BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ – At Tuesday night’s meeting of the Berkeley Heights Township Council, the Council voted to introduce a new Administrative Code for Berkeley Heights, to eliminate commercial parking permits for Sherman Avenue, and to provide Captain Stamler’s children with insurance coverage through April 2010.

Administrative Code

Councilman Bonacci began discussion regarding introducing the Administrative Code by recommending that any significant changes to the Code be discussed one at a time and that the Council support an Administrative Code drafted in 2007. Councilman Bruno countered that at the Council reorganization meeting in January 2010, he said a goal of the Council for 2010 would be to pass a comprehensive administrative code. As a result, he said he directed the township attorney to develop one. He said that code was delivered to Council members two weeks ago and that while a code was supposed to be implemented in 2007, and has been talked about since 2008, it has yet to be done.

Councilman Hall said that adopting an administrative code is a "rather serious undertaking" and that he believes the Council should "take it deadly seriously." Councilman Nelson said he found it "appalling" that the Council is still "negotiating" an administrative code after three years but that it is now time to work out what needs to be worked out and implement a code.

Getting to the heart of the matter, Councilman Pastore said that in his view, there were two major differences between the draft code from 2007 and the new draft code, both of which were on Tuesday night’s agenda for introduction. Pastore said that the 2007 code called for seven departments while the new code calls for five and that the two codes had a different position on the appropriate authority of the Mayor, with the new code empowering the Mayor and the 2007 code diminishing the power of the Mayor.

Councilwoman Perna concurred. "There are very crucial distinctions between the two documents," she said. These differences include the number of departments, the authority of the mayor, and the appropriate authority regarding the police department, Perna added.

In the public comment portion of the meeting, resident Carol Matula said that the new draft code "is making an extraordinarily powerful Mayor" who "chooses whoever he wants and does whatever he wants." Mayor Cohen replied that in the Berkeley Heights form of government, case law and statutes demonstrate that the appropriate authority is the Mayor and that the new code makes that clear. Councilman Bruno added that "a chief executive should be a chief executive" and that people who work for Berkeley Heights should report to the Mayor, while the Council should act as the legislature. Under questioning, Councilman Bruno said that the new draft code came at a cost of $6,500.

The Council voted to introduce the new code. The 2007 code failed to be introduced because Councilman Bonacci’s motion to introduce it did not receive the necessary second vote for it to be introduced.

Parking on Sherman Avenue

Councilman Bonacci again led off discussion regarding parking on Sherman Avenue. He argued that instead of cancelling the ordinance passed in February 2009 allowing for commercial permits for parking on Sherman Avenue, the Council should keep eight or nine spots as permitted spots and have four to eight spots go back to being unrestricted parking. Mayor Cohen countered that the ordinance passed in 2009 is "incomprehensible, vague and unenforceable." Councilwoman Perna added, "It was a bad ordinance to begin with. There was no problem before. Not one store owner came to the Council and said they had a problem. " She added that once the ordinance passed, "no one came to get permits except two property owners."

The Council then voted 5-1, with Bonacci voting against, to eliminate commercial parking permits on Sherman Avenue.

Insurance for Captain Stamler’s Children

One of the most controversial issues of the night was a resolution for the Township to provide insurance for Captain Stamler’s children. A career officer on the Berkeley Heights police force, Stamler passed away unexpectedly several months ago. Under Berkeley Heights code, employee benefits are not provided to survivors of a deceased employee.

The resolution originally called for Stamler’s children to receive insurance at taxpayer expense until 2023. At Tuesday night’s meeting, the Council reworked the resolution to provide insurance for the children until April 2010.

Resident Tom Foregger objected to the resolution stating that it was "charity" and that the Councilmembers took an oath to uphold the law and the law reads that there are no benefits to be given to children of deceased employees. Resident Carol Matula added that taxpayer money is supposed to be used "to support government functions" and that providing insurance to Stamler’s children "is not within the police contract or within the function of government." "You shouldn’t be giving away taxpayer money…it’s unfair to taxpayers," she added. Township employee and resident Linda Rudesuli added, "this is not what tax dollars are for" and asked whether the Council would provide benefits to single mothers and employees without health insurance.

When the Council confronted the issue, Councilman Bruno admitted that the Township had been paying for the insurance since Stamler passed away, at a cost of approximately $1,800 per month. He noted that the resolution calls for that to continue until April 2010, not 2023 as originally proposed. Councilwoman Perna said "in my heart, I would like to do something for them." Calling it a "very emotional issue," she said, "I have to think of the taxpayers, as well." She said that the Township had paid the insurance costs for the first three months and suggested that the PBA or union pick up the costs from now until April 2010. Councilman Bonacci said that Stamler was close to promotion when he died and therefore, he would adopt a "kindness approach" and vote in favor of the resolution. Perna countered that if this happened to anyone else who worked for the Township, the insurance would not be provided to the children.

The Council then voted 3-2 with one abstention in favor of the resolution. The Township Attorney initially said that the resolution failed to pass because quorum for the full Council is 6 and because of the abstention vote, four votes were needed for passage, since a majority of the quorum is needed for passage. However, when asked why he abstained, Councilman Nelson said that he viewed it as a conflict of interest for him to vote on issues of remuneration for a member of the police department since his son serves on the force. The Township Attorney said that because Nelson’s abstention vote was because of a conflict of interest, he does not count as part of the quorum and therefore, only a majority of the five Councilmembers able to vote was needed for passage. As a result, the resolution was approved by a vote of 3-2 with 1 abstention.