| Author |
Message |
    
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 346
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 7:12 pm: | 
|
Whoever creates the agenda for the BOT meetings, can you PLEEEEEASE provide enough information to the citizenry so we know what the meeting is really about? For example, one item on the agenda reads:
"PRESENTATION PERTAINING TO BEIFUS SITE"
Who is giving the presentation and what is the subject?
Then there are the following:
"Resolution Appointing a Regular Member of the Board of Adjustment.
Resolution Appointing a Regular Member of the Board of Adjustment.
Resolution Appointing an Alternate Member of the Board of Adjustment.
Resolution Appointing a Member to the Energy Polices/Studies Committee.
Resolution Appointing a Commissioner on the South Orange Parking Authority.
Resolution Reappointing a Commissioner on the South Orange Parking Authority."
The least you could provide are the names, which I assume are known. My cynicism suggests this is an attempt to keep us in the dark until the last possible moment. Prove me wrong by opening up.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3245
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
Quote:"PRESENTATION PERTAINING TO BEIFUS SITE"
Hmmm....is he ever actually going to do ANYTHING on that site? Is he announcing additional delays? Will the Village enforce existing ordinances to make that site look less than a war zone? Will the sidewalk on South Orange Avenue ever be usable again?
Should be interesting! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
Why should he do anytrhing (and spend money), when he can just keep going in front of various boards and change his plans, make promises, and say "this time it will be diffferent."
I feel like our BOT is the wife of an abusive husband, but won't leave him because she loves him, or thinks she deserves the abuse.
(no offense intended to abused women) |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2497
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
|
Mr. Beifus and his "experts" will be there to explain why the project is delayed again and what he needs to do to get it done.
I offer no comment about it at this time since I stated in public that I did not think he was capable of doing the project (and why I voted against giving him a developer's agreement or a PILOT).
I suggest that anyone who is really interested come to the meeting and be prepared to ask him any questions.
Jayjay: I agree we should put the names on the agenda. As for the presentation from Beifus, I can't imagine any explanation that would prove to be sufficient. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 185
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
Going to the South Orange official site doesn't do much good. Here are a few excerpts on public boards:
"South Orange Village Boards & Committees
Not all boards are present, board membership is currently being updated"
"Planning Board
The current members include:
Name Position Exp. Date
Bill Calabrese Village President 5/31/2007
Stacey Jennings Trustee N/A
Mark Rosner Trustee N/A
Arthur Taylor Trustee 5/31/2005
Ellen Foye-Malgieri Village Official 12/31/2004
Raphael Amabile Member At Large 12/31/2004
Janine Bauer Member At Large 12/31/2004
B. Laurence Branch Member At Large 12/31/2004
Eileen Linarducci Member At Large 12/31/2004
Donald Schatz Member At Large 12/31/2004
Daniel Skrobe Member At Large 12/31/2005
Thomas W. Hut Alternate Member 12/31/2004"
A jumble of names, dates, etc. Point is many of the terms expired in 2004. Of course, this is just the Planning Board, nothing important goes on there.
There is no listing under Boards or under South Orange Parking Authority - that I can find - that lists the current commissioners and the expiration of their terms.
Seems like an absolute bear minimum standard of open government would include:
1. Public dissemination of the names of the nominees to boards (via village web site)well in advance of vote in order for the public to comment and share their views with trustees.
2. Recorded votes by trustees on each nominee (to be available in minutes on village web site). |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
I have never been on the Planning Board I wonder why my name is anywhere on that list.
Planning board appointments are made by the village president. The BOT has to vote on the resolution but not sure what would happen if we did not approve someone on such a vote.
Also, the parking authority commissioners used to be listed on their web page (listed under departments on the village website - www.southorange.org). Not sure why it is not there now but will ask.
It is rare that a trustee votes against an appointment in public. They are rarely controversial but usually a person is agreed upon in closed session after discussion. There would be no point in putting forth a resolution on someone who would be voted down.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3246
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Quote:It is rare that a trustee votes against an appointment in public
I hope an exception to this is made Monday night. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3247
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Mark,
Do you know what "Resolution Adopting a Policy for Use of the Municipal Open Space Recreation and Farmland and Historic Trust Fund." is all about?
I was the under the impression the State already determined very specific rules how Open Space funds could be used. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
If I had to guess, it may be about the Old Stone House. But I could be very wrong.
(using open space money to preserve this house to become possible police expansion space seems odd to me, but it seems like where we may be going) |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
It's the perfect place to lock up people they arrest- for witchcraft. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2499
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
I think Susan is correct, but not positive. I have not received my packet with the agenda/resolutions, etc where hopefully there will something about it. Will ask at the meeting,
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3248
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
I certainly hope the Village doesn't use the Municpal Open Space money to rebuild the Old Stone House! My understanding is that we are all paying an additional 1% of the assessed value of our homes every year to a program designed to acquire open space and develop outdoor recreation facilities.
If this tax is going to be used to fix a building that is falling apart due to "benign neglect", I say either tear down the building or repeal the Open Space Tax. |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 202
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Benign neglect ....that's true.
But how was that allowed. The Village has owned it all this time and
the Village Trustees have had control all this time.
The Villagers have allowed the Trustees to ignore the structure and the property around it, so -
who should pay for these mistakes?
I think the Village should look at the structure and the property around it as an extension of GROVE PARK.
Place the art/cultural part of Baird in the Old Stone House along with a small museum area for the History of the Village. Make the Baird Center a complete recreation facility, then you are actually allocating the money (in an indirect way) toward preservation of OPEN SPACE which is greatly needed. (Yes, you would need to reconstruct and cover the catch basin next to the Stone House, just like the one that is now under Grove Park).
This would push activity up South Orange Avenue toward Seton Hall. Include Seton Hall, they should contribute.
|
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 214
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Did the presentation about Beifus happen?
If so, would someone post a recap of the trustee meeting. I wasn't able to attend or watch on TV. |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 2631
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
It's on right now. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
red_alert,
Essentially, Mr. Beifus' lawyer spoke before the BOT to say that due to the high volume & "poor quality" (i.e. polluted) water coming onto the site, they need to revise their plans, ever so slightly - by eliminating the basement, building on a slab and reducing about 700 sq ft of retail space on the first floor.
They will now go back to the Planning Board (they hope March 6th). They claim steel will be up in 4 months and the project will be virtually completed in 18 months.
Personally - the time has come to "pave it", "stripe it", or "condemn it".
Enough excuses already! |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8462
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:11 am: |
|
Total joke. The only bigger joke is Calabrese and Rosen.
In too long.
Out of touch.
Time to go. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 3708
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
So how do we go about getting those believed to be messing things up out of office?
Dave said:
In too long.
Out of touch.
Time to go. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:13 am: |
|
Best comment of the evening - John P. from Longview Rd: "The lawyer for Mr. Beifus said earleir that he has already received many calls from people who want to know when they can sign up for a unit. If this is true, then I wonder why Mr. Beifus needs a PILOT." |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonhw
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:48 am: |
|
Thank you BOT for tabling the appointments until some unspecified discussion will occur. That discussion should be public and its scope cover formulating a policy and process for ALL the various Boards and Committee positions.
I would suggest as part of the process it include detailing the position function and the level of qualification that the BOT seeks. It should include how, what, when and where candidates/volunteers need to make application.
The process and positions should be posted as well on the SO web site. Each Board/Committee should be listed in a directory linking to detail that includes a description/purpose and current members.
Go to http://www.southorange.org/boards.asp - you will find the following posted
"Not all boards are present, board membership is currently being updated" which has been there for years which no different from what we see on our store fronts "coming soon." |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 168
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
The Village President appoints members of the Planning Board; and the BoT does not get to vote to approve such appointments. The only input the Board has into the Planning Board is the appointment of the BoT's representative to the Planning Board, currently Arthur Taylor.
The resolution last night re Open Space funds was memorializing policy that such funds would not be used for maintenance items, such as this year's desilting of the brook. And yes there is a possibility that Open Space funds could be used for projects such as The Old Stone House because of its historic significance (an allowed use). |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 188
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Tuned in to watch the Mary Theroux appointment discussion.
Thank you to those villagers with the courage to put your views and arguments out there. I find this even more courageous after watching the BOT in action.
Several members of the BOT and the VP appear incapable of listening to arguments with detachment (ie, taking their own political views out of the equation) or responding with cogent counter arguments.
Calabrese: In response to a question of whether Mary Theroux might have a conflict, responded by saying, in essence, she is highly qualified, therefore there is no conflict. Huh?
Taylor: Got very sanctimonious. To bolster his stature or something, made a point of saying he'd lived here 29 years. Apparently that gives him some kind of moral authority. Then, again without responding to any of concrete arguments made, launched into a lecture about how he calls them like he sees them and if you don't like it, run for office. I agree with him to a point - we're electing these folks to make decisions for us. However, this was a totally inadequate response to villagers questioning one of those decisions and asking for re-consideration and/or explanation/defense of the decision.
Without agreeing with them or associating myself with their comments, I credit Jennings and Moore-Abrams for at least engaging the topic and villagers. Moore Abrams gets extra credit for motion to delay vote and change process for soliciting and selecting members of the various boards.
Rosen: Seems confused by too much knowledge. In a narrow sense he is often correct, but he has no idea that there is a forest, let alone being able to see it.
Devaris: Fantastic. Growing admiration. Apparently only member to oppose the Theroux appointment at Jan. 9 closed door meeting. His methodical approach and commitment to open government is what South Orange really needs at this point in her history. Eric should consider running for VP.
Rosner: Strong. Has been a leader on opposing the Theroux appointment due to the conflict of interest.
|
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 566
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:24 am: |
|
Quote:The Village President appoints members of the Planning Board; and the BoT does not get to vote to approve such appointments. The only input the Board has into the Planning Board is the appointment of the BoT's representative to the Planning Board, currently Arthur Taylor.
Dr. Rosen,
I have never in my life seen rules of order from governing bodies that allow an executive to proceed forward with any important action that does not need approval from the legislative branch (thus the BOT). Can you please point out where in your charter (or anywhere else) it allows for the Village President to make appointments without consent of the BOT.
This notion goes back to "checks and balances" and I would think the BOT would be HIGHLY concerned about this.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3259
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:24 am: |
|
I echo Howard's statement that I am glad that the appointment was at least tabled until further discussions occur.
I do HOPE the BOT is sincere about the intent to seriously review ALL candidates and this was not just an excuse to end the meeting early. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
Can we start compiling a list of candidates:
Mary Theroux
Michael Goldberg
Elaine Harris
/p
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2503
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
SO1969: I was not at the Jan. 9th meeting, but had told the other trustees in writing (prior to my going out of town) and at a prior meeting I was going to vote against her appointment.
Pete: There are other candidates who submitted resumes, but the BOT has a long standing history of not making names public.
|
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 189
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
mrosner: Sorry for that omission. Of the members present at the Jan. 9th meeting, DeVaris was the only one to oppose the appointment.
Mark Rosner was not at that meeting and, as you can see on his blog, vigorously opposed this appointment when he learned about it. Mark also spoke up strongly at last night's meeting.
An interesting fact that I learned from the meeting was that the departing commissioner tendered or dated his resignation on Jan. 9th, same day as that meeting. One could read into the timing that other BOT members knew / sensed Mark would (or perhaps informally already had) opposed the appointment and deliberately discussed it in his absence. |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 208
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
mrosner: "There are other candidates who submitted resumes, but the BOT has a long standing history of not making names public."
So what stops you from making the other candidates'names public? Do you approve the "BOT's long standing history?"
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2506
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Mary032: I would not make a candidates name public during the discussion phase.
I do think we should put the person's name in the resolution before we vote and this way everyone will know the name of the final candidate being considered.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 353
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
I, too, as Sheena requested, would like to see where in the charter it says that the VP can make apoointments without BOT approval. If that is in fact the case, then we ought to investigate changing the charter. Otherwise we have othing more than a personal fiefdom, which appears to be the case. And there is certainly no reason to continue doings things behind closed doors which Calabrese and others on the BOT seemed to think was a perfectly good reason to continue the practice of how candidates are selected for appointment.
As for not making names public, this is incomprehensible to me. If somone is in consideration for a PUBLIC office, then there should be no objection in having their name put out there as a candidate in consideration for a position. If it cannot stand up to public scrutiny, then that individual is not a candidate for a public position. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
For those who missed the Jan 23 meeting, it is now available online at http://www.southorange.org/videoViewer.asp |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
ok -- how about it MOLrs -- if you know of other candidates -- let us all know!
Does that mean that other candidates won't know who else is in the running (other than the 3 above who were mentioned/appeared at the BOT meeting)?
Lastly -- anyone think its doubly ironic that "South Orange Village" news is discussed on "MAPLEWOOD online"?!?! (although occasionally I see the "southorangevillage.com" URL flash by!).
Pete |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 190
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
New topic but within thread title of BOT meeting.
I tuned in, watched a bit of the opening stuff, ran an errand, and came back for the appointments disussion.
I preface my comments with the above because I only caught a snippet of the following and I welcome someone correcting me if I'm not doing Calabrese justice by reporting just the portion I heard.
Early in the meeting some SOPD officer(s) were being promoted, to Lieutenant, I believe.
This was clearly a big deal for them. Their families were with them. And it clearly is important for all of us, as we rely on them for our safety and we should honor them, esp. on this type of occasion. Old & Gray could provide greater insight, but my sense was this was one of the big moments in the officer's career(s).
Calabrese gave what I assume were unprepared remarks.
In recognizing the officer(s), he said something general about them being good guys (a little GWBesque) and then said "they've (or he had) gotten me out of a few jambs."
I felt embarassed. Embarassed that on this important occasion, Calabrese hadn't given any prior thought to what he'd say to mark the occasion and even more embarassed that he thought it appropriate to cite the officers "getting him of a couple of jambs" as career highlights on this important occasion.
I was also curious, what were these jambs? But mostly I was just embarassed.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page