BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 28, 2010 6:02:48 GMT -5
FreeholdinNewjersey reports that similar discussions to what Councilman Newman has proposed are on the table in the township. freehold.injersey.com/2010/01/27/twp-resident-wants-more-citizen-involvement/..........Mistretta presented Committee members with a draft resolution that would establish a Freehold Township Citizen Service Day, as well as the summit. She also gave members a copy of the Citizen Service Act, which calls for a directory of local authorities, boards and commission, and makes it easy for residents to apply for appointments when positions become vacant. (Freehold Councilman John Newman tried to introduce a version of this bill at last week's Borough Council meeting.)
Deputy Mayor Anthony Ammiano, sitting in for the absent Mayor Dorothy Avallone, seemed open to Mistretta's suggestions last night. The matter will be listed for the Committee's next workshop meeting, he told her. This is amazingly similar to what Newman proposed and the rest of the council refused to second or even vote on for discussion. I do not know what the situation is in the township- are they having a tough time filling in slots like we are? I makes sense to streamline and open up the process for municipal committees. Every person in the town should be made aware of what is available and be given the chance to serve the town they love. (except me, I was dutifully informed that I will never receive an appointment again, hence my departure from my last committee) New mans proposal was a simple one and a step toward more open government. He campaigned on that issue so it is no surprise. There is no good reason why these measures should not be enacted in Freehold Borough. Lets hope the rest of the governing body is on board with these common sense measures and decide to vote on them in the future. And if they don't, they better have a darn good explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 8:23:42 GMT -5
(except me, I was dutifully informed that I will never receive an appointment again, hence my departure from my last committee) Brian, Thats a powerful statement! I feel you owe it to your readers to say eactly who told you that. If that was said to you that isnt right! I know your going to say you would rather not get into that but thats a statement that needs to be backed up? I feel you should say who it was to make your statement more valid!
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Jan 28, 2010 8:27:55 GMT -5
Ms. Mistretta and CouncilNewman both touch on something very important: finding a clear way to motivate and inspire residents to get involved in something they can enjoy. That's a great thing.
CouncilNewman's proposal demonstrated that logical and organized thinking that I really like about him.
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Jan 28, 2010 9:41:52 GMT -5
Also, Brian, you were there at the meeting. The reason why Newman's proposed ordinance wasn't seconded was explained by Sharon. She said that before ANY ordinance is introduced the gov body discusses it at a workshop session. This gives everyone the opportunity to give any other suggestion. Then the ordinance is scheduled for a regular meeting for introduction to adopt. That's just how they are supposed to roll.
I honestly couldn't see why this won't pass.
|
|
|
Post by johnfnewman on Jan 28, 2010 11:15:01 GMT -5
Lisa,
The ordinance was properly placed before the council for its approval. A second to the motion would have just opened it up for discussion; and the person who seconded the motion would not even have to vote approvingly of the ordinance at the end of the day.
It was also said that the council did not have sufficient information to offer a second. What was not explained was that they did physically have the ordinance at the same time as the rest of their agenda packet was delivered to them; and if they needed more explanation, a second could have brought out further discussion.
The ordinance will again be placed before the council at the next meeting.
I will post the ordinance below:
|
|
|
Post by johnfnewman on Jan 28, 2010 11:15:43 GMT -5
BOROUGH OF FREEHOLD COUNTY OF MONMOUTH ORDINANCE NUMBER 10-
ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CITIZEN SERVICE ACT
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2009, the Citizen Service Act (“the Act”) was signed into law (P.L. 2009, c.11), which empowers municipalities to establish strict absentee policies for members of authorities, boards and commissions established by the municipality in order to better enable these entities to function; and
WHEREAS, the Act requires municipal clerks to compile and maintain a roster of its local authorities, boards and commissions in order to provide more easily accessible information for residents interesting in serving their municipality; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides for a model one-page “Citizen Leadership Form” to be provided by the Borough Clerk to any person interested in serving on a municipal authority, board or commission, which statutorily protects their home address, phone number and e-mail address from public disclosure under OPRA; and
WHEREAS, the Act allows municipalities to determine, by ordinance, when a position becomes vacant due to unexcused absences, within statutory limits; and
WHEREAS, an appointment to a Borough authority, board or commission could only be deemed vacant after a required period of unexcused absences, which a majority of the applicable body may excuse for good cause; and
WHEREAS, the Borough Council of the Borough of Freehold believes it is in the best interests of the taxpayers of the Borough to foster open government and provide citizens with information and opportunities to serve on the various appointed municipal positions that exist within the Borough of Freehold.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Borough Council of the Borough of Freehold in the County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey, that the General Ordinances of the Borough of Freehold be amended or supplemented accordingly to include the following:
Section 1-1.1: Intent and Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to foster the openness of government and provide citizens with information concerning the various Appointed Municipal Positions which exist within the Borough of Freehold. The Ordinance further provides for a procedure whereby a citizen can indicate his or her desire to serve in a particular appointed position. The Ordinance also provides for a notification process so that those citizens who have indicated a desire to hold a position will be notified when that position is under consideration for appointment and will ultimately be notified as to the action that was taken. Finally, the Ordinance provides a means for determining vacancies for unexcused absences.
Section 1-1.2: Definitions The following terms as used in this Ordinance shall have the meaning set forth below unless the context within which the term is used clearly provides for a different meaning:
a. Appointing Authority - The official or body which by virtue of statutory law or by Ordinance or Resolution is given the authority to appoint a person to hold a particular Appointed Municipal Position.
b. Appointed Municipal Position - Any appointed position within the borough government, which is created either by statutory law or by Ordinance or Resolution. Examples of such positions are Borough Historian, member of any board, commission, agency, council or committee of the municipality.
Section 1-1.3: Registry of Appointed Municipal Positions The Borough Clerk shall cause a Register of Appointed Municipal Positions to be prepared and maintained. Such register shall be made available on the Borough’s website and at the Borough Hall and shall set forth at least the following:
a. Title of each Appointed Municipal Position; b. Brief description of the positions’ powers and duties; c. Any special credentials or qualifications required to hold the position; d. The length of term for the position; e. The name of the person currently holding the position, the expiration date of his or her term, and the number of vacant seats on the board or commission; f. The dates/times and frequency of any meetings which the holder of the position must attend; and g. The Appointing Authority for each board or commission, and who confirms each appointment.
Section 1-1.4: Vacancies The Borough Clerk shall maintain a current updated listing of all existing vacancies for each Appointed Municipal Position within the municipality. Such list shall be made available free of charge at the Municipal Clerk’s Office and shall, in addition, be posted by the Municipal Clerk on a bulletin board maintained for public announcements in the Municipal Building and on the Borough’s website.
Section 1-1.5: Filling Vacancies Unless essential for the proper functioning and/or carrying on of business of the local agency upon which the vacancy has occurred, a vacancy shall not be filled for a period of thirty (30) days from its posting in order to allow interested persons time to submit applications as provided in Section 1-1.6 below.
Section 1-1.6: Application for Citizen Service The Borough Clerk shall maintain an application form to be completed by any person interested in serving in an Appointed Municipal Position. Such application shall, at a minimum, contain the following information: a. Name; b. Address; c. Telephone number; d. E-Mail address; e. Appointed Municipal Position(s) sought; f. Qualifications/experience for position(s); g. List of boards and commissions for applicant to indicate desired boards and commissions to serve on; and h. Signature
Section 1-1.7: Applications Public Record An Application for Citizen Service filed for Appointment to an Appointed Municipal Position shall be deemed a public record. A person applying shall have their street address, telephone number and email kept confidential.
Section 1-1.8: Filing Applications Any person interested in serving in an Appointed Municipal Position may file an application for such position with the Borough Clerk. Such application(s) may be filed at any time, whether or not the Appointed Municipal Position sought is vacant. A person may withdraw his or her application at any time.
Section 1-1.9: Maintaining Applications The Borough Clerk shall maintain all filed applications in a file or binder, segregated for each board or commission.
Section 1-1.10: Filling Voluntary Municipal Positions Prior to filling any Appointed Municipal Position, the appropriate Appointing Authority shall review each application filed for that position. Each person having submitted an application for an Appointed Municipal Position under consideration to be filled shall be notified of said vacancy. The Appointing Authority shall conduct such review, investigation and/or interviews as the Appointing Authority deems necessary or advisable, in its discretion. After a decision is reached to fill a vacant Appointed Municipal Position, all those who had submitted an application for that position shall be notified of the appointing decision.
Section 2. Vacancy By Unexcused Absences. A vacancy shall be determined to exist on a Borough Board, Committee, Commission, Authority or other applicable municipal agency, whenever a member without being excused by a majority of the authorized members of such body, fails to attend and participate at meetings of such body for a period of three consecutive regular meetings or six consecutive weeks, whichever is longer.
The applicable body upon which a vacancy has been determined to have occurred shall notify the Appointing Authority in writing of such determination; provided, however, that such vacancy is not due to a legitimate illness.
Whenever a vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred pursuant to the reasons set forth under N.J.S. 40A:9-12.1 or pursuant to the terms of this ordinance, the Appointing Authority shall forewith fill the office for the unexpired term in the manner prescribed by law, ordinance or resolution.
Section 3. Repealer All Ordinances and parts of Ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Severability and Effectiveness Clause: If any sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, or if by legislative action any sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall lose its force and effect, such judgment or action shall not affect, impair or void the remainder of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective immediately.
___________________________ Mayor ____________________________ Borough Clerk Introduced: Adopted: Veto or Approval: Final Publication:
|
|
|
Post by johnfnewman on Jan 28, 2010 11:16:22 GMT -5
If anyone has any comments, you may forwarded them to my borough e-mail address:
jnewman@freeholdboro.org
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Jan 28, 2010 11:28:23 GMT -5
Hi, John! Thank you for taking your time to enlighten me.
Hope you and your family are well.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 11:37:56 GMT -5
Lisa, The ordinance was properly placed before the council for its approval. A second to the motion would have just opened it up for discussion; and the person who seconded the motion would not even have to vote approvingly of the ordinance at the end of the day. It was also said that the council did not have sufficient information to offer a second. What was not explained was that they did physically have the ordinance at the same time as the rest of their agenda packet was delivered to them; and if they needed more explanation, a second could have brought out further discussion. The ordinance will again be placed before the council at the next meeting. I will post the ordinance below: John, I ask this just because I'm a bit confused...Does this mean that at the last council meeting they had enough information and should have voted on it then? Does that mean to say we didnt have enough information is an excuse? I honestly am asking because this whole thing is very confusing to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 11:47:12 GMT -5
(except me, I was dutifully informed that I will never receive an appointment again, hence my departure from my last committee) Brian, Thats a powerful statement! I feel you owe it to your readers to say eactly who told you that. If that was said to you that isnt right! I know your going to say you would rather not get into that but thats a statement that needs to be backed up? I feel you should say who it was to make your statement more valid! Brian, I know you havent been on but please address this! I feel like this statement can be seen as a shot at the entire council and thats not fair. If one of these people said that to you they need to be called out. You very often claim to be friends with all our council and have breakfast with them(lol) please do them a favor and explain who this is please. This statement is unfair because conclusions can be made with out fact and from what your "guideleines" state you need to present facts behind post like this!!!
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 28, 2010 12:22:03 GMT -5
Brian, Thats a powerful statement! I feel you owe it to your readers to say eactly who told you that. If that was said to you that isnt right! I know your going to say you would rather not get into that but thats a statement that needs to be backed up? I feel you should say who it was to make your statement more valid! Brian, I know you havent been on but please address this! I feel like this statement can be seen as a shot at the entire council and thats not fair. If one of these people said that to you they need to be called out. You very often claim to be friends with all our council and have breakfast with them(lol) please do them a favor and explain who this is please. This statement is unfair because conclusions can be made with out fact and from what your "guideleines" state you need to present facts behind post like this!!! Mike -- that is a fair question.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 12:37:02 GMT -5
Thank you rich!
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 28, 2010 16:48:28 GMT -5
Brian, Thats a powerful statement! I feel you owe it to your readers to say eactly who told you that. If that was said to you that isnt right! I know your going to say you would rather not get into that but thats a statement that needs to be backed up? I feel you should say who it was to make your statement more valid! Brian, I know you havent been on but please address this! I feel like this statement can be seen as a shot at the entire council and thats not fair. If one of these people said that to you they need to be called out. You very often claim to be friends with all our council and have breakfast with them(lol) please do them a favor and explain who this is please. This statement is unfair because conclusions can be made with out fact and from what your "guideleines" state you need to present facts behind post like this!!! Mike, The person who informed me that I was not to be reappointed was Marc Le Vine. I did not mention his name because that is irrelevant to me and I have no desire to come across as if I am taking shots at him. Your question is right because it came from him and only him. I don;t mean to appear to be taking shots, just stating something as a matter of fact. Since you brought up the breakfast with Councilman Schnurr, that does give me a nice lead in to soemthing positive. One thing I have to give Geo credit for is that after the election he did reach out to me and we made some peace. We have actually had several conversations since then, all of which have been pleasant and decent. I always say that it is important for people to be civil and work together. Division is never any good. George does deserve credit for taking the high road.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 28, 2010 16:52:14 GMT -5
John,
It is both a surprise and good to see your posts here. I know most elected leaders are understandably shy about posting, though all are welcome. I know people will appreciate seeing the ordinance and some of your thoughts. This brings me to tomorrows topic...
Tomorrow I am going to start a thread under the suggestion/complain box I started in the site guidelines section. Readers get your thinking caps on.
The topic will be how to make participation from elected leaders easier for them.
Save that conversation fro when I start the thread!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 17:25:08 GMT -5
Brian, I know you havent been on but please address this! I feel like this statement can be seen as a shot at the entire council and thats not fair. If one of these people said that to you they need to be called out. You very often claim to be friends with all our council and have breakfast with them(lol) please do them a favor and explain who this is please. This statement is unfair because conclusions can be made with out fact and from what your "guideleines" state you need to present facts behind post like this!!! Mike, The person who informed me that I was not to be reappointed was Marc Le Vine. I did not mention his name because that is irrelevant to me and I have no desire to come across as if I am taking shots at him. now Brian in all fairness, I once posted something and Rich asked me for email or some kind of proof to make sure my claim was valid, do you have that? marc as you state told you you would not be reappointed, how about the "and will never be again" part? Brian like i have been told in the past you have guidelines on here to seperate this site from others, do you have that statement in writting or anything? If so please post otherwise doesnt that violate your guidelines?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 17:48:06 GMT -5
Brian, I know you havent been on but please address this! I feel like this statement can be seen as a shot at the entire council and thats not fair. If one of these people said that to you they need to be called out. You very often claim to be friends with all our council and have breakfast with them(lol) please do them a favor and explain who this is please. This statement is unfair because conclusions can be made with out fact and from what your "guideleines" state you need to present facts behind post like this!!! Mike,
The person who informed me that I was not to be reappointed was Marc Le Vine. I did not mention his name because that is irrelevant to me and I have no desire to come across as if I am taking shots at him. Brian, please review... This heated campaign has once again brought emotions roiling out. I get that. However, here is what we are not going to do on this site during campaign season or any other time. We are not going to call people spineless, internet trolls, or other names of the sort. It is against the guidelines of posting -- plain and simple. A bigger issue is the latest rash of posts alleging misdeeds by other posters. If you want to make an allegation of wrong-doing, you better back it up with facts, examples, who, what, when, and where. I prefer sources. We don't permit that here. And, I will ban these posts.If you have information, sources, or first hand facts to support allegations, that is different. They will be treated as made. For example -- and this is only an example. If you want to say, Ted Miller beats his wife. You better furnish names, witnesses, and police report. If you want to say that anyone has spread false rumors, lies, misinformation or personal attacks about another -- you need to furnish the facts -- not the allegation. I am not going to play referee on who is right, who is lying, or who is just causing trouble. I am going to rid these posts unless they come with facts. Facts are not -- "another resident" or "I heard" or "someone told me." Facts are, see this site. See this e-mail. If you want to right that a poster told you first hand something -- you better give the whole story, the when, the where, the why, and the full context. Even then, I may elect to remove the post if it is without any foundation. I have no problem with people stating facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. For example, if you say a politician took 100K in contributions from a certain person, and then wanted to conclude that said politician was in the pocket of the donor -- that is a reasonable argument -- based on FACTS. There are innumerable sites that will permit anonymous, irresponsible postings using fake names, multiple identities, and encouraging malicious activity. This is not one of those sites.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 28, 2010 17:49:04 GMT -5
I apologize the above is from the guidelines section as per Rich Kelsey
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 28, 2010 20:13:28 GMT -5
Mike,
I more than welcome your questions. But, I will not respond any further on this thread because we are going off the actual topic of open government.
There is a sub board under the site guidelines called complaints and suggestions. That is where these issues surround site conduct are better discussed. Its better than muddling up threads with these discussions.
Getting back on topic, John's ordinance is a good one. It seams like most people I have spoken with are on board and see the merits behind it. For me I am interested in seeing how the interaction will be on the council now that we have a bi-partisan board. Things like this will be a test to see how well people work together, something I believe in.
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Jan 28, 2010 21:22:44 GMT -5
Brian, you wrote "For me I am interested in seeing how the interaction will be on the council now that we have a bi-partisan board. Things like this will be a test to see how well people work together, something I believe in."
Does it really matter anymore? How can they not work together well? They all want the same thing. The current GB is still a very nice group of good people. There are other towns that have egotistical, jerk-ass, rusty waterpipes running things. Thank the good Lord, FB does NOT!
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 29, 2010 6:05:57 GMT -5
Brian, you wrote "For me I am interested in seeing how the interaction will be on the council now that we have a bi-partisan board. Things like this will be a test to see how well people work together, something I believe in." Does it really matter anymore? How can they not work together well? They all want the same thing. The current GB is still a very nice group of good people. There are other towns that have egotistical, jerk-ass, rusty waterpipes running things. Thank the good Lord, FB does NOT! I agree with you, Lisa, that FB has a very good group of people up there. I still think that it will be interesting to watch. John's first ordinance was a good example of that. I have never sat in a council meeting and not saw a second to vote on the introduction of an ordinance which would have opened it for discussion. (maybe it has happened, but I haven't seen it) This two party dynamic does show a change. For the most part we see that things are introduced more as a formality than anything. In the past, even when Dem council members have voted against the rest, there had been clear discussions prior to the vote in public. When it was an all Dem council, they had a nice system and things went a certain way. John took a different approach and put hid idea out publicly before council discussion. This is not to say who is right or wrong, just pointing out a difference from what we have seen in the past. On a positive note and getting back on track with the ordinance, FiNJ has a nice quote from Council President Jaye Sims that is encouraging. We're going to discuss it at the next workshop," said Council President Jaye Sims. "It wasn't partisan politics at all, this is just the normal procedure for how we do things." The Council will address any questions about the ordinance before voting whether to officially introduce it, Sims said. "I read it over, and I like a lot of the literature in it. I'm all about getting people involved and active in the town," he explained. freehold.injersey.com/2010/01/28/newman-pushes-for-citizen-service-act/
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 29, 2010 9:40:41 GMT -5
I apologize the above is from the guidelines section as per Rich Kelsey The first hand representation and the naming of the source more than satisfies our requirements.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 15, 2010 17:00:48 GMT -5
Since the proposed borough ordinance is found in this thread, I thought the following letter would fit in here nicely. It shows the borough going in the right direction. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-03-10/Letters/Writer_questions_explanation_from_officials.htmlWriter questions explanation from officials It was interesting to note that Freehold Borough is considering adopting an ordinance that will offer a new way to bring volunteers to municipal service (News Transcript, Feb. 24) while Freehold Township turned down a similar proposal (News Transcript, Feb. 17). The reason given by Freehold Township — that there are already plenty of residents volunteering — is simply a ruse to protect a system that keeps these opportunities saved for the cronies of the township’s political establishment rather than making their availability open to any and all the township’s citizenry. It is a good example of Freehold Township’s “public servants” simply protecting their status quo. Joel Drobes Freehold Township
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Mar 15, 2010 21:40:54 GMT -5
After going through this post, I noticed that the intitial submittal by Mr. Newman was back in January, presumably at either the Re-org meeting or the meeting scheduled on the 19th.
Since then, there have been 4 meetings (remember folks, I am on the other side of the globe, so I am basing this on what I see on the Boro's website), 2 in February and 2 in March (actually, with the time difference, the latest meeting in March was scheduled for the 15th, which means, back in Freehold, it may have just ended...this is all rather confusing).
Anyway...in the subsequent meetings...has the proposed ordinance been re-introduced? What action, if any has been taken on this ordinance? Everyone seemed eager to talk about it back in January...but I have not seen any more recent news on this proposal.
So....what's the latest?
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 16, 2010 15:57:00 GMT -5
After going through this post, I noticed that the intitial submittal by Mr. Newman was back in January, presumably at either the Re-org meeting or the meeting scheduled on the 19th. Since then, there have been 4 meetings (remember folks, I am on the other side of the globe, so I am basing this on what I see on the Boro's website), 2 in February and 2 in March (actually, with the time difference, the latest meeting in March was scheduled for the 15th, which means, back in Freehold, it may have just ended...this is all rather confusing). Anyway...in the subsequent meetings...has the proposed ordinance been re-introduced? What action, if any has been taken on this ordinance? Everyone seemed eager to talk about it back in January...but I have not seen any more recent news on this proposal. So....what's the latest? It was re-introduced in the first meeting in March. I believe the second reading was last night, but I will have to reach out to John for the details.
|
|