The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Brother -in-Law or The Tree It Appears.

I know I haven't posted anything directly to this page in a while but here is something that I just couldn't pass up.

In 2017, Gerry Scharfenberger appointed is son-in-law, Tony Perry, to the Middletown Township Committee. In 2018, Perry got a hold of a list of township resident emails from Middletown using an anonymous OPRA request which his campaign used to  sent out an "anonymous" email to residents from a non-existent shadow group attacking his opponent, Sean Byrnes. He still maintains no knowledge of the incident even though he was caught red handed by the Asbury Park Press.

Now you have Dan Scharfenberger, Gerry's son, acting as the campaign manager for the Mayor of Hamilton Township, running an anonymous blog that exposed expunged criminal information of the mayor's Republican primary campaign opponent, David Henderson. It is a crime to release information on expunged criminal records.

Although it's a misdemeanor charge, Dan Scharfenberger, nonetheless is was under criminal investigation for releasing the information on Henderson.

Here are a few links to multiple reports concerning this posting:


Republicans Hush on Charges Against Tom Kean’s Political Director

Prosecutors: Mayor Kelly Yaede gave campaign manager 'green light' to publish Henderson's expunged criminal records

HAMILTON MAYOR KELLY YAEDE AND CAMPAIGN MANAGER CHARGED WITH RELEASING OPPONENT’S EXPUNGED ARREST

That Scharfenberger family must be very proud of itself, ethically speaking of course.

May 2, 2016 Middletown Township Committee Meeting

At last week's Middletown Township Committee's monthly Workshop meeting, the Committee voted to adopt the 2016 Municipal Budget, T&M Engineering was awarded a contract to draft a development plan for the Port of Belford and Maser Consulting was awarded a contract to redesign the Rt. 36 corridor.

We also found out when a public document is considered a public document. It's when Middletown's governing body says it is!

During public comments, resident Don Watson asked about documents that he requested via an OPRA request, pertaining to the transfer of the Township's 911 system to the County. His OPRA request was denied because the Township Clerk had stated that no such documents were available.

Mr. Watson questioned this denial at the meeting, stating that at the last township meeting the Township Committee voted on a resolution accepting the terms of the County's takeover and if the resolution was voted on, then there must be a document stating what the terms were?

As usual, when someone legitimately points out an error and questions why the cart was placed before the horse, they are met with aggression and disdain.

See for yourself starting at the 17 minute mark of the video.




As always, you can download a copy of the Meeting Agenda that contains the discussion items and the proposed resolutions and ordinances that were voted on or presented during the meeting. A box around an item is a link, bringing you further into the document to that resolution or ordinance. At the end of the resolution there will be a link bringing you back to the agenda. Attached to this agenda is also the monthly bill list, so that everyone can see how the Township is spending our tax dollars.

GRC is asked to review improper use of extensions in responding to OPRA requests

December 11, 2015


The drafters of OPRA wisely required records custodians, absent a good reason, to either grant or deny access to requested records within seven business days. Without a hard deadline, records requests could be stalled indefinitely.

In a December 9, 2015 letter, the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) asked the Government Records Council (GRC) to review Bayonne’s practice of granting itself extensions to the seven business day period without giving a specific reason or date by which a response will be provided. In its letter, NJFOG cautions that Bayonne’s practice “undermines OPRA’s public policy goals and does violence to the public’s right to know.”

The OPRA request and response from Bayonne that prompted NJFOG's letter to the GRC are available here.


###

The New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) is the only non-profit organization in the state dedicated solely to improving New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). We work to educate the public about these laws as well as increase governmental compliance, transparency, and accountability.

Does An OPRA Request Constitute Harassment?

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
November 24, 2015


On Friday, October 30, 2015, the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government ("NJFOG") attended a hearing in Kaplan v. Kratovil at New Brunswick Family Court. The hearing was to determine whether the Court would enter a Final Restraining Order ("FRO") against the Defendant based on an Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") request he filed with the City of New Brunswick. The Plaintiff, Ms. Kaplan, alleged that the Defendant, Mr. Kratovil, was harassing her because he filed an OPRA request that named, among other people, Ms. Kaplan's husband, who is on the New Brunswick Rent Control Board.

The Court had entered a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") against Mr. Kratovil based on the filing of his OPRA request. The October 30 hearing was held to determine whether the TRO should be dismissed or converted into a final domestic violence restraining order.

The entry of a final restraining order against a person is a serious matter. In general, an FRO prevents a person from contacting their victim under any circumstances, including by email, phone, text, or by talking to them. A violation of an FRO is a crime that carries serious criminal penalties. A second conviction of violating an FRO carries a mandatory 30-day prison sentence, which makes allegations of domestic violence against any person a matter of great concern.

Previously, a temporary restraining order had been placed on Charles Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, a newspaper that reports on and criticizes New Brunswick’s municipal government and police. In this particular case, the entry of a TRO based on a single OPRA request raises important questions regarding access to public records. While OPRA already prevents criminals from getting access to the personal information of their victims, this case presented the troubling question of whether an OPRA request itself could constitute an act of domestic violence.

Fortunately, in this particular case, the Court held that Mr. Kratovil's OPRA request did not constitute harassment, and the TRO was dismissed. However, this case raises important questions regarding whether and how government officials or their family members can use an OPRA request about them as the basis for filing a domestic violence complaint or even criminal charges.

NJFOG’s “Report 15-01: Does An OPRA Request Constitute Harassment?” provides additional information about the case, including the Court’s basis for denying our request to video-record, a partial transcript of testimony, the judge’s ruling, and our comments and conclusions.

###


The New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) is the only non-profit organization in the state dedicated solely to improving New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). We work to educate the public about these laws as well as increase governmental compliance, transparency, and accountability.

NJ Watchdog appeals denial of Christie travel records

For immediate release:
9/17/14

Gov. Chris Christie’s attempt to flout state travel rules will be contested in New Jersey appeals court.

The case pits the governor’s power versus transparency in government – a cause Christie once championed.

In the Superior Court Appellate Division, a New Jersey Watchdog reporter is challenging a trial judge's rejection of a lawsuit seeking records of who paid for Christie’s unofficial out-of-state trips.

Under Treasury Circular 12-14-OMB, third-party organizations that fund the travel of state officials must disclose the payment arrangements in writing. The state agency or office is required to retain those records.

“Our position is that the regulation does not apply,” argued Assistant Attorney General Lewis Scheindlin on behalf of the governor in Mercer County Superior Court. “If it doesn’t apply, the next question is whether these records exist.”

As evidence, Christie’s lawyers submitted a 35-year-old memo to former Gov. Brendan Byrne. In it, a former budget director decreed: “I hereby rule that the governor and staff of the governor’s office are granted exemptions from these State Travel Regulations.”

Instead of addressing the issue, Judge Mary C. Jacobson dismissed the suit in July. She ruled the reporter’s Open Public Records Act request was “overbroad and lacking in specifics and clarity” even though it sought specific records required by state rules.

Donald M. Doherty Jr., the reporter’s attorney, filed the appeal last week asking the higher court to make a decision Jacobson avoided.

“This case will establish whether or not an executive branch employee can exempt the governor from travel regulations,” stated Doherty. “The court did not decide whether or not the defendants’ position regarding the memo was correct, but instead held the request was unclear.”

The full story is now online at http://watchdog.org/170733/christie-travel-records-appeal/.

Is Middletown's Version of Big Brother Tracking Your Cell Phone ?

Last week BlueJersey posted a slightly misleading blurb about how, according to the ACLU, police departments in New Jersey were tracking cell phones without warrants. The post listed 50 police departments from around the State that allegedly were illegally tracking the cell phones of local residents. Middletown's police department was one of the 50 on the list, which intrigued me. So I dug a little deeper by following the hyperlink to the ACLU's report to see what it was all about.

What I found out was that the American Civil Liberties Union "filed over 380 requests in 31 states with local law enforcement agencies large and small to uncover when, why and how they are using cell phone location data to track Americans". The results from these requests varied greatly and is a cause for concern for privacy advocates. All but 10 out of 200 responding police departments stated that they track cell phones in some capacity and it was found that most police departments do not usually obtain warrants before tracking cell phones.

After reading this I jumped over to the section of the report that pertained to the 50 police departments in New Jersey.  I found that the reason why these particular 50 were chosen was for no other reason other than, they were the 50 largest police departments in the state and not because they were suspected of wrong doing.

Each of the 50 police departments were sent an identical Cell Phone Tracking Information Request Letter (this is Middletown's) seeking information on how each department gathers cell phone data, all but 4 (Bayonne, Edison, Jersey City and Union City) responded. 

Besides Middletown's response, I also read the responses East Brunswick, Howell, Jackson, Lakewood, Newark and Old Bridge.

There is a lot that can be said after reading the various responses above but I'm fairly convinced that a vast majority of residents living in Middletown,as well as around the state, have little to fear at the moment from Big Brother. There seems to be general proceedures in place that would safeguard against unnecessary phone tracking


However that may not be always be the case.


 In most instances, nearly 3/4 of the questions asked by the ACLU went unanswered due to the lack of a policy concerning cell phone tracking or adequate record keeping.

According to Middletown's response,the last known case in which they tracked a person's cell phone was in 2008. I find that a little hard to believe considering other towns had shown that such information as recently as last year.

That being said, I won't lose to much sleep at the moment worring about who is looking at my phone records. It may be a big issue in parts of the country,but for right now I have nothing to fear and neither do fellow Middletowners, we all seem safe from the prying eyes of Big Brother,

You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up...

I was on the phone earlier today with MiddletownMike contributor Linda Baum, who relayed to me a very funny story about her experience while picking up a packet of information today from the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA).

Linda went to TOMSA today to pick up documents that she requested through an OPRA request. Before leaving she looked through the packet to see if all the information she had requested was in the packet. While leafing through the packet she had a few questions and thought that she should ask them before she left.

Now of course, asking a question of anyone other than TOMSA Director Patrick Parkinson is against the rules, no one accept Parkinson is allowed to talk to anyone. But seeing how Linda Baum was the one asking the questions, Parkinson refused to come out of his office until he had had enough of her hanging around the hallways. At that point, he came out and told her to leave and that he called the police to escort her out.

When the police arrived Parkinson made a big scene and told them that she had been there for 30 minutes disturbing the workers with questions and taking them away from their duties. Linda's response was to this was classic and dumbfounded Mr. Parkinson.

She said that she had only one question and seeing that he is the official records keeper of TOMSA and is the only one authorized to speak about such things, she would have been out of the building 29 minutes earlier if only he would have simply answered her question in the first place (which by the way she never received).

The police did arrive but I don't want to tell you everything, Linda said she would send an accounting of her time at TOMSA today for posting later.

I just wanted to give readers a little heads-up of what's coming and I am sure that Linda will tell it a lot better (and more accurately) than what I have posted here, so check back later.

iPad Inquiries Go Unanswered

It was two weeks ago today , February 7th, that I sent a list of questions  via email, to Assistant Township Administrator James VanNest, requesting information about the Township's purchase and use of a number of Apple iPads for members of the Township's governing body.

Shortly after sending my initial request Mr. VanNest replied, rather cordially:

"While I am generally familiar with the program outlined in that email, I don’t have the detailed information you are requesting. Therefore I have forwarded your request to the appropriate departments. Please let me know if they do not respond to your questions within a reasonable amount of time."


On February 13th, after not hearing from the "appropriate departments" but seeing a comment left by our mayor, Tony Fiore, in response to comments left on Middletown Patch's article "Township: Save a Money Tree, Use iPads"  where he stated:

"The ipads are property of the Township and get returned. A study was done in early 2011 where it was decided that to utilize the full functionality of the Township systems, the ipad was the easiest and most cost effective to integrate. A full cost analysis of the ipad vs paper was completed and can be found with the Township Clerk. Some Township Committee members (including myself) own our own ipads and had the software loaded onto our own personal devices...."

I decided that I should sent a follow-up email to Mr. VanNest.


In this follow-up email,  a portion of which is below, I also asked three additional questions that came to mind after reading Tony Fiore's comment:

I find Mayor Fiore's comments less than enlightening and would like to have reasonable answers to my questions that I posed to you last week seeing how there must have been some discussions that took place based on the Mayor's comments.


It's nice to know that some (not all) of the iPads are the personal property of a few members of the township governing body while others are Township property and must be returned but his comment falls short of what I have inquired about and raises a couple of more questions.


1. Was former Committeewoman Pam Brightbill issued an iPads and if so has she returned it to the Township?


2. Is there a code of conduct for township employees/governing body that pertain to the usage of Township property?


3. Can you have the Township Clerk email a copy of the full cost analysis of the iPad vs paper study that Mayor Fiore mentioned was available to those that request a copy? I would like to read it.

I received no response from this email.So last night, in anticipation of today being the two week mark since I sent my intial email to Mr. VanNest and knowing that tonight would be a regualry scheduled Township Committee meeting (which I am unable to attend), I sent a third email to Mr. VanNest and also copied both Tony Mercantante, the Township Administrator and Heidi Brunt, the Township Clerk:

Mr. VanNest,

It has been two weeks since I first contacted you and one week since I sent you a follow-up email requesting information regarding the purchase of Apple iPads for members of the Township's governing body. I have yet to hear back from you or anyone from the "appropriate departments" that you forwarded my request to.

As a resident of Middletown and a tax payer, I would appreciate a response to my inquiry. I feel an appropriate amount of time has now passed that answers should be forthcoming.

Again, I have not received a response from Mr. VanNest or anyone else associated with Middletown to my inquiries, as I had thought might happen when I wrote the initial post about these iPads.

As far as I'm concerned, this is extremely unprofessional  behavior shown by those that are suppose to represent Middletown and its residents. How about  little common courtesy?

If those within the Middletown administration do not wish to answer questions that I pose to them via email then say so, I'll go through the trouble to make them respond directly an OPRA request, which of course will  be turned down because much of what I have asked does not fall within the criteria of an OPRA request. 

But if they want to play the game, I'm willing to play it.

Middletown Issues iPads To "The governing body and township managers"

Last week Middletown Township issued a press release extolling the virtues of issuing Apple iPads to members of "The governing body and township managers have been using Apple IPads to review meeting documents prepared by the Office of the Township Clerk since November 2011".

Since this press release has been posted on the Township website many readers have left comments posted here questioning the need to purchase these iPads and distribute they to township personnel. Middletown is in dire financial shape and is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Services, both essential and non-essential, are being cut back are being eliminated to try and balance the budget. So why spend thousands of dollars purchasing iPads?

The press release states that the iPads are justified because the Township is now saving over $5,000 a year in paper costs because monthly meeting "packets" are now being electronically processed and made available to governing body.

Tony Fiore is quoted as saying, “The switch to IPads for meeting documents is a win-win. We’re saving money and reducing Middletown’s carbon footprint since we’re using less paper and energy. This is a great example of how township staff is thinking outside the box to find innovative ways to make everyday tasks and processes more efficient and effective.”

But is it really? The average bottom line price of an iPad is $499 if purchased through it's maker Apple. You can buy iPads elsewhere but if you've ever shopped for an Apple product you know that prices are not significantly discounted, generally only a few dollars.

If all the packet documents are now available electronically to those that run the township, what is the need to purchase iPads, can't this documents be sent to the governing members through normal emails? Don't these people have access to their own PC's, laptops, netbooks or other type of smart devices to view these documents at home or during township meetings?

Yesterday I emailed a list of questions to the powers that be to see if I could get a few answers.

I would like to know:

1. How many iPads have been purchased by the township and who specifically has been issued them?
   
   
2. What was the purchase price of these iPads?
   
   
3. Was the purchase price for these iPads discounted in anyway, if so by how much?
   
   
4. Who were these iPads purchased from; Did they come directly from Apple Inc. or an authorized Apple vendor (please name)?
   
   
5. Are these iPads considered township property ?
   
   
6. Can they to be used by individuals for personal use (take and store photos, download music or games, ect...)?
   
   
7. What happens to these iPads if Township Committee members step down from office or not relected or if a town manager leaves the employment of the township?
   
   
8. Did the Township purchase any kind of internet access plan over and above the purchase price of the iPads that would enable idividuals to access the internet if WiFi access is not availible to the users?
   
   
9. Is Town Hall wired for WiFi? If so, does the public have access to the WiFi network at Town Hall if they bring their own laptops, iPads or other type of smart device to a meeting at Town Hall?

I was emailed by back by Assistant Township Administrator Jim VanNest who stated that he would forward my questions to others that could better answer them for me and that I should have a response within a reasonable amount of time.

I assume that means a few day, which is fine, I can wait. However, I wouldn't be surprised if on some of the questions I asked, I am stonewalled and told that I would need to fill out an OPRA request before receiving answers.

I hope that is not the case, as a citizen of Middletown, I think I and others have a right to know about this. I think the questions are straight forward and residents shouldn't having to jump through hopes to get this information.

Stay tuned...

Secret Public Hearing at the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) Board meeting of December 7, 2011

by guest blogger Linda Baum

This was the second TOMSA Board meeting I’ve attended, and like last month, I was the only member of the public there.

The meeting started promptly at 7:30 p.m. -- I made it there just in time -- and the first thing on the agenda was a public hearing on TOMSA’s 2012 budget. Huh?? I knew nothing about it and hadn’t even had a chance to read the words “Public Hearing” on the agenda sheet when Executive Director Pat Parkinson asked if there were public comments. He never announced that it was a public hearing, so I didn’t know. He just awkwardly asked if there were comments. How am I supposed to comment on a budget I haven’t seen at a hearing I didn’t know about? I was caught by surprise and said nothing – a free pass they won’t get next time – and the Board quickly moved to adopt the budget by unanimous vote while I was still scratching my head.

I wondered why nobody told me about the public hearing since I know a few people who regularly check the public notices in the paper. In fact, hat tip to ‘B’ for letting me know about a Dec. 2nd notice in the APP changing the TOMSA Board meeting date from Dec. 8th to Dec. 7th. That notice said nothing about the public hearing. I did an online search for a notice that did, and found none.

Because the public wasn’t notified of the hearing in line with statutory requirements, the budget is subject to legal challenge. I intend to press this issue in order to get another hearing scheduled. I want the opportunity to review the budget (and, oh yeah, obtain it) and to prepare prior to the hearing. You may be wondering why I don’t just use the public comments period at the end of the next Board meeting to discuss the budget. Because hearings are a better forum for obtaining information – different rules apply to them. For one, there’s no time limit, so you will get all of your questions in, while public comments following a meeting may be limited to just a few minutes. Of course, even at hearings there’s no guarantee you’ll get any answers.

If you’re behind on your sewer bills, now’s the time to pay up. There will be an accelerated tax lien sale on December 20th for sewer fees that were due by the end of June 2011. Between 300 and 400 households (or businesses) will be affected.

This is the second year that TOMSA, which operates on a calendar year budget, has done an accelerated tax lien sale. December 2010 was the first one. Prior to that, sales were held each April, including a sale in April 2010. So there were two such sales in 2010, which coincidentally is the first year that TOMSA transferred surplus revenue to the Township – transfers were $365K in 2010 followed by $368K in 2011, per the Township’s 2011 adopted budget. TOMSA’s switch to an accelerated sale schedule in 2010 gave them a one-time boost in extra revenue for that budget year that made up for some of the Authority’s forfeited revenue that year.

One other observation. Late payers caught unaware by the accelerated sale schedule in 2010 may have found themselves with an unexpected lien on their properties and owing far more than they anticipated.

If you read my post on the November 10th meeting of the TOMSA Board, you may recall that there was a lot of discussion about the excessive fees TOMSA was charging for OPRA requests. Well, there’s news. Since then, TOMSA’s OPRA request form has been revised to list the correct fees per the 2010 amendment to the OPRA law, which lowered fees to just 5 cents for letter-size copies and 7 cents for legal, effective 7/1/10.

I mentioned at the December 7th meeting that TOMSA may owe a refund to people who have submitted OPRA requests since 7/1/10. Executive Director Pat Parkinson quickly replied that there haven’t been any requests. No OPRA requests in a year and a half??? I said that seemed unlikely, and some guy at the table actually had the nerve to mock me as if Parkinson’s word is law and I should believe what I’m told. (It was that Brian Nelson-esque fellow I mentioned in my last post. I’ll have to get his name next time.) Well, I’ve done some checking around, and I now know of at least 2 OPRA requests submitted to TOMSA in that timeframe.

A couple of days after the Board meeting, I submitted my own OPRA request to TOMSA. One of the things I asked for is a list of persons who have submitted an OPRA request since 7/1/10. I figure those folks might like to know they have a holiday bonus coming. Mr. Parkinson handles all OPRA requests personally, so it will be interesting to see what I get.

I’m learning that Parkinson has almost complete control over all public communication outside of regular customer service. I’m not sure, but I don’t think the clerical staff even records when an OPRA request comes in – stuff just gets passed right along to Parkinson. If you call and ask for anything more than the most basic information, you will be referred to Parkinson. Other people either don’t know the answers or appear to be under a gag order. Surely, professionals such as the manager or staff accountant have knowledge enough to respond to many questions, but they won’t, and the clerical staff will tell you as much. “You’ll have to speak to Mr. Parkinson,” they say.

One of the capital projects discussed at the meeting had to do with “digging out” manhole covers that had been buried under dirt, tar, or other material over the years. Some were covered during construction operations, some just by the accumulation of foliage. I asked if TOMSA was going to seek reimbursement from any parties whose work projects caused the manholes to be covered in the first place, like the County, the Township, or private contractors. I was thinking, in part, that there might be insurance liability coverage available. Parkinson replied that the projects were done 15 years ago and that TOMSA has no plans to seek recovery. He said that TOMSA now has its people stationed at work sites to ensure this doesn’t happen.

Fifteen years doesn’t strike me as all that long ago. TOMSA was formed in the 1960s, so they’ve been around long enough to have had procedures in place in the 1990s to ensure that manholes weren’t buried during construction projects and, if they were, to be informed and to remediate in a timely manner.

Because TOMSA won’t be seeking possible recovery from the at-fault parties, rate-payers will bear the cost. Even if this is a relatively small project for which TOMSA has money in its budget, it means there is less money for other projects or less surplus to offer the Township for tax relief.

More on manholes: An interesting revelation was made at the Planning Board meeting just this past Wednesday, December 14th. An engineer was making a presentation about infrastructure in and around the Bamm Hollow site, where 190 homes are to be built. He mentioned that the sewer system currently in place is overloaded to the point where sewerage is leaking out of manholes, and that TOMSA is currently sealing manholes to prevent the leakage.

I have to wonder, now, if some of the manholes to be uncovered as part of TOMSA’s “access recovery” project were sealed by TOMSA itself.

There was an update at the TOMSA Board meeting on the Monmouth County Improvement Authority’s solar project, in which TOMSA, the Township, and the Board of Education are participating. The MCIA received only one bid for 16.9 cents per kilowatt hour and the bid was rejected by the MCIA as too high. No word yet on the next move by the MCIA or any of the participants.

Highlights From The Sewerage Authority Board Meeting Of November 10, 2011.

by guest blogger Linda Baum

I attended my first Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) board meeting on Thursday night, November 10th. I got there about ten minutes early. There was a conversation going on that promptly ended. The moment I walked in, Pat Parkinson jumped up to introduce himself and get my name. I felt set upon. I shook his hand because he caught me off guard, but gave him only my first name. It took him about a minute to run out of the room to inquire, and I heard my full name mentioned in the hall by someone I didn't see, and who didn't see me, when I walked in. So I had to wonder how that person knew who I was. The front gate took a long time to open when I arrived, so it appears someone is watching. In fact, the gate remained closed for so long that I thought I had come to the wrong place and had begun to back up to leave when it finally opened.

Chairperson Chantal Bouw also came over to introduce herself and get my name -- she wasn't there for the Parkinson maneuver. At that point I was annoyed and admit I was impolite.

When it was time for public comments at the end of the meeting, I said that never before had I attended a public meeting and had so many people in a tizzy to know who I was. I said that it was a public meeting and I was a member of the public and expected to just come in and sit down. Ms. Bouw said they rarely had visitors and wanted to make the public feel welcome and part of the process. I said a better way to do that (besides leaving the gate open!) is to make more information accessible easily and at no cost, and mentioned all the information they could be providing via email and on their website like the Town does -- financial documents, agendas, resolutions, etc. (And by the way, even the documents the town offers are just the tip of the iceberg.) Parkinson said that people are welcome to come in during office hours and review documents, and I said no they aren't because not everyone is free during the day and some people are disabled and can’t easily make the trip.

I also said TOMSA's copy fees are unreasonably high and further deter people from obtaining the information. (Per their OPRA form, the first 10 pages will cost you a hefty $7.50, and 100 pages will cost you $32.50. Compare that to the Town’s charges for paper copies, for which 100 pages would cost you $5 for letter size or $7 for legal. However the Town typically emails material at no charge. TOMSA does not.)

Parkinson said that they are a small operation and that copy fees are to offset their costs. I can't recall if I mentioned the $750K surplus gifted to the town over the last two years, which shows TOMSA doesn’t need the additional source of revenue. Parkinson said that most people are not interested in financial documents, anyway. The fact is he has no way of knowing that -- maybe they just don't want to pay the $50 bucks for them! I said it didn't matter how many people were interested in the information, that TOMSA is a public entity and should be providing it. Then someone whom I believe may be their attorney stated they are in full compliance with the Open Public Records Act. (A very Brian Nelson-esque comment.) I said the Act didn't preclude them from providing information and wasn't meant to be a guide as to what they should be providing.

There was no notebook with copies of resolutions and ordinances for me to look through like there is at Town Committee meetings. There should be that at least since TOMSA doesn't list the documents on their website. This is something else they could do to make “the public feel welcome and part of the process”, as Ms. Bouw put it.

They were all pleasant at first but started to steel themselves during my comments. Parkinson finally launched into talking points that reminded me of what we hear at Town Committee meetings. He offered familiar comparisons about operating at lower cost than other towns. I let it slide but next time may point out the $750K surplus and excess benefits, without which operating costs would be much less. He also said something about providing services they don't charge for, like timely response when a resident is having a problem. I said those aren't free services, that residents already pay fees for that.

There was mention that the solar bids are due December 1st from the County. Currently, TOMSA is paying about 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, which includes the delivery charge.

Aside from the professionals in attendance, board members there were Chantal Bouw, Emil Wrede, Tom Stokes, and Charles Rogers. Absent were Joan Smith and James Hinckley.

I learned that Emil Wrede and Joan Smith are actually alternate members, even though Joan Smith is listed as Secretary/Treasurer on the TOMSA website and Emil Wrede is listed as Commissioner. There is no mention of their “alternate” status. According to Ms. Bouw, the TOMSA board is actually a five-member board that currently has one empty seat that was vacated by Cliff Raisch earlier this year.

It will be interesting to see if that empty seat is filled because any new board appointee would not receive pension and medical benefits, which were stripped per a 2009 Town ordinance. That ordinance also “grandfathered in” those benefits for existing board members, whose compensation was never meant to include them.

When I had no more comments, Ms. Bouw stated that business was concluded and that there would be no executive session. No one said otherwise. Yet, with the exception of two staffers, no one was leaving and they were clearly waiting for me to leave. I did, only to realize afterwards that there was no formal vote to close the public meeting in line with Robert’s Rules of Order. And today I noticed that the last page of the meeting agenda does list an executive session as the last item.

I was in my car but hadn’t left yet when I realized I should pick up a copy of the OPRA form before going because it’s not on the TOMSA website. I went back in to find the conference room door closed. So, was that an executive session or a continuation of the public meeting, which was never formally closed? And will there be minutes for that non-public discussion, I wonder?

A woman was in the office when I came back in and she provided me the OPRA form. Per quick glance at it, I saw no information for submitting it other than a street address, so asked for the fax number. I asked a few other questions about the process, but the woman said she didn’t know and that Mr. Parkinson was the person to ask. She then went into the conference room to let them know I was there.

Parkinson came running out, happy to help. As long as I had the opportunity, I pointed out to him that the fees listed on the OPRA form were much higher than what he quoted during the meeting – the starting price is 75 cents per page, not the 25 cents he quoted. He said he didn’t know those details exactly. That struck me as insincere. The policy has been the same for years, and there has been plenty of criticism of TOMSA’s fees and overly burdensome records request process, enough that he should be well familiar with all the rules. He’s the executive director, so he set the policy, didn’t he?

What’s interesting to note is that Mr. Parkinson made a habit that evening of rushing over to help. In one instance, as two TOMSA staffers were leaving at the end of the public portion of the meeting, I stopped them to ask their names. In a flash, Parkinson was between us, offering to help. It was ridiculous. He was clearly running interference. I think the question is, why did he feel the need to?

NJPP: In the end-game for the NJ state budget, the stakes couldn't be higher.

June 20th 2011,

Dear Supporters,

Over the next two weeks - as the Legislature rushes to produce a budget that won't drown in the ink from the line-item veto pen - we're all too likely to fully realize the "new normal" that Governor Christie talked about when he proposed his budget four months ago.

It goes something like this:

Rich people and corporations get tax breaks.

The middle class will pay more.

We will all have to make do with less.

Instead of a balanced approach that includes revenues - like the courageous governor of Connecticut proposed - New Jersey's budget relies only on cuts in services.

Instead of finding ways to invest in building blocks of a strong economy - schools, police, libraries, health care, parks, roads and bridges - the governor has dug in even further, promising to veto any tax increase, including a tax on millionaires' incomes that has overwhelming public support. Even as state revenues start to rise a bit in the recession's wake, the administration in Trenton insists we can't afford:

Health care for working parents if they earn more than $115 a week.

Women's health care at family planning clinics, even though it means missing out on federal matching funds, an increase in unintended pregnancies and higher costs to treat uninsured patients.

Maintaining the state Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor families, who have seen their taxes increase by $300 a year - the equivalent of a week's wages - while the wealthiest got a tax cut.

Meanwhile, the state has found more than enough money to hand out $1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for developers and corporations, including some of the most profitable businesses in the state. Extensive research and plain old common sense show that these giveaways don't create jobs.

That's where we come in.

As we have for 14 years, NJPP is shining a spotlight on important policy decisions with the goal of having a state government that promotes broadly shared prosperity for all New Jerseyans instead of picking winners and losers.

We're proud to be a leading voice for fairness in New Jersey, using solid research and strategic communications to strongly advocate for those who have the smallest voices in the public arena - the poor, working families, the disabled and other vulnerable people in our society.

And we couldn't do it without you.

NJPP's generous supporters understand why our work is so important to the vision of New Jersey they want for themselves and their children.

You've received several emails from us in the past week highlighting our work.

Now, we are asking for your help.

Please click on the "donate" button below and give to NJPP today.

By contributing you will enable NJPP to keep digging deeper into tough policy issues and widely share our findings to make a difference in people's lives. Every donation counts, whether it's $1,000 to print and publish one of our reports or $50 to cover the cost of copying documents requested through the Open Public Records Act.

As you follow what's going on in Trenton with the budget and other issues over the next couple of weeks, I ask that you keep in mind the work New Jersey Policy Perspective is doing and the role that you can play.

Together, we can create a "new normal" that lifts up every one of us, not just the privileged few.

Thanks so much for your support - past and future.

Sincerely,

Deborah Howlett, President

DONATE

Ordinance 2011-3027 And When Is A Salary Freeze, Not A Salary Freeze Explained: UPDATE

Earlier today I was contacted by Middletown Township Clerk Heidi Brunt in reference to yesterdays' blog post, I wasn't available when first contacted, but I called her back around 4:30 this afternoon.

Ms. Brunt, after reading about my experience trying to get information pertaining to the proposed salary ordinance 2011-3027 (that was to be re-introduced at tonight's Township Committee meeting) via an OPRA request. She wanted to apologise and clear the air about any misunderstanding that may have arisen from it. Clerk Brunt informed me that there was indeed a list of employees with job title and salaries available to me for the year 2009. She stated that if she had been in the office when I stopped by on Friday she would have presented me with what I requested.

After speaking with her and telling her exactly what I was after she said it was no problem, she requested me to send her an email so that she would have a record of my request. As soon as I sent her the email, with in minutes, she sent me a list for all township employees, their job positions and salaries for the year 2009 (even though I requested 2010). Ms. Brunt stated that to her knowledge, the salaries contained in this document had not changed.

While on the phone with Clerk Brunt, she did volunteer a small bit of information to me. Ms. Brunt mentioned that Tax Assessor Charles Heck and herself were due a 2.5% statutory salary increase for 2011. She informed me that, she, herself, had no intention accepting the raise and as a matter of fact had already turned it down. Her feelings were such that she in good conscience could not accept a raise while others were losing their jobs. She could not say the same of Tax Assessor Heck, who, she believes has not turned down the raise and is planning on accepting it.

Aftyer hanging up with Clerk Brunt it accured to me that I did not follow-up with her about Heck's $15,000 "bonus" that was part of the ordinance. That is something that needs to be cleared up.

Heck received a salary of $108,572 from Middletown in 2009 which means he is due for an increase of $2714 in base pay increase if he accepts the 2.5% raise. A far cry less than the $15K "bonus" proposed in the ordinance, but which is no less disturbing.

Thank you Clerk Brunt for contacting me and clearing this up!


BTW - as a side note, it accured to me while looking at the list of employees and salaries, that this list doesn't reflect the employees that retired or were laid off last year (2010), which isn't a problem. Where the problem lays (and it really isn't a problem, I just want to point it out) is that last year members of the Police Department were given a retro-active raise of 8% to cover salary increase for 2008 & 2009 in exchange for a 0% raise in 2010 (Gerry Scharfenberger was very proud of this), so I need to add 8% to the base of all members of the Police Department to get an accurate gage for 2011 salaries, which should not be misconstrued to be a jab at the Police.

I believe that the police have a very difficult job and at anytime during the day or night are putting their life on the line to protect other and uphold the law. One never knows when their next traffic stop or domestic dispute call will be their last.

Ordinance 2011-3027 And When Is A Salary Freeze, Not A Salary Freeze Explained

I had some spare time on Friday so I thought that I would do a little research into the new salary ordinance being proposed by the Middletown Township Committee. I went down to Town Hall to request some information about it, but before I explain to you what I found out, here is a little rundown on what the new ordinance is about and what it is replacing.

Ordinance 2011-3027 Amending Management Salaries and Non-Union Employees, which can be found on the township website under the Clerk's tab, is an attempt by the Township to be more transparent (TC Attorney Brian Nelson's words) when it comes to non-union employees salaries. The ordinance list about 50 non-union job titles broken down into 5 sections titled:

Management

Statutory Employees(N.J.S.A. 40A:9-165)

Officers

Elected Officials

and

Special Assignments (Expiring 12/31/2011)

Accompanying each job titled is a single salary figure with no further explanation, which leads one to believe that those salaries are the current employee salaries or will be once the ordinance is approved. It is very misleading.

This proposed ordinance will replace existing Ordinance 2009-2996 , which instead of providing a single salary per job title, contained salary ranges per job title. Employee salaries could fall anywhere within a range that would reflect position (title and description) value in the broad market place; the regional market place; specific industry, as well as allow comparison across industries.

As I said, I went down to Town Hall thinking that I could get some information via an OPRA request on employees that currently fill positions and their current salaries as outlined in Ordinance 2011-3027, but I was wrong. It seems that you can only OPRA actual document that contain information, you can't request that a list or document be generated to provide you with information.

Be that as it may, while I was discussing what I wanted to know, I kept being told that all the information that I wanted to know was listed in the ordinance and that NO employee would be receiving any raises in the ordinance due to a salary freeze which was in effect.

When I stated that the information I wanted wasn't there, that I questioned current salaries as opposed to salaries list in the ordinance and that current salaries for a handful of employees that I found on the APP's Data Universe where listed higher, sometime much higher, than those in the proposed new ordinance, it was suggested that I speak to Township Administrator Tony Mercantante.

Tony Mercantante explained that what I was trying to do was not possible because lists like the one I was asking for didn't exist. When I told him that I now understood that, that I questioned the salaries listed in the new ordinance and whether they were accurate, he stated hat the ordinance language will be rewritten before it is reintroduced Monday night because he had concerns that the language was misleading . Mercantante stated that the salaries listed in ordinance 2011-3027 are for starting base pay only and are not reflective of what individuals in those positions are currently earning. But the assured me that no one was getting a salary raise because there was a pay freeze in effect.

He said that many are making more money annually than what the ordinance calls for due to longevity and merit pay. When I asked him for a list of salaries of current non union employees so that I could compare anyway, he said some of those numbers may change between now and the time the numbers would be provided. I asked him how that could be when there is a "salary freeze" in effect? Mercantante became a little wishy-washysaying that the salary freeze is only for actual raises to the base pay rate; step raises, longevity, merit or promotional type raises are not affected by the freeze.

I asked how could that be when you are dealing with non-union employees? He said it is in the contracts. What contracts I said, since when did non-union workers and department heads have contracts? He said whatever contracts are in effect for union employees, the same terms of those contracts hold for non-union Township employees.

I left there shaking my head because it didn't make sense, but then again when did anything that the people who run Middletown do make sense?

So the bottom line for those asking questions or leaving comments on this blog is, proposed ordinance 2011-3027 salaries are starting base only and are not reflective of what individuals in those positions are currently earning. These salaries would be for new employees only, no current non-union employees will have money taking away from them based on the figures in this ordinance.

Also as far as I'm concerned,there is no true salary freeze happening. If a merit, longevity or other type of employment milestone is met by an employees of the township, they will be receiving a salary increase. So if you happen to one of the lucky ones who will enjoy a bump in your pay sometime this year congratulations! All others, piss off as they say.

On a side note, I asked Mercantante when the budget would be introduced. He said tentatively April 4th as part of the workshop meeting. He does not expect at this time to hold a special presentation meeting to introduce the budget, but that may or may not change just as the April 4th date might.

When I asked him about having to submit the budget to the state by March 16th, he said that date keeps changing because the state isn't ready. So as usual the budget introduction is a floating target, but when it is introduced, we will be able to see that planned salaries for all those listed in the ordinance without and Opra request YEAAHH !

The First Issue of "It's Your Town" Newsletter for The 2011 Is Now Available For Reading

Volume 3, issue 1 of "It's Your Town" newsletter has been published and available online for all that wish to read it. This is the first issue of the newsletter for 2011 and as always is very informative.

The first meeting of the year for the Township Committee was Reorganization day and took place on January 2,2011. Candidates that won the election in November were sworn in and the Committee elected the new mayor and deputy mayor. All political appointees were voted on also, although many of them were not in attendance for thier swearing in.

As always it should be noted the newsletter is not an official transcript of Township meetings, it is written by Don Watson who takes notes and writes as much as he can while the
meeting is taking place. It is extremely accurate and is the next best thing to being there in person (that is of course until the Township decides to broadcast their meetings on public access TV).

Another alternative to the newsletter that is available to residents, are the actual Township recordings of the meetings. In order to receive a copy of the recording, an OPRA request must be submitted to the Township Clerk and individuals must pay an accompanying fees that are associated with the request.

So seeing that filing OPRA requests after each township meeting my not be your thing to do, reading the newsletter is the only true way of staying informed about what is going on down at Middletown's Town Hall.

You can read the newsletter >>>> Here

How Many Emails Did Middletown Receive When It Requested Resident Input Into Defeated School Budget? Not Close To 700 That Scharfenberger Stated

Well it seems that Middletown's sorry excuse for a Mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger, has been caught yet again in a gross exaggeration of facts, which leads to the impression that the additional $500K over and above the previously agreed to $1.6M worth of budget cuts that the Board of Education presented to the Middeltown Township Committee back on May 3rd and May 6th was politically motivated.

This latest example comes from the many emails that were sent to the township's website, after Sharfenberger came up with the brilliant idea to fore go an open public meeting to discuss further budget cuts that should be made to the Middletown school budget which was defeated on April 20th.

Scharfenberger stated at the May 17th Township Committee meeting and was quoted by all of the local newspapers that cover Middletown, that some 700 emails were sent to him via the suggestion portal that was set up on the township website for residents to voice their opinion on what items should or should not be cut from the school budget. Three days later a press release was posted on the township website stating that thanks to the residents for their input and that only 600 emails were gathered. Now after obtaining a copy of all those emails from the Township, I come to find out that the really number of emails sent in by residents was 501.

That's a pretty big difference if you ask me, more so if you consider that many of the emails seem to be duplicates or have nothing whatsoever to do with suggestions on how to trim the defeated school budget, like spam and self indulgent compliments on defeating the budget. After looking through them, it really looks as if only 300 or so could be considered as legitimate.

Which leaves the question of exactly how many residents sent suggestions to the portal? Were only 50, 100 or 501 residents responsible for sending them all of those emails? We'll never know for sure because only a small percentage of residents decided to sign their names to them, which was after all their prerogative, considering that the Township suggested that comments be left anonymously.

For anyone interested in reading all those emails themselves you can do so by clicking >>> Here

Note: For those that thought that their comments and suggestions would be kept confidential I am sorry to inform you otherwise, your comments are part of the public record for all to see whether you supported further school budget cuts or requested that the budget should stand as was at the time of the April 20th vote. Anyone could submit an OPRA request and receive the same information that I have.

N.J. Supreme Court sides with Asbury Park Press in disclosure case: Time to find out how much Middletown paid in Garcia Vs. Parkinson

Note: This ruling today is a big win for advocates of open government, transparency and taxpayers. We all have a right to know how our tax dollars are being spent and if those dollars are being wasted by corrupt officials.

For the past few years residents in Middletown have been questioning how much the Township paid to settle a sexual harrasment charge against former Mayor Patrick Parkinson that was brought by the former Township Clerk, Rosa Garcia. They had been told only that legal fees and a settlement had been paid to Ms. Garcia.

All OPRA requests had been denied based on privacy concerns. With the ruling today however that all changes and I can't wait to find out how much it cost taxpayers of Middletown to settle the sexual harrasment suit against Parkinson and others.

Asbury Park Press - Monmouth County must make public the terms of a sexual harassment lawsuit it settled with an employee, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today.

The court's decision upheld last year's appellate court ruling in the case, which also said the terms of the out-of-court settlement must be released to the Asbury Park Press and open government advocate John Paff.

The county's attorney had argued the terms of that 2007 agreement between the county and one of its engineers, Carol Melnick, should remain private.

Among the county's arguments was that a clause in the state's Open Public Records Act allows information about sexual harassment complaints to be closed from the public.

But today, the court said disclosure of the terms of the settlement in this case would not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy....

Read more >>> Here

To read the opinion of the NJ Supreme Court click >>> Here

Update: TOMSA Complies With OPRA Request... Sort Of

I have an update to yesterdays post concerning the Township Of Middletown Sewage Authority's stonewalling of Carolyn Schwebel's OPRA request.

I received an email from Mrs. Schwebel stating that she received documents, via fax, of some of the documents that she had requested:

"The figures are large. I had asked for the TOMSA Commissioners' pension, etc., but it's not clear if they gave me that or the whole amount that includes TOMSA employees as well.

There is an arrogant resolution that at a meeting February 12, 2009, Tom Stokes made a motion that was passed unanimously that "each member of TOMSA" receive salary of $1750 except the chairperson who will get $2150 a year starting February 1, 2009! (Can they back date that way?

Lots of nerve in these times, when people are questioning TOMSA's salary and the twp. committee has terminated its own."

Carolyn Schwebel then sent a follow-up email that stated that she contacted TOMSA Director Patrick Parkinson for clarification:

"I have one question, as I'm not clear on terminology. I had asked for the TOMSA Commissioners' pension ,insurance etc. Are the figures you sent for just the TOMSA commissioners, (Stokes, , Rogers, Raisch, Hinckley, Buow, Smith, Wrede) ) or do they also include payment for regular TOMSA employees as well.?"

Parkinson responded by writing,  "The pension payments are a total for all TOMSA employees."

Come on Pat, this is totally unacceptable and a bad job on your part. 

You stonewall and provide false information to Mrs. Schwebel, in an attempt to discourage her request for information and them when you do provide the information, it is not the specific information that Mrs. Schwebel requested. 

Mrs. Schwebel sent me a copy of her OPRA request form and the documents that you supplied. She specifically stated that she was interested in just commissioners and alternate commissioners compensation. Not the two documents that you supplied her with that shows the total monthly cost of health benefits and pension for all that work for TOMSA. 

I am currently looking into the above statement of Mrs. Schwebel's that mentions the raise in the yearly stipend that the TOMSA commissioner's voted for themselves. This information was included with her OPRA request. When I track down further information on this, I'll pass it along.    

Township Of Middletown Sewage Authority (TOMSA) In Violation of OPRA Law

What is the Township Of Middletown Sewage Authority (TOMSA) hiding and why wont they comply with  OPRA requests?

Middletown resident Carolyn Schwebel has been trying for weeks to get information about compensation and benefits that are given TOMSA Commissioners. She wants to know if commissioners receive health benefits to go along with their maximum yearly stipend of $1750.

Health benefits for TOMSA commissioners has become a hot button issue among some in town since Committeeman Sean Brynes suggested that these benefits should not be awarded to Township appointed officials. 

Sean Brynes suggested during recent budget meetings, that in order to save township tax payers money during these hard economic times, the township should look into ending the practice of giving sewage authority commissioners health benefits.  According to TOMSA meeting minutes, most meeting last on average less than 1 hour per month.  Brynes therefore argued that to pay each of the 7 township committee appointed commissioners a stipend of $1750 per year and health benefits was excessive.

Committeeman Brynes's suggestion to discontinue the practice of awarding benefits to TOMSA commissioners was dismissed entirely by the King and Queen of the Township Committee, Gerry (I want to be an Assemblyman) Scharfenberger and Pam Brightbill. Both argued that the  health benefits that the commissioners enjoy are not issued by the township but by TOMSA and therefore the township committee could not act to take away the benefits. When pressed further on the issue, the mayor and deputy-mayor simply resorted to the old standby line of  " they do a good job so they deserve it".

This answer lead to Mrs. Schwebel and others to seek the ordinances which established the creation of the sewage authority through an OPRA request.  For their effort they receive several ordinances and resolutions from the township clerk.       

Ordinance 1856, notes salaries to be paid to commissioners, but adds, "as shall hereafter be determined by the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority, provided, however, that in no event may any member receive any additional compensation for his services as officer, agent, or employee of such authority," 

In no ordinance or resolution  was the issuance of health benefits stated or mandated by the Township Committee when it authorized the creation of TOMSA. In fact, it seems that the Township Committee was quite clear in ordinance 1856, that NO other compensation was to be given to commissioners. So what happened to change this?  Carolyn Schwebel was told by the township clerk that she would have to submit a separate OPRA request with TOMSA to find out. So, that is exactly what she did.

Finally on Friday of this past week, Carolyn Schwebel received word that her OPRA request was ready for pick-up and that it would cost her $1.00 per page. When she stated that she had requested that the pages be faxed or emailed to her because she has a disability and it is hard for her to get around, therefore there should be no cost.

When she insisted to the secretary that her request should be faxed or emailed to her as OPRA guide lines allow, the director of TOMSA, non other than are very own disgraced former mayor, Patrick Parkinson said "We don't do that"' and that the payment is to pay them for "running around collecting the stuff." Parkinson said, "We have always done it this way, and they do it all over the state.".

Mrs. Schwebel said to Patrick Parkinson, that OPRA materials and Middletown clerk's OPRA request form describes the 75 cents per page as a copying fee only, and "The fees for duplication of a government record in printed form are listed on the front of this form."

She told him the town clerk, does not refuse to send fax or e-mail responses. Parkinson responded by saying that they have nothing to do with the township clerk, and that they have their own form. Parkinson said that he would mail her OPRA response once they had her check.

This is truly an outrage and unfortunately this type of behavior seems to be standard practice amongst Middletown GOP members. When residents ask hard questions or seek out information that may be embarrassing to the local GOP, people like Patrick Parkinson, Gerry Scharfenberger or Pam Brightbill will either refuse to answer them, stonewall  or discourge people from abtaining  the information that they are after.

As Carolyn Schwebel states in her letter sent to township officials and copied to me:

"I am concerned that in spite of their salary, medical benefits, and pension, the Middletown Sewerage Authority Commissioners are not demonstrating proper oversight of TOMSA. This violation of OPRA has apparently existed since the beginning of OPRA. The policy needs to be rectified by the TOMSA commissioners and you. Other residents have no doubt been given the wrong information already and have had to go in and pay to get printed copies that they neither needed not wanted. The policy under TOMSA can be a to burden older people, working people and those with disabilities."

Stop the stalling TOMSA and send the documents that Mrs. Schwebel has requested.  Stop trying to cover up and be forthright with Middletown residents by answering the questions. 

Are commissioners of  TOMSA receiving other benefits other than the stipend originally outline in township ordinance 1856? If so, why? And who authorized commissioners to receive health benefits and a state pension? I and others would like to know.