| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1008 Registered: 4-2002 |
I am not sure any BOT members will be at the meeting on Thursday. I have another meeting that night so unless my attendance is required, I won't be able to make it. The meeting is open to the public. The charter review committee is running the meeting, NOT the BOT, but I imagine they will welcome public input. I think most of the charter review committee meetings were in 2001 and 2002. It might have been in a Gaslight or elsewhere, but I do not remember. I really think the questions should be asked to the people who ran the meetings and produced the report. I am sure if enough people want a second public meeting, they will hold one. I think the final vote is by the public as a question on the ballot in November. Doublea: I agree that not much was said at the BOT meetings. The BOT had NO knowledge of the report or what had transpired at the meetings. We were waiting for the committee to get the report done and presented to the public. Anyone from the public could have asked a question if they wanted more info. I just know I put it on the agenda several times in the past year so both the BOT and the public could find out more. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 525 Registered: 9-2002  |
To all, apologies for the thread drift. I'll let it die after this... Bets, Since you seem to have the answer, why not enlighten us as to why Ms Theroux "wants" coverage for domestic partners? If nothing else, I'm sure your answer will be entertaining. Since you indicate quite emphatically (and apparently authoritatively) that it's not because she thinks it's the right thing to do, what is her motive? Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 835 Registered: 5-2001  |
woodstock, I think bets was already pretty clear in her explanation that Ms. Theroux IS in a heterosexual domestic partner relationship. let it go. Return to thread.... Mark, Thanks for the explanation of what Thursday's meeting is about. I do not think I will be able to attend, but since this does not appear to be the "final meeting", I imagine I will have future chances to speak on the subject. Can you confirm if the meeting will be televised on cable? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1010 Registered: 4-2002 |
I will Trustee Rosen if they are going to be able to televise the meeting. | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1237 Registered: 5-2001 |
BTW, before any user posts info, it would benefit both the board and the community to be sure of the facts. Incorrect info posted on this board, and the web in general, is often taken as fact. Re Ms. Theroux and the Domestic Partners Coverage. A copy of the bill is available at www.njleg.org or through the office of our Assemblyman Mims Hackett via phone or mail. The bill affords domestic partner rights to homosexual couples and "older" heterosexual couples who,it is felt , for financial reasons, would be at a disadvantage to marry(penions, Social Security,etc). NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 522 Registered: 6-2001  |
That site you cited could not be found. Are you sure that's the address? Are you saying there are specific age restrictions based on retirement status, etc.? I work at Drew, which offers domestic partner coverage, but those who choose this are required to pay a contribution. I'd like to know whether this proposed coverage requires contribution from the trustees (with single or family coverage). | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 484 Registered: 3-2003 |
As proposed by the Charter Review Committee, the compensation proposal only provides for monetary compensation initially. However, it does provide for a committee to review the compensation every four years and would seem to allow the committee to propose such medical coverage. Additionally, I don't know if once compensation is given to the trustees whether they're considered Village employees and wouldn't even have to wait for the review committee to suggest medical coverage. These are questions that should be answered by the Charter Review Committee Thursday, and I expect to be there. I strongly feel that there should be explicit language precluding any medical coverage or pension contributions by the Village. In addition, as I've suggested above, if in fact some nominal compensation is felt proper, I strongly urge that a cap be put on the amount that such compensation can be increased in the future. None of us know what a future BOT might do if there is no cap. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6431 Registered: 4-1998  |
I think some kind of compensation is reasonable. It's no doubt a time-consuming, stressful job. Perhaps model it after Maplewood's system? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 485 Registered: 3-2003 |
I agree. So long as there is a cap and medical and pension contributions paid by the Village are specifically excluded. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 838 Registered: 5-2001 |
I still think an extra $40,000 annually in our Municipal Budget is a bad idea. In a town where the average homeowner is already paying around $12,000 per year in taxes, serious measures need to be taken to EASE the tax burden. Additional "discretionary spending" is not the answer. This reminds me of what people were told when the Verazzano Bridge was built...we just need a toll until the bridge is paid off. Inevitably once a gov't gets "used to" an income source, it never goes away & almost always goes up significantly over time. | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1238 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bets, I am working on finding the correct link. In the meanwhile... Law.com N.J. Legislature Passes Civil Union Bill Tuesday January 13, 1:57 am ET Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal The New Jersey Senate has given final legislative approval to a law that would make New Jersey the second state to recognize homosexual couples as legal entities. The Senate passed the Domestic Partnership Act, A-3743, on Thursday in a 23-9 vote with virtually no debate, and Gov. James McGreevey promised to sign it, meaning that it would go into effect immediately. The act vests same-sex couples in committed relationships with many of the indicia of marital status, including joint health insurance and pension benefits, hospital visitation rights, the ability to make health care decisions on a partner's behalf, certain tax and inheritance benefits, and protection from discrimination based on their status. The law also requires New Jersey to recognize any domestic partnership or civil union created in another state. Two people of the same sex who are 18 or older may jointly execute and file an affidavit of domestic partnership with their local registrar, along with a fee to be set later, if these requirements are met: Both share a common residence in the state. Both are otherwise jointly responsible for each other's common welfare, as demonstrated by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property, to be demonstrated by at least one of the following: a joint deed, mortgage agreement or lease; a joint bank account; designation of one of the partners as a primary beneficiary in the other partner's will; designation of one of the partners as a primary beneficiary in the other's life insurance policy or retirement plan; or joint ownership of a motor vehicle. Both agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership. Neither is in a marriage recognized by New Jersey law or a member of another domestic partnership. Neither is related to the other by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity. Both are of the same sex and therefore unable to enter into a marriage with each other that is recognized by New Jersey law. Both have chosen to share each other's lives in a committed relationship of mutual caring. Neither has been a partner in a domestic partnership that was terminated less than 180 days before the filing (unless the earlier partner is dead). A domestic partnership may be dissolved in much the same fashion as a divorce between a married heterosexual couple. For instance, the couple must be separated for at least 18 months for an uncontested breakup, and, in the case of a contested breakup, the same evidentiary rules would apply. Heterosexual couples aged 62 or older would also be eligible under the law -- recognition that elderly widows and widowers may risk losing pension and other benefits by remarrying. "This bill is about acknowledging that nontraditional relationships can still be committed and responsible," Richard Codey, D-Essex, the Senate co-president who sponsored the bill in the upper house, said in a statement. "It's difficult to argue against providing basic partnership rights to adults in committed and loving relationships. NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 523 Registered: 6-2001 |
The bill you cited is more restrictive than Drew's, i.e., heterosexual domestic partners of any age can qualify (with similar requirements of joint accounts, joint ownership, beneficiary status, etc.) I applaud the state for passing this bill, but wish it would just get real and make marriage legal for gay couples. It does not, however, say whether the insurance includes full coverage or if the employee is expected to contribute. If the township insures the trustees, is it unconditional or are the trustees required to pay a fair share? Does this extend to families/domestic partners? This is an honest question, as my own contribution has shot up more than 50 percent since September 11, and I don't see the costs lessening any time soon. And I do not currently take advantage of the domestic partner benefit at the university. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 652 Registered: 5-2001 |
library lady: What about the stunning failures of the town board and administrator, (public failures), leaving us with a horrific downtown for years on end? It is appalling. You can't avoid it. Whatever your domestic partner preference, the Nightmare on our very own Elm Street continues. It's as if Freddy Krueger runs the Board of Trustees. First, get rid of the mess on the board of trustees, replace them with people who will fix the wasteland that is downtown. Then perks. DWM | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1239 Registered: 5-2001 |
Agreed, the bill is a lot more restrictive then some. I agree that we should simply just legalize gay marriage but I suppose it's a start. There is nothing stopping unmarried straights from marrying and the need to recognize them as domestic partners is obviously less. As to insurance coverage, right now village employees do not contribute to their health care coverage (nor do Board of Ed employees>) Here is a link to the whole bill http://www.goleader.com/features/3743_S2.pdf NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1240 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dead: As I suggested, these "perks" shouldn't come into play until the current board faced reelection and were either recertified by the voting public or replaced. NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| deepthroat Citizen Username: Deepthroat Post Number: 14 Registered: 5-2003 |
It seems to me that the "Leadership with Vision" team needs to collectively see an optometrist immediately. Since they have failed to hold Mr. Matthews accountable for the Shop-Rite/Village Market/Whatever! debacle, they should first find a way to recoup the money that this town has paid him already for the shoddy legal advice (who would EVER, EVER!!! purchase property without proper inspections??). To add insult to injury, as landlords, the Township failed to maintain the property; Hello: if there's no heat, pipes burst! Anybody home??? Amd he's heading the Charter Review Committee? If the trustees have complicated the operations of this Township to the point where they require compensation, perhaps it's time they tossed in the proverbial towel. DT I'll keep digging, just for you! | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 848 Registered: 5-2001 |
Reminder - the public hearing on proposed modifications to the Village Charter, which includes paying the Village Trustees will be held tonight at Village Hall. This will likely be the only opportunity for the public to comment on these changes before the Charter Review Committee. Come out & speak your mind tonight. Mark/Allan - can you confirm if it will be televised on cable? | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2003 |
Does anyone know the adoption process for proposed Charter revisions? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1020 Registered: 4-2002 |
Howard: I had posted this earlier: After the committee holds the public hearing the report will be forwarded to the Trustees who will review it and if they agree adopt an ordinance asking the state legislature to change the charter. After that is done then the changes will be placed on the ballot for the voters to approve in November. After that the Trustees will have to adopt an ordinance for any salary proposal. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 657 Registered: 5-2001 |
Deep: The failure to conduct a Phase I study before purchase of commercial site with a parking lot is malpractice. The town should sue him, and let his insurer cover the damgages. But, the bigger and uglier picture is the totality of the negligence exhibited by the trustees, since at least the late eighties when the board president voted in a matter where he had a direct conflict, (against a new supermarket which would include a pharmacy). He kept it out, and, correct me if I am wrong, a fine was levied by some agency for the vote. So much heat over health insurance, when the Village government resembles the Augean Stables. Clean 'em out. DWM |
