Letters
Privatization wreck must be stopped

I guess it’s true that if you live long enough, everything comes around again. We now find ourselves staring down the barrel of yet another privatization scheme, this time a toll road, yet.

The recent Your Turn guest column by Assemblyman John Wisniewski, Assembly Transportation Committee chairman, (“Privatizing Road Won’t Benefit Taxpayers,” Suburban, July 8) is both timely and informative, giving solid reasons to oppose any effort to privatize state infrastructure, as well as providing a clear history of how we were led into this mess. And, as always, there is much more to the sad legacy of failure that follows privatization.

The idea of privatizing assets is neither new nor novel. It has been used by the industrial and manufacturing sectors for decades and lately has become popular with certain political groups. That said, anyone with eyes can see the resultant disappearance of meaningful industry in New Jersey, and that same slope is just as slippery for public assets.

Privatization of assets is a fiscal charade, a three-card monte cooked up by desperate leaders as a short-term remedy for chronic mismanagement. It was and is a smoke-and-mirrors approach to avoid unpopular or difficult executive decisions, and often serves to divert blame onto disinterested third parties, rather than where it belongs — with the responsible but incompetent officers.

Privatization takes many forms and can be as convoluted and obfuscatory as is required. But invariably an entity bids on a contract to operate and maintain the defined assets for a given time period. Most times the entity is required to render periodic payment to the assets’ owners, and is in turn assured a specified minimum profit above and beyond his maintenance and operating expenses.

But the devils are in the details, and it is easy to imagine the orgy of creative bookkeeping that follows, as the contractor performs minimal or no maintenance and clamors for his guaranteed profit. And what results is that the assets are run into the ground, and the contractor scoops up his profit at the end of the contract and leaves town. The now worthless assets remain, and are written off and/or abandoned.

But with public assets, the price is much more painful. States cannot just write off or abandon infrastructure. When a private contractor destroys a vital and necessary public asset, that asset must be replaced at today’s prices, by you and me. The politicians dodge responsibility, contractors escape with our money, and we are left to clean up the mess. We cannot remain silent and let what happened to our industry be perpetuated upon our public property.

Chairman Wisniewski has taken a bold stand on this issue, a proper one, I think, and one surely not popular with other politicians. He deserves our support to stop this wreck before it happens, or we have only ourselves to blame.

Daniel Maliszewski

Sayreville

Law requires release of minutes, despite what councilman thinks

As reported in the July 21 issue of the Suburban (“Council Puts Off Vote on Release of Minutes”), the debate among members of the Old Bridge Township Council about the release of minutes of meetings that are closed to the public illustrates at least two things, neither of them good.

At best, the debate shows how uninformed local public officials can be about the state’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and, consequently, their own responsibility to uphold that law.

At worst, the debate shows the lengths that some public officials will go to in order to keep information from the public.

State law is clear that minutes of meetings must by kept by public entities and that they are public records. The fact that a meeting may be legally closed to the public does not mean that the minutes may be stashed in some dark cave and never made available, which, according to your story, seems to be the position of Patrick Gillespie, vice president of the council.

The law, however, does allow a public entity to withhold portions of closed meetings if a matter — such as discussion of an ongoing contract negotiation — remains unresolved. The public entity must, though, release the portions of minutes that involve issues that have been resolved. Ultimately, it must release the minutes of all meetings, and a local council has no choice about that, despite what Mr. Gillespie might think. The issue is not up for debate.

In other words, regarding the release of minutes, the Old Bridge Township Council is micromanaging a situation that would be better left to the township’s professionals. Indeed, if the council doesn’t soon get its act together on OPRA, it is inviting a lawsuit that it would lose in a New York minute. Council members should turn the matter over to their attorney and get out of his way so that he can satisfy the request for minutes in accordance with state law.

Martin O’Shea

member

board of directors

New Jersey Foundation for Open Government

Choice is between MOM and increased traffic

For years the people of Middlesex County have heard a bevy of politicians tell them the reasons why the state of New Jersey and our local towns, such as Jamesburg, Monroe and South Brunswick, shouldn’t have the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex (MOM) passenger rail line.

Now that our growth has exploded, making Middlesex County the No. 1 county in population gains with the resulting traffic volume increasing at staggering rates (with devastating results at times), the passenger rail line known as MOM is needed more than ever. And, it would not surprise us that many in Middlesex County do support this, despite the claim by Middlesex County Freeholder David Crabiel that “nobody here supports the train.”

To support my claim, a MOM informational table is set up at local community fairs. Along with the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, I have gathered many pro-MOM signatures for passenger rail service for Jamesburg, South Brunswick and Monroe. Even NJ Transit acknowledges support for MOM in Middlesex County, based on study results.

Actually, the choice isn’t whether or not to build the MOM line — it’s a choice between the MOM line and worse car and truck traffic. To many of us living here, the answer to that question easily falls in the “no-brainier” category.

Daniel S. Kerwin

Jamesburg

board director

New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers