No excuse for layoffs at Brookdale

Vin Gopal is chairman of the Monmouth County Democrats and is the author of this article that appeared in yesterday's Asbury Park Press:

The Monmouth County Board of Freeholders has gutted funding to Brookdale Community College three years in a row. It’s plain and simple: What was once the educational pearl of Monmouth is now in jeopardy as a direct result of the one-party-controlled freeholder board.

A recommendation made last week by the college’s Board of Trustees (most of whom are selected by the all-Republican freeholder board) announced a plan for 210 layoffs of faculty and staff. This comes after the third year in a row of significant cuts by Monmouth County’s freeholder board to Brookdale’s funding.

Monmouth County’s funding has dropped an astounding 23 percent in just three years — more than $6 million. The college is expecting another $1.5 million cut in county funding for 2015, a 6 percent drop in a year. Brookdale officials are expecting funds raised by tuition and fees to increase by 2.5 percent next year and enrollment has dropped 12 percent in just three years.

The freeholders claim that money for Brookdale is not there. That is simply not true. Instead of properly funding Brookdale Community College, the board has allowed $6.5 million taxpayer money, annually, to be wasted on managing two county-run nursing homes. Government-funded nursing homes are a thing of the past and counties including Mercer, Sussex and Salem have all successfully sold their own to competent private buyers, all of whom have done an excellent job operating them with the same quality of care.

Government used to run these types of care centers in the 1960s and 1970s, but we do not need to be in the nursing home business in 2014. We need to be providing students and their parents with affordable educational options, especially at a time when the importance of a college degree is increasing faster than ever. Monmouth freeholders have the opportunity to do this and protect those jobs at Brookdale.

This past election, in a big landslide year for national Republicans, Monmouth County residents narrowly voted to re-elect Monmouth County Republican Freeholders Lillian Burry and Gary Rich with 53 percent of the vote. This should be a wakeup call to county Republicans, not a moment of celebration. County Republican freeholders usually win Monmouth by larger margins. Residents are realizing, more and more, that county Republicans are responsible for our high taxes and waste.

There is no Republican or Democratic way to fix a pothole. There is a right way and a wrong way. The Monmouth County Democrats have taken the position that privatizing the nursing homes because it is what is right for the 630,000 residents of this county.

The solution for Brookdale is crystal clear. The All-Republican freeholder board can privatize the nursing homes and save Brookdale students and families a tuition increase and save the 210 folks about to get laid off. The ball is in their court.

Join us in holding them accountable by locally joining a political party that will fight for every taxpayer in this county. Locally, the Monmouth County Democrats are fighting for taxpayers in our 53 towns.

President Obama's Weekly Address 3/9/13: End the Sequester to Keep Growing the Economy

WASHINGTON, DC— In his weekly address, President Obama said that businesses have created jobs every month for three years straight – nearly 6.4 million altogether, and have added 246,000 new jobs in February. We must keep this momentum going, and that’s why the President recently met with Republican leaders to discuss how we can replace the harmful, arbitrary budget cuts, called the “sequester,” with balanced deficit reduction. By working together, the President is confident we can reduce the budget by investing in areas that help us grow, and cutting what we don’t need.

The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts

And they go on and on and on....

From ThinkProgress.org

Health care

$20 million cut from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs
$10 million cut from the World Trade Center Health Program Fund
$168 million cut from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
$75 million cut from the Aging and Disability Services Programs

Housing

$199 million cut from public housing
$96 million cut from Homeless Assistance Grants
$17 million cut from Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
$19 million cut from Housing for the Elderly
$175 million cut from Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Disaster and Emergency

$928 million cut from FEMA’s disaster relief money
$6 million cut from Emergency Food and Shelter
$70 million cut from the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund at USDA
$61 million cut from the Hazardous Substance Superfund at EPA
$125 million cut from the Wildland Fire Management
$53 million cut from Salaries and Expenses at the Food Safety and Inspection Service

Obamacare

$13 million cut from the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program (Co-ops)
$57 million cut from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control
$51 million cut from the Prevention and Public Health Fund
$27 million cut from the State Grants and Demonstrations
$44 million cut from the Affordable Insurance Exchange Grants program

Education

$633 million cut from the Department of Education’s Special Education programs
$184 million cut from Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
$71 million cut from administration at the Office of Federal Student Aid
$116 million cut from Higher Education
$86 million cut from Student Financial Assistance

Immigration

$512 million cut from Customs and Border Protection
$17 million cut from Automation Modernization, Customs and Border Protection
$20 million cut from Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

Security

$79 million cut from Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
$604 million cut from National Nuclear Security Administration
$232 million cut from the Federal Aviation Administration
$394 million cut from Defense Environmental Cleanup

The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the nation’s deficits have shrunk by trillions of dollars, and the debt is close to being stabilized as a percentage of the economy. Meanwhile, budget cuts have already reduced spending by $1.5 trillion and even with the revenue included in the fiscal cliff deal, the ratio of cuts to revenue stands at an unbalanced 3 to 1.

President Obama's Weekly Address 2/9/13: Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

President Obama urges Congress to act to avoid a series of harmful and automatic cuts—called a sequester—from going into effect that would hurt our economy and the middle class and threaten thousands of American jobs. The President urges Congress to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that makes investments in areas that help us grow and cuts what we don’t need.

Ouch!

(Via The Other 98%)

Cuts Have Consequences

From the e-Newsletter of Congressman Rush Holt

Hunger is a very real and mounting problem in our community. The Community FoodBank of New Jersey reports that, since 2008, demand for their services has increased by an unprecedented 46 percent. Much of the need has come from families who were firmly anchored in the middle class until, through no fault of their own, they suffered a job loss in the recession.

Yet even as the toll of hunger has increased, the House Majority has sought to radically cut programs that fight hunger in New Jersey and across America. The Ryan Budget, which I opposed, would slash the Food Stamp program by $36 billion over ten years, leading 2 million Americans to lose access to Food Stamps and curtailing benefits for 44 million more.

Let’s be clear: Food Stamps already provide only the barest of safety nets to vulnerable families. The average benefit is just $31.50 per week – about a dollar and a half per meal. If you are fortunate enough to ordinarily live on a much more comfortable food budget, I encourage you to try purchasing a week’s worth of food at this price, as I did late last year. You will discover, in a profound and troubling way, the fragility of our safety-net programs. Now imagine how much more difficult your task would be if Food Stamps were cut further!

The Ryan Budget would do even more to take food off the table of the hungry. It would permanently eliminate the Social Services Block Grant program, which provides vital support for Meals on Wheels, child care, and child protective services. New Jersey has received $48.1 million through this program in 2012 alone.

In a time of great need, I find it incomprehensible that the Republican majority would further shred our social safety net in order to cut taxes on millionaires and preserve a bloated Defense Department budget.

This is one in a series on the impact of the so-called Ryan Budget, the House Majority’s plan for the federal government. The budget passed the U.S. House of Representatives in March on a mostly party-line vote.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress

January 18th meeting of the Middletown Library Board sets the tone for the year. The Demands, the Numbers, and the Possibilities Part 3

by guest blogger Linda Baum

This is part 3 of my 3-part post on the 1/18/12 meeting of the Library Board. The next Library Board meeting is this Wednesday, February 15th at 7:30 p.m.

PURCHASING RESOLUTIONS -- SERVICE CONTRACT FOR LIBRARY ATTORNEY

New Board member Michael Convery, an attorney, had many questions about the legality of resolutions and whether or not there was a need to bid out contracts. Ms. O’Neal noted that libraries have a statutory exemption from purchasing laws for books and materials. “Where is the list of exempt services?,” he asked. In the statute, he was told.

Mr. Convery suggested having an attorney sign off on resolutions and the vendor list. Ms. Murray went a step further and suggested that an attorney be present at all Board meetings. The new Township appointees agreed.

Those in the audience whispered, “Didn’t they want to reduce expenses???”

The other Board members felt that there was little need to have an attorney sit in on regular meetings – one could always be consulted if an opinion was needed.

Some background: While “major” boards, such as the Planning Board, may have a lawyer present at each meeting due to the nature of their work, “minor” boards, such as the Historical Commission, do not. The Library Board used to have an attorney at meetings at one time, but there was little need in view of the low hazard operation, and the regular attendance of a lawyer was eliminated.

Vivian Breen suggested, somewhat facetiously, that they seek pro-bono services – maybe attorney and former Board member Gregory Milne would be willing to donate his time. There was no response from the new trustees. (That was also how things went at the Township Committee meeting the night before when residents offered their free services to renovate the pool club. That offer fell on dead ears, too.)

When it was time to award the contract for attorney services, experience in library law took a back seat to hourly fee, office location, and labor law experience.

In my 1/9/12 post, “Attorney representing TOMSA and the Township also seeks appointment as Library Attorney at the January 18th Meeting of the Library Board”, I mentioned that experience in library law was a requirement for the job, or at least had been considered important in the past.

The new Township appointees didn’t feel knowledge of library law was necessary. Mr. Convery was particularly insistent about that, seeming to ignore that all of his earlier questions required response from someone with an understanding of the statute. He and others felt that an interpretation of the library law could be provided by any attorney. Labor law experience was seen as more important.

While applicants without library law experience had lower fees, Mr. Gabrielan pointed out that they might bill significantly more hours while they are getting up to speed on matters an experienced attorney would already know.

Ms. O’Neal suggested that the Board might lower its costs by issuing a new RFP to hire an attorney on a retainer. The new Board members declined to do that for now, opting instead to pay by the hour in case the Board decides at a later date that attorney attendance at meetings is not necessary, or at least that was a reason given. (I found it odd that the new Township appointees, after having shown uniform support to have an attorney at meetings, wouldn’t opt for a less costly fee arrangement and wanted wiggle room to change their minds about attorney attendance. That is surprising considering how critical they were of the Board, and its president in particular, for not having had an attorney at meetings in the past.)

Attorney Richard Leahey’s local office was touted as a plus by the new trustees, who pointed out that it would mean fewer hours billed for travel time to Board meetings. (I wondered if the push to have an attorney at meetings was in part so that they could make a stronger case to keep the contract local...)

Leahey lacks library experience, but his rate was among the two lowest, matched by McOmber & McOmber, P.C., also local and lacking in library experience. While the two candidates seemed “neck and neck” for a while, the service award went to R. Armen McOmber, whose application indicated he would provide service personally. Mr. Leahey’s work for the Township was mentioned as a possible conflict and factored into the Board’s decision.

The Library’s budget was amended to increase the amount budgeted for attorney services from $4,000 to $10,000, in part to account for the fact that this is a labor contract negotiation year.

THE BY-LAWS

On the agenda was the formation of an Ad-hoc By-laws Review Committee to update the by-laws for the increase in the Board’s membership.

Mr. Convery was very critical of the by-laws. He called them “terrible” but wasn’t specific. I don’t have a lot of patience for such vague criticism and look forward to hearing what specific changes he feels are necessary, and who will benefit…

Mr. Gabrielan explained that the by-laws, which were last revised ten years ago, were simple by design and, while needing update in a few areas, met the needs of this type of operation.

(Add by-laws review to the list of things this year’s legal counsel will be billing for. I wonder if the $10,000 budget will be enough.)

PURCHASING RESOLUTIONS -- BOOKS & MATERIALS

There were numerous purchasing resolutions on the January agenda, and that’s normal. The Library’s ongoing operation requires purchasing year-round. Ms. O’Neal noted that there are seasons of publishing – different items are ordered at different times of year -- and that the Board reserves money at the end of the calendar year to allow for that.

Ms. O’Neal said that vendors have specialties in terms of what they provide, so different materials are ordered from different vendors, all of which were selected for their preferential discount schedules. She also noted that the Library has people who specialize in knowing what materials are required for specific subject areas.

The new Township appointees were hesitant to approve the purchases, one of which was an order of about $200K from the Library’s primary vendor. They had questions about how to review the orders and accounting. And that’s reasonable – they are new to this and there is a lot to know. The Board discussed training that would be available so that the new members could familiarize themselves with Library operations.

To me, the new Township appointees seemed conflicted between the need for continuity of Library operations and their apparent charge to cut the budget.

Mr. Gabrielan pointed out that these were pro-forma resolutions that the Board passes annually as part of normal operations for all New Jersey libraries, and he asked that the new members trust management and the other more experienced Board members.

The response from the new Township appointees was a blunt, “No.” And then they brought up Mr. Gabrielan’s books and then the accusations flew. They said, no one’s accusing anyone of anything, but…

Vivian Breen raised her voice, “This library has not been a problem. You’re
making this a problem, and it isn’t.”

Lawrence Nelsen harped, “No one had a problem with Bernie Madoff, either.” Audience members gasped.

“That’s totally different,” replied Ms. Breen, with restraint, considering.

Ms. Murray said, “We don’t feel there is a problem, but I don’t think it’s fair to invalidate our opinions because we don’t feel more comfortable.”

“But you’re invalidating what we’ve been doing for years,” said Ms. Breen, her voice elevated

.

Ms. Miloscia said that not everything needed to be ordered in February, but that they needed to start ordering. “Otherwise, you’re going to paralyze the Library,” she said.

Ms. Breen offered an analogy: “If you bought a supermarket, and you took over as boss, you would have to [continue]…purchasing cans to stock shelves until you figured out what was going on or you would go out of business.”

After discussion, the purchase resolutions were approved by the full Board.

For comparison, consider that the Township’s January bill list was approved by unanimous vote, and without any public discussion, by the Township Committee on January 17th, Ms. Murray’s first regular meeting as Committeewoman.

Note also that at the TOMSA Board’s February 9th meeting, a no-bid $343K engineering contract was approved without comment by the Board, who, coincidentally, voted at that meeting to approve their own salaries, a perk no other board in town gets. No other board in town gets the free medical benefits or pension credits either. Perhaps Mr. Nelsen should take a look over there.

January 18th meeting of the Middletown Library Board sets the tone for the year. The Demands, the Numbers, and the Possibilities Part 2

by guest blogger Linda Baum

This is part 2 of my 3-part post on happenings at the 1/18/12 meeting of the Library Board. A reminder that the next Library Board meeting is this Wednesday, February 15th at 7:30 p.m.

LAWN CARE AND SNOW & ICE MANAGEMENT

By now, I’m sure you’ve seen figures tossed around on this topic. Here’s the story:

Committeewoman Stephanie Murray questioned the outsourcing of lawn care and snow removal. She asked why the Township couldn’t do this and was advised that DPW had been contacted but felt they couldn’t provide adequate services. DPW Director Ted Maloney had said to revisit the matter with DPW upon contract expiration.

“Lawn care” includes a great deal more than mowing. It also covers pruning, weeding, fertilizing, seeding, insect control, debris removal and more.

Land care and snow & ice management are grouped together as one line item on the budget, but are two separate contracts. The contract for land care is for one year only. Snow & ice management is a 2-year contract that runs through April 2013. The Board usually opts for a 2-year contract for ice and snow removal for two reasons: 1) as a hedge against increases in contract cost when the price of gasoline goes up, and 2) it helps to have a contractor in place well in advance to cover the late December/early January period.

For 2012, the budgeted amount is $30,000. In 2011, the contract for landscaping was $9,000. The Library paid the contractor an additional $1,700 for new trees in the front, which was approved as part of the job specifications. For snow removal in 2011, the Library paid $10,953. In all, these expenses were $21,653. The cost for land care is a fixed amount, however it is necessary to budget conservatively for snow & ice management in line with variations in snow fall and contract cost based on the proposal awarded. The 2012 budget for these services is the same as for 2011. In a low snow year, they make out okay.

Ms. O’Neal provided a brief history, noting that when the Library was renovated in 2003/2004, the Township Committee wanted a sprinkler system installed and extensive landscaping in order to enhance the value of the property. Once that was done, the members of the Board felt that proper stewardship of the property required the land care services of a private company because the services of the Township were not adequate.

The Library has special needs given its hours of operation and 7-day schedule, and the Township was not able to make the Library a priority given its other commitments. This is true not only for snow removal, but also for property maintenance. Consider if you have ever seen work being done on the Library grounds during its operating hours. I haven’t. Work appears to be done before or after the public arrives, so that we can enjoy the serenity and quiet that libraries are so well known for.

When it snows, the Township is going to clear snow from streets first so that ambulances can get to homes and people to hospitals. Nobody lives at the Library, so it may be very low on the list.

During public comments, one woman commented on how quickly snow is removed now, so that the Library can be enjoyed by the public. Another resident said “This works” and encouraged the new Board to be slow to change.

In fairness, I should note that when there are particularly heavy snow storms like those of last winter, the Library may need help from the Township’s heavy duty plows to clear its premises.

Several of the new Board members – Brock Siebert, Michael Convery, and Ms. Murray – were insistent that the issue of land care and snow removal be re-opened with the Township and suggested that the Library “make” the Township handle this. They didn’t say how they expected the Board to do that, or how to ensure that the current high standard of service is met.

Ms. O’Neal pointed out that many Libraries that have snow and land maintenance handled by the municipality get charge-backs for those services, so “the elephant in the room” is that one way or another the Library pays the cost for these services.

MY PREDICTION: Snow removal and land care services will be handled by the Township upon contract expiration, or sooner, and the Library will not be billed. I say “or sooner” because the new Trustees are insistent that the matter be re-opened with the Township now, so it appears they are willing to cancel the contract and deal with any ramifications.

THE NUMBERS: The Library’s budget will be cut by $30,000. That increases the “take” by the Township by up to $36,000 given the combined effect of both the increase in surplus and the reduction in the budget, as described in part 1 of this post.

Why do I think the Township won’t bill the Library for these services? Because if they do, there would be no reduction to the Library’s budget, and the Township makes out the same or better if there is.

By not charging the library, the Township gets to look like the good guy, something I’m sure they will work into press releases. But, of course, they will make no reference to any slip in service quality or any extra costs the Library may incur to replace plants and trees that are not properly cared for. Nor will they mention the unusual sound of lawn equipment blaring while you’re reading.

STRATEGY: If the Township makes out the same or better by not charging the Library, then the Library might fare better if it pays the Township for these services – that is, more reserves might be protected this way. So perhaps the Library Board should offer to pay…

THE LIBRARY’S WEBSITE

New board member Lawrence Nelsen criticized the Library’s website, saying that many links don’t work. Check it out for yourself here (www.mtpl.org) and see what you think. Be prepared to have some fun – the Library’s website is cool, colorful, and informative.

I wonder if Mr. Nelsen has noticed that several calendar links on the Township’s website bring up the month of March 2011, a problem the Township has known about for months and still hasn’t fixed. And meeting dates on the Township’s online calendar are often incorrect. There are numerous examples from December: the Sewerage Authority board meeting was not on December 8th, the Zoning Board meeting was not on December 26th, and the Library Board meeting was not on December 21st. The latter date was correct on the Library’s website, though.

Ms. O’Neal replied to Mr. Nelsen that the Library doesn’t have a dedicated web person because the staff person who handles that has other duties, but she said that problems are fixed as quickly as possible once they are discovered.

MY PREDICTION: I have a very strong feeling that Mr. Nelsen’s out-of-the-blue comment was intended to start a discussion about the Township’s takeover of Library website maintenance and maybe other Library systems. That could possibly mean layoffs of library staff.

THE NUMBERS: I am told that the Township contracts out its website maintenance. If that’s true, the contractor would likely charge extra to handle more work. The Township might bill the Library for it, but might make out better if they don’t, as I’ve already pointed out.

Much like the other services the Library requires, the Township’s ability to take on this additional responsibility won’t matter. This is all about cutting as much from the Library budget as possible. Promises will be made, and problems will be dealt with down the road.

Lautenberg, Menendez, Pallone Call on President to Reconsider Plan to Close NOAA Sandy Hook Lab

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 14, 2012


WASHINGTON—One day after the Obama Administration released a budget plan that eliminates funding for the fisheries lab at Sandy Hook, U.S. Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), today called on the President to reconsider his decision to close the lab. The members vowed to work through the Congressional appropriations process to restore funding for this successful research facility.

"Today, the research that is performed at the NOAA lab produces vital information on marine species that serves as a foundation for our economy and jobs across the region," the Congress members wrote to President Obama. "We will work to prevent the closure of this facility during the upcoming appropriations process and we ask that you reconsider your position. The NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook is a vital facility and maintaining it will allow the important scientific research that is performed in one of the country’s most unique and biologically diverse environments to continue."

A copy of the letter's text is below:


February 14, 2012


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal in your Fiscal Year 2013 Budget to close the NOAA Fisheries Service James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory at Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The closure of this lab would have a negative impact on NOAA’s ability to carry out its mission and damage progress that has been made in fisheries-based scientific research.

The NOAA laboratory, dedicated in September 1961, was the first federal scientific laboratory devoted solely to research on marine recreational species. The opening of this lab reflected the importance of acquiring scientific information to support the sustainability of marine resources that are greatly important to coastal communities. Today, the research that is performed at the NOAA lab produces vital information on marine species that serves as a foundation for our economy and jobs across the region.

The NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook performs critical research that not only supports New Jersey marine habitats, but also provides greater insight into the issues our nation faces in maintaining a clean and sustainable ocean environment. The decision to close the NOAA laboratory will put all of this critical research at risk and limit our understanding of how we can best protect the ocean environment and the ocean-based economy.

This past September, NOAA staff including Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries Eric Schwaab celebrated 50 years of important achievements made at the NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook. Now, just a few short months later, your budget proposes to put an end to the important work that is done at the lab.

We will work to prevent the closure of this facility during the upcoming appropriations process and we ask that you reconsider your position. The NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook is a vital facility and maintaining it will allow the important scientific research that is performed in one of the country’s most unique and biologically diverse environments to continue.

More Audio From Tuesday Night's Township Committee Meeting; "What about the kids?"

I have a few more audio clips from last Tuesday night's Township Committee meeting to post concerning the Middletown Swim and Tennis Club.

In this clip you can hear a young lady addressing the Township Committee during public comments and asking them, in light of all the budget cuts enacted by the State and local government when will someone ask the question "what about the kids ?"

Pallone Renews Commitment to College Affordability, Protecting Pell Grant Loan Funding

Long Branch, N.J. – Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. Monday will speak with Rutgers students during a roundtable discussion regarding their concerns about federal support for improving college affordability and the ongoing threat the Republican majority poses to funding federal Pell Grant loans. New Jersey students are concerned about college debt and the availability of federal Pell Grants, which for many, are the only way they are able to attend college.

During the recent debate to raise the debt ceiling in July, Republicans offered Pell Grant cuts as a way to cut the budget. These cuts were averted but as the Super Committee convenes to discuss budget cuts, Pell Grant funding may again be on the table.


WHO: Congressman Pallone will host a roundtable discussion soliciting input from Rutgers students and student organizations

WHEN: 11:00 a.m. Monday, September 12, 2011

WHERE: Rutgers Student Center
126 College Avenue, New Brunswick
Main Lounge (Across from Multi-Purpose Room)

President Obama's Weekly Address 7/23/11: A Bipartisan Approach to Strengthening the Economy

WASHINGTON-- In this week’s address, President Obama discussed the urgency of Democrats and Republicans coming together to take a balanced approach to cutting the deficit to strengthen our economy and leave for our children a more secure future.

As A Matter Of Fact...1 in 6 New Jerseyans hit By Governor’s vetoes

From July 11th, 2011 | Published in NJPP Blog: As a Matter of Fact …

By Raymond J. Castro, Senior Policy Analyst

One in six New Jerseyans will be adversely affected by line-item vetoes of two critical programs in the budget Governor Christie signed last week.

Today, the state Senate is expected to vote on restoring funding for those programs – the state Earned Income Tax Credit and NJ Family Care. Doing so, however, will require bipartisan support in order to achieve two-thirds majority.

The governor’s vetoes represented unprecedented cutbacks in state services and will affect more than 1.5 million residents, mostly low-income working families with children. Without these supports many parents will be unable to continue to work in low and moderate wage jobs that support their children in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the nation.

Last week the Legislature passed a state budget that fully funded these program. However the governor in New Jersey has considerably more power than governors in many states and has the discretion to delete any funds proposed for specific programs – or any “line item” in the budget. The only way that those funds can be restored is for the Legislature to vote to overturn each veto with a two-thirds vote.

When voting on each line-item, it will be important that legislators know what the impact is on people in their districts. New Jersey Policy Perspective has created an analysis to show the number of people, county by county, who will be affected by these two line item vetos, which were among dozens of vetoes by the governor.

Budgets reflect a state’s priorities. The public does not always know where individual legislators stand on those priorities because the budget is usually voted on in its entirety. That will all change today, and we hope that each lawmaker, regardless of party, recognizes just how devastating these cuts can be to wide numbers of New Jerseyans.

Continue reading ...

President Obama's Weekly Address 4/16/11: America’s Fiscal Future

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Obama said that to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don’t have to sacrifice the America we believe in. Earlier this week, the President proposed a balanced approach to cut the deficit, which matches the $4 trillion in deficit reduction put forward by House Republicans’ plan. The President’s proposal does this by combing the entire budget for savings and asking everyone to do their part. The Republican plan, though, would end Medicare as we know it and make drastic cuts to education, infrastructure and clean energy, while giving away $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent.

What's The Big Deal At Brookdale ?

Evidently it is the salary and perks that the community college of Monmouth County is giving it's School President Peter Burnham.

Burnham's total compensation package for leading Brookdale over the past 20 years is roughly $300K a year. He currently receives a $1,500 monthly housing allowance, drives a 2010 Ford Expedition that the college purchased for $42,815,is provided with a membership to the Navisink Country Club, and can be reimbursed $20K per year to send his kids to private colleges on top of a $216K base salary.

That's not to shabby if you ask me, but am I surprised or outraged at hearing the news? No, not really. His compensation doesn't seem that far off from what other college presidents receive throughout the state or country.

College Presidents, like school district superintendents, are a special breed that are highly sort after. Someone like Peter Burnham, who has presided over an institution for 20 years and has oversaw it's large expansion during that time while maintaining it's academic level, which by the way, is considered far more superior than many other colleges in the state, probably deserves much of what he receives in compensation.

The only reason why Burnham's compensation has come to light and has now been scrutinized is because he had the gaul to blame the Monmouth County Freeholders for a 8% hike in tuition which was planned for, but now rescinded under pressure, for the coming year.

Burnham embarrassed the Freeholder Board with his comments, so in retaliation Freeholder John Curly released information on Burnham's salary and perks to embarrass Peter Burnham and Brookdale's Board of Directors in return so that he could cover his ass and those of his colleagues on the Freeholder Board. After all, it is the Freeholder Board that appoints
Brookdale's trustees and should have been overseeing/approving contracts for Burnham over the years. If his compensation wasn't considered outrageous previously, why is it now? Politics, that's why.

This was an underhanded and despicable move by Curly, to score political points and encourage others to voice outrage against Brookdale and Burnham, which it has. News out today is that Governor Christie will now be focusing his attention on Burnham's employment contract and those of other public college presidents around the state.

Now, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am writing this because I support tuition hikes on students or think that it is appropriate that Peter Burnham receives such generous perks, I do not. I feel that before any costs are passed on to students in the form of tuition or fee hikes, all attempts to reduce costs should be made first.

I'm a big believer in honoring contracts that were negotiated in good faith, as it seems that Burnham's was. If John Curly or other members of the Freeholder Board had a problem with Burnham's contract previously they should have spoken before now, to claim ignorance of it is skirting their own responsiblity over it.

That said, it seems that regardless of the method used to achieve the means, it happens to be good news for those who attend Brookdale, the cost of their continuing education will not be rising next year.

RedBankGreen.com: M’TOWN LIBRARY DEBATE GETS PERSONAL

Dustin Racioppi of RedBankGreen.com posted his take on last night's Library Board of Trustees meeting in Middletown just a few ago.

In my opinion Racioppi's take on the meeting was closer to what actually transpired than what Kevin Penton wrote for the Asbury Park Press. Racioppi did a decent job of telling how contentious portions of the meet was last night, but unless you where actually there, you have no idea how heavy the atmosphere and mood actually was.

Committeeman Kevin Settembrino seemed like he was a henchman or stooge form the mafia's godfather last night. He was very demanding and lack civility on many occasions that I witnessed.

I left last nights meeting with the impression that the Library would only turn over to the Township the funds that they legally have to under state statue, which in an of itself was an issue that was haggled over and would amount to about $200K based on the Boards interpretation of the law, a far cry from the almost $900K that the Township committee is looking for.

Here is some of what Dustin Racioppi had to say about last nights meeting:

...Indeed, this was not going to be swift or pretty, as the library faced implications it had never seen before: the threat of being transferred to the Monmouth County library system and indirect blame for township employees being laid off.

At the end of the long night, though, the board compromised, agreeing to have the attorneys and administrators from both bodies meet within the next two weeks to try and agree upon an “amicable” figure the library would take from its surplus and transfer to the general budget. That number will be voted on at a meeting in March.

It took a marathon of debate to get to that point, though.

Residents filled the library’s meeting room to probe officials, tell their stories about the library and, at times, take jabs at elected officials. At one point, a line seven deep formed behind the microphone.

Resident Mike Burns took aim at Committeeman Kevin Settembrino, who also serves on the library board and favors the raid on the surplus. It was, perhaps, an initiation to Middletown politics for Settembrino, who took office in January and, as Burns pointed out, doesn’t hold a library card.

“Mr. Settembrino, when was the last time you checked out a book? When was the last time you checked out a CD? When was the last time you checked out a DVD?” he asked. “I think it’s interesting that you’re on the library board. Can you tell me what the difference is between you serving on the library board and Osama bin Laden serving on the Department of Homeland Security?”

While harsh comments peppered the meeting, there was also constructive criticism for township officials to consider in the formation of Middletown’s budget.

The town, facing declining revenues and a staggering amount of tax appeal refunds, came to the library board last month for help, asking for $898,000 to cover the library’s debt service on a bond for the library’s renovation and a decrease in its property value.

Linda Baum suggested that rather than dip into the library surplus, the committee should consider other cost-reduction options, like outsourcing leaf and brush collection.

“There’s your million dollars right there,” she said. “We obviously need to do some creative thinking.”

Before the meeting got started, and shortly after, the tension among the board and committee members reached a fever pitch as a result of the committee’s threat that if the board didn’t help with the town budget, the committee would explore the option of transferring the library to the county system. The committee also filed a layoff plan with the state calling for the elimination of 26 jobs, including those of 10 police officers, adding to the pressure put on the library board....

You can read his full take on last nights meeting >>> Here

And again I need to state, even if the Library hands over a portion of its surplus funds, it will have no effect on the previously announced layoffs of 26 township employees. Those jobs are considered lost already by the Township Committee we learned last night. Any funds that the Township receives from the Library could only possibly prevent more employees loosing their jobs.

Middletown's Hearing With Local Finance Board Scheduled For August 26th

Middletown is one step closer to finalizing it's 8+ months over due budget.

It looks like the Township's hearing in front of the Department of Community Affairs Local Finance Board has been rescheduled for August 26th, two weeks after the original date was cancelled for the lack of a quorum on the part of the LFB.

According to the LFB website Middeltown will be participating in two meetings that day, one a teleconference that will deal with the Townships plan to bond $955,000 in order to finance tax appeals and the second to decide whether or not Middletown can exceed the State mandated 4% cap on property tax increases. It seems that Middletown is asking the LFB to approve an additional $2.68M over the 4% spending cap.

Now I am not exactly sure how this works but I figure there could be two ways in which to figure it out.

Last year, Middletown raised $40M from property taxes, if the amount raised by taxes exceeds the 4%cap ($41.6M) by only $2.68M, then the resulting increase to the municipal tax rate will be 10.7% (3.17% below the initially proposed tax rate) which would bring the amount raised through taxes to $44.28M ($1.27M less than what was originally proposed).

The other way to look at it would be, if the municipal budget for 2010 exceeds the cap by 4% over the 2009 budget which was $61.8M, the increase would bring the budget to $64.27M. And if then Middletown gets the approval to exceed this by $2.68M above the cap, the budget would be $66.95M, which amounts to an 8.33% tax increase. If this turns out to be the case then who knows what the amount raised by taxes will be. It will depend on what is cut and what is bonded for.

Is your head hurting yet?

The bottom line on all of this however happens to be that given the current economic environment and Governor Christie's desire to control spending, it would seem unlikely that the LFB would agree to exceed the 4% cap by such a large margin anyway. Therefore the Local Finance Board will do for Middletown what Gerry Scharfenberger and those in the majority have been unwilling to do, reduce spending, by ordering Middletown to do so, which in turned would lower the proposed 13.87% tax hike to some more manageable number.

Where will an additional $2M in spending cuts come from is anyone guess, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the township eyed the use of furloughs or additional layoffs (it was announced that 4 new police officers have recently been hired) along with reducing the budget surplus further from the proposed $4M target for the year in order to make it happen.
We’ll all just have to wait and see what the LFB dictates to Middletown.

Letter: Middletown budget raises taxes again

The following letter written by a Mr. Warren Houck, appeared in the printed version of the Asbury Park Press last week but for some strange and unknown reason it failed to make the online addition, which has forced me to painstakingly reproduce it here for all to read an comment on:

After the school budget was defeated in Middletown, the budget went to the Township Committee, which ordered more than $2 million in additional cuts.

Now the Township Committee has proposed its budget. Guess how much that budget went up? A little over $2 million. Basically the Township Committee gobbled up the cuts it forced upon the Middletown schools.

The Township is proposing a 13% increase in the tax rate. This increase is on top of a 6% increase last year and a 7% increase the year before. This comes to a three-year average of around 9% per year - all during a time of little or no inflation.

By the way, besides the township rate, the open-space tax has stealthily been increased by more 100%. How? When the entire town was reassessed and the average property value more than doubled, other tax rates were adjusted lower to reflect the reassessment, but the open-space tax stayed at the same rate.

The tax before the reassessment was 0.02 cents per 100 dollars of property value. The tax is still 0.02 cents, but this is after reassessment and after doubling of the typical property value, which causes the typical homeowner now to pay twice the amount towards open-space.

While an open-space tax may be desirable, no one voted to double it. Adjusting this tax back to the level before the town reassessment would save Middletown taxpayers more than $1 million per year.

It is interesting that Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger complains that the Middletown teachers would not agree to a pay freeze, yet the township is not even close to being able to freeze its own budget.

Understandably, the terrible recession we have been through is putting towns in this state into a bind, but the Middletown Township Committee's members do not seem capable of making the same tough decisions that they dictated to the Board of Education.

Also, with three straight years of huge tax hikes, the committee seems to be in denial about adopting a budget that reflects the current reality.

Warren Houck

Middletown

Byrnes: Budget Irony in Middletown

"...As elected officials, we need to be willing to make difficult, painful decisions to reduce spending..." - Committeeman Sean Brynes - Middletown Township Committee

Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes has just posted the follow column on his Mobilize Middletown blog that addresses the current fiscal mess that the Township finds itself in due to the lack of proper planning and the Republican majority's refusal to address seriously his ideas and concerns about how save the taxpayers of Middletown from a nearly 13% tax increase this year and in years to come:


The Middletown Township Committee recently voted to introduce a proposed budget for 2010 that raises the municipal portion of the tax levy by 13%. In other words, the operation of the Township requires the taxpayers to contribute 13% more than they did last year. During a period of belt-tightening and financial hardship for most taxpayers, an increase of this magnitude cannot be justified. You will hear excuses about loss of State funds, retirements and other factors that made this a difficult year -- and much of that is true -- but our Township Government has failed to take the decisive action demanded by these difficult times. We are in an economic downturn of historic magnitude, and we need to take action that meets the challenge of these times. Just take a look around at other municipal budgets and see if you can find a town increasing the municipal budget by 13%. These neighboring communities operate in the same budget environment we do, but have been far more proactive in preparing for and dealing with this financial crisis.

The irony in all this is that while the Mayor touts the Governor's actions to cut spending and serves on his transition team, he refuses to take comparable strong action here in Middletown. Instead, we vacillate and miss opportunities for savings. Rather than imposing layoffs and furloughs early in 2010 when we knew we were in financial difficulty, he waited until almost halfway through the year. When I recommended letting pre-qualified engineering firms bid for the road construction projects that we undertake each year, he voted no, choosing instead to award in January all of the Township's engineering work to one engineering firm, thereby removing any chance of securing savings through a competitive bid process. When I recommended negotiating a fixed monthly legal fee from our attorneys, he voted no, again missing an opportunity to negotiate savings. The Mayor refuses to consider merging the Sewerage Authority into the Township Government to eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars in overhead. We need to immediately merge all property maintenance functions in the Township into one Department. We need to move swiftly to outsource a significant portion of the leaf and brush pickup. The salaries and benefits necessary to support this operation represent a significant portion of our municipal budget. Moreover, we pay heavy maintenance costs for the equipment used by these employees in the leaf and brush pickup. We should also consider moving to a one day per week garbage pickup. While this may be unpopular with some residents, with a renewed emphasis on recycling of all types of paper, the volume of waste can be cut in half, and the savings to taxpayers would be tremendous.

But change cannot begin until there is an acknowledgment that we must radically change the way services are delivered in Middletown. The Governor has boldly altered the debate, and we need to seize this rare opportunity to restructure how local government is run. We must first identify the core services that residents need and expect and ensure these services are delivered as efficiently as possible. Everything else that falls outside the category of core services should be evaluated for reduction or elimination. For core services, we must analyze, with the assistance of professionals, which services can be outsourced. In my brief tenure on the Township Committee, I have observed that the burden of salaries and benefits in support of the delivery of services is crushing. In our decision-making, we frequently fail to measure the lifetime costs of employees. In addition to a person's salary, we provide generous benefits that are unavailable to all but a small portion of private sector employees. After retirement, we continue to provide these benefits with little or no contribution from employees. As health care costs have escalated, taxpayers have picked up the tab. Until now, little has been done to contain these costs.

As elected officials, we need to be willing to make difficult, painful decisions to reduce spending. We will always provide police, fire and ambulance services. We will always maintain roads, respond to emergencies and pick up the garbage. But we need to examine parks and recreation programs, the swim club, the arts center, drug counseling, Middletown Day, and other non-essential services to determine whether we can provide those services through partnerships, outsourcing or other less-expensive means. We need to consolidate the sprawling, inefficient buildings that house are employees and programs. These decisions will not be popular, but the alternative is steady tax increases that make living here less attractive. We need to be prepared to lose elections in the interest of putting Middletown on a course that ensures its financial well-bring for the foreseeable future.

Because Middletown Can Not Control It's Finances, The Town Needs Your Help!

It's been 3 weeks since Middletown introduce a budget that calls for a 12.87% increase to it's municipal tax rate which has put a bad taste in residents mouths, now with just 9 day to go before the budget is adopted the mayor has asked those same residents for suggestions on how to lessen the increase in order to make it more palatable.

Just like it did in early May when the township wanted residents input on the defeated school budget, Middletown has place a "suggestion box" on it's website for residents to voice their opinions on what actions the mayor and his fellow committee members should take in the last days leading up to the adoption of the budget on July 19th.

If you have seen the announcement, you will notice that it states an increase of $0.0485 cents to the tax rate, which will increase the municipal tax rate from $0.35 to $0.3985. This increase as stated above will represent an actual rate increase of 12.87% and any attempt at sugarcoating it is dishonest.

The Township Committee has seen these increases coming for a couple of years now and have been doing very little to head them off.

In 2008 the Township was short $500k in health benefit claims which was brought into the 2009 budget. In 2009 the Township was again short by another $800k in claims that was brought into this years' budget. We need better planning in this area.

Last year the budget exceeded the 4% cap set by the State, to be allowed to exceed the cap at the time, the State required Middletown to forego their pension payments to the State but they would have to pay this back with interest. Middletown has decided to pay it back this year, this is another area where we need better planning.

Committeeman Sean Byrnes has been making valid suggestions for 2 years now on how to plan better and save money for residents, unfortunately his suggestions have been dismissed by the Republican majority. In Patrick Short's time on the Committee, he also made suggestions on savings only to have them dismissed.

To request input from the public on the eve of voting for a 12.87% increase when we are 7 months into the fiscal year is another sign of poor planning, the Township "suggestion box" should have been put in place last year November or December for this years' budget.

In February, Sean Byrnes posted budget suggestions on his blog. You will see that Sean has been advocating for taxpayer savings for quite some time.

If you feel so inclined to leave suggestions on the Township's website check out what Byrnes and Short have been advocating for over 2 years now. If any one of their suggestions make sense to you make sure you include them in your responses.