Meryl Frank's "Intoxicating" Sound and Fury

And so it ends—not with the proverbial (and metaphorical) bang, but with a whimper.

To the end, ex-mayor Frank engages in the propaganda dissemination that so marked her ten years in office, still repeating the same lies denigrating the previous council, exaggerating her level of support in town and her so-called accomplishments in office, and hanging on to the nebulous claim that she built a movement for good government in Highland Park.

In a January 5, 2010 Home News Tribune article, Frank errs in her first sentence by describing her “first few days in office” as tumultuous. The reality is, her entire tenure in office was tumultuous, except for a brief hiatus in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Let’s start from the beginning, with the spin that the council “walked out” on her and tried to change the borough’s rules to strip the mayor of her power. Our borough system of government is one of weak mayor, strong council; it has been so since 1905. That means all appointments require council consent. The mayor does not vote except in the case of a tie, and the mayor’s position is largely ceremonial, limited to presiding over meetings. Frank’s first act in office was an attempt to subvert that system and appoint a borough attorney on her own, without council consent. This was blatantly illegal, and it is why the Borough Council chose to adjourn the meeting.

Frank’s decision to use this issue as a stage to make her look like a victim is why council members chose to leave in protest. Far more than 300 people were present at that meeting, and at least 100 followed the council members, counter to Frank’s claim that all of the audience stayed. Not only did a good number of us not stay; we were also joined by Congressman Frank Pallone, who was attending the event, and who made sure to spend time with both groups.

Is Frank proud that she nearly caused a riot on the day of her inauguration, that the Senior Center had to be surrounded by police, that pushing and shoving occurred in a frightening spectacle of mob mentality?

Appointments to positions such as borough attorney, planner, administrator, etc., are usually worked out in advance of the annual reorganization meeting. If there is no agreement among members of the governing body, the decision can be postponed to the next meeting in January. But Frank didn’t or more likely wouldn’t do this because she wanted a public spectacle.

More than that, what she wanted, well before taking office on January 5, 2000, was to oust all the incumbent council members and replace them with people loyal to her. In December 1999, via a mass email system organized by her campaign, she sent multiple messages for one purpose alone—to inflame the public against the council over non-issues. She turned a decision to cut a secretarial position for budget purposes into an act aimed deliberately against her. She sent mobs of screaming supporters to yell at council members about nonsensical topics, such as the building of a wall near the mayor’s office to create another office space, a purely logistical decision. “Tear down that wall!” her campaign supporters shouted, ironically, it turns out, since she had the wall rebuilt several years later after the council complied with her wishes and removed it.

At one of those December 1999 meetings, her supporters made their intentions very clear. “First we’ll get two, then two more, then two more,” one was heard saying, regarding an organized plan to oust all members of the existing council. The problem is that instead of waiting for elections to come around, Frank deliberately incited her supporters to embark on a slanderous campaign against the council that essentially involved a lot of yelling and screaming over nothing.

Once she took office as mayor, Frank continued to send her inflammatory emails before every council meeting, urging her supporters to harangue the council. Her mayor’s reports were designed to stir the pot, again taking the most mundane of issues and lacing them with paranoia to vilify the council. At one point, when a council member criticized one of the PTOs—her base of support—for leaving the Senior Center in a mess after an event, she twisted his comment to make him appear to be disparaging the borough’s schools, which he most certainly was not doing.

Then there were the repeated appearances on WCTC, and the co-opting of reporters, whom she turned into her own PR agents. The first principle of propaganda is “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.” Frank proved herself adept at putting that principle into action. For example, she falsely claimed the council refused to work with her on finance and budget issues. Having spent time at Borough Hall myself, I know that statement is false because I was there when the late Council President Leon Cohen offered to sit down and discuss budget issues with her “any time.”

Of course, in the current Home News Tribune article, Frank fails to mention the rallies and demonstrations against her redevelopment plan that were held in 2004 and 2005. She brought people together all right—united in efforts to oppose forcing any business to move via the use of eminent domain for redevelopment. She says, “the best training for a mayor is listening?” Funny, she didn’t seem to listen to the many people who wanted a referendum on outlawing eminent domain for redevelopment or those who complained to her that they couldn’t afford her tax increases. Her listening was always selective.

She says the downtown had a few empty stores and cracked sidewalks when she took office. It still does. Stores have come and gone, as they did long before she came onto the scene and as they will long after her tenure in office. Small businesses have a difficult time surviving in Highland Park, and her additional $1,000-$2,000 a year BID tax does not make things any easier for them. We still have cracked sidewalks and roads all over town in terrible condition. We lost valuable assets to this town including Chapter One Café, Pyramid Books, Victoria’s Resale Boutique, Dresses for Less, the bicycle shop, and most significantly, the YM-YWHA. Yes, we did get Main Street, but we lost the Chamber of Commerce. So at best, Frank leaves the downtown breaking even.

Party chair Bruce Morgan claims Frank united different causes of the community and brought people of different races and age groups together. A look at borough history shows that active grassroots efforts toward these goals were in place long before Frank ever took office, from the 1970s fight to end de facto segregation in our public schools to 1990s forums and workshops against racism and economic inequality. They were led not by elected officials but by citizen leaders like the late Vickie White.

Frank even made up her own revisionist history. Following a forum on human rights in December 1999, informal conversation turned to the upcoming millennium celebrations. The mayor-elect made an erroneous statement attributing the celebration of New Year's Day to "the circumcision of Jesus." As someone with a special interest in the millennium, who also studied Middle East Studies, I knew this was a fallacy, as the Roman calendar had begun on January 1, the date new consuls took office, as far back as 153 BCE. Julius Caesar kept this date when he reformed the calendar in 46 BCE. When I presented her with this information, she refused to admit she was wrong. I guess it had already gotten to the point where if I said "tomayto," she said "tomahto," and didn't want to be confused with the facts.

The only people Frank brought together were those who consented without question to making her the center of the Highland Park universe. Even her group pictures with the council illustrate this. All of Frank’s choices for council members happened to be tall, in contrast with Frank, who is 5’1”. In photographs taken with the council, she positions herself in the center, surrounded by much taller council members, evoking an image of the sun surrounded by its orbiting planets.

Two weeks after taking office, President Barack Obama acknowledged he made a mistake in one of his nominations for a Cabinet position. In ten years, Frank never once said the words, “I made a mistake.” Obama could do in two weeks what Frank couldn’t do in a decade.

At some point in discussions with her supporters, logic broke down entirely. No one could explain exactly why she was the answer to all of the town’s problems, or even articulate any specifics of her claims that the previous council was “corrupt.” Frank drew a line in the sand with her statement, “you’re either with me, or you’re against me”—ironically, the very words used by Stalin. And if you were against Frank, no amount of service or volunteerism for the town made any difference—you were persona non grata. Frank’s cult of personality in a strange way echoed fundamentalist religious strains who preach that only faith in the savior can earn one divine grace, that good deeds without such faith are as worthless as "filthy rags." In Frank’s case, that faith had to be in her.

Those who weren’t for her, and even those who supported her only to have her turn on them, were demonized and discarded like garbage. She viciously turned on one former supporter, blindsiding her by organizing a slate against her when she came up for re-election on the Board of Education. She slandered former borough officials, even falsely accusing one of stealing from the Democratic Party. And she made statements embarrassing to all women, such as attributing my support for the previous mayor to my having "a crush" on him (totally false), outrageously claiming the council “wouldn’t treat me this way if I had a penis,” and, in an true-to-life re-creation of middle school pettiness, making statements like “how will Laurel ever get a boyfriend?”

And while she unilaterally declared Highland Park the state’s first green community—even when other towns were taking the same or stronger environmental initiatives—what did she really accomplish in this area—solar panels on the roof of Borough Hall that don’t work? Or is it artificial turf on the high school athletic fields? Buck Woods has not been preserved and is still owned by developer Jack Morris. Below Buck Woods, the borough Meadows, or former landfill, which Highland Park owns, is still zoned residential even though citizens on numerous occasions asked that it be rezoned for conservation. The Environmental Education Center sits on contaminated land, severely restricting its use. Under her leadership, the Master Plan adopted in 2003 recommended rezoning the YM-YWHA property as riverfront residential, a change from its historical zoning as quasi-public. If and when a condominium development goes up there, we’ll know who to hold responsible.

When Parker Homes decided to build an assisted living facility off of River Road, Frank argued heavily for preservation of a cottage on the site but did nothing to save any of the 500 mature trees cut down. Frank also increased the maximum building height for Raritan Avenue from three to four stories, a change that could increase traffic congestion and destroy the character of our small town.

Open and transparent government? Where are the online meeting agendas and minutes Frank promised? Why was she the first mayor to restrict each individual's public comment to five minutes when none had done so before? Why are no public records available in digital form? Why has the Democratic Committee not held a single open meeting in ten years?

Highland Park starts the new decade in pretty much the same shape as it started the previous one.

Frank’s one true statement in the recent article is her admission that she found power “intoxicating.” Yet whatever power and authority she thought she had were mostly an illusion, not just because the mayor’s position in our form of government is largely symbolic, but also because she was unable to enact her vision for the town and unable to use that vision, which inappropriately blurred the two very different issues of going green and redevelopment, to propel her to some form of political stardom.

Her proud “2020 Vision,” conveniently released two months before her 2003 primary, called for a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, and a 50-year plan for the downtown. The latter proposed extreme measures such as closing off one end of Dennison Street entirely and enacting metered parking. More than five years have passed since 2003, and where is her vision?

The answer is it is not here because it is wrong for this town. 2007 and the controversial primary that year marked a turning point, the beginning of the end for “2020” and the gentrification project Frank calls redevelopment. So much depended on revenue from the cell tower to fund the arts center supposed to be the pinnacle of her vision. The opposition may not have won the actual election that year, but we won where it counts. We turned her “victory” into a Pyrrhic victory—one that comes at too high a price. Anyone who doubts that should just ask themselves, whose vision prevails in the downtown today?

At its core, the problem was that people chose to put their faith in a person instead of in themselves and their own power. No one person, not even Barack Obama, can “save” us from the difficult problems we face. Choosing to not attend council meetings because “Frank will take care of things; it’s her job” is not democracy. Cheering and shouting the name of a politician the way people do for their teams at a football game are not democracy. Real democracy is acknowledging, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and not abdicating our independent thinking by placing power in the hands of any individual. Real democracy is following the example of George Washington, who was offered the crown and turned it down, on the principle of “in America, the law is king.”

At the end of it all, Frank’s reign was little more than a lot of sound and fury without much substance, very much like Shakespeare's description at the end of MacBeth:

“Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (and 2020)
creeps in its petty pace from day to day
to the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death (political death in this case).

Out, out brief candle!
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Sic transit gloria Meryl (so passes the glory of Meryl).

Merylisms

Decade in review columns have abounded in newspapers and online over the past few weeks as one decade ended and another one began. Here in Highland Park, Mayor Meryl Frank has formally and finally resigned, ten months after making her announcement. During her years in office, she made a few memorable comments--memorable because they reveal a person who bragged about how rich she was and viewed herself as the center of the universe, memorable in some cases because they were just plain ridiculous. So here are the highlights, with the most outrageous ones in bold for emphasis:

“They (the Borough Council) wouldn’t treat me this way if I had a penis.” January 2000

“Why didn’t they run you? Why did they run a sick old man instead?” July 2000, regarding the previous Democratic Committee’s support for budget genius Leon Cohen

“My husband negotiates million dollar contracts for PSE&G” May 2001

“We have to compute the economic value of 13 votes.” May 2001 in response to school budget defeat and question of cuts council will impose

“Why don’t you just fire her?” Summer 2001, to my employer

“You’re either with me or against me.” January 2002 to me, regarding Board of Health reappointment

“You didn’t do that well.” January 2002, regarding my 2001 Democratic Committee race, in which I received 78 votes to my opponent’s 106

“You were used,” January 2002, regarding my support for her opponents in 1999.

“We’re the establishment now.” 2002

“Jewish women who go to the synagogue every Saturday don’t want to shop at a store called “For Less.” 2002, to owner of Dresses for Less

“Why are you all alone? Why is no one with you?” June 2002, two days before Democratic primary in which I received 40 percent of the vote.

“It’s a beautiful building.” August 2002, regarding the old Senior Center on Raritan Avenue

“Those were my professionals, and I had to take their word for what they said.” Autumn 2002 in a court deposition on eminent domain taking of former limousine lot

"We’re not suburban. We’re urban." April 2003

“It’s not a tax—it’s an assessment,” 2004, regarding the BID


“You didn’t vote for me.” December 2004, to a business owner who objected to his business being cut out of an architect’s design for the block.

“In some cases, there are some (businesses) that clearly don’t belong.” December 2004

“It was a no brainer” December 2004, regarding which Raritan Avenue properties should be deemed blighted.

“We have a damn good reputation. I do for keeping my word.” December 2004

“We do not take money from developers.” December 2004 Frank’s ELEC reports show contributions from several major developers

“It’s either my way or no bank.” 2005 to a meeting of Commerce Bank executives looking to build a branch in town

“It’s just boys and their toys.” Spring 2006, regarding arrest of three teenage boys including her son for shooting a BB gun on Raritan Avenue in broad daylight.

"I don’t believe that everything needs to go on a referendum before the public. This is a complicated issue. We were voted into these offices to make these decisions." November 2006, after being asked to hold a public referendum on the use of eminent domain for redevelopment.

“I can’t imagine that this group, that our Planning Board or that this community wants to move in another direction. They haven’t shown us that they’re interested. We have no objectors. None of the property owners are objecting to this.” December 2006, regarding redevelopment. Several property owners took legal action objecting to their properties being placed in a redevelopment zone.

“We have a redevelopment plan with, yes, at the very, very end of a process, if under dire circumstances, the use of eminent domain, which we really will probably never use.” December 2006

“This is a complicated issue. We were voted into these offices to make these decisions. If they (the public) had access to the same information, I believe they would come up with the same conclusion.” December 2006, on redevelopment

“That’s a violation! That’s a violation!” Winter 2007, jumping up and down with glee in front of a Woodbridge automotive business.

“My friends have Rolodexes they can access with people who will give enormous sums of money.” February 2007

“I swear on my children’s lives, I knew nothing about the cell tower.” March 2007, after having signed a contract on the tower one year earlier

“It’s sort of like being prostitutes who sell their bodies. Mayors sell themselves for the good of the people.” April 2007

“They’ll ruin the schools,” Spring 2007, said about Frank’s opponents in the mayoral/council race.

“Higher density is a principle of smart growth.” Repeated numerous times between 2002 and 2008.

“I kept a tantrum voice of calm when my opponent became combative in debates.” August 2008

“If you can’t afford it, then move. You could get a lot of money for your house.” Said to at least three different residents between 2002 and 2008 in response to complaints about high property taxes.

And finally, my all-time favorite: “Don’t you understand? She could actually win!” June 2002, to a supporter of mine two days before the Borough Council Democratic primary.

Regarding that last quote, thanks for the compliment.

Highland Park Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace

In its last two screening processes, one held in October to fill a Borough Council vacancy, and the other held this month to replace Mayor Frank, the Highland Park Democratic Committee has unequivocally shown its determination to retain its closed processes and reckless disregard for its bylaws to the very end of the decade.

This is in no way a criticism of the individuals nominated for these positions by the Democratic Committee. It is solely directed at the Committee's leadership, which has recklessly disregarded the law time and time again over ten years, and at the small clique that keeps this leadership in power.

When Councilman Lou Pichinson resigned in October, the Democratic Committee, as usual, was supposed to hold a screening, or interview of interested candidates, and then choose three to recommend to the Borough Council. The Council would then select either one of the three people named or someone else entirely.

Screenings are supposed to receive advance publicity so anyone interested can come forward and present themselves. The October 2009 screening had no such publicity. On a Friday afternoon, October 9, the evening of which began a two-day Jewish holiday where many observers do not use electricity, Democratic Committee leaders sent a 5 PM email changing the scheduled meeting date from the following Monday, October 12, to Sunday, October 11, one hour after the Jewish holiday ended. This means even Committee members observing the holiday were very unlikely to find out about the inconvenient change of meeting date. It also means there was zero advance publicity to recruit interested candidates.

Furthermore, several Committee members who just happen to not be Frank supporters never received the email announcing the Sunday night meeting. Somehow, their names were misspelled in the email message sent to all Committee members--not the first time this happened--so they never received the message at all. The result was that the Sunday night meeting was attended by only 12 out of 26 members--two short of a quorum. Without a quorum, the Committee is not permitted to take any official action. Yet they did so anyway, ignoring state statute and their own bylaws.

This month, the Committee held a screening for the mayor's position and once again, there was no advance publicity. The only public notice was a brief in The Home News Tribune on the same day as the screening. This is insufficient advance time for those who might be interested to re-arrange their schedules.

The Committee then proceeded to name only one candidate, former Councilman Stephen Nolan, instead of the three required by law--in spite of the fact that at least one other candidate was interviewed at the meeting.

When Mayor Frank finally chose a date for her resignation, instead of sending a press release to the media, she sent an email to members of the Democratic Committee. This is unheard of and brings home the fact that from the beginning, she has treated the party Committee as her own personal political organization. This is in stark contract to Democratic mayors of other towns, who have stated publicly that they never interfere in party committee business.

As is often the case, I received phone calls from several reporters the next day, all of whom complained that the Committee leadership refused them entrance into the meeting and refused to give any comment on the proceedings. They were quite put off by this, and noted that in every other town they cover, Democratic Municipal Committees always hold open meetings and rarely refuse to give any comment to the press.

I enlightened them by noting that the Highland Park Democratic Committee now has the dubious honor of having gone an entire decade without holding a single open meeting. Committee leaders have even shut elected members out of the decision making process, at times conducting votes about candidate selection over the phone, never holding a meeting at all and only calling selected Committee members known to be loyal to Mayor Frank.

The central goal in journalism and in democracy is the public right to know. While various media outlets are presenting "The Decade in Review," I decided to enlighten Highland Park voters with a chronology of the Highland Park Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace to Democracy, replete with backroom deals, closed meetings, and complete lack of transparency.

July 6, 2000: Utilizing pressure from a state-level party boss who was later sent to federal prison on corruption charges, Mayor Frank forced a majority of the incumbent Democratic Committee members to resign, leaving the Committee without a quorum. With pressure from the same party boss, she then argued that since the Committee had no quorum, state and county leaders had the right to fill all the vacancies. Of course, she insisted those vacancies be filled with a specific list of people she had compiled, all of whom had volunteered on her campaign. When several of the remaining Committee members objected to these strongarm tactics, they were told by a higher level Democratic Party official that if they resisted, he would "fight you with an army of lawyers."

While the forced resignations should never have happened, the right thing to do if there are too many vacancies to make a quorum is to hold a special election. That is what should have been done in 2000 but never took place. Frank's supporters were handed incumbency through bullying tactics rather than by vote of the people.

The day after this meeting, I confronted Mayor Frank at Borough Hall about the undemocratic nature of the proceedings. Her response was to attack the previous Democratic chair and Committee while at the same time slandering Council President Leon Cohen. "Why didn't they run you?" she asked of the Democratic Committee's choice in the spring of 2000, before she forced her takeover. "Why did they run a sick old man instead?" I was shocked by her characterization of Cohen, a brilliant man when it came to budgets and a dedicated Councilman, as "a sick old man," and planned to confront her publicly about this statement at the next Council meeting. Unfortunately, Cohen died suddenly the next day.

Mid-July 2000: After Cohen's sudden death, the newly-formed Committee held a screening to fill the vacancy, with no advance publicity whatsoever.

Fall 2000: Mayor Frank inappropriately and repeatedly referred to the Democratic Committee as "my Democratic Committee" and to herself as "the titular head of the Democratic Party." At one point, she made this statement to the daughter of vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman.

2001-2002: The Democratic Committee inappropriately held its meetings at the office of Mayor Frank's husband's energy consulting firm, Gabel Associates. Not only did this amount to a clear assertion of "this is my turf" by the mayor; it also meant screenings and meetings were held in a place that was not handicapped accessible. The building has no ramps or elevators; holding meetings there essentially meant "no people who use wheelchairs need apply."

2000-2002: Mayor Frank, who is not a Committee member, not only sat in on all Committee meetings, but made accusations against incumbent Council members screening for party support, further biasing Committee members. In 2001, she urged Committee members to not support the two incumbents who preceded her in office, citing not their records but that they didn't put up her signs during the 1999 mayoral election. In July 2002, one month after receiving a respectable 40 percent of the vote in a Democratic Council primary, I screened for a Council vacancy. At that screening, Frank was so vociferous in her accusations against me, replete with fabricated incidents she claimed took place during the campaign, incidents in which she attempted to portray me and my supporters as racists, that several Committee members objected to her actions during the meeting. The Committee later voted to ban Frank from attending any future candidate screenings.

April 2001: In a clear conflict of interest, the spouse of a Committee member was given the party's support to run for Council. The Committee member in question should have recused herself from the vote, but she did not do so, and no one in the party leadership objected to her voting.

November 2001: After the Democratic Committee refused to support two very qualified incumbents, I led an impromptu write-in campaign for them in the uncontested general election. It was solely a protest. Yet after the election, the party chair expressed his outrage livid that the write-in candidates had received over 60 votes.

April 2002: The Democratic Committee held a screening only one hour after Passover ended, which that year was also during the Christian Holy Week, an extremely inconvenient time that practically assured a very low number of people would be able to attend. This was in spite of the fact that the screening could have been conducted any time over the last two months.

March 2003: Frank's chosen representative in her own district, the 8th, was forced to resign after writing an extremely controversial letter in The Home News Tribune, in which he explicitly stated he hoped Iraq triumphed in the war and that that triumph would result in the breaking up of the United States. His letter ended up being discussed statewide on NJ101.5 by the Jersey Guys.

Repeated complaints about screenings being held at Frank's husband's office led to the screenings being moved to the YM-YWHA in 2003 and then to Charlie Brown's restaurant after the Y closed in 2007.

December 2003: As an active Democrat, I spent several months attempting to work out some sort of reconciliation with the Committee in anticipation of the 2004 presidential election. Six months after asking the Committee to find a volunteer role for me other than that of an elected Committee member, the party chair said to my face, "we can't include everybody." When I publicly noted this telling comment in an April 2005 Home News Tribune op-ed column, the party chair responded with a column of his own filled with personal attacks against me, including the false charge that I asked him to overturn an election and give me a Committee seat--something I never did or would even think of doing.

December 2004: Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons voted against establishing a redevelopment agency, as she did not want anyone's property made vulnerable to potential use of eminent domain. She also voted against setting up a Business Improvement District (BID) after talking to many business owners and determining the additional tax would be burdensome to them. In response, she was told by Committee leaders that she would not receive the party's support to run for another term the following year. It seems the party chair either assumed he could read Committee members' minds three months in advance or felt certain he could control the decision they would make.

June 2005: Mayor Frank and her supporters attempted to subvert an election by repeatedly harassing a husband and wife whom we had recruited to challenge the incumbent Democratic Committee members in the 5th district. Committee members are supposed to be chosen via the election process. Yet Frank and her followers laid guilt on the two challengers, telling them "we already have people for those positions," a misleading statement that runs in direct contradiction of the democratic process. These two candidates were harassed so many times that they finally agreed to sign a postcard endorsing the incumbents without even reading what the postcard said. Within two years, they left town altogether.

June 2005: After the incumbent Committeeman in the 11th district was defeated by a challenger, the Committee immediately submitted his name to fill a vacant Council seat. Subsequent incumbents who lost their Committee races had positions created for them and were admitted to Committee meetings even while the general public was not.

September 2005: After Councilman Nolan resigned, the Committee held a screening, again to fulfill the statute of naming three potential replacements to the Borough Council. In spite of the fact that three people screened, only two names were submitted. I was the third person who screened and as usual, gave an informed presentation to the Committee. They chose to violate the law and name only two rather than even submit my name as one of the three or submit the name of someone else who didn't screen. This was the last of multiple screenings I took part in, as it brought home the futility of even trying to work with the Committee.

March 2007: The Democratic Committee held a screening for both the mayor's position and two council seats, all of which were up for re-election that year. However, before they even interviewed candidates, Committee leaders mailed out notices of a fundraiser for Frank and the incumbent Council members. How could the Committee have presumed in advance of the process what the results would be? If the Committee had already determined in advance who would get their support, why hold a screening at all?

2004-2008: In interviewing candidates, the Committee made support for the mayor's redevelopment project a key question. Those who had slightly different views about the downtown and redevelopment; for example, those who did not want any use of eminent domain, were immediately discounted as candidates.

Throughout the decade, the Democratic Committee did almost nothing to support county and state-level Democratic candidates in spite of the fact that this is a part of their duty as party representatives. Serving Frank was clearly more important than serving the county and state party and the party's ideals.

Committee leaders also filed incomplete Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports over the course of the decade, leaving out major sources of their funding. In at least one case, no ELEC report was filed at all for a campaign in spite of the legal requirement to do so. In 2007, invitations to a fundraiser for Frank were inappropriately collected at Borough Hall.

During the entire decade, no screenings were conducted, and no public outreach of any kind was held to recruit people who might be interested in serving as their district representatives on the Democratic Committee. The only recruiting involved Frank personally selecting and contacting her own supporters, mostly parents active in the school PTOs. That means those who didn't have children in the public schools or were not involved with the PTOs never had a chance to even be considered for a committee seat.

All Democrats in Highland Park must ask ourselves, why is our party Committee the only one in the region that does not hold open meetings? Why does a group that talks the talk of open government and transparency not walk the walk? Why is the Democratic Committee in this town being allowed to break the law whenever they choose and act in ways reminiscent of New York City's infamous Tammany Hall?

Our party can do better than this. Let's commit to following the Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace with a new Decade of Real Democracy. If Democratic organizations in other towns can do this, we can too.

Religion, science, and the solstice - The Boston Globe

Religion, science, and the solstice - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

In Memoriam: Harvey Brudner

On September 15, 2009, Highland Park lost yet another of our most active citizen volunteers--Harvey Brudner, former chair of the Highland Park Centennial Committee and for me and many, a valued personal friend.

Harvey had a PhD in theoretical physics and during his life, was president of Medical Development, Inc. in Jersey City, Dean of Science and Technology at the New York Institute of Technology, president of Westinghouse Learning Corporation, and research scientist at the Power Authority of the State of New York.

But beyond his intellectual brilliance and career accomplishments, Harvey was a kind, gentle soul, a good friend, a man who loved his community and history, an environmentalist, and a wonderful conversationalist.

Fascinated by Joyce Kilmer, Harvey served as president of the Joyce Kilmer Centennial Commission in New Brunswick. One of his favorite poems, if not his all time favorite, was Kilmer's poem "Trees." If Highland Park is a green community, it is because of people like Harvey leading the way. In 2004, he organized a beautiful ceremony in which a descendant of the oak tree that inspired Kilmer was planted in front of the Highland Park High School. That baby tree has grown significantly over five years and stands as a gift from Harvey to our town, hopefully for generations to come.

I first met Harvey when he was appointed chair of the Highland Park Centennial Committee and asked me to attend meetings and volunteer for the project even though I was not a formal appointee. I was happy to do so and learned a lot about the history of our borough and the region in the process. Harvey had so many wonderful ideas about how to celebrate Highland Park's centennial in 2005, some of which came to fruition and were very successful.

Unfortunately, early in the borough's centennial year, the mayor dissolved the Centennial Committee abruptly without adopting the resolution required by law to dissolve such a body. The move was part of her war against a former councilwoman who opposed her redevelopment plan; that councilwoman was the liaison to the Centennial Committee and a friend of Harvey's. He and those who had spent a year and a half working on the borough's centennial suddenly found themselves completely excluded from the project as the mayor took complete control.

The irony is that she has sought designation for Highland Park as the state's first green community while here was a man who put trees at center stage of our centennial celebration only to unfairly have his position snatched out from under him for solely political reasons.

But his reputation was never damaged by this. Every year as my annual birthday party approached, people asked if the "Tree Man" was going to be there. That's the unofficial nickname that became attached to him--the "Tree Man."

And he was the Tree Man, especially in the way he literally put this special tree at the high school first. In 2005, at my suggestion, he ran for the 10th district Democratic Committeeman position along with a slate of candidates led by me and George Valenta running for Borough Council. A group of us campaigned door to door in the district, and Harvey inevitably would start talking about the tree and a first anniversary celebration of its planting a week after our primary. The rest of us had to keep reminding him that our main purpose was to campaign for the election!

At the time, the situation seemed quite funny, but in retrospect, it tells a lot about who Harvey was. Elections come and go; people enter and leave office, but the need to put the Earth first is always paramount. What is more representative of the Earth's and nature's endurance more than a tree?

Interestingly, Harvey ended up getting an even 100 votes for the Democratic Committee seat, and those on our team could not help notice the synchronicity of that--100 votes for the chair of the Centennial Committee in Highland Park's centennial year. Although he did not win the seat, Harvey's strong showing helped pave the way for a victory in winning back that seat by our team in 2007.

Harvey was always one of the first people to whom I would go seeking signatures for yet another petition to run for office, whether Council or Democratic Committee. Knowing I am a freelance writer, he would give me writing and editing jobs publicizing his research. That research was completely mathematical, centered on the Pythagorean theorem, and here I was, an English/journalism type, writing and revising something I barely understood. But that hardly mattered in the larger scheme of things because our real connection was that of friends helping one another.

Every year on the second Sunday in July, Harvey was the first person to show up for my backyard barbecue birthday party. While many people attended some years but not others due to vacation plans, he was there every year and became popular among the many guests we had over that time. When I took up astronomy as a hobby and began circulating petitions opposing the demotion of the planet Pluto, Harvey was one of the first to sign, and we had some provocative discussions of astronomy and cosmology.

It has not quite sunken in that next year, he is not going to show up in my backyard at exactly 3 PM on the second Sunday in July.

Harvey was also a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. He was a genuine "good guy." At his funeral, all who spoke emphasized the same qualities of his--kindness, generosity, gentleness. More than just being an intelligent and accomplished professional, he was a wonderful human being. And he will be terribly missed.

2009 has seen far too many losses both locally and on the world stage. Here in Highland Park, we are all diminished by the loss of Harvey Brudner.

There is a prayer that reads, "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree. He shall grow mighty like the cedar in Lebanon." These words are Harvey. His legacy will live on in this borough and beyond as our own towering oak tree.

Farewell to an amazing citizen of Highland Park and more importantly, a friend.

New Meeting Needed for Master Plan Revision

How many borough residents are aware that a revision of our Master Plan, which outlines a vision for how and where to develop, has been discussed and set for a final vote on Thursday, December 17? How many are aware that the revision was discussed at a November 19 Planning Board meeting? My guess is, not very many since only one member of the public showed up to provide input that night.

Somehow, I don't think lack of interest or apathy is the problem. More likely, the borough's perennial lack of publicity for important events is at work again. Legally, the Planning Board fulfilled the minimum requirements to provide advance notice of its meeting to the public, with advertisements in the Home News Tribune and Star Ledger and a notice on the wall at Borough Hall.

But being open and transparent means doing more than the bare minimum required by law. Newspaper notices are written in their legal sections in very small letters and easily missed. Why didn't the Planning Board issue a press release to these papers, which would have gone into their community sections and reached far more people?

The borough just published its fall edition of the Quarterly. Why was there no article summarizing the proposed Master Plan revision and stating that a meeting on the revision would be held on November 19 at Borough Hall? Why did the borough never put notice of the Master Plan revision or this meeting--and a copy of the draft revision--on its web site? Are these things so difficult to do, or is it just that no one bothered? Or, given the large crowds that attended the meetings on the redevelopment plan, was publicity deliberately kept to a minimum so the administration could quietly amend our Master Plan with no one aware of what is being done until it is already a done deal?

Furthermore, the November 19 meeting was held within a week of the Thanksgiving holiday, a time when people are either planning vacations or family events and not paying as much attention to public affairs. That alone makes this date a poor choice, and the same applies to December 17. What is worse is the Planning Board's denial of a citizen's request for a second meeting to allow more time for public input and comments.

Copies of the Master Plan revision are available from the Borough Clerk. While borough officials refused to provide a digital version of the document, the citizen who attended the meeting did that work on his own, taking the time and effort to scan it into a Word document. That document is now posted on the Files page of my Friends of Laurel newsletter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel/files/ under the name Reexam of MasterPlan.doc. Unfortunately, Yahoo does not allow access to the files for those who are not subscribers to the newsletter. I have a copy of the Word document that I am happy to email to anyone who cannot access it via Yahoo. Just email me at laurel2000@gmail.com or laurelkornfeld@netzero.net and ask for a copy of the 2009 Master Plan revision.

Unfortunately, anyone who wants input into this document outlining the direction of development in our town is going to have to act quickly. According to the Planning Board chair, written public comments may be sent to the Planning Board at Borough Hall, but must arrive by the deadline of Monday, December 7.

For many people, reading the long document and writing comments will compete with shopping and holiday preparations. This is why we need a second meeting Planning Board meeting to solicit public input after giving citizens the time to read and absorb the whole document. I implore the Planning Board to reconsider its decision, hold a public session at its December 17 meeting--at which the Board is now scheduled to vote on adopting the document--and postpone the vote until its January meeting. What harm can possibly come from a one-month delay whose sole purpose is to make our government more open and transparent? If the mayor can postpone her resignation by nearly a year, certainly the Planning Board can postpone its vote for one month.

The borough knows how to do publicity when the mayor and council want it done. Not providing adequate publicity and advance knowledge about something as serious as the future of our town, in a document reviewed only once every seven years, is a tremendous disservice to every resident in the borough. Rushing to adopt a plan in a manner that cannot help but appear arranged to minimize public participation is a slap in the face to every business and resident of Highland Park.

The timing of this rushed process cannot help but raise questions. Mayor Frank, who announced her resignation in February, has still not resigned. Is this rush through of the Master Plan revision an attempt by a lame duck mayor to impose her vision on the town one last time as a parting gift?

Don't forget that the previous Master Plan revision is the one that selectively stated certain businesses don't belong in the downtown, the one that called for riverfront residential development on the Y property and townhouses on part of the Rite Aid property, the one that advocated formation of the BID and Redevelopment Agency, the one that allowed a change of zoning to permit four-story buildings on Raritan Avenue.

The Master Plan and any proposed revision is of major importance. All who can should obtain a copy, review it, and mail comments to the Planning Board at Borough Hall. In your comments, please add the request for an additional meeting so people can comment in person. Those who attend the December 17 meeting should repeat the request, as it is never too late for the Planning Board to hear the voice of the people and change its mind.

Is our government open and transparent? Saying so does not make it so. There is no point in talking the talk if we don't walk the walk. Where and how development occurs in Highland Park should be the decision of the people, not of a tiny group in a closed-door process.

Zoning laws are informed by the Master Plan. No one should be under any illusion that adoption of a Master Plan revision will not have a real, on-the-ground impact.

The Mayor's "Three Legs" Fallacy

Back around 2004, at the height of Mayor Frank's push for redevelopment, she repeatedly emphasized what she called her "three legs" of downtown revitalization--Main Street, the Business Improvement District (BID), and redevelopment. Redevelopment is long dead, and it is time for the BID, which never should have been created in the first place, to go as well.

The concept of a Business Improvement District sounds good until you realize it requires business and property owners to pay an additional tax--in this case $1,000 to $2,000 a year--for services the borough is already supposed to provide.

In articulating her "2020 vision" for downtown revitalization, Frank deliberately blurred the distinction between Main Street, a BID, redevelopment, and going green, each of which is actually a completely separate policy on its own. A town can be part of the state's Main Street program without having a BID, just as a town can encourage environmentally-friendly or "green" practices without redevelopment.

Many property and business owners at the time objected to being burdened with yet another tax. Former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons, in response to their concern, expressed serious reservations about enacting the BID. That position and her opposition to redevelopment led to her forced resignation.

Five years later, the facts show that those who opposed the BID and its tax, which was since increased several times, who believed we only needed one "leg," namely Main Street, are being proven right.

Six property owners on Woodbridge and Raritan Avenues recently attended a Borough Council meeting asking that their properties be withdrawn from the BID, as they are not getting any benefit from the additional tax.

What is especially troubling is that these property owners sent a letter to the Borough Council with this request in September 2008 and never received a response. That's September 2008, not 2009--over a year ago. The lack of response finally prompted them to approach the council directly.

If the mayor had had her way, the BID would have been expanded to all businesses in town, not just those on Raritan and portions of Woodbridge Avenue and Route 27. To their credit, the BID Board turned down this proposal, emphasizing they did not have the resources to serve even current BID members, let alone additional ones.

Last month, one property owner told the council the only benefit he is getting from this additional tax is a flower pot.

None of this is surprising. Five years ago, Mayor Frank and Councilman Steve Nolan specifically stated they wanted rents on Raritan Avenue to "skyrocket," based on the theory that that would bring in more "upscale" businesses and drive out the "less desirable" ones. In other words, the ultimate goal was gentrification.

Frank even went as far as recruiting one or two property owners who also were political supporters of hers to attend a council meeting and lament their not being included in the BID. Yes, they expressed their dismay at being excluded from the "privilege" of having to pay an additional $1,000-$2,000 a year in taxes.

Citizens and business owners who complained that the BID essentially is a form of "taxation without representation" were given a response from the mayor in the form of a political spin saying that the BID really was just a way of the business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money. After all, the BID Board of Directors, which is also the Board of Main Street, is composed of one-third property owners, one-third business owners, and one-third residents, the mayor emphasized.

The obvious question then was, who elects these board members? It would be one thing if every BID participant had a vote. But that is not how the BID leadership is chosen. In fact, the process by which the leadership--those who decide how much to tax and how to spend the money--is selected has never been made clear to anyone. I asked the mayor how a hypothetical business owner interested in joining the Board might run for the office or put his/her name up for consideration. Of course, I received no specific answer, just vague posturing and repetition of how all the BID really is is property and business owners deciding how to spend their own money.

A look at the BID's Board membership over the years reveals a disturbing but not unexpected pattern: the majority of members are political supporters of Mayor Frank. In other words, they were handpicked by her to enact her vision for the town--hardly a group of business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money.

Furthermore, the BID Board subsequently declared they are not subject to the state Open Public Records Act or Open Public Meetings Act and therefore do not have to release their budgets to the public or hold open meetings. A Star Ledger reporter investigating complaints about the BID's closed processes about two years ago noted that Highland Park's BID is the only one out of many she researched that made such a claim. Every other Main Street and BID in New Jersey was happy to disclose this information.

Maybe all the secrecy comes from the BID Board not wanting to reveal how much money has been spent and continues to be spent on outsourcing services such as organization of the Street Fair and publication of the Main Street newsletter to politically connected firms that just happen to support the mayor.

The previous Main Street director was one of the primary supporters of this outsourcing. Not only did he alienate business owners with a very unfriendly attitude, clearly representing nothing more than the mayor's redevelopment agenda--he also rejected offers by volunteers to provide services such as the newsletter in favor of spending large amounts of money on PR firms instead. Our property and business owners have been effectively subsidizing private firms that thrive on their political connections--otherwise known as Pay to Play.

In all fairness, Main Street is not the problem. Having a Main Street program is very valuable to a walking town like ours, and the current director is doing an amazing job reaching out to local businesses and working with them. But Main Street can exist without a BID, as it did in its first years in Highland Park. By abolishing the BID, we can go back to the original vision of centering the program on volunteers and at the same time relieve this additional tax burden on our business and property owners.

More than exempt these property owners, the Borough Council should either abolish the BID or adopt a suggestion made in 2003 by former mayor and then mayoral candidate Jeff Orbach. He recommended the alternative of a Special Improvement District, or SID, in which participation would be voluntary. Those business and property owners who want to participate, including Frank's eager-to-be-taxed supporters would have the option of doing so while those who wanted to opt out would have that option available as well.

The last thing Highland Park needs is for commercial rents to "skyrocket." Even Westfield, which the mayor repeatedly invoked as a shining example of her vision, now is filled with vacant storefronts left by businesses who could no longer afford the higher rents. Highland Park is not a wealthy town. It is a mixed-income town, and many of the mom and pop shops are barely making it, especially in this difficult economy. Skyrocketing rents would inevitably send them packing.

We need only one "leg," Main Street, not the three Frank repeatedly advocated, to revitalize our downtown and engage citizens and businesses in doing so. It is time for the borough to take a good hard look at the economic facts on the ground and listen to the business and property owners affected by failed public policies.