| Author | Message | ||
     MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1878 Registered: 5-2001  |
Mark, Do you have any further information on what the following items on tonight's BOT agenda are for? An Ordinance to Provide Compensation for Supervisory/Non-Contractual Personnel of the Township of South Orange Village for 2004 and 2005. Resolution Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract of the Village Administrator. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1694 Registered: 4-2002 |
Every year we do a salary ordinance. The one for 2004 did not get passed yet. I will let the VA explain his reasoning tonight. As for the resolution for an ammendment to the contract, I would rather discuss in public at the meeting. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1879 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thank you, Mark. Please make sure there is some discussion because it often seems like "Consent Agenda" items are Passed en masse without any discussion or description of what the items are. I assume Ms. Theroux will leave the room for the discussion? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1697 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: The resolution would have to be voted on seperately because Mary Theroux cannot vote on it. I don't think she has to leave the room for the discussion. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1881 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, When Patrick Joyce had an alleged conflict, he was forced to leave the room, not simply abstain from voting. Ms. Theroux's conflict is even more clear and she should not be present so as to not influence the remaining Trustees. Then again, I highly doubt that Trustee Joyce will have the same temper tantrum that Ms. Theroux had when Patrick did not initially leave the room. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1699 Registered: 4-2002 |
Based on past conflict issues that did not involve land use, a BOT member only had to leave the dias, not the room. I think the important thing is that a trustee who has a conflict on an issue not vote or discuss that issue with any other trustee or the village president. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1885 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree that a Trustee who has a conflict should not vote on the issue. However, a precedent was set when Trustee Joyce was forced to leave the room. There is absolutely no difference here, except for the fact that Ms. Theroux's conflict is even more blatant. She should leave the room. | ||
| Sitoyan Citizen Username: Sitoyan Post Number: 35 Registered: 7-2004 |
"Based on past conflict issues that did not involve land use, a BOT member only had to leave the dias, not the room." And the difference being? Conflict of interest is conflict of interest, whether land use or otherwise. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1700 Registered: 4-2002 |
Sitoyan, MHD: I don't make the rules, and I am not the one who makes the decision. It is up to the individual trustee to ask if they have a conflict and they are supposed to get an opinion from the village attorney. I am not going to argue or try to defend the logic (if there is any). It would seem that a conflict is a conflict as you say, but some conflicts are treated differently. I might be wrong and trustee Theroux might be asked to leave the room. I was just giving my thought based on past conflicts. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1886 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Since the audio of the meeting was completely out, can you now share what the "Contract Amendment" was for & what the result was? (and did Ms. Theroux leave the room?) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1703 Registered: 4-2002 |
Ms. Theroux left the room when it was discussed. The amendment to the contract says that 80% of his pay goes to his CFO/Treasurer position with the balance going to the Administrator position. The CFO position is a tenured, whereas the administrator position is by contract. It does not change the total amount he gets paid. I stated that my voting against the change was not a reflection of his performance but I was against the change for philisophical and other reasons. I had told other BOT members I would have been ok with a 50-50 split, but this went too far. I was the only person to vote against it. Patrick Joyce was not able to come to the meeting and Mary did not vote. That made it 3 - 1 in favor of the amendment (Allan Rosen, Steve Steglitz and Art Taylor voted in favor and Bill Calabrese has stated he was in favor). | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1889 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, So Rosen, Steglitz & Taylor voted to give Mr. Gross 80% of his current salary even if he is no longer Village Administrator? Isn't it fair to say that Village Administrator is far more time consuming than CFO/Treasurer? Which means he could lose at least half of his "work", but still retain 80% of his pay. Bravo to you, Mark, for voting the right way & shame on Steglitz, Taylor & Rosen. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 943 Registered: 8-2002 |
Regardless of the vote -- why was this proposed? Is there "more than a chance" that there might be a new Village Admininstrator? Otherwise -- isn't this pretty hypothetical? /p | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1890 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would "assume" that this is insurance in advance of the upcoming election. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 945 Registered: 8-2002 |
follow-up question -- why is the CFO/Treasauer position tenured, while the administrator position not? (civil service vs not?) /p | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1710 Registered: 4-2002 |
I don't know the why. The administrator's position is done by contract. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 79 Registered: 10-2004 |
It seems that our village officials are taking care of themselves instead of taking care of the village. I cant wait to vote for these people out of office. | ||
| mary032 Citizen Username: Mary032 Post Number: 125 Registered: 8-2001 |
Wow! What a great maneuver! Gross cannot be fired as CFO/Treasurer, but he can be fired as Administrator. So, just in case that the new people elected in May decide to rid the town from an administrator who negotiated so many disastrous real estate contracts, our present trustees made sure that all that Gross will suffer is a 20% reduction in his salary, but he will keep his lucrative job as CFO/Treasurer, with 80% of what he gets today. Gross may have made some bad contracts for South Orange, but he sure knows how to take care of himself. Of course that's easy with the suckers that he is dealing with, and with one trustee as his girl friend. Kudos to Mark Rosner for voting no. Interesting that all trustees present said that a performance evaluation had been conducted; obviously they all thought that he is doing a great job, so they wanted to make sure that we don't lose him! And the rest of South Orange continues in its deep slumber. | ||
| Sitoyan Citizen Username: Sitoyan Post Number: 36 Registered: 7-2004 |
How long has Mr. Gross been CFO/Treasurer? After how many years can he be tenured? Is he already tenured in that position? Any body knows? | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 809 Registered: 12-2001  |
The great South Orange shell game!!! Did anyone who voted for this actually say how this could ever benefit the taxpayers? Isn't that who the BOT are supposed to represent and look out for? So - if the BOT elects new blood and actually holds Mr. Gross accountable for his atrocious job performance, he will only lose 20% of his total income since the other 80% is now protected by tenure? I too am very curious to see the answers to the questions posed by Sitoyan above. I'd suggest going to the state AG to investigate what goes on down there but I don't think we'd get anywhere. It may be time to see if we can get the Feds to take a look. I promise everyone on this board that I am sending a letter by the end of this week. Something smells down there and it's more than the quid-pro-quo. |
