| Author | Message | ||
     Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 759 Registered: 4-2005  |
Just thought some of you may be interested in reading this: http://www.vernontwp.com/township/departments/clerk/sunshine.pdf It also details 'closed sessions/executive sessions' for anyone who wants to better understand why there can be so many, lol As far as quorum is concerned, the meeting that Trustee Jennings described last night did not constitute one (for a moment I thought it did but I double checked today). As far as the SID is concerned, to pass, it needs 4 votes of affirmation out of the 5 voting members. Although Eric must recuse himself, it is considered a abstention. Votes needed for policy to pass is based on the aggregate of the assembly - in this case the assembly is 7 (the VP is considered as a part of the assembly and quorum is regardless of whether someone can or can't participate) and the number to pass business is 4 unless there is 3/3 split in which the VP would vote to break a tie. While we know that Trustee Moore-Abrams is not in favor of it - it would take one more trustee to vote against it to stop it from happening between Trustee Rosner, Rosen, Taylor, and Jennings. I'm not offering an opinion on this issue because I've made it pretty clear in the past - just thought I'd post a follow-up on some of the objective logistical issues that were brought up last night. Sidenote: had one more trustee been at the meeting with Trustee Jennings- there would have been a breach of the sunshine law for reasons different from what Trustee Moore-Abrams explained. Action does not necessarily have to be taken - the 'discussion of business' is enough from my understanding. So that's my take on all of it - hope it helps with any confusion. And P.S. - it's a lovely day outside  | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 664 Registered: 1-2004  |
I agree with your point on the question of the "Sunshine" law and what I was attempting to ask at the meeting. My question on hypothetical - if Trustee Moore-Abrams had been there then would have it applied. I think the response is still open to interpretation based on Trustee Jennings' comments. If the BOT accepts the recommendation as suggested at the referenced meeting (listen to: www.howard-levison.com/bot07242006sid_jennings_meeting.wmv) to select the initial SID Board from a pool of names provided by the business owners would the this revision be one of significance to cause it to be resubmitted on first reading? From the proposed ordinance: http://www.southorange.org/clerk/RevisedSidOrdiance.pdf (c) The initial resident directors property owner directors and the business owner directors shall be chosen by the Board of Trustees |
