| Author |
Message |
    
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:33 pm: | 
|
At tonight's BOT meeting, the BOT voted to put a question on next year's ballot as a referendum after one person who will probably run for office with one or more of incumbent trustees asked them to. It will ask the public whether it wants its taxes to the Open Space Trust Fund doubled, ostensibly for historic preservation, but the money won't necessarily go for that purpose.
Yet another person (Mr. Michael Goldberg) appeared before the board during the same meeting with over 1000 signatures from other SO residents, he was cut short, spoken to rudely by Mr. Taylor who was moderating, while the entire Board refused to put his question on the ballot as a referendum. Why?
The video of tonight's meeting reveals crass political self-promotion. When a third person, John Purkett, asked the BOT, "do some people count more than others?" in the face of this outrageous inequity, there was dead silence from the Board. The answer is obvious.
Get rid of these people, South Orange. Vote the incumbents out next spring and elect trustees you need and deserve. The present ones are beneath you. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 23528
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:40 pm: |
|
I can't believe they are such supporters of Open Space now, after destroying acres of beautiful Open Space that was the quarry. Mind-boggling!
This meeting was truly a circus. Trustees should not demand respect from the public they serve. Respect is earned. I think Trustee Jennings needs to remember that these meetings are public and her comments will be in the public domain. Since we are limited to 3 minutes of time to address the BOT on any issue we deem pertinent, I was not allowed to question her definition of "respect". But, July 24 is only 2 weeks away.
Please PL me if you have not yet signed the petition that more than 1,000 of your neighbors have already signed. These people (I cannot bring myself to call them "trustees" again!) need a wake-up call. And please please please please come to the meetings. Seriously, they're surreal. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5611
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:23 am: |
|
I only saw part of the meeting. I can't believe it! Who was the person who spoke about the open space? Please don't tell me it was Janie Bauer... (sp) |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:02 am: |
|
It was Janine Bauer, JTA. It will be so deceptive to the public to put a referendum asking it to increase property taxes for historic preservation onto the ballot next spring when all the new money gained will go into a slush fund used for many purposes without any guarantee that it will be used for historic preservation. There is no working oversight committee for this fund which means the BOT will use it to create more havoc in town. But this is very much in keeping with long-standing habits of the BOT which approves of and permits the town administrator and legal counsel diverting money from one purpose to another(such as HUD money from SOPAC and bond money from sidewalk and street repairs to Tau).
Bets, they will jump onto any band wagon they can to keep their positions. I hope registered voters next spring ensure they don't.
Last night's BOT meeting was one of the most important I've seen. Everyone should take time to watch the remonstrances at least. |
Mike Matterly
Citizen
Username: Ittakesavillage
Post Number: 65
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
It is clearly time to bring in some responsible blood to the BOT.
I mentioned this prior to the last election and it is time to bring it up once again. A true leader (in business) understands what he (or she) does not know and then surrounds him (or her)self with experts.
We clearly have a problem in SO. My father was a fantastic Dr. I trusted him with medical questions, however I would never let him touch my finances (opinions "yes" - but decisions "no"). I hope my point is clear.
We (citizens of SO) need to come together in the proper fashion to support 1, 2 or even 3 candidates for the BOT so that we ensure that we are not stuck with the same old situation the week following the election. The town collectively shot itself in the foot the last go around, as we hand too many candidates (not far off from the issues) working hard to garner the same votes.
Let me get off my soapbox as I am beginning to get a little dizzy from this nonsense!
MM |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3554
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
When is the next BOT meeting? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4392
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
notehead: July 24 at 8pm. |
Matt Foley
Citizen
Username: Mattfoley
Post Number: 723
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
I look forward to the broadcasts. The BOT meeting is better than a train wreck! |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 987
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
I called John Gross' office to find out under what authoridy Art Taylor felt empowered to tell Michael Goldberg that he "would not permit (him) to question this Board!" This is not the first time I have witnessed Mr. Taylor address a tax-payer in such an arrogant manner, as if scolding a disobedient child!
Of course, Mr. Gross was not in his office at 4:25 pm, but his rather intelligent seeming and very helpful assistant, Laura Harris, was and she was willing to give me much more than 3 minutes to vent my outrage and frustration.
Bottom line, I was told that I'd need a copy of Roberts Rules of Order. Does anyone know where I can read this governing document? Is it available on-line anywhere?
(I apologize for my ignorance - until fairly recently I had been one of the blindly trusting public who didn't bother to question or micro-manage my elected officials. I now realize my error and want to be as informed as possible!) |
Erin Cartman
Citizen
Username: Carnac
Post Number: 94
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:48 pm: |
|
http://www.rulesonline.com/ |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 988
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Thanks!
(It's pretty scary, but I'll work my way through.) |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4406
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:03 pm: |
|
PDG,
While Roberts Rules of Order SHOULD control the meetings, certain members of the BOT (such as Taylor & Calabrese) choose to pick and choose which rules apply to which people. If you watch the remonstrances of OTHER people, interactive questioning WAS permitted. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 728
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Maplewood just put an "Open Spaces" referendum on it's ballot. It was really just a tax hike to bolster the Recreation Department budget disguised as Open Spaces. People read "Open Spaces" and they think, "Oh how great. OF course Open Spaces should be preserved." And Voila! Referendum passed.
In Mwd, the $$ this year is going to the turf field at DeHArt Center. Which is all well and good, except that the people voted this as a permanent tax hike. Thanks go to Kathy Leventhal. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
So I'm curious, crabby, what was the amount of Maplewood's tax?
Psychologically, a one penny tax tied to property values seems like a very tiny amount toward what you are right to say is always perceived as a very good cause. I think South Orange's referendum for doubling our Open Spaces tax should openly clarify the issue for voters by stating
1) what the Average Residential Home is valued at, and
2) what that home's proposed specific dollar amount of Open Spaces tax would be under the proposed tax increase.
And in my opinion, the Open Spaces Tax should not even be put on a referendum until AFTER the Revaluation is completed, since home values will change dramatically in most cases. To not wait seems sneaky at best. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 491
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Pdg, if you have not yet viewed the last BOT meeting from this past Monday evening (July 10), you may wish to do so. Shortly after Mr. Taylor despotically suppressed Mr. Goldberg who was there representing over 1000 South Orange residents, Sheena Column spoke during remonstrances. She challenged Mr. Taylor because he was not following Roberts Rules of Order. That did not change his behavior.
If a village employee, Laura Harris, is on record as telling you that the BOT should follow Roberts Rules of Orders at its public meetings and treat the public accordingly, I suggest you speak with Ms. Column who, along with you and others, might be willing to ask the BOT why it did not follow them when Mr. Goldberg tried to speak. You might also ask them to censure Mr. Taylor for his outrageous, autocratic behavior and require him to apologize to Mr. Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg should try to speak again and say what he was censored from saying by the bullying, out of order, Mr. Taylor. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Crabby, Pdg, the trouble with Open Space Trust Funds in SO are at least twofold:
1)it is a huge slush fund without oversight that could further empower a corrupt and inept leadership;
2)it is very deceptive and misleads the public about what money is really used for.
People who want to direct public funds to purchase open space or historic preservation or other purposes, are gulled into thinking that if they vote to increase taxes for one, those taxes will be used for that purpose. There is no guarantee that they will be.
There are one or two other threads that discuss the OSTF you may wish to read. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Thanks SORising - I actually did watch most of the video. I decided to call Village Hall, just before they closed for the day yesterday, right after witnessing Trustee Taylor's harsh treatment of Mr. Goldberg.
I wanted to know if he actually had the authority to forbid a taxpayer to question the Board. After getting a very polite answer from Laura Harris, I watched much more of the meeting, but still have not gotten to the end. Because of last night's thunderstorm we turned off our computers and of course I lost the meeting and haven't had the will to let it download to my computer again.
(Maybe someone can help me here. I click on the video link but can't seem to be able to fast-forward to parts of the meeting that I want - I have to let the entire meeting accrue on my computer and a lot of the beginning of the meeting was rather boring and a waste of my time. Is there a way to quickly get to a certain point in the meeting that I'm just not getting? I think there must be. Any help would be appreciated.)
Anyway, it was with sheer pleasure that I saw Sheena speak (cute new hairstyle Sheena!) and I admire not only her confident knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure, but her pure guts to stand up to someone I quite frankly would be afraid to cross.
My response, from the safety of my own home, was to be boiling mad that he believed he could get away with treating a resident like he did Mr. Goldberg, so I called Mr. Gross' office to find out if it was actually permitted and based on what written document. However, I doubt I would have the courage to tell him to his face that he was wrong, rude and owed an apology. To do so, I'd have to have absolute conviction and written proof that I was correct first, which would include seeing something in writing stating that SO is legally obligated to follow Robert's Rules.
Also, I read something in the Rules that specified a 10 minute time limit during debate, but I'm not sure if Public Remonstrances fit the definition of "debate". Things like that leave me unsure that a non-lawyer can completely understand Robert's Rules and how they apply to SO, especially since the BOT seems quite confident in it's ability to impose a 3 minute limit on the public they have sworn to serve.
|
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 23547
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
PDG - download the file to your hard drive by right-clicking on the link and selecting "Save Link As". It may take 10 minutes or so, but you can surf while it's downloading and then have the ability to FF and rewind. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page