March 5 Town Council meeting
The town council gave the first of two required approvals to a sewer-assessment hike of $65, or 35 percent, to cover increasing costs, at its March 5, 2013, meeting.
The council also appeared to give tentative approval to holding a discussion with township legal and financial professionals regarding Prism, the downtown redeveloper, at the next council meeting. The council also approved renewal of contracts retaining the communications director and grant writer, as well as a $135,000 outsourcing contract for landscaping after debate.
The meeting agendas and related materials are here. The council's March 3 preliminary approval of the mayor's 2013 budget, which would raise property taxes 1.8%, was briefly mentioned. I plan to post on the budget soon.
The administration is asking the council to approve changing the sewer ordinance to raise the sewer fee to $250 from $185, citing increasing costs to maintain the service and infrastructure. The new fee, which would take effect in 2013, was last changed in 2006. The ordinance is up for second and final approval, including public comment, at the next council meeting.
The town chief financial officer provided the council with data showing that the sewer system is projected to cost $5.63 million, including a $2.66 million fee assessed by the Joint Meeting sewer authority that processes the town’s sewage. The $185 fee would raise $3.74 million, or 66.5% of the cost. The $250 fee would raise $5.06 million, or 89.9% of the cost.
At its last meeting February 19, the council began to discuss Prism’s 2011-2010 audited financial statements as well as the company’s delinquency on more than $200,000 of property taxes due February 1. I requested that the redevelopment legal and financial professionals attend the next council meeting to advise us on the financials and other redevelopment topics.
That did not happen, and in discussions just before the start of the March 5 meeting, I appeared to be the only council member who wanted the professionals to appear. Other council members appeared to me to believe that an e-mail exchange was sufficient.
In further discussion at the start of the meeting as well as during public comment, where some residents also said they wanted the professionals to appear at a council meeting, a consensus appeared to form among council members to provide questions to the professionals that they would be prepared to answer at the next council meeting. I’ve made that request in writing, so we’ll see what happens. Sentiment also appeared to grow to set a deadline for Prism to begin construction.
The administration also requested council approval to renew an annual contract for $135,000 to D’Onofrio & Son for turf maintenance, litter and debris collection, weed control and leaf collection. The contract received four competitive bids, and D’Onofrio’s combined bid for four services was the least expensive in the town’s structuring of the multi-service specifications.
However, other bidders were cheaper on three of the four services. If the contract was divided among the lowest bidders, as the bid specifications allowed, the township would have saved more than $23,400, or 23.9%, over the D’Onofrio bid – and more than $71,000 over the three years of the contract.
The administration and other four council people said that keeping the contract for all the functions with one vendor was a better way to proceed. I was outvoted 4-1.
The council approved the renewal of annual contracts for the town’s director of communications/public information officer for $38,000 and the grant writer for $28,000.
During public comment, Megan Brill was introduced as the new executive director of the Downtown West Orange Alliance (DWOA). Brill is vice president of the Board of Education and a long-time member of the DWOA board, as she and her husband run a pest-control business from a Main Street location.
Also during public comment, a resident criticized the alleged Facebook disparaging of a recently murdered resident by two town police officers, now under an internal investigation, as well as the recent DWI convictions of the town’s chief financial officer and council president.
The council also approved:
- Renewal of the ordinance maintaining fees at the town’s Ginny Duenkel Pool. A resident presented research into the fees at a number of neighboring municipal pools at the meeting. I moved to table the ordinance until the next meeting to give us time to review the research; it failed without a second. The ordinance then passed by a 4-1 vote, including my no vote.
- An executive session to discuss a legal matter relating to the huge Passaic River pollution lawsuit that’s pulled many New Jersey municipalities, including West Orange, into what’s known as the Occidental Chemical litigation. For more information, please see a recent Star-Ledger story. The resolution was amended to include discussion of a personnel issue.
- Approval of a request to purchase clothing for 14 new firefighters – including 10 hired with a federal grant and four other to fill vacancies -- for $44,285 under state contracts.
- Introduction on first reading of an ordinance creating pay for a Council on Affordable Housing coordinator and Municipal Alliance coordinator. I voted against this, because I’m wary of adding new personnel costs.
The next council meeting is scheduled for March 19.
I’m a West Orange Township councilman since 2010 and can be reached at jkrakoviak@westorange.org. A former financial journalist, I am a business communications consultant in my spare time.
RB
5:47 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Call it a "fee" if you must but it's just another tax hike. The Sewer Tax per household was, I think, $85 in 2005 or 2006. In 7 or 8 years, it's gone up to $250!?! If code enforcement would do something about the illegal apartments in town (other than throw the tenants out one week just to have another tenant move in the next - there is no followup about the situation), maybe the infrastructure wouldn't be so overtaxed!
There are a few illegal, basement apartments in my area where the property owners are paying as if they were single-family homes. When an illegal apartment is discovered, why isn't the owner required to pay the additional Sewer Tax on each illegal unit? A legal 3-family house pays $750 while a single-family house divided into 3 or 4 illegal units still pays only $250.
Adam Kraemer
8:47 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
I question the fiscal management of sewage authorities. Yes we have to pay for public services but is this do to aging infrastructure or inificient or poor management? Probably a litle of both. So how about a smaller increase and presuring those who manage our sewars to be more efficient.
john anthony prignano
10:10 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Adam In 2011, salaries for the 119 employees of the Joint Meeting were approximately $7,500,000. That $7,500,000 figure does not include benefits. There is also independent legal counsel. I can't imagine an operation like that doesn't employ outside consultants,experts, et al.. Go to the Joint Meeting's "new updated website." Loads and loads of information, but I couldn't find the operating budget. An audit of sorts might be helpful; Explain what you do, justify the necessity of your position, and justify your employment status; full - time, supervisor, upper management, etc.
Gary Englert
2:40 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
The Joint Meeting of Essex and Union is a sewer treatment facility essentially owned by its member municipalities who designate a member of their governing bodies to sit on its board and oversee the operation.
If, as Mr. Prignano asserts, the 2011 salaries for its 119 employees totalled $7,500,00, that's an average annual compensation of $63,025.21; hardly beyond the pale in this day and age.
The Township has always benefited from quite reasonable sewer fees base on its geography and the fact that gravity does much of the work transporting our effluent to the treatment plant. Still, we maintain a number of pumping stations in town, necessary (in certain neighborhoods) to push our wastewater to the major trunk lines leading to the facility. These run 24/7/365 and must be maintained and upgraded over time.
A $65 annual increase will seem a pittance if the day ever comes when you can't flush your toilets.
wohopeful
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
^ Nonsense
john anthony prignano
10:32 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
In Councilman Krakoviak's article, I do not see any mention of Victor Cirilo. Has the Council asked him to submit his resignation or have they at the very least censured him? Has the Council issued a vote of no - confidence or asked Mr. Cirilo to resign from his Council President position? Or has the Council decided to do what I said they would do about Mr. Cirilo, which is NOTHING. West Orange's Chief Financial Officer John Gross was arrested approximately 7 months ago after he failed a field sobriety test and his breathalyzer results were over the legal limit. Has his case been resolved or is it still pending? If it has been resolved, how was it resolved? I don't see any mention of Mr. Gross's situation in Councilman Krakoviak's post{s}
RB
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
@Mr Prignano:
I just watched the Council meeting online. A question about the TC President's and the township CFO's DWI convictions was raised during public comment.
A resident said that the CFO was found guilty of the charge and no one on the TC denied it during Council response. No one addressed the resident's question about the TC President's DWI conviction either. They just ignored it and moved on. I guess there's going to be nothing said about it, no censure, and no call for resignation. End of story.
Ricky
9:52 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
If you want the Council to address the issue with the DWI convictions, you can make your feelings on the subject known by sending an email message to:
malto:council@westorange.org
john anthony prignano
3:38 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
First, those figures are from 2011.Perhaps Mr..Englert could ask Joint Meeting employee and fellow Concerned Citizen Emeritus Robert Sforza some questions;.Is there longevity pay? How much overtime is paid? How much does the benefits package cost? How many people, like the independent counsel, receive money from the Joint Meeting, but aren't directly employed by the Joint Meeting,and how much are they paid? The other point is, $63,025.21 plus benefits is a great deal of money if the Joint Meeting ,like virtually every other government and quasi government agency, ESPECIALLY those off the beaten path, as it were { e.g. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority} is employing more people than it needs. Reducing the number of employees by 12 would save $900,000 to $1,000,000 or more.
john anthony prignano
8:41 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
RB Thank you You said it End of story
Bert Peronilla
6:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
As stated by Councilman Krakoviak "a consensus appeared to form among council members to provide questions to the professionals that they would be prepared to answer at the next council meeting."
It was mentioned at the March 5 meeting that residents who have questions for Prism can email them to Council@westorange.org. I sent the following questions:
Questions: (to Prism)
1. When is the estimated start of construction?
2. When is the estimated completion of construction and ready for occupancy?
3. When does payment of the Pilot to the Township start?
4. When does the Township start paying for the debt service for the $6.3 million general obligation bond?
5. What is the anticipated monthly rent for each of the 285 loft-style units, 14 penthouse units and 34 units above the retail building, to generate the projected Gross Revenue to Prism of $950,000 at 95% occupancy?
6. If Prism decides to sell units in addition to rentals, how will this affect the calculation of the Pilot, which is currently 10% of Gross Revenue with Minimum of $650,000 Minus the Land Tax ($152,765)?
Gary Englert
6:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
john anthony prignano:
Rather than asking what are essentially rhetorical questions on an Internet message board, why not attend the next public gathering of the Joint Meeting and make your inquiries there?
While I tend to think whatever responses you receive will never satisfy you, as your general position seems to be any penny spent on anything is too much and any employee must be some politcally connected, do nothing hack...I tend to think that's the exception to the rule.
Mr. Sforza is the Joint Meeting's long-time purchasing agent and, as such, is responsible for acquiring both goods and services on its behalf as economically as possible. By all reports, he's done an excellent job at doing just that.
Still infrastructure and mechanical systems in such an enterprise do age and require upgrades and replacement...and a $65 annual increase follwoing 7 years in which there was none, doesn't sound particularly onerous or uncalled for.
john anthony prignano
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar; " Danger knows full well that I am more dangerous than he. We are lion cubs born of the same litter, and I the elder and more terrible."
Bert Peronilla
6:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
Correction to my Question 5. Gross Revenue to Prism should read $9,500,000, NOT $950,000.
john anthony prignano
6:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
Regarding the costs associated with the Joint Meeting, I am confident that Mr. Englert will approach this potential cost - saving initiative with his typical bulldog tenacity. Mr. Englert is justifiably quite proud of his proposal to privatize municipal custodial services. According to Mr. Englert, and I have no reason to doubt him, in the years since his proposal was implemented, the West Orange taxpayers have saved a bundle. Has he spoken to the School Board about them privatizing the school system's janitorial services? I would think he must have. What was their response? Anyhow, as I said, I know that if there's anyone who can expose waste and come up with innovative cost saving ideas, it's Mr. Englert. .
wohopeful
6:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
The mayor, administration and town council puppets need to wake up and realize that they are taxing people to death in West Orange. They simply rubber stamp every expenditure which comes their way with no questions asked about what things cost and how they expect the already overburdened home owners to pay for their fiscal incompetent decisions.
We must vote out the mayor and his council puppets who want to destroy the honest hard working tax payers of our town.
Gary Englert
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
john anthony prignano:
Lord knows what "cost saving initiative" you are talking about, concerning the Joint Meeting, as I'm unaware of one being one the table.
What is being concsidered is raising annual sewer fees for Townhip residents by $65 to offset anticipated cost increases of operating the treatment plant and infrastructure.
I am proud of championing privatization initiatives (building services and the recycling center) that have saved the Township millions of dollars, while providing significant revenues and increased services; I believ government should be no bigger than it absolutely needs to be and it was the right thing to do.
Privatization of any service/function must be examined on a case by case basis.
The Board of Ed has examined privatizing custodial service and has (rightfully) concluded it isn't economically advantageous nor in the best interest the district's desire to safeguard its children.
Janitorial contracts are fairly narrow in scope and, once you get beyond daily sweeping, mopping, vacuuming and emptying of garbage cans, everything else becomes an add on. Board employees do all of the aforementioned and more (floor stripping, wasing, repairs, painting, etc.) As part of their basic job description.
There is also a need to have custodial staff in the buildings during the school day, whereas most conventional building cleaning contracts are geared toward having the work done at night.
john anthony prignano
8:41 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Montville 2010 The School Board voted on Thursday to privatize custodial services. .As of late 2011, they were still privatized.Fair Lawn - A private company has been hired for nighttime services in the 2 middle schools.Seven custodial positions will be eliminated. Ramsey - It could save $1,000,000 over the next 2 years.School officials have reached out to the same consultant the Ridgewood school district used to privatize their custodial services. April, 2011 - Commercial Township voted to privatize custodial services. I appreciate Mr. Englert's response. NO cost - saving initiative suggested to this School Board gets anywhere. Ridgewood, Montville, Ramsey and Fair Lawn have higher rated schools and are more affluent towns than West Orange.They spend $16,456, $16,661,$17,774 and $17,076 per - pupil respectively.The West Orange school board is not interested in how they spend so much less, just as previous incarnations of the WO school board weren't.City Hall doesn't seem to know there's a public school system in West Orange.City Hall boasts of austerity measures BECAUSE the people who used to go to work in City Hall now go to work for the WO public schools.The WO school board doesn't need to have even more people tell them the salaries and benefits are way too high, that there are far too many people on the payroll, and that the nepotism and cronyism are out of control.TAKE CARE OF YOUR PEOPLE,GIVE YOUR FRIENDS MONEY. City Hall,the schools,the County, the State ad infinitum
Joe Krakoviak
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
West Orange Grassroots now has the video of the council meeting posted http://bit.ly/14EDUT4, in a downloadable format that's also indexed so that you know where to look in the video for specific issues. You can also watch a flash (non-downloadable and non-indexed) version of the meeting on the town's website http://westorange.org/mediacenter.aspx?VID=22.
Car14
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Hey the WO taxes have gone up..why not the sewer charges? This town is out of control with taxes of any kind. They must be followers of Obama.
Ken
9:52 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
I agree. We should eliminate sewers, and simply have everyone cart their own waste to a private disposal facility. Freedom!!!!111!!!!!!!
Gunny
9:11 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
- Introduction on first reading of an ordinance creating pay for a Council on Affordable Housing coordinator and Municipal Alliance coordinator. I voted against this, because I’m wary of adding new personnel costs.
Why would we need to create these positions?
RB
10:04 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Perhaps someone at 66 Main St. has another friend, relative, or political crony looking for a job? I don't know - just saying.
Gary Englert
10:44 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
john anthony prignano:
While providing custodial services after normal business hours is the norm for commercial businesses and office buildings (and makes all the sense in the world at Township Hall and our police department) the dynamic in schools is an entirely different kettle of fish.
The smallest of our grade schools has +/- 400 children using its restrooms during the school day and thinking they do not require constant attention would be naïve. Children are not adults and their self-control, not to mention attention to cleanliness and hygiene, are still evolving.
Our school district is responsible for maintaining a dozen buildings and its custodial staff works 12 months a year.
To suggest that any other district has found cost savings by privatizing some custodial services, and assuming that should also apply to West Orange, is presumptuous without a thorough review.
This has been done in the recent past and, just because you don't like the result, it doesn't mean the conclusions weren't valid.
Daily cleaning and maintenance is not all the custodial staff does and you must consider the true cost of paying for all they do, by hiring vendors to do that work.
Keep in mind that, not only will those vendors have a need to hire essentially the same number of people to do that work, they are also in business to make a profit.
john anthony prignano
11:43 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
We CERTAINLY don't want anyone to make a profit, except the teachers and administrators who generate enormous profits off of bachelor degrees,and who often are involved in private - sector for - profit endeavors. City Hall eliminated longevity pay for new employees several years ago, but apparently,it just wouldn't work for the West Orange public school system.We learn something new every day. Today I learned "imitation is NOT the sincerest form of flattery". The West Orange school board does NOT believe in mimicking other Districts' cost efficiencies. Interim Superintendent O'Neill is from Chatham. Chatham High and Montclair High provide the hourly equivalent of THIRTY DAYS more instructional time than West Orange High. Their results are better than West Oranges results,and both Districts spend quite a bit less than West Orange. I guess it works for them, but the West Orange School Board believes that that much more instructional time at a significantly lower per - pupil cost just wouldn't work for West Orange. West Orange has an Assistant Superintendent and a Business Administrator who were making just a tad below $200,000 a year after 10 years with the District.We must pay for quality. Sometimes it's mediocre quality, sometimes it's very inferior quality, and sometime it's nonexistent quality, but always, it's quality.The other thing I learned today is that West Orange is a truly unique school system.Too bad "unique" and "excellent" ARE mutually exclusive terms. .
Paul P
9:52 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
So far the town and council has refused to comment on this matter. Will Mr. Carrillo be reprimanded? Why hasn't the town commented? One clue could be the cozy relationship between the politically connected in West Orange. Mr. Cirilo's wife worked as an Aide to 27th District Assemblyman John McKeon, and as an West Orange assistant municipal public information officer. The current public information officer has said the town has no comment, now we partially know why.
Alex Sohn
11:30 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
He's an elected official of the township. The voters have the option of mounting a recall but it's hardly worth the time and effort when he's up for re-election in a little over a year. If the voters want to see the back of him, as they did with Anderton in 2012, all they have to do is go out and vote for someone else. Talk to your friends and neighbors. McCartney, Cirilo and Parisi will all be up for re-election May 6th, 2014. VOTE 'EM OUT if you want to see things change.
Scott
12:22 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
@Alex Sohn ... You got that one right! After 18 years of McKeon (6 on the Council, 12 as Mayor), by 2014,16 years of Parisi (12 on the Council, 4 as Mayor), and 8 years of McCartney it's getting a little old! Poor Vic Cirilo, barely through his first term, seems completely out of his depth.
Property taxes have nearly DOUBLED over the last decade and residents are being stretched to the breaking point. You may recall that Mr. Parisi was almost speechless with shock that Anderton was voted out (the July 1st 2012 reorganization meeting is probably still online if you missed it) because he had never seen anyone leave the Council other than volutarily. That's the long and short of it. They think they're entitled to the office as long as they care to occupy it - it's all preordained unless we get out and vote to change course after a collective 22 years of "leadership" that, in my opinion, is just not working for us.
Gary Englert
10:35 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
Paul P:
Mr. Cirilo plead guilty to a motor vehicle infraction, not a crime of moral turpitude or involving violation of the public trust under NJ law.
As such the Township Council has no legal authority or standing to take action against him in any form.
As to your assertions concerning his wife, your information is totally incorrect: she has never served as an Aide to Assemblyman McKeon and has never held the position of Assistant Public Relations Officer, which does not now exist and never has.
In the past, she did work for Congressman Pascrell handling constituent services and inquiries but, has been employed in the private sector for some time.
Paul P
11:30 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
Unless her corporate profile on her companies website is completely wrong, the information is correct.
And though the township may not have the legal authority as you say, to take any action against him, inaction or no comment from the town gives the impression that a DUI is a minor matter. And it is not. Drunk driving is taken seriously in the courts. Drunk driving has killed many innocent people. The town has educational programs about drunk driving,. The MADD program furnishes the town with a wrecked car as an example of drunk driving.
He is the town council president and as such should set an example and be a good role model in representing the town. He has violated the trust of those who voted for him, ( I voted for him) .
Gary Englert
12:03 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Paul P:
Care to share the website you're talking about? the bottom line remains that your attributing any "political juice" to Mr. Cirilo as a result of his wife's employment, internships or volunteering is ridiculous. If "political connections" were a key to any lack of rebuke by the council (and they're not) Mr. Cirilo has enough of his own.
What you, and others, seem to be forgetting is the single salient fact that Mr. Cirilo's Council colleagues DO recognize: that being is that he plead guilty to what is essentially a technical violation of motor vehicle law (refusing a breathalyzer test) and no evidence nor testimony was ever presented in support of the idea he was actually impaired...and absent your being some all knowing and powerful deity, you can't possibly know that he was.
Mr. Cirilo is suffering the penalties proscribed and he need not be subject to any others that neither you, me nor anyone else would be subject to, simply because he holds elected office.
There's a basic legal precept at play here called equal protection under the law...and it benefits all of us.
Nobody is suggesting that DUI is a minor matter but, +/- 30,000 DUI charges are brought in NJ each year and 99.9% of them are resolved without a line of news presented about them or the person involved.
Scott
4:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
@Gary Englert:
Just google it - she does list herself as a former Aide to JFM LD27 and as an Ass't Municipal PIO.
HMV
4:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
It's possible that Mr. P. and Mr. Englert are both correct - I looked at the corporate profile, too, and it does say she was a McKeon Aide, but the Assistant Municipal Public Information Officer position does specify a city so it might have been somewhere else or she may have been puffing up her resume a bit. (everybody gets a point here - haha).
What I noticed missing was any reference to either Catania Consulting (the gaming guys) or Millenium Strategies (the marketing guys). Didn't she work for one or the other back on June 28, 2011? Cirilo recused himself from a vote on the marketing resolution at the meeting that night and someone said it was because his wife worked for one of those companies.
HMV
4:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
*typo* I meant to type "position does NOT specify a city"
Ricky
6:27 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
He had to recuse to avoid the appearance nepotism at all costs because there has never been any <cough>billySayers</cough> nepotism or cronyism in West Orange under the present regime.
Gary Englert
12:21 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Scott & HMV:
Now having viewed the website of Lenox Consulting (Ms. Rice's current employer, which shows up only on google by the way), Paul P's premise remains off base and constitutes nothing less than a not so covert attack on Mr. Cirilo's wife. The suggestion she ever held a paid position with the Township is without merit, as is the implication that her political associations have anything to do with his Council brethren taking no action against her husband.
Purely and simply, there is no action that is within their purview to take.
Paul P then goes on to insist that "A reprimand and perhaps he stepping down as council president, would show he is at least admitting to doing something wrong and being noble about it" which fails to acknowledge that Mr. Cirilo issued a public apology for having brought any aspersions on the Township, then entered a gulty plea in court and is paying the rather onerous penalties for doing so, all while having the entire matter replayed in the media on numerous occassions.
How many of the other +/-30,000 New Jersey drivers similarly charged in a given year face such public scrutiny and derision?
Few if any.
Those of you thinking that another pound of flesh need to be extracted from the man (most all of whom are offering that opinion anonymously) should search your own consciences and rightfully conclude that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
StephenFreidel
4:55 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
@Gary Englert:
Why don't you start your own Patch blog where you can freely post all of your rambling, inconsistent musings, and knee-jerk support for anything Codey-McKeon-Parisi unmolested by anyone who would have a differing opinion?
You can attack commenters there for anonymity, views counter to your own, reading comprehension, and failure to "enter into evidence" copious links to support their assertions.
Recycling your tired posts in every comment thread (ad nauseum) is boriing.
Gary Englert
7:31 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
StephenFreidel:
I have no desire to start my own website or blog but, if I did, the requirement for people to register and use their given name would be a given, toward actually promoting civil discourse and responsible commentary.
Both are completely lacking when people are allowed to hide behind screen names while spouting absolute nonsense and maligning real human beings.
I have no problem with anyone having an opinion differing from mine on any subject but, I'd like to hope it's an opinion with some basis in fact...and there would be little need to read my saying the same thing more than once were it not for the incessant and repititious, anonymous nonsense that pervades these blogs.
And yes, I think Dick Codey, John McKeon and Rob Parisi are decent human beings who try to do the right thing and that we are lucky to have such people willing to give of their time and talents to public service.
RB
9:00 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
@Mr. Freidel:
Be careful there, my friend. That guy is a stalker who has access to your voting records (and God-knows-what-else) through his pals downtown. If you piss him off, he'll post any juicy, personal details he can find about you. He's done it before in numerous venues (I hope you don't have children - they're fair game, as well).
He doesn't see the irony in his statement: " incessant and repititious, ... nonsense that pervades these blogs.".
Good luck to you, my non-anonymous friend.
wohopeful
9:00 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
^ Nonsense
Gary Englert
11:00 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
RB:
Your anonymous rantings aside, I have access to nothing more than the public records available to any other citizen and, all conspiracy theories aside, my "pals downtown" aren't with the CIA, NSA, DoD or FBI and don't have accessmto anyone's confidential information either.
While I've been subject to far more specious, unfounded personal attacks on the Internet than most anyone (precisely because, unlike people like you, I don't hide behind a screen name), I defy you to prove where I've posted "juicy, personal details" about anyone.
Paul P
4:26 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
If I share the website, you are just going to diminish the fast I was right, by replying with some redundant spiel , so why should I bother? You can look it up.
There is no legal precept when it comes down to an employer firing an employee for a DUI. An employer can in fact fire an employee for a dui infraction, and it's legal. And I never said I want the guy fired. A reprimand and perhaps he stepping down as council president, would show he is at least admitting to doing something wrong and being noble about it,
If you had read the articles about his pending and eventual court appearance, you would have seen his lawyer and him fought tooth and nail not to take responsibility for his actions. His lawyer was admonished by the judge, and he accepted a plea bargain, rather than face the judge in trial. Drunk or not, a refusal to take a breathalyzer is as equal as being dwi in the courts eyes.
I watched the council meeting when a woman mentioned that council hasn't said a word about it. When she left the podium, the camera panned and the exchange between Guarino and Cirilo was priceless. Shows me how much Mr. Cirilo takes the matter seriously in the public eyes.
Alex Sohn
8:15 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Mr. P - I'm going to think out loud here for a minute ...
The way I read this, the drunk driver who is an *employee* would be John Gross the CFO. I think his employer is the Administration (Parisi? Sayers?) and that is who would have to make a decision about terminating his employment - in my opinion that just ain't gonna happen.
Cirilo, our other drunk driver, is not an employee but an *elected official*. I think that makes it the responsibility of the electorate to dump him, either by recall or at the polls next May. I don't think a recall is worth considering. He will either graciously decline to run in 2014 or he can be voted out. He may also be elected to a second term (nothing much surprises me anymore since Ms Spango won a 2nd term in 2012 - oy!, eh?)
His board appointments (DWOA, WOPL, Renna House, Valley Rivitalization) are, to me, a grey area and I don't know who appointed him (I think the rest of the Council voted him into those at the July 1 reorg meeting). Again, it's just a little over a year to go on those and they're small potatoes.
Cirilo is an *employee* of the City of Passaic. Exec. Dir. of the City Housing Authority is his regular, nine-to-five job. I would guess that the City of Passaic could fire him if they had a DUI policy, but that's really not our problem.
Joe Krakoviak
9:00 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Mr. Englert wrote above: "What you, and others, seem to be forgetting is the single salient fact that Mr. Cirilo's Council colleagues DO recognize ..."
Mr. Englert does not speak for me under any circumstances.
Gary Englert
11:35 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Joe Krakoviak:
Far be it form me to suggest I speak for you (I didn't and I don't) and missing from my comment (above) is the absolute adjective all.
Let's then just say that the majority of Mr. Cirilo's colleagues chose not to play God and attribute any more blame, rebuke or sanctions against the man than were meted out in court.
Never the wallflower, had you thought otherwise, I tend to think you would have said so...no?
RB
11:57 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Give it up, Mr. Englert. Your logorrhea is becoming tiresome.
Gary Englert
12:03 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
RB:
The criticism of a cowardly, anonymous Internet nitwit wounds my heart...NOT!
Paul P
1:03 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
It has nothing to with playing God. It's setting an example. Do you really want to be known as the town with the council President who's known as a drunk? Make that 2 drunks, the council refuses to reprimand. And it shouldn't be up to them, Cirilo should man up and step down as council president. Sorry Gary, but it's an embarrassment. no matter how you try to spin it.
john anthony prignano
1:52 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Paul P. A person who lies to a Judge {perjures himself } wouldn't hesitate to lie to and otherwise try to deceive the public.
Gary Englert
5:14 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Paul P:
The hypocrisy of someone hiding behind a screen name and suggesting someone else should "man up" and do anything is manifest.
I've been a licensed driver for 45 years and have never been pulled over for suspicision of DUI and been requested to take a breathalyzer test. Many who are far more familiar with the law, and the Mirandaesque warnings given a driver under such circumstances, suggest those instructions do not adequately inform the individual of the consequences of refusing that test. Again, this is the subject of an amicus brief filed with the NJ Sipreme Court in January.
That said, Mr. Ciirlo's plea and resultant penalties are the direct result of having refused to take the breathalyzer test and neither you, me or anyone else can attest to any degree of certainty that his actions and judgment were any more egregious than his making that decision.
For you to label him a drunk is to proclaim yourself an all knowing deity and, based on the drivel you espouse her, that seems entirely unlikely.
Paul P
7:04 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Sorry Gary, but your wrong. The police had enough of a suspicion to pull him over. Before the police give a breathalyzer, they give a sobriety test. Only after failing a sobriety test do they administer a breathalyzer. Regardless of the amicus brief, 99.9% of NJ drivers should know the law, refusing to take a breathalyzer is the same as drunk driving.
I
Gary Englert
1:53 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Paul P:
There you go again, proclaiming you alone know what nobody else can or could.
A policemen is neither judge nor jury and the reason they have something called a breathalyzer test is that on person's observations or suspicions aren't concrete evidence concerning someone's sobriety.
Further, how could you possibly know what the arresting office saw or observed since his testimony was never given?
I'm wrong about nothing and certainly not about the fact you're a hypocrite.
Paul P
7:04 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I label him as I see it, someone who was pulled over because the police believe he was drunk, he refused to take a breathalyzer, and in court the judge reamed him and his council out, for trying to weasel his way out of trouble. Do you really believe anyone who knows they have not drank, would refuse a breathalyzer? Sorry, but he was drunk.
john anthony prignano
8:27 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Someone who lies to a Judge { perjures himself } would not hesitate to to lie to or otherwise deceive the public. I don't know anyone who apologizes for a heinous act that they didn't commit.
Gary Englert
1:53 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Paul P:
"I label him as I see it?"
This is analogous to your questioning my estimate of 25,000 spectators viewing the St. Patrick's Day Parade whe, by your own admission, you weren't even there...having boycotted attending because John McKeon was the Grand Marshal!
Well Skippy, you didn't "see" anything because you weren't there when Mr. Cirilo was pulled over and all you know about the matter is what has been printed in on-line news reports that you twist as it suits you.
What I believe is that not everyone...even an attorney...is familiar with every one of the thousands of laws on the books in NJ and that, no, 99.9 percent of the drivers are not aware that refusing a breathalyzer is tatamount to acknowledging guilt without recourse.
What I am far more certain of is that a large percentage of the population is aware of the protections they have against self-incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment...which NJ's breathalyzer laws is in direct conflict with.
What I also know is what I don't know.
Not having seen Mr. Cirilo at the time of the incident, heard any testimony from anyone who did and having seen nothing to confirm his BAC at the time, I can't say the man was drunk...and given you're in the exact same boat as me, neither can you.
RB
4:28 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
"...a large percentage of the population is aware of the protections they have against self-incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment...which NJ's breathalyzer laws is in direct conflict with."
Enough already with the Fifth Amendment distraction. Mr. Englert is wrong for (at least) two reasons. First: the Fifth Amendment protects one from being forced to give evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature that incriminates oneself in a *criminal* trial; I've seen numerous posts by Englert asserting that the arrest was not for a "crime" but for a simple motor vehicle "infraction".
Second: the Fifth Amendment does NOT apply to physical evidence. The courts have already rejected the Fifth Amendment argument in these cases so it's pointless (and incorrect) to continue pushing it.
In NJ, driver licensing laws state that a driver has given his implied consent to breathalyzer testing when pulled over with probable cause for DUI/DWI; good luck trying to claim some Fourth Amendment violation. It's nobody's fault but his own if Cirilo claims some ignorance of what he agreed to when he became a licensed NJ driver. His failure to read and understand the Driver Manual that's given to everyone before the written test is nobody's problem but his.
Gary Englert
9:05 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
RB:
N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, which covers mandatory penalties for refusing a breathalyzer test, was enacted into law on August 9, 2004.
Of consequence, nobody receiving a New Jersey Drivers License prior to that date specifically acknowledged it as a precondition to receiving their license and Mr. Cirilo is among them.
Accordingly, information covering the subject was not included in the Driver's Manual he read and used in preparation for his written or road test.
While renewing one's license prsumes acceptance of the rules and regualtions then on the books, MVC does not provide any upadate of them at time of renewal.
The point I made, and it is still valid, is that while nobody can be expected to know the content of each and every law on the books, much of the population does have an understanding of the protections afforded them against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.
Absent being able to consult with a lawyer at the time a breathalyzer test is being offered, and knowing the possibility that the evidence provided by taking one might incriminate them, the impulse for people refusing is entirely understandable.
RB
10:16 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Mr. Englert pleads (in his 4th paragraph above): "The point I made, and it is still valid, ... , much of the population does have an understanding ... [of] the 5th Amendment."
It doesn't matter what misunderstandings much of the population has concerning the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Englert's point is no more valid now than when he first tried to make it no matter how how he tries to backpedal and spin it after the fact.
Gary Englert
10:52 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
RB:
I neither need to "backpedal" nor "spin" as my point remains valid and consistent; your problem is you lack the reading comphension skill and intellectual capacity to understand it.
That said, I've rather thoroughly rebutted your suggestion that Mr. Cirilo should have been fully informed about NJ breathalyzer law as it's part of the curriculum in the MVC's driver manual.
Again, the breathalyzer law is only in effect since August 9, 2004...and covered in manuals issued sometime thereafter...anyone receiving a NJ drivers license prior to that has no reason to know about it.
RB
1:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
While ignorance of the law is no defense, I'll allow that Cirilo, with his Master's degree in public administration, may have been more ignorant of the consequences of refusal than most other drivers in NJ (because, presumably, he obtained a driver's license prior to 2004 and failed to keep up with the statutes).
Be that as it may, the arresting officer, as Mr. Cirilo admitted in court, advised him at the scene of the consequences of refusal. At that point, he refused the BrAC with full knowledge of the penalty for doing so. So the ignorance excuse is useless and doesn't change the facts.
The main point (that appears to have been missed - perhaps due to some reading comprehension difficulty or lack of intellectual capacity (?) ) was the rebuttal of the repeated and false claim that the Fifth Amendment somehow protects Cirilo in the DWI stop. It does not and repetition of that nonsense will not make it so. On that point, no amount of backpedalling, spin, or addressing a completely different (and minor) point will help
I'll take the change of subject, and the fallback to insults as argument, to be concession on the point.
RB
1:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
While ignorance of the law is no defense, I'll allow that Cirilo, with his Master's degree in public administration, may have been more ignorant of the consequences of refusal than most other drivers in NJ (because, presumably, he obtained a driver's license prior to 2004 and failed to keep up with the statutes).
Be that as it may, the arresting officer, as Mr. Cirilo admitted in court, advised him at the scene of the consequences of refusal. At that point, he refused the BrAC with full knowledge of the penalty for doing so. So the ignorance excuse doesn't wash.
The main point was the rebuttal of the repeated, false claim that the Fifth Amendment somehow protects Cirilo in the DWI stop. It does not and repetition of that nonsense will not make it so. On that point, no amount of backpedalling, spin, or addressing a completely different (and minor) point will make it apply in Cirilo's case.
I'll take the change of subject, the provocative tone, and the fallback to insult-as-argument, to indicate that Mr. Englert, once again, cannot find a decent counter
So much for the claim that anonymity breeds incivility and that posters using "real" names take the high road. Perhaps Mr. Englert should refer to Matthew 7:1-5 ("“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?") before he blindly criticizes anyone's lack of civility, reading comprehension or intellectual capacity
Gary Englert
3:11 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
RB
Please spare us the righteous indignation, as your "insults" directed at me predate any returning of the favor...and mine are directed at a pair of initials, not a real human being.
Mr. Cirilo's Master's in Public Adminstration, while laudable, is not a law degree and I rather doubt the study of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a was part of the curriculum to obtain it.
What Mr. Cirilo did in court was to allocute to the charges he plead guilty to in the manner proscribed. Whether that included an admission that "the arresting officer... advised him at the scene of the consequences of refusal" would be unknown to anyone not present in court. Were you there? Whether or not Mr. Cirilo believe this was the case or not, was it a procedural necessity to his acceptance of the plea bargain?
As I've said elsewhere: Most people can't accurately recite the Ten Commandments, let alone the New Jersey Statutes Annotated and it's completely understandable to me that someone might rely on their knowledge of basic legal concepts (like the 5th Amendment, and whether it truly applies or not) when refusing to take a breathalyzer test.
That's neither backpedaling nor spin; it's common sense and having enough empathy to understand what another (non-lawyer) might have been thinking at the time.
RB
5:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Mr. Englert claims that his behavior is acceptable due to some unspecified "insults" directed toward him at some earlier time and that going ad hominem against a "pair of initials" somehow comprises civil discourse . Very interesting tactic, although somewhat disingenuous.
Interesting, too, how Mr. Englert speaks for 99% of drivers, claiming emphatically that they are blissfully unaware that the Fifth Amendment doesn't protest them during a DWI stop. I think that's unsubstantiated nonsense.
He also claims that "all Mr. Cirilo did" was to allocute to charges in a manner forbidden ("proscribed"? - does he know what the word "proscibed" means? Yes, I know, a typo because the 'e' and 'o' are so close together on the keyboard).
From reading printed reports after the case, I was left with the impression that Mr. Cirilo and his attorney had agreed that the arresting officer had, in fact, given Cirilo the prescribed warning at the time of his arrest, and the prosecutor dropped two of the counts against Cirilo in return.
Is he now suggesting that Mr. Cirilo lied to the Court? I don't understand how keeping this charade alive is of any benefit to Mr. Cirilo - all it does is to keep Cirilo's DWI conviction on everyone's radar. The township CFO hasn't had the benefit of such a crusading, bulldog defender and his conviction has vitually ceased to be a topic of conversation around the internet.
The last word, as always, will be his.
wohopeful
1:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
"Absent being able to consult with a lawyer at the time a breathalyzer test is being offered, and knowing the possibility that the evidence provided by taking one might incriminate them, the impulse for people refusing is entirely understandable."
So what evidence do you think Victor thought the police might gain from a breathalyzer test such that he refused to take it? The man was drunk and pled guilty so get over it and move on Mr. Englert. Your incessant defense of failed politicians and bad people is tiresome and you only embarrass yourself more.
Gary Englert
5:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
^ Nonsense.
wohopeful
2:57 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Yes it is nonsense that you continue your incessant defense of failed politicians and bad people like Cirilo, Codey, McKeon, Parisi, et al.
Bert Peronilla
1:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Mr. Englert and RB:
Does this apply in your discussions? This question is strictly for discussion purposes as it relates to anyone refusing the breathalizer test, and not to be construed as pro or anti Councilman Cirilo.
"Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content."
RB
3:11 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
@Mr. Peronilla:
Yes, I think the principle (which sounds more convincing in Latin) that you cite was and I believe that it does apply in any case concerning refusal of the BrAC test after a driver is stopped for probable cause for a DWI infraction. The Fifth Amendment, however, certainly does not apply in the case of physical evidence.
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. The dicussion does seem to have been hijacked down the ad hom. road, so thank you for trying to bring it back.
RB
3:11 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Correction: "that you cite was" should read "that you cite does [apply]"
Gary Englert
3:11 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Bert Peronilla:
"Ignorance of the law excuses no one" is an age old legal principle and is most certainly applicable here...and I'm certainly not suggesting Mr. Cirilo's ignorance of the law is any way a defense or an excuse.
What I am saying is that knowledge of all law by anyone (layman or lawyer) is impossible and no small reason why they are memorialized in statutes and codes and why law libraries exist.
Most people can't accurately recite the Ten Commandments, let alone the New Jersey Statutes Annotated and it's completely understandable to me that someone might rely on their knowledge of basic legal concepts (like the 5th Amendment, and whether it truly applies or not) when refusing to take a breathalyzer test.
Gary Englert
5:43 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
RB:
If you're looking for who took the discussion "ad hominem," look in your bathroom mirror, then scroll up the page to confirm the premise.
Gary Englert
2:57 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
RB:
Have you ever seen a segment of "Jaywalking" on The Tonight Show? It's a bit where Jay Leno takes to the streets and asks common folks some pretty general knowledge questions, along the lines of "Who is Joe Biden?" and "What is the capitol of California?" The upshot is that it is nothing short of amazing, and comical, how little people know.
Of consequence, I think I'm on fairly firm ground when saying most NJ drivers are not well versed on the breathalyzer law, save perhaps those who've had to read up on it to get a drivers license (since 2004) and the +/- 30,000 drivers charged with DUI each year. Against the millions holding licenses, that's a pittance.
If you're "under the impression" that Mr. Cirilo said anything specific during his allocution, based on Internet news reports, that impression is unfounded as he was not quoted in anything I've seen or read.
As to continuing this conversation at Mr. Cirilo's peril, I said all that really needed saying many posts ago and have only continued to refute the anonymous nonsense of those of you demanding another pound of flesh.
Gary Englert
2:57 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
RB:
By the way, much of my posting is done on the fly and via Blackberry, and I fully acknowledge that my two thumbed typing, automatic Spell Check and my failure to proof read results in both typos and spelling errors...some so bad I'm embarassed enough to delete them and re-post after reading them on my desktop screen. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I do know the difference between "prescribed" and "proscribed" and clearly meant the latter.
Paul P
2:57 pm on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Anyone who lives in New Jersey, and has had a drivers license, from 1981 - present, would have had read the law regarding breathalyzers in the drivers manual. This simple law and the penalties for refusal, has been advertised for years, has been taught to kids, and has been in the states drivers manual almost 30 years, To claim ignorance of such could be caused by something far worse, like a serious medical condition affecting the brain, because only someone whom has no intelligence, or is suffering from a serious brain injury, or is legally defined as mentally retarded, can claim ignorance on this matter. If that's the case, maybe Mr. Cirilo needs a CAT scan.
Gary Englert
11:41 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
Paul P:
Given the law in question (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a) only went into effect on August 9, 2004, your findamental premise is flawed.
Further, statistic available on-line suggest there are currently 5,728,000 licensed drivers in NJ.
Would you, or anyone else, really want to bet the ranch on to what the majority of them do, or do not, know on any subject?
I rather doubt it.
A great many very inteligent people can't tell you the first thing about subjects outside of their particular area of expertise or interest...and none of them likely need a CAT scan either.
Hell, airplanes have been around since 1903; does that mean you know how to fly one or even why they do fly?
I rather doubt that too.
Paul P
10:48 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
Please stop implying Victor Cirilo is intelligent, if in fact he did not know the law regarding breathalyzers. To do so insults people who are truly intelligent. Ever see the tv show, Smarter than a 5th grader? Bet you a 5th grader could tell you the NJ law pertaining to breathalyzer refusal.
Gary Englert
11:21 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
Paul P:
An intelligent person knows that there is much he doesn't know and I tend to doubt the typical 5th grader has any reason to know what a breathalyzer is, let alone the rules and regulations pertaining to them in NJ.
Paul P
11:41 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
MADD has been educating youngsters about drunk driving for quite awhile. Kids are smarter these days than you give them credit for. A 5th grader is obviously smarter than Victor Cirilo and West Orange CFO John Gross, 5TH graders know DUI is bad. What's Mr. Cirilos and Mr. Gross's excuse?
Gary Englert
12:18 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Paul P:
My daughter is a certified NJ teacher who works for an organization that provides state mandated drug-alcohol abuse prevention education to grade school students in school districts in Atlantic County...and no, MADD does not provide such services.
That said, neither breathalyzers, breathalyzer tests nor the NJ laws concerning them are part of the required curriculum so, no, I doubt the typical fifth grade knows anything about them...and neither does the typical adult, in my humble opinion.
As to there being a general, public awareness that DUI is a bad idea, yes, I would agree that's common public knowledge.
Paul P
1:26 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Can the tax payers of West Orange trust a CFO who may or may not have a drinking problem?
Gary Englert
2:18 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Paul P:
Rather obviously, one has less reason to question the trust they place in anyone if alcoholism isn't one of their problems but, a DUI conviction is not, in and of itself, proof positive that someone is an alcoholic.
That said, a great many very successful, talented and high functioning people are (or were, during their lifetimes) alcoholics; Drew Barrymore, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, William Faulkner, Mel Gibson, Elton John, Anthony Hopkins, Mickey Mantle, Betty Ford, Judy Garland, Billie Holiday, Edgar Allen Poe, Stephen King, Johnny Cash, John Daly, Rush Limbaugh, George C. Scott, Elizabeth Taylor, Joe Namath, Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell, Mary Tyler Moore, Larry Hagman, Dick Van Dyke, Buzz Aldrin, Robert Young, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ted Kennedy and Dick Cheney...to name just a few.
For people so afflicted, it happens to be a disease and not reason for derision or rebuke.