HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE DALE CARNEGIE - 1936
Full Description:
A partial version of this letter was submitted to THE DAILY RECORD
December 21, 2009
To The Editor, The Daily Record
The people of Hanover spoke very clearly last June and November, when they voted out Committeeman Fariello. Committeeman Fariello was not elected Mayor of Hanover by the voters but by a majority of the Township Committee, most of whom had been his close political allies for years. That’s the process in Hanover and it usually works. In his capacity as Mayor, it became very apparent to the voters that he was not the person to lead Hanover during these tough economic times.
From trying to close the town library then reversing this position when the public complained, delaying the construction of a tax revenue producing town center, and opposing expenditure on recreational fields, just to name a few, he was clearly living in the past and acting more like the obstructionist that he built his political career on. He went from campaigning on a no development platform to trying to convince the voters that he would be the person to promote and attract new businesses to Hanover, it didn’t work!
While it was convenient to blame the closure of the Lucent/Bell Labs facility as the reason for the revenue sort fall, the fact is that whenever any type of development was considered in Hanover Township, Fariello would always oppose it. To his credit, over the last 20-years he was very effective in his opposition to development in the name of open-space, and to Hanover’s detriment, we lost many opportunities for redevelopment that may not have solve the current tax shortfall, but they surely would have lessened the affect of Lucent’s departure. The cumulative effect of this knee-jerk approach to any type of development is what we are currently stuck with.
I for one am not the least bit surprised about the Mayor’s defensive stance on the bonuses recently given out.
After reading the full article that appeared in the Daily Record, one must wonder exactly how it is possible for Hanover to have gone from a crisis mode earlier in the year, blamed largely the a decrease tax revenues, to miraculously finding enough money to pay out bonuses that coincidentally correspond to the amount that had previously been allocated to pay increases!
Moves like this at times like this are what perpetuates the cynicism about government and in particular the motives of our elected officials. What was the motivation behind not giving out the pay increases earlier in the year? If as Mr. Fariello states, the township employees deserve it for all their hard work (paraphrased) then why didn't they simply make the pay increase retroactive. After all Mr. Mayor, It was ONLY 1%
At the same time Mayor Fariello and others are saying they deserved it (and THEY DO), he is saying they didn't deserve it enough to make it retroactive. I fully understand the logic of paying out a bonus in lieu of building it into a salary but I'm not buying that argument this was done in this manner to benefit the taxpayers. Assuming that the township committee has not just recently come to realize the importance of the municipal workers, if they really felt so strongly about this issue, they could have easily and voluntarily given up their perks at the beginning of the year to offset the pay increases.
While anyone would like to be in a position to give out money, especially during the holiday season, we elect individuals to responsibly handle our tax dollars and not to use our money to make them look good. The problem faulting with the explanation and timing of the decision is that it it calls into question the competency of the township's financial planning. I am not aware of any significant increase in tax revenues to offset the amount paid out so what has changed. The taxes paid to support the schools has certainly not gone down and by all accounts, years 2010 and beyond are not going to be a good years for any municipality in NJ given what has to be done by our new Governor. Does anyone actually think we are out of the woods yet? I also remember the controversy about not having enough money for a D.A.R.E officer in the school system - why - there wasn't enough money. And the Library and so on . . .
This is yet another example of the ease at which people can be influence to change their position in contradiction to what they claim before, and in spite of the underlying problem remaining the same. And what if you don't agree that the time is right, or the funds are available, or that perhaps we will need the money down the road (all highly probable conclusions), are you then a "Grinch".
To her credit, Committeewomen / Deputy Mayor Iradi voted against the bonus payout and her explanation as to why she did makes perfect sense not only to me, but to many others based on what I have heard - perhaps she should be the next mayor. This matter would have certainly been handled differently by previous committees under better leadership and I would add, handled in a more fiscally responsible manner.
No one is questioning the hard work that is done by the township employees, but there are a lot of hard working people this year that are simply not going to get a bonus. In fact, there are many people that have not seen their incomes increase for the last several years due to companies struggling to make ends meet or in some cases just to stay alive.
I don't believe the bonuses were justified or appropriate in the current economic environment and in particular, certainly not for the reasons given by our elected officials.
