STONE HARBOR – Mayor Tim Carney recently announced that future meetings of the Borough Council would be held at 5 p.m. rather than 4:30 to provide more opportunity for residents who work to attend. Carney billed it as an effort by the borough to increase transparency and citizen involvement in local government.
The borough had already provided for remote access and remote participation in its sessions; it makes documents and resolutions available online ahead of meetings and places no time limit on those who want to address the council during the public comment period.
Yet on Tuesday, Feb. 4, residents used the comment period to chastise the council for its lack of transparency. The argument was that a true commitment to transparency encompasses not just access and meeting times but also keeping the public aware of what a governing body does and why it does it.
What sparked the discussion was an ordinance scheduled to be introduced that would remove the citizen chair of the recreation and tourism committee and instead give the chair to the council member who heads the council’s standing committee on recreation and tourism.
Carney said the resolution would “gut” the community group, eliminating its ability to vote for its own officers. He said he feels the “rec advisory committee should remain autonomous” of the council.
He added, “This board and all community boards in Stone Harbor are an integral part of the community. They allow the citizens’ voices to be heard on a range of issues and can help guide council committees on programs, resolutions and in some cases ordinances.”
Another agenda item that drove public comment was a resolution that could change the way tourism management is done. It authorized a bid process that would establish the cost of privatizing many of the functions currently provided by the in-house tourism director, Jenny Olson.
Several residents felt that the council was acting without seeking public input.
Anthony Caracciolo, who serves as chair of the borough’s Zoning Board, openly questioned the council’s commitment to transparency. He asked rhetorically why the council put an issue such as the recreation committee chair on the agenda without first offering some public discussion of it.
Caracciolo looked also to a resolution on the agenda to potentially change the way tourism management is done, challenging the placement of such a resolution on the consent agenda, an agenda meant to be used for routine matters.
He also pointed to the fact that there has been no director of recreation since September, and no public discussion of a reconfiguration of that position so that it would no longer be full time.
Caracciolo went so far as to say, “One questions the motives behind these changes.” He said the absence of public discussion of goals and reasons for changes is “not a transparent or even a democratic way to do business.”
Joann Ball said she assumed that difficulties with the 2025 budget were part of the motivation for actions the council has been taking. If so, she urged that they be discussed “openly and transparently,” and not have the actions be a result of “just putting items on the agenda.”
Similar comments followed from others who spoke, including a representative of the chamber of commerce.
Following the public comment period, the governing body did take formal action on the two matters.
The resolution authorizing bids on tourism and information management passed, but only when the mayor voted to support it following a 3-3 tie in the council vote.
The ordinance on the recreation advisory committee was tabled.
In a second session of public comment toward the end of the meeting and after the actions were taken, another resident, Sandy McCallister, asked who of the six sitting council members put the resolution concerning tourism management on the agenda. After the question bounced around the council, the response, provided by the council’s attorney, was that it was “one of the council committees.”
Bob Rich came to the podium next to ask the same question. He wanted a more specific answer, asking, “Which committee proposed it?” Again there was no direct response from the council until Carney ended the silence, saying that the recreation committee of the council was the point of origin for the proposed ordinance, and the administration and finance committee would have led the effort for bidding on the tourism and public information resolution.
Rich also asked about the status of Police Department labor contracts. The council’s attorney, Anthony Bocchi, said only that the borough’s labor counsel was handling the issue. Rich then asked if the Fire Department had a working contract, but received the same response, that it was a labor counsel issue.
Rich left the podium saying, “I leave just as confused as when I arrived.”
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
