http://www.northjersey.com/…

Apparently, the arbitrator handling the Fort Lee police contract did not get the state memo counseling fairness in his award.

I HAVE read with great interest recent articles relating to binding arbitration and the rewards of arbitrators.

In these days of reduced state aid, crashing stock markets, plummeting real estate values and record levels of unemployment, we who govern municipalities feel quite alone. Fort Lee has imposed hiring freezes, instituted novel income-generating programs, amended billing methodology of various vendors of the borough, adopted a “zero balance” budget protocol and have done everything possible to avoid layoffs. Our responsibility is to our taxpayers. However, human nature dictates we depart from ledger sheets and calculators to consider the lives and families affected if layoffs were to occur.

I believe that most people understand the deplorable circumstances we face. Accordingly, employees, department heads, contract vendors and most union leaders have worked with government to negotiate fair contracts that balance reasonable compensation with a recognition of the already excessive burden on taxpayers. They are sophisticated and considerate enough to recognize that “beating the hell” out of us for an excessive raise or costly benefits may potentially trigger that “four-letter” word: layoffs.

There is a glaring exception to this culture of cooperation: Arbitrators who render determinations on police contracts apparently have not gotten the memorandum and exist in a vacuum. The recent arbitrator’s award concerning the Fort Lee police contract disregarded economic conditions, the government’s fair and, by most accounts, generous offer to settle and the significant burden placed on our taxpayers.

I cannot blame our local police representatives. It is human nature to ask for as much as possible and achieve the most for their organization. Were it not for the economic turmoil, I would have enthusiastically supported a generous contract. I can, however, blame the arbitrator for the complete disregard of the current economic climate.

State officials have told me that arbitrators have been counseled to be fair with their awards and remain cognizant of the economic climate and the fragile financial state of municipalities. Apparently, the arbitrator handling the Fort Lee arbitration did not get that memo either.

The borough is now compelled to spend tens of thousands of dollars processing an appeal in the hopes of avoiding the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If, after exhausting every alternative, layoffs are unavoidable, I can look back with certainty and precision in identifying which straw broke the camel’s back.

The arbitrator’s actions in Fort Lee – and the actions of arbitrators across the state for that matter – leave municipal officials feeling abandoned and worried about what lies ahead. With the arbitration award for Fort Lee police, I now sit behind my desk staring at a list that I hoped I would never be required to look at. I know each of the young men and women on the list. I grew up with many of them and in many cases was instrumental in their hiring. If we have to lay off personnel, I intend to deliver this essay to the arbitrator, personally.

Mark J. Sokolich is mayor of Fort Lee.

He’s right in that it’s natural to ask for as much as possible. What is not however is monopoly and that’s ultimately the cause behind this issue. The FLPD has a monopoly on the use of aggression in the geographic area which is known as Fort Lee, New Jersey. The town does not take bids from a range of defense providers. They have a single group of people who are paid by funds taken through the threat of force who have been given their aura of legitimacy by the entity called Fort Lee. There is no true accountability to a customer. All market signals are at best distorted if not outright blocked.

They are given immense powers and a monopoly. What do you expect to happen? They are given the ability to do things the public is not. They are allowed to aggress against individuals who have not infringed on the rights of others. They are allowed to get away with actions which others in the community can not. They are held up as idols without the corresponding expectation of more perfect morals. A man like Johannes Mehserle can murder a man and he’s defended both by his department and many in the public. His defense is ultimately paid by taxpayers and even if found guilty he’ll likely be given a less severe penalty. If the roles were reversed and that young man murdered a cop by shooting him in the back police all across the country would be calling for this mans death as would most of the public. There would be a huge, paid by taxpayers, funeral with pomp and circumstance. Does anyone really believe that such treatment would not lead to large heads and a feeling of superiority?

If Mark J. Sokolich wants to correctly respond to the current economic crisis he will work to marketize the many aspects of the Fort Lee government and allow the market decide who and what are most needed.  By definition any government action, any employment they provide, is less efficient than the market’s. Otherwise the money would not have to be taken but would voluntarily be exchanged. I’d like to say too that layoffs in a time of economic difficulty is a good thing. Jobs are not a cause of a sound economic environment but the result of one. They represent efficiently allocated labor resources.

On another topic… I’d really like to know what these “novel income-generating programs” are. Often that means they are increasing random fees and tickets given to people for victimless crimes. Fortunately for the government, unfortunately for the average serf, most people are too busy to deal with such fees and tickets. The government has individuals who’s jobs are to go to court. The rest of us, the productive ones, have real jobs which often don’t allow us to take a whole day or more off to fight the ticket. If even just a small percentage of those who received tickets and such fought them the courts would jam up. While it’s possible the bureaucrats could further grow government in order to deal with the increase it is more likely they will continue to function at current capacity and at some point they’d need to reduce the enforcement of such statutes. At least one can hope.

FLPD, things are tough right now as I’m sure you know. Those of us who ultimately pay for your salaries and for everything that goes along with protection you are supposed to provide are having to tighten their belts and make sacrifices. You need to also. Besides the moral reasons for doing so there are economic reasons. By not downsizing, by keeping salaries and spending artificially high, you are keeping resources from the economy which need to be saved and put toward more productive uses. It is the same as with the bailouts. Taking resources from productive members of the economy and putting them in the hands of the less productive or negatively productive members. I’d suggest reading Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression for a better description of what Hoover and FDR did wrong and how things are repeating themselves and how you are contributing to that.

http://www.northjersey.com/…

When the prospective bestseller, “Crazy N.J. Drivers and the Signs, Laws and Traffic That Make Us That Way,” is written someday, one extra-long chapter should be titled “Bad Ideas.”
That’s as good a way as any to describe many of our notions about driving behavior that turn out to be wrong, such as the chronic reader complaint about police “constantly breaking the law” by driving while yakking on a cellphone. (Wrong! The ban exempts emergency workers.)

Sometimes bad ideas can be blamed on the sovereign state of New Jersey, but usually they occur because too little oxygen was fueling our pea-size brains at a critical moment. (”Of course, I saw the yellow light, officer. That’s why I sped up.” Or, “I thought we disabled people didn’t have to feed the meter.”)

But there is hope, because sometimes bad ideas can actually make life better. As alluded to in Tuesday’s column, this rarity occurred last month when Emily Wisniewski, 16, criticized her father for failing to thoroughly remove snow from his car.

“It’s the law,” counseled Emily, whose recent study of New Jersey’s driver manual included these 11 words on Page 88: “All snow and ice must be removed from the entire vehicle.”

Her claim, however, was disputed by the family patriarch.

Although he last studied the manual 29 years ago, dad was familiar with driving regulations. After all, he’s chairman of the state Assembly transportation committee, which plays a big role in creating safety laws. Its responsibilities include overseeing the state Department of Transportation, whose duties include posting electronic highway signs that warn us to clear snow from our vehicles because “It’s the law.”

Not exactly. Clearing off snow is a Good Idea. But saying it’s a law is a Bad Idea because statute 39:4-77.1 only says non-commercial drivers can be fined as much as $1,000 if snow or ice from your car causes damage or injury.

That’s what John Wisniewski learned when he looked it up. The assemblyman figured Emily deserved better. To reduce the confusion for 16-year-olds, as well as 46-year-olds like him, Wisniewski revived a bill that had been languishing in his committee for nearly two years.

If it passes and the governor signs it, drivers whose vehicles carry this frosty hazard will risk $25 to $75 tickets — and New Jersey will enjoy the rarity of a Bad Idea becoming a Good Idea.

I think the comment I left on the article covers it.

Good idea? Sounds like little more than a way to increase town coffers. Driving with ice and/or snow on one’s vehicle does not by itself harm anyone. The current law legitimately requires a victim. And as for officers talking on cellphones. I have been told first hand by a Fort Lee police officer that the law was vague regarding non-hands free usage of a mobile phone. It says they are exempt in their official duties. It seems very unlikely it was meant to exempt them from talking with their friend about the game last night while on duty. And for official communications aren’t they supposed to use their radio? Even without that vague exemption some departments, Fort Lee is one, ban the practice. Of course most of us couldn’t know that because the FLPD and others don’t allow their SOPs to be released to the public.

In my last email to the FLPD concerning the officer of car 464 talking on his cell phone I requested a copy of their standard operating procedures. Turns out they aren’t publicly available.

Unfortunately our SOPs are not public information due to officer safety security reasons.

So I have to pay for their operation whether I’d like to or not and I have no direct way of finding out if they are breaking their own rules? You know how many are upset that the banks receiving TARP money aren’t telling them where it’s going? This isn’t too dissimilar. We have the police policing us… who polices the police? Assuming I knew the no cell phone while driving law had an exception and it wasn’t vague I’d have no way of knowing that the officer in question was breaking any statute or rule. Unless another officer saw him and cared enough to report him nothing would have been done. If we trust the officers to self police themselves why couldn’t we trust the public to police themselves? Isn’t it a matter of degrees and not kind?

I doubt many other departments are any different. To an extent I understand the safety concern but I still should be able to know exactly what the SOPs are. I definiately should be able to know what they are and are not allowed to do. In what way does knowing whether they can talk on the cellphone while driving endanger an officer? The excuse given for not saying rings of the whole waterboarding is torture debate. “We can’t say we don’t or can’t torture because that would embolden the enemy.” Right… it also allows the authorities to get away with just about anything they wish.

Seems Google failed me. Due to slight variances in the search terms I used to find the anti-cellphone usage while driving law I failed to come across an exception for particular authorities. I had found the press release which referred to N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3. The law linked on the site I referred to in the original post, which amended rather then added to the statutes, did not include the following section:

39:4-97.4 Inapplicability of act to certain officials.

2.The prohibitions set forth in this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons while in the actual performance of their official duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.

I’ve yet to track down where and when this exception was added or if it was part of the existing law and was kept to apply to the newly added/amended text.

The officer who I was in contact with last wrote me this:

Hello,

Thank you for your last response and I now understand your concern regarding NJS 39:4-97.3 (Use of handheld devices while operating a motor vehicle). I also appreciate the fact that your wish is not to punish the officer, but rather to question the overall reason and validity for the statute itself. In spite of the fact that there is a statute regarding the use of hand held devices by law enforcement personnel, this agency does in fact have an in-house policy that prohibits officers from using cell phones while operating their patrol vehicles, unless there is an emergent situation that warrants the use of the device. Based upon your request, this matter will be investigated and most likely be resolved with the officer being counseled in regards to this allegation.

For your convenience, I have cited the above mentioned statute:

NJS 39:4-97.4 (Inapplicability of act to certain officials).
The prohibitions set forth in this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons while in the actual performance of their duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.

As we all know, laws and statutes are always subject to individual legal interpretation. For example, this particular statute refers to “while in the actual performance of their duties”. Could it be that simply patrolling the borough of Fort Lee may be considered an actual performance of their duties? Perhaps it could, depending upon one individual’s interpretation.

At this time, I would again like to thank you for your leniency towards the officer. Unlike yourself, there are many people who are on a mission to attack our officer’s to the fullest extent for minor infractions such as this one, forgetting that the very same officer would bravely respond to their aid when they are faced with a life or death situation of their own.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me any time.

I hadn’t mentioned in the email chain what I wrote at the end of the original post so he must have seen it there. I’m glad to see this officer is, or at least appears to be, OK with my public response to this matter as those who are regulars would know not all at the FLPD have been pleased with my posts regarding my problems in obtaining handgun purchasing permits.

Regarding NJS 39:4-97.4, I have to take exception with it especially given the reasons for the prohibition. The primary reason is safety. One poster used in the campaign to raise awareness of the law reads: “Put the phone down. No conversation is worth a ticket or your life.” As I’ve mentioned I’m against such prohibitions due to the nature of the act. The use of a cell phone while driving is not an aggressive act. Being distracted while operating a motor vehicle is not in and of itself an infringement on another’s rights. Driving recklessly is what threatens other driver’s safety and deserves some level of attention. The cause for such actions are, at least on the surface, of little relevance. For arguments sake lets accept the claim that hand-held cell phone usage is more distracting and therefore more dangerous to allow then hands free usage or changing the radio station or listening to often infuriating political talk radio. Accepting that theory, I would say that if there is anyone who I’d rather not have distracted while on the road it would be “the following persons while in the actual performance of their duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a paid, part-paid, or volunteer fire department or company; or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle.” All those listed should at all times be focusing on their respective job. Their jobs require not only that they pay attention to the road and the surroundings, which can be difficult enough especially in a densely populated area, but also communicating with some dispatcher and particularly for law enforcement officers watching for criminal activity. Anyone who has ever had something catch their eye as they drive through town or caught themselves sightseeing while driving know how dangerous it can be when you take your eyes and mind off the vehicles and pedestrians around you. A patrolling officer’s job is practically to drive around and do just that. Adding another distraction, especially one that has been said to degrade driving ability to that similar to being drunk, is not in line with the stated intentions of the law.

The officer points out, somewhat obviously, that these laws are up for interpretation. Does “actual performance of their duties” include patrol? I believe it absolutely is performance of their duties. What the law may imply and/or should say is “this act shall not be applicable to any of the following persons in and for the actual performance of their duties.” I would hope the exception did not intend to allow those listed to just sit on the phone and chat it up with a friend or loved one or check the balance of their checking account. Given the ambiguity (and arguable contradiction) of the law and the increased distraction it can cause I’m fine with and glad there is an in-house restriction. It unfortunately does not bring the FLPD officers and the general driver to equal treatment. The officer in this case will simply get a talking to yet had the actions and cars been reversed I’d probably be in possession of a $100 to $250 ticket and the choice of payment or bringing it to court with all the possible unpleasant outcomes regarding them. I can hope that the FLPD realize this difference and uses discretion when considering utilizing the authority granted to them by NJS 39:4-97.3. Even better I think would be that in addition to reserving such power for individuals who actually endanger others, institute an unofficial policy that recommends any officer caught breaking in-house rules or State or local statutes which threatened no one and caused no harm to donate what would be the fine for the regular driver to a local private charity.

And in response to the final paragraph. Many, including some libertarians, are extremely critical of police. Like with many aspects of life the good or neutral or expected are glossed over and the negatives are often exaggerated. And while it is important to acknowledge when something is done right it is more important to criticize when something is done wrong. The good acts do not negate the bad ones nor vise-versa. When an officer acts in defense of another’s person or property they have acted due to contractual obligations with regard to their job or for other personal motivations but they are not obligated to do so in that there is no legitimate reason to force him/her to perform such acts. They are in the right should they act or not act. If they act they are acting on the behalf of the victim, hopefully with their consent, against the aggressor and if they do not act they have obviously not initiated any force, fraud, theft or the threat of. However, if the officer is enforcing a statute which punishes or prohibits another individual’s actions which in themselves did not cause harm to another or their property the officer has become the aggressor. So just as I don’t want police to enforce laws prohibiting consensual / victimless actions I don’t want officers who themselves perform the victimless action to be aggressed against or punished. What I do want in the least is consistency and accountability. I want to make sure that the public knows of any inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws and that those in supposed positions of authority are aware that there are those of us who are paying attention to such things. To minimize the possibility of the blue code of silence. To minimize and reduce the growing feeling that those who work in the government are in a class above the rest of us.

Update:

I’ve responded to the above email requesting that should the officer find out my identity, due to the fact that some in the FLPD will inevitably read these posts, that I be given his. While I feel that it’s legitimate for that information to be public I offered to keep it private. While I acknowledge I’ve enabled this situation I feel it’s a reasonable request. I also asked if there is a publicly available copy of the FLPD standard operating procedures and polices.

While driving in Fort Lee, New Jersey today I came up behind a Fort Lee Police Department car stopped for a red light at Glen Road and Brinkerhoff Avenue at approximately 10:07am. The car number was 464. The officer was talking on what appeared to be his personal cell phone. After the light turned green the officer started to turn left from Brinkerhoff Ave onto Glen Road. As he turned he moved the phone from one side of his head to the other.

His lights were not on nor were his sirens.

The overview from the State of New Jersey website says:

On November 2, 2007, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed into law a bill which amends N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 to make the use of a wireless hand-held telephone or electronic communication device by the operator of a moving motor vehicle a primary offense. The complete text of the law amending N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 can be found at P.L. 2007, c.198.

• It is a primary offense for a motorist to talk or text message with a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device while driving.
• Use of a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device includes, but is not limited to:
  • Talking or listening to another person.
  • Text messaging or sending an electronic message.
• The fine for violating this statute is $100.00; no points will be assessed for the offense.
• The operator of a motor vehicle may use a hand-held wireless telephone while driving with one hand on the steering wheel only if:
  • The operator has reason to fear for his/her life or safety, or believes that a criminal act may be perpetrated against him/herself or another person.
  • The operator is using this device to report to appropriate authorities: a fire; traffic crash; serious road hazard; medical or hazardous material emergency; or another motorist who is driving in a reckless, careless or otherwise unsafe manner or who appears to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• The amended law takes effect on March 1, 2008.
• The Division of Highway Traffic Safety, in partnership with the Motor Vehicle Commission, will conduct a public education campaign beginning in mid-February.

Additional information is linked from the overview site to here.

The State of New Jersey driver manual also clearly states that using a mobile phone while driving is a stoppable offense.

Here is the legislation: 2007c198_law.pdf

I don’t desire the officer of car 464 to be punished. I want for statutues such as this to be removed from the books. In the least I’d like to see police officers to ignore victimless crimes. Driving while on a cellphone is not a real crime. No one was harmed by his actions. There is no victim. If he was threatening other drivers by eradically driving due to being distracted with his phone conversation he should then be approached and cited but being on the phone in and of itself should not be a stoppable or finable offense.

I found this out about two weeks about but had forgotten to post about it.

After getting xyz to resubmit a letter of recommendation to the Fort Lee police department so I may get permission to exersize my natural right to self defense which is reinforced in the government calling itself the United States of America’s 2nd Amendment. Two weeks ago I called again after not hearing a word since the letter was sent. I was told that the other person who I had put down had not yet sent back the recommendation letter. I know his is a lie for two reasons. First is that I lived with the person at the time and know they had sent it out months ago. Second, the officer who handles this told me over the phone that he had received the letter when I called in April.

And yet some people wonder why anyone would not go through the system who weren’t criminals. Reminds me of immigration. The general public has no idea how corrupt and inefficient the system is and has no interest in finding out before passing judgement. The government bureaucrats are not there to serve nor protect you. They are there to leech and abuse.