Questions persist about lack of detailed budget document
Tentative budget of $116M receives heavy criticism for many reasons
BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer
Edison's tentative budget of $116 million was savagely excoriated by the Township Council and by the assembled public who had arrived for the proposed spending plan's public hearing Oct. 24. In response to sentiments that the amount of information made available to the public, and the length of time it was available, was insufficient, the council resolved to keep the public hearings open, saying they would be continued at a later date.

The budget, described by Business Administrator Anthony Cancro as "not a perfect budget," stands at $116,171,555. According to calculations from the Finance Committee, this represents a potential 9.51 percent increase in appropriations from last year's spending plan, weighed against a 0.47 percent increase in revenues. The amount to be supported by taxes in this budget represents $78,234,669, a 14.93 percent increase from last year's. It includes seven new positions: One junior field assessor in the finance department, one assistant recreation specialist in the recreation department, one insurance clerk in human resources and four EMTs.

Jerry Barca, a spokesman with the township's administration, has previously said that the budget is in a very tentative stage and that the numbers are very far from the final word. He had said before that the reason it wasn't being released just yet was that there was still a lot of work to be done on it. Cancro agreed that the hard work is far from over.

"It will require modification," Cancro said.

He opened his presentation by saying that many of the increases come from sources outside anyone's control. Pensions, for example, rose by $2.8 million and health-care costs rose by $1 million. He also named higher utility and fuel costs as culprits.

After his remarks, the hearing was opened to the public, who critiqued everything from the size of the budget itself to the circumstances under which it was crafted.

Many residents decried the lack of information they and the council had available to them about the budget. The public had access to a summary of the budget, which included lump sums for expenditures and revenue, but many said that they wanted a detailed line-item copy of the spending plan.

"We have copies of the budget, but many of the bare facts are lacking in substance," said resident Jane Tousman, who also noted that she had requested a detailed, line-item budget document using the Open Public Records Act, which allows people to gain access to government records, but was not given it. "… I need the backup sheets, because they contained budgeted salaries of each position, while the bare budget only provides a total salary figure in lump sum."

Many also questioned the legality of holding the hearings in the first place if they did not have the detailed budget information. They cited a local statute saying that the budget must be made available at the township clerk's office before the spending plan gets public comment. It was asserted that this rule was not followed because the only thing available was the budget summary, not the actual budget itself.

"How can anyone intelligently comment on these figures without a backup justification?" asked resident Fred Wolke. "… We are being denied our right to be heard."

Township Attorney Jeff Lehrer, when questioned on this, did not care to confirm whether, in his professional opinion, this meant that the statute had been broken.

Much of the public comment, especially at the beginning, was directed at Cancro, with residents talking about how frustrated they were with him not releasing the detailed budget to the public. Joe Petrucelli, a member of the Finance Committee who has worked with the township budget for the past five years, said that the business administrator was just doing his job and asked people to stop blaming him, noting that this budget is a product of the mayor. He, and others, also expressed frustration at the size of the proposed budget.

"You have a significant tax increase. If you add these [increases] up, it's a 15 [2006], a 9 [2007] and a 14 [2008] - that's 40 percent tax increase in three years! Three years! And you don't get the details? Shame on you," Petrucelli said.

Members of the Township Council also complained about their own lack of a detailed budget document. In previous years, the council received a centralized binder full of the budget's particulars, which they would study and then use to question the individual department heads during a public hearing. This time around, they were expected to meet the individual department heads in a series of meetings that are not, according to council Vice President Anthony Massaro, open for public comment, though the public can sit in and listen. Attendees receive the detailed, line-item information during this meeting. All council members who spoke on this matter expressed their frustration with not having a line-item budget document, despite having made a direct request, in writing, for the document from the administration.

One of the meetings, with the engineering department, had already taken place by the night of the meeting, and Petrucelli, who had been there, called it "a fiasco" during his comments.

"I'm an anal person. I like to get my documents ahead of time. I like to digest them and formulate my questions, and then it becomes a more effective meeting," Petrucelli said.

Councilman Robert Karabinchak was perplexed as to the lack of a centralized document when he called up a procession of department heads before the council and asked them whether they had submitted their detailed, line-item budgets to the business administrator. Each department head present, including police, fire, recreation, health, legal and public works, all reported having submitted detailed, operating expense accounts to the township administration.

"So, since all this stuff is in writing, I'm having a hard time understanding why it can't all be put in a binder," said Karabinchak, who said that the information in this theoretical binder should be available to the public and that the hearings should be done in one meeting with public input. "That's what this is about, because it affects people's lives. Not a little. A lot."

Many residents also expressed frustration with what they perceived as the council not doing enough to get the budget information open to themselves and the public.

"I'm embarrassed that you people are sitting up there and saying you can't do your jobs. Yes, you can!" resident Ralph Bucci said.

"[Mayor Jun] Choi's throwing [down] the gauntlet here because he thinks you can do nothing. … You let this tax increase go through or pass it to the next council, you're making a big mistake," he continued.

Tousman said that she felt time was of the essence, noting that four of the current council members were bound to leave come December, which would leave the budget decisions up to the new council. Others insinuated that that was exactly what motivated the administration's reticence.

"I realize some of you up there will not be there forever. … I would like to see it finished," said Tousman.

When asked whether it was possible to penalize the administration for not making the information available to the council, President Charles Tomaro said that while the law does require the administration to give the council the detailed budget information, there is no statutory penalty for failure to do so.

"The only penalty in this law is if the council does nothing, and we get fined $25," Tomaro said.

Resident Aimee Szilagyi found this difficult to believe.

"We get sanctions if we throw recyclables in a nonrecycling bin," she said.

Council members considered several possibilities for getting the budget information they wanted out of the administration. One was to ask again, this time more forcefully.

"I don't think we should ask. I think we should demand," Tomaro said.

Another option, which was brought up by Massaro and was previously discussed in public by Councilman Sal Pizzi, was simply taking last year's budget, changing the date to make it this year's, and approving that, though Massaro has previously said he hoped it wouldn't come to that.

Petrucelli suggested that the council withhold the mayor and business administrator's salaries, which he said the council has the right to do, until they release the information.

Due to ongoing questions about the budget and the circumstances surrounding it, it was decided that the public hearing would be adjourned to the next time the matter would be discussed.

"Once you close the public portion, even if you have another meeting, it cannot be reopened, so rather than doing that and denying the people their say, [the council] just adjourned, and whenever we have our next meeting, the public is allowed to speak," Councilwoman Antonia Ricigliano said