The introduction of two ordinances that would eliminate several positions in municipal government, create some new positions and restructure several departments proved controversial Monday night, starting with a warning from the township attorney.
The ordinances, which Council President John Ducey said were not drafted by the regular township attorney, would eliminate eight positions within township government and create three new ones. Not all of the eight positions are currently filled, Ducey said.
In addition to the eight positions to be cut, which include those currently held by Deputy Business Administrator Juan Bellu and Recreation Department Head Dave Francese, the departments of Recreation as well as Community Development and Land Use would be eliminated entirely, with their operations rolled into other departments.
Warning from Attorney
Ducey said the elimination of the positions could save taxpayers as much as $418,000 per year, but the introduction of the ordinances on first reading began with a warning from Township Attorney Jean Cipriani.
"These ordinances have a tremendous impact on a number of employees' employment," said Cipriani. "Some have bumping rights."
That means even if some of the affected employees are appointed and not covered under civil service laws, they retain the right to move back into the civil service system, which in turn could cause other employees to be "bumped" out of their positions.
Cipriani said introducing the ordinances without identifying potentially-affected employees and issuing them so-called Rice notices came with risk.
Rice notices are legally-mandated notices given to certain public employees whose employment will be discussed at a governmental meeting.
"You did not contact, as far as I know, any of the individually-affected employees," said Cipriani.
Cipriani, along with Business Administrator Scott Pezarras and Councilman Domenick Brando, balked at the fact that they were not notified of the pending ordinance introductions until late Friday.
Cipriani also said there were "significant substantive problems" with the proposal, though she did not identify them at the meeting.
Brando abstained from voting to introduce the ordinances. All of the other council members – with the exception of Councilman Joseph Sangiovanni, who was not present – voted in favor of introducing them.
"I may very well, in the end, vote for these ordinances," Brando said. "But I just need more information."
Additions and Subtractions
The proposed ordinances eliminate eight positions, six of them being deputy department heads. They are the deputy department heads for: Administration, Finance and Public Affairs, Land Use and Community Development, Engineering, Law, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The remaining two positions to be eliminated are Director of Land Use and Community Development and Director of Parks and Recreation.
Some of those positions, such as the deputy department head for the Law Department, are not filled. In the case of the Department of Law, the township uses an outside law firm as its counsel instead of an in-house team.
Three positions would be created under the ordinances. They are deputy department heads for the Finance Department and the Tax Assessor. A deputy township clerk position would also be created.
The elimination of the current salaries will save $418,000, when the additional salary of the deputy clerk position is factored in.
"When we ran, we were running on doing this," said Councilman Jim Fozman. "And this is the right time."
Ducey said most of the positions being eliminated were created in 2008, and for years the township ran efficiently without them.
"These changes were made in 2008, and you all know what happened from 2008 until today with our taxes," he said. "They skyrocketed."
State law requires a public hearing and a second vote before the ordinances can be enacted. Those actions are expected to take place at the Sept. 25 council meeting.
Is it true Steve is resigning from the TRMUA for a state job?
There's nothing worse then a whiny ex politician IE Mile Thulen,... Mike please stay home
#1. Who was the attorney who drafted this document? a. Do we have to pay this attorney b. The attorney needs to be identified c. Why the town (paid) attorney was not consulted or assigned the drafting of this document? #2. When was this ordinances decided on and by who? a. Which council people decided on this action b. Was there a Quorum of council people present at the time this action was being decided on? (Which is illegal seeing it was not an official properly advertised meeting) This seems like the New Bees have some explaining to do, back room dealings should not be tolerated!
I point out the following from Wikipedia: "Former Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli resigned as of December 8, 2006, amid a federal corruption probe into township government. On January 8, 2007, Scarpelli pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges for accepting money from developers in exchange for using his official position to obtain approval for development projects. Township Clerk Virginia Lampman was appointed to fill the role of mayor until the Township Council could select a replacement. On December 17, 2007, former Scarpelli was sentenced in Federal Court in Newark to serve 18 months in prison and was fined $5,000, after admitting that he had accepted bribes from 1998 to 2003." We can do better, a lot better.
you could also say the following if Joe Scarpelli ran against anyone from the Ducey regime the next election, Scarpelli would win, felon or not. That's a fact! At least with Scarpelli we knew what we were dealing with, he was somewhat of a stable person, with the Ducey regime, not so much ala benefits!.
Joe would love to be back in office his mattress is in need of filling!
If you watched the Sept 10 meeting you would have heard these questions asked and NOT answered. A committee of three had some unnamed attorney draft the resolution. By itself it would not have been bad if on first reading there had been full disclosure of why someone else and all the info without anyone having to ask the questions. As to paying the attorney that answer was "No impact" pay Ms Ciopriani or pay unnamed attorney. Having chosen another attorney the rationale should have been given to us and the unnamed attorney should have taken the seat at the Counsel table to answer all questions. We are not allowed to comment on first reading but we are still entitled to ALL the FACTS.