The Township Council voted 4-3 on September 28 to renew the firefighting services it provides Glen Ridge at a rate even cheaper than the previous too-low rate — despite high inflation! Your analysis eight days later?

Montclair got played, duped, gulled, suckered, hoodwinked, and bamboozled by Glen Ridge — which might now try to buy my thesaurus for pennies on the dollar.

Sad that officials in rich Glen Ridge were so tightfisted with the 10-15-year pact renewal, as if the miserly Silas Marner came out of 19th-century fiction to burrow into their borough. Will Montclair’s eastern neighbor find redemption like Silas did?

Doubtful. I could see Glen Ridge offering only a dime for a rare first edition of a George Eliot novel.

From “The Mill on the Floss” to “The Bill at a Loss.” Glen Ridge even spooked some Montclair officials by saying Bloomfield might bid against Montclair for the firefighting contract (Bloomfield didn’t) and by hinting it might sue if Montclair didn’t stick with the bad renewal deal. Comment?

We Don’t Savor Bad Behavior

By throwing its weight around, Glen Ridge shockingly risked the consequence of all consequences — not receiving a Christmas card from Montclair this year.

Horrors! Glen Ridge’s veiled lawsuit threat was reminiscent of the way some developers weaponize possible legal action to cow enough Montclair officials into approving oversized, mediocre-looking projects catering to the affluent.

Yup, timid of those officials. But the question that really haunts me: Where did Glen Ridge find a cow?

That question doesn’t mooove the needle with me. Also, the Montclair chief financial officer’s analysis of how unfair the firefighting deal was for our town wasn’t shared with all councilors in a timely fashion!

Terrible. One can see why Peter Yacobellis, Bob Russo, and Bill Hurlock wisely voted against the deal. A shame the other four voted yes — votes that will not be fondly remembered when Montclair’s 2024 election rolls around after oral storytellers this month start narrating the tale around campfires.

Will greedy Glen Ridge hog more than its share of campfire-toasted marshmallows?

Very likely. But for each marshmallow, Glen Ridge will magnanimously allow Montclair to get “the short end of the stick.”

Dave Astor, author, is the MontClairVoyant. His opinions about politics and local events are strictly his own and do not represent or reflect the views of Baristanet.

Dave you captured a lot here in this column tonight!

I agree with you and others that a real opportunity was missed here and our towns will live with the impact of this for years to come. I did a very quick back of the envelope calculation and it appears that over the initial 10 years of the contract, Glen Ridge on average will pay less than $5k per taxable property, and Montclair will likely pay over $16K per taxable property over those same 10 years. For Montclair to pay more than 3x per taxable property is stunning.

The idea that Glen Ridge should not be expected to contribute toward 24/7 staffing is relatively new. It is not something typically seen for people who are covered by professional forces–to not contribute toward personnel beyond the time spent at an incident. Consider that shortly before this agreement was first signed in 1990, a consultant had done an evaluation of GR’s FD and told the town it needed at least 15 career fire fighters. GR definitely would have been responsible for covering those FF 24/7. Instead, 32 years ago, they began this relationship with Montclair– and for a while it was very apparent how much cost GR was avoiding, and they were very happy to be paying a lot more than they will be paying next year.

Over time, memory fades and perspectives change. Actual structure fires have gone down everywhere– in both GR and Montclair– but that can’t changed staffing levels. So while GR now gets the great fiscal fortune to only “cost” what it uses, Montclair continues to cover, all of the high fixed costs of running a fire department. The CFO sought to restore some balance, but the opportunity was lost. The fact that her analysis was hidden is pretty shocking. The fact that votes taken in secret were considered a binding formal action to me seems a violation of the Open Public Meeting Act.

All of this is why in 1993, Glen Ridge was paying $566,000. And they were so happy to pay it, really appreciating the great deal they got. By contrast, it is reported that next year thirty years later, in 2023, Glen Ridge thought it should pay $500,000. The idea of a shared service/fair shared cost agreement has been completely derailed from this agreement, and unfortunately we did not get it back. The one thing in all of the history of this that I have studied is that it is always just assumed that Montclair taxpayers will step up. It doesn’t seem like our leaders were prepared to fight for us– at the meeting last week for example it didn’t seem that anyone was familiar with shared service law– and that was not good.

Anyway– thanks for your column as always and be well!

This contract is going to get nullified. It may take a little while, may not. The renewal option is also so, so dead in the water, and never, ever to see the light of day again.

The thing is the State (maybe some ‘help’ from the Courts) is going to tell the governing bodies to rewrite this under a shared services. They may just put a black mark on our LGS certifications, or something more direct to each party. The same money will be reshuffled and everything will be compliant & tidy. Most importantly, minimal further exposure to individual reputations and individual competencies and remove the potential for collateral damage to The Machine.

The big question is will the Giants beat the Packers in London this Sunday?

My recollection is that at the meeting where the contract was approved one or perhaps more than one of the council members expressed the view that the contract may have been a mistake but that it had to be approved because the alternative was a lawsuit. The township’s lawyer seemed to legitimize that concern. There would have been no lawsuit no matter what was in the letter from Glen Ridge’s lawyer (which was not protected by any sort of privilege and should have been and still should be shared) but that is, from my perspective not the worst of it. If there was a “mistake” and mistakes happen and even if one has to accept the consequences of the mistake the next step is to take a look and figure out what has to be done or be changed to make sure the “mistake” does not happen again. How did this go so wrong? I am not talking about finger pointing. I, for one, don’t care about that. I am talking about trying to understand where the failure occured and correcting it so it doesn’t happen again. Instead of that we had the ugly spectacle of uniformed municipal employees making appearances in their uniforms and writing letters in an effort to defend the indefensible, intimidate and confuse the issue. That is my takeaway from this sad episode and it speaks loudly to the cynicism and failure to understand what has been best about this town and what seems to be gettting lost in a quest that seems motivated by personal ambition. Admit the mistake. Take steps to correct it. Move on. But don’t insult our collective intelligence and the town’s tradition of a “do the right thing” government by calling it a “win-win” and suggest that if we want a shared service to be treated like a shared service we are being disrespectful to our first responders. That is my takeaway from this and it leaves an awful taste.

Government, especially local, doesn’t design in quality and hardly believes in quality control, both conceptually and in practice. So, mistakes will cycle through.

Now, the cost aspect is secondary here because Montclair blows through chunks of money (think parking) because we don’t have quality assurance in government and taxpayers care only enough to be outraged. We’re all equal in that respect.

What is primary is the entertainment value here! In the cases of our Councils, how they manage to put their particular mark of inferior quality on their biggest projects.

Following this council’s struggles to keep up with their colleagues spinning & dancing & interpersonal communication games is just a bonus track. I don’t watch it myself, but it sounds like the show Survivor.

No, this stuff I have to watch. Also, I will get to say, for some of them, I knew them when they were just local Councilors.

Thank you for the kind words, Eileen — and for your valiant, impressive public efforts urging a better renewal deal. A shame that too few Montclair officials listened to your wise, detailed, fact-filled critique of the lopsided-in-favor-of-Glen Ridge agreement. As you note, so much is wrong about the deal itself and the process of reaching it. It’s especially galling that Glen Ridge is an affluent enough town to have easily paid its fair share.

Thank you for the comments, Frank. I hope the deal does indeed somehow get nullified — and then reworked to be fairer to Montclair. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. The pact should indeed have been negotiated under the state’s shared-services umbrella.

Some Council members, and the township manager, seemingly have the expertise of the stumbling-for-several-years-prior-to-2022 Giants — who, to answer your question, have only a remote chance of beating the Packers this Sunday in London. Can King Charles III serve as a much-needed Giants receiver? ?

Thank you for the comment, pelberg. The scared response of some Montclair officials to Glen Ridge’s veiled threat of a lawsuit was disturbing. They should have called GR’s bluff. I would’ve been very surprised if GR had sued; that borough would’ve looked incredibly hostile and petty given how obvious it was that it had suckered Montclair into a bad deal.

“Admit the mistake. Take steps to correct it” — exactly!

And, yes, criticism of how favorable the deal was to Glen Ridge (at Montclair’s expense) was in no way disrespectful of Montclair’s excellent firefighters.

There is absolutely no way Glen Ridge would ever sue us…and I have no formal legal training. The GR folks clearly didn’t understand NJ laws as evidenced by their RFP.

Legally, we couldn’t not have fulfilled their request at any price.

I don’t know what the lawyers and lawmakers and judges call that, but I call it Stupid Is As Stupid Does…but love the attempt to invoke privilege, a lá Trump.

PS: I am more than sure that either governing body will gladly make copies of the RFP available for inspection at the front counters of their respective Clerk’s Office. So very transparent.

I’m taking laying the points, but strangely taking the under, and betting the first commercial after kickoff is an insurance commercial with a football player featured.

Thanks so much Dave for your kind words.

I agree with those who say that I hope we can figure out what happened here and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Seems hard to believe what happened.

Glen Ridge receives over $3 million in tax revenue from Mountainside Hospital in a year– it doesn’t seem right that an individual homeowner in Montclair is paying more toward fire service than a hospital with like a billion dollars in revenue, does it?

What everyone should remember is that I had to chirp away at the Jackson Council, the Jackson Council’s Attorney and the Jackson Council’s Township Clerk to adhere to the Open Public Meetings Act for executive sessions. It had been too much of a burden to comply prior to that.

Supposedly I did this because this was the law and I foresaw this day when documenting use of Executive Session would protect the taxpayers.

The Jackson Council, et al, only starting to comply at the end of 2019. It took them more than a few attempts because it was not a natural thing of this group.

With a whole lot of practice, this Council is also struggling with the burden of OPMA. Frankly, this Council is struggling with the burden of public comment and cut that back. The BoE found the burden of listening to its members free speech a burden.

We, as taxpayers, in these times when we have it so good and can gift our excess tax dollars away, have to be more sensitive to the burden on those we put in office.

If greater efficiencies are needed to make these office holders more productive and at home more, Montclair should hold a referendum on opting-out of the NJ Open Public Meeting Act and NJ Open Public Record Act.

You know we can do that if we want.

Thank you for the follow-up comment, Eileen. Yes, it would be great if a mistake this major (whether with the firefighting deal or other municipal business) didn’t happen again. But I’m not sure the learning curve is there — or desired by some Montclair officials. And that Mountainside Hospital tax-revenue comparison you cite is shocking. ?

Frank, it seems that TC is indeed only the initials for Township Council and not Transparent Communication, too. ? ? (With some frequent or occasional councilor exceptions.)

And, Frank, I agree that a lawsuit by Glen Ridge against Montclair would have been VERY unlikely.

As for football commercials, they’re tiresome, but any athletes in them have less risk of injury than when they’re on the field. ?

Let’s not forget the recent episode of the Council all but crying out for relief from their paperwork burden. It was heart-wrenching to watch. I almost turned off the stream!

To do their work, messengers are sent to the four corners of town to hand-deliver many hundreds of pages (yes, paper, not electronic). Sometimes the members only receive this burdensome trove the Friday before their meetings. Just a half day ahead of when the public can get it…but, only electronically. The horror. The inhumanity.

To watch them up on the dais, waving stacks of hard pages… barely visible from behind the mountain before them that they must parse… the paper cuts the must endure…

It was almost reason enough not to stream their Conference meetings.

Wow, Frank! Sounds like way too much paper and not enough digital. I guess the Township Council’s TC initials could also stand for Tree Carnage (to produce all that paper).

Thanks for the wryly written comment.

I think each of the Council members should be given an iPad Pro. They can replace their reams of paper with what is called a hard drive or cloud storage.

They can just speak at the screen and request whatever they need…

Councilor: “Hey Siri, open up the 2022 Shared Services Agreement with Glen Ridge.”

Siri (she’s a good girl): “Councilor, there is no such agreement. Would you like me to pull up the 2022 independent contractor’s agreement for fire suppression services?”

Councilor: “Hey Siri, c’mon!, OK, yes please.”

Siri: “Councilor, the source file is corrupted by fault in the closed session node. Would you like me to search the internet for the solution to resolve the fault?”

Why is Glen Ridge being painted as greedy and why is our town council being painted as incompetent? Glen Ridge represented the people who put them in power (taxpayers) while Montclair represented people who put them in power. Since when does the common good factor into the equation? To the citizens of Glen Ridge I say, good job. To the taxpayers of Montclair I say, “if the good Lord didn’t want you sheared He wouldn’t have made you sheep.” H.L. Mencken said, “you get the government you vote for and you get it good and hard.” How true!

Because GR put an RFP on Facebook and asked for a 10 & 5 when the law doesn’t allow it. But, watch what happens here – maybe after the election, but before the service goes live. And I hold four entities responsible: The Township of Montclair, The Borough of Glen Ridge, The Essex County Board of Commissioners, and the NJ DCA. I don’t hold the taxpayers accountable this time because the taxpayers are the only ones screaming foul.

That all these officials sitting around the Sunday breakfast table oh so pleased with themselves is nothing new. This is New Jersey. Pay to Play, baby! Just don’t call it right. Call it it is what it is. Call it It’s Just Chinatown, Jake. But, don’t think people are that stupid to call this bastardized version of law a win-win.

Ah, yes, flipside…. the old “survival of the fittest” mantra that so often guides the the Right. So sad.

Sickntired…”survival of the fittest” guides Mother Nature. Politics on both side of the aisle is guided by something much more sinister. The problem lies with only looking one direction to find fault. In the meantime, batten down the hatches because the storm is just getting starting on the local, state, federal, and international level. Mother Nature and math are one and the same.

This current water crisis provides a look at the imbalance in the situation. What is the most critical building that needs clean water to function– lots of it? A hospital of course.

And so in this situation right now, the Montclair utility department is working overtime to make sure there is adequate water– Glen Ridge’s water comes through OUR pumping station.Our systems are under stress. And OUR Fire Department is working overtime to make sure adequate water is being pumped. So much of the infrastructure that you need to run a hospital– water delivery, emergency response, utility management, even parking, is based in Montclair. And Montclair invests A LOT in each of these things, which the hospital could not run without.

And at the end of the year Mountainside hospital pays Glen Ridge over 3 and a half million dollars in taxes and in turn GR gives Montclair a few hundred thousand dollars–and this is considered “generous.”

I can assure you that this type of arrangement is very unique.

Frank, you suggested in your 1:49 pm October 8 comment (which includes funny dialog you made up ? ) that Montclair councilors be given an iPad Pro. How about if some of them instead get an iPad Amateur? ?

Thank you, flipside, for your 9:19 am October 9 comment. So, in the case of the firefighting deal, your sympathies lie with the wealthier and greedier Glen Ridge over Montclair? If I were Glen Ridge, I’d give you a parade down Ridgewood Avenue — with the guest of honor (you) sitting on a firetruck. Oops, that borough doesn’t have any of its own firetrucks. ?

Frank, re your 10:16 am October 9 comment, you are right indeed that Montclair taxpayers aren’t to blame for the lopsided-in-favor-of-Glen Ridge firefighting deal. I would guess that most Montclairites who voted in 2020 for the four Montclair Council members who approved the deal didn’t “sign up” for that level of being fleeced.

Thank you for your 10:28 am October 9 comment, sickntired. Yes, there is something Darwinian about much of today’s Republican Party — and not just because Charles Darwin and early (but more compassionate) Republican Abraham Lincoln were born on literally the same day in 1809.

Thank you, Eileen, for your 12:30 pm October 9 comment. Wow — what you cited re the water crisis does indeed starkly illustrate the imbalance of what Glen Ridge and Montclair are paying and getting back in return. Glen Ridge’s ailing sense of fairness and neighborliness toward Montclair could end up in Mountainside’s ICU. ? ?

I lost every one of my Packer bets. What do I know?

These overtime costs will not discourage the Council from meter bagging the short-term, carbon car visitor spaces in our commercial zones. And still paying ParkMobile and FlyLikeAnEagle their fees.

Why do we do it? Because many of the other towns do it. Yup.

Dave, Why are you saying that Glen Ridge is greedy? They cut a great deal for their taxpayers. Why does that make them greedy? Very judgmental…not very nice or tolerant for a Montclairian. Our council was put into power by the union backed Essex county political machine. They cut a good deal for those that gave them that power. Welcome to the real world. Seems like our local politicians read up on Darwin. If the wind blows hard enough in a different direction they will adapt or perish. That has nothing to do with being conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep. If it makes you feel morally superior to feel that everything Rep. is bad and greedy have it. Are you enjoying inflation? High energy prices? Schools falling apart? World on the brink? Stock market falling? Higher interest rates? Nothing like a recession, war, and social unrest to bring us all together.

Sorry about that, Frank. I also didn’t expect the Giants to beat the Packers. Former Giants/former Montclair residents Michael Strahan and David Tyree must be pleased with today’s win in London.

Thank you for the follow-up comment, flipside. I call Glen Ridge greedy because it’s not paying its fair share for the firefighting services it receives from Montclair. In fact, that borough will be paying even less than their previous too-low amount — especially when high inflation is figured in. Sure, the pact is great for Glen Ridge and its residents — at the expense of our township and its residents. And it’s not judgmental or intolerant to call out greed; it’s, well, accurate. ? (If you’re unhappy with the word greedy, how about cheap or unneighborly?)

Dave, This is silly. Let’s call it what it truly is. A smart great deal for Glen Ridge. It is up to Montclair voters to determine what the Montclair council’s motivation was in striking this deal. Are they incompetent? Dumb? Lazy? or did it fit their agenda? Why vilify Glen Ridge? We could have said no and put a price on the deal that worked for us. We had the leverage in the deal. Montclair citizens did not need this deal. Figure out the faction in Montclair that benefits and call them out.

Yes, Montclair is using all this Fire Department overtime right now strictly for Glen Ridge’s water. They totally could have gotten Montclair situated during their normal shifts.

Glen Ridge? Greedy? By Montclair’s own council’s admission, Glen Ridge asked to do a contract at a cheap rate, Montclair declined, Glen Ridge asked towns to name their price, and Glen Ridge accepted.

Also, how much is Montclair going to pay the towns/district who’s water they’re using right now? I’m sure everyone will remain ideologically consistent and demand that Montclair pays their fair share of the water they’re using right now that they don’t have arrangements for… right?

flipside, I HAVE called out the Montclair officials who didn’t push for a fairer deal. But Glen Ridge could’ve been a better neighbor and not threatened Montclair with a competing bid and the hint of legal action. Enough Montclair officials fell for it all. If you admire Glen Ridge for playing hardball after Montclair gave that borough bargain-rate firefighting services for three decades, so be it.

Thank you for your comment, Rtadoyle. Montclair should have named a higher, fair price. Glen Ridge most likely would have accepted. (As it turned out, Montclair was the only bidder; Bloomfield never submitted a bid.) If Glen Ridge had said no to a higher, fair price from Montclair, further negotiations could have happened. And Montclair had the leverage of ending the agreement.

As for the water crisis, it’s an emergency situation — and those situations have different rules. I have no idea what towns pay, or whether they pay, in situations like that. Maybe it’s the sort of thing where Montclair would reciprocate by helping the other towns if/when there are future emergencies.

Emergency situation? Like a house being on fire?

I’m assuming FEMA has some form of compensation table for municipalities to figure out what would be owed in that situation… just like what Montclair used to figure out the price to charge Glen Ridge for fire protection (and then multiple it by 7, to get some profit).

Should Montclair (and Glen Ridge!) pay other municipalities 7x the cost of the water from other areas? Or should we only pay the actual cost of the water? Or should we rely on the kindness of strangers, and get it for free? Should the other water providers ask for 21x the cost of the water?

What would be most fair? If your answer relies on “well, it depends what side of the table I’m on”, I don’t think you’re actually thinking about “fairness”.

Montclair’s bid used actual accounting (instead of feelings) to come up with a base cost, and then they padded it with some profit. They tweaked it down a little bit because they wanted to make sure they won it. And here we are – at the win/win situation of Glen Ridge having the service they want, at the price Montclair requested. That’s a fair deal.

Thank you for the reply, Rtadoyle. I should have phrased my previous reply to you differently. Of course a fire is an emergency, and a terrible emergency in some cases. What I was trying to say, and didn’t explain, was that fires unfortunately happen relatively often. So they’re expected in a way, while a major water main break is a more unusual event.

Re the Montclair-Glen Ridge firefighting agreement, there are indeed some people, such as yourself, who think it’s a fair deal. But I think there are more people — including Montclair’s CFO, three Montclair councilors, and many Montclair residents — who feel otherwise. Given that expenses have gone up over the years for Montclair’s fire department (salaries, benefits, the cost of equipment, the price of gas, etc.), charging Glen Ridge at a level that doesn’t adequately reflect those higher expenses just doesn’t seem right.

It’s an disaster designation AND falls under the concept of mutual assistance. The same mutual assistance we use for fire protection, but not a disaster – except for the finances.

FYI, Montclair’s fire metal assistance commitment extends to Passaic County and to Montclair State.

As a rule, nobody charges the others. Formal agreements allow for invoices for materials, etc. Nobody does. If a bill was presented, it would be at cost. Of course, if there is Federal or State funds available, we all jump through hoops to get that.

It’s apples and oranges. Each disaster is unique. If we can, by law, treat the most mundane & inconsequential land use applications as unique, I think we are are solid ground to treat each disaster declaration as unique.

Get once-daily headlines and occasional breaking news in your inbox.