CRV2 wrote:
And Althea Bernheim, Steve Fulop's former council aid, has the experience and skills to run the RRC? Sounds like a patronage job to me.





Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

And the people in the existing department had the skillset to fulfill that mission? Sometimes it's easier to create a new department, than give an impossible task to an old one.

Yvonne wrote:
I did not live in the Heights during that time, but I can tell you Councilman Fulop did perform many services for residents of Ward E. I do not think he was the only councilperson to do so. Sometimes the ward council people have complained at caucus meetings that no one calls on the at-large council people for these services. I have lived in Ward E for over 40 years and all the councilmen in different ways have responded to ward complaints during their tenure.

Yvonne wrote:
HeightsBrat, an appropriate name, you have an anger problem. I was stating a fact. Regardless who the mayor is, seniors who live in senior buildings, (JC has a lot according to old data that I use to have, early 1990s) have been a safety net for mayors. That are exempted from raising water and sewerage taxes. This is the reason, people who are running for office try to get into senior buildings. I remember fights by different camps during past elections when political groups were denied access to senior buildings. If Fulop transfers services to the county, he in effect, would be cutting off potential votes in the future.

CdeCoincy wrote:
It is my understanding that all senior citizens and veterans get real estate tax relief on owner-occupied property. Does anyone know differently? I am not certain whether the state reimburses the city or the city just gives the reduction and spreads the difference across non-seniors and non-veterans.

OneSkirt wrote:

Perhaps you should use the ENTIRE quote by Kelleher back in 2011 - see bolded - rather than taking the first part out of context?? Also I was only asking about the logic of the latest proposed changes/move of the dept., not who should/shouldn't lead it.

QUOTE from Article above:
Kelleher reminded the council that the division does not create the demand for cultural events, it is the demand for cultural events that created the need for a department to organize them.

?Prior to consideration of this kind of merger, I implore the council to consider the ramifications to every single ethnic organization, arts organization, to every dancer, musician and block association,? she said. ?All these groups get the funding directly from us.?

She also said the ?merger does not make sense,? as the two departments have very different roles despite similar-sounding names. Hudson County Cultural Affairs department is in charge of disseminating grants, she said, not in charge of organizing events in Jersey City.

Yvonne wrote:
We pay county taxes, the county also provides services for seniors. The only thing I am aware - JC provides entertainment for seniors. But I don't think that is the purpose of government. After all, many seniors live in tax abated senior buildings and they do no see raising water/tax rates, so entertaining them means the incumbent mayor has a vote. I still remember Bret Schundler had a senior citizen from a senior building make a radio commercial when he was running for governor; she said taxes are lowered under Schundler. The commercial was pulled when it was discovered the lady lived in a senior tax abated building.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
......

And the people in the existing department had the skillset to fulfill that mission? Sometimes it's easier to create a new department, than give an impossible task to an old one.

The proposal was to "move" the Cultural Affairs Dept. out of Health & Human Services and into the RRC (which still makes zero sense). It wasn't to create a new dept. The RRC is a complaint center, so it seems, meant to address concerns residents bring to them. The very natures of its name is "Response" as in "responding/reacting". Cultural Affairs and Senior Services (in most cases) are not matters something that are merely "responded" to. These are entities unto themselves that require plans, and people who know how to carry them out with a vision. Moving them there is going backwards, and definitely counter to the transition plan.

Was anyone at the council meeting? Was moving these 2 depts. and the reasoning behind this proposal discussed at all?

"Kelleher reminded the council that the division does not create the demand for cultural events, it is the demand for cultural events that created the need for a department to organize them."
Source: http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... oration-soundly-defeated/

"The Division of Senior Affairs provides information and assistance to seniors, helping them to obtain services they need."
Source:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/hhs.aspx?id=1438

So you think that people with the skills to organize events and deliver food to seniors are the same people we need to drive "promoting JC and spuring economic growth"? I don't.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
......

And the people in the existing department had the skillset to fulfill that mission? Sometimes it's easier to create a new department, than give an impossible task to an old one.

The proposal was to "move" the Cultural Affairs Dept. out of Health & Human Services and into the RRC (which still makes zero sense). It wasn't to create a new dept. The RRC is a complaint center, so it seems, meant to address concerns residents bring to them. The very natures of its name is "Response" as in "responding/reacting". Cultural Affairs and Senior Services (in most cases) are not matters something that are merely "responded" to. These are entities unto themselves that require plans, and people who know how to carry them out with a vision. Moving them there is going backwards, and definitely counter to the transition plan.

Was anyone at the council meeting? Was moving these 2 depts. and the reasoning behind this proposal discussed at all?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

And the people in the existing department had the skillset to fulfill that mission? Sometimes it's easier to create a new department, than give an impossible task to an old one.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

And the people in the existing department had the skillset to fulfill that mission? Sometimes it's easier to create a new department, than give an impossible task to an old one.

Yvonne wrote:
People here are forgetting that Councilman Fulop did take care of problems in Ward E. Ward E residents did not call the Mayor Action Bureau. It has been tradition for each councilperson to handle these problems. By the way, Fulop did an excellent job responding to those problems.

Prismatic wrote:
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal
on August 28, 2013 at 9:22 PM, updated August 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM

A sweeping overhaul of Jersey City?s municipal government, a top priority of Mayor Steve Fulop, went down in flames tonight after three Fulop allies on the City Council jumped ship and voted against the measure.

The vote came after a 30-minute public hearing that found members of the audience booing any council members who voiced approval of the ordinance, which would have combined the police and fire departments, expanded the constituent-service division and paved the way for a merger of the public-works department and the autonomous Jersey City Incinerator Authority.

Tonight?s action is the first time any of Fulop?s council allies have stood in the way of one of his objectives since the mayor took office almost two months ago. It also seemed to stun top city officials in the Fulop administration, who spent 10 minutes following the vote trying to figure out how to proceed.

The measure failed 4-5, with council members Rich Boggiano, Khemraj ?Chico? Ramchal, Daniel Rivera, Joyce Watterman and Michael Yun voting against. Ramchal, Rivera and Watterman ran on Fulop?s ticket in May?s municipal election.

Fulop could not immediately be reached to comment.

Boggiano called the measure was too expansive. Ramchal said he believes the proposed changes to the DPW would lead to unnecessary job losses at the JCIA. Rivera said he has questions about the measure, but declined to specify what his questions are.

Council members Diane Coleman, Frank Gajewski, Rolando Lavarro and Candice Osborne voted in favor. Coleman, who represents Ward F, said she thinks the measure would have made managing city government ?easier and better.?

Full story at the Jersey Journal.

Pamrapo wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The council people who voted "No" did not want to give up handling the complaints from their ward. They were against the new expansion of the Mayor's Action Bureau. I forget the new title. I am sure it will return once the ordinance is broken down into several parts.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Some councilmembers seem to think they're doing their job by simply making a phone call that the resident could make themselves if only the city had a functional website and knowledgeable callcenter. Whether you call it the Resident Response Center, Mayor's Action Bureau, or 311, Jersey City needs that way more than we need councilpeople who see their main job as getting credit for getting the city to do what it should. Most resident requests should not require the intervention of a councilmember.

Any councilmember who wants to earn their pay - or reelection - needs to be functioning at a higher level.

Yvonne wrote:
The council people who voted "No" did not want to give up handling the complaints from their ward. They were against the new expansion of the Mayor's Action Bureau. I forget the new title. I am sure it will return once the ordinance is broken down into several parts.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

OneSkirt wrote:

The mission outlined in the transition plan was to expand Cultural affairs into a dept. handling Arts, Culture and Tourism and making it more of a true driver for promoting JC and spuring economic growth. Moving it to the RRC is big step away from this mission, it would seem.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

What functions did they provide? If all they did was handle street festival permits, and senior transport requests, it would make perfect sense.

OneSkirt wrote:
Has anyone heard why on earth they would propose to put Cultural Affairs & Senior Services under the Resident Response Center?? I don't get that at all!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Ramchal said he believes the proposed changes to the DPW would lead to unnecessary job losses at the JCIA.

That's very generous of him to fund a make-work jobs program with other people's money. Did Mrs. Cunningham promise a family member a job? So much for Steve's coalition building, back to business as usual.