Clerk Duffy: (via e-mail on September 10, 2015)
Based on the on-line version of the Council's September 9, 2015 meeting agenda, I believe that that Council approved the minutes from the following closed meetings: April 18, 2012, May 9, 2012, June 13, 2012, July 11, 2012, October 10, 2012, November 20, 2012, December 3, 2012, December 12, 2012, March 13, 2013, May 8, 2013, June 12, 2013, July 10, 2013, August 14, 2013, October 9, 2013, December 11, 2013, February 11, 2014, April 9, 2014, May 14, 2014, June 18, 2014, July 9, 2014, and August 25, 2014.
While there are still some closed meeting minutes that haven't been approved (e.g. September 10, 2014, October 6, 2014 and November 12, 2014), I understand from our August 31, 2015 telephone conversation that these minutes, together with those closed sessions held during the first half of 2015, will be prepared and approved at the October 14, 2015 Council Meeting.
Given this, I will not file an Open Public Meetings Act lawsuit against the Borough prior to October 14, 2015.
Thank you for your cooperation in this regard.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Friday, September 4, 2015
Englewood Cliffs Mayor violated ethics law, fined $100.
The matter was originated by a March 7, 2012 complaint filed by John Paff and the New Jersey Libertarian Party. The complaint alleged that Parisi, who served on the Board of Directors of North Jersey Community Bank and as Chairman of Otterstedt Insurance Agency, failed to recuse himself from the Borough Council's 2010 consideration of a $9.8 million Board of Education budget that voters had rejected. At the time of the discussions, the Board of Education had active accounts with both North Jersey Community Bank and Otterstedt Insurance Agency. The record reflects that Parisi advocated making "no cuts" the the Board's budget. The Notice of Violation and complaint are on-line here.
The LFB found that Parisi "had a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence." The Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.9 sets the minimum fine at $100 and the maximum at $500.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Draft minutes of 07/09/14 public meeting disclosed more than a year later.
For some reason, the Borough Council has yet to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 9, 2014. In response to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, Administrator/Clerk Lisette M. Duffy disclosed a draft version of those minutes and advised me that "these minutes will be voted on at the next meeting."
Saturday, August 22, 2015
RE: Borough Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2015
Hon. Joseph C. Parisi, Jr., Mayor and members of the
Englewood Cliffs Borough Council
482 Hudson Terrace
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
via e-mail and Fax to 201-569-4356
Dear Mayor Parisi and Council members:
On August 12, 2015, I requested Minutes of the Borough Council executive sessions held between March 23, 2012 and June 10, 2015 except those for January 16, 2013 and February 13, 2013. (I did not request the minutes from January 16, 2013 and February 13, 2013 because I have already posted them on my blog.)
In her August 21, 2015 response, Borough Administrator and Clerk Lisette M. Duffy provided me with the minutes of the executive sessions held on April 17, 2013; January 15, 2014; March 12, 2014; October 6, 2014 and November 12, 2014. As for the remainder of the minutes, Duffy explained:
I find the desultory manner in which the Borough keeps its executive session minutes unacceptable, especially given the Borough's past problems with meeting minutes. In her April 13, 2015 NorthJersey.com article "Englewood Cliffs brings mystery over missing minutes to an end," Kim Lueddeke reported that the Borough's 2011 meeting minutes--both public and executive--"never existed." While all the minutes I am presently seeking are from meetings that took place after 2011, the fact that the Borough lost a years worth of it minutes should have caused the Council to tighten up the process by which its minutes are recorded, approved and maintained.
Also, see Chris Neidenberg's February 16, 2015 Northern Valley Press article "Five years of closed meeting minutes remain sealed." In this article--written more than six months ago--Duffy, in response to Ms. McMorrow's request for five years worth of executive minutes, told McMorrow that the bulk of those minutes "will be released upon review by the mayor and council. This will take some time, but those that are approved will be provided to you." This is essentially the same refrain that Duffy is repeating to me six months later. Also in Neidenberg's article, Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston, Sr. acknowledged that the Borough is "way behind on approving [its] minutes" and that he "is working on it."
With all due respect, the Borough Council has had ample time to review the executive session minutes within the scope of my request. If I believed that waiting two more months, as Duffy requests, would cause the minutes to be disclosed, I'd be willing to wait. Unfortunately, the Borough's election to dither during the past six months instead of getting its store in order causes me to believe that waiting another two months would be a waste of time.
Accordingly, I need for the Borough's indecisiveness to stop and for it do whatever needs to be done to get the 2013 and 2014 executive minutes within the scope of my August 12, 2015 request ready for disclosure, either in full or as redacted, by its September 9, 2015 meeting. If there are any minutes within the scope of my request that, like the 2011 minutes, "don't exist," I ask that the Council come clean and just admit which minutes don't exist at the September 9, 2015 meeting. If the Council declines my invitation and continues to dither, I will enlist the aid of a Superior Court Judge to help refocus the Council's, Ms. Duffy's and Mr. Corriston's attention and priorities.
Very truly yours,
John Paff
Hon. Joseph C. Parisi, Jr., Mayor and members of the
Englewood Cliffs Borough Council
482 Hudson Terrace
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
via e-mail and Fax to 201-569-4356
Dear Mayor Parisi and Council members:
On August 12, 2015, I requested Minutes of the Borough Council executive sessions held between March 23, 2012 and June 10, 2015 except those for January 16, 2013 and February 13, 2013. (I did not request the minutes from January 16, 2013 and February 13, 2013 because I have already posted them on my blog.)
In her August 21, 2015 response, Borough Administrator and Clerk Lisette M. Duffy provided me with the minutes of the executive sessions held on April 17, 2013; January 15, 2014; March 12, 2014; October 6, 2014 and November 12, 2014. As for the remainder of the minutes, Duffy explained:
All remaining minutes (not included in the e-mail) are being reviewed by the Borough Attorney and will be provided to the Mayor and Council for their approval. Once voted on, the approved the minutes [sic] will be available to the public. As per your request, I can e-mail you the additional minutes once voted on. I anticipate all minutes will be voted on within the next 2 months.Englewood Cliffs apparent cannot--in August 2015--produce minutes from more than two years ago. For example, the Borough Council went into executive session at its March 13, 2013 caucus meeting but those minutes, although within the scope of my August 12, 2015 request, were not disclosed. Those minutes, among many others, are apparently "being reviewed by the Borough Attorney" to be voted on "within the next two months."
I find the desultory manner in which the Borough keeps its executive session minutes unacceptable, especially given the Borough's past problems with meeting minutes. In her April 13, 2015 NorthJersey.com article "Englewood Cliffs brings mystery over missing minutes to an end," Kim Lueddeke reported that the Borough's 2011 meeting minutes--both public and executive--"never existed." While all the minutes I am presently seeking are from meetings that took place after 2011, the fact that the Borough lost a years worth of it minutes should have caused the Council to tighten up the process by which its minutes are recorded, approved and maintained.
Also, see Chris Neidenberg's February 16, 2015 Northern Valley Press article "Five years of closed meeting minutes remain sealed." In this article--written more than six months ago--Duffy, in response to Ms. McMorrow's request for five years worth of executive minutes, told McMorrow that the bulk of those minutes "will be released upon review by the mayor and council. This will take some time, but those that are approved will be provided to you." This is essentially the same refrain that Duffy is repeating to me six months later. Also in Neidenberg's article, Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston, Sr. acknowledged that the Borough is "way behind on approving [its] minutes" and that he "is working on it."
With all due respect, the Borough Council has had ample time to review the executive session minutes within the scope of my request. If I believed that waiting two more months, as Duffy requests, would cause the minutes to be disclosed, I'd be willing to wait. Unfortunately, the Borough's election to dither during the past six months instead of getting its store in order causes me to believe that waiting another two months would be a waste of time.
Accordingly, I need for the Borough's indecisiveness to stop and for it do whatever needs to be done to get the 2013 and 2014 executive minutes within the scope of my August 12, 2015 request ready for disclosure, either in full or as redacted, by its September 9, 2015 meeting. If there are any minutes within the scope of my request that, like the 2011 minutes, "don't exist," I ask that the Council come clean and just admit which minutes don't exist at the September 9, 2015 meeting. If the Council declines my invitation and continues to dither, I will enlist the aid of a Superior Court Judge to help refocus the Council's, Ms. Duffy's and Mr. Corriston's attention and priorities.
Very truly yours,
John Paff
Friday, February 20, 2015
Northern Valley Press: Council allots $50K for jail cell improvements
From the February 16, 2015 Northern Valley Press: http://tinyurl.com/jwpyo6b
Northern Valley Press: Five years of closed meeting minutes remain sealed
From the February 16, 2015 Northern Valley Press: http://tinyurl.com/pdcuk6c
Northern Valley Press: Animal Shelter Debate
From the February 2, 2015 Northern Valley Press: Animal Shelter Debate
http://tinyurl.com/AnimalShelterDebate
http://tinyurl.com/AnimalShelterDebate
The Record: Englewood Cliffs Health Board's animal control switch criticized
January 29, 2015 Last updated: Thursday, January 29, 2015, 12:31 AM
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS — Residents urged the Mayor and Council to step-in regarding a controversial decision the Board of Health made to terminate its contract with the Bergen County Protect and Rescue Foundation — a no-kill animal shelter.
Community members gathered at the Jan. 14 council meeting arguing the move to allow the Bergen County Animal Shelter to handle stray cats, dogs, adoptions and euthanizations contending the latter number of such cases is high. The borough has been working with Protect and Rescue Foundation since 2011.
Compared to the Bergen County Animal Shelter, in 2013 the Protect and Rescue Founda-tion impounded 270 dogs and 133 cats. The Protect and Rescue Foundation did euthanize one dog while 134 dogs and 84 cats were adopted, according to the foundation.
In 2013 the Bergen County Animal Shelter impounded 784 dogs and 1,753 cats. The shelter put down 148 dogs and 638 cats while 320 dogs and 851 cats were adopted, according to the county.
"Upwards of 40 percent of the animals that were taken to that shelter were euthanized," Vince Ascolese, supervising animal control officer at the Protect and Rescue Foundation, said.
Resident Cynthia Bellucci accused the county's shelter of being unprofessional when it came to trapping an animal on her property several years ago.
"I had a skunk at my house and it smelled so bad that me and the officer thought it was a gas leak, it was so bad," Bellucci said. "[The County] took 72 hours to pick up that skunk and that was unacceptable."
Others expressed their support for seeing animals adopted instead of euthanized.
"I have a rescue dog and every time I look at that dog I realize and thank god I got him from a no-kill shelter," said former borough councilwoman Carrol McMorrow.
Board of Health President Diane Clarke defended designating the Bergen County Animal Shelter as the borough's animal control.
"We had two public sessions to discuss this and there were no members of the public there," Clarke said. "This is nothing personal. This is about what is best for the animals. Yes there are some euthanizations but these animals get examined first before that decision."
She said the Bergen County Animal Shelter has a dedicated place to play and exercise with the animals versus keeping them in crates while they wait to be adopted at the Protect and Rescue Foundation.
"They have a track on premises," Clarke said. "We discussed it, we voted and we chose what we feel is right."
The Bergen County Animal Shelter could not be reached for comment by press time.
Despite public outcry, Mayor Joseph Parisi said the council can only recommend the Board of Health revisit the issue because the group is an autonomous body and doesn't have to consider what the council asks.
"We do not control the 'purse strings,' we appropriate certain monies to them," said Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston. "They are an autonomous body. We do not control them."
Councilwoman Lauren Eastwood recommended Parisi advise the Board of Health to revisit the issue.
"I'm disgusted with the Board of Health's decision," Eastwood said. "I would like to ask them to have another vote at a new meeting that is well publicized so residents can come and make their voice heard."
Email: simone@northjersey.com
Community members gathered at the Jan. 14 council meeting arguing the move to allow the Bergen County Animal Shelter to handle stray cats, dogs, adoptions and euthanizations contending the latter number of such cases is high. The borough has been working with Protect and Rescue Foundation since 2011.
Compared to the Bergen County Animal Shelter, in 2013 the Protect and Rescue Founda-tion impounded 270 dogs and 133 cats. The Protect and Rescue Foundation did euthanize one dog while 134 dogs and 84 cats were adopted, according to the foundation.
In 2013 the Bergen County Animal Shelter impounded 784 dogs and 1,753 cats. The shelter put down 148 dogs and 638 cats while 320 dogs and 851 cats were adopted, according to the county.
"Upwards of 40 percent of the animals that were taken to that shelter were euthanized," Vince Ascolese, supervising animal control officer at the Protect and Rescue Foundation, said.
Resident Cynthia Bellucci accused the county's shelter of being unprofessional when it came to trapping an animal on her property several years ago.
"I had a skunk at my house and it smelled so bad that me and the officer thought it was a gas leak, it was so bad," Bellucci said. "[The County] took 72 hours to pick up that skunk and that was unacceptable."
Others expressed their support for seeing animals adopted instead of euthanized.
"I have a rescue dog and every time I look at that dog I realize and thank god I got him from a no-kill shelter," said former borough councilwoman Carrol McMorrow.
Board of Health President Diane Clarke defended designating the Bergen County Animal Shelter as the borough's animal control.
"We had two public sessions to discuss this and there were no members of the public there," Clarke said. "This is nothing personal. This is about what is best for the animals. Yes there are some euthanizations but these animals get examined first before that decision."
She said the Bergen County Animal Shelter has a dedicated place to play and exercise with the animals versus keeping them in crates while they wait to be adopted at the Protect and Rescue Foundation.
"They have a track on premises," Clarke said. "We discussed it, we voted and we chose what we feel is right."
The Bergen County Animal Shelter could not be reached for comment by press time.
Despite public outcry, Mayor Joseph Parisi said the council can only recommend the Board of Health revisit the issue because the group is an autonomous body and doesn't have to consider what the council asks.
"We do not control the 'purse strings,' we appropriate certain monies to them," said Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston. "They are an autonomous body. We do not control them."
Councilwoman Lauren Eastwood recommended Parisi advise the Board of Health to revisit the issue.
"I'm disgusted with the Board of Health's decision," Eastwood said. "I would like to ask them to have another vote at a new meeting that is well publicized so residents can come and make their voice heard."
Email: simone@northjersey.com
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
The Record editorial: Silence in Englewood Cliffs
January 21, 2015 Last updated: Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 8:11 AM
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS Mayor Joseph Parisi Jr. seems determined to make sure everyone in town knows he's the one in charge.
So he recently promulgated an executive order requiring council members who want information from borough employees to clear the requests with him first. Parisi's order also mandates that the mayor must approve all official borough communications to the public and media.
Such power grabs by mayors are hardly unique and are generally in response to political change, which apparently is the case here. Parisi, a Democrat, issued his order soon after Republican Lauren Eastwood was appointed to fill a council vacancy. Prior to joining the council, Eastwood frequently sought borough information through the Open Public Records Act.
Republicans suggest the mayor's order was a preemptive strike to keep Eastwood from continuing to make OPRA requests of borough employees. Parisi denies that, saying his order simply reinforces the way communication should be done.
We disagree. Council members, like the mayor, are elected by the people. If a council member has a pertinent question for the police chief or the head of the public works department, he or she should be able to ask the official directly. In a small town such as Englewood Cliffs, forcing council members to go through the mayor before they can get answers to simple questions introduces a bureaucratic regimen that is counterproductive.
Parisi's order also calls for all official borough communications to go through the mayor. That provision has the potential to curtail the ability, and the right, of council members to speak out.
While the mayor remains a municipality's chief spokesperson, council members have as much right as the mayor does to speak publicly on any issue they want. For example, if they don't like the proposed budget, they should say so. Elected officials can speak out at council meetings, at informal gatherings around town, in press releases or through social media. The mayor is not the only officeholder with a platform.
E. Carter Corriston Sr., the borough attorney, tellingly told The Record that there would be no legal sanctions against council members who violate the mayor's executive order.
That's not surprising, given the fact it's not against the law for an elected official to speak publicly or to ask borough employees questions. Nor should it be against borough policy.
So he recently promulgated an executive order requiring council members who want information from borough employees to clear the requests with him first. Parisi's order also mandates that the mayor must approve all official borough communications to the public and media.
Such power grabs by mayors are hardly unique and are generally in response to political change, which apparently is the case here. Parisi, a Democrat, issued his order soon after Republican Lauren Eastwood was appointed to fill a council vacancy. Prior to joining the council, Eastwood frequently sought borough information through the Open Public Records Act.
Republicans suggest the mayor's order was a preemptive strike to keep Eastwood from continuing to make OPRA requests of borough employees. Parisi denies that, saying his order simply reinforces the way communication should be done.
We disagree. Council members, like the mayor, are elected by the people. If a council member has a pertinent question for the police chief or the head of the public works department, he or she should be able to ask the official directly. In a small town such as Englewood Cliffs, forcing council members to go through the mayor before they can get answers to simple questions introduces a bureaucratic regimen that is counterproductive.
Parisi's order also calls for all official borough communications to go through the mayor. That provision has the potential to curtail the ability, and the right, of council members to speak out.
While the mayor remains a municipality's chief spokesperson, council members have as much right as the mayor does to speak publicly on any issue they want. For example, if they don't like the proposed budget, they should say so. Elected officials can speak out at council meetings, at informal gatherings around town, in press releases or through social media. The mayor is not the only officeholder with a platform.
E. Carter Corriston Sr., the borough attorney, tellingly told The Record that there would be no legal sanctions against council members who violate the mayor's executive order.
That's not surprising, given the fact it's not against the law for an elected official to speak publicly or to ask borough employees questions. Nor should it be against borough policy.
The Record: Mayor's executive order stirs conflict in Englewood Cliffs
January 18, 2015, 7:52 PM Last updated: Tuesday, January 20, 2015, 8:41 AM
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS – A month after a community activist and frequent filer of requests under the Open Public Records Act was appointed to the Borough Council, the mayor issued an executive order requiring that all council members’ requests for information from borough employees go through him.
“It’s just the way of communication that should be done,” Mayor Joseph Parisi Jr. said at a council meeting Wednesday, adding, “It’s not a gag order.”
But borough Republicans cried foul, questioning whether Parisi had the legal authority to control the council’s communications and alleging that the order was targeted at Lauren Eastwood, who was appointed to the council last month, after Ramon Ferro resigned.
Eastwood is a Republican. Parisi is a Democrat.
Parisi denied the accusation.
“There is no connection,” Parisi said. The order is “preventive,” he said, adding, “It’s not meant for any individual.” The order applies only to requests made by council members in relation to their official duties, Parisi said. In an email, Eastwood said she was disappointed in Parisi’s actions.
The borough GOP chairwoman, former Councilwoman Carrol McMorrow, echoed those sentiments: “I am disappointed to see that the mayor took such an action that clearly will be impeding the flow of information,” she said. “Being faced with a difficult budget year, all council people should have the ability to hold government accountable and scrutinize how taxpayer dollars are spent.”
Parisi said his order, which was issued Wednesday, came after he said he observed some “hiccups” in how the council communicated with borough employees – for example, multiple requests being made for the same information. The order is also a way to control costs, as most of the borough’s professional employees charge for their time, Parisi said.
“All of this is so we communicate better. … I’m trying to free up not only Lisette, but all of the professionals,” Parisi said, referring to the borough clerk and administrator, Lisette Duffy.
He pledged to respond to council requests in a “very timely” manner.
Parisi’s order calls for all requests for information to be directed to him for approval and forwarding to the appropriate departments and/or professionals, except in emergency situations. It also includes provisions that:
— Communication between department heads and council committees should only be performed by committee heads.
— Council members cannot intervene with municipal employees, volunteers and professionals unless they receive mayoral approval.
— All official borough communications to the public and media must be approved by Parisi.
Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston Sr. said council members cannot be legally sanctioned if they violate the order. Parisi said that if someone disregards the directive, he might first address the action with them privately. If it continues, he said, he would bring the matter to the council.
Though noting he did not need their approval, Parisi called for a vote of confidence from the council Wednesday.
The three Democrats – Joseph Favaro, Gloria Oh and Ed Aversa – all voted in favor of the order. Eastwood voted against it. Her fellow Republican, Zhi Liang, voted that he favored the order “in general,” though he also called it “very strict” and voiced concern over some of the language.
Nunzio Consalvo, also a Republican, attended the meeting via telephone but had hung up by the time Parisi called for the vote.
The Borough Council adopted a similar resolution in 2012, when McMorrow was on the council. Parisi said his executive order overrides this resolution.
“It’s just the way of communication that should be done,” Mayor Joseph Parisi Jr. said at a council meeting Wednesday, adding, “It’s not a gag order.”
But borough Republicans cried foul, questioning whether Parisi had the legal authority to control the council’s communications and alleging that the order was targeted at Lauren Eastwood, who was appointed to the council last month, after Ramon Ferro resigned.
Eastwood is a Republican. Parisi is a Democrat.
Parisi denied the accusation.
“There is no connection,” Parisi said. The order is “preventive,” he said, adding, “It’s not meant for any individual.” The order applies only to requests made by council members in relation to their official duties, Parisi said. In an email, Eastwood said she was disappointed in Parisi’s actions.
The borough GOP chairwoman, former Councilwoman Carrol McMorrow, echoed those sentiments: “I am disappointed to see that the mayor took such an action that clearly will be impeding the flow of information,” she said. “Being faced with a difficult budget year, all council people should have the ability to hold government accountable and scrutinize how taxpayer dollars are spent.”
Parisi said his order, which was issued Wednesday, came after he said he observed some “hiccups” in how the council communicated with borough employees – for example, multiple requests being made for the same information. The order is also a way to control costs, as most of the borough’s professional employees charge for their time, Parisi said.
“All of this is so we communicate better. … I’m trying to free up not only Lisette, but all of the professionals,” Parisi said, referring to the borough clerk and administrator, Lisette Duffy.
He pledged to respond to council requests in a “very timely” manner.
Parisi’s order calls for all requests for information to be directed to him for approval and forwarding to the appropriate departments and/or professionals, except in emergency situations. It also includes provisions that:
— Communication between department heads and council committees should only be performed by committee heads.
— Council members cannot intervene with municipal employees, volunteers and professionals unless they receive mayoral approval.
— All official borough communications to the public and media must be approved by Parisi.
Borough Attorney E. Carter Corriston Sr. said council members cannot be legally sanctioned if they violate the order. Parisi said that if someone disregards the directive, he might first address the action with them privately. If it continues, he said, he would bring the matter to the council.
Though noting he did not need their approval, Parisi called for a vote of confidence from the council Wednesday.
The three Democrats – Joseph Favaro, Gloria Oh and Ed Aversa – all voted in favor of the order. Eastwood voted against it. Her fellow Republican, Zhi Liang, voted that he favored the order “in general,” though he also called it “very strict” and voiced concern over some of the language.
Nunzio Consalvo, also a Republican, attended the meeting via telephone but had hung up by the time Parisi called for the vote.
The Borough Council adopted a similar resolution in 2012, when McMorrow was on the council. Parisi said his executive order overrides this resolution.
Friday, January 23, 2015
The Record editorial: Rocky Political Road
October 12, 2014 Last updated: Sunday, October 12, 2014, 1:21 AM
WHILE it's great that Englewood Cliffs residents will enjoy freshly paved streets, the letter Mayor Joseph Parisi Jr. sent out crediting the Borough Council's Democrats with making that possible at a good price was clearly a political stunt.
This is the epitome of small-town politics, and the public deserves better.
The mayor, a Democrat, sent residents in parts of the borough a letter approximately two weeks ago notifying them that their streets will be paved and there could potentially be road closures.
It also said the borough saved money with the project thanks to Borough Council members Gloria Oh, Edward Aversa and Joseph Favaro, who are all Democrats, with two of them up for reelection next month. Parisi told Staff Writer Kim Lueddeke that he only listed the Democrats because they are on the council's public works committee.
The letter didn't come from the public works committee — it was on borough letterhead and signed by the mayor.
The campaign treasurer for two Republican council candidates asked the state's Election Law Enforcement Commission to investigate whether the Democrats violated campaign finance law by not reporting the letter as a political communication.
Regulations on a "political communication" include whether the candidate was involved in any way and it's within 90 days of the candidate's election, sent to an audience "substantially comprised" of voters and references the candidate's governmental or political achievements.
The exception is if the communication informs citizens about a public emergency. And that is Parisi's argument. Raising the possibility of road closures can make this exception apply to the letter, he says.
Lueddeke reports that the Englewood Cliffs Republican chairwoman, Carrol McMorrow, is demanding that Parisi, Aversa and Oh admit that they were wrong and "immediately" reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the mailing.
Parisi estimated the cost of the mailing to be $90 and said, "If ELEC feels that I've done something wrong, I'll be more than willing to pay them back."
He should save everyone's time and reimburse the borough now. It's not about the relatively small amount of money, but the principle of this action. To argue that it wasn't a political mailing is an insult to the public's intelligence.
Borough councils should be working to find cost-effective ways to provide services like street paving. But when a mayor uses borough stationery and funds to applaud his preferred candidates a month before an election, he crosses a line.
There will always be small-town politics, but local officials don't need to embrace it quite so passionately.
WHILE it's great that Englewood Cliffs residents will enjoy freshly paved streets, the letter Mayor Joseph Parisi Jr. sent out crediting the Borough Council's Democrats with making that possible at a good price was clearly a political stunt.
This is the epitome of small-town politics, and the public deserves better.
The mayor, a Democrat, sent residents in parts of the borough a letter approximately two weeks ago notifying them that their streets will be paved and there could potentially be road closures.
It also said the borough saved money with the project thanks to Borough Council members Gloria Oh, Edward Aversa and Joseph Favaro, who are all Democrats, with two of them up for reelection next month. Parisi told Staff Writer Kim Lueddeke that he only listed the Democrats because they are on the council's public works committee.
The letter didn't come from the public works committee — it was on borough letterhead and signed by the mayor.
The campaign treasurer for two Republican council candidates asked the state's Election Law Enforcement Commission to investigate whether the Democrats violated campaign finance law by not reporting the letter as a political communication.
Regulations on a "political communication" include whether the candidate was involved in any way and it's within 90 days of the candidate's election, sent to an audience "substantially comprised" of voters and references the candidate's governmental or political achievements.
The exception is if the communication informs citizens about a public emergency. And that is Parisi's argument. Raising the possibility of road closures can make this exception apply to the letter, he says.
Lueddeke reports that the Englewood Cliffs Republican chairwoman, Carrol McMorrow, is demanding that Parisi, Aversa and Oh admit that they were wrong and "immediately" reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the mailing.
Parisi estimated the cost of the mailing to be $90 and said, "If ELEC feels that I've done something wrong, I'll be more than willing to pay them back."
He should save everyone's time and reimburse the borough now. It's not about the relatively small amount of money, but the principle of this action. To argue that it wasn't a political mailing is an insult to the public's intelligence.
Borough councils should be working to find cost-effective ways to provide services like street paving. But when a mayor uses borough stationery and funds to applaud his preferred candidates a month before an election, he crosses a line.
There will always be small-town politics, but local officials don't need to embrace it quite so passionately.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Englewood Cliffs Borough Council closed meeting minutes now on line.
In response to my OPRA request, the Borough provided me with minutes from some council executive sessions held in 2010 and 2013. I've put them on-line here.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The Record: Related-party deallings often involve owner of branch site
Related-party dealings often involve owner of branch site
Sunday December 8, 2013, 10:05 AM
The Record
A review of the annual proxy statements filed by North Jersey banks this year with the Securities and Exchange Commission show at least five bank branches are wholly or partially owned by directors. None of these deals has raised any public concern from regulators.
Valley National Bank said in its latest filing, for example, that it paid $417,490 in rent last year to Anjo Realty, the landlord for a Totowa branch and offices, which is owned by one of its board members, Robert C. Soldoveri. He owns 25 percent of Anjo, and his father owns 26 percent, according to the filing.
Valley said in its disclosure that the terms "were no less favorable to the bank than could have been obtained from an unaffiliated third party." The rent Valley paid to Anjo increased 6.5 percent from the previous year. The bank and Soldoveri did not respond to requests for comment.
Valley also disclosed that it paid $190,000 in 2012 — the same amount paid in 2011 — to rent a branch in Westbury, N.Y., from Westbury Plaza Associates, controlled by the estate of a board member’s father-in-law.
Lakeland Bank, based in Oak Ridge, leases a branch in Little Falls from Fletcher Holdings, which last year received $153,031 from the bank in "rent and related expenses." Director Stephen R. Tilton Sr. is the chairman and CEO of Fletcher Holdings. That amount was about the same that the bank paid Fletcher Holdings in 2010 and 2011, according to disclosure filings, but 15 percent higher than the $136,000 paid in 2008.
"Typically, our leases are fixed for five years and then bump up," said Thomas Shara, chief executive of Lakeland Bank.
Englewood Cliffs-based ConnectOne Bancorp disclosed in the prospectus for its $48 million initial public offering earlier this year some more complicated branch lease deals involving bank insiders.
Seven of the bank’s nine board members, either directly or indirectly, are landlords of the bank’s Hackensack and Cresskill branches.
Participants include Michael Kempner, founder and CEO of East Rutherford-based public relations firm MWW; Frank Sorrentino III, the bank’s chairman and chief executive; Director Frank Huttle III, who is the mayor of Englewood; and Director Joseph Parisi Jr., mayor of Englewood Cliffs, among others.
According to the prospectus, Sorrentino, Parisi, Huttle and Kempner each own 11.1 percent of the limited liability company that acts as landlord of the two branches, while the other three directors involved have smaller stakes.
All three of the bank’s audit committee members and all but two of the board members own portions of the limited liability company, raising the question of how the bank could put together a quorum of non-conflicted directors to approve the deal, as is customary, according to a review of a number of bank policies.
Bank officials declined to answer questions about the lease arrangement, and board members have declined to comment about their deals with the bank. Speaking generally, Sorrentino said the bank’s related-party transactions have been reviewed by regulators as well as the bank’s auditors.
The rents paid by ConnectOne for the Cresskill and Hackensack branches were approved by the state banking regulator in June 2006 and December 2006 as "fair market rent," the state Department of Banking and Insurance said.
In an emailed statement the company said, "ConnectOne always has been and always will be transparent in its business transactions and is fully compliant with all federal and state statutes."
According to the bank’s prospectus, automatic rent increases of at least 2.5 percent a year are written into the agreements. So since 2006, the rent has risen as of the end of last year by 16.9 percent, to $184,509 for the Cresskill branch, and by 29.7 percent, to $192,017 for the Hackensack office.
ConnectOne’s prospectus assured would-be investors that the rents received by the board members, in light of each directors’ "overall net worth and cash," were not large enough to affect their independent judgment as overseers.
**********************************************************************************
Valley National Bank said in its latest filing, for example, that it paid $417,490 in rent last year to Anjo Realty, the landlord for a Totowa branch and offices, which is owned by one of its board members, Robert C. Soldoveri. He owns 25 percent of Anjo, and his father owns 26 percent, according to the filing.
Valley said in its disclosure that the terms "were no less favorable to the bank than could have been obtained from an unaffiliated third party." The rent Valley paid to Anjo increased 6.5 percent from the previous year. The bank and Soldoveri did not respond to requests for comment.
Valley also disclosed that it paid $190,000 in 2012 — the same amount paid in 2011 — to rent a branch in Westbury, N.Y., from Westbury Plaza Associates, controlled by the estate of a board member’s father-in-law.
Lakeland Bank, based in Oak Ridge, leases a branch in Little Falls from Fletcher Holdings, which last year received $153,031 from the bank in "rent and related expenses." Director Stephen R. Tilton Sr. is the chairman and CEO of Fletcher Holdings. That amount was about the same that the bank paid Fletcher Holdings in 2010 and 2011, according to disclosure filings, but 15 percent higher than the $136,000 paid in 2008.
"Typically, our leases are fixed for five years and then bump up," said Thomas Shara, chief executive of Lakeland Bank.
Englewood Cliffs-based ConnectOne Bancorp disclosed in the prospectus for its $48 million initial public offering earlier this year some more complicated branch lease deals involving bank insiders.
Seven of the bank’s nine board members, either directly or indirectly, are landlords of the bank’s Hackensack and Cresskill branches.
Participants include Michael Kempner, founder and CEO of East Rutherford-based public relations firm MWW; Frank Sorrentino III, the bank’s chairman and chief executive; Director Frank Huttle III, who is the mayor of Englewood; and Director Joseph Parisi Jr., mayor of Englewood Cliffs, among others.
According to the prospectus, Sorrentino, Parisi, Huttle and Kempner each own 11.1 percent of the limited liability company that acts as landlord of the two branches, while the other three directors involved have smaller stakes.
All three of the bank’s audit committee members and all but two of the board members own portions of the limited liability company, raising the question of how the bank could put together a quorum of non-conflicted directors to approve the deal, as is customary, according to a review of a number of bank policies.
Bank officials declined to answer questions about the lease arrangement, and board members have declined to comment about their deals with the bank. Speaking generally, Sorrentino said the bank’s related-party transactions have been reviewed by regulators as well as the bank’s auditors.
The rents paid by ConnectOne for the Cresskill and Hackensack branches were approved by the state banking regulator in June 2006 and December 2006 as "fair market rent," the state Department of Banking and Insurance said.
In an emailed statement the company said, "ConnectOne always has been and always will be transparent in its business transactions and is fully compliant with all federal and state statutes."
According to the bank’s prospectus, automatic rent increases of at least 2.5 percent a year are written into the agreements. So since 2006, the rent has risen as of the end of last year by 16.9 percent, to $184,509 for the Cresskill branch, and by 29.7 percent, to $192,017 for the Hackensack office.
ConnectOne’s prospectus assured would-be investors that the rents received by the board members, in light of each directors’ "overall net worth and cash," were not large enough to affect their independent judgment as overseers.
**********************************************************************************
PHOTOS BY DON SMITH / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
ConnectOne Bank in Cresskill, top, and Lakeland Bank in Little Falls, below, are owned wholly or in part by members of the banks' boards of directors or their relatives.
Regulators who review these deals require that any rent or lease payments to a related party be in line with what the bank would pay a company with which it has no insider relationship.
The Record: Regulators are close to tightening standards for links between community banks and the firms they hire
Regulators are close to tightening standards for links between community banks and the firms they hire
The Record
When Oak Ridge-based Lakeland Bank needed heating and air conditioning services, it tapped a company run by Mark J. Fredericks, who is on the bank’s board of directors.
For a portion of its legal work, Wayne-based Valley National Bank turned to the lawyer Graham O. Jones, a board member, who received $310,681 last year for debt collection work and bank-customer loan closings.
And when ConnectOne Bancorp, based in Englewood Cliffs, went public last year, it benefited from the advertising and marketing expertise of the public relations firm MWW, which was paid $525,800 for its services. Michael Kempner, founder and chief executive of East Rutherford-based MWW, is a co-founder and board member of the bank.
These so-called related-party transactions, which have been reviewed by regulators, illustrate how board membership, especially in small banks, often is accompanied by business relationships.
Bankers say these deals are often good for the bank and its shareholders. Directors who provide professional services or who rent real estate to the banks they serve sometimes charge less than they would charge another customer or tenant. And they are often large shareholders, with a vested interest in the bank’s success.
But the deals also raise real or perceived issues of insiders using their positions to help themselves. The deals must be disclosed to regulators — ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on the federal level to the state Department of Banking and Insurance — who are on the lookout for conflicts of interest, fraud and lax corporate governance that could put shareholders’ investments or depositors’ funds at risk. The regulators want assurance that fees paid to a company owned in whole or part by a board member are in line with what the bank would pay a company with which it has no insider relationship. In other words, no sweetheart deals.
And these transactions will get even closer scrutiny under new standards proposed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an industry watchdog, that are scheduled to take effect a week from today, subject to approval of the SEC.
"The regulators take a very close look at this," said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va. "This is often a factor in bank problems and failures because insiders take too much money out of the bank," he said.
"The agencies are very consumer-oriented right now, and they are taking a very jaundiced view of these transactions," said Donald J. Musso, president and chief executive of FinPro, a consulting firm in Somerset County.
Industry experts say the scrutiny has intensified since the financial collapse and regulatory reforms, which have made banker-regulator relations more contentious.
The SEC requires publicly traded companies to disclose related-party transactions that exceed $120,000 in a given year. Related parties are defined as directors and executive officers and their immediate family members, including in-laws and stepchildren. They also include shareholders who own 5 percent or more of a company and their family members. Privately held banks must disclose insider deals to regulatory examiners, who are trained to treat them as potential signs of abuse or fraud.
Ely points to the case of Vernon Hill, former chairman of Cherry Hill-based Commerce Bancorp, who was investigated over millions of dollars in bank payments made each year to companies that Hill family members controlled, including one owned by his wife that provided design work and furnishings for bank branches. The investigation led to his ouster in 2008, around the same time Commerce agreed to be bought by TD Bank.
More locally, Mariner’s Bank, based in Edgewater, was ordered by state and federal regulators in early 2012 to tighten its controls on loans to insiders and other insider relationships that were not described in detail publicly. The privately held bank continues to operate under increased oversight.
Thomas Shara, chief executive of Lakeland Bancorp, parent of Lakeland Bank, noted that in addition to the Fredericks heating oil deal, in which Fredericks was the winning bidder, Lakeland leases a branch in Little Falls from Fletcher Holdings, which received $153,031 in rent last year from the bank. Board member Stephen R. Tilton Sr. is the chairman and chief executive of Fletcher Holdings.
"Steve Tilton and Mark Fredericks are two of our largest individual shareholders, and they have a vested interest on both sides, and they are going to do what’s right for the bank," Shara said. "As long as the transactions are arm’s length and fully disclosed, I don’t think there is anything wrong with them."
Shara was the only banker who agreed to be interviewed for this article. Others did not respond, declined to comment or responded with general statements.
MWW’s Kempner, who is also deputy national finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee and a major fundraiser for President Obama, said in an emailed response to The Record’s questions about the public relations work his firm does for ConnectOne that "MWW is proud of the work that it has done on behalf of ConnectOne — the marketing and communications program has been a material part of the bank’s success." The bank raised about $48 million in a February initial public offering by selling more than 1.8 million shares that have increased in value by more than a third.
The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq require that a majority of a company’s board members be "independent" overseers. Nasdaq, on which ConnectOne trades, says directors cannot be considered independent if they engage in related-party transactions greater than either $200,000 or 5 percent of the annual sales of the director’s company.
ConnectOne said in a regulatory filing that the board had determined the fees the bank pays to Kempner’s firm do not affect Kempner’s status as an independent director, in part because the sum is a small portion, less than 1 percent, of MWW’s total revenue.
At an investor conference in Manhattan in the summer, ConnectOne Chairman and CEO Frank Sorrentino III also declined to discuss the related-party transactions.
"It’s all been disclosed to our regulators," he said. "It has been vetted by our regulatory agencies, our auditors, by everyone. So we have complete transparency about what we do and what we will do in the future," he said.
Valley National Bancorp, one of the largest New Jersey-based commercial banks with one of the largest boards, also has disclosed a number of related-party transactions.
The lender said in a 2013 filing with regulators that it paid $90,000 in 2012 consulting fees to MG Advisors, owned by Michael Guilfoile, spouse of a director, Mary Guilfoile.
Valley also disclosed that the son-in-law of longtime Chairman and CEO Gerald Lipkin has received more than $650,000 in bank-owned life insurance commissions since 2001 because he introduced a broker to the bank who sold the policies. Over the life of the policies the son-in-law, Robert Keith Sauertig, a financial adviser at Park Avenue Securities, will receive nearly $1 million in commissions, the bank said in a filing with regulators.
Sauertig noted in a phone interview that the bank has disclosed the relationship in its filings with the SEC every year since 2001. "The bank does not pay me, the third party insurance broker pays me," he said.
The company said in the filing that the commission arrangement is typical for the life insurance industry, and that Lipkin was not involved in the negotiations.
Publicly traded banks and other public companies may soon face tougher audits of these types of related party transactions.
If the SEC approves the new standards, independent auditors will have to evaluate more closely how well such deals are disclosed and accounted for in financial reports of all public companies. The new standards would require auditors to go to greater lengths to understand financial relationships with insiders that might increase risk of financial reporting misstatements. This includes performing additional inquiries to verify that such transactions are conducted at arm’s length. The new standards would be effective for audits of fiscal years beginning on or after Dec. 15.
Industry experts say smaller companies, including many publicly traded community banks, tend to have greater numbers of related-party transactions and are likely to be among the companies most affected by stronger audits — which could result in the unwinding of some long-standing business relationships.
So-called emerging-growth companies, including ConnectOne Bancorp, which are allowed to raise capital under relaxed regulatory requirements, may be exempt from the new standards. The 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act says that any rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board after April 5, 2012, do not apply to the audits of emerging-growth companies, unless the SEC "determines that the application of such additional requirements is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, after considering the protection of investors and whether the action will promote efficiency, competition and capital formation." The oversight board is reviewing public comments on the matter.
Herb Snyder, chairman of the accounting, finance and information systems department at North Dakota State University in Fargo, who has written on the subject, said audits may become more expensive for companies that have a lot of related-party transactions, but "the costs are consistent with the need to deal with the increased risk of [financial] misstatements."
Musso, the Somerset County consultant, said that in light of increased government scrutiny, a growing number of community bankers, fearing costly enforcement actions, are avoiding any deals likely to draw criticism from consumer advocates or attention from regulators.
"People are using an abundance of caution," he said. "They are afraid of being in a conflicted position."
For a portion of its legal work, Wayne-based Valley National Bank turned to the lawyer Graham O. Jones, a board member, who received $310,681 last year for debt collection work and bank-customer loan closings.
And when ConnectOne Bancorp, based in Englewood Cliffs, went public last year, it benefited from the advertising and marketing expertise of the public relations firm MWW, which was paid $525,800 for its services. Michael Kempner, founder and chief executive of East Rutherford-based MWW, is a co-founder and board member of the bank.
These so-called related-party transactions, which have been reviewed by regulators, illustrate how board membership, especially in small banks, often is accompanied by business relationships.
Bankers say these deals are often good for the bank and its shareholders. Directors who provide professional services or who rent real estate to the banks they serve sometimes charge less than they would charge another customer or tenant. And they are often large shareholders, with a vested interest in the bank’s success.
But the deals also raise real or perceived issues of insiders using their positions to help themselves. The deals must be disclosed to regulators — ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on the federal level to the state Department of Banking and Insurance — who are on the lookout for conflicts of interest, fraud and lax corporate governance that could put shareholders’ investments or depositors’ funds at risk. The regulators want assurance that fees paid to a company owned in whole or part by a board member are in line with what the bank would pay a company with which it has no insider relationship. In other words, no sweetheart deals.
And these transactions will get even closer scrutiny under new standards proposed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an industry watchdog, that are scheduled to take effect a week from today, subject to approval of the SEC.
"The regulators take a very close look at this," said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va. "This is often a factor in bank problems and failures because insiders take too much money out of the bank," he said.
"The agencies are very consumer-oriented right now, and they are taking a very jaundiced view of these transactions," said Donald J. Musso, president and chief executive of FinPro, a consulting firm in Somerset County.
Industry experts say the scrutiny has intensified since the financial collapse and regulatory reforms, which have made banker-regulator relations more contentious.
The SEC requires publicly traded companies to disclose related-party transactions that exceed $120,000 in a given year. Related parties are defined as directors and executive officers and their immediate family members, including in-laws and stepchildren. They also include shareholders who own 5 percent or more of a company and their family members. Privately held banks must disclose insider deals to regulatory examiners, who are trained to treat them as potential signs of abuse or fraud.
Ely points to the case of Vernon Hill, former chairman of Cherry Hill-based Commerce Bancorp, who was investigated over millions of dollars in bank payments made each year to companies that Hill family members controlled, including one owned by his wife that provided design work and furnishings for bank branches. The investigation led to his ouster in 2008, around the same time Commerce agreed to be bought by TD Bank.
More locally, Mariner’s Bank, based in Edgewater, was ordered by state and federal regulators in early 2012 to tighten its controls on loans to insiders and other insider relationships that were not described in detail publicly. The privately held bank continues to operate under increased oversight.
Thomas Shara, chief executive of Lakeland Bancorp, parent of Lakeland Bank, noted that in addition to the Fredericks heating oil deal, in which Fredericks was the winning bidder, Lakeland leases a branch in Little Falls from Fletcher Holdings, which received $153,031 in rent last year from the bank. Board member Stephen R. Tilton Sr. is the chairman and chief executive of Fletcher Holdings.
"Steve Tilton and Mark Fredericks are two of our largest individual shareholders, and they have a vested interest on both sides, and they are going to do what’s right for the bank," Shara said. "As long as the transactions are arm’s length and fully disclosed, I don’t think there is anything wrong with them."
Shara was the only banker who agreed to be interviewed for this article. Others did not respond, declined to comment or responded with general statements.
MWW’s Kempner, who is also deputy national finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee and a major fundraiser for President Obama, said in an emailed response to The Record’s questions about the public relations work his firm does for ConnectOne that "MWW is proud of the work that it has done on behalf of ConnectOne — the marketing and communications program has been a material part of the bank’s success." The bank raised about $48 million in a February initial public offering by selling more than 1.8 million shares that have increased in value by more than a third.
The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq require that a majority of a company’s board members be "independent" overseers. Nasdaq, on which ConnectOne trades, says directors cannot be considered independent if they engage in related-party transactions greater than either $200,000 or 5 percent of the annual sales of the director’s company.
ConnectOne said in a regulatory filing that the board had determined the fees the bank pays to Kempner’s firm do not affect Kempner’s status as an independent director, in part because the sum is a small portion, less than 1 percent, of MWW’s total revenue.
At an investor conference in Manhattan in the summer, ConnectOne Chairman and CEO Frank Sorrentino III also declined to discuss the related-party transactions.
"It’s all been disclosed to our regulators," he said. "It has been vetted by our regulatory agencies, our auditors, by everyone. So we have complete transparency about what we do and what we will do in the future," he said.
Valley National Bancorp, one of the largest New Jersey-based commercial banks with one of the largest boards, also has disclosed a number of related-party transactions.
The lender said in a 2013 filing with regulators that it paid $90,000 in 2012 consulting fees to MG Advisors, owned by Michael Guilfoile, spouse of a director, Mary Guilfoile.
Valley also disclosed that the son-in-law of longtime Chairman and CEO Gerald Lipkin has received more than $650,000 in bank-owned life insurance commissions since 2001 because he introduced a broker to the bank who sold the policies. Over the life of the policies the son-in-law, Robert Keith Sauertig, a financial adviser at Park Avenue Securities, will receive nearly $1 million in commissions, the bank said in a filing with regulators.
Sauertig noted in a phone interview that the bank has disclosed the relationship in its filings with the SEC every year since 2001. "The bank does not pay me, the third party insurance broker pays me," he said.
The company said in the filing that the commission arrangement is typical for the life insurance industry, and that Lipkin was not involved in the negotiations.
Publicly traded banks and other public companies may soon face tougher audits of these types of related party transactions.
If the SEC approves the new standards, independent auditors will have to evaluate more closely how well such deals are disclosed and accounted for in financial reports of all public companies. The new standards would require auditors to go to greater lengths to understand financial relationships with insiders that might increase risk of financial reporting misstatements. This includes performing additional inquiries to verify that such transactions are conducted at arm’s length. The new standards would be effective for audits of fiscal years beginning on or after Dec. 15.
Industry experts say smaller companies, including many publicly traded community banks, tend to have greater numbers of related-party transactions and are likely to be among the companies most affected by stronger audits — which could result in the unwinding of some long-standing business relationships.
So-called emerging-growth companies, including ConnectOne Bancorp, which are allowed to raise capital under relaxed regulatory requirements, may be exempt from the new standards. The 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act says that any rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board after April 5, 2012, do not apply to the audits of emerging-growth companies, unless the SEC "determines that the application of such additional requirements is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, after considering the protection of investors and whether the action will promote efficiency, competition and capital formation." The oversight board is reviewing public comments on the matter.
Herb Snyder, chairman of the accounting, finance and information systems department at North Dakota State University in Fargo, who has written on the subject, said audits may become more expensive for companies that have a lot of related-party transactions, but "the costs are consistent with the need to deal with the increased risk of [financial] misstatements."
Musso, the Somerset County consultant, said that in light of increased government scrutiny, a growing number of community bankers, fearing costly enforcement actions, are avoiding any deals likely to draw criticism from consumer advocates or attention from regulators.
"People are using an abundance of caution," he said. "They are afraid of being in a conflicted position."
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
If the Northern Valley Press or Suburbanite isn't delivered
The Northern Valley Press and the Suburbanite are available free in newspaper boxes located at the southwest corner of Palisade Avenue and Summit Avenue, near the bus shelter.
The January 28, 2013 edition of the Northern Valley Press had a front page article on the emergency sirens.
The January 28, 2013 edition of the Northern Valley Press had a front page article on the emergency sirens.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Letter to the Suburbanite editor: Professionals reappointed 'triple dipping' reader says
Letters:
Northern Valley, Jan. 17
Thursday, January
17, 2013
Northern Valley
Suburbanite
Professionals
reappointed 'triple dipping' reader says
To
the Editor:
Englewood Cliffs'
Democratic-controlled Council began a new year by reappointing three
professionals who participated in the Democrats' vicious, win at all costs
campaign and authorizing triple dipping for two employees. Unfortunately,
taxpayer funded rewards for their supporters and intimidation of political
opponents are business as usual with Englewood Cliffs'
Democrats.
The
three professionals who participated in the "Mayor's Newsletter"
likely contributed to the destruction of democracy in Englewood Cliffs. Who will
be willing to run against the Democrats if the price is vicious,
unsubstantiated personal attacks and retaliation against their family? The
borough attorney, tax appeal attorney and borough auditor indisputably benefit
from uncontested elections. When Republicans controlled the Englewood Cliffs' Council,
these three professionals were not reappointed. However, uncontested elections
certainly aren't in the best interest of Englewood Cliffs.
The
council also appointed Caterina Scancarella Planning Board secretary and Paul
Duffy recreation director. Ms. Scancarella already works full time as Englewood Cliffs' Building
Department assistant and part time as Englewood Cliffs' COAH
Trust Fund Report preparer. The council did not say what hour Ms. Scancarella
will work as Planning Board secretary . Will it be the same hours that she is
working as Building Department assistant and COAH Trust Fund Report preparer?
The council should rescind Ms. Scancarella's appointment as Planning Board
secretary and hire someone else for that position. The borough recently
advertised for someone to assist Ms. Scancarella with the Building Department's
work. Adding another employee to the borough's payroll so that Ms. Scancarella
can triple dip is irresponsible, particularly at a time when the mayor is
claiming that Englewood Cliffs has a "major budget deficit."
Likewise,
Paul Duffy already works full time as Englewood Cliffs' property
tax clerk and part time as Englewood
Cliffs' soccer coordinator. During what hours will Mr. Duffy be working as
recreation director? Will it be the same hours he is working in the property
tax office? Will he be receiving recreation related calls at the property tax
office? Triple dipping by employees – in this case concurrently holding a
full-time government job and two part-time government jobs – is not in
Englewood Cliffs' best interests.
Now
that election season is over and character assassination no longer benefits
them, Englewood Cliffs'
Democrats say they want to "play nice," "put…differences
aside," and end political bickering. Expecting Englewood Cliffs'
Republicans to remain silent in the interests of community harmony after
attacking them from the dais throughout 2012 and running a campaign centered on
vicious personal attacks is a textbook example of hypocrisy. The mayor and the
Democratic members of Englewood Cliffs Council need to begin leading by example
instead of asking residents to do as they say, not as they do.
Lauren
J. Eastwood
The Suburbanite: Lawsuit filed over installing fire sirens in Englewood Cliffs
Lawsuit
filed over installing fire sirens in Englewood Cliffs
Thursday January
10, 2013, 11:00 AM
STAFF WRITER
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS - After
the borough council voted to lift the stop-work order on the replacement of
fire sirens in the borough, Gerard Misk, a vocal opponent of the replacement,
retaliated by filing a lawsuit against the installation, saying it violates the
state's Noise Control Law and that the process to replace them was
"tainted."
The
re-installment locations are between Bayview Avenue and 9W and between Johnson
Avenue and Sanford Drive.
Misk,
who lives near the siren on Johnson Avenue, filed the suit Dec. 24, which
claims the "tainted bid process" invalidates the borough's contract
with Tactical Communications of Connecticut, which allegedly failed to provide
necessary documents with its bid. The suit also said the borough improperly
paid Tactical the full amount of $63,861, even though 15 percent, or about
$10,000, should have been withheld until the sirens were installed and tested.
The
suit also claims the new sirens on Johnson Avenue and Bayview Avenue would
violate the state's Noise Control Act because they're within 250 feet of a
playground and school. The old sirens, installed at least 40 years ago, were
grandfathered in.
The
borough hired fire siren expert Larry Robertson of Teaneck to advise the
borough on the best locations for the sirens. He recommended the sirens stay
where they are and said any other locations would shortchange the borough.
Misk's lawsuit claims Robertson was never told he could consider rights-of-way
along the road as potential sites.
Several
other residents have come forward questioning the need for the sirens, saying
they favored better technology and the fire department carries pagers, but Fire
Chief George Drimones said they aren't as reliable as the sirens.
Many
other residents approve of the decision to reinstall them and noted that
residents weren't completely informed during recent Hurricane Sandy and
could've used the sirens in that instance.
"We
are replacing a system where it was that will also have a voice capability...we
have gone four months without a full signal and we are suffering,"
resident Steven Rubinsky said.
In
addition to alerting the department to a fire emergency, the new sirens would
have a public address system that could broadcast messages in emergencies.
During
the Dec. 12 meeting when the stop-work order was lifted Mayor Joseph Parisi
said the sirens would improve the quality of life in the borough, especially
during storms that might mirror Hurricane Sandy.
"We
need to move forward and we could have used the siren during the storm,"
Parisi said. "In addition to that, we have a volunteer fire department
that makes less than 400 calls a year and it will not be going off
constantly."
The Record: Englewood Cliffs resident sues to stop new fire sirens
Englewood
Cliffs resident sues to stop new fire sirens
Monday, December
31, 2012 Last updated: Monday December 31, 2012, 5:12 PM
STAFF WRITER
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS – A
homeowner is suing to stop the borough from installing three new fire sirens,
saying it violates the state’s Noise Control Law and that the process to
replace them was “tainted.”
Gerard
Misk, who lives near the siren on Johnson Avenue, filed the suit Dec. 24, less
than two weeks after the Borough Council lifted a stop-work order allowing a
contractor to finish installing the sirens.
Only
one of the sirens, near Borough Hall, has been installed. The other sirens to
be replaced are on Bayview Avenue and in Witte Field near Misk’s home.
Borough
officials stopped the project after learning from Misk that crews were
replacing the siren pole across from his Samford Avenue house. An investigation
revealed that the bid for the project, awarded to Tactical Communications of
Connecticut, was never advertised and that Police Chief Michael Cioffi signed
the agreement, even though he doesn’t have the authority to sign municipal
contracts.
Cioffi
has declined to comment on the matter, but borough officials have said Cioffi
apparently signed the contract at the direction of Susan Spohn, the borough
administrator at the time, who died earlier this year.
Borough
Attorney E. Carter Corriston told town officials the borough could not legally
rescind the vendor's agreement because the vendor submitted it after legally
receiving bid specifications. He also said the council had accepted the bid
through a legally binding resolution.
But
Misk’s lawsuit claims the “tainted bid process” invalidates the borough’s
contract with Tactical, which allegedly failed to provide necessary documents
with their bid. It also claims the borough improperly paid Tactical the full
amount of $63,861, even though 15 percent, or about $10,000, should have been
withheld until the sirens were installed and tested.
The
suit also claims the new sirens on Johnson Avenue and Bayview Avenue would
violate the state’s Noise Control Act because they’re within 250 feet of a
playground and school. The old sirens, installed at least 40 years ago, were
grandfathered in.
Misk,
a New York City attorney and a member of the Englewood Cliffs Board of
Education, said in the suit that the borough ignored provisions in an April
2011 resolution authorizing the new sirens be placed in non-residential areas.
The
borough hired a consultant, Larry Robertson of Teaneck, to advise the
borough on the best locations for the sirens. He recommended the sirens stay
where they are. Misk’s lawsuit claims Robertson was never told he could
consider rights-of-way along the road as potential sites.
The
sirens, located in the northern, central and southern part of town, have
alerted volunteer firefighters to report for duty. Some residents have
questioned the need for sirens, saying they’ve been surpassed by better
technology. The department's 38 volunteers all have pagers, but Fire Chief
George Drimones said they aren't as reliable as the sirens.
Mayor
Joseph Parisi did not want to comment on pending litigation, but pointed out
other residents, including some of Misk’s neighbors, have had no problems with
the sirens. Parisi said the new sirens would have a public address system that
could broadcast messages in emergencies.
“We
have every right to protect the town,” he said.
Letter to the Suburbanite editor: Red light cameras are an insult to citizens
Letters:
Northern Valley, Oct. 11
Thursday, October
11, 2012
Northern Valley
Suburbanite
Red
light cameras are an insult to citizens
To
the Editor:
I
have been a citizen, taxpayer and biker for over 50 years in Englewood, Tenafly and Cresskill, and have used
the 9W/Sylvan Avenue intersection, probably more than 5,000 times. Fortunately,
I have never encountered that plethora of automobile accidents that the mayor
of that town now uses as "his" excuse for installing photo technology
to keep the streets of Englewood Cliffs,
safe.
If
the statistics quoted in your newspaper are correct, that "67,000 vehicles
enter and leave that intersection every day," with 360 days, that would be
24+ million cars each year. At the rate of 40 accidents/year, that is .000002
accidents per vehicle traveling through this intersection, easily making this
the safest intersection on the planet!
Statistics
aside, the town recently underwent a six-month upgrade of the intersection,
which probably cost many thousands of dollars. If the politicians were so
concerned with the safety problems, they could have installed better lighting,
wider shoulders and maybe even a traffic light which would have instructed
drivers in the art of proper turning "right on red."
If
there was such a dire need to slow down or even stop those aggressive drivers
causing all those accidents, then simply adjust the traffic lights, and install
a $10 sign….no turn on red. Unfortunately, that would not have helped offset a
community budget sorely in need of financial management. If only one percent of
the drivers who encounter this intersection daily, fail to stop (based on a
light influenced by two lanes of traffic movement), the town benefits by more
than $23,000/day or $8 million/year, without ever needing the trained eye of a
police officer….now that's efficiency, and the company in Arizona who makes the
cameras, gets as much of the "booty" as the town.
I
think it is insulting to the citizens of Englewood Cliffs and to
the great corporate population of workers, who also pay taxes in this town. For
this town's political leaders to hide behind the pretext of "safety"
as the measuring stick for such greed, it only shows the limitations of their
public management skills.
Ironically,
there is sign on that corner, upgraded many times, but which says that this is
the "Billion Dollar Mile" for the value of all the corporations on
the road. Now the politicians have given the sign a new meaning….the billions
of dollars they steal from those corporations and their own citizens, in the
name of safety!
….and
yes, I am a contributor to this bounty!
Bob
Hesse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)