To All Union County freeholders

Districiting and secession are unlikely and while the process plays out we could have dozens of palaces costing hundreds of millions of dollars erected at taxpayer expense.  This, however, may work.  Please sign on.

PETITION

REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EXPENDITURES OF UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

 Whereas: N.J.S.A. 40A:5-22 (Investigation of expenditures of local unit) allows that a “judge of the Superior Court may, in his discretion, make a summary investigation into the affairs of any local unit and appoint an expert or experts to prosecute such investigation whenever a petition for such investigation shall be presented to him, signed by 25 freeholders, who have paid taxes on real estate located within the local unit within 1 year, and such petition sworn to and subscribed by them sets forth that they have cause to believe that the moneys of such local unit are being, or have been, unlawfully or corruptly expended”

Whereas: I believe that the county of Union in the state of New Jersey has been unlawfully and corruptly expending moneys by, in part:

  1. Misappropriating Open Space trust fund moneys for general budget purposes based on faulty advice;
  2. Severely understating Net OPEB Obligations within audits and bond offering statements by presenting annual liabilities without accumulating prior years thus misrepresenting the county’s liabilities to taxpayers and bond-buyers;
  3. Mishandling moneys in regard to the production of the 2010 Musicfest, as  documented by the Union County prosecutor’s report on this particular Musicfest; and
  4. Having the same auditor (Suplee, Clooney & Company) prepare audits of county books since at least the year 2000 with recent reports late and recurring recommendations consistently ignored.

NOW THEREFORE I request an investigation of the expenditures of the County of Union in the state of New Jersey.

Download the petition and return to john@burypensions.com or fax to (973)-783-0858

12 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 6, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    What’s telling is that while you have complained loudly and often, and exposed ongoing wrongdoing, the offenders showing so little concern of being reprimanded or voted out of office, let alone prosecuted.

    Reply

    • About being voted out of office, OK, granted. 9-1 majorities in the two biggest cities and Obama coattails make that a non-issue. But as to prosecution or reprimand, not so much. These people aren’t complete fools. They know what they’re doing and they’ve seen Bryant, Lynch, James, et. alia. doing perp walks.

      Reply

  2. Posted by bpaterson on October 6, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    i see you require the signatures of 25? freeholders. Forget the bobbleheads, you really need only one, senator Lesniak; he’s the puppetmaster behind his legions of phonies, fakes and frauds.

    Reply

  3. Posted by Al Moncrief on October 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    BREAKING: COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES AND REMANDS, COLA BENEFITS ARE INDEED A CONTRACTUAL PENSION BENEFIT.

    Link to article and PDF of Court of Appeals Decision.

    http://www.copera.org/pera/about/latestnews.htm#Appeals

    Visit saveperacola.com or Save Pera Cola on Facebook.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 13, 2012 at 5:05 am

      From the Court … The Court wrote: “Specifically, we conclude that plaintiffs have a contractual right, but that the court must still determine whether any impairment of the right is substantial and, if so, whether the reduction was reasonable and necessary to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose.”

      Not time for you to celebrate quite yet Al.

      The Taxpayers still have a good shot at ending the COLA’s (that almost nobody in Private Sector Plans gets).

      Reply

      • Posted by Elise on October 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm

        Come on TL….I know two recent retirees that get COLAs in their private plans. One is from GE and the other from a benefits consulting company. Both these people had less in degrees than the public employees I know and made a lot more money. Their pensions aren’t as generous but they retired in their mid-50s
        (so they did get early retirement) and will get social security unlike many public employees. They are not hurting in retirement from the second homes, cars and traveling I see.

        I hear you that private pensions are not equal to public pensions. BUT what I see are people retiring (often early) under private pensions in way better shape financially than the public retirees. Partly because over the last 2 decades they made way more money.

        I’m smack in the middle class so these are friends with college degrees/grad degrees that are in middle to upper management jobs, engineers, teachers, researchers and medical professionals. All in mid-50s to mid-60s and starting to retire.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

          Why not do a side-by side Plan-provision analysis ? Here’s a few of the questions that would need to be answered:
          (1) For the SAME years of service, (say 25 or 30 years) what is the formula benefit (40%, 60%, 80% of final pay?
          (2) Is the “final pay” in #(1) above from just the last year of work, or an average of the last 3 or 5 year’s pay?
          (3) What is the full retirement age at which the formula pension can begin payout w/o any reduction ?
          (4) If you retire earlier that the age in #(3) above, what is the reduction for each year you begin to collect earlier (e.g., Social Security reduces the payout by about 6% per year) ?
          (5) What is included in “pensionable compensation” …. (a) base pay or overtime as well?, (b) vacation and/or sick-time payouts?, (c) uniform, car, other “allowances”?
          (6) Is there a practice (or statistical evidence) of higher-than-average late career promotions or pay raises which “spike” “pensionable compensation” and hence goose the pension ?
          (7) Are there a formula-driven (e.g., CPI Increase-related automatic) COLA increases ?
          (8) Is there a “DROP” Plan which effectively legitimizes double-dipping, to the great financial advantage of the worker, with the opposite impact for taxpayers ?
          (9) Is there a disability pension ? If so, do you have to prove (on an annual basis) a real permanent job-ending disability or can that minor backache get you a disability retirement while you take another job (or perhaps become an MMA fighter or win the NYC race up the Empire State building steps)?

          I think you get the picture. In just about EVERY category, the Public Sector worker get better treatment than the Private Sector worker, and the REASON for that is that Private Sector employers are spending THEIR OWN MONEY and won’t give it away for stupid reasons. The politicians are spending TAXPAYER money, and that always holds little weight when compared to their desire to continue to get Public Sector Union campaign contributions and election support.

          While I have no idea if the GE pension plan includes automatic COLAS, I’m sure a VERY FEW Private Sector do so …. while virtually ALL (until recently …THANK YOU Gov. Christie !) do so.

          When you combine all of the advantages from (1)-(9) above, Public Sector pensions ROUTINELY have a value at retirement, the taxpayer-paid-for share of which is 2-4 times (5-6 times for safety workers) greater than that of the Private Sector counterpart retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and with the SAME years of service. Don’t believe me? Ask a pension actuary.

          John, care to comment if my last statement is reasonably accurate ?

          Reply

          • Not right now. Come October 16 I’ll be in a better mood. Offhand, I see more factors including the real possibility that more states, cities, and counties will have to default on more promises and the system in place will allow it.

      • Posted by Al Moncrief on October 13, 2012 at 8:44 pm

        Hey TL, I’m not celebrating yet . . . still much work to be done in this case. However; it feels great to have the Court of Appeals confirm what we have been arguing for three years, pension COLA benefits have the identical legal, contractual status as pension base benefits. Burdens that belong to all taxpayers will not be shiftted onto the backs of a small group.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 14, 2012 at 12:47 am

          Quoting …”pension COLA benefits have the identical legal, contractual status as pension base benefits.”

          Sorry Al, but I hope they ultimately eliminate all COLAs and reduce Basic pensions to a level no greater than the average pension (as a % of Pay ) granted Private Sector workers.

          You were only promised MORE because of the bribes (in money and election support) from you Union. It time for Taxpayers to say NO to that excess.

          Reply

  4. Posted by Javagold on October 13, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    well then you should be in a great mood JB

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: