Former BOE Member/Former Police Chief/Current Borough
Manager Vincent Caruso went out of his way to send a letter to the county taking the position that the mayor and council can’t place the $7.5M ballot question
on the November ballot.
$210,000 Part-time Boro Attorney Alan Spiniello went
out of his way to make the case why the Lodi mayor and council cannot place the
question on the ballot. He only cited
one case involving Bogota (a nonbinding referendum question about making
English the official language of the borough).
He did not cite one case involving a board of education ballot question.
Mr. Spiniello shares the same building as
Lodi’s BOE Attorney Alisa Dichiara.
It’s strange that Caruso and Spiniello were so
proactive with their letters when they admit the Board didn’t bring the
matter to their attention yet. Click on
link below:
They should also have researched more cases. The Mayor of East Newark had no control over issues
of the East Newark Board of Education. Click on link below:
From that article:
East Newark is not seeking legislation outside the scope of its affairs; it merely seeks to determine its citizens’ sentiments in respect of where its students attend high school, a factor that unquestionably will influence the appropriation determinations it makes when the Board of School Estimate next meets. Given its fiscal responsibilities, and the impact of the choice of high school on the budget, this issue clearly is one of fiscal importance to the Board of School Estimate and, by association, the municipality. East Newark has the authority not only to take action on the sending-receiving relationship within the scope of its budgetary responsibilities, but also to proffer the referendum related to it.
Finally, because the public question at issue did not concern an amendment to the State Constitution or any statute, the court found that an interpretive statement was not required. Therefore, the ballot question could proceed alone.
The Lodi Mayor and Council are entrenched in the Capizzi/Carafa political organization.
Their actions come as no surprise. They supported wasting $7.5M to demolish and replace a structurally sound building that requires no immediate repairs.
The Lodi taxpayers were already robbed $400,000 for architect plans.
Mike Nardino made a comment at a meeting that those plans can be used in the future.
The Lodi politicians have every intention to move forward with their $7.5M scam if they pick up a few more board seats.
Next year’s budget includes funding for the project (that is why I voted NO on the budget).
There is no harm in letting the public express its sentiment on an issue of such importance. The question directly impacts Lodi. The $7.5M project would only be funded with Lodi tax dollars.
The mayor and council should have submitted the question and they should have cited the case of East Newark in doing so. They should have represented the interests of the people of Lodi in instead of the interests of dishonest politicians.
