Daily Archives: September 28, 2010

>Byrnes & Mahoney Town Hall Meeting Was a Big Success

>Last nights Sean Byrnes and Mary Mahoney’s Town Hall Meeting at the Middletown Panera Bread location was a big success. It was better than hoped for with over 50 people in attendance, many of then Republicans, who voiced their concerns over the lack of transparency shown by those down at Town Hall and how those in charge have been running the Township over the past several years which has resulted in the largest tax hike in Monmouth County this year (nearly 14%).

Overall, it was a very informative meeting that Sean Byrnes tried his best to make as non-political as possible, which I believe those in attendance appreciated. Many of them were there to be informed about what was happening at Town Hall and what possible solutions they could expect to their problems if Byrnes and his running mate Mary Mahoney were elected. They didn’t want to hear them slam or complain their opponents.

Committeeman Byrnes chose to highlight 3 topics of discussion last night; Planning (or lack there of), the Execution of Government and the Inefficiencies that are associated with the “business as usual” way that Middletown has been run, which has lead to tax increases of over 42% during the last 5 years.
Byrnes’s running mate, Mary Mahoney, introduced herself to the crowd and spoke about how and why she became interested in running for the Township Committee. She told those in attendance that she became involved back in December of last year when the Township decided to install an artificial turf fields complex with concession stands and lighting across the street from her house at the West Front Street Park, with no notification or discussion with the residents of the area that would be affected by such a complex. Mahoney went on to tell those in attendance how she helped form the citizens group SONIC, that defeated the sports complex at West Front Street and how she came to realize that the Mayor (Gerry Scharfenberger) and others were more interested in themselves and getting elected than doing what’s right for all the residents of Middletown.
The floor was then opened for a Question and Answer period, where attendees asked Sean Byrnes questions that ranged from the Governor’s “Tool Kit” and civil service rules, recording and televising Township meetings and what it would mean for residents if the Township Committee reverted back to it’s old make-up of a 5-0 super majority of all Republicans and no Democrats.
I recorded over an hour worth of video last night that will take me a few days to edit down for posting. When I do, readers will be able to see and hear for themselves how well the Town Hall Meeting went and decide whether or not Byrnes and Mahoney deserve your votes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Byrnes and Mahoney, execution of government, inefficiencies, Middletown Township Committee, planning, town hall meeting

>NJPP Monday Minute 9/27/10: Good, Better … Best Practices

On October 1, every municipality will puts its state aid on the line. As part of the governor’s reform Tool Kit, towns will only receive 100 percent of their state municipal aid payment if they respond “yes” to at least 76 out of 88 questions listed in the governor’s “Local Government Best Practices.” Not having enough “yes” answers will cut their final aid payments for this year at a time when most municipalities have already lost some of their state aid.

Many of the questions make sense. Elected officials should understand their responsibilities and obligations and should attend most of their organization’s meetings. It would be good for the municipal websites to include standard useful information like municipal budgets, minutes and agendas of the various governing bodies and boards, and the names of people to contact. A personnel manual is important for employees of the municipality to know the rules…and certainly the municipality should have rules.

Many questions suggest that important policies are in place and are recognized as important. Since assessed values are the basis for the property taxes people pay, towns should recognize that maintaining those records is a critical feature of good management. Unfortunately, only 60 percent of municipalities will be able to answer “yes” to that question.

Other questions contradict each other so if a municipality says “yes” to one, it can’t say “yes” to the other. For instance, one question asks if the municipality employs a full-time health officer. The next question asks if the municipality shares health services with another municipality or county. If you say yes to one, the only way you can say yes to the other is if you have more than one health official.

Some questions contradict state policy. For instance, the questionnaire asks if the municipality limits health benefits to full-time (35 or more hours weekly) employees-excluding from coverage all part-time employees, elected and appointed officials. Newly enacted laws on this subject (P.L. 2010, c. 1 and c. 2) define full time for local government employees as 32 or more hours a week.

And while the questionnaire asks whether the municipality has implemented cost sharing for health benefits by collecting at least 1.5 percent of salary for all employees, it is silent on pensions. If the state is interested in health benefits why not also pension costs? It might be a big surprise for the borough administrator to find out how many pensions some of their shared service workers are entitled to receive upon retirement.

Of course, that is not a “yes” or “no” question, but it could be phrased along the lines of, “Do any of your full-time employees also work full-time in another municipality?” Also, “Do you know how much your full-time employees get paid by the other municipalities where they also work full-time?”

How about nepotism and political patronage? Because this issue clearly fits into the category of ethics and personnel manuals, what about asking, “Does the municipality condone the hiring of a son by a father, a sister by a brother or a mother by a daughter?” or maybe even a more pointed, “Does the municipality allow a mayor, council person or other public official to buy municipal property?”

How about various sanitation practices? Under the public works section of the questionnaire, several questions are asked about recycling. But how about asking whether the municipality picks up trash more than once a week? Or whether the municipality picks up grass clippings?

And what about the ultimate questions?

Are you too big or too small to function effectively?

Do you annually have a joint meeting of officials from every taxing authority to see how you can coordinate and manage the services you provide taxpayers to guarantee that you are providing the highest quality, most cost effective services possible?

“Yes” and “no” questionnaires have both value and limitations. They are like public report cards. If made public, they raise questions. NJPP has always believed information should be provided to the public in an understandable way. “Yes” and “no” is pretty simple. And making municipalities answer the questionnaire or lose state aid is a pretty direct stick. But tying these “yes” answers to the allocation of state aid may not be the best practice when non-compliance is likely to amount to further increases in property taxes to make up for lost state aid.

Leave a comment

Filed under Local Government Best Practices, Monday Minute, New Jersey Policy Perspective