Monday, November 06, 2006
DEMOCRAT LITERATURE DISTORTED
Recent campaign literature delivered to your front door by the Democratic candidates for Oceanport office takes credit for many accomplishments they simply had nothing to do with. In most cases, they weren't even on Council or any committee associated with the issue.
And a side note: The Woman who is the 35 year resident depicted in Democratic Literature is none other than Ted Ibex’s mother-in-law. Is this really an independent point of view? Again is this another attempt by the Democrats to deceive the voters of Oceanport.
The interview should have been with an independent person with no ties, or relations to any candidate. The following are the facts concerning the accomplishments. What is most amazing that the Democrats are running on experience? What experience are they speaking about?
Mayor Chaump was bestowed the mayor’s seat after the passing of Mayor Gatta.
And a side note: The Woman who is the 35 year resident depicted in Democratic Literature is none other than Ted Ibex’s mother-in-law. Is this really an independent point of view? Again is this another attempt by the Democrats to deceive the voters of Oceanport.
The interview should have been with an independent person with no ties, or relations to any candidate. The following are the facts concerning the accomplishments. What is most amazing that the Democrats are running on experience? What experience are they speaking about?
Mayor Chaump was bestowed the mayor’s seat after the passing of Mayor Gatta.
Ted Ibex was granted a council seat when Ms. Chaump moved to the Mayor’s Seat. (10 months in Office) Not much experience at all.
Gary LaBruno has no experience in local Government at all.
However, the Democratic literature would have you believe that these individuals are veterans in the field of Managing Local Government with many years of experience. This is simply not true.
Is this another attempt at deceiving the voter? When will the Democrats of Oceanport discontinue the practice of misleading the prospective voters?
Grant for Cayuga Avenue reconstruction:
Councilmen McGann and Wolfe in charge of grants and roads at time of grant. Councilman Mahon in charge of Roads when project implemented and completed. This project came to light after the residents of Cayuga Ave. questioned how the former Borough Attorney who resides on Pocano had his road updated and upgraded with a water run-off system before Cayuga Ave. After much prodding the Democrats went to Rush Holt who procured a Grant for $300,000.00 for Cayuga Ave and Gooseneck Point Road.
Cayuga Ave. sustained the most property damage, where houses were knocked off their foundations and completely destroyed by the December 1992 flood. Many families lost valuable heirlooms and were displaced for months. However, the former Democratic Councilman and former Democratic Borough appointed Attorney had his street upgraded before Cayuga Ave.
More interesting when the Pocano Road project was researched there were only two bids for the job. However, the Borough Clerk at the time could only find the one bid packet when a request to review the files was submitted. WHY?
The project was quite costly with a cost to the taxpayer of $50,000.00, the rest was obtained through other sources of funding.
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gemma, Council members, Apruzzi, Gatta, Mahon, Silkworth, McGann & Wolfe
Grant for Wardell Circle reconstruction:
Councilmen McGann and Wolfe in charge of grants and roads at time of grant. Councilman McGann in charge of Roads when project implemented and completed.
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gemma, Council members, Apruzzi, Gatta, Mahon, Silkworth/Cooper, McGann & Wolfe
Grant for Burnt Mill Circle reconstruction:
Councilmember's Mahon and Kahle in charge of grants and roads at time of grant. Councilman Mahon in charge of Roads when project implemented and completed.
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gatta, Council members, Johnson, Chaump,Gallo, Mahon, Briscione & Kahle
Crescent Place Reconstruction:
Councilmember's Mahon and Kahle in charge of grants and roads at time of grant application. Councilman Mahon responsible for making the resurfacing of this roadway a key issue for the Monmouth Park Stakeholders Committee and getting it before the Monmouth County Transportation Council
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gatta, Council members, Johnson, Chaump, Mahon, Gallo, Briscione & Kahle
Shared Services:
Reverse 9-1-1 with School Board
Fact: This agreement was initiated and written by Councilman Mahon and School Board member Briskey. The original phone list was actually provided by the Oceanport Republican Committee.
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gemma, Council members, Apruzzi, Gatta, Mahon, McGann & Wolfe
Fire Prevention Bureau with Eatontown:
Fact: This agreement was initiated and written by Councilman Mahon. Councilmen Apruzzi and Mahon interviewed applicants and neighboring municipalities before recommending Eatontown to the full governing body.
These individuals were in Office at the time of the project: Mayor Gemma, Council members, Apruzzi, Gatta, Mahon,Silkworth, McGann & Wolfe
Joint Motor Vehicle Fuel Purchasing with School Board:
A long standing practice with no written interlocal agreement.
Safe Streets to Schools Grant for Wolfhill Ave. School:
First proposed by Councilpersons Cooper & Mahon and attacked by then council candidate Chaump and running mates. These same council members proposed a sidewalk and bike lane on Port au Peck Ave financed with the same grant program. Again, roundly attacked by council candidate Chaump and running mates.
As you can see, most of these issues were tackled when Chaump wasn't even on the governing body, and those since when she was not on the committee assigned to accomplish these tasks.
The issue of emergency services:
This is an area that needs to be clarified. The Republicans will not ever jeopardize the safety of the citizens of Oceanport; they will only enhance it and strive for the best service possible. There are many categories and statistical data that would need to be analyzed before an accurate answer could be rendered. I don’t know how the Democrats could even broach the topic if they don’t have this information before them.
A good manager would analyze their operation and determine if things could be done differently to improve its operation with the same resources. Currently, that is not being done.
Please consider these facts when casting your vote on Tuesday, November 7th.
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 11:55 AM
Sunday, November 05, 2006
THE FACTS CONCERNING THE CURRENT STATE OF OCEANPORT
Well it has come very apparent that the Democratic machine will not address the issues posted on this blog. With the recent posting at their Blog, titled “Once Upon a Time” at http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/ it is very clear that they really don’t take the management of Oceanport very seriously.
The Democrats have stated that the Republicans are attempting to take control of Oceanport. What the Republicans are attempting to do is remove the inept and incompetent from sending the Borough into economic failure. Right now the current Government is controlled by what appears to be self serving Democrats. The Democrats have been in power for the last twenty-two years and if you look around, nothing has really changed.
The Oceanport Democrats stated “IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WERE LIES OR DISTORTIONS”, meaning the Republicans. However, every bit of what was posted is very accurate and truthful, which has been supported with Town Council and Workshop Minutes, public documents and Newspaper Articles. You can’t say that about the Democratic Blog. It is nothing more than unproven statements.
The Oceanport Democrats did not dispute the facts posted on this Blog, nor can they, since the truth is painful. They actually avoided nearly every issue posted on this blog. It was very obvious that the Democrats came to the realization that the problem won't simply go away, which prompted them to launch personal attacks. Their best defense was to disparage their opponents in hopes of redirecting the attention away from them. The effort of redirecting attention from the facts to a spin of unproven tales is very transparent.
In fact, not once have the Democrats come out and admit to their mistakes, or deficiencies, which would have been the right thing to do. Not once have they addressed the real facts posted here on this Blog. WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO MISS IS THAT OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS BEGAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN BACK IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR ON A BLOG NAMED, Oceanport Reports -- The No Spin Zone.
When you look at this objectively, it was the Oceanport Democrats who fired the first shot across the bow with a one sided report regarding the Oceanport Republicans. As a result, a few individuals are criticized by the Democrats for bringing facts and issues to the front position, which otherwise would be kept from the voting public. As a result, the personal attacks began by the Democrats. They were challenged and now their best defense is to make personal attacks. This is viewed as weak and very unprofessional.
Please attend a few town meetings or workshop meetings. You can actually feel the tension in the room, and observe the arrogance of a few public officials, especially when they are challenged. By now most of the voting public probably has made their decision as to how they will vote. But you must consider a few things before you step into the booth on Tuesday, November 7, 2006.
Who will better serve the citizens of Oceanport? Who will better serve the SPORTS PROGRAMS of Oceanport? Will it be the Democrats, who don’t have any children in any of the SPORTS PROGRAMS or the Republicans who have children in each of the SPORTS PROGRAMS?
With the 400 plus children who play SPORTS in Oceanport that is many votes. If you wish to improve the sports programs in town, as well as the playing conditions, please vote republican in Oceanport. There are many safety issues at Blackberry Bay Park that need to be addressed immediately.
Read here: http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-democrats-wont-show-you-about.html
It is obvious that the public wants a change in the way Oceanport is being managed. The SURVEY posted on this site is a good gauge.
THE QUESTION OF “RATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DEMOCRATS” WAS POSED TO THE PUBLIC. OVERWHELMINGLY OUT OF 105 VOTERS. IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB IN MANAGING THE LITTLE BOROUGH OF OCEANPORT.
HERE ARE THE REULTS:
EXCEPTIONAL
5% 5 VOTES
The Democrats have stated that the Republicans are attempting to take control of Oceanport. What the Republicans are attempting to do is remove the inept and incompetent from sending the Borough into economic failure. Right now the current Government is controlled by what appears to be self serving Democrats. The Democrats have been in power for the last twenty-two years and if you look around, nothing has really changed.
The Oceanport Democrats stated “IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WERE LIES OR DISTORTIONS”, meaning the Republicans. However, every bit of what was posted is very accurate and truthful, which has been supported with Town Council and Workshop Minutes, public documents and Newspaper Articles. You can’t say that about the Democratic Blog. It is nothing more than unproven statements.
The Oceanport Democrats did not dispute the facts posted on this Blog, nor can they, since the truth is painful. They actually avoided nearly every issue posted on this blog. It was very obvious that the Democrats came to the realization that the problem won't simply go away, which prompted them to launch personal attacks. Their best defense was to disparage their opponents in hopes of redirecting the attention away from them. The effort of redirecting attention from the facts to a spin of unproven tales is very transparent.
In fact, not once have the Democrats come out and admit to their mistakes, or deficiencies, which would have been the right thing to do. Not once have they addressed the real facts posted here on this Blog. WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO MISS IS THAT OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS BEGAN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN BACK IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR ON A BLOG NAMED, Oceanport Reports -- The No Spin Zone.
When you look at this objectively, it was the Oceanport Democrats who fired the first shot across the bow with a one sided report regarding the Oceanport Republicans. As a result, a few individuals are criticized by the Democrats for bringing facts and issues to the front position, which otherwise would be kept from the voting public. As a result, the personal attacks began by the Democrats. They were challenged and now their best defense is to make personal attacks. This is viewed as weak and very unprofessional.
Please attend a few town meetings or workshop meetings. You can actually feel the tension in the room, and observe the arrogance of a few public officials, especially when they are challenged. By now most of the voting public probably has made their decision as to how they will vote. But you must consider a few things before you step into the booth on Tuesday, November 7, 2006.
Who will better serve the citizens of Oceanport? Who will better serve the SPORTS PROGRAMS of Oceanport? Will it be the Democrats, who don’t have any children in any of the SPORTS PROGRAMS or the Republicans who have children in each of the SPORTS PROGRAMS?
With the 400 plus children who play SPORTS in Oceanport that is many votes. If you wish to improve the sports programs in town, as well as the playing conditions, please vote republican in Oceanport. There are many safety issues at Blackberry Bay Park that need to be addressed immediately.
Read here: http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-democrats-wont-show-you-about.html
It is obvious that the public wants a change in the way Oceanport is being managed. The SURVEY posted on this site is a good gauge.
THE QUESTION OF “RATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DEMOCRATS” WAS POSED TO THE PUBLIC. OVERWHELMINGLY OUT OF 105 VOTERS. IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB IN MANAGING THE LITTLE BOROUGH OF OCEANPORT.
HERE ARE THE REULTS:
EXCEPTIONAL
5% 5 VOTES
ABOVE AVERAGE
1% 1 VOTE
AVERAGE
1% 1 VOTE
BELOW AVERAGE
0% 0 VOTES
POOR
4% 4 VOTES
VERY POOR
90% 94 VOTES
105 votes total
The democrats of Oceanport have a habit of posting reports with no supporting links or documents. In fact, every post lacked any evidence to support their claims. The Democrats attempted to deceive the public when they posted a report concerning CRAPBERRY BAY PARK, OPPS, BLACKBERRY BAY PARK. Read here http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-democrats-wont-show-you-about.html
THAT POST WAS A CLEAR INDICATION OF HOW OCEANPORT HAS BEEN RUNNING UNDER THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED BOROUGH. HIDE THE TRUTHS AND THROW SMOKE AND MIRRORS UP, SO THAT PUBLIC WILL NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AT BOROUGH HALL. HEY IF THE RESIDENTS OF OCEANPORT WISH TO BE MISLEAD BY TRICKERY, THEN VOTE DEMOCRATIC. ESPECIALLLY, IF YOU WANT YOUR TAXES TO INCREASE TO A POINT WHERE THE ELDERLY AND MIDDLE CLASS WILL BE FORCED TO LEAVE THE TOWN.
If you have the time to research this blog and other public documents please do. There is a perception that a lot of behind the scenes deals are being made to benefit a few.
For God Sakes, the Democrats appointed a Borough Attorney, Martin McGann Jr., who represented the builder who sued the Borough under COAH, better known as the Builder’s Remedy Suit. This was perceived as a Conflict of Interest, and as a result the Borough was forced to hire an outside attorney that cost the taxpayers of Oceanport well over $100,000.00 of hard earned money. Why? Because the Democrats failed to comply with the Mount Laurel Decision over the twenty two years they were in power.
Then when the Borough Attorney, Mr. McGann left Office the Democrats voted him a life time of medical benefits at tax payer expense, which he was not entitled too.
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006_09_21_oceanportmismanaged_archive.html
Then there are several “pay to play” issues and accounting and recording issues of the Borough’s finances. Just Read here http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006_09_16_oceanportmismanaged_archive.html
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/pay-to-play-exposed-in-oceanport.html
The Shared Services issue was not addressed by the Democrats. Not until after it was exposed that they dragged their feet on the project. The best part is that TED IBEX said that the public did not want to share dispatch service. How would he know that since no poll was posted or referendum pursued concerning this issue. There was nothing sent to the residents concerning this issue, nor was it posted in the non-informative Oceanport Bulletin. Please read here:
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/did-oceanport-democrats-miss-boat-on.html
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/did-oceanport-democrats-miss-boat-on_17.html
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-oceanport-democrats-hiding.html
The there are Environmental Issues directly effecting the town and the Property situated in Oceanport and within the jurisdiction of Fort Monmouth. Again the Democrats failed to address these concerns.
Read Here: http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/09/did-democrats-address-environmental.html
And for clarification: The republicans did not asked to cut taxes by 5%, they requested to cut spending by 5%. Geez the democrats can even decipher that. Since the good ole democrats mention it. Just check whose streets have been paved over the last twenty two years, and you may find that most of the democrats have had their streets upgraded.
And Fort Monmouth is currently a disaster: Our town leaders are way behind the eight ball on this project. Read Here:
http://oceanportmismanaged.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-oceanport-democrats-hiding.html
The Democrats titled a paragraph “VILLAGE WORKERS WILL LOVE THE NEW REGIME”. Is this an acknowledgment of throwing in the towel before it is over?
In closing, whoever takes control of Oceanport must work together to achieve common goals. If this can not occur the Borough is doomed. Under the proper leadership the delegation of duties and an open and honest Government is a must. At the end of each day the Politician is accountable to their residents and must asked themselves, Am I doing the best for the citizens.
If the politician is in it for personal gain, or to benefit relatives, friends or associates, then that individual must be exposed and weeded out. The politician must have the utmost integrity and must set an example of being a trustworthy and dependable person.
IN YOU WANT AN OPEN AND HONEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT PLEASE VOTE REPUBLICAN ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006.
ELLYNN KHALE FOR MAYOR
JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL………………………….
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 6:10 PM
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
ARE THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS HYPOCRITES?
THIS POSTING IS IN REPSONSE TO A REPORT POSTED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE OF OCEANPORT. THE REPORT WAS POSTED ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2006 BY A WRITER WHO CALLS HIMSELF OR HERSELF “OCEANPORT REPORTS”.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE POST.
http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
Unlike the Democratic writer this author does not have a problem with referring the reader from this blog to the Democratic Spin at their blog. However, the fictional Democratic writer does not have the courtesy or intestinal fortitude to refer this blog to their readers. WHY? Is it because those veteran Oceanport Politicians can not muster the energy to defend themselves against the facts posted at this blog. The Ted Ibex report on SHARED SERVICES certainly has that appearance. Just refer to this post for your answer? Did Oceanport Democrats Miss the Boat on Shared Services 2
The post by “OCEANPORT REPORTS” titled “SAY WHAT?” is exactly the response you would expect? The fact of the matter; the current Oceanport Democratic Controlled Government is a reactive group. It has been proven right here on this blog and supported by Town Council and Workshop Minutes, as well as Newspaper Articles. Please don’t be fooled by the Democratic nonsense. Just take some time and click on every article under the ARCHIVE SECTION on this blog and read them. They are very informative and factual.
After reading the two Blogs in their entirety, please formulate your own opinion as to whether or not Oceanport needs a change in the way the current Democratic controlled Borough does business and manages the Town. The Democrats have been in power for the last twenty-two years and have literally kept the residents in the dark on several key issues. Oceanport is need of a switch in parties to introduce some new faces and innovative ideas to the management of the town.
The Republicans of Ellynn Kahle, Joe Irace and William Johnson are a group of highly qualified and motivated young professionals who have innovative ideas, who are striving for an open and honest form of Government. They value the residents of Oceanport and will implement a method of keeping the citizens informed and up to date concerning the current issues affecting the town. They are willing to put the effort and time into management of the Borough and lead from the front, not from the rear. It is very obvious that the Borough of Oceanport is in need of direction by these qualified leaders.
The Democrats say that Ms. Kahle voted on every Budget. Well that may be true but, the Democrats have proven that they can’t manage the budget. Please read the article of the Democrats downplaying procedural errors in the managing of the Borough. Apparently somebody saw something wrong with the budget if the Borough had to hire the firm of FALLON and FALLON for the amount of $26,000.00 to conduct an Audit.
Interesting note; FALLON and FALLON was awarded the contract although this firm was $4200.00 higher than the lowest bidder. There were two other Firms with bids. WHY WAS FALLON and FALLON AWARDED THE CONTRACT?
Republican Councilman, Hugh Sharkey is a well respected Forensic Accountant who uncovered the many errors in the budget and located a $2000.00 donation made by the Accounting Firm of FALLON and FALLON to the Borough of Oceanport. Is that how FALLON and FALLON was awarded the contract to conduct the audit for $26,000.00? Isn’t this considered “PAY TO PLAY?”
Please Read the article that was posted in the HUB on July 27, 2006. Oceanport acts to correct deficient procedures also check this at
UNCONTROLLED SPENDING IDENTIFIED?
The following article appeared in the Asbury Park Press on Monday, October 30, 2006. Please take the time to read it.
ELECTION COULD END OCEANPORT COUNCIL TIE
In this article the Current mayor stated the following:
Chaump said she does not take money from those seeking to do business with the borough, and Ibex said he is opposed as well, although he said that if people want to contribute as private individuals, they should be permitted to do so. LaBruno said he is opposed not only to the concept of pay-to-play but also to the practice of awarding patronage jobs to the politically connected.
This certainly raises a few questions:
FALLON and FALLON donated $2000.00 to the Borough of Oceanport and then awarded a contract to conduct an AUDIT for $26,000.00 of taxpayer money, although the bid that FALLON and FALLON submitted was $4,200.00 more than the lowest bidder. Wouldn’t this go against the statement provided by Ms. Chaump during her interview with the Asbury Park Press?
Additionally, the Blackberry Bay Park renovation contract was awarded to a company that donated $500.00 to the Democratic Candidates during the 2004 election, and then later returned it after the bid was awarded. Click here to review this information. WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WON'T SHOW YOU ABOUT BLACKBERRY BAY PARK
Then the Democratic appointment of a Borough Attorney by the name of Martin MaGann Jr. Click here PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OCEANPORT? Or
Did Oceanport Democrats Bilk Oceanport Residents of Hard Earned Money or MORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
Then Ms. Chaump stated this: Chaump said there needs to be more community involvement in the future of the fort.
Is this an admission that the current Democratic Controlled Government has been keeping the residents in the dark regarding the Fort Monmouth acquisition?
And as David Lettermen says the number 1 and the best statement was by Labruno who stated the following during his interview with the Asbury Park Press:
"Far too many people think you can run municipal government like a business, and you can't," he said. "Business is profit-driven. Municipalities can never turn a profit. You can't cut taxes, and you can't increase production unless you increase taxes."
If you were concerned about where your Democrats stand on the tax issue this statement says it all. If you can’t run a Government like a business, then how would you run it? And why would you use the word production if the Democratic Candidate is against running the Borough like a business?
The Oceanport residents are in fact the shareholders, and the Borough acts as the broker. Yes as a shareholder a profit or a surplus in the Borough account is expected.
For those of you who believe that Government can not turn a profit you are truly misinformed?
When Republican Governor Christie Whitman was in Office she was able to balance the budget and end up with a surplus in the general account.
http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
Unlike the Democratic writer this author does not have a problem with referring the reader from this blog to the Democratic Spin at their blog. However, the fictional Democratic writer does not have the courtesy or intestinal fortitude to refer this blog to their readers. WHY? Is it because those veteran Oceanport Politicians can not muster the energy to defend themselves against the facts posted at this blog. The Ted Ibex report on SHARED SERVICES certainly has that appearance. Just refer to this post for your answer? Did Oceanport Democrats Miss the Boat on Shared Services 2
The post by “OCEANPORT REPORTS” titled “SAY WHAT?” is exactly the response you would expect? The fact of the matter; the current Oceanport Democratic Controlled Government is a reactive group. It has been proven right here on this blog and supported by Town Council and Workshop Minutes, as well as Newspaper Articles. Please don’t be fooled by the Democratic nonsense. Just take some time and click on every article under the ARCHIVE SECTION on this blog and read them. They are very informative and factual.
After reading the two Blogs in their entirety, please formulate your own opinion as to whether or not Oceanport needs a change in the way the current Democratic controlled Borough does business and manages the Town. The Democrats have been in power for the last twenty-two years and have literally kept the residents in the dark on several key issues. Oceanport is need of a switch in parties to introduce some new faces and innovative ideas to the management of the town.
The Republicans of Ellynn Kahle, Joe Irace and William Johnson are a group of highly qualified and motivated young professionals who have innovative ideas, who are striving for an open and honest form of Government. They value the residents of Oceanport and will implement a method of keeping the citizens informed and up to date concerning the current issues affecting the town. They are willing to put the effort and time into management of the Borough and lead from the front, not from the rear. It is very obvious that the Borough of Oceanport is in need of direction by these qualified leaders.
The Democrats say that Ms. Kahle voted on every Budget. Well that may be true but, the Democrats have proven that they can’t manage the budget. Please read the article of the Democrats downplaying procedural errors in the managing of the Borough. Apparently somebody saw something wrong with the budget if the Borough had to hire the firm of FALLON and FALLON for the amount of $26,000.00 to conduct an Audit.
Interesting note; FALLON and FALLON was awarded the contract although this firm was $4200.00 higher than the lowest bidder. There were two other Firms with bids. WHY WAS FALLON and FALLON AWARDED THE CONTRACT?
Republican Councilman, Hugh Sharkey is a well respected Forensic Accountant who uncovered the many errors in the budget and located a $2000.00 donation made by the Accounting Firm of FALLON and FALLON to the Borough of Oceanport. Is that how FALLON and FALLON was awarded the contract to conduct the audit for $26,000.00? Isn’t this considered “PAY TO PLAY?”
Please Read the article that was posted in the HUB on July 27, 2006. Oceanport acts to correct deficient procedures also check this at
UNCONTROLLED SPENDING IDENTIFIED?
The following article appeared in the Asbury Park Press on Monday, October 30, 2006. Please take the time to read it.
ELECTION COULD END OCEANPORT COUNCIL TIE
In this article the Current mayor stated the following:
Chaump said she does not take money from those seeking to do business with the borough, and Ibex said he is opposed as well, although he said that if people want to contribute as private individuals, they should be permitted to do so. LaBruno said he is opposed not only to the concept of pay-to-play but also to the practice of awarding patronage jobs to the politically connected.
This certainly raises a few questions:
FALLON and FALLON donated $2000.00 to the Borough of Oceanport and then awarded a contract to conduct an AUDIT for $26,000.00 of taxpayer money, although the bid that FALLON and FALLON submitted was $4,200.00 more than the lowest bidder. Wouldn’t this go against the statement provided by Ms. Chaump during her interview with the Asbury Park Press?
Additionally, the Blackberry Bay Park renovation contract was awarded to a company that donated $500.00 to the Democratic Candidates during the 2004 election, and then later returned it after the bid was awarded. Click here to review this information. WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WON'T SHOW YOU ABOUT BLACKBERRY BAY PARK
Then the Democratic appointment of a Borough Attorney by the name of Martin MaGann Jr. Click here PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OCEANPORT? Or
Did Oceanport Democrats Bilk Oceanport Residents of Hard Earned Money or MORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
Then Ms. Chaump stated this: Chaump said there needs to be more community involvement in the future of the fort.
Is this an admission that the current Democratic Controlled Government has been keeping the residents in the dark regarding the Fort Monmouth acquisition?
And as David Lettermen says the number 1 and the best statement was by Labruno who stated the following during his interview with the Asbury Park Press:
"Far too many people think you can run municipal government like a business, and you can't," he said. "Business is profit-driven. Municipalities can never turn a profit. You can't cut taxes, and you can't increase production unless you increase taxes."
If you were concerned about where your Democrats stand on the tax issue this statement says it all. If you can’t run a Government like a business, then how would you run it? And why would you use the word production if the Democratic Candidate is against running the Borough like a business?
The Oceanport residents are in fact the shareholders, and the Borough acts as the broker. Yes as a shareholder a profit or a surplus in the Borough account is expected.
For those of you who believe that Government can not turn a profit you are truly misinformed?
When Republican Governor Christie Whitman was in Office she was able to balance the budget and end up with a surplus in the general account.
Click here to review more information on how to save taxpayers money while providing an exceptional service to the citizens. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/health/health.pdf
AND THE BEST OF ALL, MR LABRUNO STATED “YOU CAN’T CUT TAXES”.
Well, Thank You Mr. LaBruno for this piece of information. This will certainly help many residents with their decision on Election Day.
As leaders of the town the philosophy of “Doing more for less” should be applied when developing initiatives to manage the budget. Remember all politicians must answer to their constituency and be responsible for making sound decisions.
PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 BY VOTING REPUBLICAN FOR AN OPEN AND HONEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITH FRESH IDEAS AND INITIATIVES.
ELLYNN KAHLE FOR MAYOR
JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL
VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR A POSITIVE CHANGE IN OCEANPORT
As leaders of the town the philosophy of “Doing more for less” should be applied when developing initiatives to manage the budget. Remember all politicians must answer to their constituency and be responsible for making sound decisions.
PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 BY VOTING REPUBLICAN FOR AN OPEN AND HONEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITH FRESH IDEAS AND INITIATIVES.
ELLYNN KAHLE FOR MAYOR
JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL
VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR A POSITIVE CHANGE IN OCEANPORT
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 6:06 PM
Thursday, October 26, 2006
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WON'T SHOW YOU ABOUT BLACKBERRY BAY PARK
THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACKBERRY BAY PARK:
The Democratic Machine has recently posted a BLOG Report concerning Blackberry Bay Park at the following link. http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
First, the Photographs posted were taken from a great distance in an attempt to deceive the readers in believing that BLACKBERRY BAY PARK is a beautiful sight. Is this what the residents and the voting public of Oceanport want as leaders of the town, a politician that wishes to deceive the public? Since this was a well publicized issue during April, May and June of 2006, many of you already know the truth behind the failed BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT.
In short, the taxpayers paid over a half million dollars of hard earned money to finance a botched project. The writer attempts to mislead the reader in believing that the money was procured through a GRANT. This is not entirely true. This money was procured through a low interest loan, which means that the taxpayer is paying for this failed project.
In fact here is an excerpt from an Article written by Vince Miller of the Asbury Park Press on October 10, 2002, titled “Borough Seeks State Cash for Parks”
THE Oceanport Borough Council has applied to two state agencies to offset the cost of improving the Blackberry Bay Park and Sommers Scout Park. “On the heels of an application for State Green Acres made by the borough Aug. 12 for $282,500 at 2 percent interest”.
As a result, again the Oceanport Democrats are attempting to mislead the Oceanport residents. Furthermore, four years after the mention of doing work at Sommers Park, there has not been any plans drafted or work completed at this particular park.
The only person who actually made out on this deal was the Democratic Appointed Borough Engineer, Birdsall Engineering, Tom Rospos. Mr. Rospos had the audacity to bill the Borough for his work at Blackberry Bay for an amount that went over $80,000.00, in which the Borough paid without hesitation.
What is more disturbing is the fact that the Recreation Committee who is comprised of William Johnson and Joe Irace, voted “YES” to a “NO CONFIDENCE” vote concerning the contractor and the Borough Engineer directly relating to the BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT. This vote was during the AUGUST 5, 2005, RECREATION MEETING.
When this was brought to the Democratic controlled Town Government and the Borough Attorney at the time, MARTIN MCGANN JR., the Recreation Committee was shot down and given bad advice by the Borough Attorney, stating that it was not a good idea to fire the Borough Engineer. WHY NOT, is the Question to be asked? WHO WAS THE OCEANPORT BOROUGH ATTORNEY PROTECTING HERE?
As far as holding money back from the Contractor, that did occur. The contractor failed to complete work and eventually was thrown off the job and paid what he was owed. The Borough withheld about 8,000.00 dollars from this contractor. Quite honestly anyone with a pulse would have walked away from the Blackberry Bay Park Project for $8,000.00.
The Contractor was paid a substantial amount of money for a failed project. The Builder and the Borough Engineer were the only individuals who benefited from this botched job. The taxpayers and the residents of Oceanport were the losers. The total project was $550,000.00, not including the nearly $250,000.00 for the Tennis Courts. Wouldn’t you walk away from the job for $8,000.00, after you collected well over a HALF MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money?
However, this posting will invite you inside the park for a close-up tour of what the misleading writer calls a beautiful park. After reading this entire Report concerning the BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT, PLEASE as the writer posted, “NOW YOU BE THE JUDGE”.
Please be warned that when you read the facts relating to the mismanaged, unsupervised, and failed project you may be disgusted as to how our town is managed under the Democratic Control Government.
The Democratic Machine has recently posted a BLOG Report concerning Blackberry Bay Park at the following link. http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
First, the Photographs posted were taken from a great distance in an attempt to deceive the readers in believing that BLACKBERRY BAY PARK is a beautiful sight. Is this what the residents and the voting public of Oceanport want as leaders of the town, a politician that wishes to deceive the public? Since this was a well publicized issue during April, May and June of 2006, many of you already know the truth behind the failed BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT.
In short, the taxpayers paid over a half million dollars of hard earned money to finance a botched project. The writer attempts to mislead the reader in believing that the money was procured through a GRANT. This is not entirely true. This money was procured through a low interest loan, which means that the taxpayer is paying for this failed project.
In fact here is an excerpt from an Article written by Vince Miller of the Asbury Park Press on October 10, 2002, titled “Borough Seeks State Cash for Parks”
THE Oceanport Borough Council has applied to two state agencies to offset the cost of improving the Blackberry Bay Park and Sommers Scout Park. “On the heels of an application for State Green Acres made by the borough Aug. 12 for $282,500 at 2 percent interest”.
As a result, again the Oceanport Democrats are attempting to mislead the Oceanport residents. Furthermore, four years after the mention of doing work at Sommers Park, there has not been any plans drafted or work completed at this particular park.
The only person who actually made out on this deal was the Democratic Appointed Borough Engineer, Birdsall Engineering, Tom Rospos. Mr. Rospos had the audacity to bill the Borough for his work at Blackberry Bay for an amount that went over $80,000.00, in which the Borough paid without hesitation.
What is more disturbing is the fact that the Recreation Committee who is comprised of William Johnson and Joe Irace, voted “YES” to a “NO CONFIDENCE” vote concerning the contractor and the Borough Engineer directly relating to the BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT. This vote was during the AUGUST 5, 2005, RECREATION MEETING.
When this was brought to the Democratic controlled Town Government and the Borough Attorney at the time, MARTIN MCGANN JR., the Recreation Committee was shot down and given bad advice by the Borough Attorney, stating that it was not a good idea to fire the Borough Engineer. WHY NOT, is the Question to be asked? WHO WAS THE OCEANPORT BOROUGH ATTORNEY PROTECTING HERE?
As far as holding money back from the Contractor, that did occur. The contractor failed to complete work and eventually was thrown off the job and paid what he was owed. The Borough withheld about 8,000.00 dollars from this contractor. Quite honestly anyone with a pulse would have walked away from the Blackberry Bay Park Project for $8,000.00.
The Contractor was paid a substantial amount of money for a failed project. The Builder and the Borough Engineer were the only individuals who benefited from this botched job. The taxpayers and the residents of Oceanport were the losers. The total project was $550,000.00, not including the nearly $250,000.00 for the Tennis Courts. Wouldn’t you walk away from the job for $8,000.00, after you collected well over a HALF MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money?
However, this posting will invite you inside the park for a close-up tour of what the misleading writer calls a beautiful park. After reading this entire Report concerning the BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT, PLEASE as the writer posted, “NOW YOU BE THE JUDGE”.
Please be warned that when you read the facts relating to the mismanaged, unsupervised, and failed project you may be disgusted as to how our town is managed under the Democratic Control Government.
Again you will see that the Democratic Controlled Oceanport Government appears to be nothing more than an incompetent group of reactive individuals, who responded quickly after the BLACKBERRY PARK PROJECT was exposed as being a disastrous mess on April 23, 2006. This is when the real story was exposed to the public.
For those of you who are familiar with the Blackberry Bay Park Debacle this may seem a little repetitive, but for those of you who did not follow the story back in April of this year it should serve as very informative and very factual post. In fact there was so much controversy over this project that it made a two week series in the newspaper called the “LINK”.
Here are the articles please read before you go another further.
June 1, 2006 Article
June 8, 2006 Article
June 21, 2006 Editorial
Before these articles made the paper the following information was presented to the Oceanport Residents on Sunday, April 23, 2006, documenting the failed Blackberry Bay Park Project.
The Oceanport Baseball Association has been pondering what exactly went wrong with the Blackberry Bay Park project and more specifically the baseball fields. The final cost for this project was $550,000.00 or better than a half million dollars and the Borough of Oceanport ended up with a final product that is sub-standard and far below expectation. The below listed contractor was the lowest bidder and was awarded the contract under job number 2-00009-420003. The bid was $275,594.22
RWV Land & Livestock South Inc.
351 Pfister Road
Jackson, NJ 08527
Here is where it things get a little suspicious. The bids came in as follows starting with the lowest bidder.
RWV Land & Livestock $275,594.22
Precise Construction $367,315.00
Down to Earth Landscape $369,089.50
There were also higher bids by a couple of companies going upwards to $575,000.00. The Boro Engineer assessed the project at a cost of about $340,000.00. Just a side note, the Boro Engineer, Tom Rospos was paid $80,000.00 for this flawed and unsatisfactory project. After some research it was learned that RWV Land and Livestock has no expertise in building baseball fields or parks.
However, without any background investigation or research into RWV Land and Livestock Company, the elected Oceanport officials awarded the contract. If you search the internet for RWV Land and Livestock they are typically a paving company with no expertise in the area of parks and baseball fields.
Based on this information, this begs the question of who benefited from this worthless product the citizens were sold and who should be held accountable? Of course finger pointed will always occur. However, who should be directly held responsible is the appropriate question.
Just throwing this in the air; however were there any kickbacks or campaign contributions from RWV Land and Livestock to anyone who had the power to award this contract? That is a question that always comes to light.
One needs to ask how a $275,594.00 project ended up costing the taxpayers of Oceanport upwards of $550,000.00. The project lasted well over two years when it was promised that it should not take more than a year.
Rumson had basically the same project completed this year and had a well-attended opening day ceremony for the citizens of their community to show them the final product. Although this project cost nearly $800,000.00, it was a product to be proud of, and to everyone’s surprise it was done in less than a year. That’s right less than a year.
Review the photos and formulate your own opinions. Just remember, come November what party was in control of the Oceanport Government when this project was awarded.
Oceanport spent $550,000.00 and Rumson spent nearly $800,000.00. Now this is not a trick question. And the question is,
Whose money was better spent Oceanport or Rumson?
The photographs were taken on the same day during the rain. In fact, the Blackberry Bay photographs were taken about fifteen minutes before the Rumson photographs.
Click on the Links to view Photographs. They are large files, but worth the wait for them to appear.
RUMSON PHOTOGRAPHS BLACKBERRY PHOTOGRAPHS
This just came to light that Councilman Briscione accepted a campaign donation from RWV Land and Livestock Company in the amount of $500.00, but later returned it. However, here is the timeline of this contribution, so that you can formulate your own opinion.
JUNE 2004: CONTRACT AWARDED TO RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK
AUGUST 20, 2004: RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK DONATED $500.00 TO ALFRED GUZZI, JAY BRISCIONE, AND ROBERT HOLDEN. IF YOU ALL REMEMBER CORRECTLY ALL THREE WERE RUNNING ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET IN OCEANPORT FOR THE NOVEMBER 2004 ELECTIONS. ONLY MR. BRISCIONE WAS ELECTED
NOVEMBER 4, 2004: THE $500.00 CONTRIBUTION WAS RETURNED TO RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK.
CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT RELATING TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
This certainly raises concerns as to how RWV Land and Livestock finds our local politicians to donate money too, and then is awarded the Blackberry Bay Park Project. What is the connection and what was promised to RWV Land and Livestock in return for a political donation?
The Borough Engineer is paid well over $80,000.00 dollars for a flawed project? Who benefited?
Is the benefit possibly a half million dollar baseball field contract? Who knows, but it certainly has the appearance of an unethical transaction from a citizen viewpoint. It may very well be an oversight, but it does not look good on paper.
The bottom line is that well over 400 innocent and unsuspecting children who play recreational baseball and their parents will suffer and will never experience playing on a home field that would be considered a showcase field like the two Rumson built at Riverside Park. If you get a chance take a ride there and see for yourself.
Take Seven Bridges Road to the end in Little Silver make a right hand turn at that Traffic light and the third right hand turn is Riverside road. Take that to the end and the park will be right in front of you.
One needs to wonder what motivates the people who are responsible for the final product at Blackberry Bay Park.
A day after the BLACKBERRY BAY PARK CATASTROPHE was made public a couple of negative responses were received by e-mail. Also you will see that since BLACKBERRY BAY PARK was so beautiful, the Recreation Committee who was planning a Memorial Day Weekend Event at BLACKBERRY BAY PARK had to cancel the event because the PARK was considered an eyesore and an embarrassment to the Town.
Click here to read the e-mails. E-MAILS
Then there was a meeting with the MAYOR. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW THE MEETING WITH THE MAYOR.
TODAY THE BLACKBERRY BAY PARK IS STILL AN EYESORE AND CONSIDERED A FAILED PROJECT WITH PLAYGROUND SAFETY ISSUES AND THE PARK IS NOT ADA FRIENDLY. THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2006 AND THE PARK IS STILL AN EYESORE.
CLECK HERE TO VIEW PHOTOS
THE SAFETY ISSUES ARE TOO MANY TO LIST. HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DESIGN OF THE BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT DID NOT TAKE THE SAFETY OF THE YOUNG CHILDREN AND SPECTATORS INTO CONSIDERATION.
CLICK ON THE SAFETY ISSUE LINK TO VIEW THE COMPARISON BETWEEN RIVERSIDE PARK IN RUMSON AND BLACKBERRY BAY PARK.
THE BOROUGH ENGINEER IN RUMSON IS OBVIOUSLY A SAFETY MINDED INDIVDIUAL WHILE ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. BLACKBERRY BAY PARK SAFETY ISSUE
BLACKBERRY BAY PARK DOES NOT MEET AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) STANDARDS NOR DOES IT MEET THE PLAYGROUND SAFTEY REGULATIONS SET BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
CLCIK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING PLAYGROUND SAFETY AND ADA REGULATIONS. PLAYGROUND SAFETY/ADA REGULATIONS OR CLICK HERE PLAYGROUND SAFETY
And the BOROUGH ENGINEER gets a tidy sum that is over $80,000.00 for the renovation of Blackberry Bay Park. WHAT AN EMBARASSMENT…………………………………………………………………
Then a week after the botched Blackberry Bay project was exposed the Park was busy with repairs. Here are photos of the park dated April 29, 2006. April 29, 2006
As weeks went by still not much progress. Here are photos of May 23, 2006 and May 29, 2006 after a rain storm. May 23, 2006
And a Meeting with the Mayor on May 24 2006. May 24, 2006 MEETING WITH THE MAYOR.
And today the park is sitting stagnant with no further work completed. The Park looks good from a distance, a good distance, but when you enter the park it is considered a disgrace by many.
VOTE REPLUBICAN TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM THESE PLAYGROUND SAFETY CONCERNS……………………………………………………………………………..
ELLYNN KAHLE FOR MAYOR, JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL
IRONICALLY, DEMOCRATIC US REPRESENTATIVE, CONGRESSMAN FRANK PALLONE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION CONCERNING PLAYGROUND SAFETY….. CLICK HERE 2001 BILL BY FRANK PALLONE HEY OCEANPORT DID YOU APPLY FOR ANY GRANT MONEY FOR PLAYGROUND SAFETY ISSUES?
For those of you who are familiar with the Blackberry Bay Park Debacle this may seem a little repetitive, but for those of you who did not follow the story back in April of this year it should serve as very informative and very factual post. In fact there was so much controversy over this project that it made a two week series in the newspaper called the “LINK”.
Here are the articles please read before you go another further.
June 1, 2006 Article
June 8, 2006 Article
June 21, 2006 Editorial
Before these articles made the paper the following information was presented to the Oceanport Residents on Sunday, April 23, 2006, documenting the failed Blackberry Bay Park Project.
The Oceanport Baseball Association has been pondering what exactly went wrong with the Blackberry Bay Park project and more specifically the baseball fields. The final cost for this project was $550,000.00 or better than a half million dollars and the Borough of Oceanport ended up with a final product that is sub-standard and far below expectation. The below listed contractor was the lowest bidder and was awarded the contract under job number 2-00009-420003. The bid was $275,594.22
RWV Land & Livestock South Inc.
351 Pfister Road
Jackson, NJ 08527
Here is where it things get a little suspicious. The bids came in as follows starting with the lowest bidder.
RWV Land & Livestock $275,594.22
Precise Construction $367,315.00
Down to Earth Landscape $369,089.50
There were also higher bids by a couple of companies going upwards to $575,000.00. The Boro Engineer assessed the project at a cost of about $340,000.00. Just a side note, the Boro Engineer, Tom Rospos was paid $80,000.00 for this flawed and unsatisfactory project. After some research it was learned that RWV Land and Livestock has no expertise in building baseball fields or parks.
However, without any background investigation or research into RWV Land and Livestock Company, the elected Oceanport officials awarded the contract. If you search the internet for RWV Land and Livestock they are typically a paving company with no expertise in the area of parks and baseball fields.
Based on this information, this begs the question of who benefited from this worthless product the citizens were sold and who should be held accountable? Of course finger pointed will always occur. However, who should be directly held responsible is the appropriate question.
Just throwing this in the air; however were there any kickbacks or campaign contributions from RWV Land and Livestock to anyone who had the power to award this contract? That is a question that always comes to light.
One needs to ask how a $275,594.00 project ended up costing the taxpayers of Oceanport upwards of $550,000.00. The project lasted well over two years when it was promised that it should not take more than a year.
Rumson had basically the same project completed this year and had a well-attended opening day ceremony for the citizens of their community to show them the final product. Although this project cost nearly $800,000.00, it was a product to be proud of, and to everyone’s surprise it was done in less than a year. That’s right less than a year.
Review the photos and formulate your own opinions. Just remember, come November what party was in control of the Oceanport Government when this project was awarded.
Oceanport spent $550,000.00 and Rumson spent nearly $800,000.00. Now this is not a trick question. And the question is,
Whose money was better spent Oceanport or Rumson?
The photographs were taken on the same day during the rain. In fact, the Blackberry Bay photographs were taken about fifteen minutes before the Rumson photographs.
Click on the Links to view Photographs. They are large files, but worth the wait for them to appear.
RUMSON PHOTOGRAPHS BLACKBERRY PHOTOGRAPHS
This just came to light that Councilman Briscione accepted a campaign donation from RWV Land and Livestock Company in the amount of $500.00, but later returned it. However, here is the timeline of this contribution, so that you can formulate your own opinion.
JUNE 2004: CONTRACT AWARDED TO RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK
AUGUST 20, 2004: RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK DONATED $500.00 TO ALFRED GUZZI, JAY BRISCIONE, AND ROBERT HOLDEN. IF YOU ALL REMEMBER CORRECTLY ALL THREE WERE RUNNING ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET IN OCEANPORT FOR THE NOVEMBER 2004 ELECTIONS. ONLY MR. BRISCIONE WAS ELECTED
NOVEMBER 4, 2004: THE $500.00 CONTRIBUTION WAS RETURNED TO RWV LAND AND LIVESTOCK.
CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT RELATING TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
This certainly raises concerns as to how RWV Land and Livestock finds our local politicians to donate money too, and then is awarded the Blackberry Bay Park Project. What is the connection and what was promised to RWV Land and Livestock in return for a political donation?
The Borough Engineer is paid well over $80,000.00 dollars for a flawed project? Who benefited?
Is the benefit possibly a half million dollar baseball field contract? Who knows, but it certainly has the appearance of an unethical transaction from a citizen viewpoint. It may very well be an oversight, but it does not look good on paper.
The bottom line is that well over 400 innocent and unsuspecting children who play recreational baseball and their parents will suffer and will never experience playing on a home field that would be considered a showcase field like the two Rumson built at Riverside Park. If you get a chance take a ride there and see for yourself.
Take Seven Bridges Road to the end in Little Silver make a right hand turn at that Traffic light and the third right hand turn is Riverside road. Take that to the end and the park will be right in front of you.
One needs to wonder what motivates the people who are responsible for the final product at Blackberry Bay Park.
A day after the BLACKBERRY BAY PARK CATASTROPHE was made public a couple of negative responses were received by e-mail. Also you will see that since BLACKBERRY BAY PARK was so beautiful, the Recreation Committee who was planning a Memorial Day Weekend Event at BLACKBERRY BAY PARK had to cancel the event because the PARK was considered an eyesore and an embarrassment to the Town.
Click here to read the e-mails. E-MAILS
Then there was a meeting with the MAYOR. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW THE MEETING WITH THE MAYOR.
TODAY THE BLACKBERRY BAY PARK IS STILL AN EYESORE AND CONSIDERED A FAILED PROJECT WITH PLAYGROUND SAFETY ISSUES AND THE PARK IS NOT ADA FRIENDLY. THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2006 AND THE PARK IS STILL AN EYESORE.
CLECK HERE TO VIEW PHOTOS
THE SAFETY ISSUES ARE TOO MANY TO LIST. HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DESIGN OF THE BLACKBERRY BAY PROJECT DID NOT TAKE THE SAFETY OF THE YOUNG CHILDREN AND SPECTATORS INTO CONSIDERATION.
CLICK ON THE SAFETY ISSUE LINK TO VIEW THE COMPARISON BETWEEN RIVERSIDE PARK IN RUMSON AND BLACKBERRY BAY PARK.
THE BOROUGH ENGINEER IN RUMSON IS OBVIOUSLY A SAFETY MINDED INDIVDIUAL WHILE ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. BLACKBERRY BAY PARK SAFETY ISSUE
BLACKBERRY BAY PARK DOES NOT MEET AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) STANDARDS NOR DOES IT MEET THE PLAYGROUND SAFTEY REGULATIONS SET BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
CLCIK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING PLAYGROUND SAFETY AND ADA REGULATIONS. PLAYGROUND SAFETY/ADA REGULATIONS OR CLICK HERE PLAYGROUND SAFETY
And the BOROUGH ENGINEER gets a tidy sum that is over $80,000.00 for the renovation of Blackberry Bay Park. WHAT AN EMBARASSMENT…………………………………………………………………
Then a week after the botched Blackberry Bay project was exposed the Park was busy with repairs. Here are photos of the park dated April 29, 2006. April 29, 2006
As weeks went by still not much progress. Here are photos of May 23, 2006 and May 29, 2006 after a rain storm. May 23, 2006
And a Meeting with the Mayor on May 24 2006. May 24, 2006 MEETING WITH THE MAYOR.
And today the park is sitting stagnant with no further work completed. The Park looks good from a distance, a good distance, but when you enter the park it is considered a disgrace by many.
VOTE REPLUBICAN TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM THESE PLAYGROUND SAFETY CONCERNS……………………………………………………………………………..
ELLYNN KAHLE FOR MAYOR, JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL
IRONICALLY, DEMOCRATIC US REPRESENTATIVE, CONGRESSMAN FRANK PALLONE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION CONCERNING PLAYGROUND SAFETY….. CLICK HERE 2001 BILL BY FRANK PALLONE HEY OCEANPORT DID YOU APPLY FOR ANY GRANT MONEY FOR PLAYGROUND SAFETY ISSUES?
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 5:19 PM
Sunday, October 22, 2006
ARE THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS HIDING SOMETHING FROM THE OCEANPORT REPUBLICANS?
VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR A FRESH START IN OCEANPORT
ELLYNN KAHLE FOR MAYOR
JOE IRACE AND WILLIAM JOHNSON FOR COUNCIL
TOGETHER THEY WILL MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE IN OCEANPORT
SHARED SERVICES UPDATE: The below listed article appeared in the Asbury Park Press on Friday, October 20, 2006, concerning SHARED SERVICES. This time SEA BRIGHT is considering a merger with RUMSON. AND WHERE IS OCEANPORT ON SHARED SERVICES?
In addition to dropping the ball on SHARED SERVICES the Democratic Run Oceanport Government is also far behind the other two towns in the claiming and planning of the Fort Monmouth Property. Oceanport is gradually loosing ground with each day that passes.
Last year Councilman Sharkey made recommendations on two occasions at a Workshop Meetings requesting that a certified Planner be hired to assist Oceanport with the planning of the Fort Monmouth Property, so that Oceanport would be well advised on the matter. The meetings were held on October 17, 2005 and November 03, 2005.
Here is the exact verbiage from the minutes of 10/17/05: INSTEAD OF HIRING A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER TO INVENTORY THE FORT MONMOUTH PROPERTY DURING THE EARLY STAGES, THE BOROUGH DECIDED TO USE THE BOROUGH ENGINEER.
In addition to dropping the ball on SHARED SERVICES the Democratic Run Oceanport Government is also far behind the other two towns in the claiming and planning of the Fort Monmouth Property. Oceanport is gradually loosing ground with each day that passes.
Last year Councilman Sharkey made recommendations on two occasions at a Workshop Meetings requesting that a certified Planner be hired to assist Oceanport with the planning of the Fort Monmouth Property, so that Oceanport would be well advised on the matter. The meetings were held on October 17, 2005 and November 03, 2005.
Here is the exact verbiage from the minutes of 10/17/05: INSTEAD OF HIRING A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER TO INVENTORY THE FORT MONMOUTH PROPERTY DURING THE EARLY STAGES, THE BOROUGH DECIDED TO USE THE BOROUGH ENGINEER.
If A PLANNER was hired a well documented and informative report would have been prepared. Currently, the Oceanport Democrats can not produce a report for the residents to review concerning the Fort Monmouth acquisition.
COUNCILWOMAN CHAUMP:
Councilwoman Chaump reported that she attended the meeting of the Reuse Committee. There was discussion on the progress of the Committee and there was discussion about an inventory being done of the property by the Committee and Councilman Sharkey felt that a professional from the Borough should go on that tour to make sure the Borough has a correct inventory. There was a lengthy discussion on the matter and also the make up of the Committee. Mr. Sharkey felt that there should be a professional from the Borough there for the walk through and made a motion to that effect
Now here are the excerpts from the 11/03/05 minutes:
COUNCILMAN BRISCIONE:
There was further discussion on the matter and Councilman Sharkey felt we should have our professionals in early as a precautionary measure. Councilman Briscione felt this is totally inaccurate and stated that the Army will only deal with the local redevelopment authority or any consultant that is hired by the redevelopment authority so there is no chance we can miss the boat here.
And here the Borough of Oceanport sits a year later with NO PROFESSIONAL PLANNER on board, while the Mayor of Eatontown is actively planning the future of his own Town with the property situated on Fort Monmouth.
Here the Democratic Council President shooting down the recommendation of hiring a professional to assist Oceanport in the early stages of planning the Fort Monmouth Property. Today, Oceanport appears to be way behind the other two towns in the planning the acquisition of the Fort Monmouth property.
Again where is Oceanport? Do the Democrats of Oceanport have any idea what the Borough is getting from Fort Monmouth in the way of buildings, grounds and property? The citizens certainly do not know. Additionally, it is very problematic that the Oceanport Democrats, Gatta, Chaump, Briscione and Johnson refused to put any Republican council person on the Reuse Committee. Especially at a time when Linda Johnson is not running for another term, and the possibility exists that the current Mayor, Mayor Chaump may not be around after the November 7th, 2006, elections.
This means that only the Democratic citizens have been represented by the Borough of Oceanport during the last year regarding the planning of the Fort Monmouth Property. The Republican residents should be appalled by this Democratic move and demand that a Republican Council person by placed on the Committee, since they represent the Republican citizens of the Borough. The town is not made up of only Democrats. There are Republicans as well and the Republican citizens should be represented by the individuals they voted into office.
WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS HIDING? MORE CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS? WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS CLOSING OUT THE REPUBLICANS ON THE LARGEST DEAL AFFECTING OCEANPORT? ARE THERE MORE PAY TO PLAY DEALS? WHO KNOWS, BUT SURE SEEMS TO BE VERY SERCRETIVE…………………………
ARE THE DEMOCRATS PURPOSELY KEEPING THE RESIDENTS IN THE DARK CONCERNING THE FORT MONMOUTH DEAL
THE PERCEPTION OF A LAZY AND INEPT DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED OCEANPORT GOVERNMENT IS BEGINNING TO BE EXPOSED
Rumson and Sea Bright: perfect together?
Towns should merge, ex-councilman says
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/20/06
BY LARRY HIGGS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
Rumson and Sea Bright: perfect together?
RUMSON — Rumson-by-the-Sea? Rumson Bright?
A proposal that Rumson merge with Sea Bright was made by a former Sea Bright councilman who went to the Rumson Borough Council meeting Thursday night with the idea. Former Councilman Andrew Mencinsky also plans to fax his proposal to Gov. Corzine and local legislators.
"We're looking at (having to build) a new municipal building and police headquarters. A likely solution is for the smaller community to merge, and Rumson is a likely candidate to absorb Sea Bright," said Mencinsky, who served on the council from 2001 to 2004.
Mencinsky made a similar presentation to Sea Bright's council on Tuesday. Sea Bright Councilman Thomas E. Scriven said the idea is worth studying.
"He had some ideas that some people thought were great," Scriven said. "I'd think the next step would be to look at it very closely, examine the ideas and what would work."
Mencinsky said Rumson would gain a half-billion dollars in taxable property, including oceanfront property. It would also get some rental housing, which would help Rumson meet its state obligation to provide affordable housing.
Sea Bright would avoid having to build police and municipal facilities, which need replacement. The beachfront property could be reused for parks, Mencinsky said.
Sea Bright residents would send their children to Rumson schools, which would relieve Sea Bright of its largest tax obligation — to the Shore Regional School District, he said.
"We are looking to reduce our educational expenses. We pay an exorbitant amount because the funding formula hits us hard," Scriven said.
Rumson officials had few comments except to thank Mencinsky for his presentation.
"It's the first we're hearing of it. Rumson has never had discussions of (a) merger," Mayor John E. Ekdahl said. "At this point it's not something we're considering."
Scriven said that Rumson isn't the only potential merger partner and that the boroughs also could look at merging services.
"It is not something that will be decided tomorrow, but the idea itself is outside the box, and it's good," Scriven said.
Rumson officials approved participating in a study of merging police departments with Fair Haven and Little Silver at Thursday's meeting. The council voted unanimously to take that step and to match its share of a state grant.
Little Silver and Fair Haven officials approved similar measures Monday.
And the study's cost to the borough taxpayers will be less than expected, Ekdahl said. He received a letter from state officials that lowered the matching share that municipalities would have to pay from 50 to 10 percent, if a state grant is awarded.
That lowers the cost from $3,333 per borough to $666, to match a $20,000 state grant, he said.
"It is fortuitous for us," Ekdahl said.
Read the Following to see how far out in front the Eatontown mayor is in claiming and planning his stake of Fort Monmouth:
County, Eatontown intend to purchase parts of Fort Monmouth
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/19/06
BY KEITH BROWN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
EATONTOWN — The borough and Monmouth County announced their intentions to acquire certain parts of Fort Monmouth property Wednesday.
At the seventh meeting of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority, Mayor Gerald J. Tarantolo and Monmouth County Freeholder Lillian Burry — both authority members — said they intend to pursue obtaining specific parcels of the fort, which is slated to close in 2011.
Tarantolo said he intends to declare dibs on the post's Communications Electronics Life Cycle Management building for use as a new municipal center.
Burry said the county and representatives from Eatontown, Oceanport and Tinton Falls will soon be taking a second tour of the post with an eye on the fort's recreational facilities, which the county would like to preserve as open space.
Once the fences separating the post from the borough come down in five years, Tarantolo said, the borough would like to inherit the CECOM headquarters and turn it into a municipal center to replace the current facility at 47 Broad St., which he said was "bursting at the seams."
The 50,000-square-foot building, which lies within the 452 acres the borough stands to gain when the 89-year-old post closes in 2011, also has a 400-seat theater and an outdoor amphitheater that seats between 800 and 1,000, along with enough parking to accommodate all three facilities.
Tarantolo said the building could also house sewerage authority offices, Board of Education offices and several other municipal functions that are now scattered throughout town.
"It think it's ideal for a new borough hall," Tarantolo said. "That's what I'm doing, and you'll be the recipient of that letter shortly."
There was no comment from other authority members following Tarantolo's announcement.
A draft of the county's open space plan in July identified portions of Fort Monmouth as potential new park sites because the county wanted to go on record as being interested in some of the land as the military moves forward with plans to close the base, Park System spokeswoman Laura Kirkpatrick has said.
The plan lists the golf course, marina, waterfront area, open fields and indoor recreation facilities, such as the officers' club and gym, as key assets of the fort.
"We'll be looking with an eye toward a good solution to the use of some of those facilities," Burry said of the group's planned tour of the fort.
COUNCILWOMAN CHAUMP:
Councilwoman Chaump reported that she attended the meeting of the Reuse Committee. There was discussion on the progress of the Committee and there was discussion about an inventory being done of the property by the Committee and Councilman Sharkey felt that a professional from the Borough should go on that tour to make sure the Borough has a correct inventory. There was a lengthy discussion on the matter and also the make up of the Committee. Mr. Sharkey felt that there should be a professional from the Borough there for the walk through and made a motion to that effect
Now here are the excerpts from the 11/03/05 minutes:
COUNCILMAN BRISCIONE:
There was further discussion on the matter and Councilman Sharkey felt we should have our professionals in early as a precautionary measure. Councilman Briscione felt this is totally inaccurate and stated that the Army will only deal with the local redevelopment authority or any consultant that is hired by the redevelopment authority so there is no chance we can miss the boat here.
And here the Borough of Oceanport sits a year later with NO PROFESSIONAL PLANNER on board, while the Mayor of Eatontown is actively planning the future of his own Town with the property situated on Fort Monmouth.
Here the Democratic Council President shooting down the recommendation of hiring a professional to assist Oceanport in the early stages of planning the Fort Monmouth Property. Today, Oceanport appears to be way behind the other two towns in the planning the acquisition of the Fort Monmouth property.
Again where is Oceanport? Do the Democrats of Oceanport have any idea what the Borough is getting from Fort Monmouth in the way of buildings, grounds and property? The citizens certainly do not know. Additionally, it is very problematic that the Oceanport Democrats, Gatta, Chaump, Briscione and Johnson refused to put any Republican council person on the Reuse Committee. Especially at a time when Linda Johnson is not running for another term, and the possibility exists that the current Mayor, Mayor Chaump may not be around after the November 7th, 2006, elections.
This means that only the Democratic citizens have been represented by the Borough of Oceanport during the last year regarding the planning of the Fort Monmouth Property. The Republican residents should be appalled by this Democratic move and demand that a Republican Council person by placed on the Committee, since they represent the Republican citizens of the Borough. The town is not made up of only Democrats. There are Republicans as well and the Republican citizens should be represented by the individuals they voted into office.
WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS HIDING? MORE CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS? WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS CLOSING OUT THE REPUBLICANS ON THE LARGEST DEAL AFFECTING OCEANPORT? ARE THERE MORE PAY TO PLAY DEALS? WHO KNOWS, BUT SURE SEEMS TO BE VERY SERCRETIVE…………………………
ARE THE DEMOCRATS PURPOSELY KEEPING THE RESIDENTS IN THE DARK CONCERNING THE FORT MONMOUTH DEAL
THE PERCEPTION OF A LAZY AND INEPT DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED OCEANPORT GOVERNMENT IS BEGINNING TO BE EXPOSED
Rumson and Sea Bright: perfect together?
Towns should merge, ex-councilman says
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/20/06
BY LARRY HIGGS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
Rumson and Sea Bright: perfect together?
RUMSON — Rumson-by-the-Sea? Rumson Bright?
A proposal that Rumson merge with Sea Bright was made by a former Sea Bright councilman who went to the Rumson Borough Council meeting Thursday night with the idea. Former Councilman Andrew Mencinsky also plans to fax his proposal to Gov. Corzine and local legislators.
"We're looking at (having to build) a new municipal building and police headquarters. A likely solution is for the smaller community to merge, and Rumson is a likely candidate to absorb Sea Bright," said Mencinsky, who served on the council from 2001 to 2004.
Mencinsky made a similar presentation to Sea Bright's council on Tuesday. Sea Bright Councilman Thomas E. Scriven said the idea is worth studying.
"He had some ideas that some people thought were great," Scriven said. "I'd think the next step would be to look at it very closely, examine the ideas and what would work."
Mencinsky said Rumson would gain a half-billion dollars in taxable property, including oceanfront property. It would also get some rental housing, which would help Rumson meet its state obligation to provide affordable housing.
Sea Bright would avoid having to build police and municipal facilities, which need replacement. The beachfront property could be reused for parks, Mencinsky said.
Sea Bright residents would send their children to Rumson schools, which would relieve Sea Bright of its largest tax obligation — to the Shore Regional School District, he said.
"We are looking to reduce our educational expenses. We pay an exorbitant amount because the funding formula hits us hard," Scriven said.
Rumson officials had few comments except to thank Mencinsky for his presentation.
"It's the first we're hearing of it. Rumson has never had discussions of (a) merger," Mayor John E. Ekdahl said. "At this point it's not something we're considering."
Scriven said that Rumson isn't the only potential merger partner and that the boroughs also could look at merging services.
"It is not something that will be decided tomorrow, but the idea itself is outside the box, and it's good," Scriven said.
Rumson officials approved participating in a study of merging police departments with Fair Haven and Little Silver at Thursday's meeting. The council voted unanimously to take that step and to match its share of a state grant.
Little Silver and Fair Haven officials approved similar measures Monday.
And the study's cost to the borough taxpayers will be less than expected, Ekdahl said. He received a letter from state officials that lowered the matching share that municipalities would have to pay from 50 to 10 percent, if a state grant is awarded.
That lowers the cost from $3,333 per borough to $666, to match a $20,000 state grant, he said.
"It is fortuitous for us," Ekdahl said.
Read the Following to see how far out in front the Eatontown mayor is in claiming and planning his stake of Fort Monmouth:
County, Eatontown intend to purchase parts of Fort Monmouth
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/19/06
BY KEITH BROWN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
EATONTOWN — The borough and Monmouth County announced their intentions to acquire certain parts of Fort Monmouth property Wednesday.
At the seventh meeting of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority, Mayor Gerald J. Tarantolo and Monmouth County Freeholder Lillian Burry — both authority members — said they intend to pursue obtaining specific parcels of the fort, which is slated to close in 2011.
Tarantolo said he intends to declare dibs on the post's Communications Electronics Life Cycle Management building for use as a new municipal center.
Burry said the county and representatives from Eatontown, Oceanport and Tinton Falls will soon be taking a second tour of the post with an eye on the fort's recreational facilities, which the county would like to preserve as open space.
Once the fences separating the post from the borough come down in five years, Tarantolo said, the borough would like to inherit the CECOM headquarters and turn it into a municipal center to replace the current facility at 47 Broad St., which he said was "bursting at the seams."
The 50,000-square-foot building, which lies within the 452 acres the borough stands to gain when the 89-year-old post closes in 2011, also has a 400-seat theater and an outdoor amphitheater that seats between 800 and 1,000, along with enough parking to accommodate all three facilities.
Tarantolo said the building could also house sewerage authority offices, Board of Education offices and several other municipal functions that are now scattered throughout town.
"It think it's ideal for a new borough hall," Tarantolo said. "That's what I'm doing, and you'll be the recipient of that letter shortly."
There was no comment from other authority members following Tarantolo's announcement.
A draft of the county's open space plan in July identified portions of Fort Monmouth as potential new park sites because the county wanted to go on record as being interested in some of the land as the military moves forward with plans to close the base, Park System spokeswoman Laura Kirkpatrick has said.
The plan lists the golf course, marina, waterfront area, open fields and indoor recreation facilities, such as the officers' club and gym, as key assets of the fort.
"We'll be looking with an eye toward a good solution to the use of some of those facilities," Burry said of the group's planned tour of the fort.
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 9:25 AM
Thursday, October 19, 2006
REPUBLICANS GO ON THE DEFENSE AFTER DEMOCRATS START SMEAR CAMPAIGN
THE FOLLOWING IS IN RESPONSE TO THE WRITER WHO POSTED:
“Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practise to Deceive" on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 on the following blog. http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
First there must be an explanation as to why this particular blog was initiated. “IS OCEANPORT MISMANAGED FOR PERSONAL GAIN”
Back on August 14, 2006 an individual who identified himself or herself as OCEANPORT REPORTS started a blog at this website http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/ and began to post unsubstantiated, nonfactual statements and allegations smearing the current Oceanport Republicans. This was viewed as an attempt to tarnish the character and credibility of the Oceanport Republicans.
This blog "IS OCEANPORT MISMANAGED FOR PERSONAL GAIN" started a month after the first posting by the Democrats.
Most disturbing about these postings was that the writer failed to provide any supporting links, documents or evidence to support the statements or allegations made against the Republicans in Oceanport. In fact these statements and allegations did not serve any purpose, but to spread rumors and falsehoods amongst the residents of Oceanport with hopes of swaying a voter to vote along the Democratic lines. Quite honestly if the reports were truthful and accurate this blog would not be here today.
As a result a task of reporting the true facts of the current STATE OF OCEANPORT was started in defense of the Republicans. It became apparent as time went on that the Democrats were strongly attempting to smear and blemish the integrity and character of the current Republican council people. One who is a REPUBLICAN MAYORAL CANIDATE BY THE NAME OF ELLYN KAHLE
KAHLE is currently making a run at Office under the Republican Ticket and obviously considered a threat. Since the elections are November 7, 2006 and rapidly approaching, it became very obvious that the residents of Oceanport had no avenue of obtaining factual information concerning the present STATE OF OCEANPORT and the issues directly affecting the QUALITY OF LIFE within the BOROUGH.
The current Democratic Controlled Borough has made no effort to keep the citizens of Oceanport up to date relating to issues directly affecting the town. The Oceanport Democrats failed miserably at informing the residents of those quality of life and environmental concerns the citizens have every right in knowing about.
The only communication the Borough has with its residents is by the Town Workshop or Town Council Meetings, and maybe a Bulletin that is sent a few times a year. The Democratic Borough has not made any progress in televising the meetings, since a majority of the residents can not attend due to conflicting work schedules or disabilities, nor have they been very proactive in publishing an up to date BOROUGH WEBSITE. Some believe this is by design to keep the PUBLIC in the dark concerning the current issues affecting the town.
The BOROUGH ADMINISTRATORS should be posting minutes from every Borough related meeting, such as, TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS, WORKSHOP MEETINGS, PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS, CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT MEETINGS and so on…………………………… In fact, wonder when the last time the FLOOD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MET?
Then there were e-mails of intimidation sent over the last few weeks from someone obviously attempting to smear the Oceanport Republicans, who is claiming to be, a Mike Douglas, Mark Mahon, M Douglas, and Oceanport Owl.
First there must be an explanation as to why this particular blog was initiated. “IS OCEANPORT MISMANAGED FOR PERSONAL GAIN”
Back on August 14, 2006 an individual who identified himself or herself as OCEANPORT REPORTS started a blog at this website http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/ and began to post unsubstantiated, nonfactual statements and allegations smearing the current Oceanport Republicans. This was viewed as an attempt to tarnish the character and credibility of the Oceanport Republicans.
This blog "IS OCEANPORT MISMANAGED FOR PERSONAL GAIN" started a month after the first posting by the Democrats.
Most disturbing about these postings was that the writer failed to provide any supporting links, documents or evidence to support the statements or allegations made against the Republicans in Oceanport. In fact these statements and allegations did not serve any purpose, but to spread rumors and falsehoods amongst the residents of Oceanport with hopes of swaying a voter to vote along the Democratic lines. Quite honestly if the reports were truthful and accurate this blog would not be here today.
As a result a task of reporting the true facts of the current STATE OF OCEANPORT was started in defense of the Republicans. It became apparent as time went on that the Democrats were strongly attempting to smear and blemish the integrity and character of the current Republican council people. One who is a REPUBLICAN MAYORAL CANIDATE BY THE NAME OF ELLYN KAHLE
KAHLE is currently making a run at Office under the Republican Ticket and obviously considered a threat. Since the elections are November 7, 2006 and rapidly approaching, it became very obvious that the residents of Oceanport had no avenue of obtaining factual information concerning the present STATE OF OCEANPORT and the issues directly affecting the QUALITY OF LIFE within the BOROUGH.
The current Democratic Controlled Borough has made no effort to keep the citizens of Oceanport up to date relating to issues directly affecting the town. The Oceanport Democrats failed miserably at informing the residents of those quality of life and environmental concerns the citizens have every right in knowing about.
The only communication the Borough has with its residents is by the Town Workshop or Town Council Meetings, and maybe a Bulletin that is sent a few times a year. The Democratic Borough has not made any progress in televising the meetings, since a majority of the residents can not attend due to conflicting work schedules or disabilities, nor have they been very proactive in publishing an up to date BOROUGH WEBSITE. Some believe this is by design to keep the PUBLIC in the dark concerning the current issues affecting the town.
The BOROUGH ADMINISTRATORS should be posting minutes from every Borough related meeting, such as, TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS, WORKSHOP MEETINGS, PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS, CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT MEETINGS and so on…………………………… In fact, wonder when the last time the FLOOD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MET?
Then there were e-mails of intimidation sent over the last few weeks from someone obviously attempting to smear the Oceanport Republicans, who is claiming to be, a Mike Douglas, Mark Mahon, M Douglas, and Oceanport Owl.
The age of the internet certainly has it advantages and disadvantages. Good thing for those high tech companies who produce forensic software to track e-mails and IP Addresses right back to the street address and more specifically account names. Although it is expensive software, it was well worth it this time around.
PLEASE READ THE TWO BLOGS AND FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINIONS AS TO WHAT INFORMATION IS MORE FACTUAL AND CREDIBLE
Getting back to the positing “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practise to Deceive" on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 on the following blog. http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
The writer SIR WALTER SCOTT started off by stating that his writing was nothing more than a DRAMA. Apparently the conflicts and mismanagement of Oceanport by the Democrats has been so interesting that it may make prime time television as a mini-series. Mr. Scott attempts to connect the County Attorney with a small town Republican Councilwoman, Ellyn Kahle. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION? Mr. Scott, Ms. Kahle did not appoint Carton to his position as the County Attorney. Again, Mr. Scott you failed to make your case. Please show the connection and the proofs between KAHLE and CARTON and how she influenced anyone to appoint him as the County Attorney. Hey good try, but weak. Again you produce no supporting evidence to sustain your allegation.
Unlike the DEMOCRATS, the OCEANPORT REPUBLICANS will not take “PAY TO PLAY DONATIONS” Let see, there has been an issue of the DEMOCRATS taking a $500.00 donation from the Contractor who was awarded the BLACKBERRY BAY CONTRACT. CLICK HERE TO SEE DONATION www.eyeonoceanport.com/blog/campaign%20contribution.pdf
And the $2000.00 donation by the New Borough Auditor. Refer to the posting of “Uncontrolled Spending Identified” on this Blog.
The secret Meeting Mayor Chaump had with the questionable Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who was served with a Federal subpoena and currently under criminal investigation by the FEDS. Just Read “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION” on this blog.
And then you question the appointment of the Borough Attorney by Kahle if she is elected. Mr. Scott, are you predicting the future? If so the Republicans can use you at their Christmas Party. Please don’t insult yourself with your short memory. Remember the Oceanport Democrats appointed a Borough attorney with a very hungry appetite for money and greed, good ole MARTIN A. MAGANN Jr. SEE THE FOLLOWING POSTS
PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OECANPORT AND Did Oceanport Democrats Bilk Oceanport Residents of Hard Earned Money AND More Conflicts of Interest
AND let’s no forget the Borough Engineer, Tom Rospos who was appointed by the Oceanport Democrats. Click here for information, PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OECANPORT
Concerning the alleged $400.00 Donation by T&M Engineering firm. Well here are the facts concerning this issue. And one needs to remember T&M is not the Oceanport Borough Engineer.
T&M purchased tickets through the Oceanport Republican Committee to attend an event at the Shadowbrook on March 29th hosted by the Two Rivers Republican Conference. A Republican Committee person sold the tickets to T&M as a member of the Two Rivers group. This was not a campaign contribution, but merely a dinner event. In fact, Ellynn Khale, Hugh Sharkey and Rick Gallo and others also paid to attend this event.
The important thing to note here is that Ellynn Kahle, Joe Irace and Will Johnson were not candidates for office at the time. They filed to run for office on April 12th, and after this event. If you wish to dispute the facts, please conduct more research before you go on record.
THE POSITION OF THE REPLUBICAN CANDIDATES; THEY WILL NOT AWARD ANY APPOINTMENT IF THE FIRM, GROUP, COMPANY OR PERSON HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN. THEY ARE STRIVING FOR AN OPEN AND HONEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN OCEANPORT.
IS THIS A BAITED QUESTION? THE SIGN ISSUE IS SO CHILDISH I DON’T BELIEVE IT WARRANTS A COMMENT OTHER THAN, WASN’T A HUSBAND OF A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ACCUSED OF STEALING A REPUBLICAN SIGN RIGHT OFF SOMEONE’S PROPERTY IN AN ATTEMPT TO REPLACE IT WITH A DEMOCRATIC SIGN?
AND FOR THE RECORD THE FIRST SIGN PLACED WAS BY THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, LABRUNO. IT WAS PLACED ON PORT-AU-PECK AVE. WHERE EVERYONE COULD SEE IT GOING TO AND FROM BLACKBERRY BAY PARK.
YOU’RE MOVE. BUT BE CAREFUL THE POLICE REPORT MAY BE FORTHCOMING………………………….
PLEASE READ THE TWO BLOGS AND FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINIONS AS TO WHAT INFORMATION IS MORE FACTUAL AND CREDIBLE
Getting back to the positing “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practise to Deceive" on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 on the following blog. http://oceanport1-reports.blogspot.com/
The writer SIR WALTER SCOTT started off by stating that his writing was nothing more than a DRAMA. Apparently the conflicts and mismanagement of Oceanport by the Democrats has been so interesting that it may make prime time television as a mini-series. Mr. Scott attempts to connect the County Attorney with a small town Republican Councilwoman, Ellyn Kahle. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION? Mr. Scott, Ms. Kahle did not appoint Carton to his position as the County Attorney. Again, Mr. Scott you failed to make your case. Please show the connection and the proofs between KAHLE and CARTON and how she influenced anyone to appoint him as the County Attorney. Hey good try, but weak. Again you produce no supporting evidence to sustain your allegation.
Unlike the DEMOCRATS, the OCEANPORT REPUBLICANS will not take “PAY TO PLAY DONATIONS” Let see, there has been an issue of the DEMOCRATS taking a $500.00 donation from the Contractor who was awarded the BLACKBERRY BAY CONTRACT. CLICK HERE TO SEE DONATION www.eyeonoceanport.com/blog/campaign%20contribution.pdf
And the $2000.00 donation by the New Borough Auditor. Refer to the posting of “Uncontrolled Spending Identified” on this Blog.
The secret Meeting Mayor Chaump had with the questionable Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who was served with a Federal subpoena and currently under criminal investigation by the FEDS. Just Read “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION” on this blog.
And then you question the appointment of the Borough Attorney by Kahle if she is elected. Mr. Scott, are you predicting the future? If so the Republicans can use you at their Christmas Party. Please don’t insult yourself with your short memory. Remember the Oceanport Democrats appointed a Borough attorney with a very hungry appetite for money and greed, good ole MARTIN A. MAGANN Jr. SEE THE FOLLOWING POSTS
PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OECANPORT AND Did Oceanport Democrats Bilk Oceanport Residents of Hard Earned Money AND More Conflicts of Interest
AND let’s no forget the Borough Engineer, Tom Rospos who was appointed by the Oceanport Democrats. Click here for information, PAY TO PLAY EXPOSED IN OECANPORT
Concerning the alleged $400.00 Donation by T&M Engineering firm. Well here are the facts concerning this issue. And one needs to remember T&M is not the Oceanport Borough Engineer.
T&M purchased tickets through the Oceanport Republican Committee to attend an event at the Shadowbrook on March 29th hosted by the Two Rivers Republican Conference. A Republican Committee person sold the tickets to T&M as a member of the Two Rivers group. This was not a campaign contribution, but merely a dinner event. In fact, Ellynn Khale, Hugh Sharkey and Rick Gallo and others also paid to attend this event.
The important thing to note here is that Ellynn Kahle, Joe Irace and Will Johnson were not candidates for office at the time. They filed to run for office on April 12th, and after this event. If you wish to dispute the facts, please conduct more research before you go on record.
THE POSITION OF THE REPLUBICAN CANDIDATES; THEY WILL NOT AWARD ANY APPOINTMENT IF THE FIRM, GROUP, COMPANY OR PERSON HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN. THEY ARE STRIVING FOR AN OPEN AND HONEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN OCEANPORT.
IS THIS A BAITED QUESTION? THE SIGN ISSUE IS SO CHILDISH I DON’T BELIEVE IT WARRANTS A COMMENT OTHER THAN, WASN’T A HUSBAND OF A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ACCUSED OF STEALING A REPUBLICAN SIGN RIGHT OFF SOMEONE’S PROPERTY IN AN ATTEMPT TO REPLACE IT WITH A DEMOCRATIC SIGN?
AND FOR THE RECORD THE FIRST SIGN PLACED WAS BY THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, LABRUNO. IT WAS PLACED ON PORT-AU-PECK AVE. WHERE EVERYONE COULD SEE IT GOING TO AND FROM BLACKBERRY BAY PARK.
YOU’RE MOVE. BUT BE CAREFUL THE POLICE REPORT MAY BE FORTHCOMING………………………….
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 6:13 PM
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
DID OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS MISS THE BOAT ON SHARED SERVICES 2?
SHARED SERVICES CONTINUED: For those of you who think that SHARED SERVICES is some contrived program or it is an issue that will fade away, you may be sadly mistaken. Please read the following Article that appeared in the Asbury Park Press on Saturday, October 7, 2006 and one that appeared on Monday, October 9, 2006.
In reading these articles it appears that Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth is really pushing this bill for towns to merge. In fact the Senator stated the following: "It needs to be mandated to those who oppose shattering the status quo," said Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth, author of the plan for a merger commission.
What does this mean? Simply, if the Democratic Run Borough of Oceanport doesn’t act soon, the taxpayers may be stuck paying the tab for a feasibility study.
How could the Democratic Controlled Borough of Oceanport be so blind? Why are the Democrats so reluctant to consider any plans to MERGE SERVICES with the nearby towns?
If Oceanport jumped on board back in February 2006, the Town would not be in such a bind. The State would have financed any feasibility study with grant money. Senator Kyrillos basically said that those who oppose a plan to merge will eventually be mandated to conform.
Just think if the Democrats don’t act fast Oceanport may get stuck merging with Long Branch. Since Oceanport opted not to even start the process to negotiate a deal with Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson or Shrewsbury the taxpayer may suffer under a State mandated merger.
In reading these articles it appears that Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth is really pushing this bill for towns to merge. In fact the Senator stated the following: "It needs to be mandated to those who oppose shattering the status quo," said Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth, author of the plan for a merger commission.
What does this mean? Simply, if the Democratic Run Borough of Oceanport doesn’t act soon, the taxpayers may be stuck paying the tab for a feasibility study.
How could the Democratic Controlled Borough of Oceanport be so blind? Why are the Democrats so reluctant to consider any plans to MERGE SERVICES with the nearby towns?
If Oceanport jumped on board back in February 2006, the Town would not be in such a bind. The State would have financed any feasibility study with grant money. Senator Kyrillos basically said that those who oppose a plan to merge will eventually be mandated to conform.
Just think if the Democrats don’t act fast Oceanport may get stuck merging with Long Branch. Since Oceanport opted not to even start the process to negotiate a deal with Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson or Shrewsbury the taxpayer may suffer under a State mandated merger.
All the other nearby towns who were represented at that meeting back in February 2006, have initiated the process to study the SHARED SERVICE program. However, Democratic Councilman Ted Ibex and Councilman Briscione dragged their feet and of course no mention of them jumping on board with Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson or Shrewsbury.
EIGHT MONTHS later the Democratic Councilman Ibex produced a less than satisfactory report concerning the Dispatch issue and Briscione has not produced any report. What have they been doing for the last EIGHT MONTHS while Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson, Shrewsbury, West Long Branch and Ocean Township have been actively researching and preparing reports concerning SHARED SERVICES.
And here is the update which was posted in the Asbury Park Press on Tuesday, October 17, 2006. The Town Council of Little Silver unanimously has approved applying for a grant to conduct a Study of SHARED SERVICES. Again, where is Oceanport? They are so far behind the curve again they are in LAST PLACE.
INTERESTING NOTE: UNNAMED OCEANPORT OFFCIALS CONCTACTED LITTLE SILVER COUNCILMAN, DECLAN O’SCANLON ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2006, THE VERY SAME DAY THIS BLOG POSTED A MESSAGE EXPOSING THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS FOR LACKING THE MOTOVATION AND INITIATIVE WITH EXPLORING SHARED SERVICES.
IS IT A REACTIVATE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED BOROUGH ATTEMPTING TO DO DAMAGE CONTROL?
IT WAS POSTED IN THE PASS THAT THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS DON'T APPEARED TO BE VERY PROACTIVE, BUT ARE EXTREMELY REACTIVE AND ONLY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES FACING OCEANPORT WHEN THE CONCERN IS BROUGHT TO THEM BY WAY OF A LAW SUIT, A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, AND NOW A POSTING ON THIS BLOG. THIS ARTICLE CERTAINLY PROVED THIS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
VOTE REPLUBICAN FOR A PROACTIVE GOVERNMENT IN OCEANPORT
A CALL TO LITTLE SILVER AFTER THE ISSUE OF SHARED SERVICES APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ON THIS BLOG? BETTER LATE THAT NEVER…………………………………………………
THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE ASBURY PARK ARTICLE, DATED TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006.
Officials from Oceanport and Shrewsbury also may be interested in joining the Two River Shared Services Committee, and contacted Little Silver officials last Friday, said Little Silver Councilman Declan O'Scanlon.
The Democrats in Oceanport have clearly sent a clear message by their failure to enter into any meetings BEFORE, FRIDAY OCTOBER 13th, 2006, with Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson and Shrewsbury directly relating to SHARED SERVICES. Read the following:
LITTLE SILVER OKS STUDY OF 3-TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Rumson, Fair Haven to consider same action
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/17/06
BY LARRY HIGGS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
RUMSON, FAIR HAVEN TO CONSIDER SHARED SERVICES
LITTLE SILVER — The Borough Council became the first of three municipalities to take up and approve studying a proposed consolidation of police departments on the peninsula as a possible way to reduce property taxes.
Council members voted unanimously Monday to apply for a $20,000 state Sharing Available Resources Efficiently grant to study merging police departments with Fair Haven and Rumson and to allocate $3,333, which is the borough's share of the match each municipality must provide.
Councils in the other two boroughs will be asked to consider a measure similar to the Little Silver resolution. Each borough would vote on forming the study committee and allocating $3,333 to provide a match to a $20,000 state grant to conduct the study. Rumson officials meet on Thursday.
Little Silver Mayor Suzanne S. Castleman said a study must be careful and deliberate and must answer all questions.
"It must be done right, or it will never work," Castleman said. "All who need to be spoken to should be spoken to. There is no rush. No one has a gun to our head."
She assured residents that officials do not want to see the current levels of service decline.
"We don't want it to work poorly, and we can't take services away from the residents," she said.
Pending approval by the Rumson and Fair Haven councils, Little Silver officials will take the lead in the study.
Officials from Oceanport and Shrewsbury also may be interested in joining the Two River Shared Services Committee, and contacted Little Silver officials last Friday, said Little Silver Councilman Declan O'Scanlon.
"We're interested in talking to them and seeing if it makes sense," he said.
The police study will likely proceed with Fair Haven, Rumson and Little Silver, he added.
Little Silver Councilman Jonathan Bitman cautioned against creating a new department that is too large.
"It's a good idea, but if it gets so big, then it loses its efficiency," Bitman said.
The study committee's first order of business is to hire a consultant to look at the proposed police merger. The possible merger to form a "Two Rivers" police department is patterned after consolidation of the Wharton and Mine Hill police departments in Morris County, and a study would examine that consolidation.
This is the second proposed police merger undergoing examination in the Shore area. This summer, Belmar officials proposed creating a regional force with police departments in Brielle, Lake Como, Manasquan, Sea Girt, Spring Lake, Spring Lake Heights and Wall.
Officials said that a police merger only would be considered if it did not affect response times to calls, didn't degrade service and if staffing would be reduced through attrition and not through firings or layoffs.
Officials in the three Two River towns said they could apply for the state grant in 30 days and estimate they could have an answer 30 days after that. Ultimately, results from a study could be known in about five to six months.
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST TO FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINION(S)
Getting serious about "sharing"
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/7/06
Getting Serious about SHARING
A proposal by Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth, to create a special commission to recommend municipal mergers received a thorough airing Wednesday before the committee examining government consolidation as a means of reducing the state's high property tax burden. That's encouraging news to those who rightly believe that the cost of the state's 566 local governments could be reduced if there were fewer of them.
Committee chairman Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, endorsed the plan with one significant change. Smith wants a public vote on any mergers rather than the up-or-down vote by the Legislature on the commission's list recommended in Kyrillos' version. That's a positive change, one that could greatly improve the plan's chances in the Legislature. The public should have a direct say on the future of their town rather than leaving it to the political whims of lawmakers in an all-or-nothing vote.
"New Jersey citizens should have the government that they want and that they are willing to pay for," Smith said. To that end, the financial impact of any merger should be made clear to the voters. That should include any state aid offered to encourage efficiency through mergers, another proposal discussed by the consolidation committee.
Consideration of the second part of Kyrillos' consolidation proposal — county school business boards — was put aside for another hearing. It, too, should get a full hearing. Kyrillos foresees significant savings in bulk purchasing of school supplies and countywide negotiating of contracts for maintenance, cafeteria and health services. Critics say the savings won't amount to much. We disagree. Our only problem is that the proposal doesn't go far enough. A commission similar to the one proposed for studying municipal consolidation should be created to study school consolidation.
The committee also discussed putting spending caps on fire districts and either eliminating the public vote or moving it to the November election to encourage higher turnout. We have a better idea: eliminate fire districts altogether and incorporate their operations into regional or county entities. They are a gross example of an unnecessary and costly level of government.
Lawmakers will continue to encounter stiff resistance from unions and other special interest groups that fear, rightly or wrongly, they could be hurt by improved government efficiency. Legislators must stand their ground. It will be far easier to do so if they can begin providing credible numbers on projected savings.
Legislators to debate town mergers
Lawmakers face questions this week about cutting New Jersey's property taxes
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/9/06
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LEGISLATORS TO DEBATE TOWN MERGERS
TRENTON — To force town mergers or not to force town mergers? That is the question facing New Jersey's legislators this week.
Whether to try and cut New Jersey's highest-in-the-nation property taxes by forcing towns to merge has become a contentious topic, and lawmakers will continue discussing the matter Wednesday as part of a bid to cut property taxes by year's end.
A special legislative committee discussing property tax reform has informally thrown its support behind legislation to create a special commission to decide which municipalities should be merged. The bill calls for the plan to get a single, up-or-down vote from legislators, though some lawmakers want voters to get final say.
The state has 1,389 local governments, including 566 municipalities, but municipal officials oppose forced mergers.
The same committee this week is expected to discuss a bill by Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr. to create a single law outlining regionalization and shared services, compared to the 337 laws that now govern such moves. The New Jersey League of Municipalities has worked with Roberts on the bill, and its executive director, Bill Dressel, said it could become a "landmark piece of legislation."
Dressel and League adviser Gregory Fehrenbach said voluntary shared service agreements that already exist throughout the state have proved most effective and argued nobody has demonstrated forced mergers would save money. They said Roberts' bill would promote more shared services.
"Many smaller municipalities strive daily to provide services at a lower cost than some larger municipalities are able to do, and those smaller municipalities succeed," Fehrenbach said. "They do without services. They use part-time employees and volunteers. They do not provide enviable salaries and benefits to their employees. They scavenge older vehicles for parts to keep better vehicles operating, forgoing the purchase of new vehicles and equipment. They take donations."
Lawmakers aren't convinced, arguing that having less municipalities helps reduce property taxes by streamlining government. They also doubt municipal officials are willing to merge.
"It needs to be mandated to those who oppose shattering the status quo," said Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth, author of the plan for a merger commission.
Read on to view that fine piece of work called a Memorandum from Democratic Councilman Ted Ibex concerning SHARED SERVICES: I was just wondering if this is the elegant report that the residents have been waiting 8 months to view?
This isn’t a report addressing the feasibility of SHARED SERVICES. This is nothing more than questions? Where is the detailed report showing statistics, as well as a detailed cost analysis? In fact, these are the same questions asked back in February 2006. What work did Ibex really do on this project? Please someone call him to task.
This Memorandum is an embarrassment to the Democratic Council. It is clear proof that the Democrats did nothing concerning SHARED SERVICES for the last eight months. WAS THIS NEGLECT OF DOING THE JOB AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE? Based on the IBEX Memorandum it appears that nobody did anything.
This Memorandum is real evidence showing the lack of ambition by the Democrats. In Fact the postings on this blog are better prepared than the Memo.
THE BOROUGH OF OCEANPORT IS STARVING FOR FRESH FACES IN GOVERNMENT.
VOTE REPLUBICAN NOVEMBER 7TH FOR A BRAND NEW START WITH NEW IDEAS
ELLEN KAHLE JOE IRACE WILL JOHNSON
In fact who are these questions presented too? I thought Ibex and Briscione were heading the SHARED SERVICES study? A study should consist of a voluminous report with graphs, charts and spreadsheets detailing every aspect of shared services with a comprehensive comparison study.
The writer must write the report from an objective view point. The purpose of any report is to report the facts, not to put a bias spin on the issue. That is why the STUDY should be completed by an outside independent firm so that there is no slant to the report. NOT ANY PERSON DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE ISSUE.
IF A PERSON DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE ISSUE WRITES A REPORT OR CONDUCTS A STUDY OF THE ISSUE, THIS PERSON WOULD POSITIVELY HAVE THE MOTIVATION OF WRITING A ONE SIDED REPORT TO PROTECT THEIR INTEREST.
The Report should be a very comprehensive description based on facts and financial records including comparisons between Oceanport and the County. I must say if the Democratic Councilman is asking these questions at this junction, he is way behind the other towns. Questions such as HOW REALISTIC/ACCURATE ARE THE ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS? That says it all. HEY OCEANPORT WAKE UP ALREADY. THE OTHER TOWNS HAVE APPLIED FOR GRANT MONEY TO GET THESE ANSWERS?
YOU CAN NOT GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HIRE AN INDEPENDENT, NON-BIAS FIRM TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY FROM AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT. NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR FROM A BIAS COUNCIL. OF COURSE THEY WILL WRITE THEIR REPORT WITH THEIR SPIN.
WHAT STEPS HAVE WE TAKEN TO VERIFY COUNTY COSTS?: ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET A CERTIFIED REPORT FROM THE COUNTY DETAILING THE COST OF RUNNING THE DISPTACH FROM THE COUNTY FOR A YEAR AND AN INDEPENDENT FIRM TO ANALYZED AND DOCUMENT THE COSTS TO RUN THE DISPATCH FROM OCEANPORT FOR A YEAR?
EIGHT MONTHS AND IBEX HASN’T DONE THIS YET?
HAVE WE TOURED THE FACILITY? ARE YOU KIDDING ME.? NINE MONTHS AFTER THE FACT IBEX HAS NOT DONE THIS HIMSELF? THE MNONMOUTH COUNTY DISPATCH FACILTY IS STATE OF THE ART SERVICE WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND HIGHLY TRAINED DISPATCHERS.
IN FACT THE COUNTY DISPATCHERS ARE TRAINED AS FIRST RESPONDERS WITH INSTRUCTION IN CPR. THE COUNTY DISPATCHERS ARE GIVEN A REFRESEHER COURSE EVERY YEAR TO KEEP UP ON THE CERTIFICATIONS.
CAN YOU SAY THE SAME FOR THE OCEANPORT DISPTACHERS?
ARE THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS TRAINED TO ASSIST A MOM WITH A CHOKING BABY OVER THE PHONE?
ARE THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS TRAINED IN CPR AND HEIMLICH MANEUVER? ARE THEY TRAINED TO HANDLE A CALL WHERE AN INTRUDER IS IN THE HOUSE AND THE CALLER IS A SMALL CHILD IN HIDING?
HOW OFTEN DO THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS RECEIVE TRAINING AND UPDATED REFRESHER COURSES?
ALL THIS IS OF PUBIC INFORMATION AND CAN BE CHECKED AT BOROUGH HALL. JUST ASK TO VIEW ALL CERTIFICATES REGARDING TRAINING AND REFRESHER COURSES COMPLETED BY THE DISPATCHERS. THIS WILL CLEARLY SHOW WHEN THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS HAVE RECEIVED THEIR LAST CERITIFIED TRAINING. THE CITZENS SHOULD BE ASSURED THAT OCEANPORT BOROUGH HAS THE MOST QUALIFIED DISPATCHERS.
IS THE OCEANPORT RADIO EQUIPMENT BETTER THAN THE COUNTIES EQUIPMENT?
THE ARGUMENT THAT A DISPATCHER KNOWS THE TOWN BETTER THAN A COUNTY DISPATCHER IS A WEAK ARGUMENT. UNLESS THE DISPATCHER IS REPSONDING TO THE CALL, WHAT IS DIFFERENCE IF THE CALL IS DISPATCHED FROM OCEANPORT OR MONMOUTH COUNTY?
EVEN THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS HAVE MADE ERRORS IN DISPATCHING TO WRONG LOCATIONS………
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
This thirty-two (32) hour APCO course provides the next level of certification for personnel that are already Basic Telecommunicator Certified (BTC). It is required for anyone working for a police department or other agency that receives medical calls. Topics covered include responsibilities of the Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD), legal and liability issues, giving medical instructions by telephone and the use of emergency medical dispatch guide cards. This course includes more than a day and a half of role playing involving simulated 9-1-1 medical calls. Students who successfully complete this course will possess the fundamental skills to handle 9-1-1 medical calls. This program offers (21) elective CEU’s to qualified Emergency Medical Technicians.
Public Safety Telecommunicator / Basic 911
This forty (40) hour approved Association of Professional Communications Operators (APCO) course provides the basic level of certification required by the State of New Jersey for any personnel working for a police department or other dispatch agency where 9-1-1 calls are answered. Topics covered will include an overview of dispatch procedures, legal and liability issues, techniques for answering 9-1-1 calls, handling the caller with “special” needs, and the history of New Jersey’s 9-1-1 system. This course includes a full day of roll playing involving simulated 9-1-1 calls. Students who successfully complete this course will possess the fundamental skills required to begin working as a 9-1-1 call taker. There are no prerequisites for this course and no dispatch experience is required.
SOME SAY THERE IS A DELAY GETTING CALLS OUT BY THE COUNTY BUT, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED INCIDENTS SUPPORTING THIS ARGUMENT. IF YOU USED THIS AS AN EXCUSE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN REPORTS TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.
RESPONSE TIME IS VERY CRUCIAL REGARDING CRITICAL INCIDENTS. BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO REVIEW STATISTICS TO DETERMINE HOW MANY CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE MAY BE OF A LIFE THREATENING NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO NON-LIFE THREATENTING SITUATION.
THE OTHER ISSUE OF THE SENIORS IN NEED PROGRAM. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE INNOVATIVE AND THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BE ABOLISHED BECAUSE THE DISPATCHERS WON’T BE IN THE BUILDING TO MAKE THOSE CALLS?
THIS ONLY CONFIRMS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE RELUCTANT TO CHANGE SINCE THEY DID NOT OFFER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF THE TOWN DOES GO TO THE COUNTY DISPATCH.
WITHOUT SEEKING ALTERNATIVES SOLUTIONS TO RUNNING THE SENIORS IN NEED PROGRAM, THIS CONFIRMS A BIAS REPORT? THEY NEVER MENTIONED HOW MANY CALLS ARE ACTUALLY MADE TO THE SENIORS ON A DAILY BASIS OR WEEKLY COUNT. FIRST YOU NEED TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SENIORS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS AND HOW MANY CALLS ARE TO BE MADE. IF IT IS ONLY FIVE TO TEN CALLS TO BE MADE AS PART OF A DAILY ROUTINE, WHY CAN’T THESE CALLS BE DIVIDED AMONGST THE WORKING STAFF AND BE MADE ON A COMPANY ISSUED CELL PHONE?
IS THERE A LOG KEEP EVERYDAY TO DETERMINE WHO WAS CALLED AND WHEN THEY WERE CALLED? THE LOG SHOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN DETERMINING HOW MANY CALLS ARE MADE ON A DAILY BASIS.
THERE IS ALWAYS A SOLUTION TO THESE SMALL PROBLEMS.
THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE PUT TO A REFERENDUM AFTER A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH REPORT IS PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE FIRM.
THE MOST AMAZING ISSUE IS NOT THE DISPATCH ISSUE, BUT THE FACT IT HAD TAKEN THE DEMOCRATIC COUNCILMAN TED IBEX 8 MONTHS TO PREPARE A USELESS REPORT. IN ALL HONESTY THIS REPORT COULD HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN 15 MINUTES TO PREPARE, AND IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LIST OF QUESTIONS. AND THEY WERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED EIGHT MONTHS AGO. WHAT A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS IN OCEANPORT. IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TOOK TO GET THIS REPORT OUT A NOVEL COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MOUNT RUSHMORE WAS BUILT IN LESS TIME? WELL HERE IT IS……………………………………………………
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Governing Body
CC: Boro Clerk, CFO
From: Ted Ibex
Date: 10/5/2006
Re: Dispatch Services
Review of Purported Potential Savings:
. How realistic/accurate are the estimated cost savings?
• What steps have been taken to verify the county costs?
Have we toured the facility?
Have we interviewed management?
Do we have a proposal from the county?
What do we know about future cost increases?
What do we know about capacity of the county system?
At what level does county have to expand to handle traffic?
What do we know about the qualifications and knowledge of dispatchers to insure timely responses to correct location as
Compared to standards and performance of Oceanport team?
• Discussion and reconciliation of concerns expressed by chiefs memo of 7/16/2006.
• Services currently provided by OP that would most likely terminate if go to county system, i.e., Seniors in Need Program.
• Discussion of weighing welfare and safety of citizens vs. $ saved.
Timely and correct response may save lives.
Experience in Asbury Park.
Experiences within Oceanport.
• Are there alternatives?
• Strong belief in providing services at reasonable cost without sacrifice of welfare and safely of citizens. The question should be put to the voters either by a question on the ballet, requesting information by questionnaire, and possibly holding public hearing on the matter. If taxpayers want services and are willing to pay for them, then perhaps the debate is moot.
EIGHT MONTHS later the Democratic Councilman Ibex produced a less than satisfactory report concerning the Dispatch issue and Briscione has not produced any report. What have they been doing for the last EIGHT MONTHS while Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson, Shrewsbury, West Long Branch and Ocean Township have been actively researching and preparing reports concerning SHARED SERVICES.
And here is the update which was posted in the Asbury Park Press on Tuesday, October 17, 2006. The Town Council of Little Silver unanimously has approved applying for a grant to conduct a Study of SHARED SERVICES. Again, where is Oceanport? They are so far behind the curve again they are in LAST PLACE.
INTERESTING NOTE: UNNAMED OCEANPORT OFFCIALS CONCTACTED LITTLE SILVER COUNCILMAN, DECLAN O’SCANLON ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2006, THE VERY SAME DAY THIS BLOG POSTED A MESSAGE EXPOSING THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS FOR LACKING THE MOTOVATION AND INITIATIVE WITH EXPLORING SHARED SERVICES.
IS IT A REACTIVATE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED BOROUGH ATTEMPTING TO DO DAMAGE CONTROL?
IT WAS POSTED IN THE PASS THAT THE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS DON'T APPEARED TO BE VERY PROACTIVE, BUT ARE EXTREMELY REACTIVE AND ONLY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES FACING OCEANPORT WHEN THE CONCERN IS BROUGHT TO THEM BY WAY OF A LAW SUIT, A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, AND NOW A POSTING ON THIS BLOG. THIS ARTICLE CERTAINLY PROVED THIS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
VOTE REPLUBICAN FOR A PROACTIVE GOVERNMENT IN OCEANPORT
A CALL TO LITTLE SILVER AFTER THE ISSUE OF SHARED SERVICES APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ON THIS BLOG? BETTER LATE THAT NEVER…………………………………………………
THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE ASBURY PARK ARTICLE, DATED TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006.
Officials from Oceanport and Shrewsbury also may be interested in joining the Two River Shared Services Committee, and contacted Little Silver officials last Friday, said Little Silver Councilman Declan O'Scanlon.
The Democrats in Oceanport have clearly sent a clear message by their failure to enter into any meetings BEFORE, FRIDAY OCTOBER 13th, 2006, with Little Silver, Fair Haven, Rumson and Shrewsbury directly relating to SHARED SERVICES. Read the following:
LITTLE SILVER OKS STUDY OF 3-TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Rumson, Fair Haven to consider same action
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/17/06
BY LARRY HIGGS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
RUMSON, FAIR HAVEN TO CONSIDER SHARED SERVICES
LITTLE SILVER — The Borough Council became the first of three municipalities to take up and approve studying a proposed consolidation of police departments on the peninsula as a possible way to reduce property taxes.
Council members voted unanimously Monday to apply for a $20,000 state Sharing Available Resources Efficiently grant to study merging police departments with Fair Haven and Rumson and to allocate $3,333, which is the borough's share of the match each municipality must provide.
Councils in the other two boroughs will be asked to consider a measure similar to the Little Silver resolution. Each borough would vote on forming the study committee and allocating $3,333 to provide a match to a $20,000 state grant to conduct the study. Rumson officials meet on Thursday.
Little Silver Mayor Suzanne S. Castleman said a study must be careful and deliberate and must answer all questions.
"It must be done right, or it will never work," Castleman said. "All who need to be spoken to should be spoken to. There is no rush. No one has a gun to our head."
She assured residents that officials do not want to see the current levels of service decline.
"We don't want it to work poorly, and we can't take services away from the residents," she said.
Pending approval by the Rumson and Fair Haven councils, Little Silver officials will take the lead in the study.
Officials from Oceanport and Shrewsbury also may be interested in joining the Two River Shared Services Committee, and contacted Little Silver officials last Friday, said Little Silver Councilman Declan O'Scanlon.
"We're interested in talking to them and seeing if it makes sense," he said.
The police study will likely proceed with Fair Haven, Rumson and Little Silver, he added.
Little Silver Councilman Jonathan Bitman cautioned against creating a new department that is too large.
"It's a good idea, but if it gets so big, then it loses its efficiency," Bitman said.
The study committee's first order of business is to hire a consultant to look at the proposed police merger. The possible merger to form a "Two Rivers" police department is patterned after consolidation of the Wharton and Mine Hill police departments in Morris County, and a study would examine that consolidation.
This is the second proposed police merger undergoing examination in the Shore area. This summer, Belmar officials proposed creating a regional force with police departments in Brielle, Lake Como, Manasquan, Sea Girt, Spring Lake, Spring Lake Heights and Wall.
Officials said that a police merger only would be considered if it did not affect response times to calls, didn't degrade service and if staffing would be reduced through attrition and not through firings or layoffs.
Officials in the three Two River towns said they could apply for the state grant in 30 days and estimate they could have an answer 30 days after that. Ultimately, results from a study could be known in about five to six months.
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST TO FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINION(S)
Getting serious about "sharing"
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/7/06
Getting Serious about SHARING
A proposal by Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr., R-Monmouth, to create a special commission to recommend municipal mergers received a thorough airing Wednesday before the committee examining government consolidation as a means of reducing the state's high property tax burden. That's encouraging news to those who rightly believe that the cost of the state's 566 local governments could be reduced if there were fewer of them.
Committee chairman Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, endorsed the plan with one significant change. Smith wants a public vote on any mergers rather than the up-or-down vote by the Legislature on the commission's list recommended in Kyrillos' version. That's a positive change, one that could greatly improve the plan's chances in the Legislature. The public should have a direct say on the future of their town rather than leaving it to the political whims of lawmakers in an all-or-nothing vote.
"New Jersey citizens should have the government that they want and that they are willing to pay for," Smith said. To that end, the financial impact of any merger should be made clear to the voters. That should include any state aid offered to encourage efficiency through mergers, another proposal discussed by the consolidation committee.
Consideration of the second part of Kyrillos' consolidation proposal — county school business boards — was put aside for another hearing. It, too, should get a full hearing. Kyrillos foresees significant savings in bulk purchasing of school supplies and countywide negotiating of contracts for maintenance, cafeteria and health services. Critics say the savings won't amount to much. We disagree. Our only problem is that the proposal doesn't go far enough. A commission similar to the one proposed for studying municipal consolidation should be created to study school consolidation.
The committee also discussed putting spending caps on fire districts and either eliminating the public vote or moving it to the November election to encourage higher turnout. We have a better idea: eliminate fire districts altogether and incorporate their operations into regional or county entities. They are a gross example of an unnecessary and costly level of government.
Lawmakers will continue to encounter stiff resistance from unions and other special interest groups that fear, rightly or wrongly, they could be hurt by improved government efficiency. Legislators must stand their ground. It will be far easier to do so if they can begin providing credible numbers on projected savings.
Legislators to debate town mergers
Lawmakers face questions this week about cutting New Jersey's property taxes
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/9/06
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LEGISLATORS TO DEBATE TOWN MERGERS
TRENTON — To force town mergers or not to force town mergers? That is the question facing New Jersey's legislators this week.
Whether to try and cut New Jersey's highest-in-the-nation property taxes by forcing towns to merge has become a contentious topic, and lawmakers will continue discussing the matter Wednesday as part of a bid to cut property taxes by year's end.
A special legislative committee discussing property tax reform has informally thrown its support behind legislation to create a special commission to decide which municipalities should be merged. The bill calls for the plan to get a single, up-or-down vote from legislators, though some lawmakers want voters to get final say.
The state has 1,389 local governments, including 566 municipalities, but municipal officials oppose forced mergers.
The same committee this week is expected to discuss a bill by Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr. to create a single law outlining regionalization and shared services, compared to the 337 laws that now govern such moves. The New Jersey League of Municipalities has worked with Roberts on the bill, and its executive director, Bill Dressel, said it could become a "landmark piece of legislation."
Dressel and League adviser Gregory Fehrenbach said voluntary shared service agreements that already exist throughout the state have proved most effective and argued nobody has demonstrated forced mergers would save money. They said Roberts' bill would promote more shared services.
"Many smaller municipalities strive daily to provide services at a lower cost than some larger municipalities are able to do, and those smaller municipalities succeed," Fehrenbach said. "They do without services. They use part-time employees and volunteers. They do not provide enviable salaries and benefits to their employees. They scavenge older vehicles for parts to keep better vehicles operating, forgoing the purchase of new vehicles and equipment. They take donations."
Lawmakers aren't convinced, arguing that having less municipalities helps reduce property taxes by streamlining government. They also doubt municipal officials are willing to merge.
"It needs to be mandated to those who oppose shattering the status quo," said Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, R-Monmouth, author of the plan for a merger commission.
Read on to view that fine piece of work called a Memorandum from Democratic Councilman Ted Ibex concerning SHARED SERVICES: I was just wondering if this is the elegant report that the residents have been waiting 8 months to view?
This isn’t a report addressing the feasibility of SHARED SERVICES. This is nothing more than questions? Where is the detailed report showing statistics, as well as a detailed cost analysis? In fact, these are the same questions asked back in February 2006. What work did Ibex really do on this project? Please someone call him to task.
This Memorandum is an embarrassment to the Democratic Council. It is clear proof that the Democrats did nothing concerning SHARED SERVICES for the last eight months. WAS THIS NEGLECT OF DOING THE JOB AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE? Based on the IBEX Memorandum it appears that nobody did anything.
This Memorandum is real evidence showing the lack of ambition by the Democrats. In Fact the postings on this blog are better prepared than the Memo.
THE BOROUGH OF OCEANPORT IS STARVING FOR FRESH FACES IN GOVERNMENT.
VOTE REPLUBICAN NOVEMBER 7TH FOR A BRAND NEW START WITH NEW IDEAS
ELLEN KAHLE JOE IRACE WILL JOHNSON
In fact who are these questions presented too? I thought Ibex and Briscione were heading the SHARED SERVICES study? A study should consist of a voluminous report with graphs, charts and spreadsheets detailing every aspect of shared services with a comprehensive comparison study.
The writer must write the report from an objective view point. The purpose of any report is to report the facts, not to put a bias spin on the issue. That is why the STUDY should be completed by an outside independent firm so that there is no slant to the report. NOT ANY PERSON DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE ISSUE.
IF A PERSON DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE ISSUE WRITES A REPORT OR CONDUCTS A STUDY OF THE ISSUE, THIS PERSON WOULD POSITIVELY HAVE THE MOTIVATION OF WRITING A ONE SIDED REPORT TO PROTECT THEIR INTEREST.
The Report should be a very comprehensive description based on facts and financial records including comparisons between Oceanport and the County. I must say if the Democratic Councilman is asking these questions at this junction, he is way behind the other towns. Questions such as HOW REALISTIC/ACCURATE ARE THE ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS? That says it all. HEY OCEANPORT WAKE UP ALREADY. THE OTHER TOWNS HAVE APPLIED FOR GRANT MONEY TO GET THESE ANSWERS?
YOU CAN NOT GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HIRE AN INDEPENDENT, NON-BIAS FIRM TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY FROM AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT. NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR FROM A BIAS COUNCIL. OF COURSE THEY WILL WRITE THEIR REPORT WITH THEIR SPIN.
WHAT STEPS HAVE WE TAKEN TO VERIFY COUNTY COSTS?: ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GET A CERTIFIED REPORT FROM THE COUNTY DETAILING THE COST OF RUNNING THE DISPTACH FROM THE COUNTY FOR A YEAR AND AN INDEPENDENT FIRM TO ANALYZED AND DOCUMENT THE COSTS TO RUN THE DISPATCH FROM OCEANPORT FOR A YEAR?
EIGHT MONTHS AND IBEX HASN’T DONE THIS YET?
HAVE WE TOURED THE FACILITY? ARE YOU KIDDING ME.? NINE MONTHS AFTER THE FACT IBEX HAS NOT DONE THIS HIMSELF? THE MNONMOUTH COUNTY DISPATCH FACILTY IS STATE OF THE ART SERVICE WITH MODERN EQUIPMENT AND HIGHLY TRAINED DISPATCHERS.
IN FACT THE COUNTY DISPATCHERS ARE TRAINED AS FIRST RESPONDERS WITH INSTRUCTION IN CPR. THE COUNTY DISPATCHERS ARE GIVEN A REFRESEHER COURSE EVERY YEAR TO KEEP UP ON THE CERTIFICATIONS.
CAN YOU SAY THE SAME FOR THE OCEANPORT DISPTACHERS?
ARE THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS TRAINED TO ASSIST A MOM WITH A CHOKING BABY OVER THE PHONE?
ARE THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS TRAINED IN CPR AND HEIMLICH MANEUVER? ARE THEY TRAINED TO HANDLE A CALL WHERE AN INTRUDER IS IN THE HOUSE AND THE CALLER IS A SMALL CHILD IN HIDING?
HOW OFTEN DO THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS RECEIVE TRAINING AND UPDATED REFRESHER COURSES?
ALL THIS IS OF PUBIC INFORMATION AND CAN BE CHECKED AT BOROUGH HALL. JUST ASK TO VIEW ALL CERTIFICATES REGARDING TRAINING AND REFRESHER COURSES COMPLETED BY THE DISPATCHERS. THIS WILL CLEARLY SHOW WHEN THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS HAVE RECEIVED THEIR LAST CERITIFIED TRAINING. THE CITZENS SHOULD BE ASSURED THAT OCEANPORT BOROUGH HAS THE MOST QUALIFIED DISPATCHERS.
IS THE OCEANPORT RADIO EQUIPMENT BETTER THAN THE COUNTIES EQUIPMENT?
THE ARGUMENT THAT A DISPATCHER KNOWS THE TOWN BETTER THAN A COUNTY DISPATCHER IS A WEAK ARGUMENT. UNLESS THE DISPATCHER IS REPSONDING TO THE CALL, WHAT IS DIFFERENCE IF THE CALL IS DISPATCHED FROM OCEANPORT OR MONMOUTH COUNTY?
EVEN THE OCEANPORT DISPATCHERS HAVE MADE ERRORS IN DISPATCHING TO WRONG LOCATIONS………
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
This thirty-two (32) hour APCO course provides the next level of certification for personnel that are already Basic Telecommunicator Certified (BTC). It is required for anyone working for a police department or other agency that receives medical calls. Topics covered include responsibilities of the Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD), legal and liability issues, giving medical instructions by telephone and the use of emergency medical dispatch guide cards. This course includes more than a day and a half of role playing involving simulated 9-1-1 medical calls. Students who successfully complete this course will possess the fundamental skills to handle 9-1-1 medical calls. This program offers (21) elective CEU’s to qualified Emergency Medical Technicians.
Public Safety Telecommunicator / Basic 911
This forty (40) hour approved Association of Professional Communications Operators (APCO) course provides the basic level of certification required by the State of New Jersey for any personnel working for a police department or other dispatch agency where 9-1-1 calls are answered. Topics covered will include an overview of dispatch procedures, legal and liability issues, techniques for answering 9-1-1 calls, handling the caller with “special” needs, and the history of New Jersey’s 9-1-1 system. This course includes a full day of roll playing involving simulated 9-1-1 calls. Students who successfully complete this course will possess the fundamental skills required to begin working as a 9-1-1 call taker. There are no prerequisites for this course and no dispatch experience is required.
SOME SAY THERE IS A DELAY GETTING CALLS OUT BY THE COUNTY BUT, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED INCIDENTS SUPPORTING THIS ARGUMENT. IF YOU USED THIS AS AN EXCUSE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN REPORTS TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.
RESPONSE TIME IS VERY CRUCIAL REGARDING CRITICAL INCIDENTS. BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO REVIEW STATISTICS TO DETERMINE HOW MANY CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE MAY BE OF A LIFE THREATENING NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO NON-LIFE THREATENTING SITUATION.
THE OTHER ISSUE OF THE SENIORS IN NEED PROGRAM. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE INNOVATIVE AND THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BE ABOLISHED BECAUSE THE DISPATCHERS WON’T BE IN THE BUILDING TO MAKE THOSE CALLS?
THIS ONLY CONFIRMS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE RELUCTANT TO CHANGE SINCE THEY DID NOT OFFER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IF THE TOWN DOES GO TO THE COUNTY DISPATCH.
WITHOUT SEEKING ALTERNATIVES SOLUTIONS TO RUNNING THE SENIORS IN NEED PROGRAM, THIS CONFIRMS A BIAS REPORT? THEY NEVER MENTIONED HOW MANY CALLS ARE ACTUALLY MADE TO THE SENIORS ON A DAILY BASIS OR WEEKLY COUNT. FIRST YOU NEED TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SENIORS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS AND HOW MANY CALLS ARE TO BE MADE. IF IT IS ONLY FIVE TO TEN CALLS TO BE MADE AS PART OF A DAILY ROUTINE, WHY CAN’T THESE CALLS BE DIVIDED AMONGST THE WORKING STAFF AND BE MADE ON A COMPANY ISSUED CELL PHONE?
IS THERE A LOG KEEP EVERYDAY TO DETERMINE WHO WAS CALLED AND WHEN THEY WERE CALLED? THE LOG SHOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN DETERMINING HOW MANY CALLS ARE MADE ON A DAILY BASIS.
THERE IS ALWAYS A SOLUTION TO THESE SMALL PROBLEMS.
THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE PUT TO A REFERENDUM AFTER A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH REPORT IS PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE FIRM.
THE MOST AMAZING ISSUE IS NOT THE DISPATCH ISSUE, BUT THE FACT IT HAD TAKEN THE DEMOCRATIC COUNCILMAN TED IBEX 8 MONTHS TO PREPARE A USELESS REPORT. IN ALL HONESTY THIS REPORT COULD HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN 15 MINUTES TO PREPARE, AND IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LIST OF QUESTIONS. AND THEY WERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED EIGHT MONTHS AGO. WHAT A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS IN OCEANPORT. IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TOOK TO GET THIS REPORT OUT A NOVEL COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MOUNT RUSHMORE WAS BUILT IN LESS TIME? WELL HERE IT IS……………………………………………………
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Governing Body
CC: Boro Clerk, CFO
From: Ted Ibex
Date: 10/5/2006
Re: Dispatch Services
Review of Purported Potential Savings:
. How realistic/accurate are the estimated cost savings?
• What steps have been taken to verify the county costs?
Have we toured the facility?
Have we interviewed management?
Do we have a proposal from the county?
What do we know about future cost increases?
What do we know about capacity of the county system?
At what level does county have to expand to handle traffic?
What do we know about the qualifications and knowledge of dispatchers to insure timely responses to correct location as
Compared to standards and performance of Oceanport team?
• Discussion and reconciliation of concerns expressed by chiefs memo of 7/16/2006.
• Services currently provided by OP that would most likely terminate if go to county system, i.e., Seniors in Need Program.
• Discussion of weighing welfare and safety of citizens vs. $ saved.
Timely and correct response may save lives.
Experience in Asbury Park.
Experiences within Oceanport.
• Are there alternatives?
• Strong belief in providing services at reasonable cost without sacrifice of welfare and safely of citizens. The question should be put to the voters either by a question on the ballet, requesting information by questionnaire, and possibly holding public hearing on the matter. If taxpayers want services and are willing to pay for them, then perhaps the debate is moot.
STRONG BELIEF? WHERE IS THE STRONG BELIEF COMING FROM? WHAT A SAD REPORT? NO FACTS AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE ABOVE IS THE PRODUCT OF EIGHTS MONTHS WORTH OF HARD WORK..............
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 2:19 PM
