Mayoral candidate Robert Jackson is chiding rival candidate Harvey Susswein and his fellow For Montclair candidates for what he deems a “troubling” failure to grasp the nuances of issues regarding the Fire Department and the selection of Board of Education members.
In a statement issued today, Jackson — who heads the “Montclair 2012” slate — blasts the other slate for two recent position papers:
At the March 17, 2012 budget meeting “For Montclair” took the position that the MFD must be 20% overstaffed if it could assume the Glen Ridge contract – supposedly 20% of our total business – without increasing staff.
If elected, “ For Montclair” stated they will invoke the “exit provision” in the contract in order to negotiate a better deal. If reopening the negotiations results in Bloomfield’s likely take over of the contract, will “For Montclair” layoff the 20% of the Montclair Fire Department pursuant to its public position?
Mayoral candidate Robert Jackson says the “For Montclair” position shows a troubling lack of understanding regarding the economics of the fire contract. “I implore ‘For Montclair’ to get a handle on the real economics of the Glen Ridge contract” said Jackson. “Speak to Chief Allen and get a full understanding of the level of service and corresponding costs before you blow the deal. ‘For Montclair’ has taken a frighteningly short sighted position on this issue”
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Harvey Susswein states that he will forego his responsibility to appoint members to the BOE and instead leave appointments up to the council.
Robert Jackson says as Mayor he will embrace the responsibility of selecting BOE members. “The voters of Montclair elect a Mayor to select BOE members. That responsibility is a serious one and one that should not be cavalierly handed off. The voters place their confidence in the Mayor and the Mayor needs to stand up. Who wants a Mayor who is not willing to embrace his most important assignment: selecting the individuals who will direct the educational future of our children?”
Nothing to see here.
These guys have “loser” written all over them.
So, I think I understand this. The slate that would put a Teacher’s Union President (Sean Spiller) across the table from the local Teacher’s Union in negotiations, is lecturing another slate on the nuances of running a township.
Actually there are two union leaders on the Jackson-Russo slate; Spiller and Bob Russo, who runs some faculty union or other. What’s scarier to me about Jackson is that, as I learned on the Baristanet trading cards yesterday, he worked for Sharpe James and was head of the Essex County Department of Public Works for a time. It didn’t say how long. That’s not a job you get for knowing a lot about snow removal. How will this slate ever lay off any workers when they seem so tied to the County machine and unions. Those workers are votes for the county dems.
Hmmmmm…..
On page 38 of the Charter Commission Study, which established Montclair’s form of government, the issue of BOE appointments came up and this is what they had to say:
page 39 the study notes:
“In Montclair the mayor appoints members of the Board of Education, the Library Board, the Planning Board, and also serves as chairman of the Board of School Estimate. Under the Council-Manager Form the individual selected by the council as mayor is empowered to make these appointments without the advice and consent of the other members of the council. While a responsible mayor would informally seek the counsel of his peers in making such appointments, the Charter Study Commissioners believe that a more formal system of council confirmation would be desirable.”
RoC and bigblue042: thank you for exposing Jackson/Russo as union hacks. Vote for them and you are voting for higher taxes.
Mr. Jackson,
The Glen Ridge fire deal wasn’t fair to Montclair taxpayers. Rather than engaging in a race to the bottom with Bloomfield, why not see if we can make a deal that includes Bloomfield, and from which all participants benefit? Why not ask West Orange, which could benefit from the Nishuane firehouse? It’s not too late; that’s the good news about the Glen Ridge deal having an exit clause. Let’s see if we can do better for Montclair. Our slate will.
On BOE appointments, I’m delighted at the prospect of an advice and consent system for such important positions. If a candidate for BOE cannot win the affirmative votes of a majority of the Council, the Mayor might well want to reconsider the selection. If the next Council is as dysfunctional as the current one — which it won’t be if voters elect For Montclair — the Mayor still will have his unilateral powers. But isn’t it better to have consensus if consensus is possible? Advice and consent works at the state and federal level; why not here?
I look forward to debating these issues out on the trail.
Best,
Jeff Jacobson
Third Ward Candidate
For Montclair
The slate that would put a Teacher’s Union President (Sean Spiller) across the table from the local Teacher’s Union in negotiations, is lecturing another slate on the nuances of running a township.
I want a t-shirt with a logo in the style of the old superman comics that says: “ROC.”
They would sell like hotcakes.
As I understand it, the exit clause in the fire contract does not activate until 5 years in…
“RoC and bigblue042: thank you for exposing Jackson/Russo as union hacks.”
I learned about Spiller from Jeff Jacobson (running on For Montclair slate) on Patch. I looked up spiller online. You can read about him and hear him speak on videos. He seems like a stand-up guy and an admirable leader. If i were in a union I’d want him to be president.
I just don’t personally want a union president (Wayne NJ Teachers union) on the “management” side of things. I don’t think it makes sense.
“I just don’t personally want a union president…. on the management side of things.”
I agree. Why, who does he think he is, Ronald Reagan?
If Reagan had been running a president of Warner Bros. you’d have a point.
Yes, because we know that union presidents and union members always side with the unions. Like Reagan, former president of the Screen Actors Guild, did when he came down so favourably on the side of the Air Traffic Controllers, and the various other unions he showed so much love to as “management”.
Perhaps it runs counter to “libertarian” impulses to view individuals on their own merits and consider that they might put aside their own interest for the greater good. Perhaps because that’s not how YOU would roll?
Reagan did like his Chesterfields, though.
https://rancidpopcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/reagan-chesterfield.jpg
I’m not feeling these slates. I’m presently at Jackson, Advicevic, Barr and Zorich.
All the politics aside, there *is* something strange about our being able to handle Glen Ridge’s fire protection w/o a staffing increase. It does suggest that, should be not be providing that service, we’d have excess capacity in the FD that could be removed.
If this is wrong, someone should explain it clearly.
If this is correct, someone should quantify it so that we know exactly what costs we’re incurring to provide this service.
To me, this sounds too much like the situation Cary has described when we moved responsibility for the parking lots to the Authority. It hired, but the town didn’t downsize.
…Andrew
You may believe, cro, that a union president who also served on the negotiating team for the Wayne Teacher’s Union, will keep the township’s needs a higher priority than those of his union brothers and sisters, but I don’t.
By the way, I would also think putting a developer on the planning board, or putting a contractor in charge of code enforcement, would be similarly bad ideas.
“It does suggest that, should be not be providing that service, we’d have excess capacity in the FD that could be removed.”
It does suggest that. Yet none of the slates will address that very obvious question. I’ve asked “For Montclair” that very question twice. And they studiously ignore it.
ROC, perhaps you also don’t care for US Senators or Congressmen retiring and then lobbying their old colleagues on behalf of a coal mining company ?
But Spiller wouldn’t be negotiating contracts for the teachers, right? He wouldn’t even really be negotiating contracts for township workers, unless the council put him on that committee. The manager does that.
I just don’t see how his union job for another school districts precludes him from being a part-time council member in Montclair.
nope, Spiro, don’t mind that. We have this concept of free speech I subscribe to. I’d have no problem with Spiller lobbying anyone he wants to. But I, personally would not elect a lobbyist to office.
If he were on the Montclair Council and was negotiating the Montclair contract then yes, I’d have a problem with it. But he’s not. The issues in Wayne are not, by definition, the same as those in Montclair. No one should be excluded from the opportunity to participate in representative democracy because of their chosen profession, as long as it isn’t criminal or a DIRECT conflict of interest.
That’s how I understand democracy but then, your version is usually quite different.
You’re knocking down a straw man, cro. Someone has to lose the election and be “excluded.”
“You may believe, cro, that a union president who also served on the negotiating team for the Wayne Teacher’s Union, will keep the township’s needs a higher priority than those of his union brothers and sisters, but I don’t.” – ROC
Sure, ROC, it’s the same conflict of interest that faces that senator who also served in congress for the American people, and now suddenly keeps his coal producer’s needs a higher priority than those of the fellow Americans he once served.
“But he’s not.”
If elected, he could be put on the BOSE. That gives him quite a bit of responsibility for the school district’s budget.
“No one should be excluded from the opportunity to participate in representative democracy because of their chosen profession.”
In general, this is a reasonable statement. However, this ignores that conflicts of interest can and do occur which do impact suitability for service of specific people in specific roles.
It is also worth noting that we’re not speaking of his profession so much as his chosen role as an advocate for members of that profession. It’s a subtle difference, and perhaps it is a meaningless one. But there should be no surprise that someone acting as an advocate for one side of a conversation wouldn’t be welcome as an advocate for the other side.
…Andrew
Yes Andrew. He could be placed on the BOSE. And that body deals with MONTCLAIR’S schools, not with Wayne’s. You assume that a union member will always, in every case, side with members of a union, even if that local is not their own. I make no such assumption, and wonder how you’ve arrived at such certainty. Actually, i think that someone who has been an “advocate” for one “side” is perhaps uniquely qualified to bring perspective and a fresh set of eyes to problems, and may at the same time be made aware of realities to a greater degree than was the case in the past. I’d look at the individual, not the title.
I suppose then that we should keep all lawyers off the council because they have to approve the contract for the town attorney, and you know that they all stick together and watch out for one another.
Why not just cultivate a ruling class, folks who are independent and wealthy and are not involved in any meaningful pursuit, so as to avoid any cross over. You know, like Mitt Romney for example.
Whats with all the union bashing people? Are we in Montclair or Wisconsin? Is the solution to our problems really making sure that our teachers and the people who pick up our trash don’t have decent benefits? I’m not saying give away the store but jeez
You must be new here, moiraine.
And ‘roo, I should have made it clear that I meant “excluded from consideration” rather than simply “excluded”. Sure, you can decide not to vote for someone because he/she is a union president. Or gay. Or black. Or white. Or female. Or Jewish. Or whatever. But it seems pretty backward thinking to me.
By the way, I’d caution you about jumping ugly with me. My winning entry from last April has been noted on the Holly thread, and I now hold the “featured comment” distinction as well. Do you know who you’re dealing with?
Yes, I suppose I am *relatively* new to Montclair. However, I thought I was moving to a town that had progressive values.
moiraine, No union bashing will be coming from me.
Union membership is a big part of our family heritage. WIthout a doubt, the unions helped our family ease into the middle class from a humble immigrant start in the USA, starting almost 100 years ago.
However, I thought I was moving to a town that had progressive values.
It does. I wouldn’t judge the whole town on the half-dozen or so comments on this thread.
It is a featured comment worthy of the title, cro. I have a fond memory of Windsor Knot–it reminded me at the time, coming during baseball season, I think, of one of those home run swings that looks so effortless it leaves no doubt that the ball is sailing over the wall and into the river.
ROC, my apologies. I haven’t been ignoring your question — I’ve just been busy with other aspects of the campaign. As you see, all of us on the For Montclair slate — Harvey Susswein, Tim Barr, Bill Hurlock, Walter Springer and I — are working very hard to get our positions out on many issues important to Montclair.
I think there’s little question that if we hadn’t renewed the deal with Glen Ridge, layoffs in the Fire Department would have been a serious possibility. My suspicion as a Third Warder is that the Nishuane firehouse would have been in the crosshairs, which I would have opposed strongly. If our only two choices were to sign the Glen Ridge deal on the table or let it go, I think I agree it was better, on balance, to sign.
But those really shouldn’t have been the only two choices, and we shouldn’t consider ourselves locked in to this outcome for the next decade just because it was the best the current Mayor could do. For Montclair thinks we can do better by reengaging with our neighbors, and we are asking our fellow Montclair residents to give us the chance to try.
Thanks!
Jeff Jacobson
Third Ward Candidate
For Montclair
Hmmmm..
So the recommendations of the Charter Study Commission trumpet the
law?
Novel.
Can you go back in your archives and find a Commission that
recommended that I shouldn’t have to pay my taxes? Thanks!
That’s not an answer Mr. Jacobson.
Let me make it simple so a yes or no answer will suffice.
If you get Montclair out of the contract with Glen Ridge will you layoff Fire Department personnel?
So Cro/Spiro. If Spiller was appointed to the BOSE and then was asked to vote on a cut to Montclair teacher’s health care benefits as a result of state funding cuts to Montclair. You would anticipate that he would be able to make his decision in an unbiased manner, although he would surely lose his position as President of the Wayne’s teacher’s union? Really?
Whoops…forgot to add if Spiller voted in support of the benefit cut.
Stu,
“although he would surely lose his position as President of the Wayne’s teacher’s union”
Thats just as presumptuous!
It is also not particularly accurate. Benefits are negotiated. Not a tangible line item in a single budget. Mr. Spiller would not be part of those negotiations. What should be questioned, would be his input, to whatever Mayor elected, on who is appointed to the BOE.
Maybe, this topic would be good for a reporter to ask, or as a question at the debates. It should definitively apply to all of the For Montclair slate considering their Mayoral candidates position on BOE appointees validation by the Council as a whole.
I don’t know Spiller, stu, so i don’t know if he could make a decision, ANY decision, in an unbiased manner. But I also don’t know that he would make one in a biased manner simply because he’s a union prez. That’s why one makes these voting decisions based on a knowledge, inasmuch as that is possible, of the individual — not on what that individual does in his/her work.
Nor do I assume that, were he to vote against a Montclair union position, he’d lose his position in Wayne. I know of 3 people who are teachers in one community and yet serve on the elected boards of ed in other communities. They have at times held out against what they felt were unreasonable demands from their town’s teachers. And there have been no repercussions. ROC and others are fond of telling us how “liberals” aren’t so liberal when their own money is involved. If that’s true, wouldn’t this be a perfect example of that?
“Thats just as presumptuous!”
Perhaps, call me a pessimist.
“ROC and others are fond of telling us how “liberals” aren’t so liberal when their own money is involved. If that’s true, wouldn’t this be a perfect example of that?”
Your anecdotal evidence is interesting, but I’d have to trust you to believe it. I’m not so sure I can. Maybe Spiller gets elected and we’ll see how he does when such an issue arises. I’ve heard many unreasonable requests made by unions. They tend to play the go for the jugular game and then settle on a light kidney punch. It’s easy to deny requests when they are wholly outrageous. Quite honestly, we really can’t argue about this issue since it’s all hypothetical. On this one, I can agree to disagree. Perhaps we’ll get to see how it all plays out.
Robert Jackson says as Mayor he will embrace the responsibility of selecting BOE members. “The voters of Montclair elect a Mayor to select BOE members. That responsibility is a serious one and one that should not be cavalierly handed off. The voters place their confidence in the Mayor and the Mayor needs to stand up. Who wants a Mayor who is not willing to embrace his most important assignment: selecting the individuals who will direct the educational future of our children?”
REALLY???! Having led a large contingent of residents who campaigned to have direct elections of the BOE, I was unhappy that we lost that campaign (by a very small margin), but encouraged that the process would be more open and egalitarian with Mayor Fried’s agreement to appoint a committee to recommend BOE appointees, rather than retaining the privilege as his very own domain. This has seemed to work to most folks’ satisfaction and the BOE has improved in performance and responsiveness to residents.
Now, Jackson wants to take back the sole privilege of appointing the BOE, claiming “The voters place their confidence in the Mayor and the Mayor needs to stand up”…..REALLY? If this were the case, the Elect the Board group wouldn’t have had so many residents supporting its cause. And, it’s doubtful that residents have so much faith in any ONE PERSON, like the Mayor, that they’re willing to turn back progress to what used to be.
I am supporting the For Montclair slate because I have talked with candidates from all 3 slates, and for the first time in years, I think we have a slate that not only knows how our government works, but also knows finance and has the savvy to do some much needed revising of our process and operations.
Finally, Harvey Susswein has stated that he will go one better on the BOE selections, vetting candidates with the entire council….a good compromise. pegi
A conflict of interest doesn’t require that someone vote or otherwise act a certain way. It may be that Mr. Spiller would, as a BOSE member, consider only Montclair’s best interests and completely disconnect from what he might have felt were he in his other role of union advocate. The conflict of interest exists regardless.
More, this isn’t just “he’s an advocate for a union” as some would like to frame this. He’s an advocate for a teachers’ union: the Wayne Education Association. This is a “local association” of the NJEA, just as I believe is the MEA. In other words, there is a clear relationship between the organization he leads and the organization with which he may be dealing as a BOSE member.
Nor is this “union bashing”. This is simply avoiding a situation which could yield a conflict of interest.
…Andrew
A “conflict of interest” is only a problem if the individual is in a position to DIRECTLY affect an outcome for an organization or individual with which or whom he/she is connected. That is not the case here. Your understanding of how locals operate is flawed. Teacher locals have very little to do with other locals, which accounts in part for the disparity –the BIG disparity — in salaries and benefits from district to district throughout the state. The “relationship” between the Montclair union and the Wayne union is virtually non-existant. There is no more reason to assume that a union member in one town would favour a position taken by the union in another than there is, again, in thinking that lawyers all act in lockstep, or that doctors can’t move away from the AMA position. In short, its not true.
“The “relationship” between the Montclair union and the Wayne union is virtually non-existant. There is no more reason to assume that a union member in one town would favour a position taken by the union in another than there is, again, in thinking that lawyers all act in lockstep, or that doctors can’t move away from the AMA position.”
You keep trying to draw an equivalence between membership in a common profession and membership in two organizations that share a common parent. That’s as reasonable as asserting that two strangers that happen to be boys are as related to one another as two descendants from a common grandparent. The two related boys may not be close, but they’re more related than complete strangers that happen to share a Y chromosome.
…Andrew
“also knows finance and has the savvy to do some much needed revising of our process and operations”
I’m less sure of this. I’ve asked and seen others asking some significant questions about “For Montclair” positions, such as: what is the cost for our delivery of the GR fire deal, and how exactly is the proposed savings from an increase in recycling to be realized given the 2012 budget numbers? No solid answers have been forthcoming.
When faced, for example, with the fact that the recycling numbers being used were from 2008, and didn’t appear to reconcile with the 2012 budget numbers, silence ensued. Similarly, there’s been no closure achieved on what savings we’d see, and how, if we freed ourselves of the GR fire deal.
I don’t pretend an expertise in these matters, but the lack of answers to reasonable questions is unsettling. To me this suggests a continuation of past council practices of ignoring inconvenient questions or numbers. Haven’t we had enough of that?
…Andrew
The tortured analogy you employ to illustrate the relationship is amusing, but nothing more.
The “common parent” is, I suppose the NJEA. That parent does not negotiate contracts, nor does it have a representative at any table. Locals make their own deals. This is why some districts elected to accept the salary freeze some years back, while others did not. This is why some districts had members paying into benefit plans before it was mandated, while others did not. This is why salaries varied greatly from county to county, and from district to district. You would do well to acquaint yourself with how the system works before making this absurd parent-grandparent comparison. As for what this Y chromosome nonsense has to do with the fitness of this individual to serve given his role as a union prez in another county well, I suppose you’ve got a theory. But you’re making a dog’s breakfast of the explanation.
“Dog’s breakfast” — love it, Cro! One of my favorite college professors wrote at the end of a particularly sloppy paper of mine, “A real curate’s egg; not quite a dog’s breakfast.”
“That parent does not negotiate contracts, nor does it have a representative at any table. ”
A quote in https://www.northjersey.com/news/135078908_Montclair_BOE_hires_labor_negotiator__management_consultant_.html indicates that the NJEA does provide negotiators to the MEA. A job advertisement at
https://www.njschooljobs.com/jobs_view.asp?ID=49024 includes “Negotiation service to local associations” as a duty.
“As for what this Y chromosome nonsense has to do with the fitness of this individual to serve given his role as a union prez in another county well…”
It has as much as a reference to sharing professions. That is: none. That’s my point. You’ve repeatedly tried to cast this in terms of people sharing professions (eg. “lawyers…they all stick together”), but that simply ignores that the relationship under discussion here is a significantly closer one than that.
Speaking of lawyers, here’s a note related to that connection: https://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/collections/ethics/acpe/acp372_1.html
In this case, a conflict of interest was found where a lawyer working for a school board would also work for NJEA locals in districts other than that which the lawyer presented. In this case, sufficient “connection” between separate local associations of the NJEA was found to support calling this a conflict of interest.
Also mentioned is that the NJEA provides “negotiations, grievance, legal and other assistance to over 1,000 local teacher and school employee associations”.
…Andrew
Again, the NJEA provides advice and assistance in the case of stalled negotiations, but they do not directly negotiate with the local board.
Using your logic, ploice officers and fire personnel would also have a “conflict of interest”, and therefore be unable to serve. Store owners would have a “conflict of interest”, given that a competitor may want to come to town and the Council might be considering offering incentives. And on, and on. “Conflicts of interest” everywhere, and no one “pure” enough to serve.
This horse has been beaten to death. You want to insist that there is a link between teachers and union personnel that is unbreakable and that is so strong that it outweighs all other considerations and constitutes a conflict of interest. Go right ahead in thinking so. I think I’ll make my decisions based on the individuals involved.
I wouldn’t vote for the president of the police officer’s union or the president of the firefighters union to the township council either. To expect them to switch from fighting for higher wages all day to reducing township expenses (and resisting pay increases) at night is foolish.
20 years ago when Montclair began to provide fire service for Glenridge the staffing was to be increased. It never was, there were more retirements then new hires at the time. If by chance the FD is cut by 20% what rig is to be cut? Which side of town will have a longer response time? What happens when an engine or truck is sent out of town to all of the surrounding understaffed towns? What happens when all these new buildings are put up on Orange Rd and Bloomfield Ave? Just keep in mind that if your fire protection is reduced your and the towns insurance will go up. So if Bloomfield takes over Glenridge and Glenridge has a fire MFD will respond for free.
grewupinmtc, that’s the “it’s better to get something from GR than nothing argument”
Either there is increased cost (manpower/equipment) to cover GR or there is not. Both can’t be true. If there is additional cost then, absent the GR contract the FD is overbuilt. If there isn’t increased cost, then any amount we get from GR is better than nothing.
“For Montclair” says it’s bad deal and there is additional cost. But they won’t answer the obvious follow up question about whether or not they would seek layoffs if the GR contract is cancelled.
There was never an increase of staffing or equipment so there is no cost increase for wages or benies and additional equipment. The only cost increase is fuel and the extra wear on the equipment the Dept. already has. In fact the FD has been cut over the last 20 years. There was a dedicated dispatcher for the FD (1 per shift, 4 F/Fs) that was cut when MPD took over. The Training Officer was never replaced when the last one retired about 8 yrs ago. There used to be 3 personel in fire prevention, now there are 2 with an increase of work load beacause of other code departments being cut. Thats 7 postions, 2 at captians pay one LT and 4 F/Fs pay. Like I’ve said in the past the FD has been doing more with less for the past 20 yrs, and this town is only becoming more crowded.
And of course For Montclair will not answer your simple yes or no question. Any savvy politician will not answer a direct question with a direct answer for fear that they will have to own up to it.
“Using your logic, ploice officers and fire personnel would also have a “conflict of interest”, and therefore be unable to serve. ”
You are once again falling back on the idea that this is purely about professions. It is not. You are arguing against a position I am not taking.
Mr. Spiller isn’t merely a teacher. He is also leading a union which is an associate of the NJEA and therefore a “sibling” to the MEA. He may be a fine person capable of great balance, but that doesn’t eliminate the conflict of interest.
See the cited decision’s comment about “serving two masters”.
…Andrew
“There was never an increase of staffing or equipment so there is no cost increase for wages or benies and additional equipment. ”
This just turns the question around, though. If we ceased providing the service to GR, would a reduction of staff be appropriate?
If not, then this deal would be a good one (albeit less profitable than it could be) at a cost to GR of $1. While I’m not saying that this is impossible, it does seem unlikely to me. If this is so, however, the position taken that this is a “bad deal” is incorrect.
It can only be a bad deal for us if it has a cost, and that cost is higher than what GR is paying. In that case, should the deal be canceled, how would we reduce our costs to effect the appropriate savings?
A non-financial consideration, BTW, is the additional risk (of additional responses to fires) put upon the members of the FD. If there is no change in staffing whether we have a deal with GR or not, then I cannot see how we’re not asking our FD staff to handle a higher risk (and work) load by covering GR as well as Montclair.
…Andrew
“is the additional risk (of additional responses to fires) put upon the members of the FD. If there is no change in staffing whether we have a deal with GR or not, then I cannot see how we’re not asking our FD staff to handle a higher risk (and work) load by covering GR as well as Montclair.”
I would much rather respond and fight more fires with the proper staffing than fight even one fire without adequate man power.
“This just turns the question around, though. If we ceased providing the service to GR, would a reduction of staff be appropriate??
Is the reduction in staff just to break even if Montclair didn’t have the contract, or do you keep cutting to save more money. If it is to break even you don’t save anything and you put the entire town in danger. lets not forget the FD does alot more then just fight fires. The FD are called to many incidents that require immediate attention. The longer the response times caused by staffing shortages the more money it will cost to mitigate the issue.
“I would much rather respond and fight more fires with the proper staffing than fight even one fire without adequate man power.”
At least one of two things seems to be necessarily true: Our staffing level is either too high if we don’t keep the contract, or it is too low if we keep the contract. It’s not impossible that our staffing level is independent of the contract, but this would be counterintuitive and would have to be explained.
“Is the reduction in staff just to break even if Montclair didn’t have the contract, or do you keep cutting to save more money.”
Neither. I’m assuming, as I wrote above, that there is a staffing cost to the contract. Either we’ve paid it, in which case we’re overstaffed if we lose the contract, or we’ve not paid it, in which case we’re understaffed with the contract.
If we’ve just ignored the cost of the contract, then we are understaffed now and the towns are both at risk (as you properly point out). If we are properly staffed with the contact, then it would seem that canceling the contract would imply reducing staff to the proper level for the reduced service being provided.
More, the For Montclair slate must already have determined the cost associated with the contract. W/o that number, one cannot determine whether the deal is good or bad. So they must know how much staffing would go down if the contract were canceled.
…Andrew
Andrew I get what you are saying, but there is no staffing cost increase. MTC didn’t add staffing to the FD like it should have when it took over GR, and yes the FD is understaffed with or without GR. You also still have to factor in the increase of homeowners ins. and the towns ins. when the FD is cut. If you want to know something that’s costing the tax payers of MTC money its the new mutual aid agreement the chief made with Paterson. The uptown engine has reponded to Paterson about 15 times since the begining of the year but Paterson doesn’t respond to MTC. Doesn’t seem very mutual.
…..fire houses, garbage collection, shared services…..All penny ante savings. Please, candidates, address the big expenditure: 55% of our tax bill goes to schools. What are you going to do with that spending, when tax revenues and state aid are essentially flat to declining?