LETTERS TO THE
EDITOR & NEWS ARTICLES
- HOBOKEN
UPDATED 6/19/2007
___________________________________
Jersey Journal, 1/29/2007 ______________________________________________________________________
|
Jersey Journal - Dec 20, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________ Let's not rush St. Mary dealFriday, December 15, 2006
Letters to the Editor
The Jersey Journal The first reality check in the struggle to save St. Mary Hospital is at hand. It is the ordinance now before the City Council which, if approved, will put the full faith and credit of the City of Hoboken in a guarantee of a $52 million bond issue in support of the hospital. The language in the ordinance is astoundingly clear: "the City shall be unconditionally and irrevocably obligated to pay the principal of and interest on the (bond) and the City shall be unconditionally and irrevocably obligated to levy ad valorem taxes upon all the taxable property within the City for the payment thereof." (Ordinance for The Hoboken Municipal Hospital Authority Bonding, Section 1) City Council President Richard DelBoccio quite rightly pulled the ordinance from the Dec. 6 council agenda in order to have time to obtain a review of and opinion on the bond issue from the state Local Finance Review Board. This would be, to our knowledge, the first independent look at the structure of the bond issue. We fear, however, that unless Mr. DelBoccio receives the support of a majority of the council members that pressure will be applied to move quickly and the bond issue will be back on the City Council agenda on Wednesday Dec.20. It should not happen. Why the rush? Cannot Hoboken be given more time to examine the issue and to get responses to unanswered questions? Why couldn't the bond issue be supported by a lien on the hospital property itself rather than with the city's guarantee? Why must there be a guarantee at all? A bond advisor present at one of the Hospital Authority Board meetings noted under questioning that it is possible a bond issue could be financed without a guarantee. The effect would be about a 2.5 percent increase in the bond rate (from 5 to 7.5 percent) and a longer time to process the issue. But, it could be done. The Hospital Authority's Business Plan notes that St. Mary is not sufficiently compensated for care given to the underinsured and the uninsured that use the ER and the Family Health Center. Reimbursement comes from federal funds called Disproportionate Share (DSH). St. Mary provides care for approximately 32,000 ER patients a year with one-third coming in under Medicaid and over one-third uninsured, leaving less than one-third paying full cost. The hospital provides a "safety net" for patients from Union City, Weehawken, West New York, North Bergen as well as Hoboken. Isn't there some way that these other cities could be tapped to pay a portion of their residents' care? Even though the hospital will receive $15.8 million in improved DSH funds, those will be "reduced or eliminated" in about three years (Hospital Plan). Could the Hudson County Improvement Authority be a source for assistance in spreading out the unreimbursed care? If a bond guarantee is absolutely necessary, could the HCIA provide at least a portion of the guarantee, thereby sharing some of the costs with other municipalities? We all want the hospital to survive. We all want to be supportive. The Hoboken Quality of Life Coalition urges that the council keep the bond ordinance off its agenda until the Local Finance Review Board has delivered its review and comments. The QLC puts forth questions as a way to possibly open the way to revisit plans that have been made in haste to meet a Jan. 1, 2007 deadline (imposed by Bon Secours?). In the rush to meet this deadline the City Council has not even seen the terms of the contract that will be offered to Harvey Holzberg to operate the hospital, nor has it seen the details of the agreement for the city to take ownership of the hospital. These are two critical pieces. The council is faced with a momentous and far reaching decision. Please give Hoboken a break so that the council may make decisions based on knowledge, not pressure. We have to make certain that Hoboken's eyes are wide open. BOARD MEMBERS HOBOKEN QUALITY OF LIFE COALITION, INC.
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Maureen Sullivan
________________________________________________________________________
|
Saturday, August 12, 2006
By BONNIE FRIEDMAN
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER HOBOKEN - Thirteen members of the Police Department were reprimanded this week in the wake of a 14-month investigation that ended with the resignation of the department's highest ranking female police officer, said Chief Carmen LaBruno. According to LaBruno, GPS tracking devices used as evidence against Capt. Karen Dimonde - who resigned last month after admitting that she wasn't showing up for her midnight-to-8 a.m. shift - proved that others on Dimonde's command were also slacking off. "Our observations coupled with the GPS showed that a substantial number of officers were not patrolling or that their patrol patterns were inconsistent with our policy," said LaBruno, noting that there are roughly 25 cops assigned to the nighttime shift. LaBruno said five police officers agreed to accept a three-day suspension, followed by five days of work without pay, five others were given reprimands and ordered to work without pay for one to three days, and three superiors received written reprimands. The five officers who have accepted suspension are: Donald Rosso, William Collins, Glorybi Garcia, Ryan Dimone and Marco Grossman. Police Officers Danilo Cabrera, Juan Madera, Leonard Cattaneo, John Cirillo and Michael Miranda have been given written reprimands and will give back various days, and Sgts. John Orrico, Anthony Pasculli and Peter Vannin received written reprimands. Any future violations by these officers will result in them being fired, LaBruno added. Detective Vince Lombardi, president of the Hoboken Police Officers Benevolent Association, called the disciplinary actions "severe and unwarranted." "The officers involved were available and on patrol," Lombardi said. "The tracking system just shows that the car wasn't moving. To drive around in a police car for eight hours is physically and mentally impossible." Lombardi had hoped the police officers would fight the administrative charges, but said they were likely intimidated by Dimonde's resignation. |
_______________________________
_____________________________________
Hoboken Pay to Play is alive
Friday, July 14, 2006
Letters to the Editor
The Jersey Journal Wednesday evening the majority of the Hoboken City Council approved resolution 23, "Authorizing legal, financial, engineering and media professional services." This innocuous phrase really represented a dozen contracts totaling about $1 million. The contracts went to the same vendors who make the campaign contributions and the same vendors as always. Was there competitive bidding? The reply was, "Sometimes there is only one bid!" This blatant distribution of taxpayers' money to the usual bunch of campaign contributors is rank pork! Pay to Play at its worst. The final proof of this is that the contracts were hidden in a generally worded resolution when in prior years they were considered individually. This trick is the latest in the administration's attempt to side step the law and deceive the public. Two council members did abstain from voting. It is amazing that when the city is running a financial deficit and the state is forced to raise taxes and still cannot meet all of its obligations, that politicians will continue to spend tax dollars to repay campaign contributors without hesitation.
In his inauguration speech, Gov. Corzine said in part, "So I call on all my fellow public servants to join in an historic effort to end the toxic mix of politics, money and public business at every level of New Jersey government. Let's award public contracts by competition and quality, not contributions." This is obviously an agenda of the governor and it is also an agenda of the People for Open Government. When will the politicians get it? Bob Du Val President, People for Open Government
Hoboken |
____________________________________________
Last night ( June 7, 2006) the Hoboken City Council closed the latest chapter in its saga of fiscal irresponsibility. The chapter started, as you may recall, last July 1 at the beginning of the fiscal year. As the city overspent during the prior fiscal year they had to borrow $7.9 million and place a lien on the Observer Highway municipal garage. The garage land would eventually be sold to repay the loan. This started a dual process. On one hand the City Administration promised to create a realistic budget, which seemed possible since there are lots of new ratables (Condos) in town. At the same time, a group of neighborhood activists met with a few City Council members to design a building for the municipal garage site which would generate the income the city needed and at the same time blend in with the character of the neighborhood. There was to be no huge ugly building on Observer Highway! A year passes very quickly. After ten months of wonton spending the City had no budget and decided to use the normal method of adding up what they spent and calling that the “budget – after the fact.” The not surprising result was that they came up $5 million short. Now they need a total of $12.9 million from the sale of the municipal garage – just to break even. So with only weeks to go until the drop-dead date of June 30 the City requested bids from developers willing to buy the garage site and build the structure designed by the neighbors. Fifteen developers responded but none submitted bids by the due date. Then two developers submitted late bids, and neither of them met the minimum specifications. Could this be due to the fact that the City wanted $16 million by June 30 but would only let the developer build at some time up to two years in the future? Or was it because soil contamination studies were not yet complete? Or perhaps it is humanly impossible to prepare such a complex bid in only ten days! Nevertheless, the City Council was asked to either approve or disapprove the two late bids. One developer would actually create a building pleasing to the neighbors and supply the City with over $22 million. The City Administration did not want the Council to approve this bid and made certain of this by not providing copies of the bids to the Council, not even at the meeting. How could they vote on something they did not see? However, this oversight was overshadowed by the fact that the bids were late and defective. In my opinion this whole rushed process is sloppy and stinks! It is driven by rampant spending, last minute after the fact budgets and gun to the head tactics. Just like last year, when the City was shut down for a day due to a lack of funds, we are faced with unpleasant choices. One perfectly legal choice is to disregard the bidding process and appoint a developer, as is done in most redevelopment zones. Unfortunately, the time honored remedy of choosing the developer who made the greatest campaign contributions, letting him build whatever ugly building he chooses, and then accepting his budget saving payment on June 30 seems like it will be the final sentence of this chapter.
Bob Du Val
President, People for Open Government - 6/8/2006