Maybe someone should inform former TC member Krauss about this, because his article certainly implied that the public wasn't allowed to attend these meetings.

I will be in attendance tonight. I admit this is my 1st time going via this new format since they used to do this I wasnt active at that time. As long as this is open to the public I dont see a problem. However if this was closed to the public I would have a problem with it. To me this is a non issue.

Mr. Freeman I have been told that the meeting is in fact being recorded & will be available at some point for viewing. Id direct the question to the TC as to how that is being done. I personally prefer this way as then the meetings on a tuesday dont have to take so long. I felt they ran sometimes til almost 11 pm and that was just too long. This is spreading them out and from what I have been told because the court room is in use for court is the only reason why the meeting isnt taking place there.

B (Z) Freeman does make me smile, I have to give it to him for that. I guess when Mr. Krauss wrote that the workshop meetings would (and I quote) be "excluding the public as much as possible from public discussion", he just forgot to include that people could still attend.
The reason I used the word 'imply' is because while the article doesn't say the public can't attend, it sure gives it that impression by his use of the words 'excluding the public'.
Those people who are familiar with the way the work sessions are conducted understand that people can attend. However, most people are not familiar with the procdures and words such as those used by Mr. Krauss IMPLY that people can't attend.
And yes, during my terms as mayor, we used work sessions so that all the members of the TC could discuss and express their concerns or raise questions regarding whatever issues were on the agenda prior to calling for a vote. Under the procedures used by Shehady, the TC members didn't discuss agenda items (unless it was done without the knowledge of the entire TC) and discussion prior to votes were extremely limited. I personally favor allowing all the TC members, regardless of their party affiliation, the opportunity to discuss any item with the other TC members before votes are taken. I believe that is a more open and fair method of dealing with issues of importance.

If town hall is not available, they should have selected another place to hold these meetings. A place where the public doesn't neet to be buzzed in. How about the Dayton auditorium or Sarah Bailey?

Kevin makes a good point and I can ask why it wasnt offered but my guess would be the expense of opening up the school wouldnt be worth it whereas the firehuse is always open. I dont see the big deal about being buzzed in. If someone wants to go to a meeting there isnt a legit reason why you cant attend. There is plenty of parking as i have been there when Governor Christie spoke last year at this same firehouse.

IN MY OPINION This is just a nonsensical issue being made out of nothing by the republicans.

If these issues were such a big deal then why was comment NOT allowed on the articles posted by Mr. Krauss OR Mr. Shehady on Friday 1/4/2012? Anything I say or post is always open to rebuttal from anyone as I have nothing to fear. I say how I feel no matter what people have to say about it but at least when I post people can reply.

When Mr. Krauss or Shehady post artcles on the patch normally noone can commnent except elsewhere on the patch.

It is amazing to me about all the bickering that goes on between supposedly 'open' minded people. Bart and Bob no matter how you want to spin it you are two highly political people who have an agenda. Ziad and Marc are both political in there own right. No matter what is said from the other side it is lambasted and politicized from the other side no matter the nature of the comment. While I believe those who want to be involved will find a way to get involved and attend these meeting I do have a problem holding them in the fire house. I have attended other meetings here and if you don't get buzzed in you can wait for awhile until you can make it upstairs. These meetings should be held in a place where access is easy and inviting. Town hall is the right venue for these meeting as it is 'easily' open to all. With that said the people of Springfield voted the TC into office and these people can hold these meetings as they see fit. I just hope they are as transparent as they say they are going to be. It is hard enough to get minutes of the regular TC meetings. I hope this year's TC makes this information more readily available.

Just remember if we continue to have only two parties and 5 seats someone will always be in the majority and make the rules. The town needs truly independent thinking people who are above the parties and looks out for what is in the best interest of the township.

Open Recommendation To the Springfield Township Committee:

In light of the January 7 & 8, 2013 Springfield Township Committee Meetings, the recent federal disclosures of Committeeman David Barnett’s December settlement with the SEC (*) needs to prudently and openly be discussed in the interest of Springfield, Union County, and all NJ taxpayers. Absent Mr. Barnett’s unconditional resignation tonight attributed to the SEC’s complaint of his fraudulent conduct adversely affecting the stockholders of a public corporation, the Committee needs to create “special supervisory procedures” for Mr. Barnett. These “special supervisory procedures” must assure proper ongoing fiduciary conduct and proper oversight/supervision if Mr. Barnett is to continue directly or indirectly, in administering, making motions, approvals, votes, managing, supervising or affecting any matter subject to audits, payrolls, invoices, contracts, or any municipal purchases/sales/ commitments affecting Springfield’s finances/treasury and the proper recording thereof in the Township’s official books and records...
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Dzikowski ( * important footnote continued)

M.S. Dzikowski's Open Recommendation to the Springfield Township Committee:
(*) In particular, the SEC alleges Mr. David Barnett and Mr. Gregg Alwine, an associate:
Entered into sham transactions with friendly counterparties that had little or no economic substance.
Fabricated and backdated contracts and other documents to facilitate the fraudulent accounting.
Barnett misled TheStreet’s auditor to believe that the subsidiary had performed services to earn revenue on a specific transaction when in fact it did not perform the services.
Ashman, "TheStreet's" former CEO, caused the company to report revenue before it had been earned.
Barnett and Alwine agreed to pay penalties of $130,000 and $120,000 respectively, and to be BARRED FROM SERVING AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF A PUBLIC COMPANY FOR 10 YEARS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-complaint-against-streetcom-2012-12#ixzz2HK55Zmrn
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-270.htm
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2012/12/newly_elected_springfield_comm.html

Shane: I stand corrected where the meeting was held but it was in the same building. as for the parking the lot was empty and lots of parking was available tonight. also as for the buzzing in situation there was a sign on the door which said to walk in as the door was unlocked. all of the issues have been addressed about it being difficult to attend the meeting at the fire house.

access was easy for the public between the entrance & also the buzzing in wasnt necessary since the door was unlocked as for me making my own blog or patch article I see no need to do so but if i chose to do so id open it up to comment to anyone. that was my only point that all patch articles should allow comment.

i attend these meetings only because i care what goes on in town and NOT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. those of you who were there and heard my comments 100% of them were on the issues at tonights meeting including my stating for the record that this meeting format was relaxed and quite ez to talk to anyone including the police chief or anyone else reading reports. in fact mr. amlen allowed public comment on every speaker and we didnt have to wait until the end of the meeting to comment. i recommend any citizen in town interested in what goes on to attend these meetings. they are very informative. ALSO THE MEETING WAS RECORDED AND ANYONE CAN REQUEST A COPY FROM THE TOWN CLERK!

Last but not least a former member of the township committe came to the meeting aprox 1/2 way through it and recorded the rest of the meeting with his video camera so if anyone missed the meeting im sure that portion of it will be posted somewhere on the web. If that isnt political i dont know what is. by the way I have no problem with anyone recording the meeting but i was accused of being political but i see the same old same old from the republicans side. Lets just say we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Bob so much for your comment on I just want to be nice and not make negative comments anymore. Yes I made a video, because the only recording was an audio. I have always used a video for meetings that I could not get from the TV. Why you think it is political is beyond me. Mr Groder next time please take the time to ask me if you would like, I sat right next to you.

I also came in late because, I attended the meeting held at the library on the Charter Study. If you would of asked me

Good questions, I did video the meetings and plan on broadcasting them very soon. I know you can call the town clerk for time and dates. The next meeting will be Jan 14 I believe at the annex building at 7:30pm. They are open to the public.

I'm not sure what Bob's issue is with Jerry's videoing the meeting. As far as I'm concerned the entire thing should be video taped not just audio recorded. So many other towns have their meetings on public access so it always amazes me when people are so against it. Why not get our public access channel and the youth of Springfield involved and ask them to record the meetings. Not only would it be valuable to the residents of Springfield but get our youth involved in civics and the true political process. Let's all get off our high horses and work together to make some real change in Springfield!!

Perhaps one of you former committeemen or a present committeeman can answer this for me. In order to run for public office in a municipality such as ours, what paperwork must be filed or disclosed? Where can these documents be inspected? Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer my question.

Oh Bob there was no duplicate video since there was no Video being made for the public. When you speak in townhall the whole town sees it and anyone can record it off their tv. It has nothing to do with paries and not sure why they would feel intimidated? I wanted to tape it, and had some people who could not attend and want to see it Bob

Im willing to just drop it and accept you at your word jerry. I dont agree with it but like i said in other comments its your right to do so. we wont always agree on some issues.

So the Monday meeting was over 2hrs and the Tuesday meeting was 15 minutes, why couldn't all this be done in one meeting 2hrs and 15 minutes?

Can someone explain why there is a separate meeting outside of the standard Township Committee meeting at all? Meetings held in the Committee chambers are recorded and broadcast on the Townships television station, while meetings held elsewhere are not, could that be the reason? What is it the current majority has to hide?

If it's not political and there is nothing to hide, then these meetings should be broadcast LIVE on the Internet like the regular Township Committee meetings and should be placed on the Township public access station like all other meetings. Or better yet, just hold the two monthly meetings and discuss EVERYTHING there.

Are you people just going to continue to disregard Mr. Barnett ? This is crazy ! And he is on the Finance Committee as well ? Springfield residents, wake up ! regardless of what party you belong to (which I personally could care less about) This isn't a parking ticket he is paying - it's fraud ! "Cooking the books" and he is going to handle our town's funds ! At least replace him on the Finance Commitee with Huber

Bart, this isn't about making this political, this is about thinking outside the box. If they were concerned about Open Access to the meetings they would simply hold them on the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday prior to the regular meeting when it could be held in the Chambers. Why does it have to be on Monday?

If they were concerned about Open Access they would have contacted the person who installed the system in the Chambers and had it installed in the meeting room at the firehouse, or they could have set it up on a laptop with a simple USB camera.

They could do away with these workshop meetings if they couldn't hold them in a more public fashion, but they chose to do none of these things.

Perhaps they have nothing to hide, but they certainly haven't put in any effort to making the meetings more open, which in my book leads to further questions about their intentions.

So apparently a meeting that is open to the public isn't open enough for you. Okay, I just don't agree with you. But this was never an issue prior to Shehady changing the process and limiting the amount of discussion between the TC members. In my opinion that was not in the best interest of the township. I prefer an open public meeting where elected officials can discuss issues instead of the limited discussions under the previous administration.

Mr. Dzikowski. I can see your point but instead of making it just here on the patch id say come to a township committee meeting and express your opinion there on the record. I always say what I have to say at TC meetings and in 2012 I was very vocal about some issues and quiet on others. I dont blame you for being angry and I think its important to let people in town hall know how you feel.

I am giving Mr. Barnet a chance to prove himself on the committee as from my dealings with him I have found him to be a professional. The allegations he was charged with were basically settled out of court with no admission of guilt. the public has condemed the man without being proven guilty. I cant pretend to know what went on but its also quite possible he was set up but since he was never proven to be found guilty all im asking is for people to give the man a chance.

also he cant make any decision without the rest of the TC's input when it comes to finance. plus Anthony Cancro is the township administrator and is an able man to handle this towns finances.

The bottom line like me when im not happy i speak out to the TC at the meetings. I welcome you to do the same. If people dont speak out in person to the TC nothing will ever be done when it comes to any issue.

ie. lots of complaints on the garbage collection issue online but not a lot speaking out at the TC meetings.

Bob - I agree with you and have been to many TC meetings. I was even there when they were swearing in the new members . I wanted to first hear how Mr. Barnett would address the issue (which he knew about for years and never disclosed -first character flaw) and give the professional a chance to resign himself or at the very least step down from the Finance Committee. He did neither. Since then I have been upset that I have not been able to attend the last few meetings as my schedule has been quite busy. I did however expect an uproar from many but was sad not to hear or see any other members of the community speak out. This is an outrage - and in an era when everyone is watching Wall Street types walk away from their crimes - I'm shocked to see no reaction. By the way, almost all allegations that are settled end without admitting or denying charges. It is nothing new. The SEC has routinely included a “without admitting or denying” clause in its civil consent agreements at the request of defendants since at least the 1970s. The Center for Public Integrity reviewed more than 100 of the SEC's settlement agreements from 2010, and in every case the defendants ended the lawsuit without admitting guilt or denying charges. Check this link to learn more about the process and then tell me if you would let these men manage your money even though they admitted no wrongdoing. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/03/24/3772/sec-extracts-fines-not-confessions

The bottom line Bob is that this man is BARRED FROM SERVING AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF A PUBLIC COMPANY FOR 10 YEARS (Yet good enough to sit on the TC ?) . And is accused of fabricating and backdating contracts and other documents to facilitate the fraudulent accounting. And you want to give a guy like this a second chance with our town's finances ? I can't believe the Mayor would allow this . I don't care who takes over as I do not care about political parties (especially at this local level ) - Huber, or the Mayor himself....but Mr. Barnettt can't and should not be on that Committee This is serious and he made it seem like he was paying a parking ticket. I'll end with this Bob (and hopefully we'll see each other at a TC meeting) If it wasn't such a big deal , why wait for two years after the election to discuss it ? I think you and I both know the answer to that question.

Michael,
Thank you for attempting to alert Springfield residents to the truth about Mr. Barnett.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sec-complaint-against-streetcom-2012-12#ixzz2HK55Zmrn
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-270.htm
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2012/12/newly_elected_springfield_comm.htmlMr. Bob Groder (not to slight Mr. Bart Fraenkel) is simply an addicted blogger who routinely misuses the Patch and its important facility to reach out and share facts. His EMPTY CONTENT is intended to sway opinion to his confusing cause with no genuine interest in truth or ethics.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on
the support of Paul". -- George Bernard Shaw