Point Beach Open to Keeping Court in Boro
But Beach wants more money and a new security plan
Point Beach may be amenable to keeping its municipal court in Point Borough, but the Borough needs to sweeten the pot and solve a security staffing problem.
That was generally the sentiment of Point Beach Mayor Vincent Barrella who said on Wednesday that the current financial situation regarding the two towns paying administrative staff has to change.
"I don't think the current percentage works," he said, declining to specify dollar amounts and percentages because the towns are still negotiating and any agreement that's struck still needs to be approved by Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso sitting in Toms River.
For many months, Point Beach officials had said they wanted their town's municipal court operations back in their own Borough Hall on New Jersey Avenue.
And Point Borough Council had voted in February to allow that, adding, at the time, that details still had to be worked out. There was also a unanimous Borough Council vote in March.
However, as residents waited and wondered what was happening with those "details," there was apparently a shift in the minds of municipal officials about leaving court where it is as municipal court staff indicated they would rather keep the Point Beach operation in Borough Hall on Bridge Avenue.
The Borough has a newer, larger facility that the court staff apparently prefers, Barrella said.
"It's a newer facility, it's probably a more efficient facility, and we'd like to accomodate their request," he said. "But we have to make sure it works for the taxpayers. And, speaking only for myself, the deal, as presently constituted, does not work financially or in terms of providing court security. So the ball is in the Borough's court right now."
That "ball" was tossed about in a closed session at the Tuesday night Borough Council meeting in Borough Hall on Bridge Avenue and information coming out of that discussion will be discussed with Beach officials, said Borough Administrator David Maffei.
Dasti said the towns are still negotiating and that he thinks the issue will be resolved by the next Borough Council meeting on Sept. 18. Beach Council meets on the same night.
Mayors in both towns only vote when there is a tie. The matter has been the subject of executive sessions in both towns and ongoing discussions between both borough administrators.
"This has been going on for a year and a half," said Borough Mayor William Schroeder after Tuesday night's Borough Council meeting.
The core issue with providing security is that Point Beach special police officers have no jurisdiction in Point Borough or any other municipality, as per state law, Barrella said.
So Point Beach has been sending either full-time uniformed officers or detectives to the Beach court sessions at Borough Hall on Bridge Avenue to provide security.
That is in addition to the Point Beach officers who must be at Borough Hall to testify in specific cases.
Having full-time police provide security, sometimes for many hours, cost Point Beach $20,000 last year alone, Point Beach Police Chief Kevin O'Hara has said.
When asked if Point Beach would be amenable to helping to pay for special police officers hired by Point Borough, Barrella said that's possible.
"But I'm not paying more than $13 an hour," he said, referring to the salary specials typically earn.
Pirate of the new age
7:54 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Either keep it here with the current deal, plus some more cash, or beat feet Barrella. I've become tiresome of not only YOU, but your own townspeople complaining about you. Unfortunately now I have to join them. Either you fund your own court or shut your mouth and deal with it. You"re worried about "security" in a PP Boro court? Really? It's probably the trash that you let frequent your town that requires this, and causes my taxes to rise. Maybe you should deal with your "out of town criminals" on your own turf, with your own money, AND pay your own part timers to do their jobs in the appropriate surroundings. Don't bring it here.
Opinionated
9:08 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Right or wrong, like it or not, I feel we should keep away from Point Beach until they resolve their inner conflicts. It's tiresome to hear about them but worse to be even remotely involved.
Mariner
10:01 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
what?
Da Poppa
9:15 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Anything else, Barrella? Maybe you'd like the Boro businesses to kick in for the extra boardwalk security, or maybe you'd like the Boro to pay for your parking ticket rent-a-cops. Maybe the residents of the Boro should be happy that we only have to go to pur court house to pay for pakring tickets we got in district 4. So convenient!
"It's a newer facility, probably more efficient ..." it's better in every way than anything that the Beach has, but they don't want to pay to renovate their court house, so they use the Boro's. The Beach employees don't even want to work in their own court house because it's rundown.
Or maybe the Boro, who allows you to utilize our better equipped court house should tell you to GPS ... Go Pound Sand. Now Boro residents understand why everyone in the Beach except the district four cabal hates this guy.
Vince Barrella
10:52 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
How much does the Boro pay its court administrator? The answer is zero, because they are sharing the Beach's administrator. The Boro will have saved approximately a quarter of a million dollars because of the shared Court over the 3 year term of the agreement. The Beach has barely broken even because of the security issue.
If there are those in the Boro who don't want to enter into a new more equitable agreement that is their choice, but the Boro will have to find a court administrator and court staff somewhere. The Boro has benefitted from the original deal because it did not have to pay its own personnel.
The idea is to craft a deal that works for the taxpayers of both the Boro and the Beach, hopefully we can.
Nick Carraway
11:13 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Having waded through all of the gobbly-gook, it seems that the real problem here is the cost the Beach is paying to its full-time officers who have to help provide security to the Boro's court because Beach can't send it's specials, which get paid at a lower rate. If that's the real issue, then work it out! Do the math. Figure out what percentage of complaints are Beach complaints, then Beach should pay that percentage in security costs. Or if assigments were previously done on a scheduled basis (ie. Beach covers Mondays and Tuesdays, Boro covers Wednesdays and Thursdays), then pay for Boro Specials to cover the Beach days. If that amount costs the Beach less than $20K, then Beach has gotten a bargain by switching to the Boro's specials. Here's what I don't get though...if the court is a shared court, then why don't Beach specials have jurisdiction there during court hours? Shared services is something that Christie has really been pushing. Don't let this blip get in the way. Call the Governor and see what the deal is with joint jurisdiction and special police officers having jursdiction during court hours. Maybe something can be changed in that regard, and that would make everyone happy.
Vince Barrella
11:42 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
The issue goes beyond simply the cost of full-time officers. Those officers assigned to Court security are unable to perform their other duties (patrol, investigation, etc.). In addition, the Boro does not have special officers at this time. There is a Beach court and a Boro court, not a joint Court. What is in place is a shared services agreement regarding the sharing of administrative duties.
Nick Carraway
12:17 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Mayor, you were asked whether you would be amenable to help pay for specials hired by the Boro to provide security, and essentially said "yes" but then mentioned a price limit that you'd be willing to pay (see last sentences of this article). So, even if the Boro doesn't currently have specials, it seems like that's a consideration to make this work. As for the Beach cops that have to provide security on Beach court days (thanks for making that clear, that the Beach court days are separate days), it seems to me that you'd have that problem whether the court was in the Beach or the Boro. A cop providing security for the court would be unavailable to perform their other duties, whether the court was in the Beach or the Boro, right? You have to pay full-time cops their salaries, regardless of what services they're performing. If, when the court was in the Beach, you had to hire a special police officer to provide security & had your full-time officer on the street, then you're incurring the same expense with the court in the Boro, except that now it's the full-timer in court and the special on the street. Not ideal, but no added expense. It's the Boro, not Timbuk2, so traveling isn't very far. Truthfully, I'd think you'd be happy to send all of those violators to the Boro for court appearances based on your disdain for those who behave so badly that they receive ordinance violation tickets.
Vince Barrella
1:22 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
When court was physically in the Beach, we used specials to provide security. That is different than having a special on the street in a patrol car or trying to perform investigative duties while an experienced full-time officer or detective is assigned to provide security for the court. Having an experienced full-time officer or detective providing court security is not the most efficient use of their experience and/or expertise. That was my point about the issuing trancending cost.
All that I was conveying was that if the Boro is providing security for Beach court sessions, the cost to the Beach should be in line with what we would be paying if the session was being held in the Beach. By the way, none of this should be insurmountable, but, as I indicated, the ball is in the Boro's court (no pun intended).
Laura
1:51 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
What happened to taking back the courts but keeping the shared services with the Court Personnel?
Vince Barrella
1:24 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012
Court administrator and Judge prefer one location. I would like to accommodate their desire, but only if we can resolve the security and financial issues.
A Palanchi
8:01 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Maybe somebody can explain two things for me. You have a shared court but the only people you share are court workers. If I read the article correctly, the towns still hire their own judges, prosecutors and public defenders. I'm most confused about Vince Barrella. What town is he is the mayor of? I thought it was Beach. But that doesn't make sense. If that were so, why is he saving the Boro $250,000.00 and the Beach nothing? Sounds like he is the mayor of the Boro, or maybe should be. What am I missing as all of this is very confusing
Vince Barrella
1:22 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012
The original deal was negotiated by club insiders from the Beach and the Boro in 2010. The deal was agreed to by members of the Beach council without knowing, or caring, that our specials could not provide court security for Beach court sessions held in the Boro. The Mayor's office in the Beach was not allowed to participate in the negotiations by those club insiders. The idea of shared services for the court is worth saving, but only if the security and financial issues can be resolved first.
Vince Barrella
1:25 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012
We do not have a "shared Court," rather what we have is shared personnel and a shared facility. Each town still appoints its own judge.
A Palanchi
8:56 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012
Thank you for your answers but I think I am more confused now than what I was reading the article. You are the Mayor of the Beach. Your court and your employees move over to the Boro. For a 3 year period they have made/saved at least $80,000 a year. You have made/saved nothing. That can't be correct, is it? Do they do something in return that the article didn't mention? Do they send over their accountant for $80,000's worth of work or provide garbage service for the same amount? There's got to be more to this than what has been said, otherwise why wouldn't you move your employees back to our courthouse and let the Boro fend for themselves? It won't cost you anything and it sounds like you might even save money. I've been out of the business world for awhile now but things couldn't have changed that much.
Vince Barrella
11:26 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
The savings for the Beach were ostensibly to be in the form of a payment of 15% of the compensation of our Court employees (administrator and staff) by the Boro. Those savings have largely been wiped out by the higher cost of security (full-time officers v. specials) and overtime. That is one of the reasons the deal is not viable.
A Palanchi
1:46 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
That answer leads to a few questions that will help me make a little more sense of this since it still doesn't make too much sense. If it has always been a 15% return since the beginning why did it take 3 years to address it? Would that overtime been incurred if your people were back in their own courthouse? In private industry nobody outsources their personnel unless the savings/benefit for both parties is near even, or close to it, for both parties. I don't know what the salaries are but you certainly do, I'm sure. What percentage does that add up to and why hasn't that been discussed? Do you still have your courthouse available or has it been razed or assigned to another unit of government? Thank you for your patience.
Vince Barrella
2:43 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
It hasn't taken 3 years to try to address the problem. The agreement was drafted in such a way that it was a hard 3 year deal that we could not terminate. Why it was drafted this way, one would have to discuss with the Club insiders and the attorney they appointed in 2010 over my objections. While the financial details theoretically could be renegotiated every year, both the Boro and the Beach had to agree and there was no incentive for the Boro to agree to any change because the deal was working for the Boro. The agreement is scheduled to end on 6/30/2013 which I believe is the reason the Boro is now more willing to discuss making changes that make the deal more equitable for the Beach.
One who was there
7:36 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
It has taken three years because the Boro politicians who were in power until now were against the agreement because it was their political opponents’ idea. It was a three year agreement so that a more accurate track record could be developed than one or two years would have created.
Vince Barrella
8:25 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Assuming the motive was to allow for a track record, the fact remains that the Beach was locked in unless the Boro agreed to change the deal. Thus, when a huge problem like the inability to use specials came to light, the Beach was stuck unless the Boro was willing to make a change. I recall that the Boro was having major budget issues, and revising the deal then would have added to those budget woes. OWWT, why can't you simply acknowledge that the deal contained a fatal flaw. The idea was not a bad one, the deal was.
One who was there
11:45 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Because there was no fatal flaw in the agreement, just politicians getting the way of what was best for the taxpayers (both Boro and Beach)
Vince Barrella
4:45 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
Not knowing that Beach specials could not be used in the Boro before agreeing to the deal was not a fatal flaw? C'mon
One who was there
2:02 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
The problem with this agreement is, plain and simple, Mr. Barrella. The agreement was negotiated by the administrators of the Beach and the Boro, the same as the new agreement is being negotiated.
Because he was not involved in the negotiations of the first agreement, Mr. Barrella refused to support the agreement. In fact, he actively tried to disrupt the agreement by persuading Ms. Sargent to come before the Beach Council and complain about the agreement. An action, incidentally, which caused Ms. Sargent to be called to a meeting with those who oversee the ethical violations of Court Administrators.
The police don’t want the Court in the Borough, and Mr. Barrella needs their support. Had Mr. Barrella supported the agreement the security issue could have been resolved long ago. But Mr. Barrella, as usual, has been playing politics. He has been encouraging the police department to ensure the cost for security and in officers sitting around the Court is excessive.
So now he is going to scuttle an agreement that can save Beach taxpayers significant dollars and argue that he did so because the deal was not “fair.”
Typical Barrella, it is always about his power politics, never about the taxpayers of the Beach.
Vince Barrella
2:48 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
This is simply an effort on your part to engage in revisionist history. Remember the Beach Club insiders were seeking to aid the Mayoral campaign of the then Boro Council President. Let's not forget the deal to give away our building department.
The Boro Council President was unhappy that Ms. Sargent on her own spoke up. So much so that she tried to have a Beach employee fired. The Beach attorney then proceeded to fabricate a story that the effort to meet with Ms. Sargent came from the Administrative Office of the Court. When caught he backed off this claim.
The security issue will be resolved only if the Boro is willing to do so. The rest of this post is pure nonsense, but I don't have time right now to debunk it. I will do so later this weekend.
A Palanchi
9:15 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
How could the security issue have been resolved long ago and why wasn't it? Are you saying the agreement has significantly benefitted the Beach financially and, if so, how much of a financial benefit has there been to the taxpayers? Thank you for this information.
One who was there
7:39 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
There is absolutely no doubt that the Administrative Office of the Courts was upset with Ms. Sargent and would have fired her, except that the majority of the Beach council, despite their unhappiness with her actions, felt it was unfair to penalize her for what Barrella persuaded her to do. If you doubt this just ask Ms. Sargent.
Vince Barrella
8:15 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
More revisionist history.
Vince Barrella
8:43 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Anyone interested can go to the following link to a Ocean Star story from October 2010. This story confirms that it was the Boro Council President who sought to have Ms. Sargent fired.
http://starnewsgroup.com/weekly/2010/10.01.10/barrella_wan_10.01.10_63639.html
One who was there
11:44 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Nobody said the Boro Council President was not annoyed with Ms. Sargent, she was. But the Administrative Office of the Courts, quite independently, chastised Ms. Sargent for violating the ethics rules governing Court employees, and the only reason she was not fired is because the Beach Council majority refused to penalize her for Barrella using her for his own selfish political ambitions.
Vince Barrella
4:43 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
more nonsense and revisionist history
A Palanchi
8:06 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012
The last entry should be directed to "One who was there".
One who was there
7:33 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
The security issue could have and should have been solved long ago because the Boro saved enough to afford to cover the cost of security---that was always what was expected. But when the Boro politicians who fought the deal for political reasons (after all if this is such a sweet deal for the Boro how could they honestly be against it?) won the election shortly after the agreement was signed they sided with Barrella, who also fought the deal for political reasons. That is why as soon as the new Beach and Borough politicians took office they started talking about the Court returning to the Beach. Politicians looking out for their own power, not the taxpayers.
Vince Barrella
8:09 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Nonsense! I can't speak for those in the Boro, but what I can say is the problem with the deal was that when the Club insiders and our then borough attorney negotiated the deal they did not speak with the Beach police department about the problems it presented. Had they done so, perhaps those problems could have been addressed before the deal was done. I have been trying to keep the good parts of the agreement in place, but we need to fix the problems in order to do so.
Don't you love those nameless posters who claim to know what happened.
A Resident
10:48 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
One who was there.....so you would expect Pt. Boro to use the savings they were getting to cover the security issues....thereby lessening their savings? What incentive would Pt Boro have to do that?
I don't see that as political....I see that as common sense.
One who was there
11:02 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
A resident. Not all there savings, just a small part, less than 20%. And their motivation is what is driving their attempt to renew the deal with the security issue solved, they will have no savings without paying for the security.
A Palanchi
9:08 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
Both of you don't seem to agree on just about anything other than it is not working because of political interference. I don't have all of the facts because I am sure that there is more to it but two things seem pretty clear. For purely political reasons, the Beach side cut a poor deal 3 years ago and now they can't escape even if they wanted to. For purely political reasons the Boro side knows it and is continuing to exploit it both politically and financially. Sounds like it is workable but politics is interfering with good business sense. Sounds like regular folks need to remind them all why they were elected to office and make this work so that it benefits everyone. I'm curious why other decision-makers have not chimed in. Mr. Barrella, are you the only elected official in the Beach that has an opinion. Is there anyone in the Boro that has one? Pretty sad actually.
A Resident
10:47 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
A Palanchi, no Barrella is not the only one with an opinion. He, however, is one of the few that will put their opinions out here in a public forum for people to read. Others will keep their opinion to themselves until Council meetings and then will speak...mostly in the closed sessions.
Agree with him or not...at least sometimes, Mr. Barrella will put his thoughts out for the public to read.
One who was there
10:59 am on Monday, September 10, 2012
I am in the Boro, and have an opinion. The deal was good for the Beach and the Boro. The Beach saved 15% of the salaries they were going to pay anyway and the Boro saved even more because they did not have to pay more than 15% of the salary of a Court Administrator. But the Beach police did not want the Court to move (which is why I think they were not part of the negotiations) and so because of politics and police resistance the Beach savings were eaten up. Of course the Beach still did OK because all agree they at least broke even and did not have their administrative staff disrupted by all the offenders flooding their too small building every time there was a Court session.
And except for Barrella this deal could be made to work now that those ion the Boro who opposed the deal are no longer in office, thank God.
Spooner
12:53 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
One who- speaking of Beach police politics back then. . .you had a high ranking officier there who at the same time was right in the thick of it...as a political activist in the Boro(Ocean Star, 10/15/2010, page 19)...
http://media.starnewsgroup.com/pdf/virtual_issues/2010/10.15.10.pdf
I don't expect the Mayor to have a response. . .but there was definitely Beach police employees interfering in Borough government politics.
A Resident
3:22 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
Spooner, are you saying that residents of Pt Boro can't be involved in Pt. Boro politics? That residents of Pt Boro can't place an ad in a newspaper?
A Resident
3:24 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
Actually One who was there....the police were never asked to be in the negotiations. Nor were they asked their opinion on the matter. But if you never went to any of the Beach Council meetings at that time...you would not have heard the police state that.
Spooner
5:38 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
A Resident- was addressing 'One who was there' ...but in responding to your comment: no there's nothing wrong with Beach employees involving themselves in Boro affairs. PBA and other unions are opposed to shared services...and heaven for bid you should use the word "consolation"
...and remember...it's a double edge sword. . .they(the unions) now become subject to being attacked and looked upon as not cooperating. . .fostering higher property taxes?
...as for your comment on police not being consulted...I lay blame it on the Mayor & Council there.
A Resident
6:17 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
Spooner,
a Beach employee that is a Pt Boro resident. As a Pt Boro resident, they have every right to get involved in Pt Boro politics....regardless of where they are employed.
Consolidation can be a good thing....sometimes.....so far there have been very few consolidations that have benefitted both sides.
A Palanchi
12:22 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
You sound a little biased. That's okay though. If I was on your side and was saving $240,000 I guess I would be a little biased too. But, you originally stated the Beach was enjoying a significant savings. Now you concede that they are just breaking even. I don't know how much you know about business but I don't know of anyone who gets into a working partnership with the hopes that they will break even while their partner reaps the financial dividends of the venture. You lessen that possibility by working together to make things right even when things are going wrong. You seem to be more grateful to the Almighty that certain decision makers in your town aren't in office rather than hoping to be grateful that a resolution can be worked out to bring a little prosperity to both towns. If the article Mr. Barrella provided is also accurate, it seems you are also wrong as to who wanted to walk the Court representative to the gallows. You don't seem to have many facts, only strong opinions, and you don't seem to like too many people. Hopefully, you are not negotiating the continuing existence of this relationship. As to Mr. Barrella, he seems to provide a lot of information, however, he seems to skirt a lot of questions. I would still like an answer to my questions that I posed to him on Saturday. Thank you.
Vince Barrella
4:48 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
Could you tell me again what you would like for me to answer. I will try to do so
A Palanchi
7:32 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
To Mr. Barrella: How much money has the Boro paid and what would they have to pay to make the arrangement mutually beneficial to both towns? Would the overtime that has been referred to in the article been incurred if your people were back in their own courthouse? Do you still have your courthouse available in the event this doesn't work out? Thank you and good luck to you. Unfortunately, you will need it.
Vince Barrella
12:10 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
In the 2012 budget we anticipated $38,000. The payments due in earlier years were netted against salary so I was not able to find the specific number. It is my understanding that the overtime would not have been incurred, but more importantly we would have our regular officers available to perform those tasks that are more appropriate given their expertise. The facility can be made available if need be.
Finally, I cannot comment on what would be an appropriate financial solution going forward as we are still involved in negotiations.
Hope this helps
A Palanchi
12:22 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
You sound a little biased. That's okay though. If I was on your side and was saving $240,000 I guess I would be a little biased too. But, you originally stated the Beach was enjoying a significant savings. Now you concede that they are just breaking even. I don't know how much you know about business but I don't know of anyone who gets into a working partnership with the hopes that they will break even while their partner reaps the financial dividends of the venture. You lessen that possibility by working together to make things right even when things are going wrong. You seem to be more grateful to the Almighty that certain decision makers in your town aren't in office rather than hoping to be grateful that a resolution can be worked out to bring a little prosperity to both towns. If the article Mr. Barrella provided is also accurate, it seems you are also wrong as to who wanted to walk the Court representative to the gallows. You don't seem to have many facts, only strong opinions, and you don't seem to like too many people. Hopefully, you are not negotiating the continuing existence of this relationship. As to Mr. Barrella, he seems to provide a lot of information, however, he seems to skirt a lot of questions. I would still like an answer to my questions that I posed to him on Saturday.
A Palanchi
12:49 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
So sorry. The above should have been directed to "One who was there's" comment.
One who was there
3:26 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
I'll ignore your comments about how I "sound" and "seem."
But the 15% of salary was determined by the Administrators of the Beach and Boro based on the relative number of tickets. As I understand it both Administrators believed that of the total tickets to be handled by the Court staff 85% would be Beach tickets and 15% would be Boro tickets. Boro was to hire and pay for Court security so Beach would save 15% of salaries. Both Administrators thought this was fair. Then the politics started.
As to who wanted to discipline Ms. Sargent see my response to Mr. Barrella above.
Now that those in the Boro who were playing politics with this agreement are gone, the bottom line is both Boro and Beach taxpayers are going to lose because of Barrella continuing to play politics with this agreement. But you don’t want to see that, do you?
Vince Barrella
4:53 pm on Monday, September 10, 2012
The only thing you have gotten right is that the 85/15 split was based on an estimate of the number of cases. Other than that you are engaging in creative fiction.
I have been trying to save this deal for over a year, but I will not support a deal that does not provide a meaningful benefit to the Beach and which does not solve the security issues.