Quote of the night

“Do you think we would have sold out faster of we had by-laws?”  ~  Joe Oxley

• Tweet

Middletown Files Layoff Plan

Mayor Fiore Hopeful That Some Police Jobs Can Be Save Through Union Concessions And Tapping The Library’s $1.2 Million Surplus

MIDDLETOWN – The Township Committee has directed the Township Administrator to file a layoff plan with the State Civil Service Commission to address significant and continuing declines in municipal revenue and to conform with the 2% cap levy law.

“Recent budget analysis prepared by the Township’s Chief Financial Officer have made it readily apparent that the Township is left with no option but to immediately begin the process of initiating another round of significant layoffs,” said Middletown Mayor Tony Fiore.  “We are hopeful that some police jobs can be saved through reasonable concessions by the Township’s collective bargaining units and with assistance from the Middletown Library’s $1.2 million surplus.”

“Committeeman Kevin Settembrino, the Committee’s representative on the Middletown Library’s independent board, has specifically requested that it authorize payment of $898,000 of the Library’s $1.2 million surplus that will have no impact on the Library’s operations so that additional police layoffs can be averted,” continued Fiore.  “Nobody can be immune from cuts in this current economic climate, but we must first focus on essential core government services such as providing police protection and maintaining municipal roadways.”

Budget & Layoff Facts

 The layoff plan was filed with the State Civil Service Commission on Friday, February 11, 2011 with notice to the affected employees and unions, proposing the elimination of 26 total positions, as follows:

 Department of Parks & Recreation (13 positions), which eliminates every position but for the Director essentially eliminating the Department.  Most of these positions cannot be saved absent an extraordinary change in projected municipal revenues and major concessions.

• Police Department (10 positions) with demotions proposed too. The $898,000 requested from the Library’s $1.2 million surplus to avert further police layoffs represents the amount of the municipal budget that pays the debt service for the library renovation project, $565,000, plus the amount of contribution mandated by statute that will decrease due to changes in the Townships overall valuation resulting from the reassessment totaling $333,000 in 2012.

§ Building Office (1 position).

§ Department of Finance (1 position).

§ The Municipal Court (1 position).

 The projected effective date of the Layoff Plan is Friday, April 29, 2011.

• Despite more than $3 million of reductions in budget appropriations, revenues have decreased approximately $7.4 million, leaving an estimated budget shortfall of $4.4 million.
• The largest source of revenue loss continues to be from tax appeals that represent a total of approximately $4.9 million, which is one of the principal reasons why the Township is currently completing a Township-wide reassessment.
• The Township eliminated 40 positions last year through layoffs, retirements and resignations.

• Tweet

Residents Hate Wind Turbines. Politicians Keep Forcing Them Onto the People

By Chris Fotache, Right In Jersey

On Feb 8th, Gov. Chris Christie both vetoed the liquified natural gas project off the coast of New Jersey, and enacted a law to allow wind turbines on Atlantic City piers.

I’m not even gonna go into killing the LNG project, and the savings in heating costs that he refused. But why is he so adamant to get more wind turbines at the Jersey Shore? Residents have recently strongly opposed windmills in Union Beach and in Sea Girt, this last one prompting legislation to restrict building of turbines near residential areas.

It’s very trendy to advocate wind turbines to save the planet, when it’s not in your neighborhood. But what happens when wind mills COME to your backyard? Michele Francese lives in Ocean Gate, NJ, near one of the first New Jersey wind turbines. Here’s what she tells us:

I live directly across from a wind turbine in Ocean Gate. It has completely destroyed the quality of life that we once enjoyed in our quiet little town. Not only is the noise deafening at times, the reflection in our windows makes you feel like you have a disco ball spinning from your ceiling. I’m all for green energy, but more studies must be done before any more are located in residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, another one is being constructed as we speak in Ocean Gate. I’m very disappointed that what could have been a positive thing has become an albatross around my neck. The concept is great but the result has failed terribly.

Andrew Walden just wrote a great article for the American Thinker, titled Wind Energy’s Ghost. There, he discusses all the failed wind project throughout the US, including the abandoned farms in Hawaii and California. Most of them have been abandoned. Hundreds of wind turbines lay unused because keeping them up cost more than the energy they produced. Wind turbines have to run all the time to keep the oil running, so if they get wind 20% of the day (which would be a very big number), they actually have to use energy from the power grid the rest of the 80%.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and the environment asked the key question:

If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end.

Walden describes the reality of the wind industry:

The new paradigm created by the generation of 1968 is more political and less economy. Without government intervention, utilities normally avoid wind energy. Wind’s erratic power feed destabilizes power grids and forces engineers to stand by, always ready to fire up traditional generators.

So as all evidence points to wind turbines being non efficient and destined for failure, while residents near such windmills complain about lost property value and decreased quality of life, why do politicians keep pushing these bad policies?

• Tweet

LINCOLN DAY DINNER IS SOLD OUT!

For the first time since 1989 the Monmouth County Lincoln Day Dinner is sold out  and walk-ins can not be accomodated!

If you’ve already made your reservation your in.

• Tweet

One more thing about by-laws

By Art Gallagher

While researching county committees and the question of by-laws this week I stumbled upon an interesting provision in the unconstitutional amendment to NJSA 19:5-3.2 that creates a significant incentive for county parties to create by-laws.

In Monmouth County we elect county committee members and the Chairman every two years.   In trying to find the law that set those terms, I couldn’t find it.  The terms of committee members and chairmen does not appear to be spelled out clearly anywhere in the law.  I consulted an expert election law attorney figuring he would have the answer on his finger tips.  After an hour searching the Intenet together over the phone, we still couldn’t find it.

Title 19 refers to annual elections but it isn’t clear.  My election law expert found a case going back to the 1960’s that could be interepted to require annual elections.

I confess that my first thought upon this discovery was somewhat selfish.

Last year, due to the same snafu in the primary ballot printing that placed Dan Peters for Sheriff under Anna Little for Congress, making the Sheriff primary an unexpected race, county committee challengers in Highlands were also bracketed with Little.

I knew my county committee slate was in trouble as soon as I saw the ballot.  Early on in the process Chairman Oxley assured me that the challengers would be in the Siberian section of the ballot.   That I was supporting Little over Gooch for Congress was no secret.  I had raised the question of bracketing the incumbent committee with Little in the primary because I expected her to win Highlands, which she did.   Oxley assured me that the challengers would not be bracketed with Little and the committee that I led submitted our petitions under Gooch and the rest of the county line.

I know this wasn’t a dirty trick on Oxley’s part because he was more surprised and upset by the ballot as I was. Not so much because of the Higlands bracketing, but because of the Dan Peters for Sheriff bracketing under Little.  Suddenly Shaun Golden for Sheriff lawn signs had to be rush ordered and placed throughout the 6th congressional district.

We weren’t going to buy four different sets of lawn signs for a county committee primary in Highlands that less than 200 people were going to vote in.  But we did spent the weekend before the primary on the phone asking historical primary voters to cast a vote for Little for Congress and then move to the left and vote the county line for the rest of the ballot.  Those hundreds of voice mails that said, “Please vote Anna Little for Congress in column B and then move to the left to column A and vote for Shaun Golden for Sheriff, Clifton and Arnone for Freeholder, Frank Nolan for Mayor and our local county committee team” must have sounded pretty weird to the people who listened to them.  The messages didn’t work and the challengers won the primary on Little’s coat tails.

Discovering that the terms of committee members weren’t defined by law and what little law there was pointed to annual elections, it occurred to me to have my committee team in Highlands file petitions this year two minutes before the filing deadline.

If the clerk accepted our petitions and put us on the ballot, and if everyone kept their mouths shut, the current Highlands committee wouldn’t even know that they were about to be voted out until they got their sample ballots in the mail.  This was fun fantasy.

But if the clerk said, “there’s no county committee election this year,”  and I said, “there should be, let’s go to see Judge Lawson,” word would get out we’d waste a bunch of time and money.

If I prevailed, either in court or by the clerk accepting the petitions and putting us on the ballot, the victory would be short lived and all hell could break lose through out the county and as unhappy Republicans and Tea Party activists tried to take over the party every year.  We could have a different county chairman every year.  It could lead to chaos and ultimately Democratic control of the county government.

All of that went through my head in less time than it took for you to read it while I was on the phone and the Internet with my election law expert friend when I remembered reading in the Ocean County Republican By-Laws that the the term of county committee members in Ocean is four years.

“Hey election law attorney friend,” I said, ” the Ocean County By-Laws say that the terms of county committee members are four years, what’s up with that?”

Back to the unconstitutional statute we went and there is was….the new law passed by Corzine and the legislature provides that county committee terms are determined by committee by-laws.

That seems to be a pretty good reason to have by-laws.

Maybe we’ll have by-laws by the primary filing deadline.  If not, we might have some fun in Highlands after all.

• Tweet

On By-Laws and Candidate Selection

By Art Gallagher

The boost in traffic visiting this site the last couple of days  and some of the comments in Fred Lehlbach’s post, Where are the By-Laws? ,  and Mike Halfacre’s By-Laws Don’t Matter, Yes They Do, seems to indicate that the topic has considerable interest.

Or maybe I should write less and turn the site over to guest writters more often.  Actually I started this piece in response to Fred’s and before Mayor Halfacre submitted his. Some of my points may duplicate Mike’s.

By-Laws and candidate selection

The 2009 State statute that Fred cited does not require that county committee members be empowered to vote on who the county organization’s endorsed candidates will be.  It requires that there be by-laws and that the by-laws be available to the county committee members.

The Ocean County GOP has by-laws.  There is nothing in them regarding candidate selection.

By-Laws and the law

I think the Monmouth GOP should have by-laws, if for no other reason than to make the controversy go away and to keep it from coming back every year or so.

But that we don’t have by-laws does not mean that the county GOP is operating outside of the law.  As Fred noted, the amendment to NJSA 19:5-3.2  has no effective date.  Even if it did, the law itself was probably unconstitutional the minute Governor Corzine signed it.

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Central Committee  that the State of California could not regulate the endorsement of candidates or the way that political parties organize themselves.  The court ruled that the California law in question violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

If California can’t do it, New Jersey can’t do it.

The U.S. Supreme Court trumps the NJ Legislature and Corzine.

Oxley’s Candidate Selection Process and County Committee Members

The candidate selection process that Chairman Oxley has employed three times now is not designed to disempower county committee members.  It is designed to empower municipal chairs, who are elected by the county committee members.

The “Oxley method” is a screening committee comprised of all municipal chairs and all present and former elected officials above the municipal level, i.e., all present and former county level officials and state legislators.   The municipal chairs outnumber the “statesmen”  on paper.  Yet in both 2009 and 2010 many municipal chairs, too many, did not show up for the screening committee selection.   As Halfacre noted, the presence of present and former elected officials in the process does dilute the municipal chairs’ influence, and thereby the county committee members, but not nearly as much as voluntary non-participation on the part of the chairs and the committees dilutes their own influence.  There are 53 municipalities in Monmouth County.  If 53 municipal chairs showed up for the screenings, the chairs would have the power.

Oxley has made it clear that he expects the chairs to consult with their local committees. Most who participate in the process do consult with the local committees.

Oxley is not a “boss.” 

In 2009 his choice for Freeholder was not nominated by the screening committee. 

In 2010 everyone knew who Oxley’s choices for the congressional nominations were.  They, Diane Gooch, Scott Sipprelle and incumbent Congressman Chris Smith, won the party endorsements.  If there was any pressure being applied by Oxley for his choices, I, as a municipal chair and a vocal advocate for other candidates in CD 6 and 12, didn’t feel it.  I had no idea who Oxley’s choice for Freeholder was, even after asking him.

In the “Oxley method” those who want to influence the candidate selection process should contact their local county committee members, municipal chairs, elected officials on the county and state level and former elected officials on the county and state level.

Is the “Oxley method” the right way or the best way?  I don’t know.  It has been controversial, even among screening committee members.  However, it is hard to argue with the results. 

Joe Oxley inherited a Monmouth GOP that was on the verge of losing control of county government for the first time in two decades when he was first elected Chairman in June of 2008.  We lost a one seat on the Freeholder board in 2006, 2007 and 2008 each.   We won two of them back, one at a time in 2009 and 2010.  A victory this year brings Monmouth County’s government back into unanimous Republican representation.

Weather you agree with his methods or not, Oxley has stopped the bleeding.  He’s done much better than stop the bleeding.  He’s lead the party to two overwhelming victories in a row.

I love conventions and the campaigning that occurs leading up to them.   I think they bring more people into the process and force candidates to define who they really are.  I think competition is healthy and makes the party stronger.  There is often great political theatre.

Yet it is also true that these campaigns have caused lasting divisions that continue to hurt the party.  Oxley’s two predecessors held conventions.  The party became more and more divided and lost repeatedly.

We should keep examining what we are doing and look to improve it.  Even when it is working well.  We should keep looking for ways to welcome interested people into the process.  In an ideal world open conventions and full committee participation would be the way to go.  But the truth is getting full committee participation looks to be a pipe dream and the recent past of a more open process as proved to be destructive.

• Tweet

MANALAPAN MAYOR LUCAS ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR MONMOUTH COUNTY FREEHOLDER

Manalapan Mayor Andrew Lucas announced today that he will seek the Republican nomination for Monmouth County Freeholder.

“I am proud to announce my candidacy for the Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders today,” said Lucas. “Prior Freeholders have set a tradition of fiscal responsibility and visionary planning, making Monmouth County one of the best places in America to live, work or visit. I intend to build upon this tradition and I believe my experience makes me the best candidate to do so.”

Lucas, a lifelong Monmouth County resident who was raised on a working farm in Manalapan, cited his broad life experience as a major asset.

“In these difficult economic times, I believe my education and finance background is definitely a major asset. I think my record in Manalapan of cutting over $2 million in wasteful spending and being at the forefront of sharing services to create more efficiency in government bears that out. I also know being raised on a farm, as well as now owning my own farm, has given me an appreciation for hard work and a respect for the environment that will allow me to serve the people of Monmouth County well.”

Mayor Lucas is a principal owner of Lucas Capital Advisors, an investment management firm. He has a degree in Economics from Princeton University. He is also the owner of Walnut Grove Farm in Manalapan. He has served on the Manalapan Township Committee since 2005, during which he has served three terms as Mayor.

• Tweet

NATURAL GAS VETO BAD FOR BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS

By Michael Laffey

On Tuesday February 8 it was reported in the Asbury Park Press, http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011110208042 , that the Governor vetoed   a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas port facility 17 miles off the coast of Asbury Park. This decision is bad for New Jersey business and consumers and the Governor should be urged to reconsider this decision.

Natural gas in its liquid form is not stored under pressure and is not flammable or explosive. When exposed to the environment it quickly evaporates. It therefore cannot result in a slick if it is spilled. The vapors when mixed with air are not explosive in an unconfined area.

Natural gas:

• creates less carbon dioxide per BTU than any other carbon based fuel
• is easily transportable
• burns without soot or sulfur dioxide
• is the  very plentiful and therefore very inexpensive compared to other fuels
• does not pollute soil or groundwater if released

These facilities operate all over the world.  This is not a new or unproven concept. Massachusetts already has two of these facilities.  The building of this facility would have created no environmental or safety risk to New Jersey and does not constitute a risk to our tourism industry. 

Building of this facility would create good paying jobs for New Jersey residents. It would lower energy costs for consumers and businesses.  The Governor wants to attract business to New Jersey and create jobs and this project would do both

This reason this proposal was opposed by environmental groups was because it involves fossil fuels. The unrealistic goal of those opposing the facility is to put fossil fuels out of business.  They do not want anything built that would provide low cost fuel to consumers because then expensive inefficient alternative energy sources can not compete.

No matter what your position is on global warming and fossil fuels the fact is that fossil fuels are not going to be replaced by solar and wind power anytime soon. A proper weighing of the economic benefit versus risk of this project leaves no doubt that it should be allowed to move forward.

As a counter to these misguided environmental lobbyists the Governor needs to hear from the people who would get jobs from this project and the businesses and consumers who would benefit from lower energy costs.  We need to urge the Governor to reverse his position. He needs to hear from the people who would benefit from this project rather then the misguided special interest groups who currently have his ear.

• Tweet

The Redistricting Shuffle

InTheLobby has a terrific piece about state legislative and congressional  redistricting.

• Tweet

EDUCATION SPENDING IS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO SUCCESS.

By Grace Cangemi

• Tweet