TOWNSHIP COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
- March 29, 2011
The Public Meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council was called to Order at 8:49 pm by Council President Tobey.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT ANNOUNCEMENT
Mrs. Lashway: According to the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been given to the Daily Record. Notice has been posted at the Municipal Building , 204 Flanders-Drakestown Road, Mount Olive Township , New Jersey and notices were sent to those requesting the same.
Present: Mr. Greenbaum, Mrs. Labow, Mr. Mania, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Roman, Mr. Tobey
Also Present: Sherry Maniscalco, CFO; John Dorsey, Township Attorney; Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk; William Sohl; Business Administrator; Mayor David Scapicchio
President Tobey: We are up to the Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings. Mr. Greenbaum, would you be so kind?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
March 15, 2011 PM & CS (Mr. Tobey absent)
Mr. Greenbaum: I move for approval of the March 15, 2011, Public Meeting and Closed Session.
Mr. Mania: I'll second it.
President Tobey: It's been moved and seconded. Roll Call please?
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously with the exception, Mr. Tobey abstained.
President Tobey: There are 44 pieces of Correspondence. Any discussion at this time?
LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS/ORGANIZATIONS
- E-mail received March 21, 2011, from the New Jersey Managed Districts Association regarding Bill#A3859 Special Improvement Districts. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 22, 2011, from Downtown New Jersey, regarding Business Promotions Techniques and Social Media – Its Role in Business Development – Free Workshop. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 23, 2011, from Trans Options regarding The Commuter Newsletter. PDF Correspondence
DOT / DEP / LOI / HIG HLANDS / EPA / DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE / ABC
- Request received March 14, 2011, from New Jersey Transit Corporation regarding Fiscal Year 2011, Request for Federal Financial Assistance. PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 14, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding a One Year Extension of Time – Active Adult Community P.S. PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 16, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Transporter Decals. PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 17, 2011, from Careaga Engineering Inc. regarding Highlands Applicability Determination Application for Paul Cooper, BL 5101, Lot 17. (38 Ramar Street) PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 21, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Clover Hill Drive, FY 2011 Municipal Aid Program. PDF Correspondence
- Application received March 21, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Highlands Applicability Determination for Goodland Country Club, BL 83 Lot 16 (50 Drakestown Road, Hackettstown, NJ). PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 23, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Public Hearing on Application No. 5103 to modify permit to divert water from thirty groundwater wells and one intake in the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County. PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 24, 2011, from R, Henry Huelsebusch regarding Highlands Applicability & WQMP Consistency Determination, Single Family Development (Lozier Estates, LLC) BL 2801 Lot 14 (80 Lozier Road). PDF Correspondence
- Letter received March 25, 2011, from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding Public Hearing on Application No. 5103 to modify permit to divert water from thirty groundwater wells and one intake in the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County. PDF Correspondence
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
- E-mail received March 11, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding S-2664, Market Competition Consumer Choice Act and League Position on Senator Sweeney's Shared Services Bill S-2794. PDF Correspondence
- Legislative Bulletin received March 15, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Bills that were enacted as Public Laws of 2010. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 15, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding League President Addresses Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee and Continuing Legal Education Announcement. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 15, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding REMINDER of Four Upcoming League Seminars. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 16, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding League Publication – 2011 Legislative Roster. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 16, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding NJLM Opposes S-2664 and the 13 th Annual League Baseball Appreciation Day. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 17, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding UPDATE: Strategies for Policing during lean times. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 17, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Legislative Recap for Monday, March 14 th . PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 18, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Telecom & Cable Deregulation Vote on Monday March 21 st and Legislative Preview for Monday March 21 st and Local Public Contracts law Guidance. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 21, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding S-2664, Market Competition Consumer Choice Act, Tabled in Senate. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 21, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding New Content on DLGS Site. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 23, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Available for Download: Collaborating on Real Solutions to the 2% Cap. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 23, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Local Law Enforcement Strategies and Risk Reduction Projects. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 23, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding Governor Signs S-2068 and Pothole Assistance from DOT. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 24, 2011, from the New Jersey State League of Municipalities regarding S-2718 Health Benefits Reform. PDF Correspondence
- Tort Claim received March 23, 2011, from Fusco & Macaluso, LLC regarding Edward S. Hardman, Date of Incident: February 3, 2011. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 14, 2011, from the Department of Community Affairs regarding Local Finance Board April Meeting Date Change. PDF Correspondence
- Local Finance Notice received March 18, 2011, from the Department of Community Affairs. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 21, 2011, from the Department of Community Affairs regarding Gov Connect Update, March 21, 2011. PDF Correspondence
- Local Finance Notice received March 23, 2011, from the Department of Community Affairs. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 24, 2011, from the Department of Community Affairs regarding Library Tax Levy Update. PDF Correspondence
- Bankruptcy Order received March 16, 2011, from the Unites States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York regarding The Great Atlantic Tea Company. PDF Correspondence
- Bankruptcy Order received March 25, 2011, from the Unites States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York regarding Blockbuster Inc. PDF Correspondence
- Resolution received March 16, 2011, from the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders regarding OPRA. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 16, 2011, from Morris County regarding the Morris County Prosecutor's Office Irish Heritage Celebration. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 18, 2011, from the County of Morris regarding the Morris County Green Table Forum. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 21, 2011, from the Morris County Mosquito Extermination Commission regarding the yearly information packet. PDF Correspondence
- Minutes received March 22, 2011, from the Morris County Planning Board regarding the February 17, 2011 meeting minutes. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 24, 2011, from Morris County regarding the Morris County Prosecutor's Office regarding the Morris County Government Officials Briefing. PDF Correspondence
- E-mail received March 18, 2011, from Rutgers regarding a Social Media Workshop, March 29 th in Trenton. PDF Correspondence
- Fax received March 23, 2011, from Comcast regarding Preferred Collection Launch & On Demand Access Changes.
- Letter received March 25, 2011, from Jersey Central Power & Light regarding Posting Signs & banners on Utility Poles. PDF Correspondence
President Tobey: Seeing none, we'll move on to Ordinances for Public Hearing.
ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEAR ING
President Tobey: I open the hearing to the public on:
Ord. #7-2011 An Ordinance Granting Renewal of Municipal Consent to Comcast to Construct, Connect, Operate and Maintain a Cable Television and Communications System in the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County, New Jersey.
President Tobey: Mrs. Labow, would you kindly move that?
Mrs. Labow: Thank you Mr. President. I move for adoption and final passage of Ordinance #7-2011.
Mr. Greenbaum: Second.
President Tobey: It's been moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Seeing none, Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
President Tobey: We are up to Ordinances for First Reading. The Second Reading is on April 12, 2011.
ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING (2 nd reading – April 12, 2011)
President Tobey: The next item on the Agenda for First Reading is:
Ord. #8-2011 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Amending Ordinance #27-2009 Which Established Salaries for the Mayor, Council, Department Heads, Supervisory Personnel and Employees of the Township Clerk's Office.
President Tobey: Mr. Mania, would you please move that?
Mr. Mania: Mr. President, I move that Ordinance #8-2011 be introduced by title and passed on first reading
and that a meeting be held on April 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown
Road, Budd Lake, NJ for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of the law.
President Tobey: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins: Yes, Mr. Tobey, thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of issues to address with this.
One would be some of the executive session Minutes going back into October 5 th of 2010 where the
representative of the non-union members had stated that the exempt employees had agreed to no
increase, to a zero to avoid staff layoffs of the exempt employees. There was some discussion about
furloughs at that time and it was, I think, agreed that furloughs were not an answer. They were a quick
fix that would leave a bigger hole as your moved forward into subsequent years. On October 19 th the
Mayor during a discussion informed the Council that in order to avoid the layoffs of the three police
officers that they were losing, the Administration had successfully done a sidebar agreement. Mrs.
Maniscalco, I think done a great job in starting the budget early this year. I think we've all been tied up
and gotten a little messed in that. We then went into executive session December 7, 2010, of which I
was absent but I do have a copy of the Minutes. The Mayor said that the exempt employees had taken
the lead by stating early on that they would forego the 3.75% in order not to lose management staff and
that was supposedly to have helped the negotiation with the two unions. As we know, MOTPEA voted
to lose two of their employees and took their 3.75. The FOP/SOP did come back, got their 3.75 with
some givebacks. The police negotiation resulted in a $25,000.00 offset however. The exempt employees
have now come back with a proposal which is what we have in front of us…a portion of that ordinance
to take the 3.75 effective July 1 st and to start contributing 1.5% to their medical benefits.
Mayor Scapicchio: That's not part of the ordinance that's on the table right now, Ray.
Mrs. Labow: Yes it is.
Mr. Sohl: We are talking about this one right now.
Mayor Scapicchio: Oh, okay, we're on this one first?
Mrs. Labow and Mr. Sohl: Yes.
Mayor Scapicchio: Sorry. Well then if we are on this one, I raise an objection and a point of order
because I don't believe Mr. Perkins should be able to participate in this discussion because two of the
employees that are part of this discussion and that are affected by this ordinance have direct supervisory
responsibilities over his wife and his son. That's my objection and I want that to be noted for the record.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: So to continue on, the Mayor stated that the employees were proposing this due to their
pensions. Mrs. Maniscalco stated that if they didn't vote for this, that the four statutory officers were still
entitled and that is going to be the discussion matter for the next ordinance should we get that far. As
we've looked into this, I cannot find any other place other than the representation of the management
staff presented to the Council on at least three separate occasions, that you would take a 0% increase and
subsequently the two bargaining units, collective bargaining units, took different agreements and now
you are coming back to us and you are asking us now to approve a salary increase for you. I've know
most of you pretty much a good portion of my life and I've watched you work and I really have no issue
with the work that you guys do. I quite frankly felt somewhat humbled that you would take a 0%
increase especially as we move forward and had the negotiations and agreement with the FOP/SOP and
knowing that we were already going to be in the red and I thought to myself, at least I knew it was a
wash because you folks had agree to zero. I'm puzzled and troubled that you are back asking now and
have tried on two separate executive sessions to have this passed and I'm sitting here now and I'm
looking at my Governor, I'm looking at the Board of Education, the Administrative staff, the folks that
we've laid off, that some of them were your coworkers, whether they were union or non-union and those
folks may still be out of a job. I'm looking at our Governor and I will quote him in his saying when he
spoke on the Today Show with host Ann Curry and he talked about collective bargaining but he also
said, “It's not just an issue of collective bargaining. It's an issue of wanting to say yes all the time as a
public official.” You never want to say no to anybody because oh, you are so much more popular if you
say yes. Do you know what? It's time to say no to things to be able to say yes to the things that will help
to grow our economy and to create a more prosperous future. Ladies and gentlemen, it's not personal. It
is strictly a matter of living up to the obligation to a statement that was presented to this Council that you
would accept a 0% increase. You would set the stage for the other unions and regardless of what they
decided to do or not, I don't feel easy you guys offering you guys a raise after you had made those
representations to us. Thank you Mr. President.
President Tobey: Thank you. Any other Council comments? Miss Labow?
Mrs. Labow: I just want to say that, thank you Mr. President, Mr. Perkins is saying that the non-union
employees represented that they would not take an increase. That wasn't actually what happened. I think
the emails, the information that we received, it was a negotiating point. The way I understood it the
whole time was if the bargaining unit did not accept an increase or negotiated down that they would set
the stage so I'm not sure where that confusion came about. Aside from that, the part that I think is really
remarkable with our staff, what they've done which it's almost unheard of these days. We have four
statutory employees and a Police Chief that by State statute we are required to give them a raise, an
average of what the two unions receive.
Mr. Tobey: Mrs. Labow, that is not the ordinance we are discussing right now.
Mrs. Labow: I understand that but it is very important to point out why this ordinance is a very good ordinance that we should entertain. Under the one required by the State, it's going to cost the taxpayers, State statute, $19,000.00 to comply. What our staff has done is they've come forward and said, and then you'd have ten people would get absolutely nothing and five people would get an increase. They've come back and they have offered so that everybody gets something, starting July 1 st to get the 3.75 but to give the 1.5 in medical benefits which would then cost the taxpayers only $5,000.00. So on one hand it is going to cost us $19,000.00 and the other hands it's going to cost us $5,000.00. I just don't understand why there would even be, why we would want to pay $19,000.00 when we can only pay $5,000.00.
President Tobey: I would like to comment on that because I don't understand either because I've been told throughout this process that a 3.75 pay increase minus 1.5 giveback is zero. That's not the math in my books and I've been told by more than one person on more than one occasion that this is a zero effect. Being a business owner no one is ever going to convince me that by giving out a bonus I'm saving money, or increasing someone's salary. That is not realistic. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I appreciate the hard work, the commitment, the devotion. We have asked you to do not the same but more with less and I recognize that. Several people have lost their jobs over the last two years. $2.1 million was cut from the Board of Ed and quite frankly, I feel bad that we are even having a conversation about an increase in pay for management knowing that people lost their jobs over the last two years in this Township. No one will ever convince me that by grouping this together it is saving the Township money. That is not realistic math.
Mrs. Labow: Mr. Tobey, we had contract negotiations. If I understand it correctly, you and Mr. Roman were on the negotiation team?
President Tobey: What's your question, Mrs. Labow?
Mrs. Labow: I just want to know, you and Mr. Roman were effectively contracted the negotiations and you came back to the Council and you recommended 3.75 increase.
President Tobey: You know as well as I do that's only part of it, okay. There's more involved in it than that.
Mrs. Labow: And also I voted no to that and I also voted no to the budget because it included increases. This is not an easy, for me I'm looking at the reality. We pay $19,000.00 or we pay $5,000.00.
President Tobey: That math will never work in my book. Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins: Thank you Mr. President. I have a question for our attorney, Mr. Dorsey. I'm just going to take a very brief couple of seconds. Mr. Dorsey had provided a memo to the Mayor and Township Council and very specifically in there pointed out State statute N.J.S.A. 40A:9-165. It is a rather interesting statute and I will just read it, only a small portion, “that no such ordinance,” which is the ordinance we are talking about “shall reduce the salary of or deny without good cause an increase in salary given to all other municipal officers and employees to any tax assessor, chief financial officer, tax collector or municipal clerk during the term for which he shall have been appointed.” I assume, Mrs. Labow, that is the point that you are trying to make when you use the analogy of the cash. Two things that come to mind, actually three, is that under the New Jersey State statute 40A:9-10.1 Contracts for lesser salaries, the governing body could enter into a contract with any officer or any employee of the municipality as the case maybe to perform the duties at a lesser salary range or compensation so if we had sat down and tried to negotiate a different contract with them, we could. The base salary for police chiefs and deputy chiefs under 40A:14-179, “thereafter that a state chief of police is appointed that the head of the department, the starting base of the said chief of police and deputy shall be set at a higher rate than the highest base salary. Thereafter whenever new salary ranges are set, the governing body unless the chief of the appointing authority, unless the chief of police or deputy chief shall consent to a lesser adjustment.” My understanding was when they came forward everybody had agreed. The crux of it is that in Mr. Dorsey's, and he wrote a very I think detailed short opinion, was that in that statute, 40A:9-165, that the statute while not stating that these employees are entitled to a raise in salary, demands parody for those positions based upon salary increases provided to all other municipal officers and employees. In other words, if all the other employees receive a 3.5 salary increase, the Township Council is required by ordinance to provide a similar salary increase to these employees which ordinance may be subject to referendum. The folks from, I'm assuming the five, or at least four, had gone to their own attorney who sent Mr. Dorsey who we've got forwarded off to us that he represents those folks and as we're further aware the above cited statute indicates that the Township of Mount Olive cannot deny without good cause an increase in salary given to all municipal officers and employees to the four statutory officers. My question to Mr. Dorsey is, if we deny the raises under this ordinance, are those statutory officers still entitled under the statute since not all of the employees and officers would have been granted a raise?
Mr. Dorsey: I have difficulty following the end of your sentence. I mean, 40A:9-165 is pretty specific. “No ordinance shall reduce the salary of or deny without good cause an increase in salary given to all other municipal officers and employees” to the so called exempt employees.
Mr. Perkins: So if we deny this ordinance which would deny all of them including the four statutory…
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
Mr. Perkins: Are those four statutory employees…
Mr. Dorsey: Oh, oh, oh, wait, I see what you are saying. If you vote down Ordinance 8-2011 which I assume includes all kinds of managerial employees…
Mr. Perkins: Yes sir.
Mr. Dorsey: Then you would be in a position, yes. I think the answer to your question is yes. If you deny all of these people increases, then or, I assume that would change the average increase that would be effectuated by 40A:9-165.
Mr. Perkins: 169.
Mr. Dorsey: 165.
Mr. Perkins: 165, yes sir. So as long as all of the employees are not affected, then they are not entitled.
Mr. Greenbaum: That is not what he is saying. He is saying, what he is saying, I believe, is that it would affect the rate. In other words you take what the percentage increase to everyone and you multiply it times the number of employees that were entitled and you come up with the average rate. What Ray is asking you, and I don't know the answer, is the word all. If you deny it to some, does that mean that the statutory employees are not entitled to anything? That's his question.
Mr. Dorsey: I think the answer is no. No ordinance shall reduce the salary of, or deny…to all other municipal officers and employees. I mean think there are only a certain number of people in ordinance 8-2011 which would qualify as municipal officers.
Mr. Perkins: Or employee.
Mr. Dorsey: Employee, alright. Well, you know, obviously I assume that ordinance number 9-2011 carries forward to the so called exempt employees, the big five…
Mr. Perkins: Yes.
Mr. Dorsey: The percentage increase which is given to all of the employees, etc., set forth in ordinance 8-2011. Is that what we are saying?
Mr. Perkins: Yes.
Mr. Dorsey: So if you defeat ordinance 8-2011, you have to make another computation.
Mr. Greenbaum: That is not what he is asking. What he is asking…
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute, was that not what you were asking?
Mr. Greenbaum: No, what he is asking is the word all. All as if you don't give somebody a raise, does that then defeat the statutory employees' right to get any raise because the word all is in the statute.
Mayor Scapicchio: No, and I wouldn't speak for them, I will let them speak for themselves but I think they would waive that right.
Mr. Greenbaum: It's not a waivable right. What Ray is asking is a legal question based upon the clear meaning of the statute.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins has posed a direct question and…
Mr. Greenbaum: It is a legal issue.
President Tobey: Mr. Dorsey? I believe answered it already.
Mr. Greenbaum: I am not sure that Mr. Dorsey is exactly clear as to what Mr. Perkins is saying.
President Tobey: I think Mr. Dorsey needs to comment on that.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, in other words, what are we, let me ask you this. How many employees are there?
Mrs. Labow: Fifteen.
Mr. Sohl: Total employees or total exempt employees?
Mr. Dorsey: Well I know there is only five so called exempt employees.
Mr. Sohl: There are five statutory.
Mr. Dorsey: Alright, the five statutory…
Mr. Sohl: There's 22 exempt employees in total. There's 142…
Mr. Dorsey: And Ray's question is, if you deny any one of those exempt employees an increase then that is the basis upon which to deny the five statutory any increase.
Mr. Greenbaum: That is exactly what he is asking.
Mr. Perkins: At least the four because there is a different statute that governs the chief of police.
Mr. Dorsey: Well that is true so his salary is controlled specifically by what the deputy chief makes.
Mr. Perkins: Right, and the officers under him. So if we deny a raise to the entire non exempt…
Mr. Greenbaum: Or one…
Mr. Dorsey: To all of them?
Mr. Greenbaum: Or one. It doesn't matter.
Mr. Dorsey: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The answer to the question as phrased by Mr. Perkins, if you deny an increase to all of the exempt employees then obviously you can deny an increase or the same increase to the four statutory employees.
Mr. Walsh: Even thought MOTPEA got an increase.
Mrs. Maniscalco: Are you sure about that John?
Mr. Greenbaum: John, that makes no sense to me at all.
Mrs. Maniscalco: Because I've seen the court cases and I have not found that to be true.
Mr. Greenbaum: That makes absolutely no sense.
Mr. Dorsey: I never hear a word you say.
Mr. Greenbaum: The statute says all. That's the point that Mr. Perkins is making but he doesn't…
Mr. Dorsey: Now wait a minute, wait a minute Mr. Greenbaum. Is he not saying if you defeat ordinance 2011…
Mr. Roman: Eight.
Mr. Dorsey: I'm sorry, ordinance 8-2011 which includes all of these exemporary employees then you would be in a position to deny the so called exempt people, the statutory people, under 40A:9 because you would have denied everybody.
Mr. Greenbaum: You have to read the statute. It talks about municipal employees, not just exempt employees and managers. We've already given a raise, we've already given a raise to MOTPEA and to the MOP (SOP), to the police department. So, the question that Mr. Perkins raises, John…
Mr. Dorsey: So, the…
Mr. Greenbaum: John, the question that Mr. Perkins raises, if we deny it to all of the exempt employees or if we deny it to one of the exempt employees, because Ray you would agree, that it says all. So, it doesn't matter whether it is the entire group or one because we've already given raises to the municipal unions and the statute talks not only about managers but it talks about employees of the municipality so we are not denying it to all of the employees of the municipality, we are denying it to a portion of the employees of the municipality and it doesn't matter from Ray's perspective whether you deny it to everybody in that group or one because it says all. That's…
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Perkins posed the question twice and Mr. Dorsey answered it twice. We just don't agree but this is our Town Attorney.
Mr. Greenbaum: I disagree with you Phil. I'm not sure that Mr. Dorsey understands the question and I would defer to Mr. Perkins and ask him whether or not I have stated his question correctly.
President Tobey: I'm going to ask Mr. Dorsey if he understood the question.
Mr. Dorsey: This is my answer. If you deny one of these employees a raise, I don't think that means that you deny the so called statutory employees raises. It would change the percentage of increase. If you were to deny five or six other employees that you refer to as exempt, I assume exempt means they are not in the union, that would change the percentage increase that would then be applicable in 40A:9-165 but I certainly don't think because you deny one that you totally eliminate the increase that is thought of in 40A:9.
Mr. Greenbaum: The statutory employees.
Mayor Scapicchio: The statutory employees.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes.
Mayor Scapicchio: We agree.
Mr. Dorsey: Well whoop de doo. But I do agree that if you deny some of those people that are included in ordinance 8-2011 any increase that will change the percentage that the so called statutory employees would be entitled to.
Mr. Greenbaum: I agree with that.
Mayor Scapicchio: And that is laid out in the two ordinances that are in front of you.
Mr. Dorsey: Well it's not, I don't know why you say laid out, I'm not exactly sure what you mean there.
Mayor Scapicchio: It's pretty clear. You can just look at the salaries and figure it out.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Dorsey, just and to further, I really appreciate your opinions here, where does it say that it has to be the average in the statute?
Mr. Dorsey: To be perfectly frank with you, it doesn't say the average but I don't, there's always the problem in interpreting statutes so that they indeed can operate consistently with each other so therefore, I cannot accept that if you deny one exempt employee any increase that that eliminates any increase for the five statutory employees.
Mr. Perkins: Even though it doesn't include all.
Mr. Dorsey: That's right.
Mr. Perkins: But if we deny all of the non-statutory people a raise…
Mr. Dorsey: You don't mean statutory…
Mr. Perkins: The exempt employees.
Mr. Dorsey: If you deny all of them, the non-union employees, any raise then those statutory employees will not be entitled to any raise.
Mayor Scapicchio: John, there is case law and we've been down this road before.
Mr. Greenbaum: He's giving an opinion. The statute talks about not only non-exempt but all municipal employees. You are not denying it to, if you give no raise to anybody, the statutory employees are not entitled to a raise. That's clear.
Mr. Dorsey: Right.
Mr. Greenbaum: If you give a raise to a union, the statutory employees are entitled to a percentage based upon case law. I've litigated this. Lisa has litigated this.
Mrs. Maniscalco: I have the court case.
Mr. Greenbaum: I know what the law is. I have read the cases and the law is that once you give a raise, the statutory employees are entitled to raises so I can tell you that the public policy consideration is that these are people who hold positions that shouldn't be subject to the political process.
Mr. Dorsey: I agree, I agree. That's the purpose. I agree that is the purpose.
Mr. Greenbaum: And ultimately, you need to read the statute in its entirety and when it talks about all, it's not just talking about a class of employees such as exempt employees. It is talking about employees whether it be union employees, police employees, exempt employees and the fact that you exclude one person as Mr. Perkins has suggested that perhaps the law says so that you are not giving the raise to all, that doesn't negate the right of the statutory employees to the percentage raise equal to whatever was given divided by the number of employees in the Township and that is the way it works otherwise you would have municipalities giving raises to everybody except for the statutory employees that they didn't like and one other employee and then you would negate the entirety of the statutory scheme which was set up which establishes a very good public policy which is that these are positions that should not be subject to the political winds of election times when there are, it is tough to give raises, or you don't want to get rid of somebody because you don't like the way that they do, you don't like the job that the tax assessor is doing so you don't give him a raise. That's what the law is and whether we give a raise or don't give a raise to the non-exempt employees is another issue but the law is very clear with respect to the statutory employees that they are entitled to the percentage of whatever it works out to regardless of whether you exclude one person or two people.
Mr. Dorsey: Well we don't disagree on that but it is a percentage of increase.
Mr. Greenbaum: It is, wholly agreed that whatever the percentage is, is a function of a mathematical equation. We wholly agree but your opinion, John, at least the way that it has come out is that if you deny it to the non-exempt, all of the non-exempt employees, that the statutory employees don't get a raise, I believe is erroneous because you have already given raises to both MOTPEA and to the police unions.
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute.
Mr. Greenbaum: The statute doesn't…
Mr. Dorsey: Oh, oh, oh.
Mr. Greenbaum: The statute talks about the fact that it's employees, not necessarily exempt employees.
Mr. Dorsey: Okay, okay, okay, okay. When you are through shouting, I'll respond. You are right. It doesn't, it does not limit it simply to the so-called exempt employees. It involves all of the employees so therefore, the percentage increase is dictated by the what increase you have given to the other employees, the non-statutory employees.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins: I just want to thank Mr. Dorsey for going through that. Thank you, Mr. Greenbaum, for somewhat of a clarification. It will be interesting, these case laws that I've heard mentioned down there. It would be interesting to read those to see how that was derived at. It does point to a rather interesting conundrum that if the other unions had agreed to zero, then they would take zero. I think Mrs. Labow brought that up but since they didn't take zero, now they are coming back. Of course, if they had taken zero, that is what they would have gotten was zero. They wouldn't have gotten anything so. If they didn't offer me anything, what they offered me was to take zero voluntarily. My interpretation and understanding, can't speak for the other six people that are on the Council that were there during those meetings, that was the representation that was made. My understanding is that you folks, in good faith, had decided to forego your increases this year. I applauded you guys for that. Coming back, I'm not going to vote in favor of this first ordinance. It's not going to happen. The five statutory people that are entitled that are entitled, you want to take your raise, you'll take your raise. I'll have to agree with what the statute says. The other fifteen or nine people, ten people, you are going to have to, you folks got to explain to them. Thank you Mr. President.
President Tobey: Mr. Roman?
Mr. Roman: Mr. Dorsey, I have a question. Am I obligated, because the other two units received a raise, am I obligated to give these 22 employees a raise, and if we were to deny raises, am I opening up the Township to a lawsuit?
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute, I don't want to talk about the 22. Let's talk about the five that are in ordinance 9-2011 and if the union has accepted, or you have given to the union by collective bargaining an increase, then the statutory are entitled to the same percentage increase.
Mr. Roman: By union, you mean MOTPEA and the employees.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, whatever the average is. I don't know what the average is.
Mr. Roman: Right, so, but the ones being dealt with in ordinance number 8.
Mr. Dorsey: Some of those in ordinance number 8 are statutory and they are going to get it.
Mr. Roman: Right because they will be dealt with in ordinance number 9.
President Tobey: No, we're talking ordinance, you're mixing them up. Ordinance 9 is the statutory, not ordinance 8.
Mr. Dorsey: But see ordinance 8 has in it the same 5 statutory that are dealt with in ordinance 9.
Mr. Perkins: Right, effective though July 1 st .
Mr. Dorsey: Right. Right? Right?
Mr. Roman: I mean if 8 passes then 9 doesn't have to be, it can be thrown out.
Mr. Dorsey: No, I didn't say that because you have the union employees who establish, who have received raises as I understand it under the collective bargaining agreement.
Mr. Sohl: If 8 passes at 3.75, it would be fully accord with the union equivalent.
President Tobey: Mr. Greenbaum.
Mr. Greenbaum: First of all we are not passing anything tonight. These are up for first reading so, you know…
Mr. Perkins: To move them forward.
Mr. Greenbaum: Well, we do move them forward and it is not an inappropriate time to have this discussion ultimately but it is not the final word on whatever, we could move both ordinances forward ultimately and have this same discussion on second reading.
Mr. Mania: Second reading, yeah.
Mr. Greenbaum: Now I wasn't going to talk up on this particular ordinance. It is politically, it's political dynamite right now because everybody looks at municipal bias and says you know what, it is not a good time to give raises. There are people out of work. Everyone is struggling to make ends meet. We all understand it but the fact remains that we have a group of people here who tried to set the tone for what Council had expected of them which was, let's see if we can move this forward to a zero percent increase. So, these people, who are the hardest working people in the building, and I've always said that Mount Olive government would function irrespective of whether we were here or the Mayor was here because the department heads can run their own departments. These people stepped up to the plate at a time before the unions had negotiated and said, we're going to set the tone. If everyone, we'll take zero if everyone else agrees to take zero. I thought it was a tremendous move. I don't think that they should be penalized at this point in time for trying to set the tone. I applaud Miss Labow in this particular instance in terms of the stances she's taken especially in light of the fact that she is one of the two people who, both her and Mr. Walsh, who voted, the only two, who voted against the two other contracts which gave 3.75% increases but had give backs. It was of minimal impact to the municipality. Mr. Tobey, I agree wholeheartedly with you, that if we pass this particular ordinance, there is going to be a cost to the Township. It's not a wash. In fact, what we were told is that it would be a $5,000 increase instead of an $18,000 increase and I don't necessarily think that's the end of the story. I think at the end of the day, it's going to be more expensive to pass 8-2011 then it would if we passed 9-2011, which I believe we are required to do by law. Now, having said that, I don't see the justification in the way that this governing body has acted throughout the time that I've sat here, throughout the, just in light of the group of people that is ultimately going to be effected by this…somebody like Frank Wilpert, who's not going to get a raise and has brought in thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in terms of shared services. Somebody like Fred Detoro who has picked up extra responsibility and brought in thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to the Town. To the tax, the people in the tax department who have increased our collection rates. I mean you are talking about the people who run our government. It is penny foolish, however the phrase goes…
Mrs. Labow: Penny wise, pound foolish.
Mr. Greenbaum: Penny wise, pound foolish to not give a de minimis, this is a de minimis impact. It will have no real impact to the residents in Mount Olive and I understand every penny counts. We look at every penny but these are the people who run our government. It would be politically easy for me to sit up here and say, I'm not giving a raise to anybody but the fact remains that we did give raises to the police department. We were understanding of the fact that they were subject to binding arbitration and the arbitrator was going to award something that came to what we ultimately gave them and instead of going through the process of binding arbitration at the time, we decided to take a better deal which was the 3.75 plus the give backs and we actually made a de minimis impact on where we were going. I believe the number was $25,000 to give a 3.75% raise. You can talk about the raise. It sounds like a big number but ultimately when you put it on the table with the givebacks, you look at the amount, the people who were actually getting the raises and how much money they've raised for the Town, we are way ahead. Way ahead and I understand, it's politically easy. Everyone knows I'm running for Mayor. It would be easy for me to get up here and say, you know what? I'm not giving raises to anybody but we already gave the raises because we recognized the realities of where we were going with the police union which had binding arbitration. I believe that it is in the Township's best interest, unfortunately, to give this raise, to treat these employees in the same manner that we treated all of the other employees in terms of the raises and I think that we are really derelict in our duty here under these circumstances not to pass 8-2011.
President Tobey: Excuse me, no no, excuse me, one thing I'm going to respond on though, Mr. Greenbaum, is how we down play $5,000. That's the reason property taxes are where they are because there is a compound effect year after year, decade after decade because when we say, it's only five grand and it's only ten grand, that's why taxes are where they are. Mr. Dorsey.
Mr. Dorsey: I just want to say this, you know, I did not draw either ordinance eight or number nine and it seems to me that eight should not include the five statutory officers because the five statutory officers are dealt with in nine. So there is no reason for them to be dealt with in eight because if you do, that makes nine totally redundant and eight, in 40A:9-165, does not control the other people in ordinance number 8-2011 so I suggest that if you are going to adopt the ordinance, I don't have a problem with that but I think you should delete the statutory officers out of ordinance 8 because they are going to be dealt with in ordinance 9.
Mr. Perkins: We don't need both. John, there's two different, in ordinance #8-2011, the raise would become effective July 1 st with the 1.5% kickback. 9-2011 becomes effective at the beginning of the year so it would be retroactive back for those five statutory employees back to January 1 st .
Mr. Sohl: If 8 passes, you don't need 9.
Mr. Dorsey: That doesn't change what I said. Why would you have them both in the same…
Mr. Greenbaum: It's an alternative, an alternative statute.
Mr. Dorsey: There's no alternative statute.
Mr. Greenbaum: That's what they are, they are alternative statutes.
Mr. Dorsey: 40A:9-165 is the one that controls the five statutory officers.
Mrs. Labow: Ordinance.
Mr. Dorsey: The other people that are included in 8-2011 are not controlled by or supported by 40A:9-165.
President Tobey: Can I ask who drafted the ordinance then?
Mr. Sohl: If 8 passes, you don't need 9.
Mr. Greenbaum: Correct.
Mrs. Maniscalco: They represent the two proposals that are on the table, John. You have to have them both there.
Mr. Greenbaum: There was a compromise position by the statutory employees.
Mr. Dorsey: Well listen, what I say doesn't…stands. 40A:9 doesn't deal with the people, anybody other than the statutory. I don't know why you say there is something on the table or some negotiations going on but 40A:9-165 only controls the statutory employees.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins: Thank you Mr. President. My understanding, and maybe I'm wrong here, but the contracts for the MOTPEA and the FOP were already approved and then we moved in to the 2011 budget and we knew that we were going to be hard pressed and that is when we went back to the respective unions and said, you are either going to take zero this year or you're going to lose somebody. It had nothing to do with binding arbitration or otherwise because that matter was already settled in 2009 when the contract was approved for the FOP/SOP. What this was was an attempt to go back and to hold down the tax increase upon the residents of Mount Olive Township by asking them to take zero in lieu of losing more police officers from their department. The same with the MOTPEA. MOTPEA chose to lose two. The FOP/SOP came up with a creative alternative. This has nothing to do with the contracts that were negotiated. It was strictly a negotiation moving in to the 2011 tax budget season.
President Tobey: I'm going to go back to my question because I'm a little confused. It's my understanding that you, Sherry, drafted the ordinances.
Mrs. Maniscalco: Yes, let me explain, okay…
President Tobey: Before you go any further…
Mrs. Maniscalco: I'm sorry.
President Tobey: So what is our internal procedures here that the Administration or staff is drafting ordinances and our Township Attorney is not even reviewing them before this evening?
Mr. Sohl: We do it all of the time.
Mrs. Maniscalco: It's the same format and the same wording that we've used for years, NJSA…
President Tobey: Obviously it's creating an issue tonight so maybe that protocol needs to be readdressed.
Mr. Dorsey: Why is there a different effective date for the people listed in ordinance 8 then that in ordinance 9?
Mrs. Maniscalco: Because there's two different proposals on the table, John.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, I don't know what that means. What proposal are we speaking of? The negotiations the Mayor conducted with you?
Mrs. Maniscalco: Yes, yes, exactly.
Mr. Sohl: Ordinance number 8…
Mayor Scapicchio: John, John, it's not as complicated as you folks are making it out to be. It's pretty simple. We have five statutory or four statutory employees. The Chief of Police is the fifth one. They have agreed to forego the 3.75% salary increase that they are entitled to under the statute based on what the other two unions received. They are willing to share that amongst these other employees that they supervise. I think it shows leadership on their part along with some givebacks. I mean that's…
Mr. Dorsey: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm not involved in the numbers at all. I'm not trying to dictate the numbers.
Mayor Scapicchio: Okay, alright.
Mr. Dorsey: Tell me why one ordinance has an effective date of July 1 and the other ordinance has an effective date of January 1 st ?
Mayor Scapicchio: It simply represents half of the 3.75.
Mrs. Maniscalco: John, let me try to explain. The proposal that we put on the table…
Mr. Dorsey: Of course, what you're telling me is the statutory employees have agreed to take less than they would be entitled to under the percentage increase that the union employees got, right?
Mayor Scapicchio: That is correct if in fact we give it to the non-statutory employees that they supervise. The entire exempt.
President Tobey: Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh: I've sat over here patiently just listening to everybody and one thing I do have to admire is everybody's passion for this subject and, excuse us for, not to be rude, I'm sorry. Just for the people I represent, the public, I just want to make this as simple as possible and I just want to state one time so that everybody understands, the cameras are here and everything. We basically have three entities. You've got your Town employees that are regular employees that are in a union. You've got your police that are in a union and then you've got non-union employees. I just want to make it as clear as possible. The union people, both police and other employees did receive a 3.75% increase. I won't go into who voted for what. It's just that's what they got. They did giveback in order to get that. They, what's proposed here, there are five people who are exempt. In other words, whatever the union folks gets, they get. Okay? That's plain and simple. So what's been proposed, the people have said we are not going to give these non-union people a raise. Okay? And the exempt employees who are basically guaranteed the raise of whatever the union people got said, look, we'll forego our raise to help everybody and we'll just take a raise for six months, Mr. Dorsey, from July 1 st to the end of the year so that everybody will get a raise for six months and they'll also pay for 1.5% of their salary to make up for that. So they basically put a deal on the table and it's been discussed in executive session amongst everybody up here and I'm really speaking almost mostly to the camera because a lot of the people in the room understand this but not everybody. So, the question really is do we go with the one proposal which is the non-union employees get a raise for six months of the year and they give back 1.5% of their salary toward benefits, okay, and the exempt employees, the employees are going to get a raise no matter what, they're called statutory, but the five people who would get a raise no matter what have said, look, we'll forego it. We'll kick in the 1.5% of our salary, we'll take a raise for only half the year instead of the whole year to help make up for the cost. Okay, and it does make a savings for the first year, okay, but then other people have said, like Mr. Tobey. Council President Tobey said, look, I understand that they may be some savings in the first year but when you look at the fact that their salaries did go up for that year, when you look at the next year and the year after, it actually, even in the second year, you start looking at it further out and there are some estimates you have to make in order to get out into two to three years because all of the numbers are exactly…you can pretty much estimate what's going to happen. The cost savings goes down and it really becomes, it costs more. At least that's the argument that Mr. Tobey is making. So, that's what's on the table and I hope that makes it more clear just so that everybody understands and that's where we stand. I will say this to the non-union employees. Just two things. One, I'm really sorry that this has dragged out this long and two, I have a feeling that this is the cost the Township more going with the proposal you've put on the table. I, for one, really value what you do and that's not just lip service but to represent the people that we represent, I really feel, I mean I take what Mr. Greenbaum said, he has every right to feel the way he does and he's right, really but the bottom line is I just don't, I can't go with the proposal and I have to look you in the eye and say that. And I want to go with it and I'm sincere when I tell you that. I think you know that I am but unfortunately, I don't think we can do it. That's what I have to say.
Mr. Dorsey: You know there's something now that become very clear to me, not that it changes what you want to do but the statutory employees, this is really a contractual negotiated increase and not simply an increase effectuated by applying the statute.
Mr. Roman: Number 8 is.
Mr. Dorsey: Number 9 is. Number 9 is for the statutory employees, as I understand it, they didn't take the full 3.75%.
Mr. Perkins: For the whole year.
Mr. Dorsey: They are not taking it, what's in ordinance 9, so that means that both of these ordinances are negotiated. There's nothing wrong with that. This week there was all of this insistence upon the provisions of 40A:9-165. Well, it doesn't really matter because these numbers are really the result of the negotiations rather than simply the application of the statute.
Mayor Scapicchio: Not in ordinance 9-2011, John.
Mr. Greenbaum: They are alternate statutes. If 8 passes, 9 doesn't have to be heard. If 8 goes down, 9 has to be heard…
Mr. Dorsey: As I understand it, Mr. Greenbaum, I was told very specifically that 9 has to go down because it has a different starting date.
Mr. Greenbaum: No. They are alternate statutes. They're two different proposals. What the non-exempt employees are saying is, we will forego 9-2011 if 8-2011 is adopted. If 8-2011 is not adopted then 9-2011 needs to be heard and voted on.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, then if that's so, if that's so, it should be a provision some place in 9 that 9 supervises what they would have gotten under 8.
Mayor Scapicchio: Supersedes.
Mr. Dorsey: Supersedes.
Mayor Scapicchio: Correct, basically.
President Tobey: So right now in front of us we have ordinance 8-2011. Any other comments, Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL: Defeated - Mr. Mania, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Walsh & Mr. Tobey voted No.
Mayor Scapicchio: And I would challenge Mr. Perkins ability to vote on this ordinance.
President Tobey: Your statement is noted on the record.
Mr. Greenbaum: It doesn't matter in terms of the vote anyway. It fails whether Mr. Perkins voted or didn't vote.
President Tobey: Moving on. The next item on the Agenda for first reading is:
Ord.#9-2011 An Ordinance of the Township of Mount Olive Amending Ordinance #27-2009 Which Established Salaries for the Mayor, Council, Department Heads, Supervisory Personnel and Employees of the Township Clerk's Office (Statutory Officers Only).
Jim Schiess, Kevin Dr., Flanders (from the audience): A point of order. At what point does the public
get to speak on these? I don't believe you opened it to the public.
President Tobey: Excuse me, at the public hearing. At the public hearing.
Mr. Schiess: This is not the public hearing?
President Tobey: No, or at the public session later on.
Mrs. Labow: Mr. Tobey? It's just that that's first reading we don't open to the public. It's second reading so the first reading we don't open it at the time that we vote.
President Tobey: I understand that.
Mrs. Labow: I know you understand that.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins, would you be so kind?
Mr. Perkins: Yes, Mr. President, I move that Ord. #9-2011 be introduced by title and passed on first reading
and that a meeting be held on April 12, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 204 Flanders-Drakestown
Road, Budd Lake, NJ for a public hearing, consideration of second reading and passage of said Ordinance and
that the Clerk be directed to publish, post and make available said Ordinance in accordance with the
requirements of the law.
Mr. Roman: Second.
President Tobey: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Council discussion. Mr. Roman.
Mr. Roman: Mr. Dorsey, am I correct in that if, since ordinance number 8 was not moved forward that I must
vote in the affirmative on number 9?
Mr. Dorsey: I'm never going to say you must vote for an ordinance.
Mr. Roman: Would I be opening up…
Mr. Dorsey: If you are asking me whether the statutory employees listed in ordinance number 9 are entitled
to the same average increase that the unions got, I think my answer would be yes. As I understand it, and Sherry
corrected me if I'm wrong, the increases that are set forth in ordinance 9 for the 5 statutory employees are
not the full percentage that was granted to the unions. Is that right?
Mrs. Maniscalco: No, the unions got 3.75% increases and ordinance number 9-2011 represents 3.75%
Mr. Dorsey: Well, Mayor, I thought you didn't say that. I thought you said that it was different. I thought that
somebody said that 9 represented something less.
Mrs. Maniscalco: No, what he said was that we were willing to give up our raises that we were statutorily
entitled to for the benefit of all of our exempt co-workers.
Mr. Dorsey: So the answer is, ordinance 9 reflects the full statutory increase assuming that increase is 3.75,
correct, for the 5, nothing less than that.
Mrs. Maniscalco: No.
President Tobey: Any other Council questions? Seeing none, Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL: Passed with the exception, Mr. Tobey voted No.
President Tobey: Moving on to Consent Resolutions.
Mr. Roman: Don't we have number 10?
President Tobey: No, there is no number 10.
Mr. Roman: Number 10 is the police certification.
President Tobey: The next item on the Agenda for first reading is:
Ord.#10-11 An Ordinance of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive, County of Morris, State of New Jersey to Amend Chapter 48, Police Department, of the Township Code in its Entirety.
President Tobey: Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh: I have a question.
President Tobey: Can we come back to…
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to move ordinance number 8 again, 2011.
Mrs. Labow: Second.
President Tobey: A vote has already been taken.
Mr. Walsh: Colleen seconds it.
Mr. Kamin (from the audience): Is that a motion to reconsider or something? Point of order.
Mr. Dorsey: How did you vote?
Mrs. Lashway: He voted no.
Mr. Roman: He voted in the negative.
Mr. Walsh: Negative.
Mrs. Lashway: He's allowed to make that motion.
Mr. Dorsey: You voted in the negative, you can now make that motion.
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to move it again because I had recent sidebar. I'd like to reconsider number 8. I move it again.
Mrs. Labow: Second.
President Tobey: It's been moved and seconded. Roll call.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Greenbaum?
President Tobey: Excuse me. Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Can we open it for discussion?
President Tobey: Yes, please.
Mr. Perkins: And the reason is to reopen this?
President Tobey: Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh: Because I want to.
President Tobey: Okay, Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, wait a minute. You want to because you have had a change in mind. Is that correct? You are only entitled to reopen it if you are going to change your vote.
Mr. Walsh: I am.
Mr. Dorsey: Alright.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins: No.
Mrs. Lashway: Are we doing a Roll Call?
President Tobey: We are doing a Roll Call now.
Mrs. Lashway: Okay, I'll start with Rob.
ROLL CALL: Passed, with the exceptions, Mr. Mania, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tobey voted No.
Mr. Roman: I would have to assume that that fact that number 9 has to be revoted?
Mr. Greenbaum: That is not true. It's First Reading. They both move forward.
President Tobey: Okay, we are up to Ordinance #10-2011 and I believe we are up to a Roll Call.
Mr. Roman: Number 10 wasn't introduced.
President Tobey: It was.
Mr. Roman: And seconded?
Mr. Dorsey: It's the police department.
Mrs. Lashway: Did we get a second for it?
Mr. Roman: I'll second it.
President Tobey: It's been moved and seconded. Any Council discussion? Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
President Tobey: We are up to Consent Resolutions. Does anyone on Council wish to move any to Non-Consent? Seeing none, Mr. Roman would you kindly move Consent Resolutions 1 through 10.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS AGENDA:
Resolutions on the Consent Agenda List are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Township Council and will be approved by one motion (one vote). There will be no separate discussion or debate on each of these resolutions except for the possibility of brief clarifying statements that may be offered. If one or more Council member requests, any individual resolution on the Consent Agenda may be removed from the Consent Agenda List and acted on separately.
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive Adopting the Updated Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration of the Mount Olive Township Police Department. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing a Grant Application Submission to the Morris County Historic Trust for 2011 (Seward Mansion). PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing the Submission of a Grant Application to the Morris County Historic Trust for 2011 (Baptist Church). PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A warding a Contract to Allied Biological, Inc. for Contact Herbicide Application to Budd Lake. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing a Temporary Capital Budget Amendment for the Acquisition of Property. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing the Mayor to Execute Various Professional Services Agreements. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A warding a Contract to Garden Laboratories for Water Testing Services. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A warding a Contract to National Fence System for Fence Materials and Installation at Turkey Brook Park. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing William Sohl, Business Administrator to Execute the NJDEP Treatment Works Permit Application for Marveland Estates. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive A uthorizing the Mayor to Execute a Grant Application for Click It or Ticket 2011 Mobilization. PDF Resolution
- Resolution of the Township Council of the Township of Mount Olive S upporting the Proposed Amendment to the Open Public Records Law to Preserve its Original Intent. PDF Resolution
Mr. Roman: I would like to move for approval of Consent Resolutions 1 through 11, is what I have on my…
Mrs. Labow: Second.
President Tobey: I'm sorry, 1 through 11.
Mrs. Labow: Second.
President Tobey: Any Council discussion? Does anyone from the public wish to be heard? Seeing none, Roll Call please.
PUBLIC PORTION ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS - None
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS - None
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
RESOLUTIONS NON-CONSENT - None
PUBLIC PORTION ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS - None
COUNCIL COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RESOLUTIONS - None
President Tobey: We are up to Consent Motions. We have three listed. Mr. Mania would you be so kind?
Approval of a Peddler's Permit for Frank Gallo and Ebony Ali.
Approval of Raffle Application #2393 for K of C Council #6100 Fr. Joseph A. Cassidy Council;
Raffle Application #2394 & #2395 for PTSA Lenape Valley; Raffle Application #2396 for NJ District #6 Vasa Order of America; and Raffle Application #2397 for Mt. Olive Child Care and Learning Center.*
Bill List. PDF Bill List
Mr. Mania: Mr. President, I move the Consent Motions one through three.
Mrs. Labow: Second.
President Tobey: It's been moved and seconded. Does anyone from the public have any questions on the Bill List? Seeing none, Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL: Passed Unanimously
President Tobey: We're up to Administrative Reports. Mayor, Mr. Sohl?
Mr. Sohl: Nothing.
OLD BUSINESS - None
Vice President Roman: Any Old Business? Any New Business, Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Yes, thank you Mr. President. I had asked at the last meeting… we had an issue brought forward by a resident with a specific complaint against our Clerk, one of many complaints against our Clerk. There was one specific allegation that I had asked that we addressed either in Executive Session or in Open or to set up a committee. You were not available at the last meeting and my understanding is that the employee has been “riced” and has given up the right to have that question and investigation done in Executive Session. It now would be the appropriate time on our Agenda to address at least the one issue from the resident. There are others that I believe the body of this Council, sitting at this point in time, we are getting close into an Election and I don't want this to become a political fodder. This is allegations of wrong doings and it's always tough to investigate your own, especially if there are ethical violations. Everybody will get a chance to read the… please pick up the Mount Olive Chronicle. This week you'll get to hear my Ethics stuff in there. I'm very much aware of when someone makes a complaint against you and it's not the easiest thing to address. However, there is an issue that we have to address with Lisa Lashway, our Clerk. There was a complaint made by the Uhrmanns from Jennies Lane in Hackettstown. The specific complaint centered around the General Elections from June 8 th of last year, with being locked out of their place of polling. Having made numerous attempts to gain entry unsuccessfully, they had left. These are also; all of these charges are available on the Township Website under the Minutes from each one of those meetings other than the Workshop meeting which can be gotten through an OPRA request through the Clerk's office. Inevitably what happened is the doors were locked. I don't think that it was any issue or malice on behalf of our Clerk. I don't think that she knew the door was locked. When she found out that it was locked, I think she took everything within her power to make sure that it was resolved. The folks unfortunately had gotten in touch with the Election Commission from the County. The Democratic Chair had received an e-mail relative to the lack of access into the building. The Daily Record had an article about it, insinuating that there were some issues. The Mayor was supposed to have undertaken an investigation of this incident. Subsequently, he did not do that. There was a complaint that was filed and the Mayor held off his investigation. The residents continued to contact myself, other Council members and to my understanding also the office of the Mayor looking for remedy. They have come to their legislative officers, demanded of us to make an investigation. As I look through, I would ask Lisa, Mrs. Lashway… again, I believe that what you did in following up was correct and that you did produce the records for the doors. The tapes showed that the doors were locked. It was through no fault of your own. As far as I'm concerned, I believe Mr. Mania has sat there along with Mr. Tobey and we reviewed. You did nothing wrong per those doors. That part of the allegation, I understand from the Minutes, from the Uhrmanns, that they understand that things could happen. The problem that seems to have existed, that came from this was when you had sent an e-mail and brought up an incident with these folks that had transpired a year prior, which really was not germane to the issue of the doors being locked. I believe if I'm not mistaken, and I think Mr. Uhrmann is out in the audience that eventually what they were looking for was at least some sort of an apology and not to be, in their actual words, “slandered” and made to have the appearance of being some sort of fools. Do you understand? I guess what I need to understand is why did you feel compelled to add that last…
Mrs. Lashway: Can I read the memo into the record that's in question here?
Mr. Perkins: Yes mam.
Mrs. Lashway: Because I've had many people read it and nobody has found any problem with the way this memo is worded. When I got the call from the County that the Uhrmanns could not get in to vote, I immediately came back and interviewed the dispatcher and started a fact finding mission. It wasn't until actually a couple of… a week…. or so later with Captain Spitzer that we determined that it happened at the dispatch area, okay. The memo that I wrote at 1:00pm on Election Day after trying to gather as much information as I could, it was addressed to Toni Desimone who is in the Election department. He was asked by Chairman Sette to ask me to find out what went on.
The “Vote Here” sign issued by the County was on the glass entrance doors to District 10 & 11in the Courtroom at Town Hall. It was placed there by Poll worker Eugenie Scholtz at 5:15 am and it is still there. It is on the inside of the glass. We have placed another one outside as well for more direction. All eight poll workers entered those doors by 5:15 am. I was here at 5 am and assisted District 10 & 11 with moving the machines in to the Court room. I entered those doors at about 5:05 am with no problem. I then ran over to the Senior Center to make sure they were okay over there since their machines were not moved and tables set up either. Due to staff cuts and OT cuts, we did not authorize an employee to come in early and set up the tables and move the machines. I informed our Dispatcher where I was and if the County called looking for me to have them call me on my personal cell phone which has previously been provided to you.
The first voter, Morris County Sheriff's Department Officer James Murtha and his wife arrived at District 10 prior to 6 am and had to wait until 6 am to vote. The poll workers have received no complaints. They had three voters by 7 am.
I was at my desk from 5:15 am on. The front doors and the security doors to access my office have been open since 5 am. I spoke with Dispatch and a police officer who confirmed that those doors have been open since 5 am. I am familiar with the complainant and she knows where my office is if she had a concern. Apparently she called a Council person about this, who then called dispatch to find out if the polls were open. At no time did anyone bother to call or come see me.
The poll workers remember Ms. Uhrmann as there was an issue with her voting there last year when she became angry because they could not find her name under the name that she provided to them. She said she was Charlie Uhrmann but they eventually found her under Wood-Uhrmann, Charlene. She then calmed down and said that she should get that changed.
Township of Mount Olive
P.O. Box 450
Budd Lake, NJ 07828
973-691-0900 Ext. 7290
Mr. Perkins: And you feel that it was appropriate to have to add, somehow to this… to Tony, to let him know that the Poll Workers remembered Mrs. Uhrmann from an issue with her voting when she became angry last year? Did that have anything to do with the doors being locked? Which again was not your fault. Did that have anything to do with that issue?
Mrs. Lashway: No, it was a statement that was mentioned to me when I was conducting my interview and I thought it was pertinent to my memo.
Mr. Perkins: I believe that, that is and that's what I've been told. I know Mr. Mania has been told the same thing and so has Mr. Tobey. That portion of that memo, which was I believe also in Mrs. Uhrmann's Minutes that we have, was something that she took offense to and I believe that even at that point when she came in and made the discussion, and of course we have the Minutes and I know because you sent me this and I know you have them. That originally they were looking for just an apology. I think we have the duty, regardless of who the person is and there is enough people in this Township that probably don't like me and that's understandable, that's okay but I still treat everybody with the same respect as a civil servant. That's what we do, that's part of our job. The question that again, that I have is I don't believe and I don't know how the rest of the Council feels and I don't know how you feel in retrospect; that maybe that was not the best thing to have put on there. Especially if there was already a fire that was fueled which apparently there was because a Council member had been contacted, Mr. Sette was contacted and this thing was now mushrooming into something that you needed to get your hands on and you did a great job in doing that. I just don't think that you should have included that last paragraph in your memo to Tony. I don't think it had anything to do with the doors being locked. I think you answered his question about the dispatch and the 5am and the doors and that Officer Murtha had come through. You were very succinct and very clear. I just don't think you should have added that portion to the bottom and I believe that's part of what the Uhrmanns are complaining about, is that you had done that. Do you understand where they're coming from?
Mrs. Lashway: I understand, I understand.
Mr. Perkins: It had nothing to do with your otherwise professional handling of the situation and taking care of it. It was strictly a matter of utilizing and maybe out of your frustration that day, I don't know but adding that last paragraph. Sometimes we all go back and look at something that we've written and go, damn it, I wish I didn't put that down there but that's what happened. I mean from this point there are, as I mentioned to Mr. Dorsey the last time, there are a cornucopia worth of other complaints. Most of them, from what I see, deal with ethics and I don't think that this body can look at that. It may be as Mr. Dorsey suggested at the last meeting that we go to an outside firm. Somebody's that separated from us that are up here so that there's no political shenanigans that are involved in it and let them investigate all of these allegations, all of these briefs and let them come up with a conclusion.
Mr. Dorsey: Well, I didn't suggest that should be done. I just stated that it was a possibility.
Mr. Perkins: That's right, that's what I said.
Mr. Dorsey: There was never a time when anybody was interested in doing it.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Tobey, you're Council President. We sit here, we've had the complaints. The Uhrmanns thought they had remedy through the Mayor's office. It didn't happen, now we're back to us. I brought this forward. It's not easy to discuss this. We all hate to talk about our own and Congressman Rangel didn't bother me with him at all but it's not easy to have to sit and talk about your own mistakes. We all make mistakes. Again, I'm just looking at this from that standpoint. I think you may agree, I hope you do, that it was probably inappropriate for that. How this Council decides now to move forward Mrs. Lashway, with the balance of these…. I mean it brings in Councilman Greenbaum, it brings in Councilwoman Labow, it brings yourself back in there. This thing, it mushrooms out and I think this needs to be handled somewhere else other than at this local level. Mr. President….
President Tobey: You have advice for us Mr. Dorsey, based upon Mr. Perkins statements and requests?
Mr. Dorsey: No, no, I have no other advice other than I offered to you an alternative to the investigation being done here and you told me at that time there was no…
Mrs. Lashway: John, could you speak closer to the mic for me please.
Mr. Dorsey: Let me make it clear that I have no particular legal advice. The decision is to whether or not any investigation is needed by anybody as to Mrs. Lashway is pure policy decision by the Council. I don't recommend that but that's a decision for the Council.
President Tobey: Well, where we left off several months ago for the record was that a letter was being prepared to give to the Mayor to send to the DCA to conduct an independent investigation. So my question is, was the letter ever sent? Since I see this is being lobbied back onto my lap here.
Mr. Dorsey: I never sent a letter.
Mayor Scapicchio: Nobody ever authorized me to send a letter.
President Tobey: Okay, I was in your office, Mayor, just for the record okay, since this is being pushed here and I'll deal with it but I was in your office when Mr. Dorsey stated that he prepared a letter for you to send to the DCA for an independent investigation.
Mr. Dorsey: No, I said I could prepare a letter. I didn't say I prepared a letter. I may have said…
President Tobey: Okay, so Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Mr. President, at this point, having spoken with Mrs. Uhrmann and I know you have and I know John has and I know Pat, you guys went through some telephone calls and e-mails. She's come here and telling us and I believe she is correct, that her choice of remedy is not for us to decide, so to send her to the Department of Community Affairs, to the Government Records Council… she has an option and they have decided that they want this heard through their Legislative Branch under our investigative powers. The question to you and the rest of this Council is do we move forward with further investigations into all of the allegations that have been presented to us back in September as well as any of the other ones that may have been sent through via e-mail and get this disposed of so that everybody… as I've said before, where the egg drops, the egg drops. If we did something wrong, we'll make it correct. Whatever needs to be done but we can't shirk our responsibility. This started in June of last year and we're now in April and it's been that many months and this is, other than the last meeting this is the first time anything has been brought up. With the exception of an ongoing “investigation” maybe by the New Jersey Games of Legalized Chance.
President Tobey: So it's your position Mr. Perkins that there's enough in there to warrant then an investigation?
Mr. Perkins: There's enough to warrant an investigation and we need to come up with some conclusion. We need to have some, in my opinion, not only some Council members but maybe we need some people that are separate from this. Especially in this political climate that you know, in all deference to my opponent, I don't think either him nor I want to necessarily be the ones that are sitting up here making a judgment call and doing an investigation because the fingers always have a way of coming out during election time. I think we all know that.
President Tobey: So the question is, is there Council support to move an investigation forward?
Mr. Dorsey: I think that would be the first Roll Call to take.
President Tobey: Lisa?
Mr. Roman: I want to hear a clear Motion. What's the Motion here?
Mr. Dorsey: I think the Motion would be… a Motion would be that someone may move based upon the allegations received from Mrs. Uhrmann that the Council would undertake an investigation of those allegations vis-à-vis the Township Clerk.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. President, I make a Motion that we schedule an investigative session or sessions to undertake an investigation into allegations made by the residents, the Uhrmanns, 12 Jennies lane, Hackettstown against our Municipal Clerk Lisa Lashway, our Councilman Robert Greenbaum and Councilwoman Colleen Labow.
Mr. Mania: I'll second it.
Mr. Greenbaum: What are the complaints against me?
Mrs. Labow: Yeah, what are the complaints against me?
Mr. Dorsey: Well, wait a while. You'll find out, you'll find out.
Mr. Roman: A choice of tie for once.
President Tobey: Mrs. Labow?
Mrs. Labow: So now that he's presented it like that, then I don't think… obviously I can't vote on it.
Mr. Dorsey: You know, I think it is inappropriate for the Council to even think of undertaking an investigation of a fellow Councilperson because you're all equal and there's no action that the Council can take to dismiss a Council person who hasn't vacated his seat.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Dorsey, I tend to agree with you it's just that my fellow Council members are named in some of the allegations that have been sent so if we're going to look at everything that the Uhrmanns have provided to us then we need to take a look at that and direct it to where it has to go and if that specific portion, if that Council member that's being… I guess pointed out, accused or whatever the proper word is, maybe from that particular meeting, that Council person needs to recuse them self from that.
President Tobey: Mr. Perkins, I have to say, I actually agree with Mr. Dorsey. If a resident has a complaint against a Council member, they need to file that with the Ethics I believe. I do not believe it's our responsibility to investigate Council members.
Mr. Perkins: That was my direction through the complainants, that they should address those ethically to the Ethics Committee. They said “no,” they wanted to come here. We can address that back most definitely Mr. Tobey.
President Tobey: So there's a Motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Mr. Roman: There was a second.
President Tobey: There was a Motion from Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Mania: I seconded it.
President Tobey: It was seconded to move forward with…
Mr. Mania: An investigation.
President Tobey: With an investigation with regards to the Township Clerk and the Council members. Lisa, Roll Call please.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Greenbaum?
Mrs. Labow: My question, my question wasn't answered yet. I can't… it's involving…
Mr. Greenbaum: I can't even participate in this absurdity so I'm just going to say good night to everybody.
Mrs. Labow: Good night.
Mr. Greenbaum: Why don't you give me a call and let me know what the allegations are Ray. I would really appreciate it. Good night. (left the meeting)
Mrs. Lashway: Mrs. Labow?
Mrs. Labow: I'm also leaving. (left the meeting)
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Mania?
Mr. Mania: Yes.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins: Yes.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh: Four letter words are ready to come out but I'm going to hold it back. I think this is absurd and I just can't wait until Mount Olive can move pass this kind of ridiculous politics. (left the meeting)
President Tobey: Mr. Walsh, Roll Call please.
Mrs. Lashway: Are you giving a vote? (to Mr. Walsh)
Mr. Roman: I guess not.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Roman?
Mr. Roman: No.
Mrs. Lashway: Mr. Tobey?
President Tobey: No, I do not agree with the Council members.
Mr. Dorsey: Alright, so the Resolution fails.
Mr. Roman: Motion.
Mr. Dorsey: Motion.
President Tobey: Moving on to…
Mr. Perkins: Thank you everybody. Thank you everybody for taking the time.
President Tobey: Moving on to Legal Matters, Mr. Dorsey?
Mr. Dorsey: No, I've had enough.
President Tobey: Any Council Reports?
Board of Education Liaison Report
Mr. Roman: Real quick, I have one. Last night the Board of Ed had their budget presentation. To my surprise it was sparsely attended. I don't know if that foretells of an easy vote for the budget and that's it.
Recreation Liaison Report – None
Board of Health Report – None
Planning Board Report – None
Open Space Committee Report – None
Legislative Committee Report – None
Pride Committee Report – None
Lake/Environment Issues Committee – None
Safety Committee Liaison – None
Economic Development Committee Report – None
Library Board Liaison – None
Senior Citizen Liaison – None
Community Development Revenue Sharing – None
President Tobey: Thank you. We're up to the Public Portion. Does anyone from the public wish to be heard? Yes sir.
Mr. Dick Kamin, Flanders: Just as a note of commentary, as former Chairman of the Ethics Committee I think the effort, the things that you tried to move tonight were totally inappropriate. There's a proper place for Election Law concerns and to report violations. It's called the County, the Election Board. The response from John Sette who is a member of that Board should suffice. That's why those reports were written, that's why they were drafted. I think the Clerk acted in an expeditious manner. As far as some of the other things tonight, just help me so I understand it. As I believe, there was 142 employees of the Township?
Mr. Sohl: Correct, full time employees.
Mr. Kamin: There is a subset of that of exempt employees of 22?
Mr. Sohl: Correct.
Mr. Kamin: And a sub-subset of those 22 of 5?
Mr. Sohl: Correct.
Mr. Kamin: Okay. What concerns me tonight at some of the discussion was that there were discussions, proposals in Executive Session. I guess the rules of engagement have changed on this Council so that when we meet in Executive Session or you meet in Closed Session, those things don't stay in Executive Session and they don't stay in Closed Session. So no wonder the employees of the Township don't want to meet and discuss things with you as candidly as they can for the betterment of the Town because what they had to say is not held in the sacred trust. Whoever sits down and works the next negotiations for a binding contract, take that into account and for our employees, they should take that into account too. Now we realize it is tough times. The reason the public employees, the exempt employees, have to go this route is because without it there would be what's called compression. I dealt with it at the State where the contracted employees continue to get the raises and the exempts did not and then you have often times, someone under your authority who ends up making more then you. So it's just not the politics of those individuals, it's the reality of what happens when salary contracts ratchet up compensation. The fact that the employees stepped forward to give an option, and to try to share that option so that the 22 exempt employees would get something, seems to me to be commendable. I had made a note about the ability or the political action… position you took tonight that was moved by Mr. Walsh, for the Motion to reconsider. That was the right thing to do tonight so now when you decide to meet, you have both of those options, ordinance eight and nine to review. So kick the can down the road a little bit here, in between now and the next two weeks you'll have a chance to air that out in public debate. As far as the other changes that have been kicking around here, I guess we have the blogs and we have the over the fence talk but there's enough important things for our Township to be addressing that if there are Election Law violations, take them to Election Law. If there are violations of that, go to the proper authority. The Council members should stay focused on the Agenda and that is to provide leadership and to provide direction for this Township. Filing date is I guess about a week and a half away. We'll see who wants to play this year. I wish you well.
President Tobey: Thank you, anyone else from the public?
Nelson Russell, Budd Lake: You have this public session, you have a public session after Motions; you have a public participation after Resolutions. Based on tonight's (inaudible), I suggest we have one after Ordinances.
President Tobey: Well, tonight's ordinances were First Reading and that Public Portion would be at the Second Reading when it's moved forward.
Mr. Russell: If I had some questions about that Ordinance, I'd have to wait until this portion to address it rather than when it was being discussed. Just a suggestion.
President Tobey: We'll take that into consideration moving forward thank you.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
President Tobey: Anyone else from the public? Yes sir.
Ned McDonnell, Budd Lake: I agree with Mr. Russell. I have come up here previously when there are ordinances for Second Reading and usually by the time they're up for Second Reading it seems to me, it's pretty much a done deal as far as the council goes. I rarely have seen anything change during the Second Reading and I really think that the public should be allowed to comment during the First Reading because as some people say, you've got another two weeks to digest it. Where if you could only talk about an ordinance at the Second Reading, it's just a moment's time that anything can be considered and I don't really think that's fair. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL COMMENTS - None
President Tobey: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to be heard? Seeing none, I'll accept a Motion to adjourn.
Motion made and seconded, all in favor and none opposed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Alex Roman, Council Vice President
I, Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk of the Township of Mount Olive do hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes is a true and correct copy of the Minutes approved at a legally convened meeting of the Mount Olive Township Council duly held on April 26, 2011.
Lisa Lashway, Township Clerk