"And this ordinance has been properly adopted."

Edited on February 22 to include the response from the Municipal Clerk (see end of post)

Or has it?

At the January 16, 2018 meeting of Trenton's city council Ordinance 17-80 was up for it's second reading and public hearing. There were only four members of council present when the ordinance came up and the vote was three to one in favor. (Audio here)
Trenton's Municipal Clerk, Dwayne Harris, can clearly be heard saying after the vote, "And this ordinance has been properly adopted."  (Audio here)

Except that is wasn't.

The exact same ordinance came up for reintroduction (first reading) on Thursday, February 15. How can this be?

Recap

From the moment that it first appeared on the council docket in early December of 2017, we argued against giving Mr. Torricelli more tax breaks for his project. Not surprisingly, the ordinance passed first reading at the December 7 meeting. The council members voting in favor of the introduction of Ordinance 17-80 were Mr. Bethea, Ms. Caldwell-Wilson, Mr. Chester, Mr. Harrison, and Ms. Reynolds-Jackson. Ms. Holly-Ward and Mr. Muschal were apparently absent as no vote was recorded from either of them.

The second reading was postponed from December 21 and rescheduled for January.

At the January 16 meeting, the ordinance was brought up for it's second reading. According to the audio (provided courtesy of Kevin Moriarty) of the meeting, there was no one present who wished to speak on the matter so the public hearing portion was closed. The ordinance was then brought forth for a vote. Council members Caldwell-Wilson, Chester and Holly-Ward voted in favor of granting the 10 year tax abatement. Councilman Muschal voted against. Council members Bethea, Harrison and Reynolds-Jackson were absent.  The Clerk declared the ordinance adopted.

A couple of weeks later, we started hearing murmurings that something was up and the ordinance hadn't passed. Then, sure enough, Kevin Moriarty spotted an item on the docket for February 15.

How could this be?

We submitted an Open Public Records request to the municipal clerk asking for the ordinance, its effective date, any communications regarding why it may not have gone into effect, minutes of the meeting where it was adopted, etc.

What we got back was a copy of the ordinance with a large stamp across the front page noting that it had failed to be adopted on January 16.

While we received a copy of the minutes of the December 7 meeting at which Ordinance 17-80 was introduced, were not provided with the minutes of the January 16 meeting because (per the Deputy Clerk's note) they "have not been prepared."

We asked for information on exactly why the ordinance failed on January 16. Trenton's Municipal Clerk, Dwayne Harris, sent along the following information regarding why the ordinance was NOT adopted on January 16:

"Ordinance 17-80 failed upon second reading because it failed to obtain the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council, which would be four, as required by NJSA 40:69A-180." 

For those interested, here's the relevant part of the cited statute:

40:69A-180. Rules of procedure; quorum; ordinances and resolutions; presiding officer; compensation
(a) Council shall determine its own rules of procedure, not inconsistent with ordinance or statute. A majority of the whole number of members of the council shall constitute a quorum, but no ordinance shall be adopted by the council without the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council. 

The key phrase being "but no ordinance shall be adopted by the council without the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the council".

On January 16, only four members were present for the vote. Three of them voted in the affirmative, one against. Three is less than a majority of the total membership of the governing body. The ordinance was therefore not adopted.

Mr. Harris notified Council of his error on January 17th and made a public announcement during the February 15th council meeting.

It's probably all moot as the matter will likely succeed in its second go around. But Trenton again experiences a procedural fail.

It's gonna be interesting...

Trenton's Municipal Elections are scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2018. As with the last few election cycles, it looks like the makings for a full three-ring circus. For sure, the sideshows have started arriving and setting up shop.

Managing an election from the city side is no easy task. It falls to the Municipal Clerk's office to see that candidates who meet qualifications such as residency and voter registration complete the proper paperwork. Those who make that first cut are then issued petitions to be signed by registered voters in the district (ward or city wide) that the candidate wishes to represent.

Those petitions have to be turned into the clerk for certification and counting. Each petition has to match the voter registration lists. Since voters can only sign one petition for each office (except Council At Large, where each voter can sign up to three petitions) the lists have to be cross checked for duplicates. (First petition in, counts. Subsequent ones do not).

It's a lot of work.

But, sometimes, the Clerk's office doesn't do much to help itself. We should all remember the screw up in 2014 when then clerk Richard Kachmar used the wrong formula to calculate the number of required petitions for each office, resulting in a lower threshold. We're sure the current clerk and staff are being extremely careful this time around.

Or are they.

Every couple of weeks since January, we've requested copies of the candidate registration forms from the clerk's office. This has been an attempt to keep up with the entrants in this year's horse race.

Here are the links to the certificates we have obtained so far:
First batch, second batch, third batch, Gusciora (omitted from third batch by clerk's office)   

The form lists the name of the candidate; their address; office sought; number of petitions issued (usually a few over the required amount); deadline for turning the petitions in. This year, that deadline is 4 pm on Monday, March 5.
Imagine our surprise when we reviewed Mayoral Candidate Reed Gusciora's form and noted the stated deadline read, "4:00 pm, Monday March 6, 2018."

This sent us back to all the other registration forms we'd received so far. All of them read correctly, Monday March 5, except one. That was for Council At Large candidate Elvin Montero. 

Now, it is a silly little mistake, but...this form is (or should be) a template. In fact, it was, per the date in the lower left corner, created in February of 2010. So it has been used for three election cycles. Why hasn't the deadline date been "fixed" in the current template so that this kind of mistake doesn't have a chance of occurring? (Considering the issues that the Trenton Water Works seems to have with templates for their advisories...maybe it is a city hall custom?)









We've noticed one other little glitch in candidate documentation coming out of the clerk's office. Kevin Moriarty received a listing of candidates and the amount of petitions they had turned in so far, Assemblyman Gusciora was noted as running for the West Ward Council seat rather than Mayor.

Oh...it's going to be an interesting few months, folks.

Back to the future

Trenton's city council voted Thursday night to restore South Ward Councilman George Muschal to the position of president of the governing body.

This was accomplished after a long day of scrambling, huddling, researching, caucusing and planning because as the fiscal year draws to a close, certain members of the city council were expecting a reorganization meeting resulting in, probably, a new president being chosen along with a council vice president.

There were multiple problems with the expected scenario above.

1. The council's own rules of procedure as stated in the city code do not allow for the annual reshuffling of the deck as has been practiced by this body.
2. State law does not indicate that there would be an annual reorganization of the governing body.
3. Nothing in the rules of procedure or the state statutes creates the position of vice president.

What has happened is that this council has been operating out of compliance with its own rules. (It should be noted that the ersatz vice president position was instituted under the previous council and somehow got carried through to this one. An example of the poor performance of the the city law department, the municipal clerk's office and the governing body itself for not recognizing and correcting the deficiencies in their process).

On Tuesday night, East Ward Councilwoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson wanted to introduce an ordinance to amend the rules of procedure to accommodate the errors in executed over the past several years. Even that move was a mistake as the council need not, indeed should not, amend its rules of procedure via ordinance because an ordinance requires the signature of the mayor. This adds a layer of oversight and inter-branch cooperation that state law does not require.

N.J.S.A. 40-69A:36 clearly gives the governing body the authority to set its own rules of procedure by resolution. The fact that Ms. Reynolds-Jackson attempted to use an ordinance to change the rules of procedure indicates a) lack of comprehension of and familiarity with her powers as a council member and b) a similar ignorance of the law on the part of whomever was advising her.

Besides going about amending the rules of procedure in a more complicated and unnecessary way, the council woman's proposed changes seem to conflict with the intent of state law.

The proposed ordinance was pulled and in its place, West Ward councilman Zachary Chester proposed a resolution amending the resolution naming Councilwoman Phyllis Holly-Ward president for the 2012-2013 year and extending her term through June 30, 2014.

This, of course, met with great resistance by Ms. Reynolds-Jackson, Councilwoman McBride and Councilman Bethea.

These three, who have generally been understood to stand with the administration of indicted Mayor Tony Mack in all matters, appeared to be fearful of having Ms.Holly-Ward continue as president. So concerned, they were adamant about continuing to violate the body's own rules of procedure just to ensure one of their own could obtain the chair of presiding officer.

Mr. Chester's resolution was tabled until Thursday's meeting so that everyone would have the opportunity to review what was being proposed (compliance with the law).

All accounts indicate that Thursday was spent hammering out a new plan...to restore Councilman Muschal to the presidency. Actually, this was a reasonable and workable solution.

Unfortunately, the internecine workings and innate mistrust amongst members of the council indicated the need to do some maneuvering to ensure that matters were conducted fairly and transparently.

This caused another flap when Councilwoman Reynolds-Jackson balked at a change in the voting order that would make her vote first rather than last. She objected that this was not the normal way they did things (the council generally votes in alphabetical order by last name, the same order they sit in on the dais). There is not set rule about this and, further, Ms. Reynolds-Jackson has expressed no problem with her colleague, Kathy McBride, sitting (out of order) at the far end of the dais just to make the point that she doesn't wish to sit next to Ms. Holly-Ward.

The double standard is obvious to all and it was generally conceded that, had she voted last, Ms. Reynolds-Jackson may very well have voted against her own proposal to restore Mr. Muschal to the presidency.

This is the painfully exemplary of how this governing body fails to work, as a whole, for the good of the city. Some members are more concerned with their perceived position and effectiveness than with doing the job they were elected to do.

With less than a year before the next election, we hope that the electorate of this city will awaken and deny the poseurs (in office or wannabes) the opportunity to mire the city in personal politics to the detriment of the greater good.

We've seen the way this body has conducted itself. We can, and must, do better.

Animal House Redux

Trenton's City Council is poised to have a second reading and public hearing of the amended business license ordinance at the Thursday, March 1 meeting.  Local business owner John McManimon has these thoughts about the ongoing follies in city hall.

Once again Trenton’s City Hall and City Council are running true to form.

Council recently missed a golden opportunity to portray itself and the City as business-friendly by passing a poorly thought out ordinance put forward by the City Clerk’s office raising business license fees astronomically, some by as much as 500%.           

Acknowledging the inadequacies of the ordinance beforehand, Council passed it anyway. They assumed they could change it later.

And they did.

A week after license applications were due, Council, with the assistance of the Clerk’s office, introduced a new ordinance that would rescind the previous ordinance and push the filing deadline back two months to April 1. It would also lower the fee increases to a more reasonable 100% in most cases.

Unfortunately, there is no provision in the new ordinance to reimburse those who actually obeyed the law and paid on time at the higher rate. The City Clerk, Leona Baylor, when questioned about this aspect of the ordinance stated that”… most people pay their bills late anyway.” So not only is the City encouraging people to pay their bills late it is actually punishing those that pay on time.

Kind of reminds you of the scene in “Animal House” when D-Day turns to Flounder after having wrecked his brother’s car and says “Hey, you f---ed up. You trusted us.”

It makes one wonder. Is this really some kind of frat house competition with one camp trying to continuously embarrass the other? One Councilperson’s rationale for increasing license fees in a stagnant economy was that property taxpayers couldn’t afford an increase. Don’t business owners pay property taxes, too?

Dean Wormer, put the Councilwoman on double secret probation!

The imbecility can’t just be contained in City Hall. All the voters of Trenton deserve a nod for electing people who have kept everyone in surrounding communities in stitches and late night talk show hosts rife with ready one-liners.                                                                                                                        

While residents decried the fact (almost daily) that public safety employees take thousands of dollars in paychecks back to their homes in the suburbs instead of living in the town they protect, the City of Trenton responded by laying a third of the police force off.             

These same aggrieved residents don’t seem to mind that absentee landlords funnel millions of dollars out of town the first of every month or that asking them to comply with building codes might actually result in not just improved housing but in jobs for city residents. The message we’re sending has resulted in tumbleweeds blowing through the gutted Inspections Department.

Of course every now and then a breeze of self-righteous indignation sweeps through the Council chambers and they pass an ordinance to rein in the rapacious owners. Unfortunately, passing strict laws and then laying off inspectors pretty much guarantees that only irresponsible and feckless landlords will be left. The responsible law abiding ones will have moved on.                                                   

The summer is coming and it promises to be a long and a hot one. Let’s see whose turn it is to lead the band down the dead end alley. If worse comes to worse we could always hope for some royalties from Letterman’s jokes and use them to hire a couple more cops. Or inspectors.                                                                                                              

Hang in there, Trentonians. Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Heck, no!

Eric Stratton would be proud of us.                       

Technical foul.

Does anyone really know what is going on?

 

A few weeks back, the city announced it was going to institute temporary layoffs (furloughs) for all departments except police and fire. The furloughs would take place every week for 13 weeks starting in April.

 

This announcement bothered those seemingly few people who were paying attention because it meant the virtual shutdown of the Trenton Water Works (TWW) for one day each week. Considering the facts that

 

1. the water utility operates on its own budget; employees are paid from rates charged for water usage, not tax dollars so any cost savings from the furloughs would NOT save the city money
2. the majority of the customers of the water utility are located outside of the city and thus would be penalized by the weekly furloughs
3. all customers would be put at risk because the furloughs would mean no one was minding the water treatment plant, pumping stations, etc. on those days

The problem comes from civil service rules that state furloughs must apply to entire departments. Since TWW operates under the umbrella of the Public Works Department, any layoffs affecting Public Works must apply to TWW.

 

Fortunately, the state of NJ through the DEP recognized the potential problems and squelched the furlough idea.

 

Before that occurred, a plan was drawn up to make TWW along with the Sewer Authority their own department, thus isolating (like Police and Fire) from the furloughs. It was a good idea…for a lot of reasons.

 

However, the city is only allowed to have 10 departments and our current structure has us maxed out. In order to create a Water and Sewer department, room has to be made in the organization chart. Part and parcel to creating the new department was the idea of making the current department of Inspections a division of the department of Housing and Economic Development. This would actually be a return to the way things once were.

 

This all needs to be accomplished by an ordinance introduced and passed by the governing body (city council). Predictably, with this administration and council, the plan has stalled.

 

Some object to moving Inspections back under Housing and Economic Development. Some don’t understand or object to creating a Water and Sewer department.

 

A workable solution languishes because the governing body seems unable to get its act together to do anything positive and the administration can’t think its way out of a paper bag.

 

Now here’s an interesting twist…

 

In November, the Mayor rearranged the former department of Recreation, Natural Resources and Culture (RNRC). Recreation and Culture were brought under the Mayor’s office directly and Natural Resources were moved to the Public Property Division of the Department of Public Works. In some respects the consolidation of departments is a good thing. Eliminating a director’s salary and merging functions are ways to economize.

 

And doing away with the department of RNRC frees up a space on the organization chart that could be filled by a newly created Water and Sewer department. Right?

 

Well, it would IF the city’s administrative organization chart was properly amended by ordinance. The Mayor cannot arbitrarily do away with a department. That must be done by ordinance approved by the city council.

 

Guess the Mayor didn’t think about that.

 

Neither did the city law department…obviously because of their inexperience with municipal law.

 

And the City Clerk didn’t catch it, so the city council didn’t realize it either.

 

Technical foul charged to the whole lot of them for simple failure to operate according to the rules.

The Staton mess

Trenton’s city council voted last night to dismiss Deputy City Clerk and former At Large Councilwoman Cordelia Staton. This brings the curtain down on the first act of this saga. Let us hope that there is no second act in the way of a lawsuit.

 

The five individuals on council who voted to dismiss (Bethea, Caldwell-Wilson, Chester, Holly-Ward, McBride) Ms. Staton are to be commended for their action…if not they’re reasoning and rationale as reported in the press.

 

And even though we disagree with his position, we acknowledge that the South Ward Councilman Muschal stood by his principles and voted to keep the Deputy Clerk.

 

We are somewhat disappointed that the East Ward Councilwoman, Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, abstained for the vote. Hopefully, this was because of some reason other than an aversion to taking sides by making a controversial decision either way.

 

This situation quickly polarized city residents as demonstrated by the attendance at the August 5 city council meeting. Council chambers was packed and you could almost draw a line down the middle of the room that neatly divided the pro-dismissal and pro-Staton sides.

 

Overlooked in the outrage about Mayor Mack’s total mishandling of the situation are some facts which should be reviewed in order to put the whole affair in perspective.

 

Item 1: As far back as early 2007, Ms. Staton seemed to be aiming for the City Clerk position vacated by Anthony Conti’s resignation. Nothing wrong on the face of that, but keep in mind two points.

• She was less than one year into her second term as Councilwoman At Large.
• She was not certified as a municipal clerk* and may not have even started taking the required classes as yet.

Item 2: After not finding a suitable permanent replacement for Conti, in the fall of 2009 city council started taking applications from those interested the position. Ms. Staton put her name in for consideration even though after almost three years she was not yet a certified for the position.

 

Item 3: In February, 2010, Council member Melone spoke on the record of the need to let the new council taking office on July 1 to have the opportunity to select their own clerk and urged his colleagues not to make a permanent appointment. After repeated attempts to demonstrate a fair and impartial process at naming a permanent city clerk, Ms. Staton had removed her name from consideration, council terminated long time (and as yet un-certified) Acting City Clerk Juanita Joyner and hired Leona Baylor as Acting Deputy Clerk.** Citing the need for an experienced hand to guide the city through the spring elections, former clerk Anthony Conti was brought in as a consultant to help Ms. Baylor.

 

Item 4: In June, 2010, Ms. Staton discreetly resigned her council seat with less than a month to go in her term, quit her job at the Board of Education, and was quietly appointed Deputy Municipal Clerk for the city of Trenton by some of her colleagues. She still had not achieved certification as a Municipal Clerk.

 

Item 5: Voting in favor of the appointment were Councilman Melone (in apparent conflict with his stated position earlier in the year), Councilman Pintella (Staton’s running mate in 2002 and 2006) and Councilwoman Lartigue (who was not present at the meeting but voted via her cell phone). This vote raised a couple of procedural questions:

• Is Lartigue’s vote via cell phone allowed?
• What is the number required for a majority vote amongst the four council members actually present at the meeting, two or three?

Item 6: The Mack administration, regardless of its motives, was correct to point out the improper way that Ms. Staton was appointed. This did not give them the right or reason to treat her the way they did. You don’t fire someone by leaving a note on their chair while they are at lunch and you don’t call the police to have them escorted out of the building.

We’re sorry that Ms. Staton was mistreated by the Mack administration. Still that doesn’t remove the fact that she held the position through improper actions by the previous council as they tried to take care of one of their own.

 

We hope the current council will get some definite rulings on the propriety of voting by phone and other procedural matters before they get caught up in gaffes like their predecessors.

 

*Apparently, NJ state law allows the appointing of an Acting Municipal Clerk who has yet completed the course work and passed the certification exam providing that the appointee does obtain certification within a certain time frame.

 

**Also according to NJ state law, a person holding a valid municipal clerk certification can not be appointed Acting Municipal Clerk but can hold the title of Acting Deputy Clerk and fulfill all the duties of the Municipal Clerk.

 

Trenton’s electoral pickle

Bound to leave a sour taste
The abnormally large number of candidates running for Trenton’s elected offices (the mayor and seven city council seats) has raised the specter of a messy campaign season.

Mix in the totally incompetent way the current council went about replacing Acting City Clerk Juanita Joyner with a temporary, non-resident, Deputy Clerk and you have a recipe for complete electoral meltdown.

Even hiring in former city clerk Anthony Conti as a consultant to help the clerk’s office get through the May 11 election appears to be too little, too late.

In an interview with the Trentonian, Conti allows that even with an all out push, the clerk’s office may not be able to certify all candidates by the March 18 deadline.

It’s a mess. A complete and utter mess. A true case of “too many cooks spoiling the broth.”

Appointed Acting Municipal Clerk after Conti retired in 2007; Ms. Joyner has apparently completed all the required course work for the position but has yet to take the certification exam. Suddenly, this past fall, there was a big push to replace Joyner.

On the surface there appeared to be some questions about her competency, but there was also the coincidence of Councilwoman Cordelia Staton expressing interest in the position. (After serving two terms on council, Staton is not running for re-election this year).

This raised some eyebrows because the City Clerk oversees the election process on behalf of the city (the County Clerk and the County Board of Elections also have a role in the process, but the City Clerk is the primary authority). If Staton had been named clerk, her council seat would most likely have remained vacant until after the election. In the meantime she would be called upon to “referee” a Mayoral race featuring three of her council colleagues as candidates.

Many people were uneasy with the idea of Ms. Staton…who twice ran, and won, on the Palmer ticket with Paul Pintella and Manny Segura. Both are running for Mayor, but Segura has positioned himself as far from his former slate mates as possible.

There was reportedly considerable infighting amongst council regarding the suggested removal of Joyner just to replace her with Staton. After a couple of false starts to the process Staton withdrew her name from consideration.

Still, council suddenly and abruptly decided to not extend Joyner’s appointment. At the same time it was wisely and correctly pointed out that the incoming council should be the ones to appoint the next City Clerk.

One reasonable solution might have been to extend Joyner’s appointment through Labor Day at the latest. A certified, experienced individual…such as Mr. Conti, could then have been hired as a consultant through the elections to ensure a fair, transparent process.

Instead, council voted to end Joyner’ tenure as Acting Municipal Clerk effective Feb. 28 and retained the services of an Acting Deputy Municipal Clerk starting March 1...a mere three working weeks before the candidate certification deadline.

The person hired, Leona Baylor, is certified and has worked in the clerks office in Hightstown Borough. Baylor is not a city resident and that has raised some questions about the legality of her contract appointment.

Not to oversimplify, but if she is an appointee, she needs to be a resident; if she is truly a contract employee, she might be exempt. It all depends upon how you define the Acting Deputy Municipal Clerk position? And that definition may ultimately have to come from the courts…and cost the city more of our tax dollars to defend the case, not to mention possibly delaying the election process.

Candidates…many of which are running for office for the first time, are wondering where this all leaves them.

If the clerk’s office staff can’t adequately and accurately complete the certification process by the March 18th deadline, what will happen?

Legal sources have suggested that the courts can and probably would extend the certification deadline.

But even that may not be enough for some of the candidates. Especially in the city wide races where 385 certified signatures are required for a candidate’s name to appear on the ballot. Trenton voters can only sign one petition for Mayoral candidates and there are 10 running. That’s 3,850 separate individuals required to sign if all candidates are to get on the ballot. Not likely under any circumstances..

In the At Large Council race, voters can sign petitions for up to three individuals…one for each of the seats. With 11 people running for the three seats, odds are a little better that the candidates can get the number of required signatures. It will still be a daunting task.

What this really means is that, under the best of situations there would have been some attrition in the number of candidates come certification deadline day.

The screw-ups, fumbles and delays by council in filling of the City Clerk position almost guarantees a far from fair and even-handed election process.

The candidates will lose out. But more importantly, the city will lose out, yet again.