| Author |
Message |
    
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 623
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | 
|
Howard has the answer, MHD has the perspective - let's stop wasting our figgin time on this issue. It's a non issue, drop it. If you don't like the volunteer working conditions, don't volunteer. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 147
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 3:06 pm: |
|
It's just SPIN! |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 107
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Bill Calabrese is out of town until roughly August 13; so don't expect a vote tonight on compensation unless Mark is against it. |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 6:14 pm: |
|
soda and mayhewdrive,
your infantile bickering with each other tells about two very immature individuals, yet most of your remarks on issues sound serious and intelligent - whether I agree with them or not. What's going on? Is someone else using your PC, or do you both suffer from multiple personality disorder? |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 342
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 8:23 pm: |
|
The position of village trustee is unpaid. People know this when they decide to run for the office, when they campaign for it, when they accept it. Presumably, if they didn't want the position, they wouldn't try to get it. Winning the position should be sufficient compensation. Tough if they have to pay for baby sitters--let the non-trustee spouse stay home. Too bad if they have to make "modest donations" to organizations in town. Write it off as a charitable deduction on your taxes. But do not expect me, as a taxpayer, to finance your stint in public service. You wanted it, you got it, now do it and be quiet about it! |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 9:54 pm: |
|
But perhaps. just perhaps, the position of trustee shouldn't have to be reserved in the future for those who have a stay at home babysitting spouse and enough income that they are able to deduct charitable contibutons from their taxes. Should our elected officials always have to come from the "upper class" of the village? Should we deny ourselves the input and wisdom of those who find the costs involved to onerous to even entertain the notion of giving public service?
Maybe only the rich are qualified to run for office?? Is this how we want our Village to be governed?
How elitist!! |
susan1014
Citizen
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 154
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 2, 2004 - 10:28 pm: |
|
LibraryLady...my thoughts exactly.
Also, with a general financial disincentive to serve, we risk attracting primarily those with an unusual financial incentive to serve. (note that I do not accuse the current trustees of this, but only note that it is a real risk). |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 628
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 12:06 am: |
|
If you want compensation then let's move ourselves to a different form of Government. One that is not controlled by a Village President. The control and chicken pen appearance of this Board and most notably all the Boards in the last 12 years, has not served the residents well.
The lack of public discussion and participation in the decision making process to the issues facing our community is a result of the restrictions placed in Closed Session Meetings. I admire Patrick's attempts to build consensus with his fellow members, but it seems what we have are four chicks who beat up on three and the four rule the Roast.
You may recall Mark accusing Mary of not informing all members of the Board about certain topics when it appears she stops the body count for "in the know" when she hits four controlling members. This is not non-partisan representative government, nor actions suited for a volunteer trustee member. Affirmative Members to this question don't want to be a volunteer, they want to get paid enough to have retirement benefits.
The Public issue is, if we change the Charter, make it more open to the governed to participate. Let's not allow our Local elections to be monopolized, as they are, with the power of the incumbency and a dismal voter turnout. How do we enhance voter participation and public understanding with revisions to the Charter?
Let the VP be on a rotating basis, with a consecutive term limit. I thought tonight's meeting chaired by Allan was a nice change to the delivery of topics and the ensuing discussions. The truth about the Charter Revision recommendations was a lack of public formulation. We can do better, much better. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 344
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 12:30 am: |
|
What will the taxpayers have to finance next? Hairdressers so that the trustees or their spouses can look their best at local functions? Clothes so that they can dress appropriately? Live in nannies for all? New cars? Trying to change the village charter so that the trustees can be paid is the height of chutzpah, and I for one object strongly. As far as I can tell, none of our elected officials is so financially strapped that they need to be paid. They want to be in public service, fine. The positions are unpaid. Deal with it. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 721
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 9:37 am: |
|
aw come on -- let's be reasonable here. we're talking about repaying trustees for expenses they incur doing a volunteer job -- maybe to the tune of $1500 a year each.
no one in their right mind would consider $1500 a year "paying them" or "salary."
the earlier posts by susan and howard make sense -- put together a clear policy of what's reimburseable, make the paperwork simple, and then lets get on with it.
isn't this just a distraction from the BIG issue -- of what needs to be done to get downtown presentable again?
pete |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 345
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Precisely. They are volunteers. Nobody asked them to be trustees. They went out and solicited votes and got elected. That should be enough. If they don't want to incur these expenses, let them not be trustees. They haven't done such a great job, anyhow, from where I sit, and I've lived in this town since 1969. |
susan1014
Citizen
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 156
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 1:29 pm: |
|
So lizzie, do you have some time on your hands to fix everything for no pay, limited expenses, and all the MOL venom that you can eat? (Honestly, I don't, and I'm glad that someone does)
I'm waiting to hear your platform, other than anger at people who choose to give up much of their time to try to run this town. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Mark Rosner and I have kicked this around on a couple of occasions. I don't know where he'll end up on the topic, and I'm sure I'll learn from his final decision. When we talked, I had expressed my concern that, by establishing an annual stipend that in effect reimburses for political expenses (compared with household expenses like babysitting), the village could be creating a "pay to play" incentive in reverse, giving trustees several thousand dollars to use in attending political events that challengers would have to pay for themselves or not attend.
The scale is also important. We spent something like $10,000 on our campaign last year, so paying several trustees as much as $1,500 annually potentially gives incumbents $10,500 annually to spend on raising their profile locally. If we are going to do that, I'd support Pizzaz's suggestion that we change the model for local governance, as the current structure could be calcified if that much money were given to incumbents and used for political purposes.
FYI, BOE members can file for certain expenses of a non-political nature, but (under state law) receive no compensation for their time. Members who attend a Board-related function (e.g., a retirement dinner) pay their own way. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 347
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
It's not venom, Susie. I don't want to be a trustee--never did. And I, too, am glad that someone else wants to do it. Presumably, they get some sort of gratification just from being in public life. They enter public life in this town with the understanding that it is an unpaid volunteer position, and they have no business coming to the public--who elected them to be unpaid public officials--with their hands out. this is all that I intend to say upon the subject. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 11:41 am: |
|
Would you say the same for our part-timer legislators in Trenton? Should they agree to be our representatives for no pay? Federal Congresscritters are definitely a different situation, since their full time jobs are to represent us, but I believe our state representatives are paid more than simple expense reimbursement. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
1) On a per-capita basis, the proposal to pay the Village Trustees is higher than the current payments made to state representatives.
2) South Orange currently has one of the highest tax burdens in the whole state. Every effort should be made to lessen that burden, not increase it. Especially when the proposed increase does NOTHING for the benefit of the taxpaying residents (except for the 7 people who are getting cash in their pocket at OUR expense) |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Well...it finally happened: Tonight the BOT VOTED TO BEGIN PAYING THEMSELVES
Trustees Joyce, Rosner & Rosen voted against the arm twisting of Bill Calabrese & Ed Matthews.
However, Mary "Flip Flop" Theroux, after a dramatic reading of her long personal statement broke the tie to pass this self-serving ordinance. We should have known better to think she would do the right thing for a change and vote this down as she had previously stated.
Now we can all work together for a campaign to defeat this TAX INCREASE when it comes before the voters as a referendum and then channel that energy to defeat Mary Theroux if she ever decides to run for election anywhere ever again.
P.S. Mark, let me know when you want to treat me to that Ice Cream at Stone Cold Creamery that you bet: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=200906#POST2009 06
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 412
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:10 pm: |
|
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
ok, i feel better. what is wrong with these people? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:08 pm: |
|
MHD: The charter is still not changed. Has to go to Trenton and then to the public if they ok. New Market goes back to the planning board this month.
Still a race to the wire.
|
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 837
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Inalienable Rights as a comparartive to Trustees compensation above the pension threshold, I think someone ought to check with a mechanic, there are some serious screws loose. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 423
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Exposing those who voted for this needs to be part of the campaign. It is a tax increase - plain and simple. As our taxes go up and out of control, our trustees feel they need compensation. Good riddance to all who voted for this. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Mark,
I think that's a cop out on a technicality. If the voters reject this tax increase, the charter won't ever be changed. Then again, I guess that does still make it a race with the Supermarket. 
As for Pizzaz's comments....if anyone didn't understand the reference, Calabrese, Taylor, Steglitz & Theroux wrapped themselves in the American Constitution that this ordinance was all about the publics "inalienable rights". Calabrese even stated something to the effect of "this ordinance should be passed by the BOT or else the BOT would be taking away the inalienable right of all citizens for a free democracy and the ability for the public to vote. If the people don't have the right to vote, they might as well move to Uruguay." (not an exact quote, but the general idea & the Uruguay reference are accurate)
someone should tell Bill that Uruguay IS a democracy http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/uytoc.html
I still find it amazing that Calabrese, Taylor, Steglitz & Theroux didn't seem to care about what the public thought when they questioned development of the Quarry, questioned the location of the Animal Shelter, or questioned the purchase of the contaminated Shop Rite site, all of which are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars combined.
Where were our "inalienable rights" then? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |
|
singlemalt,
I agree completely. (even though we disagree on National politics, I'm glad to see we can agree on local issues)
I'm seriously thinking we should start a new organization to spearhead the campaign against this ridiculous tax increase.
Perhaps we can call it Group Resolved Against Funding Trustees.  |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 425
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Agreed MHD. Focusing the energy we both share on the national level into getting these four removed from office would absolutely have a better return on investment than anything we put into the presidential election. 
The four who voted for this referendum are also the 4 most talked about in social circles around town that need to be removed from office. One thing the taxpayers of this village will not tolerate is the "sneak it by the voters" this tax increase is disguised as.
Did anyone suggest lowering the salary to below the pension threshold?
Sign me up when this group is formed. In the meantime, I will tell everyone I run into what the idiots we elected have chosen to try and sneak by us.
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 426
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:38 pm: |
|
How about:
"Villagers against nepotism and compensation" |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
I suggested lowering the compensation to below the pension threshold and did so prior to the ordinance being moved. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 427
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Mark, I apologize for anything negative I've ever said about you. You have earned my respect and future vote. Thank you. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 756
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Mark,
When this is eventually brought to the voters, is there a possibility for the various charter revisions to be individual voting items, or will they be a single item, take them all or leave them all?
If they are separate items, then I can understand the idea of letting the voters decide. I don't necessarily agree with the rationale, and think it's a little silly, but I can understand it.
If, on the other hand, we the voters can only accept all or none of the changes to the charter, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the trustees voting for the compensation are betting people would see this item as a necessary evil to get the other changes through.
I'm sure this has been answered before, but when is the next election, and which trustees' positions will be on the block? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
There will be two votes. One for the compensation and one for the rest of the charter. They will probably both be next year but I am not sure of the timing on them.
Next election is May of 2005 - Trustees Joyce, Steglitz and Theroux are up for re-election. I do not think any of them have stated they plan to run again or not. I imagine we won't know before March when the petitions are due. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Woodstock,
My understanding is that there will be TWO referendums for the public to vote on IF Trenton decides it should go before the public for a vote. (there is no guarantee it will come before the public & Trenton COULD simply adapt the charter change)
One referendum is for the Compensation issue & one referendum is for the other minor housekeeping issues.
The next election is in May 2005 when the seats held by Steglitz, Theroux & Trustee Joyce will be "on the block". |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 757
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Mark and MHD, thanks. It'll be interesting to see what happens in March.
With all the talk of wanting two of these three trustees out, I hope someone actually decides to run against them. There's a lot of talk here about wanting to replace certain BOT members. But without replacements (viable or not), there's no chance of that happening. |
tototoo
Citizen
Username: Tototoo
Post Number: 159
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Woodstock for BOT!!! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1585
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:51 am: |
|
Uruguay or South Orange?  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page