Mayor Santos running out of excuses?

[Guest Guest_Taxpayer_*]

John, What's the total?  You should know to the penny.  Your answer is deliberately misleading.

75663[/snapback]

Misleading???? How much clearer can his answer be? He made no more than $36,000 each year that he was the attorney for KMUA. Duh! What didn't you understand?

[Guest Guest_QUEST_*]

John,

I can't think of anyone who thinks making government bigger saves money, not even anyone on the left.  There may be all sorts of good reasons for government taking something on, but doing it for less money usually is not on that list!

1.  United Water reads meters, bills accounts and collects on accounts.  There are about 10,000 accounts/meters.  At the meeting you missed, it was said half don't get good readings because they're telephone meters that break down regularly.  The meters belong to Kearny, not United Water.  It's not United Water's doing.  The other half are mostly manual and electronic-read meters.  So United Water does 5,000 good readings and another 5,000 that gets delayed or estimated or re-read manually because of the faulty technology.

2.  1 Water Superintendent, 1 Asst. Super and 2 water repairmen who repair water lines every day.  There's also 1 Admin Clerk and 1 Asst. Clerk who handle monthly reporting requirements. 

Meter reading would require at least 2 people but if you want the telephone meters manually read, you probably need 4 or 5 full-time meter readers.  As to billing, if you think by pressing a button you bill ALL 10,000 accounts (some are monthly, some are quarterly), collect all of them, properly deposit and account for all payments, reconcile mispayments (over or under payments) and meter reading errors, you're way wrong.

John, as to your final comment, what a dodge!  Apparently you do have the time, so please enlighten us with at least some of the issues you raised against the Kearny Mayor back then.  When Santos first ran??  You've got to be kidding, you were a Harrison resident at the time!

75230[/snapback]

AND SANTOS LIVED ON CHESTNUT STREET IN NEWARK N.J. WHATS YOUR POINT!!!!!!!!

[Guest GUEST]

No.  They bill and collect but don't read meters.  They estimate bills.  The bid documents should say bill and collect and only read a small percentage of the water meters.  We would then get lower bids for the work.

. 

My understanding is the town bonded years ago to replace the meters.  What happened to that money?  Harrison has a remote reader where the meter reader scans from the outside of the house the remote reader and they perform their own meter reading.  Water is billed quarterly so even if you estimated 3 of 4 quarters you would catch up at the end of the year.  United Water didn't do that with my bill.  Does your bill say "Reading Type" Estimated?

United Water did not read my meter for years.  They are under contract to read all the meters.  There is simply no reason why they are not doing the job.

. 

6 people in the water department.

Fix the meters with remote scans and you can read the meters (in house) with the personel we have.  If you're afraid our water department personnel can't handle payments, send the payments through the tax collector's office or outsource it to a bank (cheaper than United Water).

I walked door to door with former Councilman and Mayoral candidate Ed Callaghan.  I was involved in Kearny even before I became a resident.

75611[/snapback]

JOHN MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD LOOK INTO WHAT THEY ARE PAYING MT OUR SO CALLED SECRETARY\ DEPUTY MAYOR OR WHATEVER SHE DOES .I;LL TELL YOU SHE;S OVERPAID FOR DOING NOTHING.!!!!!!!

[Guest Still Really Ridiculous]

Misleading????  How much clearer can his answer be?  He made no more than $36,000 each year that he was the attorney for KMUA.  Duh!  What didn't you understand?

75698[/snapback]

My friend, I understand fully. John Pinho made over $200,000 while representing the Kearny utitlity. That "special litigation" also added up nicely for him. Maybe he can post his bills on this ****** site here so we can all verify that because, you know, it's really hard to go to Town Hall and go over them. And, you know, those bills are public documents, right John?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Paul]

My friend, I understand fully.  John Pinho made over $200,000 while representing the Kearny utitlity.  That "special litigation" also added up nicely for him.  Maybe he can post his bills on this ****** site here so we can all verify that because, you know, it's really hard to go to Town Hall and go over them.  And, you know, those bills are public documents, right John?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

75720[/snapback]

This is a cheap shot against Mr. Pinho and an act of abject cowardice, posted as it is by an anonymous writer. Anonymous substantive posts are one thing, but when an unsubstantiated accusation is made anonymously against a named individual, it is morally and ethically wrong. If I was running this board, I would not allow it, and encourage KOTW to consider making this policy: If an individual is to be attacked or subjected to accusations, the attacker should be required to provide his/her real name.

There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of public business as a matter of law. Therefore, if John Pinho or anyone else made $200,000 in legal fees for the Town of Kearny, the presumption is that he earned every penny of it. In addition, anyone who knows anything about public entitles knows that they are tightly constrained in their charges. That's not to say that public bodies don't violate ethics and the law sometimes, but the presumption must be overcome with proof.

So if the coward who posted this attack wants to cite chapter and verse to prove his claim, let him do so. Mr. Pinho's bills are indeed public documents, so let the accuser supply the proof if it exists, not to mention the fact that there's nothing wrong with an attorney charging for his services. Tell us, Mr. or Ms. Fire a Cheap Shot and Hide So No One Knows Who You Are Coward, what Mr. Pinho did wrong. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, John knows how much he billed, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

I am expressing my opinion based on first hand knowledge.  My statement is based in fact.  When I raised (along with former Councilwoman Rosa Alves and her husband Frank Ferreira) the security issue with the Kuehne Chemical plant, Mayor Santos stopped listening and accused us of "grandstanding".  Former Councilwoman Alves had had some politically based disagreements with Mayor Santos, therefore the Mayor stopped listening even if what the councilwoman was saying made total sense. The Mayor has since changed his mind on Kuehne.

As far as the KMUA, my statement is fact.  You want me to lay a foundation.  My foundation is I signed this post with my name.  If I was trying the case, I would call the former commissioners and I would lay the foundation through their testimony.  I'm not trying a case, I'm making a statement on a discussion board.  I stand by my statement.

75607[/snapback]

John, that's correct, you're expressing your opinion. If it is based in fact, I need the facts, not just your conclusions about the facts. There's a little bit of fact in what you're saying (assuming that your statements of fact are true), but not enough in my opinion to be called factual. I do not believe what you have written about the Mayor's actions would meet the legal test of admissibility in a court. In fact, many people would interpret what you wrote as "sour grapes."

You're trying to make a case, John. Forget about admissibility or inadmissibility. For me, you're not making that case, and since I want you to make it if you have it, you'll have to give me more detail if you want me to accept your conclusions.

[Guest Paul]

I answered the "how much money I made while working for the KMUA" question above.  As you can see it is way below the imagined $200,000. 

I am not throwing mud but expressing my opinions frankly.  I will state that despite my disagreement with the Mayor on certain issues, I respect him and the job he is doing as Mayor.  I do not however give him a free pass as many others do.

75613[/snapback]

John, for how many years were you being paid to represent the KMUA?

[Guest Oh those lawyers]

This is a cheap shot against Mr. Pinho and an act of abject cowardice, posted as it is by an anonymous writer. Anonymous substantive posts are one thing, but when an unsubstantiated accusation is made anonymously against a named individual, it is morally and ethically wrong. If I was running this board, I would not allow it, and encourage KOTW to consider making this policy: If an individual is to be attacked or subjected to accusations, the attacker should be required to provide his/her real name.

There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of public business as a matter of law. Therefore, if John Pinho or anyone else made $200,000 in legal fees for the Town of Kearny, the presumption is that he earned every penny of it. In addition, anyone who knows anything about public entitles knows that they are tightly constrained in their charges. That's not to say that public bodies don't violate ethics and the law sometimes, but the presumption must be overcome with proof.

So if the coward who posted this attack wants to cite chapter and verse to prove his claim, let him do so. Mr. Pinho's bills are indeed public documents, so let the accuser supply the proof if it exists, not to mention the fact that there's nothing wrong with an attorney charging for his services. Tell us, Mr. or Ms. Fire a Cheap Shot and Hide So No One Knows Who You Are Coward, what Mr. Pinho did wrong. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, John knows how much he billed, and there's nothing wrong with it.

75788[/snapback]

I strongly disagree. Not a comment was made about the quality of Pinho's legal services. Nor was he demeaned because of his profession. Instead the posting was in response to Pinho's claim that he'd always been critical of the Mayor, even when he billed the Kearny utility for legal services. The posting asserts that Pinho began his criticism of the Mayor when he lost the Kearny utility as a client of his law firm. That certainly appears to be the case as the only historical criticism that Pinho has pointed to is something that Rosa-Ferreira did on Keuhne Chemical from 2001. (Paul, you as an attorney should know that credibility and motivation are relevant in debate as well as at trial.)

There's also a question about the accuracy of Pinho's "not more than $36,000" claim. Since Mr. Pinho is a forceful advocate of posting public documents on line, and his bills are public documents, why hasn't he posted them on-line? Shouldn't he live up to his own standards? Or is he just playing a game?

Hypocrisy and censorship abound here.

[Strife767]

There's also a question about the accuracy of Pinho's "not more than $36,000" claim.  Since Mr. Pinho is a forceful advocate of posting public documents on line, and his bills are public documents, why hasn't he posted them on-line?  Shouldn't he live up to his own standards?

Sounds reasonable to me. From previous postings of his, he apparently already has all the equipment necessary. Come on Pinho, why don't you stick it all in a .pdf and put it on www.megaupload.com or something if you don't have any web space of your own? No excuses, let's see if you play by one standard or two.

[Guest Paul]

I strongly disagree.  Not a comment was made about the quality of Pinho's legal services.  Nor was he demeaned because of his profession.  Instead the posting was in response to Pinho's claim that he'd always been critical of the Mayor, even when he billed the Kearny utility for legal services.  The posting asserts that Pinho began his criticism of the Mayor when he lost the Kearny utility as a client of his law firm.  That certainly appears to be the case as the only historical criticism that Pinho has pointed to is something that Rosa-Ferreira did on Keuhne Chemical from 2001.  (Paul, you as an attorney should know that credibility and motivation are relevant in debate as well as at trial.) 

There's also a question about the accuracy of Pinho's "not more than $36,000" claim.  Since Mr. Pinho is a forceful advocate of posting public documents on line, and his bills are public documents, why hasn't he posted them on-line?  Shouldn't he live up to his own standards?  Or is he just playing a game?

Hypocrisy and censorship abound here.

75823[/snapback]

Financial motive is relevant, you're right about that, but you know full well that every day is open season on lawyers, and that there are plenty of dunderheads who think it scandalous any time a unit of government spends money on anything. If your criticism is that Mr. Pinho began being critical of Al Santos after he lost his retainer, it got lost in the brouhaha about his fees. Had you stuck to your point, I wouldn't have gotten upset, but I still think you should identify yourself if you're going to criticize someone in his profession. Who knows, you may have a few skeletons in your own closet. If you're going to ask people to put Mr. Pinho under a microscope, shouldn't you as his accuser put yourself up for scrutiny, too? I think what you did and continue to do is a cheap shot for that reason.

[Guest Scratching my head]

Financial motive is relevant, you're right about that, but you know full well that every day is open season on lawyers, and that there are plenty of dunderheads who think it scandalous any time a unit of government spends money on anything. If your criticism is that Mr. Pinho began being critical of Al Santos after he lost his retainer, it got lost in the brouhaha about his fees. Had you stuck to your point, I wouldn't have gotten upset, but I still think you should identify yourself if you're going to criticize someone in his profession. Who knows, you may have a few skeletons in your own closet. If you're going to ask people to put Mr. Pinho under a microscope, shouldn't you as his accuser put yourself up for scrutiny, too? I think what you did and continue to do is a cheap shot for that reason.

75846[/snapback]

Open season on lawyers?? Criticizing his profession?? Where do you see that in the following?:

My friend, I understand fully. John Pinho made over $200,000 while representing the Kearny utitlity. That "special litigation" also added up nicely for him. Maybe he can post his bills on this ****** site here so we can all verify that because, you know, it's really hard to go to Town Hall and go over them. And, you know, those bills are public documents, right John?

There's an allegation about how much he earned. There's an allegation that his Kearny utility client generated "special litigation" for him over and above the standard retainer. And there's a request that he post public documents (his own bills paid by Kearny) on this site. That's not open season on lawyers. That's holding Mr. Pinho up to his own professed standards.

[Guest GUEST]

Open season on lawyers??  Criticizing his profession??  Where do you see that in the following?:

My friend, I understand fully. John Pinho made over $200,000 while representing the Kearny utitlity. That "special litigation" also added up nicely for him. Maybe he can post his bills on this ****** site here so we can all verify that because, you know, it's really hard to go to Town Hall and go over them. And, you know, those bills are public documents, right John?

There's an allegation about how much he earned.  There's an allegation that his Kearny utility client generated "special litigation" for him over and above the standard retainer.  And there's a request that he post public documents (his own bills paid by Kearny) on this site.  That's not open season on lawyers.  That's holding Mr. Pinho up to his own professed standards.

75967[/snapback]

WHAT MR. PINHO MAKES IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.I THINK YOUR SCRATCHING THE WRONG HEAD !!!!!!

[Guest Guest_Taxpayer_*]

My friend, I understand fully.  John Pinho made over $200,000 while representing the Kearny utitlity.  That "special litigation" also added up nicely for him.  Maybe he can post his bills on this ****** site here so we can all verify that because, you know, it's really hard to go to Town Hall and go over them.  And, you know, those bills are public documents, right John?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

75720[/snapback]

If they're public documents, then why are you asking John Pinho? It sounds like you don't believe him so look up the answer yourself!

[JohnPinho]

The posting asserts that Pinho began his criticism of the Mayor when he lost the Kearny utility as a client of his law firm.  That certainly appears to be the case as the only historical criticism that Pinho has pointed to is something that Rosa-Ferreira did on Keuhne Chemical from 2001.  (Paul, you as an attorney should know that credibility and motivation are relevant in debate as well as at trial.)

The reason I mentioned former Councilman and Mayoral candidate Ed Callaghan was to point out that I did not support the Mayor in his Democratic primary bid. I guess that qualified as being critical of the Mayor.

There's also a question about the accuracy of Pinho's "not more than $36,000" claim.  Since Mr. Pinho is a forceful advocate of posting public documents on line, and his bills are public documents, why hasn't he posted them on-line?  Shouldn't he live up to his own standards?  Or is he just playing a game?

The "not more than $36,000" includes all work including "special projects". My billing file is in storage. I pulled out my old Quicken records to give everyone a total. The last time I checked the Mayor still had not posted the town's finanicals on the web nor did he respond to my Letter to the Editor in the Observer. I guess he is busy or "is he just playing a game?"

[Guest Still Scratching]

The reason I mentioned former Councilman and Mayoral candidate Ed Callaghan was to point out that I did not support the Mayor in his Democratic primary bid.  I guess that qualified as being critical of the Mayor. 

The "not more than $36,000" includes all work including "special projects". My billing file is in storage.  I pulled out my old Quicken records to give everyone a total. The last time I checked the Mayor still had not posted the town's finanicals on the web nor did he respond to my Letter to the Editor in the Observer.  I guess he is busy or "is he just playing a game?"

76091[/snapback]

Mr. Pinho: I don't following your election logic. So does that mean if I say I'm supporting Romney for President it's the equivalent of me criticizing Huckabee or Giuliani? Doesn't criticism require by definition a critical statement of someone? What critical statements did you make of Santos?

As to your billing, it'd be real easy for you to post your Kearny-paid bills here. You're dodging. What does the disclosure of your bills have to do with what Mayor Santos does or doesn't do?

As to your letter to the editor, there was a whole hour of a council meeting analyzing the water meter reading, billing and collecting just last month. It sounds like you weren't there. Isn't a town hall meeting the best forum in which to analyze public issues?

[Guest Guest]

Gee, Paul thinks it's open season on lawyers. I wonder why?

[Guest Guest]

Isn't a town hall meeting the best forum in which to analyze public issues?

76214[/snapback]

This weeks Observer states that the Mayor and Council will host an open house prior to the December 11th meeting. Will RMS stand up and be counted at that? I doubt it. Why? Because s/he has not put forth one single idea on how to improve things.

[Guest Question]

Not to take the attention away from Paul and John for too long, but getting back to the topic: does anyone else think it's strange that the mayor and council would schedule the open forum on taxes from 5 to 7 on a Tuesday night, right in the middle of the holiday season? Who gets home from work in time to take care of dinner and the kids or whatever else needs to be done to do this? Then the mayor and council will say -- smugly no less -- that no one bothered to show up so all people do is complain anonymously but don't provide any real direction for the town (which is the job of mayor and council but that's another story...). Isn't this the same strategy the board of education used to pass that bond referendum last year?

[Guest Guest]

Gee, Paul thinks it's open season on lawyers.  I wonder why?

76316[/snapback]

If you want me to answer that I will. There has not been a honest one, especially on this post since the inception of time, whenever people argue that is. I do not expect it to change anytime in the near future.

[Guest Paul]

If you want me to answer that I will. There has not been a honest one, especially on this post since the inception of time, whenever people argue that is. I do not expect it to change anytime in the near future.

76339[/snapback]

Need I say more?

[Guest Paul]

Not to take the attention away from Paul and John for too long, but getting back to the topic: does anyone else think it's strange that the mayor and council would schedule the open forum on taxes from 5 to 7 on a Tuesday night, right in the middle of the holiday season? Who gets home from work in time to take care of dinner and the kids or whatever else needs to be done to do this? Then the mayor and council will say -- smugly no less -- that no one bothered to show up so all people do is complain anonymously but don't provide any real direction for the town (which is the job of mayor and council but that's another story...). Isn't this the same strategy the board of education used to pass that bond referendum last year?

76337[/snapback]

I have no problem with December, but if it's the only forum, 5-7 is a time when many people can't come, including me. I intend to ask Al to set more forums, at least some of which should be in the evening, say 7-9.

[Strife767]

If you want me to answer that I will. There has not been a honest one, especially on this post since the inception of time,

What a ridiculous generalization. Talk about sweeping--not even now, but there never was, according to you. Get real.

[Strife767]

Not to take the attention away from Paul and John for too long, but getting back to the topic: does anyone else think it's strange that the mayor and council would schedule the open forum on taxes from 5 to 7 on a Tuesday night, right in the middle of the holiday season? Who gets home from work in time to take care of dinner and the kids or whatever else needs to be done to do this? Then the mayor and council will say -- smugly no less -- that no one bothered to show up so all people do is complain anonymously but don't provide any real direction for the town (which is the job of mayor and council but that's another story...). Isn't this the same strategy the board of education used to pass that bond referendum last year?

76337[/snapback]

Bet you anything one could make a similar complaint about practically any other time.

When do you think would be the best time to have it?

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

Not to take the attention away from Paul and John for too long, but getting back to the topic: does anyone else think it's strange that the mayor and council would schedule the open forum on taxes from 5 to 7 on a Tuesday night, right in the middle of the holiday season? Who gets home from work in time to take care of dinner and the kids or whatever else needs to be done to do this? Then the mayor and council will say -- smugly no less -- that no one bothered to show up so all people do is complain anonymously but don't provide any real direction for the town (which is the job of mayor and council but that's another story...). Isn't this the same strategy the board of education used to pass that bond referendum last year?

76337[/snapback]

Smoke and Mirrors, Great Post.

[Guest BOB R.]

Bet you anything one could make a similar complaint about practically any other time.

When do you think would be the best time to have it?

76393[/snapback]

7PM_9PM WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR THE TOWN RESIDENTS. WHY DO YOU THINK THE MAYOR PICKED 5PM,7PM BECAUSE 90 PCT TOWN RESIDENTS WORK TILL 5PM THEY DON,T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF PICKING THEIR WORKING HOURS AS THE MAYOR,SOME OF US HAVE DINNER 5:30PM,6:PM WITH OUR FAMILY,S.!!!!!!!!!!!!