| Author | Message | ||
     joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 290 Registered: 1-2006 |
Calabrese, Taylor and Rosen, our town's members of the Board of School Estimate, told the Board of Education that the BOE's request to the two towns for budgetary cap override was too low, and authorized a 538 thousand dollar over - over cap. I don't have the total numbers, but received this info from unimpeachable sources. That is plural "sources." The procedural niceties are a little vague, but the further sellout is clear. Why don't we give the Board of Education the Tau thing, and let them sell it to raise money? How can our board disregard the clear message that our taxes are too high, and disregard the Board of Education's request, and vote more even monies out of our pockets? jd | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1651 Registered: 3-2003 |
The South Orange BOT is consistently telling the residents that the school budget accounts for 55% of the total taxes, and that they have no control over it. Yet the South Orange members of the Board of School Estimate every year approve the special questions. And then there was the famous statement three years ago by the SO members to the BOE that "we'll approve whatever you want to put in a special question." | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 231 Registered: 2-2006 |
Enough, enough, already. Whose for a recall? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 232 Registered: 2-2006 |
(correction: who's, not whose) | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1652 Registered: 3-2003 |
Calabrese acts on the BOSE the same way he does on Village matters - price is no object. Taylor and Rosen are the same. Let the voters vote directly on the school budget. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 3346 Registered: 5-2005  |
Hand me a pen please  | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1653 Registered: 3-2003 |
What does the CBAC education sub-committee have to say about this? | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1654 Registered: 3-2003 |
I've had it with Calabrese and co. They've gone crazy. Where in the hell is any kind of fiscal responsibility! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2714 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: When I found out that the S. Orange representatives voted yes, I asked to discuss at the next conference agenda. I am not sure why this year, the members of the BOSE did not ask the rest of the BOT for input or for public comment first. I am pretty sure the BOT is in favor of letting the public vote on the school budget, but it is not our decision (state law has to be changed since we share a school district). I remember there was a logical explanation, but I think it is time to revisit the issue and see if our assemblypersons can help (to allow the budget to be voted on by the public). Trustee Steglitz used to be the most vocal for being in favor of letting the public vote on the budget. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3241 Registered: 5-2001  |
If, and that is the question, if this is true, I am about ready to jump ship myself!  | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1655 Registered: 3-2003 |
And Steglitz was the one who told the BOE that the SO members of the BOSE would approve anything the BOT wanted to put on a special question! Really a display of fiscal repsonsibility. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3799 Registered: 5-2001  |
OK, gang...the last online petition was so successful in spreading awareness, that I have created a new petition - this time for a RECALL: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SORecall/petition.html Let's see what kind of online response this gets and then we can decide whether to take it to the next level by going door to door. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 237 Registered: 2-2006 |
MHD, you would get more signatories if you have three separate petitions, one for each member. Lumping them together looks like you are campaigning for someone. The recall should be done for its own merits and individual accountability should be individually assessed. I will not sign this petition because you are lumping the three together. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3247 Registered: 5-2001 |
M...aren't you going sign it to get the ball rolling??? | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3196 Registered: 9-2003 |
rising makes a good point Mayhew. Look into recall petitions, make sure you've worded it properly (the less verbage the better), and make it three separate petitions. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9108 Registered: 4-1997  |
The town is rife with corruption and mismanagement. Get those 3 out of office and a new day begins. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 792 Registered: 5-2004  |
And, if they do resign immiately, what is the next step? Who are the alternate candidates? Or do we just operate with a reduced BOT while another election is thrown together? (And, I'm not 100% against Taylor.) | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1658 Registered: 3-2003 |
So with all of the criticsm of S1701, SO residents will still see an increase of 7.38% in their school taxes, and Calabrese & co told the BOE they should have asked for more. Of course, SO had to at least approve the special questions, since the municpal tax increase is going to be 10%. How could the SO members of the BOSE say no to the BOE? | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 798 Registered: 5-2004 |
And there's always the hidden taxes within our water bills. Just spoke to the water company and learned that my per unit rate for our horribly corrosive water went up 3.79%! Lucky us, it was supposed to be effective July 2005, but apparently two quarters slipped by and we didn't see an increase until this quarter! This increase is per the contract that our Village "negotiated" with the Water Company. | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 558 Registered: 6-2005 |
I was wondering why my water bill this last time was double the prior period. Is there no issue which our BOT's haven't bungled? | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1659 Registered: 3-2003 |
Yes there is. It appears they are determined to make SO one of the highest taxpaying towns in N.J. and they've succeeded. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 528 Registered: 1-2004  |
see Why are my water bills going up and up? thread for more discussion on Water. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2715 Registered: 4-2002 |
PDG: I don't remember when the contract was negotiated but I know that it goes way back (prior to 1997). It is a long story to how the village got to where it is today with the water situation. A former trustee (one from the 80's) filled me in on the whole story years ago (it was not Matthews, Hartwyk, Rosen or Calabrese) but I don't remember all the details, other than we are probably stuck with EOW till the contract runs out. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2763 Registered: 5-2004  |
Which is when? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 529 Registered: 1-2004 |
Mark, why don't we just go back to the previous dual agreements for water supply? We had one with NJ American that had expired a few years ago that triggered the start of all the problems. Also, Mr. Matthews has stated on many occasions over the past few years that the Village was taking legal action with East Orange Water and could not discuss in Public. When will we hear about the negotiations? | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 817 Registered: 5-2004 |
So Mark, if the water was supplied by EOW in 1997, when I moved here, what the heck has happened to it in the past year or two? There has always been a water softener in this house. My glassware was just fine until I noticed the disgusting cloudiness many, many months ago! Do you know the term of the contract and what might be in it that would permit water quality requirements? (And, how much of each per unit charge represents the "hidden tax" that goes into S.Orange's pocket? Like I've said in a different thread, E. Orange pays $4.34 per unit for the same water I'm paying 4.51 per unit.) (I think I remember bills from a different company, maybe American something or other - I may be confused but I think I remember something else.) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2718 Registered: 4-2002 |
PDG: I don't remember the date of the exact switchover to pure EOW water, but we noticed the same difference. I know there were also some changes in the management of EOW when they had the complete changeover in government in East Orange. They put all new people in charge (political appointments?) and that seemed to be the start of all the problems (water quality and billing). I would have to find out again how much the "hidden tax" is at this time. | ||
| Rob E. Bank Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 379 Registered: 6-2005  |
Five hundred thirty-eight thousand six hundred minutes, how will you spend the next year? Let's get real, these political monkeys need to be dislodged from their trees...... | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 250 Registered: 2-2003 |
MHD, Regarding the recall petition: The mayor of Roosevelt was recalled in mid-February, 2006. Perhaps we should find out more about how they got this done. Using a successful blueprint might reduce the odds of having a recall effort blocked by a technicality. I tried to find information specific to South Orange's charter about recalls but have not yet found anything. I would imagine that an online petition, while satisfying emotionally, carries no legal weight. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3816 Registered: 5-2001 |
Very interesting, Stuart. If you do a search on "Committee to Recall Neil Marko", you can learn quite a bit. | ||
| Erin Cartman Citizen Username: Carnac Post Number: 45 Registered: 5-2005 |
I think the blueprint for recalling a mayor of a community of 950 over a religious dispute may not work to well here in South Orange. For starters, Marko had not been successfuly elected by the percentage margins that BC has been -- nor as frequently. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 251 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks, MHD. Reading a little of the Asbury Park Press coverage and rereading some old posts from the May 2005 election, it looks like a recall petition would need valid signatures equal to 25% of the number who voted in the last election. A bit over 2800 voters cast ballots in the last election, meaning that a little more than 700 signatures would be needed to institute a recall. If I have any facts wrong I welcome corrections. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3817 Registered: 5-2001 |
Stuart, I believe it is 25% of the registered voters, which comes out to around 2000 signatures. Erin - Actually, if you read the articles, the Marko recall ultimately came down to CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Hmmmm....sounds familiar. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 252 Registered: 2-2003 |
MHD, it appears you are right. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm This is going to be a nearly impossible hurdle, given that turnout was only around 25% in the last election. (post revised to reflect the information I found at the link above.) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3818 Registered: 5-2001 |
Stuart, Here is the reference I used: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 254 Registered: 2-2006 |
MHD, your link includes, "Summary of State Recall Provisions for Statewide and Legislative Officers" The VP and BOT members are neither "statewide" nor "legislative officers" Have you found something else that indicates these standards for state office would nevertheless apply in a municipality? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 255 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stuart, MHD, how can I check the registered voters versus number who voted in last election question? It should be double checked, it appears, and it is a significant difference. But even with 2000, if those who signed the sculpture petition each got fewer than 10 signatures, its doable. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3822 Registered: 5-2001 |
SoRising - here is another source - the Village Charter: http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/0799_A/Charter.pdf#xml=http://www.e-cod es.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&index=0799_A&filename=Charter.p df&fn=D:\siteinfo\ecodes\codebooks\0799_A\Charter.pdf 6.1 In General. The members of the Board of Trustees and the Village President shall be subject to removal from office for cause connected with their office after having served at least one year, upon the filing of a recall petition and the affirmative vote of a majority of those voting on the question of removal at any general, regular municipal or special election. 6.2 Petition Contents. A recall petition shall demand the removal of a e designated incumbent, shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to at least twenty-five per centum (25 percent) of the registered voters of the village, and shall be filed with the Village Clerk. It shall set forth a statement of the cause upon which the removal is sought. 6.3 P tition Signatures, Examination, Certification, Amendment. The e signatures to a recall petition need not all be appended to one paper but each signer shall add to his signature his place of residence giving the street and number or other sufficient designation if there shall be no street and number. One of the signers to each such paper shall take an oath before an officer competent to administer oaths that the statement therein made is true as he believes that each signature to the paper appended is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Within ten days from the date of filing the petition the Village Clerk shall examine and ascertain whether or not such petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified voters, and shall attach to the petition his certificate showing the result of his examination. If by that certificate the petition is shown to be insufficient it may be amended within ten days from the date of said certificate. The Village Clerk shall, within five days after such amendment, make a similar examination and determination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the same to be insufficient, it shall be returned to the person filing it without prejudice to the filing of a new petition to the same effect. 6.4 Service of notice. If the petition shall be sufficient the Village Clerk shall within two days notify the Trustee, Trustees or Village President whose recall is sought thereby. If such notice cannot be served personally, service may be made by registered mail addressed to the officer’s last known address. If within five days after the service of the notice by the Village Clerk the Trustee, Trustees or Village President sought to be recalled by such petition do not resign, or having tendered their resignation it shall not have been accepted by the Board of Trustees, the Village Clerk shall order and fix a date for holding a recall election not less than sixty nor more than ninety days from the filing of the petition. Notice of the filing of the petition and of the date of the election shall be posted for public view in the office of the Village Clerk and he shall also insert the notice forthwith in a newspaper published in the village, or if there be no such newspaper, then in a newspaper having general circulation in the village. 6.5 Ballot Specifications; Question; Directions. The ballots at the recall election shall conform to the requirements respecting the election of officers of the village, as provided in Title 19 of the Revised Statutes (Elections), except that the words “recall election” shall appear on the ballot. The recall features of the ballot shall appear at the top thereof and shall be separated from the portion of the ballot for the election of officers by a heavy black line. The proposal for recall shall be placed on the ballot in the following manner: “Shall……………. (here insert the name of incumbent) be removed from office by recall?” This matter shall occupy two lines in boldface type. Immediately below the above wording shall appear the phrase “for recall,” and immediately underneath such phrase the words “against recall.” Immediately at the left of each of these two phrases shall be printed a square, in which the voter may make a cross (X) or plus – 10 – (+) or a check (\/) mark. Immediately below the foregoing shall appear the following: “Indicate your vote by placing a cross (X) or plus (+) or a check (\/) mark in one of the squares above.” 6.6 Repetition of Question and Direction. If the removal of more than one officer is sought the same provisions for submitting to the electors the question and direction hereinbefore described shall be repeated in the case of each officer concerned and their position on the ballot for their recall shall be in order of the filing of the petition with the Village Clerk. 6.7 V ting for Successor to Recalled Officer. The same ballot used for o submitting the question or questions of recall shall be used for the election of a successor to the incumbent sought to be removed and immediately under the black line following the recall question shall appear the phrase “Nominees for successors of ……………. (here insert name of incumbent) in the event he or she is recalled.” The names of all person nominated as successors shall be placed upon the ballot in the same manner provided for other elections of officers of the village. 6.8 Provisions Applicable to Elections. The provisions of Title 19 of the Revised Statutes (Elections), concerning the nomination of village officers, preparation of the ballot, election of village officers, counting and canvassing of the results of the election of such officers, shall apply to the election for the recall of officers and the election of their successors. 6.9 Publishing Election Notices. The Village Clerk shall cause to be made due publication of notices of arrangements for holding all recall elections and they shall be conducted as are other elections for officers of the village. 6.10 Recall Election Results. (a) If a majority of votes in connection with the recall of any officers be in favor of the recall, the term of office of such officer shall terminate upon the certification of the results of election by the Village Clerk. (b) If the results of such recall election shall, by the certificate of the Village Clerk, be shown to be against the recall of the officer he or she shall continue in office as if no recall election had been held, and the vote for the election for the successor of such officers taken at the time of such attempted recall shall be void. 6.11 Election Successor, T rm. If the office of the incumbent shall become e vacant either by his resignation or by the result of the recall election, the successor shall be the nominee receiving the greatest number of votes at the recall election. The person so elected shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 256 Registered: 2-2006 |
Okay. That's pretty definitive. For any who signed the sculpture petition, how many of you think you could get at least 8-10 signatures for a recall petition? Can anyone guestimate how many SO commuters board the trains in the morning? | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 655 Registered: 4-2005  |
Okay - I know my statements will be controversial but I accept that. I do not support the recall petition. I think at this point in the game, there are not enough people in South Orange who will put their name on the petition and be accountable to it. Especially since those names must be turned in to the BOT. Voting is very private and even if you're friends with the VP or whomever, you can not vote for him and any personal relationships remain intact. When someone puts their name to a recall petition, they obviously have something to gain if there is enough support but there is also something to lose such that it will instill a fear of reprisal. We have spoken about fiscal responsibility on this board many times- at this point in time, even if 25% will sign a petition, it is extremely costly to do a recall, etc. Unless people are 110% sure that enough signatures can constitute a recall and those people WILL come out and vote, then this is a lost cause. In addition, the electronic petition will not reach the masses. It would need to be a door-to-door grassroots effort... Also, on the petition, there would need to be premises as to why this is necessary. A lot of residents in South Orange are not aware of the problems and simply go about their way. It's not fair to just say we need to recall someone without giving an explaination. Despite the several issues that I have with the inner workings of the BOT, I cannot in good conscience support a recall petition. Hope you can understand why  |
