asked, against any fair scrutiny. What I am unwilling to do is play word games with dishonorable politicians willing to cloak themselves in an unequal right to commit unaccountable slander. Our disagreement is not made of any confusion or misunderstanding. Clearly at least one of us is motivated by a nefarious, and dishonest, purpose, and as stated, I am willing to prove through any honest test that it isn't me. Although lie-detector examination may not be a perfect science, it does have credibility as a tool in the search for truth. I am certainly willing to defend my honor through such an examination, and challenge any member of the council to express the same willingness.

...having said that, I resubmit these perfectly reasonable questions you have left substantially unanswered.

How do you understand the purpose of the OPRA language describing and defining "actual cost"?

How do you defend the lack of scrutiny applied to the document copying policies of the subsidized library, when you feel compelled to charge the "not to exceed maximum" fees for copies of vital public information?

DO YOU THINK IT REASONABLE, for Borough administration to make no distinction, in terms of fees, between black-and-white copies, and obviously more expensive to produce full-color copies?

I would ask the Borough administrator to please provide the Council, and the public, a ROUGH ESTIMATE of how many hard copied pages are produced by the Borough government, per average month, pursuant to open public records requests?

When the WMRHS Board of Education, tells the voters that a transfer of funds will have "no tax impact", Do you believe the voters should reasonably believe that accounts (spending) defunded will not be merely refunded through tax increases?

Do you personally know what capital spending was canceled as a result of the $2 million transfer?

TV 25 is self-described as the "access channel of Mandhams" would council members please explain their definition of the word "access" in the context of the history of cable access television and federal law?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By 07. 32... on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 4:42 pm:
Wonder how much the town charges per copy when the Administrator drops his pants and sits on the copier. Is the charge for the complete picture or per page (probably 3 minimum)?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By 07. 07. 07. 07. 2....... on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 8:42 am:
As is the new routine, the mayor and council chose to edit/censor my comments. They chose not to read my reply to the Mayor's previous slanders, but did read the "header text" I include with my questions when I submit them.


quote:

[The Mayor] In light of a previously explained permanent disability circumstance I am unable to attend council meetings and therefore request the minor accommodation UNDER THE A.D.A. that the following questions be asked of council members during the public comment portion of the April 16 meeting. - thank you for your cooperation and consideration. mayor stops reading here
.......

"Public comment" Questions to be asked of the Borough Council at the April 16th meeting:

[start here]

At the last meeting of the town council...




[Kind of funny that they see purpose in reading the redundancy that comes before the "start here" but no obligation to read what follows.]

[Borough attorney] and Mayor, just for the record, we've placed the statement and questions that follow up front for the public's benefit and each member of the council has a copy as well... the questions if it's OK, I will read them,...


[at the rate the Borough charges for copies it cost the town $5 or $6 to produce these "hard copies" for the public's benefit, I did not request be made. Kind of ironic that they're willing to waste supposedly very cost burdensome printing services on requests not made, at the same time arguing the need to charge the "not to exceed" maximum legal fee for requests actually made.]

[Borough attorney] the first question is... How do you understand the purpose of the OPRA language describing and defining "actual cost"?

[The Mayor] This question calls for a legal analysis, as to how Opra defines actual cost, anything beyond such a response... would be unresponsive to the question.

[So they they have written, and passed, legislation without doing the required "legal analysis" to answer simple questions regarding the legislation's consistency with existing law. Kind of like hiring a cook who can't explain how use a frying pan.]


[Borough attorney] If there's any other comments... from the council... question two...
How do you defend the lack of scrutiny applied to the document copying policies of the subsidized library, when you feel compelled to charge the "not to exceed maximum" fees for copies of vital public information?

[The Mayor] the answer that question is the Borough charges for copies what it is permitted by state statute.

[State statutes permit the Borough charge anything from ZERO to the "not to exceed" maximum, the town council has willfully CHOSEN not to scrutinize what the subsidized library charges to copy commercially copyrighted material, Yet they have chosen to charge the maximum legally permitted fee to copy publicly owned, and produced, information. Obviously no honest government, respectful of the United States Constitution, and the rights of the people, would CHOOSE this course of action. Similarly obvious, is the intellectual cowardice demonstrated in the insipid answer to the question.]


[Borough attorney] question 3 ....
DO YOU THINK IT REASONABLE, for Borough administration to make no distinction, in terms of fees, between black-and-white copies, and obviously more expensive to produce full-color copies?

[The Mayor] We answered that question last month...

[Not with the simple yes or no answer that would be responsive to the question. As the council has evaded this question repeatedly, I guess we are reasonably free to imply there answer to be "YES"... and of course I think the facts clearly indicate we should "imply" that answer to be a big fat lie intended to cover their deliberate effort to commit a willful treason against The United States Constitution.]

[Borough attorney] question 4....
I would ask the Borough administrator to please provide the Council, and the public, a ROUGH ESTIMATE of how many hard copied pages are produced by the Borough government, per average month, pursuant to open public records requests?


[The Mayor] The answer that question is we have about 3 to 4 Opra request per month the administrator can't put his finger on how many pages may be involved we would have to do more in depth analysis.

[As I make two requests per council meeting (one for the agenda and such and one for the audio CD of the meeting) and there are two meetings per month on average, clearly I am the only one making OPRA requests. as I won't pay 75 a page for hard copies, the Mayor is contending that it requires "in depth analysis" to count up to the number ZERO.]

[Borough attorney] question 5 ...
When the WMRHS Board of Education, tells the voters that a transfer of funds will have "no tax impact", Do you believe the voters should reasonably believe that accounts (spending) defunded will not be merely refunded through tax increases?

[The Mayor] That is a question for the Board of Education... that's the answer to that question.

[It's not "a" answer, let alone "the" honest answer. Clearly the liars on the town council endorse the lies by the Board of Education.]

[Borough attorney] question 6 ....
Do you personally know what capital spending was canceled as a result of the $2 million transfer?

[The Mayor] that too is a question for the Board of Education, I do not, nor does the council have any information to answer that question.

[Simple yes or no question, evasive, convoluted, and cowardly unanswer.]

[Borough attorney] final question...
TV 25 is self-described as the "access channel of Mandhams" would council members please explain their definition of the word "access" in the context of the history of cable access television and federal law?

[The Mayor] the answer to that question is the question... the question calls for a legal analysis involving communications and access and I would question the member of the public that this was a question about TV 25.

[So they are comfortable passing laws without legal analysis but they won't answer questions without it. They are paying the idiot attorney $150 an hour to sit in on these meetings and read questions. You would think for that kind of money the jackass shyster could explain to the council members that "their definition" of a word shouldn't require the advice of counsel to ascertain... especially when they have already used that definition to Write laws effecting the basic freedoms of American citizens.]

[The Mayor] any other comment from the council on these questions... hearing none.


Add a Message



 

InMendham.com
NJinNJ.com
UnAccess.com
Donotgo.com
SilverBrigade.com