3 years later, Charter still being reviewed. BOT to vote to change their titles. The saga continues....
But I thought they can't make a difference in the 28% portion of our taxes. Not paying for Torpey to travel to D.C. to promote veracity media is one way we can prevent that 28% from increasing.
And I'll support them getting paid if they support our rights to fiscal management of village hall, no crappy street days, appropriate development of the new rescue squad, full implementation of the new website, proof that public stuff services are needed and can't be fine for a third of the cost.
The current board as a whole has done nothing to deserve any form of payment or stipend.
And I'll support them getting paid if they support our rights to fiscal management of village hall, no crappy street days, appropriate development of the new rescue squad, full implementation of the new website, proof that public stuff services are needed and can't be fine for a third of the cost.
The current board as a whole has done nothing to deserve any form of payment or stipend.
With all the village things of real importance (the water, Village Hall renovation, public safety, etc.), THIS is what they choose to discuss? How many times do we have to revisit this?
Both of these items are nothing more than things to boost Torpey's resume and PR. He wants so badly to be called "mayor" and he wants to attend as many conferences he can to promote himself. As for the latter and the proposed reimbursement, the term "village business" is far too open ended for the reimbursement policy. A seminar for "village business" got us a no-bid Public Stuff contract , Zip Cars, etc. The events leading to these were not about village business. They were Torpey promo events. Any event to be reimbursed should be directly based on a strict and narrow definition of village business, not a Torpey attendance at a promotional opportunity event.
Both of these items are nothing more than things to boost Torpey's resume and PR. He wants so badly to be called "mayor" and he wants to attend as many conferences he can to promote himself. As for the latter and the proposed reimbursement, the term "village business" is far too open ended for the reimbursement policy. A seminar for "village business" got us a no-bid Public Stuff contract , Zip Cars, etc. The events leading to these were not about village business. They were Torpey promo events. Any event to be reimbursed should be directly based on a strict and narrow definition of village business, not a Torpey attendance at a promotional opportunity event.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato
I think that if the BOT gives themselves salaries and new titles it will increase the participation rate in the next election. This type of issue lends itself to bridging the gap between the haters and the silent majority. Responsibility for salaries and pay raises are easy to communicate to the voters. Angry voters vote.
If I was going to become a career politician I would stay away from getting forever linked to event like this.
I think that if the BOT gives themselves salaries and new titles it will increase the participation rate in the next election. This type of issue lends itself to bridging the gap between the haters and the silent majority. Responsibility for salaries and pay raises are easy to communicate to the voters. Angry voters vote.
If I was going to become a career politician I would stay away from getting forever linked to event like this.
michaelgoldberg said:
Interesting to see on the agenda for Wednesday's BOT Meeting is an Ordinance to change the Village Charter to provide for the BOT to get paid and to change their titles from VP and Trustee to Mayor and Council member: http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/125119/Page1.aspx
ORDINANCE #2013-19, as written, appears to be a gross (or deceptive) over-simplification of the changes in the annexed Exhibit A:
Section 1.
The Board of Trustees does hereby approve the form and substance of the annexed
Exhibit A, and intending Exhibit A to become the Amended and Restated Charter of the
Township of South Orange Village does hereby authorize its submission to the State Legislature
for enactment into law.
Does VP Torpey and Village Counsel think the public can't understand a summary of all of the proposed changes, or did Village Counsel or the Clerk's office provide the wrong document to the Board and public?
openspacer said:
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato
I think that if the BOT gives themselves salaries and new titles it will increase the participation rate in the next election. This type of issue lends itself to bridging the gap between the haters and the silent majority. Responsibility for salaries and pay raises are easy to communicate to the voters. Angry voters vote.
If I was going to become a career politician I would stay away from getting forever linked to event like this.
What an excellent post.
Nov 9, 2013 at 1:47am Edited
Does anyone know how many towns in New Jersey the size of South Orange pay their elected officials and provide for reimbursement of travel expenses. And what about the cost of new stationery, new signage, etc., etc. What a waste of our tax dollars, once again.
Exactly einj. But there is no way for Torpey to make an impact on the 28% tax burden. He said it himself just last week
michaelgoldberg said:
On the same agenda is a resolution to also adopt a reimbursement policy for travel expenses: http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=125232&dbid=0
Resolution #2013-265
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REIMBURSEMENT POLICY FOR CERTAIN TRUSTEE EXPENSES AS RELATE TO VILLAGE BUSINESS.
First, why no reference to the Village President? Is he already benefiting from these generous reimbursement policies, and the Trustees now want what he's getting? Or, is this simply sloppy drafting?
1. Reimbursement for attendance at conferences/seminars related to topics of
benefit to the Trustee's role with regard to Village business.
With no criteria whatsoever or authorized approval process, certain elected officials without day jobs can drive a truck through this one, at the public's expense. Whose to say what topics benefit Trustees' roles? How about a conference to learn about social media? What about a seminar about geothermal heating? Can they attend a seminar to improve their Excel skills? What about a public speaking course?
3. Lodging, other than League of Municipalities conference, will be only for out of state Village related travel greater than 50 miles from the Village, reimbursed with reference to the US General Services Administration schedule of Federal per diem rates by event location.
50 miles could equate to traveling for one hour or less! Are taxpayers really being asked to pay for lodging when our elected officials have to drive more than a hour? And, why no timing criteria? What if someone is attending a 2 pm meeting in Trenton, which is 53 miles from the Village, do we get to pay for his/her hotel stay? (Doesn't one of our Trustees travel roundtrip every day for her job?) Yet, with passage of this resolution, our Trustees remarkably can receive lodging reimbursement for a day trip to Trenton?
4. Per diem reimbursement for meals shall be actual reasonable costs not to exceed the Federal per diem rates for the event location.
This absolutely should be limited to breakfasts and dinners in conjunction with authorized overnight travel.
5. NJ Dept. of Treasury, Office of Management and Budget Circular 08-19-OMB and 06-14-OMB Guidelines regarding non permitted reimbursement using public funding should be adhered to when reimbursement is sought for receptions, dinners or other social functions held for honoring any employee or group of employees.
It's outrageous that our entrusted elected officials now want to be paid to attend receptions, dinners or other social functions held for honoring any employee or group of employees. Go and pay, if you want to, or simply don't attend. There's absolutely no benefit to taxpayers when an elected official attends a retirement party or other event celebrating employees. They should be attending because they want to attend. Remarkably, all Village employees who attend must pay their own way.
Also interesting that the Village has invoked NJ Treasury OMB Circular 08-19-OMB
http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/cir0819b.pdf for this purpose, but ignored its Section X, which states one-day trips are not eligible for subsistence reimbursement and no overnight travel is permitted if it’s within the State.
(Found plenty of references to NJ Treasury OMB Circular 06-14-OMB, http://www.nj.gov/infobank/circular/circindx.htm, but couldn't find this circular, which may have been superseded.)
You get what you pay for.
If SO voters are not even willing to reimburse travel expenses for otherwise unpaid volunteers who not only work many hours for free but are also subject to unending personal attacks, who in their right mind would want the job? Why should trustees go out of pocket for legitimate town business?
I recognize that folks oppose the policies and antics of many of the current players but this is about the office not the individuals who happen to temporarily occupy it.
If SO voters are not even willing to reimburse travel expenses for otherwise unpaid volunteers who not only work many hours for free but are also subject to unending personal attacks, who in their right mind would want the job? Why should trustees go out of pocket for legitimate town business?
I recognize that folks oppose the policies and antics of many of the current players but this is about the office not the individuals who happen to temporarily occupy it.
Guys, think Search Engine Optimization. Always spell it out: Alex Torpey Village President or Village President Alex Torpey.
davidfrazer said:
You get what you pay for.
If SO voters are not even willing to reimburse travel expenses for otherwise unpaid volunteers who not only work many hours for free but are also subject to unending personal attacks, who in their right mind would want the job? Why should trustees go out of pocket for legitimate town business?
I recognize that folks oppose the policies and antics of many of the current players but this is about the office not the individuals who happen to temporarily occupy it.
What does the Maplewood T.C. do in this regard? I haven't heard complaints on the M'wood side.
Trans_Parent said:
1. Reimbursement for attendance at conferences/seminars related to topics of
benefit to the Trustee's role with regard to Village business.
Voting themselves the unlimited right to spend taxpayer money on junkets and boondoggles? This is not what we elected them for. You know how I would vote.
Any reimbursement policy is necessarily open to abuse. There needs to be transparency to prevent abuse.
If I recall Sheena was a big proponent of paying Trustees before she got elected. Not sure where the opposition will come from on the current BoT. And we know where Torpey will vote he gets a tiebreak.
If first you don't succeed, try, try again. I wish the same persistence was applied to getting us out from under our water contract.
If first you don't succeed, try, try again. I wish the same persistence was applied to getting us out from under our water contract.
I believe South Orange does reimburse expenses, and that this would presumably broaden or loosen criteria. We deserve explanations of why current rules are iinadequate and of how oversight will work. (Especially since we have a VP who is in a career building phase and clearly working hard to build his professional network conference by conference)
With no change in expenses ONLY, i remain a supporter of modest stiipends, at levels that confer no pension obligations, in part in recognition of the unreimbursed costs of serving (like testimonial dinners,,,).
Both changes are too much, and the fact that these Charter changes keep reappearing to be revoted is frustrating.
With no change in expenses ONLY, i remain a supporter of modest stiipends, at levels that confer no pension obligations, in part in recognition of the unreimbursed costs of serving (like testimonial dinners,,,).
Both changes are too much, and the fact that these Charter changes keep reappearing to be revoted is frustrating.
It's fascinating that this "reimbursement policy" is being adopted the week before the BOT treks off to the annual 3-day League of Municipality Conference in Atlantic City.
When I first joined the BOT, there were employees (and Board members) who were having the Village pay for 4 nights in a hotel (for a 3-day conference). One even had the gall to claim they needed to go down the night before because they didn't want to drive in the dark and then needed to stay an extra night at the end because they wouldn't have some place to put their luggage after the checked out of the hotel on the last day of the conference. We quickly made a policy that the Village would only pay for 2 nights maximum.
The Village generously accommodates people in the Borgata and each night of the conference, a variety of vendors host cocktail parties with free food and drinks for dinner. Since people almost always pay for their own lunch anyway all year, the only possible expense should be breakfast and/or gas/tolls. Again, since we were getting a free 2-night stay at the Borgata I always just absorbed the breakfast and gas/tolls expense, which was the ONLY out of pocket expense I ever incurred while serving. (and which I could have very easily avoided by carpooling and bringing breakfast food with me)
When I first joined the BOT, there were employees (and Board members) who were having the Village pay for 4 nights in a hotel (for a 3-day conference). One even had the gall to claim they needed to go down the night before because they didn't want to drive in the dark and then needed to stay an extra night at the end because they wouldn't have some place to put their luggage after the checked out of the hotel on the last day of the conference. We quickly made a policy that the Village would only pay for 2 nights maximum.
The Village generously accommodates people in the Borgata and each night of the conference, a variety of vendors host cocktail parties with free food and drinks for dinner. Since people almost always pay for their own lunch anyway all year, the only possible expense should be breakfast and/or gas/tolls. Again, since we were getting a free 2-night stay at the Borgata I always just absorbed the breakfast and gas/tolls expense, which was the ONLY out of pocket expense I ever incurred while serving. (and which I could have very easily avoided by carpooling and bringing breakfast food with me)
I don't live in SO, but I think that, in general, people should not have to pay "out of pocket" in order to serve. (At least not once they've managed to get elected.) I also think that a modest wage is not unreasonable. But I'm describing the Maplewood model, I think. If it can work here, why not in SO?
sac said:
I don't live in SO, but I think that, in general, people should not have to pay "out of pocket" in order to serve. (At least not once they've managed to get elected.) I also think that a modest wage is not unreasonable. But I'm describing the Maplewood model, I think. If it can work here, why not in SO?
Because South Orange has a history of corruption and mismanagement. It has to win back confidence before it starts asking for perks. Torpey is up to his neck in corrupt practices already with his web business being subservient to elected officials who are using that tie to lobby him for favors. The recent firing of a competent village staff is just one case in point. The kid is already corrupt and now he's trying to get more money because he's being told that's how it works.
If they really are interested in benefiting the town with this and not themselves they would vote to start this with the next election for vp, not for current board. that will send the right message.
michaelgoldberg said:
(this is now the THIRD attempt in 10 years that the BOT has tried to pay themselves)
On the same agenda is a resolution to also adopt a reimbursement policy for travel expenses: http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=125232&dbid=0
As often as it takes.jayjayp said:
How many times do we have to revisit this?
I belonged to an organization where really major organizational changes and exceptional payroll expenses had to be approved by the delegate assembly. Over a period of five years the leadership tried to get a change which was rejected by the assembly until the third attempt.
Some wondered why something that fails is brought up again. The leadership knew that it only has to pass once. When passed its done and revocation of the act will not take place because revocation will not ever be presented to the delegates.
It just takes once to pass.
This shouldn't even be discussed. Alex Torpey has made a big stink about agenda items in the past and not wasting the public's time. Well, Alex Torpey, take your own advice. Scratch this stuff from the agenda and work on the real stuff you were elected to do. You can start by telling us why the renovation of Village Hall is already behind schedule. And what is going to be done about the water.
I'll be supporting all of the Charter changes that were recommended by the Charter Review Committee.
Here's a quick review of what transpired:
2009/2010 - Charter Review Committee established. It consisted of 4 residents (including myself, Village President Newman, Trustee Bauer, Trustee Rosner, and from our staff, Steve Rother (Village Counsel), and Robin Kline (Village Clerk).
We had 21 public meetings over the course of about a year and issued a final report to the full BOT in June of 2011:
http://southorange.org/charterReview/recommendations/ReportofRecommendationstotheBoardofTrustees-06-27-2011.pdf)
Our recommendations also included putting questions on the ballot for the community, both the stipend issue and title changes were included in the questions that were asked during the November 2011 general election, the results were as follows:
Question 1: Should the Village Charter be amended to change the name of our municipality from the “Township of South Orange Village” to “South Orange Village”?
YES – 2,067 (78.09%)
NO – 580 (21.91%)
Question 2: Should the Village Charter be amended to change the title of the “Village President” to “Mayor,” the title of the “Board of Trustees” to “Village Council,” and the title of “Trustee” to “Council member”?
YES – 1,561 (59.26%)
NO – 1,073 (40.74%)
Question 3: Should the Village Charter be amended to provide the Village President an annual stipend of $2,400, without other benefits, and provide Village Trustees with an annual stipend of $1,800 each, without other benefits?
YES – 1,330 (50.67%)
NO – 1,295 (49.33%)
In addition to these questions, we also recommended putting the question of moving our elections to November on the ballot. The BOT at the time, chose NOT to ask the question. I support this recommendation as well. Ultimately the time of the election will not be a provision of the charter, but rather done via ordinance. It does not appear I have the majority of the BOT with me on this issue.
While these are clearly the main items people will likely talk about, there were many many housekeeping items to get our charter up-to-date with state statutes and we certainly need to get that done.
For those of you who recall why nothing got approved, there wasn't consensus on specific items and then ultimately the whole thing failed - which is unfortunate.
I encourage everyone to read the full report or watch our presentation to the BOT at the time. We did a lot of research and stakeholder interviews and surveys, etc.
And if you disagree with my position, I'm totally cool with that and if you think there's something in the report that you want to debate, I'm up for it. I'm pretty flexible and always willing to listen to new points. But this issue was debated for quite some time on MOL, I was giving live updates of everything that was transpiring - so my personal views on all the issues are well documented, and they haven't changed.
Here's a quick review of what transpired:
2009/2010 - Charter Review Committee established. It consisted of 4 residents (including myself, Village President Newman, Trustee Bauer, Trustee Rosner, and from our staff, Steve Rother (Village Counsel), and Robin Kline (Village Clerk).
We had 21 public meetings over the course of about a year and issued a final report to the full BOT in June of 2011:
http://southorange.org/charterReview/recommendations/ReportofRecommendationstotheBoardofTrustees-06-27-2011.pdf)
Our recommendations also included putting questions on the ballot for the community, both the stipend issue and title changes were included in the questions that were asked during the November 2011 general election, the results were as follows:
Question 1: Should the Village Charter be amended to change the name of our municipality from the “Township of South Orange Village” to “South Orange Village”?
YES – 2,067 (78.09%)
NO – 580 (21.91%)
Question 2: Should the Village Charter be amended to change the title of the “Village President” to “Mayor,” the title of the “Board of Trustees” to “Village Council,” and the title of “Trustee” to “Council member”?
YES – 1,561 (59.26%)
NO – 1,073 (40.74%)
Question 3: Should the Village Charter be amended to provide the Village President an annual stipend of $2,400, without other benefits, and provide Village Trustees with an annual stipend of $1,800 each, without other benefits?
YES – 1,330 (50.67%)
NO – 1,295 (49.33%)
In addition to these questions, we also recommended putting the question of moving our elections to November on the ballot. The BOT at the time, chose NOT to ask the question. I support this recommendation as well. Ultimately the time of the election will not be a provision of the charter, but rather done via ordinance. It does not appear I have the majority of the BOT with me on this issue.
While these are clearly the main items people will likely talk about, there were many many housekeeping items to get our charter up-to-date with state statutes and we certainly need to get that done.
For those of you who recall why nothing got approved, there wasn't consensus on specific items and then ultimately the whole thing failed - which is unfortunate.
I encourage everyone to read the full report or watch our presentation to the BOT at the time. We did a lot of research and stakeholder interviews and surveys, etc.
And if you disagree with my position, I'm totally cool with that and if you think there's something in the report that you want to debate, I'm up for it. I'm pretty flexible and always willing to listen to new points. But this issue was debated for quite some time on MOL, I was giving live updates of everything that was transpiring - so my personal views on all the issues are well documented, and they haven't changed.
Trans_Parent said:
michaelgoldberg said:
Interesting to see on the agenda for Wednesday's BOT Meeting is an Ordinance to change the Village Charter to provide for the BOT to get paid and to change their titles from VP and Trustee to Mayor and Council member: http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/125119/Page1.aspx
ORDINANCE #2013-19, as written, appears to be a gross (or deceptive) over-simplification of the changes in the annexed Exhibit A:
Section 1.
The Board of Trustees does hereby approve the form and substance of the annexed
Exhibit A, and intending Exhibit A to become the Amended and Restated Charter of the
Township of South Orange Village does hereby authorize its submission to the State Legislature
for enactment into law.
Does VP Torpey and Village Counsel think the public can't understand a summary of all of the proposed changes, or did Village Counsel or the Clerk's office provide the wrong document to the Board and public?
This ordinance was tabled at the last meeting because the attorney or clerk posted and distributed the wrong document. Knowing how important this issue is for Torpey, I assume the BOT will have an updated version for Wednesday. (No idea if the public will, though)
Sheena I just hope there are checks and balances to make sure a Alex m. Torpey does not try to expense trips that are clearly veracity media related but turn into a deal for the village like his trip to D.C.recently.We are not here to find his business promotion
A couple other things referenced in this thread:
1) Yes, I am the Trustee who commutes to work to/from New Brunswick and Trenton regularly, which is why I'm not going to be seeking reimbursements for any of that travel. The last time I was in Trenton representing South Orange (lobbying against A-2586), I was already in the State House for my day job - so it works out fine. Same with the league conference, already there for work, SO isn't paying for me.
2) With respect to the "stipends" this is not for the current BOT, we made it clear that it would apply to future governing bodies. In terms of how we came up with the numbers, it was based on research and a discussion of what we thought was fair:
1) Yes, I am the Trustee who commutes to work to/from New Brunswick and Trenton regularly, which is why I'm not going to be seeking reimbursements for any of that travel. The last time I was in Trenton representing South Orange (lobbying against A-2586), I was already in the State House for my day job - so it works out fine. Same with the league conference, already there for work, SO isn't paying for me.
2) With respect to the "stipends" this is not for the current BOT, we made it clear that it would apply to future governing bodies. In terms of how we came up with the numbers, it was based on research and a discussion of what we thought was fair:
I would like to amend this motion so that Sheena gets all the pay for the others until they prove themselves worthy.
scottgreenstone said:
Sheena I just hope there are checks and balances to make sure a Alex m. Torpey does not try to expense trips that are clearly veracity media related but turn into a deal for the village like his trip to D.C.recently.We are not here to find his business promotion
I agree, but we also have to approve everything on the bills list. There has to be some level of confidence that we all hold each other accountable. Alex's trips for his work life were not paid for by the village, btw.
In terms of myself (easier to speak on my own behalf), the only overnight trip to date I was expecting to go on and bill to the village was the following conference:
http://www.theiacp.org
For the hotel, registration, mileage, etc. It would have cost the Village about $500 for me to attend. I had a work issue come up and couldn't make, but I had every intention of submitting this to the BOT and being reimbursed for it had I gone.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
(this is now the THIRD attempt in 10 years that the BOT has tried to pay themselves)
On the same agenda is a resolution to also adopt a reimbursement policy for travel expenses: http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=125232&dbid=0