GOPAL: Consolidate small towns

Former Monmouth Chairman and current State Senate candidate Vin Gopal's op-ed was featured in this past Sunday's Asbury Park Press. Vin focused on municipal consolidation as a solution to curb spending and lower property taxes for the residents of New Jersey.  Vin's focus is on 100 towns which have populations of 2,500 and less and those school districts which have zero schools:

Vin Gopal

It’s no secret: too many New Jerseyans are struggling. Across our state, families are being crushed under sky-high property taxes while they strain to make ends meet in one of the nation’s most expensive states.

It's also no secret that little to no progress has been made, despite politicians’ habit of talking a big game.

This stalemate needs to end. We need to prioritize affordability and approach the crisis with an eye to implementing a variety of effective tools, not continuing to look in vain for a silver bullet.

One of these tools must be promoting and simplifying consolidation of our many towns and municipalities across the state. As state senator, I will be the biggest champion for these efforts.

New Jersey has 565 towns, with more than 100 of these having populations under 2,500. This means we have hundreds of sewage authorities, housing authorities, and other agencies, many of which represent constituencies of only a couple thousand. The costs of these unnecessary agencies are being put right onto our already struggling local taxpayers. Yet small towns seeking a way to eliminate these unnecessary services or to combine efforts with other towns facing a similar situation are left without any options.

Take Loch Arbour in Monmouth County’s 11th legislative district for example. Loch Arbour has a population of 194 residents and the Mayor of Loch Arbour, Paul Fernicola, has been an advocate of consolidation for this small town, even trying to eliminate his own job for lack of necessity. But the State of New Jersey won't allow it.

Sewer authorities, housing authorities and utility authorities are another great example of redundant or unnecessary services. Jersey City recently consolidated one of its authorities with the City's Police Department and saved over 1 million dollars for their taxpayers. Meanwhile, commissioners of the Middletown Sewer Authority in Monmouth County make benefits in addition to their paychecks for attending a few meetings a year.

December 16, 2013 TOMSA Meeting

To finish rounding things out for 2013, here is the video from the last meeting of the year of the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA).

The audio from this video is not the best due to the noise that the HVAC system was producing. The fact that the board members do not speak up for the public to hear doesn't help matters much.



The agenda and a summary of this meeting can be found... HERE

TOMSA Plant Tour During Public Meeting Violates the Open Public Meetings Act

by Linda Baum
Aug. 25, 2013

The most recent meeting of the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) board was this past Monday, August 19. I’ve been attending TOMSA board meetings since November 2011 and for the second year in a row since I’ve been attending, they opened the public meeting, then all disappeared for 45 minutes on their annual plant tour that excludes the public. Both times, one person at the conference table stayed behind to babysit public attendees.

Last year I had a video camera with me and actually left it rolling for the whole meeting to emphasize the lunacy of a public board meeting absent a board. http://archive.org/details/8-9-12TOMSAMeeting During the public comments portion of that meeting, I had some things to say about the inappropriateness of scheduling a private tour during a public meeting, but the board was not inclined to change how they’d been operating for years. It didn’t seem right to me, and it turns out it’s not. It’s a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). You can’t have a public meeting that excludes the public.

This year, when they all got up to leave for the tour, I pointed out that they were not in compliance with the OPMA and suggested they could invite the public along or cancel the tour to be compliant. I asked if I could go with them and was told no. I wasn’t suggesting the public should be granted access to the plant, just wanted to verify that the public would be excluded from this portion of the public meeting.

The board’s attorney, Richard Leahey, said something about the Homeland Security Act superceding the OPMA. There were two other attorneys at the meeting, both board members and one a former mayor, and both said nothing. The Chairwoman, Chantal Bouw, stated that the tour was mentioned on TOMSA's website. I replied, "That doesn't make it lawful." Then off they went.

NOTICE: As part of this month's Board meeting, the Board will be attending to their annual tour of the Facility. This will be the first order of business. 

The website notice, shown above, seems to be an attempt to both justify the action and advise public attendees that they could arrive late. Still. Also note the meeting agenda doesn't mention the tour at all. If the tour is a legitimate “order of business”, why isn’t it on there?

Later, during public comments, I asked Mr. Leahey what section of the Homeland Security Act he was referring to earlier and what it stated. He said something about disallowing public access to certain areas for security reasons. I said OK, that I wasn't arguing that, but it had nothing to do with having a non-public tour during a public meeting and that the tour could be scheduled for another time. He replied that it was only once a year and not much of a public inconvenience. He meant, no doubt, that not many people were being inconvenienced since I was the only public attendee.

I’m not 100% sure what the law allows for here, but logically, compliance with one law shouldn’t give them the latitude to break another, especially if arrangements can be made to comply with both laws simply by rescheduling the tour.

It should be noted, however, that any gathering of a public body that has a quorum present and where public business is discussed, but that is not publicized or recorded or not open to the public, is a violation of the OPMA. So a plant tour that includes more than 3 members of the TOMSA board (4 is a quorum) may still run afoul of the Sunshine Law no matter when it’s held. Nor can the board simply enter into executive (non-public) session to take the tour because a tour is not one of the legal reasons for an executive session.

However TOMSA decides to handle this, they should discontinue the practice of holding the tour during a public board meeting. Imagine if you attended a Planning Board meeting and they all got up to visit a development site and left you sitting in the court room at Town Hall.

Middletown Is Sued for Names of Health Benefits Enrollees

For Immediate Release
7/23/2013

(MIDDLETOWN) – Today, Middletown resident Lee Brewer filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Middletown Township to obtain the names of enrollees for health benefits with the municipality. The suit is seeking enrollment dating back to 2008. Brewer is represented by attorney Walter Luers.

“Many other governmental agencies make these records readily available to the public,” Middletown Democratic Party chairman Don Watson pointed out.

In fact, the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority recently disclosed the same data that Middletown Township is withholding.

The case was brought because Township officials claim that the names of enrollees are confidential under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Walter Luers stated “HIPAA covers claims data and medical information. Revealing the type of coverage or who is covered does not shed any light whatsoever on claims, claims data or medical procedures.”

The Township has also argued that because it self-insures for health coverage, it is a payor like an insurance company, whose records are generally not subject to disclosure.

“If a governmental body could keep who it’s insuring a secret simply by paying its own claims, those inclined to bend the rules would have a huge incentive to self insure,” said Mr. Watson.

“The Township’s position prevents the public from ascertaining whether people are receiving health benefits who should not be receiving them, such as outside professionals or retirees who should be on Medicare. Public agencies, whether through malfeasance or negligence, have people on their health insurance rolls all the time who should not be there,” said Luers.

According to Luers, the question has already been addressed by the courts. In 2005, the New Jersey Superior Court ruling in the case of Michelson vs. Wyatt established that release of certain coverage information – specifically, enrollee names and coverage selections – serves the public interest by preventing waste and abuse by government.

The Michelson decision, therefore, established the public’s right not only to the names of health benefits enrollees, but also to the information needed to compare costs under various insurance options.

Middletown Township expects to pay close to $9 million dollars for health benefits in 2013, almost 14% of the municipal budget.

MUA Cadillac Benefits To Go, Says New Brick Dem Majority

by Linda Baum

Think it doesn’t matter who you vote for? It took a change of control in Brick to say enough is enough. That’s what it’s going to take in Middletown.

******************

Did anyone see the “Watchdog” column in Saturday’s Asbury Park Press (2/9/13)? The headline read “Brick MUA pays $93G for commissioners’ health benefits”. See the attached PDF with the APP article or link to it here: https://www.app.com/article/20130208/NJNEWS2002/302080134/Brick-MUA-pays-93G-commissioners-health-benefits

Political party control recently changed hands in Brick and the new Democratic majority has taken steps to end the provision of health benefits to Municipal Utility Authority board appointees. Patch readers may recall that I drew attention to this same issue a few weeks ago with regard to the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA): http://middletown-nj.patch.com/blog_posts/middletown-twp-committee-approves-lucrative-board-compensation

Per the APP article, the value of health benefits for some Brick MUA board members is in the range of $26,000 to $33,000 annually! I was frankly surprised that anyone was even able to get at this information given the difficulty I’ve encountered here in Middletown and suppose the new majority there finally had the pull to obtain it.

The APP article states that “the Brick authority is self-insured, which allows them to make the rules about who is eligible for health benefits.” Middletown Township is also self-insured for health benefits, but from what I can gather -- at least for current employees if not retirees -- TOMSA is not self-insured. Instead, TOMSA offers employees several insurance plan options, one of which is a state health benefits plan. According to the APP article, “under the state health benefits plan, boards and council members are not allowed to take health benefits.” Surprisingly, however, two TOMSA board members – Chantal Bouw and Joan Smith -- were among those enrolled in the state plan per a list of TOMSA enrollees received from the state last year.

The article offered some other insights, too. For example, I hadn’t considered that TOMSA board members might be receiving dental coverage from the Authority or that they might be getting full or partial “opt out” payments for benefits they have declined.

Though I’m not sure if TOMSA provides payment for “opting out” of their health plan, Middletown Township does with certain restrictions. The Township offers no partial “opt out” payments, and any employee covered by another Township plan (e.g., a spouse’s plan) is ineligible. Township retirees are also ineligible for “opt out” payments, as well as dental and eyewear coverages.

Since TOMSA board members – even those who are actually retired -- are not retirees from the Authority’s perspective, the board members could be receiving full or partial “opt out” payments and dental & eyewear coverage in addition to other benefits. I have already confirmed that board members have eyewear coverage based on reimbursements that appear on TOMSA payment reports.

Another question is if TOMSA board members are contributing toward their health benefits in line with the 2010 State law that requires it. They are supposed to be paying the greater of 1.5% of salary or a certain percentage of the insurance premium. The latter is the far greater of the two for board appointees.

And if board members are being treated like employees during their terms on the board, are they being treated like retirees when terms end, continuing to receive health benefits well into the future?

Of the 7 TOMSA board members listed in the chart below, one -- Anthony DeMarco -- is a new appointee and therefore ineligible for health or pension benefits, though whether or not he is receiving benefits has not been verified.

I may never know the answer to these questions because TOMSA keeps this information well hidden. I can tell you that with the exception of the few report entries that I’ve already mentioned, there is nothing that reveals what benefits board members are receiving or what the costs of those benefits are. That information has been requested but has been denied -- unlawfully denied, in fact -- and it might take a change of guard like that in Brick Township to get it. http://middletown-nj.patch.com/blog_posts/middletown-declines-to-say-who-receives-paid-health-benefits

Brick council members have said they will appoint to the MUA board only people who will decline the benefits. While that’s a move in the right direction, I have to wonder why council members don’t just pass an ordinance eliminating the benefits altogether. That raises the question of whether or not an independent Authority would need to comply with such an ordinance. In fact, TOMSA has not seen fit to comply with the Middletown ordinance (codified in Chapter 47, section 4 of the Twp administrative code: http://clerkshq.com/default.ashx?clientsite=Middletown-nj ) that states that TOMSA board members shall receive no compensation other than salary. However, the resistance of the majority on the Township Committee to pass an ordinance in 2009 stripping benefits for all board appointees suggests that such an ordinance may have teeth.

One thing is certain, though – greater oversight and transparency are needed and won’t happen until there is a change of political control in the Township. Middletown has been under Republican control now for three and a half decades.


TOMSA BOARD APPOINTEES:

Thomas F. Stokes - TOMSA Board 25 years, term expires 2/1/18
Lives out-of-state part of year; calls in to meetings
A regular board member until 2/1/13; made an alternate thereafter.
Current Republican District Committeeperson
Former Board of Education member

James L. Hinckley - TOMSA Board 24 years, term expires 2/1/14, current vice chair
Current Republican District Committeeperson
Current Middletown GOP treasurer
Current Zoning Board Chairman

Chantal Bouw -  TOMSA Board 15 years, term expires 2/1/18, current chair
Current Republican District Committeeperson
Current Middletown GOP Vice Chair
Current Zoning Board Vice Chair
Current Local Assistance Board member

Joan A. Smith - TOMSA Board 8 years, term expires 2/1/15, current secretary / treasurer
Current Republican District Committeeperson
Former Middletown mayor

Charles W. Rogers  - TOMSA Board 6 years, term expires 2/1/17
Middletown Emergency Services Manager

Emil F. Wrede -  TOMSA Board 5 years, term expires 2/1/18
Made a regular member on 2/1/13; previously an alternate
Current Zoning Board member

Anthony DeMarco - TOMSA Board 1 year (alternate), term expires 2/1/16

Middletown Twp Committee Approves Lucrative Board Compensation

by Linda Baum


While every other board and commission in Middletown is 100% volunteer, the Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) board members are highly compensated – they receive salary, pension credit, and health benefits. The board meets once a month for less than an hour.

When the Sewerage Authority was formed back in the 1960s, the board met between 3 and 5 times a week during the period when the sewer system was being designed. Today, the board’s effort is no greater than that of any other board in town, all the rest of whom volunteer their time.

Further, in the beginning TOMSA board members received only an annual stipend of $1000. They did not receive pension or medical benefits, which are in violation of the Township’s own ordinances that state that TOMSA board members shall receive no compensation other than salary.

There are 5 regular members and 2 alternates on the TOMSA board. Today, the annual salaries are $2,150 for the chairperson and $1,750 for other members. Health and pension benefits are worth tens of thousands more.

In 2009, in response to a new state law, the Township Committee passed Ordinance No. 2009-2967, which states “the Township Committee of the Township of Middletown believes it is the best interest of the taxpayers of the Township to eliminate the receipt of pension and/or health benefits by part-time elected and appointed officials”.

That ordinance stripped pension and health benefits for new board appointees but allowed for the continuation of benefits for any board member currently receiving them.

Thus, the Township Committee can save taxpayers a great deal of money by not re-appointing TOMSA board members as terms expire. Yet the re-appointments continue.

At Middletown’s annual organization meeting on Jan 6th, the Township Committee re-appointed to 5-year terms three members of the Sewerage Authority board whose current terms expire on Feb. 1st.

One of the re-appointees, Thomas Stokes, has been on the TOMSA board 25 years next month and has lived out-of-state half the year since 2010. With his re-appointment to the board, Mr. Stokes was changed from a regular member to an alternate, no doubt to save him the trouble of attending meetings while he continues to collect salary and benefits through Feb. 2018.

The patronage needs to end. Residents should demand that the Township Committee pass an ordinance eliminating all compensation – salary and benefits – for all board members.

Eliminating TOMSA board perks would save Middletown property owners over $100,000 a year.

12-13-12 TOMSA Meeting

Last Wednesday night, December 13th, there was a meeting of the Middletown Township Sewerage Authority(TOMSA).

After a brief public hearingt, where only one person asked a question, the 2013 budget for the TOMSA was adopted. It will now be forwarded to the N.J. Department of Community Affailr for approval.

Even though the meeting video lasts only 34 minutes, I haven't had a chance to watch it all due to the time constrains of the holiday season. I hope to get back to it at a later date.

Be warned, the audio of the video is a bit fuzzy and is a little hard to listen to, but you can make out what is being discussed with little difficulty, so it is worth the watch.



Here is a copy of the TOMSA meeting agenda for December 13th, 2012

11-15-12 Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) Meeting

The Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority's (TOMSA) Board of Commissioners meet for their monthly meeting last Thursday night. This month's meeting was held in the conference room at Middletown's Town Hall, rather than at TOMSA's offices in Belford due to the effects of flooding from  Hurricane Sandy.

The video is 23 minutes long, a few minutes shorter than the actual meeting lasted, even though it was the first public meeting of the Board since Hurricane Sandy.

The meeting was as unremarkable as usual, but the banter back and forth between board members about what happened during and after Hurricane Sandy swept though, was somewhat interesting even though we have heard similar stories from others before.

The lone bit of news to come out of this meeting was that bids for  the construction of TOMSA's gas cogeneration plant were rejected and the plans will be put out for bidding once again.





Here is the meeting agenda for to help you follow along.

Middletown Township Sewerage Authority Meeting 6/14/12

Here is a video recording of the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority(TOMSA) meeting that was held on June 14, 2012. The meeting lasted 45 minutes and a number of items were quickly covered.

Due to issues with my internet connect the past couple of days, I haven't watched the whole video but I've seen enough to get an idea of what was discussed; A few items about infrastructure upgrades, the new ice hockey rink being built at the Swim Club and some cost issues.

It would be nice if TOMSA published a meeting agenda online like the Township Committee does so it would be easier to follow along or know what is being discussed unfortunately though, they don't.

Nevertheless, this meeting video is still interesting and worthwhile to watch, it lets you see how some of your tax dollars are being spent.

TOMSA Board’s 2012 re-organization meeting rumpled by nasty battle for the Chairmanship. Just kidding. It was all butterfly kisses.

by guest blogger Linda Baum

On February 9th, the Middletown Sewerage Authority Board held its 2012 reorganization meeting and introduced its newest member, Board alternate and first time appointee Anthony DeMarco.

The Board elected its officers at this meeting, heaping praise on each other as they went through the motions. In a sugary process that took under two minutes, last year’s officers slid smoothly into their same spots for the coming year.

Then, in quick installments, the Board re-appointed the existing auditor, engineer, and attorney. I guess it would have been awkward not to since two of them were sitting right there at the table and the third was on the way.

Showing uncommon humility for a newcomer these days, Mr. DeMarco didn’t seek the Chairmanship. No one bothered to nominate him for anything. (And believe me, I was tempted.) He seemed content to sit and watch. “It’s a learning experience,” veteran Board member and former mayor Joan Smith said to him earlier. Executive Director Pat Parkinson called it “a learning phase” and said, “There’s no such thing as a dumb question.” So basically everyone, including Mr. DeMarco, agreed he wasn’t ready to steer the ship.

Since this was the annual reorganization meeting, all the Board members were present – the 5 regular members plus the 2 alternates. All were there in person except Thomas Stokes, who participated via conference call for the third month in a row and appeared to be sleeping in between votes and sometimes during them. At least he called in on time – in December he dialed in 15 minutes after the meeting started and asked to be marked as a “yes” for a vote he missed. That was pooh-poohed, of course.

Actually, to be fair to Mr. Stokes, he’s not the only Board member who had nothing to say. Votes were taken, one right after the next, without any discussion. Any Board member comments were tantamount to cheerleading. Lots of praises were sung, and maybe that was for my benefit.

Now I have to set the record straight about something. I’ve said in the past that there are no name plates at TOMSA Board meetings, but in fact there are. There is a name plate for each Board member, but none for the professionals who regularly sit at the table. The name plates are the old style dark wooden blocks with tiny lettering that is hard to see from a distance. The blocks blend in with the table, so are easily missed.

As it so happens, I have a name plate just like that. I’ll be sure to mention it on my Citizen Leadership application.

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.

Letter: Middletown GOP to blame for poor fiscal policies

The following letter appears online today at the Asbury Park Press:

In his Oct. 21 letter, “Real solutions to problems put Middletown on right track,” Mayor Anthony Fiore admitted that Middletown government is derailed. I could not agree more.

True to form, he falsely blames years of excessive spending, unnecessary bonding, escalating taxation and debt, all cradled in Republican mismanagement, on the Middletown Democrats who somehow magically made elected Republicans spend our tax dollars. This is just more empty rhetoric to go with decades of empty promises.

After Fiore strong-armed $500,000 from library funds, took $350,000 for the second year in a row from sewerage authority fees and used $1.3 million in public education funds, his so-called fiscal discipline required a 12 percent tax increase to cover $45 million of a $62 million budget. This lack of incumbent Republican fiscal discipline has Middletown looking at a projected $2 million shortfall for 2012.

Ask Mayor Fiore if he has a real solution. Past Republican practice points at raising taxes. During his term, he has contributed 22 percent to a 40 percent increase in taxes over the last five years. Past practice also points at adding to our $70 million debt, which has increased 66 percent over the same five years.

Finally, at least $2.4 million of $4 million in “cuts” claimed by Mayor Fiore were onetime nonrecurring expenses that were never part of the 2011 budget.

Put a stop to more than 30 years of poor fiscal policy and borrowing. Please help our community get back on track. Vote for James Grenafege and Carol Fowler.

James Grenafege

Middletown Township Committee candidate

New Robo Call From Concerned Citizens Of Middletown Attacks Sewerage Authority (TOMSA)

The mysterious group calling themselves the Concerned Citizens of Middletown sent out yet another a robo-call earlier today. This time to target of the message was the patronage pit known as the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA).

TOMSA Commissioners are a who's who of Middletown Republican cronies that consist of former mayors and Middletown Republican Party officers that receive a $1750 yearly stipend that counts toward State pension credits and medical benefits.

Below the audio player is the transcript of the call




Have you heard that for 30 years your sewerage fees paid for stipends, a Cadillac health care plan and state pension credits for loyal members of the Middletown Republican party?

Similar abuses existed at the Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority until the squandering of money and the rampant hiring of family and political cronies was stopped by Governor Christie.

Why isn't Middletown following the Governor's lead and reforming the Middletown Sewerage Authority?

Paid for by Concerned Citizens of Middletown

Toms River Mayoral Candidate's Call For Dissolving MUA Sounds An Awful Lot Like Dems Call In Middletown To Dissolve TOMSA

Democrats in Middletown have been calling for the the elimination of the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA)for quite a while now. It is packed with former and present Republican officials -- Joan Smith (former mayor), Pat Parkinson (a former mayor who is receiving a salary and all the benefits because he is a full-time employee), Tom Stokes, Chantel Bouw, Emil Wrede, James Hinckly and Charlie Rogers are all well connected members of the Middletown GOP holding various offices within the organization, add to that the name of Township Attorney Brian Nelson former member), you can start to understand the patronage hole that TOMSA has become.

Former Committeeman Sean Byrnes proposed doing away with the authority last year and moving the responsibilities to the Public Works Department because it was a huge patronage pit where all of the current members of TOMSA have been commissioners for several years or more and receive a yearly stipen,State pension credits and are entitled to a Cadillac health care plan at little cost. His proposal however fell on deaf ears or were met with ridicule.

So it is not surprising to hear that the candidat for Mayor in Toms River, Paul Brush, was meet with the same ridicule earlier this week when he spoke out about the patronage pit that is the Toms River Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA), making it his signature campaign issue this year according to an article that ran in the Asbury Park Press on Wednesday.

In a prepared statement, Brush said he was prompted to speak out again on the matter after the Township Council appointed MUA Commissioner Alfonso Manforti to fill the unexpired term of former Councilwoman Melanie Donohue-Appleby, who recently resigned to become a Superior Court judge.

At the time of his appointment, Manforti was also the president of the Toms River Regular Republican Club. He agreed to resign from the club and the MUA following his appointment to the council.

When he announced his candidacy last spring, Brush said he was incensed at the appointment last year of Brick Mayor Stephen C. Acropolis as executive director of the Toms River MUA.

Acropolis was given a $93,000 annual salary as the full-time MUA chief atop his salary as the full-time mayor of Brick, which pays him a salary of $53,000, for a total public salary of $146,000.

“This is in-your-face arrogance,” Brush said Tuesday. “Meanwhile, our mayor and council reward the MUA Commissioner (Manforti) with a position on the Township Council. This has to stop.”

Brush said the authority’s seven commissioners attend one meeting per month and are paid $2,000 with the promise of a pension while entitled to excellent health benefits. Three commissioners, including Manforti, contributed just $30 per year for health insurance, which costs the township $19,954 over the same time period.

“This flies in the face of what the governor is trying to accomplish in New Jersey, but the local politicians remain defiant of the governor,” Brush said.

Brush said the administrative functions of the MUA should be eliminated and its operation absorbed into municipal government at town hall.

"So why does the mayor and council continue to support this bureaucracy at the MUA?” Brush asked. ...

...Brush said the authority’s seven commissioners attend one meeting per month and are paid $2,000 with the promise of a pension while entitled to excellent health benefits. Three commissioners, including Manforti, contributed just $30 per year for health insurance, which costs the township $19,954 over the same time period.

“This flies in the face of what the governor is trying to accomplish in New Jersey, but the local politicians remain defiant of the governor,” Brush said.

This is seems like déjàvu all over again for Dems in Middletown who have expressed the same concerns and see the similarities between what goes on between Toms River's MUA and Middletown's TOMSA.

Currently the only way to stop this patronage abuse In Middletown and end the entitlement to benefits that of current TOMSA commissioner feel, is not to reappoint them. Unfortunately however, when Middletown had the opportunity two years ago to save tax payers a little money by not reappointing commissioners that had been "grandfathered" against losing such benefits, the members of the Township Committee failed to act and reappointed Tom Stokes, voting 4-1 to reinstate him for another term as a TOMSA Comissioner.

Hopefully in the near future, as other commissioners are up for reappointment, the Township Committee will think differently and not reappoint their GOP cronies to the sewerage authority, but I doubt it.

Just like I doubt that the Township Committee would ever consider doing away with TOMSA and transfering its responiblities to the Middletown Department of Public Works as Sean Byrnes previously proposed.

The Middletown Library is no Sewerage Authority

by guest blogger Linda Baum

So some think the Library should offer money to the Township because the Sewerage Authority did? Now let’s think about that.

First, let’s be clear that right now your sewer fees are not part of your property taxes – you pay them separately. Those fees go straight to the Sewerage Authority, bypassing the town budget. Now consider that if sewer services were housed under the Department of Public Works – where they should be – the town would save a bundle by the consolidation and those fees would be rolled into your property taxes. Then the surplus would flow back to the township anyway because the revenue would be part of the town’s budget.

Another line of thinking is that the Sewerage Authority should return surplus money to residents, not the town, because you pay these fees directly. And shouldn’t some part of the surplus go back to the other towns (Highlands and Atlantic Highlands) that pay to use our sewer services? The Sewerage Authority could argue that it has never been the practice to return monies, so therefore there is no need to now. They could also argue that they are an independent body and can do as they please, including continuing to operate on a for-profit basis.

And now one more point. The services that the Library provides cannot be compared to sewage treatment. The Library is the heart of the community. When you walk in, there is a feeling a warmth and family. There we can find the support we need for our personal and professional growth throughout our lives. And keep in mind, the library is funded in accordance with law. It is just that important.

Note:

Last year the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) donated $365,000 of surplus funds to Middletown Township to help offset last years budget deficit, it is expected that this year TOMSA will contribute a comparable sum to the Township.

The question that should be answered here is; Are residents and other municipalities being overcharged by TOMSA, if so than shouldn't surplus funds be returned to those that have been overcharged in the first place, not given to the Township of Middletown to help fill in budget deficits?

As Ms. Baum pointed out the counter argument is that the surplus is being returned to the residents through local property tax relief, but again what about the towns of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands that already feel they are being overcharged and have no recourse and are indirectly providing property tax relief to Middletown? - MM

Sewer Authority Slush Fund ??

One of the more interesting line items that I found in the proposed Middletown Municipal budget that will be introduced at tonight's special budget meeting is the $365K transfer of surplus funds from the Middletown Sewer Authority to the Township.

Under the heading of General Revenues on sheet 10 of the budget, the line item titled Miscellaneous Revenues shows a contribution of Sewer Authority Surplus of $356K to the municipal budget.

So the questions are, if the Sewer Authority has this much money sitting around to give to the Township, are they charging us too much for their services? And, if this $365k is over their surplus allotment what were they planning to do with this money if they did not "give" it to the Township?

Its been a well known fact that the Middletown GOP uses the Sewer Authority as a dumping ground for party loyalist and cronies, each commissioner of the authority is entitled to a yearly stipend, township health benefits and pension credits. Obviously, the Sewerage Authority is like a slush fund where favored professionals get paid, people get jobs, no one watches what's going on and is a nice way for the majority party to reward those who tow the line.

Hear What All The Fuss Is About: Ethics Complaint Against Freeholder Candidate Smells As Bad As The Sewage It's Based On!

Shortly after the Asubury Park Press came out with it's endorsement of Middldetown Committeeman Sean Byrnes for the position of Monmouth County Freeholder, the dirt and mud that is typical of the Middletown GOP started to fly. Party loyalist Tom Stokes, who owes much of his existence to the Middeltown GOP (he collects a salary, health and pension benefits from the township), came out of the woodwork once again this year to smear his vile mud.

Stokes announced to the world,which you can read about here, that he had filed an ethics complaint against Sean Byrnes over comments he made during Byrnes's first ever Township Committee meeting 22 months ago. The meeting was the annual Township Re-Organizational Meeting held on 1/06/08. Stokes's complaint is flimsily based on comments that Byrnes made in opposition to re-appointing all current members to the Middletown Sewage Authority, which Stokes happens to be a member of.

According to the Township's official minutes of the meeting (p 18), Byrnes comment towards Stokes is non-existent. The minutes simply state that Byrnes said "... it is prudent for those for that are in politics not to receive money from the township."

Stokes is an active member of the Middletown GOP and sits on various boards and commissions in town.

If you think that the meeting minutes are somehow lacking in detail and that Sean Byrnes must have said something more outlandish then this in order for Mr. Stokes to file an ethics complaint then HERE is an audio file of the whole proceeding of the day. You will hear for yourselves at about 58 minutes into the recording, what was exactly said that day, as it does or doesn't pertain to Tom Stokes.

From all that I have learned about Tom Stokes, it seems that he is not such a nice guy. It seems to me that he likes to file frivolous charges against those he or the Middletown GOP dislike.

In this case, Stokes filed an ethics complaint against Sean Byrnes because didn't recuse himself from voting on his re-appointment because as he states, Byrnes has been, "in an adversarial relationship with myself, through litigation, since at least 2001. Yet, even though he had this business and personal, adversarial relationship, he failed to recuse himself when my appointment to the Township of Middletown Sewer Authority was discussed."

From what I understand this litigation is a result from a sexual harassment complaint brought against Stokes when he was a member of the Middletown Board of Education, where he actually called the person who filed the charge against him a "stupid little bitch" although he later said it was "stupid little tramp" at a public meeting.

People in Middletown are tired of these types of dirty attacks and campaigning that the Middeltown GOP engages in just to hold onto power. Now they have tried to use these same tactics on the county level in order to try and gain a last minute advantage for John Curley against Sean Byrnes.

People in Middletown want results, not talk from their elected officials and for to long now all they have gotten out of the Middletown GOP is cheap talk and dirty politics and it all smells as bad as the sewage that that needs to be treated before being disposed of.

Informed voters will decide for themselves whether or not this latest sleazy maneuver by the Middeltown republicans warrant further consideration.

Vote Bynres for Freeholder !!

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Middletown Republicans Are At It Again.

Once again, members of the Middletown Republican party are looking to take credit for something that they had no part in.

I am speaking of a recent letter written by Cathy Rogers, an active member of the Middletown Republican party, who serves as the District 36 Republican Committeewoman in Port Monmouth and who’s husband Charlie, holds prominent positions in Middletown as an appointed member of the Middletown Sewerage Authority and as the OEM Coordinator, for each position Mr. Rogers holds, he is compensated with both salary and pension benefits.

In her letter, Mrs. Roger’s gives undue credit to her fellow Middletown Republicans - Mayor Brightbill and Deputy Mayor Scharfenberger for the recently announced plans to control flooding in Port Monmouth area.

The simple fact of the matter is that not Cathy Rogers, her husband, the Mayor or Deputy Mayor had anything to do with devising the current flood control plan that was approved by the township committee on August 3rd.

The homeowners on Monmouth, Wilson, and Brainard Aves as well as others and along with Democratic Committeeman Patrick Short, who championed the cause, deserve all of the credit for getting this accomplished. Mayor Brightbill and Deputy-mayor Scharfenberger never supported this effort until the time that Patrick Short introduced the solution to the township committee and the 80+ homeowners that reside in the affected flood area showed up in force to demand that action be taken to alleviate the flooding problem.

Republicans in Middletown have always been reactive to problems that concern residents of Middletown, instead of taking a proactive approach to any of their needs.

If Cathy Rogers were any kind of district representative, as she claims, she would have had her Republican colleagues take care of the flooding problem long ago. She says that this was in the making for 10 years.

Actually, it took 10 months worth of effort on the part of Patrick Short and others to indentify the problem and come up with a workable solution, all it took was a little persuasion and a lot of homeowners to rise up and speak out for a return on the investment that they make each and every month by paying their property taxes to Middletown.