My Complaint was a Distraction from the Real Issue at Hand. I Should Have Known Better.

When I first filed an OPRA denial of access complaint last March, attorneys as far away as Ocean County sent me letters seeking to take this case (no charge) before the Superior Court.  They argued against the Government Records Council (GRC). They stated that the Superior Court acted in a timelier manner and the results were more favorable for those seeking transparency in government.  I did not want to tie up a court with this issue so I just e-mailed a complaint to the GRC and decided the complaint would end there.

After reading Alan Spiniello’s response to the GRC, I saw where he was going.  In response, I requested a specific property card belonging to an immediate family member of Lodi’s Tax Appeal Attorney, Marcel Wurms, to shoot down the claim that a specific card could provide the information I was seeking.  I knew the taxes on the property were reduced “in house” before I even requested the card.  The specific card showed a $34,000 assessment reduction (over a $1000 tax savings) without stating how.  After I received the specific tax card (and already knowing the answers to my own questions), this administration still wouldn’t explain the process in which the reduction occurred until months later.  I sent this information to the case manager last week.  He never responded or even acknowledged it.  Because of that, the GRC decision for tomorrow was expected:

 45. Ryan Curioni v. Borough of Lodi (Bergen) (2013-81)

Since the Complainant’s OPRA request is for information and not a specific identifiable record, and because a custodian is not required to conduct research in response to an OPRA request, the Complainant’s OPRA request is invalid.

If George Reggo kept records, "research" would not be necessary.  The GRC rewarded him for not keeping records. His monetary transactions are larger than those that take place in banks.  Yet, the Lodi politicians require no monthly lists or receipts from him. 

The Bergen County Tax Board has to keep a list of all decisions before the board.  The State Tax Court has to keep a list of all judgments before the court.  George Reggo doesn’t have to keep any lists for his reductions.  This lack of oversight can open the door to unethical or even criminal behavior.  A hypothetical:  what if someone offered him $500 to lower their taxes $1000.  He wouldn’t have to answer to anyone. 

The truth of the matter is I no longer need the information I requested.  I conducted my own research and have my own list of “in house” reductions for the politically connected.  I like some of the people that benefitted from the Reggo reductions so I do not want to make this issue about them.

The issue is about George Reggo, Marcel Wurms, Tony Luna, and others that used their influence to lower the taxes for family and friends “in house”.  They took off thousands of dollars for some while passing that added cost onto the honest, hard-working taxpayers of Lodi.   My own complaint actually distracted from the bigger issue at hand.  The OPRA denial itself was trivial in comparison to George Reggo’s actual tax fixing.

These individuals never had to answer for their behavior when questioned at council meetings or when responding to OPRA requests.  All I was seeking was some form of accountability. 

I realized last August that I should not depend on the State for anything.  At that time, I had four different e-mails from the State all listing a completely different reason why Marc Schrieks was able to collect full health benefits paid for by the taxpayers of Lodi when he was not enrolled or eligible on the date required to be “grand-fathered in”.  The State actually had to correct its own responses when questioned each time.

I learned my lesson moving forward.  True accountability will come from the people once they are informed and not from any government bureaucracy above Lodi.

The Licata 2-Step Plan for Lodi

Mrs. Licata has used politics to land political jobs for almost every family member.  But that hasn’t been enough.  She demands more from the taxpayers of Lodi.  With the October bills, she continues to use her public office to funnel even more money her family’s way.  Her son, Joseph Licata of the Lodi BOE, received ANOTHER $500.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/178271476/October-2013-Bills

She has been creative with his “consulting fees”.  This month, the bills list him as the “Lodi Drug Alliance Coordinator” for $500.  Before that, they listed him as “Grant Coordinator Drug Alliance” or just “Lodi Drug Alliance Consulting Fee” for $350.

When asked at a council meeting months ago if it was an ethics violation to have an immediate family member being paid for “consulting fees", everybody played dumb.  Mrs. Licata said she believed he was reimbursed for something and Schrieks fabricated some story like he normally does.

Instead of ending their bad practices of nepotism abuse and unethical behavior, they just change descriptions on the bills.

Here is just a snapshot of the Licatas appearing on some monthly bills I chose randomly:

 

Luna is Not Public Safety and Schrieks is Not a Full Time Mayor

Lodi’s Completed 2013 Best Practices Questionnaire:

Arrogance:

#5: Instead of just answering with a “No”, they inserted the comment “The borough complies with state statues.”  There is no defense or justification for not having a real pay-to-play ordinance on the books in the year 2013.  There is NO state statue banning the practice of pay-to-play so a local ordinance is necessary.  The Lodi politicians should read the State Comptroller’s report on this subject right after they read the one on government legal fees.

Misguided:

#1: They listed "Lodi Board of Education school security" as a new shared service.  This clearly is not a shared service.  A shared service would be if the borough and the school were both using retired armed guards.  They would share the service and the costs.  But school security is strictly school security and related only to the Board of Education.  The retired armed guards provide no security to the borough hall or any borough facilities.  They are not Lodi police officers like the resource officers at the middle school and high school in which they can provide a service to both our schools and the borough throughout the year. 


No Accountability:

#15: Why hasn’t this administration corrected their noted deficiencies from past audits and why didn’t they list those deficiencies in their comments?

Lies:

#3: Tony Luna isn’t public safety and is still using a town vehicle for personal use.  At the October 8^th Executive Meeting, this administration stated that they currently do not have any policy prohibiting personal use of borough vehicles.

#4: Alan Spiniello acknowledged during the October 15^th regular council meeting that Lodi does not follow the best practices outlined in the Appendix of the State Comptroller’s June 25, 2013.  He said the borough may consider some suggestions of the checklist in the future.

#8: No codification was adopted at any October meetings.  

#27: Marc stated at the October 8^th executive meeting that a part-time elected official is still receiving health benefits from the borough (presumably him).  This administration acknowledged that they DON’T have policy of their OWN prohibiting this practice.

#38: This is clearly a "No" and not a "Prospective".

Other YES answers are clearly deceptive as well.  At the October 8^th executive meeting, this administration answered YES to things they said they may do in the future and others in which they casually said, “I believe” that could be a YES.

Here is a copy of their 2013 completed questionnaire:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/177573655/Lodi-s-2013-Completed-Best-Practices-Questionnaire-Another-Year-of-Deception

A Phony Politician, A Fake Photo Op, and a Fraudulent Replica Check

It didn’t take long for Tim Eustace to post his photo op from the Lodi council meeting.

 

Tim Eustace’s replica blown up check is fraudulent.  First, assembly members don’t sign state checks.  Second, the date listed is October 15, 2013.  Connie Wagner resigned her seat effective October 1, 2013.  Who signed her name?  Elected officials cannot use replica state checks with fraudulent information.

 

 

There are serious questions regarding when Lodi will be/was in receipt of this federal money and if Tim Eustace had any involvement at all in the matter.  Shame on the Lodi council for playing this political game. 

THROW EUSTACE OUT OF OFFICE ON NOVEMBER 5^TH!

He is fabricating accomplishments to camouflage a failed record.  He can't be trusted!

An Ill-Informed Mayor...and a Photo Op for Mr. Eustace

I offered to let Mr. Eustace speak before me at tonight’s Lodi council meeting but he had to wait for his aide to arrive with a CAMERA IN HAND before he could address the meeting.  So I asked the following two questions:

Question 1:  At every council meeting I attended, you stated that it was the police chief’s idea to put retired armed guards in the schools and that he developed the plan.   You are funding the plan with municipal tax dollars. 

The board of education approved to award Mr. Quatrone a 5577.75 merit bonus for an idea he didn’t think of, a program he didn’t develop, and cost he didn’t budget for.

Lodi had the 2^nd highest effective tax rate in all of Bergen County in 2012 and saw a significant tax increase this year.  You are now using municipal tax dollars for school expenses.  So please explain to the people of Lodi why their taxes should go up to pay for these unearned handouts.

Marc’s Response:  Marc stated that the board of education was the venue for that question.  I told him that would be true a few years ago before the Lodi council began borrowing and budgeting municipal tax dollars for school expenses.  Marc said he was unfamiliar with the merit bonuses and never read them.

Question2:  Your September bills show that you paid the political Florio firm $8176.42 for “Other Expenses”.  What were those expenses?  Did you abide by the Boxer Checklist when you awarded this firm a no bid contract?

Luna’s Response:  Luna believes they worked on police contracts:

Schrieks’ Response:  Lodi council applies the Boxer Checklist to all their legal contracts.

Spiniello’s Response:  They didn’t apply the Boxer Checklist to the Florio no-bid contract because the Boxer appendix was not out yet at the time.  He said they may consider it’s suggestions for future legal contracts. 

I pointed out to them that they checked off last week on the “Best Practices Questionnaire” that they followed the Boxer Appendix.  They didn’t follow it in the past and they won’t even commit to following it in the future.

3^rd Issue: I objected to the Lodi council using public meetings as a photo op for partisan politicians up for election.  I pointed out that I have attended every regular council meeting for the last year and a half and that Assemblywoman Wagner attended none in that time. She attended only one meeting I can remember.  She had a picture taken of herself handing the Lodi council a blown up check right before her last election.  She hasn’t attended a regular meeting since.  I never saw Assemblyman Eustace at a regular council meeting.  He attended tonight (right before his election) to have a picture taken of himself handing the council an overblown check.  He wouldn’t even speak until his aid arrived with CAMERA IN HAND. 

I stated that the people pay a lot in taxes so it is always good for THEIR tax dollars to return to their communities to be spent on good causes.  I said it would be great for our two assembly persons to attend council meetings and board of education meetings throughout their terms so they can work on issues that can help our children and our community all the time and not just before an election.

I pointed out that Tony Luna contributed $500 to Mr. Eustace’s campaign and that the county Democrats recently gave Marc Schrieks a political county job.  As a registered Independent and independent voter, I would like to see more independence from our elected officials.  They should serve the people of Lodi instead of either county party- Democrat or Republican.

Mr. Eustace spoke after me and was very defensive about my constructive criticism.  He said when he was mayor he attended flood meetings without taking pictures of himself.  So maybe he should return to that practice.

98% Baloney, Completely Artificial

The Lodi politicians are quoting George Reggo and saying that Lodi’s true valuation is now at 98% (Lodi hasn't had a new town wide reassessment or revaluation  in the last 9 years).  This would make Lodi an anomaly in Bergen County.  I am sure this claim will come as a surprise to all of the residents of Lodi that have been unable to sell their houses anywhere near their assessed values.  This should come as a surprise to everyone in the real estate market and banking industry.    

I guess anyone can make any claim they like when they "don't keep records".

True valuation should be based on the ratio of sale prices to assessments collected during a one year period. 

·       Foreclosures, short sales, and transfers among family are removed from the sample, making the sample that much smaller.  Lodi has seen a decline in income and this has been a tough economic period.  Therefore, these removed transactions are going to be significant in number.

·       The ratio of this small sample can be thrown off when the sale takes place of a home that already had reductions.  For instance, say a politician in Lodi or town employee had one or two “in-house” reductions.  They could be under assessed at that point.  Then they sell their home for maybe $100,000 over their new assessed value.  That sale can really help George Reggo push up that valuation percentage.

Once again, here is a chart I posted a few months ago.  George Reggo has every opportunity to appear at a council meeting to explain how this chart fits in his 98% baloney.

And to conclude with the age old question:  if Lodi has had such great true valuation in the last few years, how can Reggo justify lowering the assessments “in house” for the politically connected?

Groundhog Day..."Best Practices Questionnaire" One Year Later

When you can’t defend an answer, chances are your answer wasn’t honest. 

Here are some highlights from tonight’s executive meeting when I questioned the council about answers to their 2013 questionnaire:

They answered “YES” that they exclude part-time elected officials and appointed officials from receiving health coverage.  But when questioned, Marc Schrieks made the revelation that he may not be the only part-time official or employee currently receiving health coverage from Lodi.  Lodi actually has NO POLICY on this matter so if they switched out of the SHBP tomorrow, they could put every part-time official on the borough’s plan.  Marc did not understand this concept.   Marc said, “What else?” instead of defending his actions.

They allow personal use of borough vehicles but told the state the contrary- AGAIN.  When Marc was asked about this answer, he said, “I’ll have to get back to you.”  He had the same question last year.

They were told that the appendix of the Boxer Report regarding legal fees was quite lengthy and that I didn’t understand how Lodi could answer “YES” to following the checklist (all legal contracts for Lodi went to campaign contributors).  Marc said, “I’ll have to get back to you.” 

They were told that agendas for the Zoning Board and Planning Board are not posted on-line, yet they answered “Yes” to it.  Marc said he disagreed and would have to look into it.  He said the same thing last year.  Others conceded that the minutes and agendas for the boards are not on-line.

They answered that they post salary ordinances on-line.  When questioned about this, they said they will be putting them up on-line.

The questionnaire asked them, “Has your municipality instituted a policy to not compensate employees for sick leave accumulated after a certain date?”  Instead of answering “NO”, the CFO answered “Prospective”.  He used the word, “Prospective” and the phrase “I believe” often throughout the night for questions that seemed like they required straightforward “Yes or No” answers.

I told them that I wouldn’t even get into their tax appeal answer again.  But they stated that George Reggo told them that true valuation is at a whopping 98% right now in Lodi so no reassessment is necessary.  George Reggo makes these claims at the same time he is lowering the taxes for the politically connected "in house" without any appeals even taking place.  And once again, this administration has to shield George Reggo from attending any public meetings to answer for his bad behavior.

Their questionable answers were not only limited to the ones discussed above.  They only answered NO to numbers 5, 15, 43, and 44.  The CFO tried to minimize #5 by saying that most towns don't have a pay-to-play ordinance.  I would say most WELL RUN towns do.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/lfns/13/2013-20.pdf

If the Lodi politicians cared about saving a significant amount of tax dollars, they would have implemented the state’s best practices.  If the Lodi politicians were ethical, they would have answered the questionnaire honestly.  If the Lodi politicians were transparent, they would have listed the questionnaire as an agenda item, and discussed their answers at a regular public meeting.  If the Lodi politicians were accountable, they would be able to at least defend their same answers one year later.  Tonight, they did none of the above.

Quatrone merit criteria even more outlandish for this school year... stealing $25,108.25 from the taxpayers and the children.

The Lodi taxpayers are paying for guards in the schools.  Frank Quatrone gets a merit bonus for that?

The Lodi taxpayers are paying for smart boards in the classrooms.  Frank Quatrone gets a merit bonus for that?

Frank Quatrone may analyze trends in student behavior.  Isn’t that his job?

He may review assessments for rigor and relevance.  Isn’t that his job?

Frank Quatrone may do more walkthroughs of our schools.  Isn’t that his job?

The public needs to see this.  When they do, they will see the absurdity in it.  This is stealing from the taxpayers and the children.  All involved should be investigated and shamed. 

The merit criteria begins on page 23 of the minutes.  I have been posting the minutes on my scribd account because the Lodi politicians take them down within a month because they have so much to hide.  Lodi deserves better.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173231253/August-BOE-Minutes