Comments on: Mason on public records in Hoboken

By: YipYap

YipYap — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:36:46 +0000

The city should get rid of the cell phones. Hoboken needs some additional charm and hearing the City employees yell “Hey Yo how you doin?” up and down the streets all day is exatly what we need.

By: hoboken411

hoboken411 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:50:16 +0000

hobojoe wrote:

I see city employees talking on cell phones all the time. Especially when driving. Since they are on taxpayer-time, they must all be talking to each other, right?

Isn’t driving and using a cell illegal?

By: hobojoe

hobojoe — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:34:41 +0000

I see city employees talking on cell phones all the time. Especially when driving. Since they are on taxpayer-time, they must all be talking to each other, right?

By: Red Haven

Red Haven — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:42:31 +0000

If Roberts and Kleinman are in fact NOT protecting the abuse of taxpayer funds, then they should release the records to Mason and prove it. In the meantime, their actions can only lead us to suspect otherwise.

By: Red Haven

Red Haven — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:40:41 +0000

slowboken, your councilperson does not have a city issued cellular phone. What Roberts and Kleinman appear to be protecting is the abuse of taxpayer funds. This part of the story is worth re-reading:

Red Haven wrote:

“I have examples of individuals using city-owned cell phones for calls to Las Vegas, Hawaii and West Palm Beach, Florida, I don’t know that the city is doing business with anyone in Las Vegas or Hawaii or why the calls are made during work hours and why taxpayers should be paying for such calls,” said Mason

In one case, said Mason, one employee racked up more than 11,000 minutes in cell phone usage in a single month,

“My concern is that there may be city employees abusing cell phones paid for by city taxpayers,” said Mason. “I think it is important that we – the taxpayers – know that the phones are being used for city business and not to make long distance personal calls.”

By: slowboken07

slowboken07 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:12:38 +0000

Katie, would you find it “ridiculous” if you had called a council person to discuss a concern of yours and your phone number ended up being disclosed as part of the bill? Bc that’s what the Court is protecting, YOUR privacy right.

By: Katie_Scarlett

Katie_Scarlett — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:56:23 +0000

~My apologies. The post above is misleading. According to the journal, the only things being remanded are the names of the employees who used the phones and the phone number of the phones. The people being called “have a right to privacy.”
Only in NJ.

Ridiculous.

By: Katie_Scarlett

Katie_Scarlett — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:47:35 +0000

slowboken07 wrote:

Red Haven wrote:

Tama Murden wrote:

Brava Beth!Anyone want to speculate about %’s of taxpayer-subsidized $$ for phone-sex, checking with the local bookie & the like?

Tama you are on the right track, but history shows us it’s just as likely the employee with the taxpayer-subsidized phone IS THE BOOKIE!!! Remember this?

http://hoboken411.com/archives/6349

More than one government employee/appointee on that list!

strand tramp wrote:

the phone records will show the ties with the developers. kleinman is supposed to keep it covered up. if mason wins kleinman is done.

Good point, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the records show people with city phones were conducting private real estate development and sales business. Many city employees are involved in development projects in town, including members of the Police and Fire departments, the Tax Collector, Construction Code Official, and even the Mayor!

Its scary how lacking in reading comprehension this board is. The Appellate Division has already ruled that Mason has no right to find out who the City employees were talking to. Its done and over. That’s not what was remanded.

What? The court ruled: “A New Jersey Appellate court today handed a victory to the people of Hoboken by agreeing with Councilwoman Beth Mason in her pursuit of city cell phone records, saying the city failed at trial to justify its actions to withhold public cell phone records and its claim of confidentiality. The appeals court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the City could meet the burden of proof under the Open Public Records Act and the common law to justify its actions to withhold public records.”

In other words, the City now has to prove it has a right to withhold the records.

What are you saying?

By: slowboken07

slowboken07 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:42:13 +0000

Red Haven wrote:

Tama Murden wrote:

Brava Beth!Anyone want to speculate about %’s of taxpayer-subsidized $$ for phone-sex, checking with the local bookie & the like?

Tama you are on the right track, but history shows us it’s just as likely the employee with the taxpayer-subsidized phone IS THE BOOKIE!!! Remember this?

http://hoboken411.com/archives/6349

More than one government employee/appointee on that list!

strand tramp wrote:

the phone records will show the ties with the developers. kleinman is supposed to keep it covered up. if mason wins kleinman is done.

Good point, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the records show people with city phones were conducting private real estate development and sales business. Many city employees are involved in development projects in town, including members of the Police and Fire departments, the Tax Collector, Construction Code Official, and even the Mayor!

Its scary how lacking in reading comprehension this board is. The Appellate Division has already ruled that Mason has no right to find out who the City employees were talking to. Its done and over. That’s not what was remanded.

By: CharlieAParker

CharlieAParker — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:58:58 +0000

Katie_Scarlett wrote:

Speaking of gov’t employees in Hoboken. I know of a retired employee who stated to me “I had a no show job in Hoboken, my brother had a no show job in Hoboken and I know plenty of guys still on the no show payroll in Hoboken.”

WOW. Just WOW. Too bad I don’t know enough information to report this.

Did Mason ever find out how many people are actually employed by the city?