Friday, September 27, 2013

Average Lodi tax bill just skyrocketed past the $10,000 mark... with such great velocity:


Luna has every perk under the sun.  Licata has every family member on the town payroll (and on the bills).  Quatrone got a $25,000+ meritLESS bonus.  He just got all new furniture and carpeting for his office.  And the hardworking taxpayers of Lodi got this:

 

 
Despite their record bonding and debt, the Lodi politicians still managed to deliver another devastating tax increase.  Last year, Lodi had the second highest effective tax rate in Bergen County.  It just got worse.



 
 
But not everyone’s taxes in Lodi went up.  The politically connected had “in house” reductions.  Lodi politicians kept this quiet for a while.  When they got caught, they had George Reggo say that he doesn’t keep records and then deny OPRA requests.  Marcel Wurms represents Lodi with tax appeals.  The Wurms property is one of many that is paying less taxes today than they did 3 years ago.
 


And the completely absurd:
Judge Andresini refuses to answer for his ruling.  His chambers is withholding the audio tapes.  The Lodi council never appealed the ruling. In fact, they rewarded Pinto afterwards with more town business and more benefits.


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Luna should scold Eustace for "bringing Lodi down". Then he should ask for his $500 campaign contribution back.


Eustace obviously isn't concerned about Lodi's rankings and performance because he has done NOTHING to better our schools while serving in the assembly. So he shouldn't attack the Lodi schools solely for political purposes because someone running against him used to work in the Lodi schools.   His flier sent out today was nasty, dishonest, and completely self-serving. 

I guess Gordon, Eustace, and the other one aren't bright enough to know that the board of education determines the administrators' salaries. If they are unhappy with the Lodi salaries being "$11,000 over the state average", they should contact their very own Committeeman Joe Licata to express their disapproval. Also, Lodi's biggest decline in rankings coincided with his years on the board. They can take that up with him as well.  I recommend they attend a boe meeting if they are sincere. 

Lodi has many good educators and some good administrators. Failure in the system does not lie with them. The blame belongs with the politics of those serving on the board of education and on the Lodi council.  And their politics and tactics are the same as Eustace’s.  Good employees of Lodi can only do so much with what is handed to them.

Everyone living in Lodi and working in Lodi should be offended by Eustace, Gordon, and the other one that thinks he is President of United States because he sat on the Paramus council for a year.  They degraded Lodi today and hurt Lodi’s image even more throughout the county. 

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

A New Year, A New Controversy Surrounding Lodi’s “Best Practices Questionnaire”


Background:
The state requires every municipality to complete a best practices questionnaire in order to receive their last percentage of state aid.  A poor score can result in a penalty of some aid being withheld.    The state requires each municipality to make their completed questionnaire an agenda item to be discussed at a public meeting. 

The first year, Lodi had the worst score in three counties reviewed by the Record newspaper for North Jersey. To avoid a penalty for having such bad practices, Lodi submitted a dishonest questionnaire last year.

In the past, Lodi never made their completed questionnaire an agenda item to be discussed at a public meeting.

Now:

Marc Schrieks was asked the following question at tonight’s regular council meeting, “Your Best Practices Questionnaire is due October 15th.  At what council meeting do you plan on making it an agenda item and discussing your responses to it?” 

A timeline was explained to the council that tonight would be the last regular council meeting before the questionnaire must be submitted.  Marc Schrieks refused to discuss the questionnaire at tonight’s regular meeting or any regular meeting for that matter.  He said it would only be discussed upstairs at an “Executive Meeting” on October 8th.


Marc Schrieks was told that “executive meetings” should be used to prepare for the regular meetings and not as a substitute.  Marc was asked why Lodi’s CFO doesn’t attend regular council meetings anymore to discuss these matters.  Lodi’s full time CFO (on a tenure track and earning $97,500 a year) doesn’t work in the borough hall during the day and Marc claims he works in the borough hall at nights.  Council meetings are at night so Marc was unable to explain why the CFO cannot attend regular meetings.  He said previous administrations didn’t have their CFO at regular public meetings. 
 
The difference is previous administrations didn’t vote on and discuss everything controversial at their workshops upstairs.  A workshop used to be a workshop and regular public meeting used to be a regular public meeting.
 
Marc Schrieks has been doing things so wrong for so long and getting away with it, he doesn’t want to change course.  He wants to continue voting on everything controversial upstairs in a small room behind the public’s back.  Marc says there is no hearing of the citizens upstairs but sometimes he is so kind to allow the public to say something at the end.  But he doesn’t have to.

This is unacceptable!
 
Solution:

The Record reporter for Lodi doesn’t cover important items occurring at meetings.  The Community News reporter has been informative but she should not be the only one in attendance.  Residents should attend October 8th.    
 
Links to Older Articles on this Matter:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/NJs_new_checklist_on_thifty_efficient_local_government_gets_mixed_reviews.html?page=all



http://www.northjersey.com/news/204619811_Resident_questions_Lodi_s_answers_to_questionnaire.html?page=all

Monday, September 16, 2013

Borough Manager's New Contract Should Be Done in the Open...And Not Behind the Public's Back





On May 17, 2010, the borough manager was awarded his current contract.  There was no mention of it in any minutes posted on the borough website for 2010.  There is not one newspaper article discussing it like you would see in other towns.  It is almost like it never took place.  There was no transparency.  The public was completely unaware of the perks. 



That contract expires on December 31, 2013.  In the next few months, the Lodi council should have an open discussion at their regular public meetings about the next contract with regards to the process, their individual input, and what they are actually handing out.

The Lodi council’s current term ends July 1, 2015.  It would be unfair to the residents of Lodi to make a new contract beyond that point.

The Lodi council should not hand out anything that they will be embarrassed by.  They never thought the public would see that last contract.  And they were wrong.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Lodi fails standards set forth by "Best Practices Checklist for Engaging and Managing Legal Counsel"


New Jersey’s Attorney General is paid $141,000 for his full time job supervising a department comprised of more than 600 attorneys and 8,000 total employees.  Lodi’s Borough Attorney Alan Spiniello is paid $150,000 for his part-time job with limited responsibilities.  Actually, the 2013 introduced budget shows he was paid $158,722.05 for 2012.  Many of the responsibilities that the public assumes would fall under his job description are being outsourced to the political Florio firm and Archer and Greiner. 

Lodi’s legal expenses are skyrocketing and the Lodi taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth.  This council’s campaign contributors are cashing in big time by taking advantage of Lodi not having a real pay-to-play ordinance on the books.  Disclosure reports show that Alan Spiniello made a $2,600 campaign contribution to the current Lodi council. 


 This year, the state added a new item to its “Best Practices” checklist:


4
Select
Has the appropriate administrative official reviewed the State Comptroller's June 25, 2013 Report with respect to local government legal fees, and does your municipality follow the best practices outlined in the checklist annexed as an Appendix to the report?



Below is the appendix of the State Comptroller’s June 25, 2013 Report.  Lodi clearly does not meet the standards set forth.  Just look at “Conducting a Competitive Procurement” alone.  Who is the qualified evaluation committee?  What scoring do they use?  How expansive was the pool of candidates?

Lodi fails to meet standards in all 4 areas:  1. Developing Policies and Procedures, 2. Conducting a Competitive Procurement,  3. Using Formal Written Contracts with Legal Counsel, and  4. Managing Legal Counsel Contracts.
 
Appendix -- Best Practices Checklist for Engaging and Managing Legal Counsel

The following checklist provides guidance to local government units (LGUs) for engaging and managing legal counsel. These best practices are divided into four categories: (1) developing policies and procedures, (2) conducting a competitive procurement, (3) drafting written contracts with legal counsel, and (4) managing legal counsel contracts.

1. Developing Policies and Procedures

Developing policies and procedures regarding the procurement, use and management of legal counsel can help reduce legal costs, ensure transparency and promote accountability. Specifically, we highlight the following best practices:

Establish policies and procedures for procuring legal counsel. Determine who is responsible for developing the Request for Qualifications, what evaluative criteria will be used, who will participate in the evaluation of the responses and how scoring will be documented. Ensure that the procurement process complies with state and local pay-to-play laws.

Develop clearly defined job descriptions and job duties for in-house counsel. Ensure appropriate supervision of those attorneys.

Determine who is responsible for delegating work to outside counsel or determining whether work should be performed in-house. Clearly distinguish between services that should be provided by in-house counsel as opposed to those to be provided by outside counsel.

Establish processes for requesting legal advice. Determine who is authorized to contact outside counsel to request legal advice and what internal documentation should be maintained reflecting those contacts. School districts should further ensure that their internal policies and procedures comply with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-5.2(a)(2).

Periodically review operating practices to ensure that those practices are in compliance with stated policies and procedures.

2. Conducting a Competitive Procurement

 The following best practices for procuring legal services are designed to promote public confidence in the public contracting process and ensure that LGUs are obtaining the most cost-effective services:

Ensure the pool of potential law firms or attorneys submitting proposals is as expansive as possible. Broadly advertise legal services contracts on websites, in newspapers and through other available media. Endeavor to secure proposals from numerous law firms for each area of expertise sought.

 Draft clear and unambiguous solicitations. Solicitations for legal services should contain a clear and unambiguous statement of the work to be performed by the attorney or the area of law in which the attorney will be delegated work. The solicitation should clearly distinguish which services, if any, will be covered under a retainer and which services the attorney may bill for at an hourly rate.

Judge proposals based on pre-determined, merit-based criteria made known to vendors in the Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ). If certain criteria are more important to the LGU than others, consider assigning different weights to each criterion based on its relative importance. If the LGU uses an RFQ process to establish a pool of pre-qualified law firms or attorneys to perform services in a particular area of law, the LGU should specify in the RFQ how work will be delegated among the attorneys in that pool. For example, the LGU may select from the pool based on price quotations, on a rotating basis or based on other evaluative criteria specified in advance by the LGU.

Establish a qualified evaluation committee. Ensure that the members of the evaluation committee are qualified to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. Carefully screen potential committee members to ensure that they are impartial arbiters in compliance with the Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 et seq., and the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A.18A:12-21.

Use a scoring process understandable to evaluators and vendors and maintain appropriate documentation. Provide the criteria upon which proposals will be judged in writing to members of the evaluation committee prior to judging the proposals to allow for fully informed decision making. Members of the evaluation committee should provide written comments explaining the score they give to each proposal. This ensures a record of the decision-making process and a basis for review in the event of a legal challenge. Document every step of the evaluative process.

3. Using Formal Written Contracts with Legal Counsel

 Contracts with outside legal counsel should address, at a minimum, the following topics related to billing and fee arrangements:

Scope of services/retainer arrangement: The scope of work and the scope of the retainer should mirror the scope of work and scope of retainer included in the RFP or RFQ. Ensure there is no overlap between services to be covered by the retainer and those that can be billed hourly.

 Billing rate and terms: Set forth the approved billing rates for attorneys for the term of the contract.

Administrative work and secretarial services: The contract should make clear that administrative work and secretarial services may not be billed at an hourly rate.

Expenses and disbursements: Pay only for actual expenses incurred. The contract should set forth which expenses are reimbursable and should require itemized bills that detail disbursements.

Billing for travel time: Set forth whether travel time is billable and at what rate.

Staffing expectations: Designate a primary contact person at the LGU for the law firm. Address staffing expectations with regard to legal matters including conferences, court appearances and external meetings.

Detailed billing invoices: Ensure that billing invoices include: (1) matter name, (2) date of service, (3) attorney’s name or identification number, (4) attorney’s hourly rate, (5) total charge for each task or billing entry, (6) a detailed description of the services provided or tasks performed and all individuals involved, (7) the amount of time spent on each particular service or task, and (8) an itemized list of any expenses or disbursements. Non-descriptive entries should not be accepted.

Block billing: Require individualized, separate billing entries for each task performed. Do not allow block billing.

4. Managing Legal Counsel Contracts

With proper management of legal services contracts, LGUs can avoid excessive, unauthorized or fraudulent charges and can improve the quality of the legal services they receive. The following have been identified as best practices in this regard:

Designate one employee who will have primary responsibility for reviewing the LGU’s legal bills. The designated employee should conduct a detailed and thorough review of all legal billing on a monthly basis to determine whether the billing complies with contractual requirements and whether all entries are appropriate. For example, the employee should confirm that all billing entries are individualized (i.e., not block billed) and sufficiently detailed, that the appropriate billing rate has been applied, that expenses have been itemized and that the monthly charges have been correctly calculated.

Periodically review the structure of legal counsel arrangements to determine whether costs savings or other improvements can be achieved.

If the LGU has established a cap on legal services fees, the LGU should monitor those fees and ensure compliance with the cap. If the cap must be exceeded, ensure there is appropriate written authorization to do so.  

Monday, September 9, 2013

Channel 77 Still Picture...

 

"Best Practices" Questionnaire Due October 15th. Hoping that this year will be better than the last...

 



Lodi’s Best Practices Questionnaire is due October 15, 2013.  At this time one year ago, the Lodi council never made it an agenda item nor did they discuss their responses at a regular public meeting.  Last year, Lodi’s supposed CFO answered the questionnaire not truthfully. 

Hopefully, the Lodi council actually follows the state’s rules this year. Hopefully, they actually implemented more of the “Best Practices” this year because that is where the real tax savings would be. The public deserves honesty and transparency.


 

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Two is not always better than one...



When it comes to the Lodi politicians, two is always more costly and usually less efficient.

Marc Schrieks and Tony Luna were both very dishonest in today’s Community News article titled “Town Hires Two Computer Consultants”.  Marc Schrieks stated, “….For the same price as one.”  Tony Luna is quoted, “Each took half of what last year’s contract was, so it’s all the same amount.”

Last year, Lodi paid a monthly consulting fee of $2000 a month.  In this article, they admit to paying $2,475 per month.  That is a 24% increase for the same consulting job.  Imagine if every borough cost increased 24% this year.  Furthermore, this doesn’t even consider the fact that instead of one consultant milking the town $95 an hour for “extra work”, now Lodi has two.

Marc is quoted as saying, “Because one is more efficient in police maneuvers/police operations than the other one.”  So why wouldn’t he just hire the one that is more efficient for everything?  Because the name attached to JNP Consultants is Perrapato, the son of the Garfield School Superintendent.   Perrapato and Conte are to Garfield what Luna and Capizzi are to Lodi.  This contract is just a way for Luna and Perrapato to swap favors and buy influence in one another’s patronage mills.  Unfortunately, they use the taxpayers’ money and not their own.

And just for the record, Marc Schrieks said at the last meeting that he didn’t know what the $2000 monthly charge covered.  He was wrong about the additional monthly costs to “install”.  And Tony Luna sat silent when given the opportunity to explain why he hired two consultant this year instead of one.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Lodi Borough Attorney Alan Spiniello's No-Bid Contract/$150,000 Retainer Does Not Say that He is Not Required to Represent Lodi in any Appellate Division Cases

In an article posted on northjersey.com today, Lodi Borough Attorney Allan Spiniello is quoted as saying: "Under our retainer agreement, we're not responsible for appellate division cases."


However, if you read his no-bid contract from July 1, 2013, it does NOT state that he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for any appellate division cases.  You can read page 4 to see what is and is not required of him as borough attorney.


 What is required:

“The services to be performed by the ATTORNEY shall include representation of the BOROUGH in various matters as directed by the Mayor and Council for the BOROUGH and/or the Municipal Manager, including, but not limited to, preparation of all Resolutions and Ordinances as requested and identified by the Mayor and Council and/or Municipal Manager, the preparation of legal opinions as requested by the Mayor and Council and/or Municipal Manager, the representation of the legal interests of the BOROUGH in litigation and administrative proceedings  before the State trial courts of the State of New Jersey and administrative agencies of the State of New Jersey and the representation of the interests of the BOROUGH in arbitration or grievance proceedings instituted against the BOROUGH, the preparation of contracts and agreements required by the BOROUGH, the review specifications for the procurement of goods and services by the BOROUGH, the rendering of legal advice and opinions to the Mayor and Council, the Municipal Manager and/or Department Heads of the BOROUGH and such other legal services as may be necessary for the efficient operation of the governmental affairs of the BOROUGH.”

 
What is not required:

“Provided however, notwithstanding the foregoing, the ATTORNEY shall not be required to represent the BOROUGH in any tax appeals, municipal bonding work, labor or contract disputes or disputes with the Police Department or Police Benevolent Association, any work assigned by the BOROUGH to outside counsel and any matters where the ATTORNEY has a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest.  Nothing herein contained shall prevent the ATTORNEY from engaging in any other public or private employment and the private practice of law.

The Passaic Valley Water Commission Appears to Have Violated Their Agreement Again in 2013 with a 4% Rate Increase. The Lodi Politicians Remained Silent and Never Called for an Injunction.


Judge Conte ruled in January 2012 that the Passaic Valley Water Commission violated their lease agreement when they increased Lodi’s rates 25% in 2009 and 29% in 2010.  Their agreement with Lodi allowed them to increase rates 3.5% or the Consumer Price Index plus half a percent.  Their numbers weren’t even in the ball park.

A year after that judgment, the PVWC increased Lodi’s rate by 4% which should also be in violation of the agreement.  At the end of 2012, the CPI December-to-December index was 1.7% (1.7% plus a half of a percent is 2.2%).  At the end of 2012, the CPI annual average index was 2.1% (2.1% plus a half of a percent is 2.6%).  Whatever index was used for Lodi’s escalation contract, either one would still be below 3.5%.

Lodi’s consumption rate (per 1 CCF quarterly or monthly) increased from $4.01 in 2012 to $4.17 in 2013.  Lodi’s base charge increased the same rate as the consumption charge.  That is a 4% increase.

During the appeal, the 25% and 29% increases were never undone and the residents of Lodi were never reimbursed.  Why would the Lodi politicians remain silent when the PVWC appears to have violated their agreement again since that ruling?  You would think that they would have spoken out publicly against the 4% increase for 2013 and gone to court seeking an injunction against any more increases until the appellate decision came down.  They did not.
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164628586/Lodi-Water-Rates-from-2012-to-2013-show-an-increase-of-4-more-than-allowed-by-contract