City Council Meeting – 11/4/2009
04
November
11/4/2009:
Acting ain’t over just yet!
Even though Dawn Zimmer is no longer “acting Mayor,” some housework still needs to be done at city hall. An interim “acting council member” needs to be appointed to replace Zimmer’s 4th Ward seat. Once that is complete, a special ward election will take place in February (I believe) to choose an official council member to serve out the term until 2011 – which is expected to be a highly contested seat. More on that later…
Here’s tonight’s meeting documents:
SEE the Live Streaming Council Meeting and Live Chat AFTER THE JUMP!
(City Council 11/4/2009, continued…)
Fun Stuff
Recommended
November 6th 2009 - 12:54:35 |
$183k is a lot of money “primarily for defamation of character”. You seem to have skipped over some sections in the article, i.e. “the audit showed that the city’s fiscal shape at the time was even worse than his “conservative” estimate, therefore Lenz was not responsible of overestimating the state of the books for political gain.” And the quote from Marsh about the city shooting the messenger.
You dislike Lenz for any number of reasons: he lectures… he’s in it for himself.. he doesn’t have any original ideas. Maybe Lenz deserves it – I don’t know him – he might be world’s biggest dirt bag. But in this instance Lenz was pretty clearly correct about the city finances. Grow up and deal with it.
Note that I am not saying Lenz is a financial guru nor do I support him for any municipal job. Do you understand?
BTW, I sat in the audience and listened to Anthony Russo support the waterfront park… and listened to Dave Roberts call him a flip-flopper. So, yes I’m a recent newcomer.
In response to Watchmaker who said:
Lenz was awarded 183k primarily for the “defamation of character” not for wrongful termination. Here is a quote from the very same article: “Councilman Tony Soares added that all the city had to do was fire Lenz, but instead, because of personal and political dislike for Lenz, the administration made disparaging remarks in public meetings and to the newspaper”
And another relevant quote: “When Lenz was hired, he was still studying and taking classes to become a licensed CFO. His official title was acting CFO, and his position was a provisional one, meaning that the city had the authority to terminate him without reason.”
Conclusion: Lenz messed up by underestimating the budget, then tried to act like a whistle-blower and pissed enough people off that his buddy Roberts had to fire him. He was NOT working for the “good of the people” and my experience with him is exactly the same: he doesn’t care what any of us need, he is in it for himself.
I also recall Lenz trying to fire DiSteffano – he still wants to do that – which may have also cost the city money in some legal fees. But, don’t quote me on this one: my memory isn’t what it used to be.
I met Lenz years ago and was struck by how much he lectures people, yet how little he does himself. No wonder he could never make it in private sector. On Wall street people like him are never taken seriously as they usually “blow up” pretty quickly. He is great at making certain people, who lack education in finance, feel good about themselves so they all think he is some sort of financial guru, which he is not. I honestly hope you are a recent newcomer Kenny boy and not one of them.
I also remember him being against Pier A and instead supporting high rises on the waterfront, Jersey City style (yes, matt_72, it was Tony Russo who went along with us yuppies and pushed for Pier A, not Roberts, Lenz and the like). Basically I don’t see any original ideas coming out of this guy, let alone ideas that would benefit community at large.
Login or Register to reply
November 6th 2009 - 13:27:55 |
Why are you feeling hurt and defensive all of a sudden?
I don’t dislike Lenz personally: I think it’s kind of entertaining to watch people fall for his BS. I just don’t want him in a position of power: he tends to make bad decisions, supports weak people and does not seem to care about the same issues as most of us do (e.g., Pier A).
As for him being right about the budget, I did not miss the statement you are quoting, it was simply irrelevant: my point was that Lenz was incompetent, both financially and politically, and was fired rightfully. Even Tony Soares agrees with this, so why can’t you “deal with it?” Only Carol was defending him, as she still does, since she can’t function without his emotional support.
In response to KenOn10 who said:
You dislike Lenz for any number of reasons: he lectures… he’s in it for himself.. he doesn’t have any original ideas. Maybe Lenz deserves it – I don’t know him – he might be world’s biggest dirt bag. But in this instance Lenz was pretty clearly correct about the city finances. Grow up and deal with it.
Note that I am not saying Lenz is a financial guru nor do I support him for any municipal job. Do you understand?
BTW, I sat in the audience and listened to Anthony Russo support the waterfront park… and listened to Dave Roberts call him a flip-flopper. So, yes I’m a recent newcomer.
Login or Register to reply
November 6th 2009 - 14:10:59 |
Let me get this straight:
In #19, you conclude “Lenz messed up by underestimating the budget, then tried to act like a whistle-blower and pissed enough people off…”
In #21, I point out that the article stated that an audit confirmed that Lenz did not underestimate.
In #22, you claim the statement about the audit was “irrelevant”, despite it being the very first part of your own conclusion.
What a hoot! You were debate team captain, right?
In response to Watchmaker who said:
I don’t dislike Lenz personally: I think it’s kind of entertaining to watch people fall for his BS. I just don’t want him in a position of power: he tends to make bad decisions, supports weak people and does not seem to care about the same issues as most of us do (e.g., Pier A).
As for him being right about the budget, I did not miss the statement you are quoting, it was simply irrelevant: my point was that Lenz was incompetent, both financially and politically, and was fired rightfully. Even Tony Soares agrees with this, so why can’t you “deal with it?” Only Carol was defending him, as she still does, since she can’t function without his emotional support.
Login or Register to reply
November 6th 2009 - 14:16:04 |
Hopefully, Mayor Zimmer will appoint someone who will help govern Hoboken with common sense and honesty due to Hoboken’s damaged reputation, current financial mess… State takeover,the budget, the hospital bond, operational costs, the SWAT team fiasco, the still to be solved sale of the Obs. Hwy garage, crumbing piers, streets and infa-structure and solving the day-to-day problems that arise. I wish our new Mayor success and good health…I wish them all good luck and the way to spell LUCK is WORK. Listen to those who make sense and work with the public.
Login or Register to reply
November 6th 2009 - 17:51:30 |
The two “misunderestimates”
you mention refer to two different issues I was discussing.
One was that Lenz initially made a mistake and didn’t realize that the budget was going to be much bigger than expected. Remember: Dave “the reformer” Roberts ran on the platform that Russo’s 57m budget was too big. This is why I quoted your articles (in #19) saying that Lenz was not qualified to be the CFO. I would even say he was incompetent.
Then Lenz corrected his estimate and ended up with a much bigger budget: it turns out, as you pointed out in #21, even that estimate was too low.
At that point he realized it was going to be a problem, so he tried to act as a whistle-blower and basically put blame on others. This and his attempts to fire some of the BnRs ultimately pissed enough people off that Roberts had to fire him for his own political survival. And yes, how much bigger the final budget was ended up being irrelevant to him being dismissed.
In response to KenOn10 who said:
In #19, you conclude “Lenz messed up by underestimating the budget, then tried to act like a whistle-blower and pissed enough people off…”
In #21, I point out that the article stated that an audit confirmed that Lenz did not underestimate.
In #22, you claim the statement about the audit was “irrelevant”, despite it being the very first part of your own conclusion.
What a hoot! You were debate team captain, right?
Login or Register to reply
November 7th 2009 - 11:21:34 |
One other thing: you never commented on
“Councilman Tony Soares added that all the city had to do was fire Lenz, but instead, because of personal and political dislike for Lenz, the administration made disparaging remarks in public meetings and to the newspaper”
Given that Lenz is Tony’s buddy, how do you explain this? His own buddy seems to agree that the city should have fired Lenz.
Login or Register to reply
November 7th 2009 - 12:38:56 |
Oh please. After ignoring half of the Reporter article, you’re reading a lot between the lines. If Lenz was as blatantly incompetent as you say, the city would not have ponied up $183k to settle the suit.
In response to Watchmaker who said:
One was that Lenz initially made a mistake and didn’t realize that the budget was going to be much bigger than expected. Remember: Dave “the reformer” Roberts ran on the platform that Russo’s 57m budget was too big. This is why I quoted your articles (in #19) saying that Lenz was not qualified to be the CFO. I would even say he was incompetent.
Then Lenz corrected his estimate and ended up with a much bigger budget: it turns out, as you pointed out in #21, even that estimate was too low.
At that point he realized it was going to be a problem, so he tried to act as a whistle-blower and basically put blame on others. This and his attempts to fire some of the BnRs ultimately pissed enough people off that Roberts had to fire him for his own political survival. And yes, how much bigger the final budget was ended up being irrelevant to him being dismissed.
Login or Register to reply
November 7th 2009 - 12:47:43 |
Again, you are reading between the lines. As a mayoral appointee, Lenz could have been let go in a heartbeat… to “spend more time with his family” or to “pursue a different project”. This is what Tony was talking about.
There was no need to call him incompetent or corrupt to the public and the media… and yet they did anyway. That cost the city $183k (and some good will) because it wouldn’t stand up in court.
In response to Watchmaker who said:
“Councilman Tony Soares added that all the city had to do was fire Lenz, but instead, because of personal and political dislike for Lenz, the administration made disparaging remarks in public meetings and to the newspaper”
Given that Lenz is Tony’s buddy, how do you explain this? His own buddy seems to agree that the city should have fired Lenz.
Login or Register to reply
November 8th 2009 - 11:41:15 |
Prof, please check your closet for a large, extra-terrestrial pod with your replica forming inside…
In response to professor pinetop who said:
tony soares was an excellent councilperson. he is a tough negotiator and has strong passion for his commitments. one thing dave roberts actually did well was to put adversaries on his boards, either out of a keep your enemies close mentality or because he truly understands the need to keep diverse ideas out there. hopefully dawn will be at least that wise.
Login or Register to reply
November 8th 2009 - 12:11:44 |
Just old news: Dr. Metsch & Scott DeLea of current REVOLT fame did support Dave Roberts and now supported Dawn Zimmer but that’s just politics. For example, Andrew Amato and Pupie Raia supported Dawn Zimmer in her 4th ward bid to defeat Campos. It’s all history……It’s what we do from now on that counts…time to really get together with the new mayor and council to help Hoboken. Monitor them well to insure progress.
Login or Register to reply