| Author |
Message |
    
poughkiemon
Citizen
Username: Poughkiemon
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:39 pm: | 
|
I was wondering if anyone actually spoke during the Remonstrances section of the BOT meeting? It seemed to get skipped over after the discussions regarding the PILOT ordinances. I was hoping that in this forum we'd perhaps hear some justification from the trustees regarding the adjustment to the Village Administrator's contract. It would feel better if there was at least some justification from the BOT for this, since at first glance it seems like a bit of a bad deal for the village. |
noracoombs
Citizen
Username: Noracoombs
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |
|
poughkiemon--The remonstrances didn't happen until around 11:30 last night, well after most of the public had gone home. Maybe there will be more time at the next meeting. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Pough,
Since the meeting ran so late, the remonstrances weren't until well after 11pm, so nobody got up. However, I am quite sure at a future meeting the scandalous adjustment to the contract will be brought up.
We are still waiting for anyone to answer here what benefit this provides the taxpayer...however the silence speaks for itself. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Since it appears that there will be a whopping ONE-HALF-HOUR allowed for public comment on the PILOTs at the April 11 meeting, I'm sure there will be plenty of time for the public remonstrances.
I am SO GLAD I will be far away, on a beach, with just books to read instead of SOS MOL. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Since Mark is now back, I'll repost an earlier question from another thread:
Why have additonal Closed Session minutes, especially with regard to the Quarry, never been released? The issue is now "closed" so the Closed Session meeting minutes should be released now, right? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
The issue of closed session minutes was discussed at a BOT meeting a couple of months ago. Once a year, the village clerk and the village attorney review all the past closed session minutes. If they feel the minutes can be released then they put forth a resolution to the BOT to release them.
Some closed session minutes will probably never be released (mostly those with personnel issues and certain contract negotiations ).
We were told closed session minutes were going to be reviewed over the next couple of months, so I would guess that some might be released this year.
I will ask to see where we stand on the review of past closed session minutes.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
Thanks, Mark.
I'll gladly donate a Sharpie to "redact" all the Quarry-related meetings that Bill Calabrese was at.  |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 208
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Mark, I raised the issue of closed session minutes and it was my impression in our discussion and closure that the review process was to be done quarterly and the status posted on the SO web site. |
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 346
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Would these "Closed Session Minutes" not be available under the Freedom of Information Act? I know that there are certain privacy provisions to block some information, but for the most part is the fact that they are not released by choice, or by law? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Howard: I remember the decision being to review them once a year. I think they said any closed session minutes that were approved to be released would be posted, not the status.
snhirsch: I will pass your question on to get an official answer.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 209
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Mark thanks, just as a point of reference I will request a copy of the Jan. 6th Legal Committee minutes on that discussion. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
I didn't watch the WHOLE BOT meeting last night.
What was the ultimate result of the DRMC discussion? Was it voted on and/or approved? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
The discussion did not start till after 10pm. We will be holding further discussions next Monday night. The DMC committee members will be meeting with the administrator and the village attorney to go over the language and legal issues.
I am not sure we will be able to vote on it before the meeting on the 25th.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Thanks, Mark. |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
BOT Meeting Attendance.
It was great to see 7 of the 8 trustee candidates attending last night's (April 11) pivotal BOT meeting.
Paul. Where were you? I found in several postings as well as the April 4 debate that you were challenged with your "vested interest in the town". Not being at the meeting last night unfortunately reinforced that.
I hope this was only a scheduling issue. Heads up. You will need to be there if you are elected!
|
Sitoyan
Citizen
Username: Sitoyan
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Paul who? |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Paul Salvatoriello. He is one of the 3 members joined with Terriann Moore-Abrams and Stacey Jennings on the Village Independent Ticket.
Asking who it is makes my earlier point, but I thank you for asking. |
Sitoyan
Citizen
Username: Sitoyan
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
Paul Salvatoriello who? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2114
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
FYI...I believe there is another BOT Meeting TONIGHT (April 18) where the DRMC will be discussed again. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2154
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
I noticed that no Agenda has been posted for the BOT Meeting tonight.
Has the meeting been cancelled? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
The meeting is still scheduled to start at 8pm. I do not know why the agenda is not posted. I will ask tonight.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2155
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Maybe John Gross is holding out for ANOTHER salaried position. (Agenda poster??)  |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2311
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Still no agenda posted for Monday's BOT meeting.
Mark - were you ever able to find out why it wasn't posted last time, either?
Thanks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
MHD: No reason was given last time. I sent an email reminding them to post the agenda.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
It is now posted: http://www.southorange.org/agenda.asp?page=2005/05-09-05sm.htm |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2314
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Thank you, Mark.
Will the DRMC be voted on? I didn't see it on the Agenda. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
The final revised draft was sent out today (from the committee). I think representatives will be at the meeting and we will discuss. I am not sure if we will vote on it (it will be up to the majority of the BOT). |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Thanks, Mark.
I would think it should be on the agenda then, no? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2472
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
I see the following item on the Agenda for Monday's meeting:
Resolution Rescinding Resolution #129-05.
Does anyone know what that resolution was & why it is being rescinded?
I wonder if the resolution to make John Gross Administrator for life, could be rescinded as easily?
P.S. Dave...can you please move this thread back to "South Orange Specific" |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6433
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
(topic moved) |
Daniel I. Goldberg
Citizen
Username: Dig
Post Number: 116
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Dave: Where did you put the BOT Election topic? |
Daniel I. Goldberg
Citizen
Username: Dig
Post Number: 117
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
MHD: Looked through the archived meeting minutes (O-kay Howie is rubbing off on me), but did not find 129-05. Based on the number, it looks like it was probably passed on May 9th. The minutes for the meeting on May 9th have not yet been posted. In any event, I will be there on Monday night. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2476
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Dan,
After my post, I was informed offline that this resolution had something to do with a new hire that didn't take the job (or something to that effect). In other words, it sounds pretty benign.
However, maybe our NEW Trustees are interested in rescinding #33-05 – Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract of the Village Administrator. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6434
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:38 pm: |
|
I'm trying to keep archives that are easy to access and contain valuable information years from now. If there are topics in the now archived section (in the Attic) that people want to continue, let's start new threads and copy/paste some appropriate posts. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 12:17 am: |
|
Thanks, Dave! Though I love the search function on MOL, that will make things much easier goin' down the road. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 12:21 am: |
|
For those looking for the archived election section, they're in the attic, clearly titled "South Orange - May 10, 2005 Board of Trustee Election."
/discus/messages/129/69343.html?1116636571 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page