On March 12, 2012, I filed an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit against the Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) Board of Education. The lawsuit is on-line here. After I filed a motion for summary judgment (my brief is on-line here), the Board indicated that it wanted to settle the case.
On June 22, 2012, I entered into a settlement agreement under which the school board agreed to improve its Open Public Meetings Act compliance and reimburse me $250 for my filing fees and miscellaneous costs. The Consent Judgment, which specifies the terms of compliance, is on-line here.
The Board was represented by Fogarty & Hara, which represents several school districts in the Bergen County area, including Cliffside Park, Secaucus and Haledon. If you reside in a school district represented by the Fogarty & Hara firm, you may wish to compare your board's OPMA compliance to that required under the Consent Judgment. If your board is out of compliance in a manner similar to that remedied by the Consent Judgment, it should not be too difficult to convince the board to voluntarily adopt the standard set forth in the Consent Judgment, given that your board's own lawyer had already approved of and recommended that standard.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Record: Englewood Cliffs man acquitted on indecent exposure charges says he'll pursue lawsuit
Englewood Cliffs man acquitted on indecent exposure charges says he'll pursue lawsuit
The Record
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS — A 55-year-old man who filed notice he planned to sue the borough over his arrest on indecent exposure charges a year ago said he’ll go through with the threatened defamation lawsuit now that he’s been acquitted by a jury.
Michael Telzer, an Englewood Cliffs resident, said he never should have been arrested based on the accuser’s account, and claimed he was a victim of the police chief’s desire to hire more officers by showing the borough had a crime problem.
“You had a town divided over hiring more police,” he said. “You had a chief campaigning, ‘We need more police. We need more police.’ It was devastating.”
Police Chief Michael Cioffi declined to comment on Telzer’s claim, citing the possibility of litigation. But his eyes widened and he shook his head when told about Telzer’s allegations.
“I wish I could say something,” he said.
Mayor Joseph Parisi said the council did hire more police officers to reduce overtime costs and to enhance the “overall protection” of the borough, not because of any incident.
Telzer was charged July 14, 2011, with lewdness and endangering the welfare of a child after a mother called 911 around 8 p.m. to report a man appeared to be exposing himself on the Witte Field walking path on Johnson Avenue.
Police issued a news release the next day, saying the woman was with her 6-year-old and 9-year-old daughters when she saw Telzer exposing himself. The release also stated that Police Officers Roland Waldt and Gerard McDermott responded to the call and Waldt found Telzer with his “pants/shorts unbuttoned, belt buckle and zipper opened.” It also states that the accuser positively identified him.
Telzer fought the charges, saying the woman’s statement shows she was not certain what she saw. He also said the woman never mentioned her children in the original statements and there were no other witnesses.
Telzer filed notice of intent to sue in October. In that notice, Telzer said he would seek $2.8 million from Police Chief Michael Cioffi and the borough and $1.8 million from each of the arresting officers for damages to his reputation.
The notice also accused police of false arrest, false imprisonment, witness and evidence tampering and character assassination “that amounts to defamation including but not limited to slander and possibly libel.”
He accused the police chief of making a “horribly abusive statement” to an online publication that police collected a paper towel found in a waste basket at the park for DNA testing. The tests came back negative for Telzer’s DNA.
The case went to trial on July 11 in Bergen County Court. On Friday, the jury found Telzer not guilty of all charges.
His lawyer, Robert Penangelo, said among the evidence that helped acquit Telzer was audio from a police car camera in which his client told officers, “I hope there are cameras in the park.” He also said Telzer passed a lie-detector test and that prosecutors had no other corroboration besides the woman’s statements.
Telzer said the allegations have made his life a living hell, but he was confident he would be exonerated.
“I was not going to let anyone say these things about me and get away with it,” he said. “I took a moral position.”
Michael Telzer, an Englewood Cliffs resident, said he never should have been arrested based on the accuser’s account, and claimed he was a victim of the police chief’s desire to hire more officers by showing the borough had a crime problem.
“You had a town divided over hiring more police,” he said. “You had a chief campaigning, ‘We need more police. We need more police.’ It was devastating.”
Police Chief Michael Cioffi declined to comment on Telzer’s claim, citing the possibility of litigation. But his eyes widened and he shook his head when told about Telzer’s allegations.
“I wish I could say something,” he said.
Mayor Joseph Parisi said the council did hire more police officers to reduce overtime costs and to enhance the “overall protection” of the borough, not because of any incident.
Telzer was charged July 14, 2011, with lewdness and endangering the welfare of a child after a mother called 911 around 8 p.m. to report a man appeared to be exposing himself on the Witte Field walking path on Johnson Avenue.
Police issued a news release the next day, saying the woman was with her 6-year-old and 9-year-old daughters when she saw Telzer exposing himself. The release also stated that Police Officers Roland Waldt and Gerard McDermott responded to the call and Waldt found Telzer with his “pants/shorts unbuttoned, belt buckle and zipper opened.” It also states that the accuser positively identified him.
Telzer fought the charges, saying the woman’s statement shows she was not certain what she saw. He also said the woman never mentioned her children in the original statements and there were no other witnesses.
Telzer filed notice of intent to sue in October. In that notice, Telzer said he would seek $2.8 million from Police Chief Michael Cioffi and the borough and $1.8 million from each of the arresting officers for damages to his reputation.
The notice also accused police of false arrest, false imprisonment, witness and evidence tampering and character assassination “that amounts to defamation including but not limited to slander and possibly libel.”
He accused the police chief of making a “horribly abusive statement” to an online publication that police collected a paper towel found in a waste basket at the park for DNA testing. The tests came back negative for Telzer’s DNA.
The case went to trial on July 11 in Bergen County Court. On Friday, the jury found Telzer not guilty of all charges.
His lawyer, Robert Penangelo, said among the evidence that helped acquit Telzer was audio from a police car camera in which his client told officers, “I hope there are cameras in the park.” He also said Telzer passed a lie-detector test and that prosecutors had no other corroboration besides the woman’s statements.
Telzer said the allegations have made his life a living hell, but he was confident he would be exonerated.
“I was not going to let anyone say these things about me and get away with it,” he said. “I took a moral position.”
The Record: Englewood Cliffs' council OKs $13.48M budget
Englewood Cliffs' council OKs $13.48M budget
The Record
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS – Residents will be paying about $20 more a month in property taxes to fund services and replenish the borough’s depleted savings account under a 2012 spending plan adopted this week.
The Borough Council on Wednesday approved by a 5-1 vote a $13.48 million budget, which carries a 6 percent property tax hike.
Under the budget, a home assessed at the borough average of $1.26 million would pay $248 more in municipal taxes this year.
The spending plan is slightly less than last year’s $13.6 million budget, but the borough depleted its $955,000 surplus, leaving nothing to offset taxes this year, auditor Steven Wielkotz said.
Councilwoman Gloria Oh, a Democrat, blamed last year’s Republican-controlled council for overestimating revenue and underestimating expenses while freezing taxes, causing the surplus to evaporate.
“I’m confident the budget this year will put us back where we belong,” she said.
Councilwoman Carrol McMorrow, the sole Republican on the Democratic-controlled board, defended the prior year’s spending plan as one that was conscious of older homeowners on fixed incomes.
“We believe that we should not tax residents to raise surplus, taking monies from our residents who could make better use of their monies than us just letting it sit in a bank,” she said.
McMorrow voted against the 2012 budget, saying that it also underestimated spending. She blamed Democrats on prior councils for waiting until 2008, when real estate prices were high, to re-evaluate property values, leading home and business owners to challenge them now that values have dropped sharply.
“Stop blaming the tax increase on everyone else,” she said.
Council President Joseph Favaro said the county forced the borough to re-evaluate property in 2008, near the height of the housing market. As property values fell, property owners began challenging their assessments – and winning.
“The bottom fell out and we were left holding the bag,” he said. “This is a fair budget with what we had to work with.”
Chief Financial Officer Joseph Iannaconi Jr. said the 2012 spending plan is a “bare-bones budget” that maintains services, but has no cushion for emergencies. Englewood Cliffs would have to borrow money if it is hit with a large unanticipated expense.
The depleted surplus, and high number of tax appeals caused Moody’s Investors Service to downgrade the borough’s credit rating from the second-highest rating of Aa1 to the third-highest rating of Aa2. The downgrade means the borough will have to pay slightly more interest on roughly $16 million it has borrowed over the years for municipal projects.
Mayor Joseph Parisi said the borough was conservative in estimating revenue and aggressive on cutting spending wherever possible.
“No one likes tax increases but there are increases in our expenses.”
Among the increases is an extra $80,000 in police officers’ base pay because 14 were promoted after an arbitration ruling. The department has 26 officers, including 10 patrolmen.
The Borough Council on Wednesday approved by a 5-1 vote a $13.48 million budget, which carries a 6 percent property tax hike.
Under the budget, a home assessed at the borough average of $1.26 million would pay $248 more in municipal taxes this year.
The spending plan is slightly less than last year’s $13.6 million budget, but the borough depleted its $955,000 surplus, leaving nothing to offset taxes this year, auditor Steven Wielkotz said.
Councilwoman Gloria Oh, a Democrat, blamed last year’s Republican-controlled council for overestimating revenue and underestimating expenses while freezing taxes, causing the surplus to evaporate.
“I’m confident the budget this year will put us back where we belong,” she said.
Councilwoman Carrol McMorrow, the sole Republican on the Democratic-controlled board, defended the prior year’s spending plan as one that was conscious of older homeowners on fixed incomes.
“We believe that we should not tax residents to raise surplus, taking monies from our residents who could make better use of their monies than us just letting it sit in a bank,” she said.
McMorrow voted against the 2012 budget, saying that it also underestimated spending. She blamed Democrats on prior councils for waiting until 2008, when real estate prices were high, to re-evaluate property values, leading home and business owners to challenge them now that values have dropped sharply.
“Stop blaming the tax increase on everyone else,” she said.
Council President Joseph Favaro said the county forced the borough to re-evaluate property in 2008, near the height of the housing market. As property values fell, property owners began challenging their assessments – and winning.
“The bottom fell out and we were left holding the bag,” he said. “This is a fair budget with what we had to work with.”
Chief Financial Officer Joseph Iannaconi Jr. said the 2012 spending plan is a “bare-bones budget” that maintains services, but has no cushion for emergencies. Englewood Cliffs would have to borrow money if it is hit with a large unanticipated expense.
The depleted surplus, and high number of tax appeals caused Moody’s Investors Service to downgrade the borough’s credit rating from the second-highest rating of Aa1 to the third-highest rating of Aa2. The downgrade means the borough will have to pay slightly more interest on roughly $16 million it has borrowed over the years for municipal projects.
Mayor Joseph Parisi said the borough was conservative in estimating revenue and aggressive on cutting spending wherever possible.
“No one likes tax increases but there are increases in our expenses.”
Among the increases is an extra $80,000 in police officers’ base pay because 14 were promoted after an arbitration ruling. The department has 26 officers, including 10 patrolmen.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Record: Police brass outnumber rank-and-file cops in Englewood Cliffs
Police brass outnumber rank-and-file cops in Englewood Cliffs
The Record
Patrol officers in Englewood Cliffs are outnumbered — not by criminals, but by their supervisors.
Promotions that take effect July 1 will leave front-line officers in the minority on the top-heavy force of 26. The 10 remaining patrolmen will answer to a chief, a deputy chief, two captains, six lieutenants and six sergeants.
An arbitration ruling in a labor dispute between the borough and the police union created the opposite of the normal Police Department hierarchy and left the mayor shaking his head in disbelief.
“It’s the most idiotic solution I’ve ever seen, but it’s the only solution right now,” Mayor Joseph Parisi said before the Borough Council approved 14 promotions on Thursday night. “This is the lesser of two evils.”
The promotions were part of a deal in which the police union agreed to forgo three years of back pay owed to officers who had been performing duties of higher-ranking and higher paid officers.
Prior to the agreement, the department had 19 patrolmen, three sergeants, two lieutenants and no captains, Police Chief Michael Cioffi said.
Thirteen of the officers receiving promotions had been doing the jobs of a higher-ranking officer, he said, and the other one was rewarded for his exemplary performance.
The promotions won’t take cops off the street. The six new sergeants will be assigned to patrol while also serving as supervisors, Cioffi said.
“They’re long overdue,” Cioffi said of the promotions, the department’s first since 2007.
While lamenting the fallout, Parisi said the deal avoids a protracted legal fight with the police union and having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay.
The December arbitration ruling gave the borough’s police officers and supervisors their first contract, and awarded them retroactive raises progressing from 1 percent in 2009 to 2.5 percent in 2013. Before that, raises were given through ordinances or memorandums or even with a handshake. The ruling exempted the chief and deputy chief because they have separate contracts.
The borough appealed the ruling but lost, putting the borough on the hook for the back pay owed the officers.
Instead, the borough and union agreed on the promotions in lieu of retroactive pay.
The promotions were approved 2-0 by council President Joseph Favaro and Councilman Edward Aversa at a special meeting. Councilwoman Carroll Morrow, who is married to the deputy police chief, abstained. Council members Melanie Simon, Ilan Plawker, the police commissioner, and Gloria Oh, the council’s finance chairwoman, were absent.
Ramon Ferro, a Republican candidate for council, said having only two council members vote on the promotions was “completely irresponsible.” Resident Lauren Eastwood questioned how much the borough was saving by promoting the officers, who now will get paid a higher overtime rate and retire with a bigger pension.
“In my opinion, it is a very bad deal for Englewood Cliffs’ taxpayers,” she said in an email.
The contract requires the borough to pay sergeants $131,592 a year in 2013, lieutenants $142,118 and captains $153,487.
Mitchell C. Sklar, executive director of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said having such a top-heavy police department is unusual.
“They chose to invert that pyramid,” he said. “I never heard of this before.”
Joe Iannaconi Jr., the borough’s chief financial officer, said Englewood Cliffs will pay an additional $80,000 in police salaries this year because of the promotions. If the borough had paid the back pay for the three years covered by the arbitration ruling, it would have cost more than $300,000, he said.
Cioffi estimated it would have cost the borough closer to $500,000, but said officers were willing to give up the money to advance their careers and end the legal conflict.
“It was going to be a cost to the town one way or another,” Cioffi said. “Who wants to continue fighting the battle? Everyone just wants it to come to an end.”
Promotions that take effect July 1 will leave front-line officers in the minority on the top-heavy force of 26. The 10 remaining patrolmen will answer to a chief, a deputy chief, two captains, six lieutenants and six sergeants.
An arbitration ruling in a labor dispute between the borough and the police union created the opposite of the normal Police Department hierarchy and left the mayor shaking his head in disbelief.
“It’s the most idiotic solution I’ve ever seen, but it’s the only solution right now,” Mayor Joseph Parisi said before the Borough Council approved 14 promotions on Thursday night. “This is the lesser of two evils.”
The promotions were part of a deal in which the police union agreed to forgo three years of back pay owed to officers who had been performing duties of higher-ranking and higher paid officers.
Prior to the agreement, the department had 19 patrolmen, three sergeants, two lieutenants and no captains, Police Chief Michael Cioffi said.
Thirteen of the officers receiving promotions had been doing the jobs of a higher-ranking officer, he said, and the other one was rewarded for his exemplary performance.
The promotions won’t take cops off the street. The six new sergeants will be assigned to patrol while also serving as supervisors, Cioffi said.
“They’re long overdue,” Cioffi said of the promotions, the department’s first since 2007.
While lamenting the fallout, Parisi said the deal avoids a protracted legal fight with the police union and having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay.
The December arbitration ruling gave the borough’s police officers and supervisors their first contract, and awarded them retroactive raises progressing from 1 percent in 2009 to 2.5 percent in 2013. Before that, raises were given through ordinances or memorandums or even with a handshake. The ruling exempted the chief and deputy chief because they have separate contracts.
The borough appealed the ruling but lost, putting the borough on the hook for the back pay owed the officers.
Instead, the borough and union agreed on the promotions in lieu of retroactive pay.
The promotions were approved 2-0 by council President Joseph Favaro and Councilman Edward Aversa at a special meeting. Councilwoman Carroll Morrow, who is married to the deputy police chief, abstained. Council members Melanie Simon, Ilan Plawker, the police commissioner, and Gloria Oh, the council’s finance chairwoman, were absent.
Ramon Ferro, a Republican candidate for council, said having only two council members vote on the promotions was “completely irresponsible.” Resident Lauren Eastwood questioned how much the borough was saving by promoting the officers, who now will get paid a higher overtime rate and retire with a bigger pension.
“In my opinion, it is a very bad deal for Englewood Cliffs’ taxpayers,” she said in an email.
The contract requires the borough to pay sergeants $131,592 a year in 2013, lieutenants $142,118 and captains $153,487.
Mitchell C. Sklar, executive director of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said having such a top-heavy police department is unusual.
“They chose to invert that pyramid,” he said. “I never heard of this before.”
Joe Iannaconi Jr., the borough’s chief financial officer, said Englewood Cliffs will pay an additional $80,000 in police salaries this year because of the promotions. If the borough had paid the back pay for the three years covered by the arbitration ruling, it would have cost more than $300,000, he said.
Cioffi estimated it would have cost the borough closer to $500,000, but said officers were willing to give up the money to advance their careers and end the legal conflict.
“It was going to be a cost to the town one way or another,” Cioffi said. “Who wants to continue fighting the battle? Everyone just wants it to come to an end.”
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Audio cassette duplication
Interestingly, the Borough's position that it can charge up to $339.79 to duplicate an audio tape from a single council meeting may be legally justified if its audio tapes are kept in some propriety format that requires substantial manipulation to convert into a format that people can listen to. My May 16, 2012 letter to the Mayor and Council seeking further information to help me determine the legality of the $339.79 charge is on-line here.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Borough seeks up to $339.79 for audio tape of a single meeting
The Borough of Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) wishes for me to pay up to $339.79 for the audio recording of a December 8, 2010 Borough Council meeting. The Borough posits that the meeting was recorded on audio tape and that since the Borough now uses CD technology, it needs to use a private vendor, at $135 per hour, to duplicate the 2.5 hour meeting recording.
My OPRA request, the Borough's response and my reply to that response are on-line here.
John Paff
My OPRA request, the Borough's response and my reply to that response are on-line here.
John Paff
Thursday, May 10, 2012
How current are the Borough Council minutes?
I am trying to get a handle on exactly how up-to-date (or not up-to-date) the Borough Council is on keeping, approving and maintaining its public and executive minutes. I have submitted a very detailed OPRA request, available here, that ought to provide me with that information and inform me if a compliance lawsuit is necessary.
John Paff
John Paff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)