Tag: Village Council

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Ridgewood council makes changes to organizational structure

Village _council_meeting_theridgewoodblog

File photo Boyd Loving

JULY 24, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

An ordinance to reflect structural changes made within the village government’s organization was passed last week, though not without dissenting opinions of some members of the council and public.

The alterations were adopted by a 3-2 vote and reflect internal changes being implemented by the village, including the establishment of standalone departments for Health and Building and Inspections. Previously, these departments were under the supervision of the Department of Community Services, which no longer exists.

The village has also added a Division of Assessments under the supervision of the Department of Finance and a secretary to the Department of Planning to perform various administrative functions. The new mandate also lists additional duties for the Division of Parking and Traffic.

However, much of the discussion on this ordinance in the past month has been centered on the establishment of a Human Resources Department and the appointment of its director, Sharyn Matthews, and that was the case again during last week’s public hearing.

Resident Anne Loving commented that she did not understand why the ordinance was being changed after decisions relating to the creation of new departments had been made.

“There’s some sort of salary and benefits package which will be recurring every single year,” Loving said. “That job used to be managed under the village manager, so I personally feel like the taxpayers are getting shafted on this.”

https://www.northjersey.com/news/council-approves-change-to-structure-1.1379885

Posted on by — 32 Comments

Ridgewood residents question timing of organizational restructuring

Village_Manager_Roberta_Sonenfeld_theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving

JULY 23, 2015, 5:58 PM    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2015, 6:01 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — The council’s decision to appoint a human resources director was challenged last week by residents who suggested the hiring might have violated village ordinance.

Ridgewood’s council voted 3-2 on July 15 to update the ordinance that lays out the village’s organizational structure. The move formally establishes a human resources department and creates a director’s position for that department.

Roberta Sonenfeld, the village’s manager, said at last week’s council meeting that the ordinance was being updated to reflect operations in Village Hall.

Sharyn Matthews, director of the village’s new human resources department, was hired in the fall as a senior personnel assistant, earning $92,000. Matthews, whose pay will remain the same, holds degrees in labor relations and human resources from Cornell University and Mercy College and is certified as a senior human resources professional.

The changes approved by the council last week effectively eradicated the Department of Community Services, Sonenfeld said, while moving some of its subdivisions to other departments and adding some new positions.

“The intent of the ordinance,” Sonenfeld said, was to clean up the language in the code “to reflect what is and has been reality.”

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-residents-question-timing-of-organizational-restructuring-1.1379799

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Inconsistent Regard for the Village Code by Aronsohn, Pucciarelli, and Hauck

3 amigos

file photo by Boyd Loving

July 21,2015
by:  Anne LaGrange Loving

Ridgewood NJ, Some of us are having trouble understanding what appear to be a contradiction in the actions and statements of Mayor Aronsohn, Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli, and Councilwoman Hauck.  For the record, I pointed this out twice at public meetings (which did not result in an explanation of the discrepancy), and recently wrote to each of them for clarification (none replied).

In January of 2014, all three of them seemed pretty adamant that they did not want to violate the Village Code by hiring anyone into a position that did not exist (in that case, it was police officer positions in excess of the stated limit).  Quotes from the Minutes of the 01/29/2014 meeting include the following:

Mayor Aronsohn pointed out that the most important question to be answered is whether the Village is now in violation of what is permitted by the ordinance as far as police hires are concerned.  Mayor Aronsohn commented that the concerns are twofold: one is that the Village would not be in compliance with its own law, leading to the question of how to remedy that situation;

Councilwoman Hauck sees the current problem as an administrative problem and how it would appear if the ordinance were changed to facilitate an administrative error. She suggested that it might be better to wait until the next round of Police Academy candidates graduate, and hire new police officers in July. That would avoid being in violation of Village Code. Councilwoman Hauck said she feels uneasy about amending the current ordinance in order to bring people in prematurely.

Councilman Pucciarelli said that….for him, the issue is law enforcement, and the Village must obey its own laws.

How, then, do these statements fit in with their more recent actions regarding the hiring of a Human Resources Director (or Confidential Secretary, Senior Personnel Assistant, Senior Human Resources Professional or whatever the job title turned out to be) prior to the creation of this position and its official inclusion in the Village Code?   It seemed that in January of 2014 they were determined to follow the letter of the law, whereas in the this situation they decided it was acceptable to completely disregard the Village Code, and then re-write it after doing so.

Certainly the creation of an HR position was not an emergency, and due process could have been followed to first create the position and have it officially entered into the Village Code, and then to advertise the job and hire the appropriate person.  Our elected officials are put into office with a clear expectation that they will uphold the laws of our Village, in addition to their other duties.  It strikes me that in the case of this Human Resources position, they openly disregarded their own law, even when such was being pointed out to them by Councilman Sedon, Councilwoman Knudsen, and various members of the public.  No matter how badly they wanted a Human Resources person, the end does not justify the means.  We have a set of laws and procedures, and we expect our elected officials to follow them.

Until the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councilwoman Hauck clearly state why they acted one way in one instance, and quite the opposite in this instance, we taxpayers will be left feeling very uneasy.

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Ridgewood finance committee recommends enhanced reports, audit committee

quarters-19060569

JULY 20, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JULY 20, 2015, 10:58 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Enhancing financial reports for village officials and establishing an audit committee were among the recommendations given to the Ridgewood Council earlier this month by the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC).

During its annual report to the governing body, the group of Ridgewood volunteers tasked with providing the village additional financial oversight presented its submission and fielded questions from council members.

FAC Chairwoman Nancy Johansen suggested that financial reports given to council members and management have a “profit and loss” section similar to what might be seen in a corporate environment. This would help the council track its budgetary expenditures throughout the year to see if the village is trending above or below its budget.

Johansen added the FAC would work with new Chief Financial Officer Bob Rooney on this particular project.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/council-sees-benefits-to-fac-s-recommendations-1.1377459

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Readers say This really smacks of something underhanded. The position was created through unofficial channels This whole thing does not pass the smell test.

Village_Manager_Roberta_Sonenfeld_theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving

Just watched the UStream. I count four titles for this one job. 1. senior Personnel Assistant. 2. director of Human Resources. 3. Senior Human Resources Professional. 4. confidential Secretary to the Village Manager. The way they were getting testy with Bernie really gave the appearance that they were hiding something. Roberta was tap dancing all around, Albert went onto his high horse and said he was not in a deposition. Susan stayed the course and asked them what the name of the job is as of that moment. Roberta actually asked her “do,you mean as of today?” This whole thing does not pass the smell test.

Thank you Bernie. Just watched the UStream. Fascinating. The hired this person through a non-competitive position (confidential secretary) but then promoted her to a competitived position (Director) . . . what the heck is going on? Sure sounds like someone is playing very loose in Village Hall and we, the residents, are going to pay for it when the Village gets sued.

And thank you Susan for asking the difficult questions . . . “What is the name of this position as of today”? I almost died laughing when you asked that and Roberta couldn’t answer.

This really smacks of something underhanded. The position was created through unofficial channels. The person was hired before the job actually existed. Roberta defended her actions by saying this was all just a cleanup of an existing condition. Wrong. It did not exist until she created it last year. She tried to act like this was a long standing contradiction and it is not. She made this Jo and then she got the law changed. This was not an emergency. Why. Pinot follow official channels and get the Code changed before posting the job opening? Seems that this was slipped though under the radar, but thanks to Mike, Susan, Bernie and a couple of others, the radar detectors started squawking.

Make this right Ms. Sonenfeld. better yet, make it right Mr. mayor. This is outright government corruption as it stands now.

Posted on by — 22 Comments

Were NJ Civil Service rules circumveneted to hire VOR HR Director?

Village_Manager_Roberta_Sonenfeld_theridgewoodblog

July 18,2015
Boyd A. Loving

Ridgewood NJj, During Wednesday evening’s Village Council Meeting, Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld disclosed that the Civil Service title for our new HR Director is actually “Confidential Secretary to the Village Manager.”

Huh?  Is this person a Secretary or a Director?  Quite a difference in job responsibilities, isn’t there?

I believe Ms. Sonenfeld indicated that “secretarial” title was chosen in order to “circumvent” certain NJ Civil Service Requirements.  I am not clear on exactly what requirements were being “circumvented,” but I now am left wondering exaclty why the Village can’t play by the rules and what liablity taxpayers are being faced with as a result of this little game.

Also, what is the Civil Service title being held by Beth Spinato, who is Ms. Sonenfeld’s “Confidential Secretary?”  Is it legit that the Administrator of a muncipality with only 25,000 residents have two (2) “Confidential Secretaries?”

I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit concerned over the apparent total disregard of Civil Service guidelines in this case, and I wonder what other shenanigans they’re playing at Village Hall and how much taxpayers will wind up paying in fines once the State gets wind of this nonsense.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Village Council Approves Pre-construction Funding for Hudson Street Parking Garage

mayor _in_flood -theridgewoodblog

July 16,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

3480 – Bond Ordinance – Pre-construction Funding for Hudson Street Parking Garage ($500,000)

Ridgewood NJ, The Village Council approved the $500K “preliminary” expense by a 4-1 vote with Knudsen being the only “no.”

Wording for the “bogus” non-binding referendum passed unanimously.  Expect property taxes to jump as a result.  There is no way in the world parking utility revenues will ever be able to completely pay off the principal and interest on a $15 million bond.

Posted on by — 16 Comments

Is the wording of this proposed referendum question misleading?

parking

07/13/15

Ridgewood NJ, Is it just me, or does the draft wording of the proposed non-binding referendum question suggest that property tax revenues will not be required to finance or build a “downtown parking garage?”

The proposed wording of the question voters would see on Election Day, read aloud by Mayor Paul Aronsohn during last Wednesday evening’s Village Council Work Session, is as follows:

“Do you support a proposal to finance and build a downtown parking garage on the Hudson Street lot, located at the corner of Hudson Street and South Broad Street, by bonding up to 15 million dollars of public funds, which would be paid for by using parking revenues.”

Doesn’t the wording of this question imply that parking revenues will be the sole source of funding required garage financing and construction?

So what happens if there’s a recession, like we had in 2008, and people cut way back on shopping and dining out.  No shoppers, and no diners means no parking revenue.  Then who’s left holding the bag?  You guessed it folks!

Remember fellow voters, the Village Hall renovation project was sold to taxpayers with a projected cost of $4.5 million.  At $11 million, they stopped counting.  To this day, we still don’t know how much was spent renovating Village Hall.

I’m skeptical that parking revenues alone can pay for a $15 million garage.  I’m also skeptical that the brain trust at Village Hall would be actually able to bring in a project on time and on budget.

Before you enter the voting booth this coming November, know exactly what you’re voting for and how it might impact your pocketbook/wallet (i.e., property tax increases).

NONBINDING REFERENDA – ALL MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES

The governing body of any municipality or county may “ascertain the sentiment of the legal voters of the municipality or county upon any question or policy pertaining to the government or internal affairs thereof” by adopting an ordinance or resolution at a regular meeting requesting that the proposition appear on the ballot at the next general election. The request must be filed with the county clerk no later than 74 days before the election. (N.J.S.A. 19:37-1 et seq.)

Once a municipal governing body has adopted a resolution or ordinance placing a nonbinding proposition before the voters and transmitted the request to the county clerk, the voters of the municipality have the power to place a reasonably related nonbinding question or policy before the voters by presenting to the governing body a petition signed by 10% or more of the registered and qualified voters of the municipality. The governing body must adopt a resolution at its next regular meeting requesting the county clerk to print the proposition as formulated and expressed in the petition on the ballot and must file the request with the clerk no later than 60 days prior to the election. (N.J.S.A. 19:37-1.1)

Posted on by — 8 Comments

Ridgewood to ask voters about plan for downtown parking garage

highlander-garage-fight

JULY 9, 2015, 5:48 PM    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015, 5:53 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — When they enter polling booths this fall, village residents will be invited to weigh in on the proposed expenditure of $15 million for a parking garage in the central business district.

The language for a non-binding referendum will ask Ridgewood voters whether they favor bonding $15 million “in public funds” for the construction of a parking garage at Hudson and South Broad streets.

The outcome of the vote will have no impact on the council’s final decision on the garage’s construction, which Ridgewood officials have been considering for months.

The financing of the garage “would be paid for by using parking revenues,” according the referendum’s language, which was read at Wednesday night’s council meeting.

Councilman Mike Sedon said Wednesday he supported gauging public sentiment on the building of a parking garage downtown. Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli also backed adding the referendum question to this fall’s ballot.

Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck said she thought it was important that Ridgewood residents understand their annual municipal taxes won’t be impacted by any garage-related costs. Councilwoman Susan Knudsen also endorsed the ballot measure.

 

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-to-ask-voters-about-plan-for-downtown-parking-garage-1.1371721

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Sound Familiar : The New Totalitarians Are Here

Village _council_meeting_theridgewoodblog

Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining – even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees.
By Tom Nichols
JULY 6, 2015

There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.

Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare.  The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

Authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion.

This is what George Orwell understood so well in his landmark novel “1984.” His dystopian state doesn’t really care about quotidian obedience; it already knows how to get that. What it demands, and will get by any means, is a belief in the Party’s rectitude and in its leader, Big Brother. If torturing the daylights out of people until they denounce even their loved ones is what it takes, so be it. That’s why the ending of the novel is so terrifying: after the two rebellious lovers of the story are broken and made to turn on each other, the wrecks left by the State are left to sit before the Leader’s face on a screen with only one emotion still alive in the husks of their bodies: they finally, truly love Big Brother.

 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/the-new-totalitarians-are-here/

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Reader says the Morristown case is a clear precedent for Valley, USE IT

valley_hospital_theridgewoodblog

Reader says the Morristown case is a clear precedent for Valley, USE IT

Why the Council hasn’t been protecting Village taxpayers is just stunning in the failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibility. Now they have a court ruling that establishes CLEAR precedent to go after Valley’s not-for-profit tax status and force them to pay the +$4.3 million they should be paying annually based on assessed value of their properties in Ridgewood, and yet they’d rather argue about an HR hiring and a parking garage that should be paid for in a public private partnership with the business owners in the CBD. Wake up and go after Valley, and stop pandering to biz owners. Taxpayers deserve your immediate attention to these issues, which can bring in millions in new revenue. Otherwise they’re not doing their job to protect the interests of tax paying Villagers.

Morristown just put in the effort for us, all you need to do is cut & paste and change the name of the defendant from “Morristown” to “Valley”. The Morristown ruling establishes clear precedent, it’s a lay-up tailor made for Ridgewood vs. Valley. They pay their supposedly “not-for-profit” CEO $2 mm a year but pay no Village taxes. But our Council has a bunch of people trying to start knife fights while our house is on fire. Very, very damning of the current five.

It would be great to see Ms. Hauck use her relationships and actually stand up against Valley Hospital and ask them to 1) drop their lawsuit; and 2) pay for the municipal services they consume like police, fire and snow removal. Or suggest that we use the Morristown Medical Center court ruling that it should pay property taxes on virtually all of its property in town, and go after Valley to pay property taxes in Ridgewood on ALL of their property. How can they argue they are a NOT-for-profit when they are paying their CEO $2 million a year and expanding in an arms race to become a “hospital system” with other regional hospitals? I would have a much stronger view of Ms. Hauck’s independence if she supported either of the above ideas without any form of quid pro quo on Valley’s expansion plans in Ridgewood .

If anything, Ms. Hauck is probably advising them on how to make sure it doesn’t happen. With no background or interest in public service except raising money for Valley, and no knowledge of how it works or most of the issues, she agreed (not decided–agreed–was invited–I know this) to run for council solely to help Valley–I would be a lot on that–in exchange for being the third vote for anything Aronsohn wanted. And she had to agree not to attend the social functions she had enjoyed for many years. This is conjecture, not inside information. It just makes sense.

When 2 of the 3 Council majority members are publicly pro-Valley? Where the 3 council bosom buddies always vote in a block (hmm, how do they do that without meeting illegally?)? When the Council majority doesn’t even allow discussion on an issue if they already have the votes to get their way?

Valley is not only going to continue to get a free pass from this Council – wait until they cut a deal on the Valley lawsuit that lets them double in size and still pay no taxes. We are going to be paying for the damage these 3 Council members have done for a generation.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Council and Board Meetings Village of Ridgewood

captin+morgan1-300x225

file photo Boyd Loving

07/07/157:30PM Planning Board Public Meeting
07/08/157:30PM Village Council Public Work Session Available 
07/14/157:30PM Board of Adjustment Public Meeting
07/15/158:00PM Village Council Public Meeting
07/21/157:30PM Planning Board Public Meeting
07/28/157:30PM Board of Adjustment Public Meeting

The  Ridgewood Board of Education will hold a Regular Public Meeting on Monday, July 20, 2015 at 4 p.m.

The public is invited to attend the meeting at the Ed Center, 49 Cottage Place, Floor 3. The meeting will be aired live on FiOS channel 33 and Optimum channel 77. Or it may be viewed live via the district website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us using the “Link in Live” tab.

Click here to view the agenda and addendum for the June 22, 2015 Regular Public Meeting.

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Meet the Mayor on Saturday July 11th

Paul_Aronsohn_dunking_theridgewoodblog

MAYOR’S OFFICE HOURS FOR RESIDENTS -Saturday, July 11

Mayor Paul Aronsohn holds office hours for Ridgewood residents on Saturday’s every month. Mayor Aronsohn will meet with residents on Saturday, June 11 from 9AM to Noon in the Council Chambers (Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room) on the fourth floor of Ridgewood Village Hall.

For an appointment to meet with the Mayor, please call the Village Clerk’s Office at 201-670-5500 ext. 206. You may come to the Mayor’s office hours without an appointment, but those with appointments will be given priority.

Posted on by — 26 Comments

Councilwomen Gwenn Hauck : “Its our job to speak for all citizens”

gwenn hauck

Its our job to speak for all citizens. Misinformation and vitriol should not be used to intimidate council members. The way this blog attacks only Paul, Albert and myself, and never any of the others, illustrates the hypocrisy of your accusations. Why can’t we all work together to try to serve Ridgewood, instead of attacking people you disagree with?

Gwenn Hauck
[email protected]
108.161.184.122
Submitted on 2015/06/27 at 9:14 am

Councilwoman Hauck: And the fact Chris Harris of The Record bases his articles entirely on what is spoon fed to him by Paul, and never checks nor obtains quotes from any other elected officials, isn’t a form of hypocrisy in and of itself? Your faction controls The Record and the opposing faction controls this blog. Suck it up and get used to it honey.

Your track record indicates that you most certainly do not speak for all citizens. Most citizens were in favor of installing sidewalks on Clinton Avenue. You sided with a small minority. Most citizens disapproved of the Garber Square project. You went ahead with it anyway. Give it a rest. We are onto your method of operation.

So it’s okay for Hauck and the 2 other nitwits to attack Knudsen publicly, but when someone returns the favor, she says we should all work together? Talk about a hypocrite.

Ms. Hauck :From the standpoint of a very long time council observer, you have done little, if anything, to foster the idea you “speak for all citizens.” You backed (and no doubt continue to do so) a non-tax paying entity that is currently suing the town that it made it’s money in. Garber Square and Clinton Ave, very bad jokes, not to mention an insult to the intelligence of most people that reside here.
The primary reason you are intentionally confusing being “attacked” with criticism is simply because you are paying more attention to your personal agenda of keeping your friends happy, and NOT “speak(ing) for all citizens.

Gwen, ARE YOU FOR REAL???? You spew vitriol agains your colleagues whenever it occurs to you. We have seen you attack, belittle, malign Bernadette Walsh, Tom Riche, John Ward, Mike Sedon, Susan Knudsen. You are as nasty as nasty can be. You always attack people you disagree with. What a hypocrite you are. Do you think anyone believes your ridiculous posting? have another drink, honey, and take a nap.

Disagree. She was pulled in as a pawn and a pawn she shall stay. She has lost any vestige of self-respect by sucking up to those monsters, even attacking Mike and Susan along the way. The pre-council Gwenn, who has shown herself to be far less sweet than her blond looks, bland demeanor, and expensive clothes are meant to imply, might have thought such things, but probably wouldn’t have said them aloud in public. Weak-minded people who live for the approval of others are easily swayed to do bad things when in the wrong company, flattered by low-minded manipulators who need a stooge for their “majority vote.”

Posted on by — 48 Comments

Full Ridgewood Council discussion is needed

gwenn hauck

file photo by Boyd Loving 

JUNE 26, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print

Full council discussion needed

To the Editor:

Re: “HR addition spurs debate in Ridgewood,” The Ridgewood News, June 19, page A1.

I disagree with Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck; a discussion by all Village Council members regarding the addition of a Human Resources department was both warranted and appropriate. Any time taxpayer dollars are being spent, the full council should be given ample opportunity to openly weigh in before a decision is made.

This is not the first time Ms. Hauck has publicly suggested that an open discussion by all council members was not necessary because the majority of council members had already agreed on an issue, and this is not the first time I’ve publicly disagreed with her.

During a public meeting several weeks ago, she harshly suggested that there was no need to reopen council discussions on installing sidewalks along Clinton Avenue because the “council majority” had already agreed not to support such an endeavor. Seriously, there was no need for the full council to participate in a continued discussion on a matter related to the safety of school aged children? I think there was such a need, and so do many other taxpayers.

Councilwoman Hauck’s almost laughable suggestion that the democratic process calls for an end to open public discussion once a majority decision is reached, coupled with her continued public display of contempt and arrogance toward selected council colleagues, makes me wonder if this is the type of individual who should continue to represent the village’s taxpayers.

Boyd A. Loving

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-to-the-editor-full-ridgewood-council-discussion-is-needed-1.1363782