April 1, 2016
STATEMENT FROM PETITIONERS
Dear Village Council of Ridgewood-
From our attorneys regarding the referendum petition to repeal Ordinance #3521:
“We are confident that the bond counsel is wrong. Bond ordinances are NOT controlled by the Faulkner Act or Walsh Act
or any other general act that gives NJ residents the right of referendum. The right to repeal a bond is a right shared by ALL
New Jersey residents under the Local Home Rule Act, not just Faulkner Act towns.”
New Jersey Statutes Annotated. N.J.S.A. 40A:49-10 reads as follows:“Any proposition submitted to the voters of any municipality under the provisions of section 40:49-9 or of section 40:49-27 of this title shall be voted upon at the next general election held in
shall call a special election therefor.”
If a special election is called, and $40-45,000.00 of municipal funds are used, that will be a choice that the Council alone makes, and for which
the Council alone will be held accountable.
Thank you.
Gail McCarthy & Lorraine Reynolds
Pleased look at the final paragraph on the letter from legal counsel posted on the village website… https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/news/784-petition-for-referendum-of-a-bond-ordinance-prepared-by-village-bond-counsel-mcmanimon-scotland-baumann
And to eliminate any feelings of bias here is the statute on the books… refer to p59 (p69 of the total; package)… Ridgewood is constituted under the Faulkner act… https://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/misc_docs/optional_muni_charter_law.pdf
But that’s what Glen Rock did! How could it possibly be different?? Nice try. All of you that called Roberta a lightweight now line up behind two amateurs with less village management than her and bad choices for legal advice. You reap what you sow.
Glen Rock is not governed according to the Faulkner provisions. And we have yet to see a dissenting opinion on legal stationery
10:36am we will talk about this again on April 15th.. Okay?
Paul Smith / 10:36am. It doesn’t really matter if this is treated under Faulkner act or not. Once the petition is submitted the process stops for a while. Roberta is just trying to distract the conversation away from her illegal actions she did last week.
For the petitioners the end game is same in both cases.
Yes it does as the letter presented to have people sign is likely incorrect regarding “accountability”. The issue is people trying to deflect this specific issue. And what is THE issue? We have a legal opinion on legal letterhead on 1 side only. Her actions are a separate issue but until we get a true legal dissenting opinion, she was correct. And if the Faulkner act indeed is the governing provision for this, the letter above is either incorrect or an outright lie.
Roberta – we both signed the petition today. You can’t stop us.
Paul – pls wait until April 15th and it will be clear who is correct.