In all the years I’ve been going to council meetings, I’ve rarely heard as many miscues as I did at the May 31 meeting. Leaving aside the personal remarks that were made, these eye-rollers just about took the cake. I came to the meeting not intending to say anything, but when my name was mentioned by a few speakers, I felt obliged to respond.
First, I plead guilty to being legalistic when it comes to property matters. However, I take the strongest possible exception to the suggestion that my questions regarding the Nash Park were politically motivated. On the contrary, many of the persons who gave public comments criticizing my letter as well as Hemant Marathe’s (the News, May 27) serve in officially elected municipal party positions affiliated with the mayor’s political party. So please, let’s not be making hypocritical comments about political motivations.
Where to begin with what followed? For example, along the way we were surprised to learn that the mayor, not council, is the governing body. We were also told that the Faulkner Act uses the terms “strong mayor” and “weak council,” but there is no such language anywhere in the act. These kinds of comments just detract from other arguments that could be made.
A truly head-scratching part of the evening occurred when we were told that just because the mayor may have occasionally neglected the part of the Faulkner Act that says that council has to approve all municipal improvements (N.J.S.A. 40:69A:40f), it’s fine if he goes ahead and does that with major projects. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
Near the end of the meeting, I asked who presently owns the “Beautiful Pavilion” being shipped from China in several portions. I was told that questions during public comment are not allowed, but I said it was a rhetorical question. Embarrassed silence reigned for a few moments. Our township attorney, Michael Herbert, then volunteered that nobody owns it because the parts are on a ship in the ocean.
Counselor, surely you didn’t mean that it was abandoned or unclaimed property, free for the taking. These objects are owned by someone or some entity at every point during their journey. This is not just a debating point, because sometimes goods are lost or destroyed in transit. The person or entity that would make the insurance claim is the one who was the actual owner at the time.
Second, even if Mr. Herbert were correct and nobody yet owns the pavilion, in parts or otherwise, and it’s not here, how could the mayor dedicate it at a public ceremony? You can hardly dedicate something that doesn’t have an owner or isn’t even physically present.
Mr. Herbert wove still another tangled web. He quoted New Jersey Statutes 40A:12-5 on the various ways by which counties and municipalities may acquire property by gift or otherwise. It says in plain language that for counties it has to be by resolution, and for municipalities by ordinance.
Note the word “may.” For Mr. Herbert, the fact that it doesn’t read “shall” means (to him anyway) that municipalities aren’t obliged to pass ordinances to properly receive gifts. This of course would make it much easier for the mayor to directly accept a gift all by himself, rather than bother with getting council to introduce an ordinance, notice it, and have a hearing later, which is the right way.
But if the statute had read “shall,” it would be actually commanding counties and municipalities to proactively go out and get all kinds of property, including gifts. That would obviously be absurd, so naturally it reads “may.” But if a municipality does decide to acquire property, the law clearly says that it has to be by ordinance.
This is not to say that acquisitions have always happened strictly according to Hoyle, especially small ones with little cash value, but if not, it’s because someone wasn’t paying close enough attention. “But officer, I was speeding yesterday and nobody stopped me.” Failure to catch does not imply permission to act.
There is also the question of what funds, if any, are being transferred in connection with this proposed gift and where these funds, if any, are now. Did any persons receive property or funds directly? There needs to be supporting paperwork. This is especially important with gifts from overseas due to federal law and IRS rules.
Finally, if council does everything they would need to do and the pavilion complies with all land use and construction code regulations, that’s fine, as I said during my comments. Construction contracts would also have to be bid out and accepted by council, and I will trust them to come to an informed decision about proper public policy on the pavilion.
In the meantime, I respectfully ask Mayor Hsueh to please not bypass or gloss over any of these legally required steps, including authorization by ordinance to accept this very substantial gift, as required by state law, and council’s permission to install it.
John A. Church
West Windsor
