Saturday, October 07, 2006
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION 2
In Response to the POSTING:
MAYOR CHAUMP MEETS WITH U.S. SENATOR MENENDEZ AND U.S. CONGRESSMAN PALLONE TO DISCUSS FORT MONMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT
First of all please click on this link and read what was posted on this blog, September 19, 2006, under GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, before you go any further.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
The writer states that Mayor Chaump was called by the questionable Senator Robert Menendez to discuss issues concerning the FORT MONMOUTH ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLANNING AUTHORITY, also known as (FMERPA). In Mayor Chaump’s resume posted at MAYOR CHAUMP'S RESUME It states that the Mayor is a member of the FORT MONMOUTH REUSE COMMITTEE.
Is this really a large accomplishment? By State Statute the Mayors from Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls were bestowed a seat on this Committee. This was not a position that was earned. It was a position that was provided by State Statute. Check this link to review the statute:
STATUTE
The Statute simply explains that the mayors from these towns will be included as a component when planning the future use of the Fort’s Property. You can see this under the following section.
C.52:27I-6 Members; appointment, qualification
(4) The mayors of Eatontown, Oceanport, and Tinton Falls, ex officio and voting;
Again it has been posted previously that there are many sites within the jurisdiction of Oceanport, and situated within the boundaries of Fort Monmouth that are considered contaminated sites. Refer to the posting on Thursday, September 28, 2006, click here to read: DID OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
And a side note: The FMERPA has a LINKS PAGE to the other towns. Guess what town does not have a link to there Town? That’s right again, OCEANPORT.
Tinton Falls and Eatontown have exceptional websites for the residents to read. These websites are very informative and provide the residents with timely and updated information. HOW DOES OCEANPORT PROVIDE IMPORTANT AND TIMELY INFORMATION TO ITS RESIDENTS?
CLICK HERE AND CHECK YOURSELF……………………. http://nj.gov/fmerpa/links/
If the writer reads this, please respond……… but, Please do not response by saying a quarterly Bulletin……. That information is 3 to 4 month old when the residents receive it. Waste of Taxpayer money. Money spent on drafting and publishing a Bulletin could be spent elsewhere, only if Oceanport could master the age of Modern Technology. The internet was made popular back in 1995. The Democrats were in power as the internet technology expanded and now the internet is utilized by millions and millions of people every day. However, for some reason the Borough just can’t master the age of technology.
Since there were not any public documented inquiries by the Democratic controlled Oceanport government before the posting of September 28, 2006, indicating that our Democratic controlled Government knew about these contaminated sites previous to September 28th, one would ask if the individuals negotiating the revitalization plan for Oceanport have the wherewithal and the best interest of the citizens in mind as the Borough moves forward with taking control of a portion of Fort Monmouth?
Cleaning contaminated sites can be very costly. Click here for Information posted by the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency regarding clean-ups.
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The writer attempts to justify a closed door meeting by posting a response to the GUILT BY ASSOCIATION post of September 19, 2006. There are many unanswered questions. The writer never addressed the questions asked and attempts to divert attention with excuses. Why?
Why would the other Two mayors, Eatontown and Tinton Falls cordially back out of this Meeting? When the circumstances of these facts are analyzed from an objective viewpoint, it certainly sends a wrong message to the public. Do all the facts, when looked at without prejudice have the perception of being a secretive meeting?
Why wasn’t the meeting postponed until a later date?
The writer stated that, ALSO PRESENT WAS COUNCIL PRESIDENT JAY BRISCIONE AND THE AIDES FOR SENATOR MENENDEZ & CONGRESSMAN PALLONE.
And the writer stated, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS MEETING WAS HELD AT BOROUGH HALL, A PUBLIC PLACE. NATURALLY THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THE MEETING. THE DOORS TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE WERE OPEN FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING. ANYONE COULD HAVE PASSED BY TO SEE THE INDIVIDUALS MEETING.
A few issues that should be of concern with these statements:
In reviewing the minutes for August 17, 2006, there was not any mention of Council President Jay Briscione attending, nor was there any mention that the aides for Pallone and Menendez were present. How many aides is the question? In fact how many individuals were present during the meeting?
Click here for the August 17, 2006 minutes. August 17, 2006 Minutes
Do these types of meetings constitute a quorum? Wasn’t this meeting of public interest, since all these public officials met at one location and at a public building?
Is there minutes to be taken since it may be of public interest? Seems there were enough people there for someone to take minutes.
Like the writer said that it was held at Borough Hall, don’t you think the public has a right to see minutes to this meeting? After all, they were allegedly discussing the future of Oceanport. Isn’t the Oceanport Borough Municipal Building financed by taxpayer money? If this is the case, shouldn’t the taxpayers been privy to this meeting? Should it have been publicized in the local Newspaper and held in a public forum, not a private setting? After all, it was discussion about a topic of great public interest, FORT MONMOUTH.
Why was this meeting so important since the revitalization effort will be going in for the next five years?
A phone call on a Saturday morning from Menendez, and a meeting the very same Saturday afternoon in Oceanport? Was the short notice by design to keep certain people from attending?
The writer stated, NATURALLY, THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THE MEETING. Please name them? Are they independent witnesses? Again the writer fails to validate his or her statements with any supporting evidence. Without naming any witnesses the writer has not established any credibility.
Of course they left the doors open. Why wouldn’t they, since this was done during NON-BUSINESS hours on a Saturday. Quite honestly how many people are walking through Borough Hall on a Saturday afternoon? If as the writer stated, ANYONE COULD HAVE PASSED BY TO SEE THE INDIVIDUALS MEETING.
Then why weren’t all the individuals identified in the minutes or when the Mayor gave her account of the meeting during the Town Council Meeting on August 17, 2006?
Why didn’t Council President Jay Briscione mention it when he gave his report during the Council Meeting on August 17, 2006? Nothing in the minutes here as well.
The writer stated: SUPPOSEDLY, ONE OF THOSE “WITNESSES” SAW THE SENATOR’S CAR PARKED IN FRONT OF BOROUGH HALL AND PROMPTLY CALLED COUNCILWOMAN KAHLE.
Another weak attempt to defend the Oceanport Democrats against the facts posted here. The word SUPPOSEDLY says it all. When the writer used the word SUPPOSEDLY, which means to assert without proof or before proving, the writer exhibited his or her lack of factual reporting. Again the writer has not yet established any credibility.
As far as the tax issue. Who cares? The bottom line, the Municipal Budget is mismanaged and the Democrats are very reluctant to institute change in any policy or Department and they are unable to be innovative in drafting initiatives to reduce the wasteful spending. Make an OPRA Request for the 2005 and 2006 spending? Make sure the Report is an Itemized list of spending. Then you can make a very informed decision on whether or not there is wasteful spending.
CHECK YOUR TAX BILL EVERY YEAR. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REDUCTIONS? HECK NO EVERY YEAR THE TAXES HAVE INCREASED. THE BOROUGH NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE TOWN’S BUDGET. THE TOWN DOES NOT NEED AN AUDIT FROM ANYONE TIED TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY IN TOWN OR ELESEWHERE. THE BOROUGH HAS HAD ENOUGH OF THIS PAY TO PLAY UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IN OCEANPORT. IT IS VERY EVIDENT THAT THE TOWN COULD USE SOME HELP FROM AN INDEPENDENT FIRM WITH AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT.
AGAIN IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO COST THE BOROUGH WELL OVER A $100,000.00 IN LEGAL FEES BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLECT WITH ADDRESSING THE MOUNT LAUREL DECISION CONCERNING LOW INCOME HOUSING FOR THE LAST TWENTY-TWO YEARS.
AND NOT LET’S FORGET THE BLACKBERRY BAY PARK DISASTER. THE DEMOCRATS COST THE TOWN AROUND $775,000.00, OR THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR A FAILED PROJECT WHERE THE CONTRACTOR AWARDED THE JOB WAS DOCUMENTED AS GIVING A $500.00 DONATION TO THREE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. BUT THAT IS A STORY FOR ANOTHER DAY.
STAY TUNED FOR THE POSTING RELATNG TO THE BLACKBERRY BAY DEBACLE.
TO THE READERS PLEASE REVIEW THE TWO BLOGS, AND FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINIONS AS TO WHICH BLOG IS MORE FACTUAL AND INFORMATIVE
MAYOR CHAUMP MEETS WITH U.S. SENATOR MENENDEZ AND U.S. CONGRESSMAN PALLONE TO DISCUSS FORT MONMOUTH REDEVELOPMENT
First of all please click on this link and read what was posted on this blog, September 19, 2006, under GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, before you go any further.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
The writer states that Mayor Chaump was called by the questionable Senator Robert Menendez to discuss issues concerning the FORT MONMOUTH ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLANNING AUTHORITY, also known as (FMERPA). In Mayor Chaump’s resume posted at MAYOR CHAUMP'S RESUME It states that the Mayor is a member of the FORT MONMOUTH REUSE COMMITTEE.
Is this really a large accomplishment? By State Statute the Mayors from Oceanport, Eatontown and Tinton Falls were bestowed a seat on this Committee. This was not a position that was earned. It was a position that was provided by State Statute. Check this link to review the statute:
STATUTE
The Statute simply explains that the mayors from these towns will be included as a component when planning the future use of the Fort’s Property. You can see this under the following section.
C.52:27I-6 Members; appointment, qualification
(4) The mayors of Eatontown, Oceanport, and Tinton Falls, ex officio and voting;
Again it has been posted previously that there are many sites within the jurisdiction of Oceanport, and situated within the boundaries of Fort Monmouth that are considered contaminated sites. Refer to the posting on Thursday, September 28, 2006, click here to read: DID OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
And a side note: The FMERPA has a LINKS PAGE to the other towns. Guess what town does not have a link to there Town? That’s right again, OCEANPORT.
Tinton Falls and Eatontown have exceptional websites for the residents to read. These websites are very informative and provide the residents with timely and updated information. HOW DOES OCEANPORT PROVIDE IMPORTANT AND TIMELY INFORMATION TO ITS RESIDENTS?
CLICK HERE AND CHECK YOURSELF……………………. http://nj.gov/fmerpa/links/
If the writer reads this, please respond……… but, Please do not response by saying a quarterly Bulletin……. That information is 3 to 4 month old when the residents receive it. Waste of Taxpayer money. Money spent on drafting and publishing a Bulletin could be spent elsewhere, only if Oceanport could master the age of Modern Technology. The internet was made popular back in 1995. The Democrats were in power as the internet technology expanded and now the internet is utilized by millions and millions of people every day. However, for some reason the Borough just can’t master the age of technology.
Since there were not any public documented inquiries by the Democratic controlled Oceanport government before the posting of September 28, 2006, indicating that our Democratic controlled Government knew about these contaminated sites previous to September 28th, one would ask if the individuals negotiating the revitalization plan for Oceanport have the wherewithal and the best interest of the citizens in mind as the Borough moves forward with taking control of a portion of Fort Monmouth?
Cleaning contaminated sites can be very costly. Click here for Information posted by the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency regarding clean-ups.
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The writer attempts to justify a closed door meeting by posting a response to the GUILT BY ASSOCIATION post of September 19, 2006. There are many unanswered questions. The writer never addressed the questions asked and attempts to divert attention with excuses. Why?
Why would the other Two mayors, Eatontown and Tinton Falls cordially back out of this Meeting? When the circumstances of these facts are analyzed from an objective viewpoint, it certainly sends a wrong message to the public. Do all the facts, when looked at without prejudice have the perception of being a secretive meeting?
Why wasn’t the meeting postponed until a later date?
The writer stated that, ALSO PRESENT WAS COUNCIL PRESIDENT JAY BRISCIONE AND THE AIDES FOR SENATOR MENENDEZ & CONGRESSMAN PALLONE.
And the writer stated, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS MEETING WAS HELD AT BOROUGH HALL, A PUBLIC PLACE. NATURALLY THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THE MEETING. THE DOORS TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE WERE OPEN FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING. ANYONE COULD HAVE PASSED BY TO SEE THE INDIVIDUALS MEETING.
A few issues that should be of concern with these statements:
In reviewing the minutes for August 17, 2006, there was not any mention of Council President Jay Briscione attending, nor was there any mention that the aides for Pallone and Menendez were present. How many aides is the question? In fact how many individuals were present during the meeting?
Click here for the August 17, 2006 minutes. August 17, 2006 Minutes
Do these types of meetings constitute a quorum? Wasn’t this meeting of public interest, since all these public officials met at one location and at a public building?
Is there minutes to be taken since it may be of public interest? Seems there were enough people there for someone to take minutes.
Like the writer said that it was held at Borough Hall, don’t you think the public has a right to see minutes to this meeting? After all, they were allegedly discussing the future of Oceanport. Isn’t the Oceanport Borough Municipal Building financed by taxpayer money? If this is the case, shouldn’t the taxpayers been privy to this meeting? Should it have been publicized in the local Newspaper and held in a public forum, not a private setting? After all, it was discussion about a topic of great public interest, FORT MONMOUTH.
Why was this meeting so important since the revitalization effort will be going in for the next five years?
A phone call on a Saturday morning from Menendez, and a meeting the very same Saturday afternoon in Oceanport? Was the short notice by design to keep certain people from attending?
The writer stated, NATURALLY, THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THE MEETING. Please name them? Are they independent witnesses? Again the writer fails to validate his or her statements with any supporting evidence. Without naming any witnesses the writer has not established any credibility.
Of course they left the doors open. Why wouldn’t they, since this was done during NON-BUSINESS hours on a Saturday. Quite honestly how many people are walking through Borough Hall on a Saturday afternoon? If as the writer stated, ANYONE COULD HAVE PASSED BY TO SEE THE INDIVIDUALS MEETING.
Then why weren’t all the individuals identified in the minutes or when the Mayor gave her account of the meeting during the Town Council Meeting on August 17, 2006?
Why didn’t Council President Jay Briscione mention it when he gave his report during the Council Meeting on August 17, 2006? Nothing in the minutes here as well.
The writer stated: SUPPOSEDLY, ONE OF THOSE “WITNESSES” SAW THE SENATOR’S CAR PARKED IN FRONT OF BOROUGH HALL AND PROMPTLY CALLED COUNCILWOMAN KAHLE.
Another weak attempt to defend the Oceanport Democrats against the facts posted here. The word SUPPOSEDLY says it all. When the writer used the word SUPPOSEDLY, which means to assert without proof or before proving, the writer exhibited his or her lack of factual reporting. Again the writer has not yet established any credibility.
As far as the tax issue. Who cares? The bottom line, the Municipal Budget is mismanaged and the Democrats are very reluctant to institute change in any policy or Department and they are unable to be innovative in drafting initiatives to reduce the wasteful spending. Make an OPRA Request for the 2005 and 2006 spending? Make sure the Report is an Itemized list of spending. Then you can make a very informed decision on whether or not there is wasteful spending.
CHECK YOUR TAX BILL EVERY YEAR. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REDUCTIONS? HECK NO EVERY YEAR THE TAXES HAVE INCREASED. THE BOROUGH NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE TOWN’S BUDGET. THE TOWN DOES NOT NEED AN AUDIT FROM ANYONE TIED TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY IN TOWN OR ELESEWHERE. THE BOROUGH HAS HAD ENOUGH OF THIS PAY TO PLAY UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IN OCEANPORT. IT IS VERY EVIDENT THAT THE TOWN COULD USE SOME HELP FROM AN INDEPENDENT FIRM WITH AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT.
AGAIN IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO COST THE BOROUGH WELL OVER A $100,000.00 IN LEGAL FEES BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLECT WITH ADDRESSING THE MOUNT LAUREL DECISION CONCERNING LOW INCOME HOUSING FOR THE LAST TWENTY-TWO YEARS.
AND NOT LET’S FORGET THE BLACKBERRY BAY PARK DISASTER. THE DEMOCRATS COST THE TOWN AROUND $775,000.00, OR THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR A FAILED PROJECT WHERE THE CONTRACTOR AWARDED THE JOB WAS DOCUMENTED AS GIVING A $500.00 DONATION TO THREE OCEANPORT DEMOCRATS DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. BUT THAT IS A STORY FOR ANOTHER DAY.
STAY TUNED FOR THE POSTING RELATNG TO THE BLACKBERRY BAY DEBACLE.
TO THE READERS PLEASE REVIEW THE TWO BLOGS, AND FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINIONS AS TO WHICH BLOG IS MORE FACTUAL AND INFORMATIVE
# posted by Stop The Corruption @ 5:28 PM 
