10/11/05

Political campaigns are supposed to be a healthy way to debate issues and to help the public get involved in their government. Campaigns also give voters a way to judge the plans of candidates -- Do they propose good new ways to make government better and communities stronger? Do they offer evidence of how they will control taxes, improve services, and fight external forces that put our towns at risk?

Spencer Peck's campaign consistently offers one thing: Mr. Peck's opinions about public matters. He attacks Clinton Township from every angle, suggesting everything we do is wrong because he does not like it, does not understand it, or is incapable of understanding it. However, if you read closely, he offers no facts. Peck makes "public records requests" and reports his findings. But his assertions lack any factual basis. He merely portrays what goes on in his mind. Let's look at some examples, and at why his assertions are so dangerous without facts to back them up.

My commments are very detailed. Being Mayor requires that you understand the details of your town's business. Ordinarily, residents don't care to know such details. But, I am providing them here so that you may judge for yourself whether Clinton Township works -- and whether Spencer Peck knows what the truth is.

FACTS: We did expect other towns to join. We based this expectation on the fact that the fees for membership that we quoted to other towns were lower than the fees the reconstituted North Court was charging. However -- and this is important -- we stated that we were designing our new court to succeed financially even in the worst case; that is, if no other town joined us. Today, that conservative planning has paid off. No towns have yet joined. (Union Township has been trying to join, because it is losing money in its own court. But its judge and court administrator have tenure -- and that trumps municipal losses. Union Township has still introduced an ordinance to share our court.) Nonetheless, our costs are lower than we projected; our revenues are higher; and we are saving enormously compared to our costs of being in the North Court.

FACTS: We did not break up our relationship with the towns of the North Hunterdon Municipal Court, which we were a part of for many years. On December 31, 2007, the North Court ENDED. It was based on an agreement among 10 towns that expired on 12/31/07. There was no provision for renewal. However, for almost two yeas prior to expiration, the 10 towns discussed staying together to form a new court. This required a unanimous vote to shape the new court in a way satisfactory to all towns. We worked through several iterations of a plan to come up with one we all liked. To do this, Clinton Township provided an extension to our required "notice time" to permit all the towns to keep talking -- for an extra several months. Some of the towns, notably the Town of Clinton, Glen Gardner, and Tewksbury recognized that Clinton Township could not justify losing over $60,000 per year under the old plan, and they worked diligently with us to make a new plan work for all the towns. We finally formulated a plan that ALL the towns voted to accept -- except Lebanon Boro. Lebanon Boro's representative, Mary Logan, voted against the new plan. Kevin Cimei and I voted FOR it. To the chagrin of all the other towns, the plan finally died. By then, it was too late to try again. The NJ Administrative Office of the Courts advised us that we had better get our own court established, or Clinton Township could be left without a court at all in 2008. Thus, we started our own court. We continue to work cooperatively with the New North Court to wrap up our old cases.

Mr. Peck has no idea what he is talking about. He was not at the court meetings where new plans were discussed and voted on. His exhortation that "You should have kept trying" is akin to the insane doctor who continues to pound the chest of the deceased patient long after CPR might work. Frankly, it doesn't matter how "disturbed" Mr. Peck is about this matter. What matters is that Clinton Township could have been left without a court, or with enormous losses that taxpayers would have had to pay for. We were not going to let that happen.

FACTS: Mr. Peck uses false logic to draw a conclusion. The cost of our court is different from the cost of the new North Court because ours court is structured more efficiently. I don't say that to disparage the North Court, but in starting a new court, we were able to take advantage of doing it from scratch. Clinton Township's costs for our new court are lower than they were in the old North Court, and lower than they would have been had we joined the reconstituted New North Court -- but the latter was not even an option at the time. Today, our costs are $150,000 lower than the $330,000 we were spending on the old North Court. That is a fact. Administrator Marvin Joss has reported on it at Council meetings, and he is glad to discuss the facts with anyone who would like to meet with him. The figures can be calculated by referring to public documents, including our monthly vouchers and reports to the AOC. Peck's statements are carefully designed to mis-inform and confuse people, and to raise doubts. The faux "learned tone" of his letters is a common ruse used to dupe the uninitiated. Don't be duped. Get the facts. Ask for proofs. Peck loves to suggest he tries to get evidence to back up his contentions, but shrugs and implies his failure is the fault of the Township. His lack of understanding is his own fault, and it reveals that he merely skims the surface of these matters.

FACTS: Yah, it doesn't sit well with me, either. Peck is apparently unaware that the State of NJ prohibits towns from earning a profit from their courts. Once again, Peck is expressing an opinion that implies someone is doing something wrong. This subtle misrepresentation is actually a lie. It is intended to make you believe something untrue. If Peck has evidence of wrong-doing by Clinton Township, he should submit it to the AOC and the Attorney General, or stop lying to the public in his, "Aw, shucks, I'm just looking for democracy" style.

FACTS: Again, Peck is using false assertions to paint Clinton Township in a bad light. Nowadays in NJ, every politician throws around the expression "shared services" as though it's the next big thing. However, it is widely acknowledged that not all shared services concepts are workable; nor do they all save money. For the past two years, Hunterdon County has been trying to introduce shared services to the municipalities, but it is slow going, because it is very difficult to show savings and benefits. Clinton Township already uses shared services -- we provide building construction code services to Lebanon Boro in a deal that saves Lebanon money, and produces healthy revenue for Clinton Township. However, sharing a court was not a prudent deal for Clinton Township. In the shared court, we were losing over $60,000 per year JUST IN COSTS. Our new court is performing better on the revenue side as well. It would indeed be nice if we could do this in a shared deal. Would Mr. Peck have us "share" just so we can say we're "sharing?" No, our job is to save tax dollars and deliver high-quality services.

FACTS: Peck seems to have a serious problem with math and management. First, he and his political buddies spent a lot of time trying to convince people we were spending $12 million on a new building, to get people to sign their petition last fall. Now he claims we spent $2 million on a "solution." Of course, we did not spend $2 million. Would YOU put out $2 million on a new house, or would you finance it and pay for it out of cash flow? The latter, of course. The Township is borrowing the money, and paying it back monthly -- like you would on a home mortgage. Thus, Mr. Peck's comparison of "a $65,000 problem" to a "$2 million solution" is false. Our annual carrying costs (mortage, etc.) on the new building are LOWER than the $150,000 per year we are saving by having our own court (compared to staying in the old court). The new building permitted us to shift our personnel around to make room at our 1370 Rt 31N building to accommodate our new court, and much needed space for our police department. Through prudent financial and facilities planning, we have come out ahead.

FACTS: No, Mr. Peck -- don't blame the Township for doing it's job. The Administrative Office of the Courts requires that we have a court "no matter what", and the AOC needed to ensure we had one open and running by January 1st. The AOC guided our opening very closely. The AOC dictated that our court be open January 1. "And so it was." That's "why the rush," Mr. Peck. Had you spoken with the AOC, that would have been a "mayorly" and responsible thing to do. Far easier to cast aspersion and make wild claims. The danger in this irresponsible jumping-to-conclusions is that a mayor like Peck would have left us in hot water with the AOC -- and with no room to maneuver to avoid wasting tax dollars.

FACTS: Mr. Peck is much more concerned about his "philosophy of democracy" than he is about the law. The OPRA ensures that when you want a public document, government must deliver it to you. But, Mr. Peck seems unaware that OPRA delivers documents, not costly research and calculations. Mr. Peck's request was denied because he did not specify what document he wanted. What he wanted was for the Clerk to do research and calculations. Thus Peck dismisses his ignorance of the law by complaining he was not given what he wanted. Now, if you or Mr. Peck were to call me or our Administrator to ask how our court is structured and to learn how we saved money by setting it up, we'd gladly oblige by telling you. That's called "civics" and we encourage it. We fulfill our obligations under the law, and we treat respectful residents with respect, but we will not violate the OPRA and waste taxpayer dollars.

9. Peck seems to have dropped his proclamations about his autumn petition, following my explanation in the Hunterdon Democrat about how his group of petitioners duped residents into signing little slips of paper, which were then stapled to petition documents as legal certifications -- without the knowledge of the signers. (Those signers, when they learned what was done, withdrew their signatures and the petition died for lack of adequate signatures.) So, Peck's new "cause" is the court. Sorry to harp on it, but you might as well know all the details -- you deserve them, if you're going to wade through Peck's balderdash and poppycock.

Peck says, "If my learned and esteemed opponent [Kevin Cimei] were on the stand; I would conclude that he has told the Truth. But the question of whether he has told the Whole Truth remains. While I am at present, unable to provide documentation, I have it on very reliable authority that we remain obligated, in 2008, to pay our share of the lease for the North Hunterdon Municipal Court building. This obligation is in the vicinity of $100,000. Apparently, the administration is refusing to pay. I don’t know about you, but if I sign a lease for a building and then move out; I remain responsible to meet the terms of that lease."

Mr. Peck, who is your "very reliable authority?" Let's have names, so we all know who we're talking about and how credible they are. In my business, when people play this game, I walk away and refuse to do business with them. These are shysters. Quacks. "Big hat, no cattle." But I'm the Mayor, and I want to respond to Peck's claims even though he names no source -- for the benefit of residents who may wonder about this.

FACTS: By our contract with the old North Court, we were obligated to pay our share of the lease of that court's building through April 30, 2008. Mr. Peck could have easily OPRA'd the agreement -- it is a public document -- and learned we are not obligated for rent through all of 2008. Clinton Township's obligation for the 4 months in 2008, after we left that court, is calculated thus: Total annual rent for building of $80,000 X 4 months = $26,667. Clinton Township's portion is 36%, or $9,600. Where do Peck and his secret source come up with $100,000? Who cares -- Peck is out to save Clinton Township, whether he's telling the truth or not. What matters here is Peck's uninformed opinions, which are baseless, clueless, irresponsible, and dangerous to our town's future if you believe him.

Now let's deal with his claim that we are "refusing to pay" that $9,600 of rent. Nonsense! We are not cutting checks to the New North Court for these payments, because taxpayers should not be paying twice for that rent. Mr. Peck, do you know why? Well, if you're going to make serious accusations of fiscal mismangement in a public forum, you'd damn well better know your stuff. (And you want to be Mayor?) The New North Court has acknowledged that it is holding a surplus of funds that are due to Clinton Township, pending resolution of all financial obligations. The New North Court is getting paid the rent we owe by deducting it from the surplus owed to us. We'd never advance rent payments against a surplus that's owed to us, even though it was requested.

10. Conclusion. So, Peck wraps up his wild claims with a summary that's supposed to show you just how crooked, irresponsible, and inept your municipal government is. He says, "So here we have it, a $65,000 problem, a $2,000,000+ solution, a $150,000 savings, and a $100,000 lease obligation. Pick your numbers."

What a nice, succinct wrap-up of his exacting analysis and indictment of the Township. Spencer Peck has indeed picked his numbers -- he has pulled them out from where the sun doesn't shine, and where no reason, intelligence, or integrity resides. Clinton Township solved a $65,000 loss by investing in a real asset (the new municipal building) at a carrying cost lower than the $150,000 savings we got by forming our own new Municipal Court. Peck's $100,000 lease obligation is a total fabrication. It would be easy for him to prove I'm wrong: Mr. Peck, file an OPRA request with the New North Court for a copy of its 2008 lease. But, who needs useful facts, eh? As Mayor of Clinton Township, I am prepared to defend against any guileful attacks intended to fool the public. You succeeded in fooling hundreds of people into signing your petition -- but you failed to realize that in the end, people do pay attention. They correct their mistakes -- and they did, when they withdrew their signatures and certifications, leaving you with empty claims and no petition.

I challenge Mr. Peck to divulge his source of information about the New North Court, so they may be judged by the public for misinforming everyone who reads Peck's blather. It's embarrassign that someone would run for mayor, preach with such confidence and bluster, and get it all wrong. You know, Mr. Peck, it's not just government that is responsible for being open and honest. Every citizen who engages in public discourse is judged on their integrity, and on their ability to support their claims. You have failed to provide "The Whole Truth" -- while you disparage others with untruths.

Here is my challenge about Peck's letter: Do you find within it one idea, one plan, one commitment, one sound concept to improve Clinton Township? Are there any details about how Mr. Peck will tackle the new COAH rules that will require us to build another 7 Mews developments to fulfill our affordable housing obligation? Any details about how Mr. Peck will hold together the group of towns that Kevin Cimei and I have led in the charge to protect our State Plan designation? Does he even know what that is? Any plans or indication about how to support our budget surplus next year, in the face of lower interest rates and higher fuel costs? What will Mr. Peck do to ensure that our new wastewater management plan amendment is properly implemented by the NJ DEP -- and then in our ordinances?

If Mr. Peck were to devote his time to studying WHAT MAKES CLINTON TOWNSHIP WORK, he might know what he was doing if he got elected, and he might make a viable candidate. But he demonstrates a clear preference for pitching misinformation, defaming people who work hard to make Clinton Township work well, and listening to certain former elected politicians who never understood the business of government, and who are supporting Mr. Peck so they may bring back their brand of "business as usual" to Clinton Township.

Even Ms. Leanne Rea. In the 5/8/08 Hunterdon County Democract, page C-7, one of Peck's supporters, Leanne Rea, uses the oldest campaign "dirty trick" in the book to cast aspersions on our Council and on Kevin Cimei in particular. She "suggests" something illegal may be going on, without saying exactly what. Commenting on Kevin's helping to keep the growth of municipal taxes under the inflation rate, she rhetorically asks how he did it. "One possible way might very well be by deferring payment to the township creditors. Financial stability would then be a mere facade." Ms. Rea, the Township observes all financial rules, pays its bills properly, and does not cook the books. Check with our auditor. If you have evidence of illegal dealings by the Township, you have an obligation to bring them forward. Call the Attorney General's office. But, this is really simple: Through innuendo you are attempting to defame Kevin Cimei and the entire Township. You should be ashamed of yourself. Like Mr. Peck, your letter did not offer a shred of an idea about how Peck would deal with Clinton Township's many challenges.)

I'm voting for Kevin Cimei on June 3. Kevin has proved himself in the court of public opinion. He lays out the hard work he's already done, and his detailed plans to ensure the health and well-being of Clinton Township in the future, on his web site at www.cimei4mayor.com. Compare it to Peck's empty diatribes. Who would make a good mayor?

05/12/08

ARTICLE