MAYOR SANTOS "HIGH TOWN TAXES"

[Jim Mangin]

No comment on this, Jim? I guess you haven't had sufficient time to create your "what I really meant was" reply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unlike some, I have a life beyond this board. It includes a wife, a house, two kids, two jobs - and one very large tax bill.

If I don't answer you swiftly enough, too bad. I've got bills to pay.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Loki]

Unlike some, I have a life beyond this board. It includes a wife, a house, two kids, two jobs - and one very large tax bill.

If I don't answer you swiftly enough, too bad. I've got bills to pay.

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim, neither you nor I can take credit for proving Surrealist wrong; he/she does that by themselves-- with an almost perfect record!!

[A. Realist]

If you "haven't worked with municipal budgets in a while" and you readily admit you are "not familiar with some of the references here," I have to ask - why would you agree with this guy? At the very least, ask me to prove my point to you. I'll do it. Happily.

Try to keep an open mind. That's all I ask.

Jim Mangin

ps - You mentioned the criteria for a public hearing on a budget ammendment. It's known as the "1-10-5 Rule." You need a public hearing on a budget ammendment if it:

- adds a new appropriation in excess of 1% of total appropriations, or

- increases or decreases any appropriation item by more than 10%, or

- increases the amount to be raised by taxation more than 5%.

I hope this helps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you've missed the point here. (How unlike you!)

The poster (Finance Consultant) states that although he/she has not worked on municipal budgets in awhile, he is nevertheless sure of the fact that a budget can and often is amended prior to adoption regardless of the awarding of Extraordinary Aid. He/she also suggests that a budget can be amended even post-adoption under certain circumstances. Basic municipal accounting!

So you STILL haven't addressed your very erroneous premise: that a budget cannot be changed after a municipality is awarded Extraordinary Aid.

[Guest Guest]

Unlike some, I have a life beyond this board. It includes a wife, a house, two kids, two jobs - and one very large tax bill.

If I don't answer you swiftly enough, too bad. I've got bills to pay.

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

careful Jim. last time you mentioned your wife, house, and job the 2 Als called you a racist. remember?

[Guest Local Finance Consultant]

If you "haven't worked with municipal budgets in a while" and you readily admit you are "not familiar with some of the references here," I have to ask - why would you agree with this guy? At the very least, ask me to prove my point to you. I'll do it. Happily.

Try to keep an open mind. That's all I ask.

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Mangin, I haven't worked on budgets per se recently but am very familiar with all aspects of municipal finance. Just needed to brush up on particulars of the statute which I did before your answer. The references I am not familiar with have nothing to do with finance. I meant that I don't know about the political references or your history with Mr. Realist and honestly don't have any interest in that scene. I agreed with the guy because he was absolutely correct on the point about budget amendments and it bugged me that as a finance person you didn't know that, that's all.

KOTW Note: The above post was submitted by an anonymous person. Whether that person has any local finance experience is an unknown. Although the post attacks Mr. Mangin's finance knowledge anonymously, I allowed the post but felt it appropriate to remind readers that the post was submitted by an anonymous person and could have been posted by anyone (with or without local government finance experience).

[A. Realist]

Mr. Mangin, I haven't worked on budgets per se recently but am very familiar with all aspects of municipal finance.  Just needed to brush up on particulars of the statute which I did before your answer.  The references I am not familiar with have nothing to do with finance.  I meant that I don't know about the political references or your history with Mr. Realist and honestly don't have any interest in that scene.  I agreed with the guy because he was absolutely correct on the point about budget amendments and it bugged me that as a finance person you didn't know that, that's all.

KOTW Note: The above post was submitted by an anonymous person.  Whether that person has any local finance experience is an unknown.  Although the post attacks Mr. Mangin's finance knowledge anonymously, I allowed the post but felt it appropriate to remind readers that the post was submitted by an anonymous person and could have been posted by anyone (with or without local government finance experience).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KOTW:

I have always been impressed by the impartial monitoring of this site, so I was very surprised to read this note. I have two major objections to its content:

1) How does the post by LFC qualify as an "attack"? There were two differing points of view on budget amendments as they pertain to Extraordinary Aid. The poster agreed with my position and was puzzled as to why Mr. Mangin, someone versed in finance, would state that a budget infused with Extraordinary Aid could not be amended. If that constitutes an attack, then you need to revisit about 75% of the posts on this site.

2) You're establishing a brand new posting criteria by cautioning the reader that the expertise of the poster cannot be confirmed. That could be said of every anonymous poster. You have posters who claim to be Kearny taxpayers and they really do "attack" those who levy taxes; yet I've never seen a note saying, "....while the poster claims to be a Kearny taxpayer, he posted anonymously, therefore the post could have been submitted by anyone." There are anonymous posters who claim all sorts of first-hand knowledge and expertise in everything from contracts to the environment. I respectfully submit that if LFC's post demands a caveat, then so do all posts wherein the poster claims any real knowledge of the topic being discussed.

[KOTW]

KOTW:

I have always been impressed by the impartial monitoring of this site, so I was very surprised to read this note. I have two major objections to its content:

1) How does the post by LFC qualify as an "attack"? There were two differing points of view on budget amendments as they pertain to Extraordinary Aid. The poster agreed with my position and was puzzled as to why Mr. Mangin, someone versed in finance, would state that a budget infused with Extraordinary Aid could not be amended. If that constitutes an attack, then you need to revisit about 75% of the posts on this site.

2) You're establishing a brand new posting criteria by cautioning the reader that the expertise of the poster cannot be confirmed. That could be said of every anonymous poster. You have posters who claim to be Kearny taxpayers and they really do "attack" those who levy taxes; yet I've never seen a note saying, "....while the poster claims to be a Kearny taxpayer, he posted anonymously, therefore the post could have been submitted by anyone." There are anonymous posters who claim all sorts of first-hand knowledge and expertise in everything from contracts to the environment. I respectfully submit that if LFC's post demands a caveat, then so do all posts wherein the poster claims any real knowledge of the topic being discussed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A. Realist,

Thank you for the compliment. I try not to get involved in the discussion. Despite what some may think KOTW has no political agenda. The Discussion Board’s purpose is just that – a place to discuss the issues effecting our community in hopes of improving it. On occasion I edit posts and delete posts. On this occasion, I decided to add a note (but not edit).

Here is my reasoning: The post was an indirect attack on former Councilman James Mangin’s financial expertise. Since Mr. Mangin is employed as a financial officer for the Borough of East Newark (in addition to his full-time job), I thought it appropriate to point out that the anonymous guest poster may or may not have financial expertise.

Once again, I thank you for your compliment and hope that you understand my reasoning. I believe under all the circumstances that my decision to add a note was appropriate and consistent with KOTW policies.

KOTW

[Guest Guest]

A. Realist,

Thank you for the compliment.  I try not to get involved in the discussion.  Despite what some may think KOTW has no political agenda.  The Discussion Board’s purpose is just that – a place to discuss the issues effecting our community in hopes of improving it.  On occasion I edit posts  and delete posts.  On this occasion, I decided to add a note (but not edit). 

Here is my reasoning:  The post was an indirect attack on former Councilman James Mangin’s financial expertise.  Since Mr. Mangin is employed as a financial officer for the Borough of East Newark (in addition to his full-time job), I thought it appropriate to point out that the anonymous guest poster may or may not have financial expertise. 

Once again, I thank you for your compliment and hope that you understand my reasoning.  I believe under all the circumstances that my decision to add a note was appropriate and consistent with KOTW policies.

KOTW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who knew that  he was a financial  officer for E.N.?

[Guest Guest]

Apples knew!

[A. Realist]

A. Realist,

Thank you for the compliment.  I try not to get involved in the discussion.  Despite what some may think KOTW has no political agenda.  The Discussion Board’s purpose is just that – a place to discuss the issues effecting our community in hopes of improving it.  On occasion I edit posts  and delete posts.  On this occasion, I decided to add a note (but not edit). 

Here is my reasoning:  The post was an indirect attack on former Councilman James Mangin’s financial expertise.  Since Mr. Mangin is employed as a financial officer for the Borough of East Newark (in addition to his full-time job), I thought it appropriate to point out that the anonymous guest poster may or may not have financial expertise. 

Once again, I thank you for your compliment and hope that you understand my reasoning.  I believe under all the circumstances that my decision to add a note was appropriate and consistent with KOTW policies.

KOTW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KOTW,

While I do understand and appreciate your reasoning, I respectfully disagree with it. This was not an indirect attack on Mr. Mangin's general financial expertise, but a direct rebuttal to a particular, albeit basic, statement he posted. It is irrelevant whether the poster (Local Finance Consultant) is or isn't schooled in municipal finance, since the correct information on the subject is available to anyone.

I would concede the consistency issue only if the caveat was pronounced for postings of all self-proclaimed "experts" on the site. But, then again, you could just as easily have edited my response beyond recognition or deleted it completely; so all in all, I do appreciate your efforts to be fair. Thanks.

[KOTW]

KOTW,

While I do understand and appreciate your reasoning, I respectfully disagree with it. This was not an indirect attack on Mr. Mangin's general financial expertise, but a direct rebuttal to a particular, albeit basic, statement he posted. It is irrelevant whether the poster (Local Finance Consultant) is or isn't schooled in municipal finance, since the correct information on the subject is available to anyone.

I would concede the consistency issue only if the caveat was pronounced for postings of all self-proclaimed "experts" on the site. But, then again, you could just as easily have edited my response beyond recognition or deleted it completely; so all in all, I do appreciate your efforts to be fair. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A. Realist,

You're welcome. I disagree that the correct information on the subject is available to anyone. Mr. Mangin posted a link which supported his position (whether it did or not is a matter for the reader to determine). The "Local Finance Consultant" did not provide any supporting document. I believe that my note was appropriate under the circumstances. Former Councilman Mangin deserved as much. If the "Local Finance Consultant" had registered under his/her real name then I would not have placed a note on the post since his/her reputation would have been at stake.

KOTW

[Jim Mangin]

First, here's my two cents on "Local Finance Consultant's" (and my own) credentials. Who cares? I've never once mentioned the fact that I work in East Newark's Finance Dept. to get someone to agree with my position. I don't add my title to my name like Bert Diaz does. If he wants to, fine. And I don't use some obscure vocation like Local Finance Consultant instead of my name. My reasoning is simple. I believe I'll have more credibility posting under my real name than I would using what may well be, a phony title.

Here are my credentials. I care. That's it. I care enough about this town that I served for 3 years as a member of the Board of Education. And during that time I kept my mind, my ears, and my mouth open. I care enough about this town that I served for 4 years as a member of the Town Council - mind, ears and mouth still open.

Those are my credentials. If you're not impressed, I don't blame you. They're not that impressive. But those very same credentials are avavilable to just about every citizen of Kearny. Just run for office and see what I've seen. And then just try to keep your mouth shut when you see good people moving out of the town you love.

I never ask anyone to agree with me because of "credentials." That's why I always post a link or cite a newspaper article to back what I say.

Now, can we get back to the issue - which was - Can you change a budget after receiving Extraordinary Aid? The simple answer is no, you cannot.

Here's the link again in case you missed it. It states pretty clearly that after receieving Extraordinary Aid, you cannot make material increases or decreases to budgeted revenue or appropriations. That's the law. Will Santos & Co. say "to hell with the law," and change the budget anyway? Yes, they will. That's what they did last year. Just because it will happen doesn't make it legal. Santos took out a 15 year bond to pay for shirts and pants in the Fire Dept. That's was illegal too. But it happened.

And to Local Finance Consultant - You say you agreed with A. Realist because "he was absolutely correct on the point about budget amendments and it bugged me that as a finance person you didn't know that." Do you still want to stick with this statement, or haven't you read the Local Finance Notice I provided a link for?

Jim Mangin

ps - One final thought - Do either of you two have an opinion about the $400,000 reduction to the tax levy I proposed? I've answered your queries. How about mine?

[JoeW]

Jim,

Since you have brought up his name, please tell us, are you willingly accepting his (and his alter ego TSM) support? Are you comfortable with him constantly post his support for you as a write-in candidate? If not, have you asked him to stop?

I have not seen you post on here that you are not comfortable with this.

Thanks.

JW

[Guest Ajax]

Jim,

Since you have brought up his name, please tell us, are you willingly accepting his (and his alter ego TSM) support?  Are you comfortable with him constantly post his support for you as a write-in candidate?  If not, have you asked him to stop?

I have not seen you post on here that you are not comfortable with this.

Thanks.

JW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Joe, TSM is not Norberto Diaz. TSM was around long before Bert started his campaign to oust Mary Torres. Check it out, plus TSM can spell. Joe where you been?

[Guest Guest]

Jim,

Since you have brought up his name, please tell us, are you willingly accepting his (and his alter ego TSM) support?  Are you comfortable with him constantly post his support for you as a write-in candidate?  If not, have you asked him to stop?

I have not seen you post on here that you are not comfortable with this.

Thanks.

JW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Joe, go back to re-living you're KHS track days.

[JoeW]

Joe, go back to re-living you're KHS track days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I'm living in the now...my son's HS track days. But hey, thanks for noticing.

So, will Jim answer my question?

JW

[JoeW]

Joe, TSM is not Norberto Diaz. TSM was around long before Bert started his campaign to oust Mary Torres. Check it out, plus TSM can spell. Joe where you been?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I think you are wrong. I think, like other's have also said, they are one in the same.

TSM is not a registered member and the name could be used by anybody.

Where have I been? Where I always am.

Can't stand the way this sight is managed. Don't like the delay in posts appearing and disagree with some of the editing that occurs.

JW

[Guest THE SILENT MAJORITY]

PLEASE VOTE FOR MAYOR SANTOS. HE IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

ALSO, 21 YEARS IS NOT LONG ENOUGH. 21 MORE FOR MARY!!!!!

JW

(see, anybody could be TSM)

[A. Realist]

I never ask anyone to agree with me because of "credentials." That's why I always post a link or cite a newspaper article to back what I say.

Now, can we get back to the issue - which was - Can you change a budget after receiving Extraordinary Aid? The simple answer is no, you cannot.

Here's the link again in case you missed it. It states pretty clearly that after receieving Extraordinary Aid, you cannot make material increases or decreases to budgeted revenue or appropriations. That's the law. Will Santos & Co. say "to hell with the law," and change the budget anyway? Yes, they will. That's what they did last year. Just because it will happen doesn't make it legal. Santos took out a 15 year bond to pay for shirts and pants in the Fire Dept. That's was illegal too. But it happened.

And to Local Finance Consultant - You say you agreed with A. Realist because "he was absolutely correct on the point about budget amendments and it bugged me that as a finance person you didn't know that." Do you still want to stick with this statement, or haven't you read the Local Finance Notice I provided a link for?

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for using such precise language as, "That's the law." It makes rebuttal so much easier. The link you provided is NOT THE LAW that governs the awarding of Extraordinary Aid (NJSA 52:27D-118.35), but rather a paragraph from the instructions for filing the application. The law itself does not include any such language. As a former employee of DCA put it, "It is a safeguard to prevent unrealistic puffing up of introduced budgets and purposely uses subjective terms like 'material changes'." (A tactic to which you have alluded and one that has never even remotely been attributed to Kearny.) It is a "prerogative" of the agency, not a state statute. A "prerogative" which, I might add, the State has never applied to Kearny.

Your willingness to paint Santos & Co. as flagrant violators of state law, does not ring true. Look at the procedure for budget approval by the State: The introduced budget goes to the State Finance Board when the Town applies for EA; the award is made; the amended/adopted budget goes back to the Board for final approval. Really, don't you think that the State agencies would have noticed if Kearny had done anything illegal between introduction and adoption last year? If so, would Kearny have received aid again this year?

[Guest Guest]

No, I'm living in the now...my son's HS track days.  But hey, thanks for noticing.

So, will Jim answer my question?

JW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's even better, living through your kid.

[Guest Guest]

PLEASE VOTE FOR MAYOR SANTOS.  HE IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD.

ALSO, 21 YEARS IS NOT LONG ENOUGH.  21 MORE FOR MARY!!!!!

JW

(see, anybody could be TSM)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seriously, vote for these two clowns, they make the surrounding towns look great by comparison.

[JoeW]

That's even better, living through your kid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously you have no kids, or at least any that make you as proud as I am of him.

Jim, how about that answer now?

JW

[Guest Guest]

Obviously you have no kids, or at least any that make you as proud as I am of him.

Jim, how about that answer now?

JW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, I'd like to think you would be proud of your child even if he wasn't a talented runner.

[Guest Guest]

Obviously you have no kids, or at least any that make you as proud as I am of him.

Jim, how about that answer now?

JW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should Mangin answer your question? What's the difference if Bert supports him? What are you trying to imply?

As for having or not having kids, how could you possibly come to that conclusion? Maybe I have enough self-respect not to have to share the spotlight with my kids.

Track is for girlie-men anyway.

[oldfart56]

Gee, I'd like to think you would be proud of your child even if he wasn't a talented runner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JOE i am with you on this 1 ! living through your kids is why you have em! he should think about it! i have 5 kids and now 17 grand kids! and i will live through all of them! that IS THE SPICE OF LIFE! it is life at its best! how did you feel when you 1st held your kid! and stood over him the 1st nite sleeping at home! the feel and smell of the skin after his bath! this stuff is lost 4 ever after you "die" so why not live through your kid as long as possable!!! yah your right he aint got no kids!!!!!