Pages

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Chairman Lazroe; Accusations False, Lamb Does not Represent the Brick Democrats

I am writing in response to a letter that recently appeared in the Brick Times from Jean Ripa that contained several offensive and incorrect statements concerning the alleged position the Democratic Party took on the recent referendum. Ms Ripa also alleges that we Democrats write lewd and offensive blogs and that Joe Lamb is one of us. Ms. Ripa, you are wrong on all counts, and I find it offensive and irresponsible that you would accuse the Democratic Party without first checking your facts. 

Joe Lamb IS NOT ONE OF THE CANDIDATES SPONSORED AND SUPPORTED BY THE BRICK DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Joe does not belong to the Democratic club, does not attend meetings and in no way is he or his attitude representative of the rank and file of the Democratic Party. He failed in his attempt at a leadership position in the party and, typically for him, picked up his marbles and went home. He did not get the endorsement of the party and represents only himself when he speaks at Council meetings, which is why he is running alone on his own line. The council candidates sponsored, endorsed, and supported by the Democratic Party are John Ducey, Susan Lydecker, James Fozman, and Bob Moore. You will learn a whole lot more about each of them in the weeks ahead.

As this letter is written before the referendum vote, I have no idea what the results of the vote are. We Democrats neither spoke for or against the referendum our feeling being that under the circumstances each family must determine for themselves what makes sense to them financially. More importantly the real issue is not the referendum but the reason why we are in this position. The residents of Brick should never have been threatened and put in this position. Yes, Ms. Ripa, this administration did most definitely dig itself into this hole. This governing body did irresponsibly use onetime non-recurring sources of revenue to keep the budget artificially low because they were more concerned with their own re-election than with what is truly in the best interests of the citizens of Brick. In fact, in the letter written to the NJ Civil Service Commission explaining the reason for the need for a referendum the reasons given included the reduction in state aid, but also noted the inability of the town to use these same non-recurring sources of revenue. This Mayor and Council irresponsibly reduced the surplus from over $17 million a few years ago to under $5 million today; they can no longer count on the “donation” of funds that the MUA had been giving them; the township “exhausted the anticipated revenue know as advanced school taxes” (Juan Bellu’s words) - in short one-time budget gimmicks were no longer available precisely at that point when the 2% CAP mandate hit. Yet they still continued to award salary increases to some as well as spend in other areas.

Even more unsettling is that some weeks ago at a Council meeting I specifically asked Council President De Luca if any of these non-recurring budget gimmicks had anything to do with the position we are in now.  He turned to consult with Mr. Bellu – yes the same Bellu that accepted a nearly $50,000 salary increase and then gave our Mayor a another full-time $92,000 in Toms River - and then they both flatly denied that any of these budget maneuvers had anything  to do with the problem Brick is in. What they both apparently did not know was that I (and others) am in possession of a copy of the letter written by Mr. Bellu to Robert Czech of the State Civil Service Division. The letter clearly stated these reasons, as well as one or two others, as the reasons we need a referendum. So was Mr. De Luca and/or Mr. Bellu publicly dishonest with me or with Mr. Czech?

This has been the position of the Democratic Party from day one. Joe might have flip-flopped, but the Democratic Party did not.

Respectfully submitted: Tony Lazroe, Chair Brick Democratic Party