WEBBER FOR ASSEMBLY

WEBBER FOR ASSEMBLY                          FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 7, 2007                                                    CONTACT:  (908) 267-1613

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . . 

“Assembly Candidates Should Talk Flooding�

The Daily Record, May 7, 2007

Health benefits for part-time elected officials is a legitimate issue. So it's no surprise that it's become a point of contention in the Assembly primary race between Republicans Jay Webber and Larry Casha. Both are seeking to fill a seat being vacated by Assemblyman Joseph Pennacchio in the 26th District in eastern Morris County.

When he served as a Kinnelon councilman from 2004 to 2006, Casha took municipal health benefits at an estimated cost of $38,000. Webber says Casha took them illegally and that he should reimburse the borough.

Webber is right that Casha should not have taken health benefits. Whether it's Kinnelon, or Parsippany, or the state Legislature, part-timers should not get benefits on the taxpayers' dime. It's a benefit that most part-time employees do not have. Why should politicians treat themselves better than the people they serve?

…

 

The editorial went on to conclude that Mr. Casha’s receipt of health benefits was legal, but, with all due respect to the editorial page of The Daily Record, it is plainly wrong on that point.  The question is not whether Mr. Casha was ELIGIBLE to ENROLL in the NJ State Health Benefits Plan, which is what Mr. Casha purported to prove last week, but rather whether Kinnelon residents can be forced to PAY his premiums without an ordinance.  And the law clearly says they cannot.

 

Webber for Assembly once again presents its analysis of the issue on the attached document.

  

Paid for by Webber for Assembly

The opinion letter from Kinnelon’s legal counsel released by the Casha campaign stated that the members of the Council are ELIGIBLE to participate in the State Health Benefits Plan without an enabling ordinance.  But that is not the point.  Just because the Council could be ELIGIBLE to get health benefits does not mean that the municipality can PAY for those benefits without following the legal requirements imposed by the Legislature.  ELIGIBILITY for benefits and PAYMENT for benefits are two separate issues.  Citation to the Administrative Code of the State and a 1966 Council Resolution to prove his eligibility for participation in the State Health Benefits Plan, as Mr. Casha does to justify his actions, is therefore irrelevant. 

On the PAYMENT of benefits, New Jersey law requires that the “salaries, wages or compensation� of council members be set by ordinance.  (N.J.S. 40A:9-165).  “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, the governing body of each municipality shall determine the salaries, wages or compensation of the members of the governing body and the mayor or other chief executive in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S. 40A:9-165.�  (N.J.S. 40A:9-165.1) (emphasis added).   

“Salaries, wages, or compensation� under that law includes the payment of health-insurance premiums for councilmen.  Uhrmann v. Guenther, No. MRS-L-262-05 (2005); Riddlestorffer v. City of Rahway, 82 N.J. Super. 423 (1964). 

The Kinnelon Code itself requires that the compensation of Council members be set by ordinance by specifically stating that the Council must comply with N.J.S. 40A:9-165.  (Section 4-4 of Kinnelon Code). 

The requirement of passing an ordinance is an important one.  Passing an ordinance is a formal process that can only occur at meetings that comply with the Open Public Meetings Act.  There must be two readings of the proposed ordinance, notice and publication of it, a hearing at which all interested citizens be given an opportunity to speak about it, and posting of the proposed ordinance, and re-publication after adoption.  N.J.S. 40:49-1 and -2. 

Publication prior to adoption of ordinance affords citizens the opportunity to be heard on the subject matter, and publication after adoption affords an opportunity for judicial review of provisions of an ordinance.  Reisdorf v. Mayor & Council of Mountainside, 114 N.J. Super. 562 (1971); Bruno v. Borough of Shrewsbury, 2 N.J. Super. 550 (1949). 

New Jersey law gives citizens the right to repeal ordinances increasing salaries, wages, or compensation by direct referendum.  Where an ordinance provides for an increase in salary, wages, or compensation for elected officials, voters of the municipality may initiate a petition drive to demand a vote of the people on the passage of the ordinance.  (N.J.S. 40A:9-165)            

Public notice and participation are the two important interests embodied in the rule that an action statutorily required to be taken by ordinance cannot be accomplished by a resolution.  Nolan v. Witkowski, 56 N.J. Super. 480 (App. Div. 1959), aff'd, 32 N.J. 426 (1960) (“A resolution may be introduced and passed in a few minutes, without the knowledge of any one except those present.  An ordinance, on the other hand, is a ‘deliberative process requiring notice to the public.’�) (quoting Handlon v. Town of Belleville, 4 N.J. 99, 108 (1950)).