According to the Asbury Park Press, Monmouth County Freeholder Amy Mallet, the lone Democrat on the Freeholder Board, proposed a resolution at Thursday's worship meeting that would have placed 10 -12 year term limits on those that serve voluntarily on various County boards, commissions and authorities. Her reasoning behind this resolution was to provide "fresh ideas" and eliminate complacency on boards that have fiduciary control over county programs and services, the APP reported.
Her proposal was voted by the four Republican members of the Freeholder board for various reason, none of which, in my opinion hold much salt.
Why should members that have sat on boards or commissions for up to 33 years be "grandfathered" and allowed to sit upwards to another 12 year before having to leave, as Freeholder John Curley argued when he opposed the measure?
I think Mallet is on target here and her measure should be debated, refined and eventually implemented to one degree or another. It makes sense, but of course, because it makes sense it has no chance of being passed by the Republican dominated Freeholder Board.
Here is a snippet of the APP's article:
A resolution that would have created term limits for volunteers who serve on Monmouth County's autonomous boards and commissions was squashed by the freeholder board's Republican majority.
Freeholder Amy Mallet, the lone Democrat, posted a resolution for consideration at Thursday's workshop that would prohibit volunteers from serving more than 10 or 12 years at a time, depending on the length of their term. She argued that a rotating membership is critical to provide "fresh ideas" and eliminate complacency on boards that have fiduciary control over county programs and services.
"This is a good start to making the necessary systemic changes," Mallet said, adding that she drafted the resolution in response to the recent Brookdale Community College scandal over the former president's generous benefits package and a criminal investigation into spending irregularities within the president's office.
But the four Republicans argued that good volunteers would be thrown out with the bad.
"I am completely opposed to this resolution," Freeholder Lillian G. Burry said. "It's an insult to the people who give their time and talent and are not compensated for it."
Freeholder John Curley had expressed support for term limits before the meeting and even conceded Thursday there was public support for the measure. But he said he couldn't vote for the resolution because the lack of a grandfather clause for sitting members nearing their limit was "too harsh."
Freeholder Director Robert Clifton said he would have preferred each board member start from zero when they come up for re-appointment, but Mallet said that's too long to wait for change. She insisted Friday that she will work with the Republicans on a compromise version but wasn't immediately sure where she would bend.
Clifton stressed that what needs to be changed is how the freeholder board decides who should serve in these critical roles. Essentially, no more rubber stamping appointments.
The freeholders, he said, need to be more vigilant in scrutinizing each appointment. That means reviewing the meeting minutes, attendance records, interviewing candidates and getting recommendations from respective staff members and board chairmen.
But shouldn't they have been doing that all along?
"There's no excuse," Clifton said Friday. "We are where we are, and we need to step it up. It's more work for the freeholders, but that's what we were elected to do."...
3 comments:
Attended that Freeholder meeting and many members of the public expressed total disgust with the Brookdale situation. Seemed to be a lot of disgust among all of the freeholders but they voted Amy's resolution down.Here's a take on that.......
I believe that much of the explanation behind this is the funding of elections. Many people who serve as volunteers are very "politically connected" and that's exactly why they have the positions they hold. They donate plenty to campaigns.The repubicans don't want to upset the "apple cart" or "bite the hand that helps feed them". This is true of politics in general!
The proposal was a good one offered by Amy Mallet and she stated that in a population of some 650,000 residents in the County there is much talent to be tapped. She is absolutely right and anything said to the contrary is unmitigated political gaul.
Brookdale is the epitome of insult to the taxpayers in Monmouth County and it is the result years of ignoring what the politically connected are capable of imposing on us undetected. This situation,and more like it,cannot be "kicked under the rug"!
Politics be damned,patronage must be exterminated and the people's trust restored in their government.Anyone who refuses to be part of the solution is part of the problem.
Heed Amy Mallet's advice! Howard Birdsall and most of the Board of Trustees at Brookdale must be replaced. It is ludicrous that this ever happened and there is no legitimate excuse for the breech in integrity of anyone involved in this raping of the public trust.
The political patronage in this county is insidious and incestuous and should not be tolerated by the tax payer. This issue is systemic and goes to the very root of the overall problem with waste and mismanagement. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
I don't care what political party you are affiliated with, this needs to stop. Freeholder Mallet's resolution is and honest attempt to stop this waste and protect the tax payers. It's quite apparent the other Freeholders do not want to change the status quo and only want to protect those in charge at the expense of the tax payer.
Hypocrisy reigns especially when it comes to John Curley. Only sound bites with no solutions.
So Mr. Curley how about putting your money where your mouth is.
Ms. Burry is part of the problem and reelecting her will only prolong it. Time for change.
Elections have consequences.
Director Lillian Burry's comment: "Its an insult to the people who give their time and talent and are not compensated for it", is on target and almost a bullseye; except, the person doing the insulting is Ms. Burry. She insults the voters with her very attempt to deflect the issue and to try to cover it with the stench of 'red herring'. She insults the very talented people who are not even considered, nor given the opportunity to serve. She insults the intelligence of the average citizen thinking that they actually will believe her false indignation concering the matter.
I also find the factual accuracy of that part of her statement "not compensated" for their service suspect. It seems to me that given all the boards that her statement address, someone is receiving a stipend or pension credits or health care or all three.
Possibly the ultimate insult is this is also an attempt to protect her own political territory, as well as that of other career politicians. If term limits can successfully be applied to boards and commissions then the door is open to do the same with elected officials, like Freeholder Burry, at all levels of government.
Bad try Lillian; may I expect an apology for the insult?
(J. Grenafege)
Post a Comment