Do as I say, not as I do

On Thursday, June 9, the city business administrator announced a new policy regarding who could take home city vehicles and why.

From: Colin Cherry [mailto:ccherry@trentonnj.org]


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 4:47 PM

To: Seigle, John; McKithen, Marc; Rubino, Joseph; Burzachiello, Ralph; 'jjuniack@trentonpolice.net'; 'qbashir@aol.com'; Thompson, Cleveland; Rousseau, David; Denson, Walter; Jones, Nathaniel; Roberts, Anthony

Cc: 'jgnandt@trentonpolice.net'; 'eberry@trentonnj.org'

Subject: Take Home Vehicle Policy

Importance: High

Good afternoon,

Per the direction of the Business Administrator, the following is to be in effect this coming Monday, June 13, 2011 until further notice.

No passenger vehicle (including those assigned to Department Directors) is to be operated outside of business hours. This means that no vehicle should be “taken home”.

The only exceptions to this policy are those employees who work non-standard schedules and require a vehicle to be “on call”. In such cases, the vehicle must be specialized and necessary for the conduct of City business (for example, a water utility van with equipment inside).

All other vehicles are to be parked in their respective lots – that is a Department lot if applicable, the City Hall lot otherwise – at the close of the business day. After the close of business on Monday any vehicle for which the employee has not received special dispensation from the Business Administrator which is found to not be parked as directed will be considered to be in misuse. The Office of the Business Administrator will be forced to assume that the employee has the intention of depriving the City of Trenton of the proper use of that vehicle and all appropriate action will be taken to ensure that it is returned.

Thank you and please ensure that you communicate this directive clearly to your employees.

__________________

Colin Cherry

City of Trenton

Management Assistant

319 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

(609) 989-3532

ccherry@trentonnj.org

All well and good.  After all, it merely conforms (somewhat) to the intent of ordinance 10-007 passed in January of 2010 and limiting the "take home" use of city passenger vehicles.

One little problem, on Monday evening, June 13, 2011 guess who had a city vehicle parked across the street from his Trenton apartment.  Why, none other than Mr. Eric Berry, Business Administrator for the city of Trenton.

I guess his job puts him above and beyond the reach of his own new policy.

Nice one, Mr. Berry.  Way to go.  You obviously care more about what you can get out of the taxpayers' pockets than what you can do to clean up the cess pool that is city hall.

Fever dreams of a Socratic Dialogue

Mobius logic as taught in Palmer’s republic

The taxpayer funded responses to the complaint filed by citizens regarding Trenton Police Director Joseph Santiago’s non-compliance with the city’s residency ordinance rolled in last week.

Angelo Genova, counsel for the Mayor, has claimed that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statutes
b) if not null and void under state law, the city’s residency ordinance
conflicts with the Mayor’s “inherent executive powers of appointment and
control”
c) The city’s residency ordinance purports to impose a residency requirement
upon Director Santiago, “a member of a police department and force” in
contradiction of New Jersey law prohibiting same.

Salvatore Alfano, counsel for Director Santiago, responded with his own claims that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statues
b) if the residency ordinance is not null and void under state law and applies
to the Director, then the Mayor has the power to grant a waiver

Do these arguments make sense to you?

The city’s residency ordinance has been in effect for quite some time and has been used by the Palmer administration to remove various city employees for non-compliance. Palmer never questioned the constitutionality of it before.

Now, because he’s not getting his way, it’s suddenly in conflict with state law?

Now, because he’s not getting his way, the residency ordinance is in conflict with his power and authority as Mayor?

It didn’t seem to hinder that power and authority when he applied it to dozens of employers over the past 17 plus years.

And what about the assertion that the ordinance imposes a residency requirement upon Director Santiago as a member of the police force?

Doesn’t this contradict the very intent of the referendum changing to a civilian Police Director from a Police Chief?

Doesn’t it also contradict with the long, hard fought case preserving Director Santiago’s rights to collect his police pension because, as Director, he was not a member of a police department and force?

And didn’t Trenton’s ever so generous taxpayers foot the bill for the legal defense in that case as well?

He either is a member of the force who must forego his police pension for the duration of his directorship or he is a civilian and the residency requirement applies.

It only takes common sense to realize the defense attorneys’ arguments make no sense.

And regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings, the taxpayers of Trenton are the losers as we pay our way out of another Palmer created mess.