| Author | Message | ||
     MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1931 Registered: 5-2001  |
Pete, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not in your post above. Do you think it is "right" that a person is now guaranteed payment for 80% of their salary, even if they perform a job that currently takes less than 20% of their time? Since Taylor, Steglitz & Rosen were so easily able to alter Mr. Gross' contract, is it fair to say that if more "ethically inclined" Trustees are elected in May, they can just as easily reverse this deal? | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2005 |
Salary for life...Isn't that a pension? Why would he need to be paid after he left his position? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 956 Registered: 8-2002 |
MHD -- I made my best gues as to what I suppose the logic was in making the decision. No defense of it at all from me! And if there really is a law or regulation that municipal emplpoyees at these levels are granted tenure -- that IS wrong! Pete | ||
| marion cobretti Citizen Username: Marion_cobretti Post Number: 78 Registered: 1-2005 |
is it just me or does GROSS look like oliver platt? | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 233 Registered: 5-2001 |
nice observation marion tenure exists so that a CFO can be retained in the face of a political housecleaning... i bet if that mr. gross were dismissed as administrator, he would not be able to afford to live on the full time CFO salary alone... i would want a person with CFO responsibility to make a good wage, it prevents temptation.... i am not sure that it is mr. gross that we should fault -- maybe some of his bosses?... | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 135 Registered: 4-2003 |
I have always tried in my postings to limit myself to factual and/or informational items, not opinions. There is no useful purpose accomplished in setting up strawmen and knocking them over or in answering "when did you stop beating up your wife" type questions, But for those who are truly interested in understanding why and how decisions are made I will submit the following. For his total salary and perks of about $130,000. John Gross has been serving as Village Administrator and Village Treasurer/CFO and Acting Director of SOPAC(until recently). An Administrator would these days command a salary and perks worth at least $125,000. A Treasurer would cost at least $90,000. A SOPAC Director would command at least $90,000. For those of you who take these things for granted, be aware that John has done a truly outstanding job as Treasurer, the best since the days of Don Platner. The finances are in good shape. The surplus is at the highest value ever. Of course it needs to grow to keep pace with an increasing budget. (It is my opinion, gleaned from the days of Don Platner, that the surplus should be at a level of approximately 15% of the total budget, in order to withstand sudden shocks and thus enable the taxes municipally to be orderly.) We don't have the State investigating our finances as occurred under a former Treasurer. The books are kept up to date. The Auditors have come up with fewer comments each year. It may be an oldfashioned idea to reward merit. But the Board has not increased John's total pay other than by the 4% annual increase that everyone received. The Village President requested the rearranging of the categorical pay, and we acquiesced. Still, we would have to pay a TReasurer at least the amount of money in that line, and he deserves it. If a new Board wanted to hire a new Administrator, John would have to take a pay cut of at least 25% and would easily find a higher paying position as Administrator elsewhere; so he does not have protection "for life". The BoT recently reviewed all of John's performances and found him highly qualified as Administrator. Despite certain items which have to be worked on, John is, in my experience, the best Administrator who has ever worked in this town. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but,as in baseball where the manager isfired first, frustrations in Village government are associated with the Administrator. You can always elect new Trustees. And this year with no incumbents running you certainly can do just that. And next time as well,if that is the majority will. And as icing on the cake, even though SOPAC has a new Executive Director, SOPAC has relied on John to complete the negotiations with the Movie operator. Also with continuing construction. At no additional cost. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 999 Registered: 6-2001  |
Gross has a full-time job as Village Administrator. If there is a sudden need for a full-time Treasurer/CFO, the position should be advertised and an interview process implemented. | ||
| Daniel I. Goldberg Citizen Username: Dig Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2004 |
Allan: Without addressing the merits of the decision, or rampant conflicts of interest that are created by attempting to have one person wear so many different hats, I think your numbers are "fuzzy." According to my numbers, Gross received a total of $151K~ for 2004, and is scheduled to receive a total of $157K~ for 2005. Among other errors, you failed to include his Deputy Office of Emergency Managment Position -- for which nobody really knows what he does. Breakdown: Admin. Pos.: 2004 $122,534, 2005 $30,368 Treasurer Pos.: 2004 $16,305, 2005 $5,000 CFO Pos.: 2004 $6,988, 2005 $116,474 Civ. OEM Pos.: 2004 $5,202, 2005 $5,416 Total: 2004 $151K, 2005 $157K How do you justify paying Gross $121K for the CFO/Treasurer position, when according to the forumula you are using, 80% of Gross's pay is attributable to his CFO/Treasurer position, and a full time CFO/Treasurer would merit a salary of approximately $90K? Even assuming that there were no conflicts of interest in having Gross's hands in every cookie jar in Town, and that it is more cost effective to have one person handle multiple positions, on what basis does that justify raising Gross's CFO salary from $6K to $116K? In other terms . . . . Notwithstanding past experience, we accept for aruguments sake that it makes sense to have Gross hold all of these positions. But, what on earth justifies a reallocation of his salary? I'm sure that you believe that you are being unfairly attacked, but the Board's actions just don't add up. They smack of politcal patronage and represent the worst in NJ politics. I don't think that any reasonable person could believe that the Board's actions were in the best interest of the Town. This is an issue that you and the other Board of Trustees who voted for this resolution will have to face. We will not let this go. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 820 Registered: 12-2001  |
Mr. Rosen's reply is a long attempt at an explanation that avoids the heart of the controversy. PLEASE explain why some members of the BOT felt it necessary at this point in time to change the allocation of Mr. Gross' salary and how this benefits the taxpayers? It is your opinon that Mr. Gross has done a great service to the village by taking on the role of all three positions, but it's the opinion of many (myself included) the biggest reason our village has so many problems is becuase we have 1 person with so much power and control! Let's face it, the finances of the town are in good shape because we continue to raise taxes whenever needed. Comparing Gross to someone else doesn't explain the stupidity of the BOT on this matter. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 391 Registered: 3-2002 |
Allan, thanks for the thoughtful response. Many of us who live in this town are having a very hard time understanding how the town is run, and, indeed, if it is being run properly. Two years ago I was a strong supporter of Village Hall and most of those in it. Now, after two years of seeming conflicts of interest, after being called "spoiled children" by our Village President, etc., after questionable progress on stalled projects, after the infamous grocery store open house, etc., I'm still waiting for good explanations of the issues. Honestly, I can't see voting for most of the Board if they choose to run again (with the exception of Rosner, you all have something to prove with me). Even if Gross is as wonderful an administrator as you say, I'm still waiting for an explanation of WHY the Village President wanted his salary mix changed in a way that seems to be designed to protect him in the face of any changes that might occur in the next election. If Gross really deserves it, that's great, but the BOT has a real communications gap with the populace. I've generally been one of the understanding ones about the slow rate of progress and the realities of the tax system etc., but even I have my limits... | ||
| Josh M. Citizen Username: Jmaxlaw Post Number: 222 Registered: 3-2004 |
I would like to add an "Amen" to the well thought out and intelligent responses from Mr. Goldberg, singlemalt, and Susan1014. Their thoughts reflect mine. I would also like to compliment Trustee Rosen for at least coming forward and giving us his take and thoughts. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with his reasoning and assessments-- I have a deep respect for his willingness to explain why he voted as he did. As for the Village President-- we need new blood on the B of T more than ever to check schemes like this one. And, we're going to need new leadership at the top in 2007 to encourage Mr. gross to forego his purely altruistic sacrifices to take less money in his positions here and go make what he's "worth" elsewhere. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1000 Registered: 6-2001 |
Over & out! | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1932 Registered: 5-2001 |
Allan, You stated "frustrations in Village government are associated with the Administrator. You can always elect new Trustees." However it seems to infer that we can elect new Trustees, but we are now forever "stuck" with Mr. Gross because if we were to fire him or if he were to quit as Administrator voluntarily, we'd be on the hook for $121K for him as CFO/Treasurer and $125k for a NEW Administrator. Can you please explain how this benefits the residents of this town? | ||
| mary032 Citizen Username: Mary032 Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2001 |
Mr. Rosen says: "The Village President requested the rearranging of the categorical pay, and we acquiesced." What? Are we living in a dictatorship? The trustees acquiesce to the whims of the President without question? Are their priorities to acquiesce the President, or to defend the interests of the taxpayers when they are threatened by the President? Mr. Rosen used political rhetoric to avoid answering the question: HOW THE REALLOCATION OF MR. GROSS' SALARIES HAS SERVED THE TAXPAYERS ????????? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1933 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dr Rosen also stated "...even though SOPAC has a new Executive Director, SOPAC has relied on John to complete the negotiations with the Movie operator. Also with continuing construction." How is this a GOOD thing? Shouldn't Mr. Gross focus on things like the developer's agreement for Beifus, Shop Rite etc and let the SOPAC Executive Director handle SOPAC? | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 823 Registered: 12-2001 |
For what we are paying our SOPAC director, I would hope there is a competence to negotiate a deal like this without any help. EDIT TO ADD: Maybe Gross wants the new movie operator to know who he is so he can get free tickets. I think I witnessed John Gross driving a snow plow down Mayhew this morning. Are we paying him time and a half too? | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1001 Registered: 6-2001 |
Singlemalt, if that was Gross driving a snowplow down Mahew for DPW, that'd be HAT NUMBER FOUR: filling in for the depleted ranks of the actual Town Workers. I'm sure he started right at the top of that pay | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 31 Registered: 7-2004 |
Trustee Rosen: "The Village President requested the rearranging of the categorical pay, and we acquiesced. Still, we would have to pay a TReasurer at least the amount of money in that line, and he deserves it. If a new Board wanted to hire a new Administrator, John would have to take a pay cut of at least 25% and would easily find a higher paying position as Administrator elsewhere; so he does not have protection 'for life'." Then why go to all this trouble to manipulate public employee pay levels a few months before a new crop of Trustees are elected? HELLOOOOOOO! The Trustees have "acquiesced" to the President's and Administrator's brazen effort to ensure that Gross will receive 84% ($126.2K) of his 2004 total salary ($151.0), plus annual increases, for life -- if the elected Board ever opted to strip him of his primary duty as Village Administrator. "The rearranging of the categorical pay" reflects cleverly shifting 76% of the 2005 Administrator's salary to the state-tenured position of CFO. Since the Village could never hire an Administrator for the $30K that's been left for that job, it would have to escalate this position's salary right back to a market-appropriate level in the future. This looks like S.O.'s very own version of John Adams' "midnight judges," just before the end of his presidency. Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him? | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1561 Registered: 11-2001  |
Good Post, Two Sense. If you had an opportunity to view the Trustee meeting last night when they approved the pay increases and salary reallocations, S.S. indicated that a total of 4 people were in the audience. His inference is that if this issue is so big in the mind of the public (MOL postings) where are the masses to object? My answer to Mr. S.S. is who knew the meeting would not be cancelled given the snow storm. And really, if the masses had come forward, would this current sitting BoT have changed their minds? I don't think so. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1950 Registered: 5-2001 |
In addition, the salary reallocation was not even listed on the agenda posted on the Village Website. I had thought this was a Resolution that was a "done deal" (thanks to Steglitz, Taylor & Dr. Rosen) as of the LAST meeting. |
