Rutherford Councilwoman Voices Concerns Letter to the Editor 10-15-08
On September 30th, I voted “No” to adopt the 2008 Rutherford Municipal budget.
At an increase of 4.81%, I knew that the numbers were not accurate. Having been finance chair for the Council over the previous four years, I had known that budget was not plausible. I also know that you have to be truthful to the residents - And, that you need to have confidence in what you present. I can tell you that there was no confidence in the council chambers on September 30th.
I believe that you should certainly give yourself a target, but when it becomes clear that you are not going to make it, do the right thing - be honest and don’t try and ruse the taxpayers. But, that is what we witnessed at the budget’s adoption - Expenses not accurately reflected, inclusions of funds that were not properly supported, documented, nor approved, and with out-of-date figures. But, that’s only part of it…
At the meeting for the adoption of the budget, our agenda included amendments that were never discussed before with the entire governing body. We had no prior knowledge of any amendments that needed to be voted on before final adoption and received no prior documentation. The question is - Are we being transparent to the residents? Is this the definition of open government? When we are not even being open and transparent to the entire council, we are deceiving everyone – not only ourselves but our residents. It is very telling when one of the council members that voted via telephone didn’t even have the changes on hand because of all the last minute surprises to produce a budget to fit a psychological target instead of the true affairs of Rutherford’s finances. This is what I mean when I say that the numbers were not accurate. It is completely irresponsible and misleading to the good people of Rutherford, which eventually comes out in the wash.
This tendency to allow personal ambition to interfere with the accurate reporting and control of Rutherford’s finances is what alarms me. And, it extends beyond just the budget. We entertained for the first time - telephone voting - when the bi-laws of the governing body clearly state that voice votes are permitted only during work sessions. So, in essence, our bi-laws were whimsically tossed to the wind. Why do municipalities and boroughs around the state have bi-laws? Did those mayors and councils before us have nothing better to do than to sit around one night, and decide to create bi-laws, only to have them disregarded when these bylaws don’t suit the governing majority major and council?
And now, fifteen days after the fact, they still can’t fit the square peg into the round hole. The Encap Tax Lien Sale that was aggressively included in the budget, without documentation, contracts, or any approvals has now come and gone, meaning the sale did not occur as was ambitioned. This was a significant concern for me and the main reason for my no vote to the budget. According to the CFO and some rough estimates at the time of this writing, if we had adopted today, the increase would have been closer to 7%. Is that a terrible number? I guess it is when it is promised that there will be no tax increase. So really, why try to pull the wool over the eyes of our good residents? Why not just report the numbers conservatively as they are likely to occur, without making such aggressive predictions about our revenue stream? This kind of loose behavior only leads us into a 2008 year end deficit, which puts us $300,000 or so in the red when we begin 2009 - and all of this within thirty days of adopting the final budget.
The adopted budget is certainly far from a conservative estimation of expenses and revenue that flies in the face of prudence and fiduciary responsibility. The truth in numbers and reporting works for me. And, yes real transparency works for me too. Being honest about what you want to do versus what you can actually accomplish sets a much better tone. But, some of my colleagues apparently don’t feel the same way, and perhaps don’t actually understand that our residents appreciate the truth – No one likes surprises, so why set it up that way? Let the facts lead and don’t allow personal agenda and ambition to pollute the accuracy of the numbers.
And one last issue of concern for me is funding. Specifically, I am a little baffled regarding a recent Letter to the Editor regarding the Bergen County Film Commission that was signed by GOP Candidate Duggan, Freeholder Chris Calabrese and Councilwoman, Rose Inguanti. I couldn’t quite grasp the attacks, or what prompted them against Freeholder Bernadette McPherson. But, I do remember that Councilwoman Inguanti proposed to our governing body that we make a funding donation to the BCFC of $3,500 because of all of the hard work, dedication and involvement in the arts, especially with regard to our own Williams Center. What a confusing time we live in... Let’s donate to the BCFC, but now that it is election time, let’s play politics and trash the BCFC and those candidates (fellow county residents by the way) who support us here in Rutherford. Which is it? I would think that something that helps to promote the arts as well as the quality in Southern Bergen County and specifically Rutherford can only be a positive. It is obvious from the actions of Freeholder McPherson that she has been one of the catalysts behind the Commission and who is the only one who represents Rutherford in that role. I think that the governing majority should refocus their ambition and start to base their decisions on “merit” instead of empty politics, promises, and rhetoric. That is what the good people of Rutherford want to see in their elected officials – Let the facts lead, not politics.
Respectfully,
Rutherford Councilwoman, Maura Keyes