SUPERSTITION that seems to make sense: A six toed cat is considered lucky for the ship with that extra ability to grip and run on railings and ropes
FICTION: Rodents stay where they started
FACT: Rodent populations thrive with food, water, and shelter.

In urban/suburban areas such as Bloomfield, we’ve seen an increase in rat populations in recent years. Around here, it may be a byproduct of the Covid epidemic when restaurants were closed and the rodent inhabitants around the eateries had to move on or expire—starve to death. They needed a new source of FOOD, so they moved.

When we demolish buildings, the rats become unhoused. Our cycles of demolition and construction cause rodents to seek new places to live. They migrate to new SHELTER.

WATER: We have rivers and brooks in Bloomfield, but could we get those pests—the RATS that move among us—to HELP us with the SEWER and WATER TAXES? Probably not. Darn it.

In Bloomfield, we have four natural surface waterways: the Second River, the Third River, Wigwam Brook, and Toney's Brook, alongside small impoundments like Clark's Pond and Hendrick's Pond. (Bloomfield Master Plan, see link below)

Rodent populations thrive with food, water, and shelter

The main idea to this essay is how rodent populations thrive: they need food, water, and shelter. We can learn and understand the situation and get ahead of this idea. Our actions can ameliorate or exacerbate the rodent issue. While urban areas all around the country are experiencing increased rat issues, the rat mitigation process has been tested with good as well as poor results. Some of the best results are in towns where the human residents understand how to prevent rodent infestation and their efforts should be in coordination with the town—the elected and hired humans. If the municipality shares good information with its citizens, this coordinated work will mitigate the rat issue.

Rodent eradication with poison, birth-control, feral cats and wild animals such as owls, will not get to the source quickly. The answer is FOOD. For the most part, rats depend on us for food, so let’s do all we can to cut off their sources of food.

Our town will be installing better public trash cans, so let’s see. In the meantime, here are tips for all of us:

Dog waste and restaurant leftovers should go home into a securely covered bin, and not into the nearest sidewalk open-weave basket. Put dog poop next to steak on the sidewalk, and the rat will go for the poop. (Yep, don’t feed and they cannot breed.)

Other ways we can help around our homes:

FOOD sources:
Keep trash cans tightly lidded

Do not leave pet food outside

Store pet food in sealed containers

Pick up pet waste and get it into a lidded garbage can

Clean up fallen fruit from trees

Clean up spilled bird seed

WATER sources:

Work to eliminate standing water in your yard

Fix leaky water faucets outside

SHELTER:

Trim overgrown grass, weeds and shrubs
Remove clutter from garages and sheds

Trim vegetation away from buildings

Stack firewood off the ground and 12” away from fences and walls

We now understand that post-covid, post-building demolitions, and whatever other ways may happen to disturb rat populations, rodents do not stay where they started. They are constantly searching for food, water, and shelter, so do not give them an invite if you can.

Once a population becomes established, they can spread to neighboring homes and businesses through yards, utility corridors, rivers, and sewer systems.

This essay does not purport to cover everything we can do, but I do hope we can understand ways to make our living areas uninviting for rodents. Our town provides help too:
If you see or suspect rodent activity, report it directly to the BLOOMFIELD HEALTH DEPARTMENT at 973-680-4024. You may also submit online a property/rodent concern through the Bloomfield Clean and Strong Portal.

And finally, I’d like to address a misconception that feral cats will solve the problem. Feral cats cannot control rats. Outdoor cats prefer safer and easier meals than rats—they prefer birds and reptiles. Unfortunately, feral cats consume Tweety Bird and Sammy the Snake, and these are our fauna that disperse seeds and pollen. This potential loss of birds and reptiles to feral cats will adversely affect our soil, our air and our drinking water. So just say “no” to feral cats.

Why are cats as ratcatchers imprinted on our human brains?

The lore of cats at sea may have something to do with their ratcatcher reputation. The ship’s cat is a common feature in history and in children’s storybooks. Rats do cause damage to ropes by gnawing. Rodents do threaten the ships’ stores of food and cargo, but in the 21st century, we have better containment on ships and refrigeration. The British Royal Navy officially banned cats from its ships in 1975. This ended centuries of tradition where they served rat and mouse catchers, morale boosters, and companions for sailors. The tradition that every ship needs a mascot made cats very welcome among sailors especially in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Below here are a few stories on exceptional ship cats: Tiddles, Togo, and Tom.

Jenny on the Titanic

A well-respected mouser named Jenny was transferred from the ship Olympic to the Titanic, where she gave birth to her kittens shortly before the maiden voyage. She nested near the galley, where a crew member named Jim Mulholland cared for them. Legend has it that just before the Titanic departed from Southampton, Jenny moved the kittens one-by-one off the ship and to dry land. Mulholland saw this as a foreboding omen, and he too left the Titanic before it sailed. Jenny may have saved her own life and Mulholland’s as well.

This story is lore, it cannot be confirmed, but you can read more just by Googling the subject. Have fun!

A Poem

Yes, cats could be consumed when overwhelmed and outnumbered by large rats. So let’s keep our feline friends as pets and take loving care of them. And let’s work to take away the food, water and shelter of Bloomfield’s feral rodents and thank the kind folks who trap, neuter and release the feral cats and keep their populations controlled and as healthy as possible.

REFERENCES:

Mayor Michelle Wu; October 20, 2025; Everyone Plays A Role in Mitigating Rats: Together, we can keep Boston rodent-free! Learn how to prevent rats in your neighborhood; City of Boston. https://www.boston.gov/government/cabinets/operations-cabinet/everyone-plays-role-mitigating-rats

Michael Parsons; March 23, 2023; To Beat Rats, Follow the Science; Five research-informed ways to control rodents in an urban environment; Vital City. https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/rat-control-in-urban-environments/?fbclid=IwY2xjawTdnidleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeDEiP9_uF6lI5I1K20hMfiyLNvR12OZTxbjfFj01W-cG1rHCXIHXKR98EqiM_aem_JdCE7wQg-lENx4DYMQn-SQ

Township of Bloomfield, Master Plan (section on waterways)

https://www.bloomfieldtwpnj.com/DocumentCenter/View/619/VII-Conservation-Element-PDF

Tonight was the Public Hearing on the Municipal Budget. At 6 p.m., residents, the council, and a few members of the administration — the town administrator, the CFO, the auditor — gathered to adopt it. Outside, it was a rainy evening and streets are flooding across Bloomfield. And here we were, rushing to pass a municipal budget that is already months late — so late that, by any normal calendar, it’s time to start thinking about the 2027 budget. Given how this fiscal year went, I have little confidence next year’s will hurt any less.

But before I get to the adoption meeting, look at this. On May 19th, 2026, at her State of the Town address, the Mayor said this:

That was May. There was a primary election fourteen days away, and the Mayor’s outlook on Bloomfield’s finances was bright and cheery.

Tonight, on July 28th, she couldn’t remember the percentage of the tax increase her own residents are about to absorb. She had to ask the auditor. Just sit with that for a moment.

The Public Comment

The evening had two distinct comment periods: a non-budget public comment period (other items) held before the ordinance and budget business, and the formal budget hearing public comment period after the budget hearing was opened. Themes recurred across both, but the periods were procedurally separate.

Period One:

Sewer fee fairness and design

The first speaker focused on the recently amended sewer ordinance, arguing it was still rushed and left gaps. Specifically: there are provisions for veterans but no protections or discount for seniors or disabled residents, despite earlier verbal concern for seniors — “nothing in writing, nothing in the ordinance.” She also renewed a repeated argument that the fee should be based on winter-quarter usage, not a 12-month average, because summer usage (watering plants, washing cars, filling pools) doesn’t return to the sewer system, so a true usage-based sewer fee overcharges residents for water that never enters the sewers.

PILOTs and the school-funding gap

The same speaker connected PILOTs to school funding: because PILOT revenue is not shared with the Board of Education, and the BOE is already short at the county level, the shortfall lands on residents through property taxes. She argued PILOT money is dedicated nowhere near the BOE, so abatements compound school underfunding.

Attrition cuts vs. need for more service

A second speaker addressed the proposed attrition cuts — eight police, eight fire, five DPW — and argued Bloomfield needs more, not fewer, police and DPW. She spoke as a resident of a smaller south-end park neighborhood, Halcyon Park, describing reliance on police patrol at night (naming a specific sergeant) because of after-dark visitors at the pond, and on DPW for storm cleanup and maintenance of the park. She warned DPW cutbacks would directly harm small parks and asked the council to reconsider cuts, and — echoing the prior speaker — pointed to PILOTs on large apartment buildings (10–30 year terms) that don’t contribute to schools as the place to look instead.

Sewer fee as a Revolution-era grievance (extended critique)

A third speaker, William Jarrett, delivered a lengthy “no taxation without representation” comment tying the nation’s 250th anniversary to Bloomfield’s “very first sewer bill.” His specific claims:

• The sewer-tax rollout was not transparent, rushed, not inclusive of all council members, with no adequate public input.

• No independent third-party audit of the sewer study.

• No consideration of small-business impact — cited one business with average usage of 7 now facing $2,120/year.

• Seniors under the senior freeze now face an additional charge; 51% of the population (renters) wasn’t considered; door open to price gouging.

• PILOT recipients weren’t asked to share the burden.

• Accused the township of a fiduciary failure by hiring NW Financial, citing SEC/MSRB violations, a privatization history, and a role in Jersey City’s $250M deficit.

• Argued the auditor Stephen Wielkotz can no longer ethically audit the 2026 budget having helped form and advocate for the sewer fee.

• Alleged OPRA requests were withheld, no budget alternatives were presented, no future cost modeling, no rate cap, no safeguards against fund sweeps, and that billing based on past-quarter usage rather than the July 1 effective date makes it retroactive despite assurances it wouldn’t be.

• Closed by charging the delay of the second reading served political interests — that the slate “would not have survived the primaries had you met your deadlines.”

PERIOD TWO — Formal budget hearing public comment

Before the second public comment opened, the town administrator framed the budget as fiscally responsible, citing cost drivers “outside township control” (health benefits, pensions, contractual obligations, casualty insurance) and cost-saving measures (hiring freezes, efficiencies). The auditor then explained the surplus: the township ended 2025 with ~$9,148,000 in surplus and is using $7.3M of it; he argued 2026 operations can regenerate at least $7.3M to end the year near $9.1–9.2M again. He noted the state Division of Local Government Services did a “deep dive” review and emailed approval to adopt at about noon that day, and that the township is appropriating less in 2026 than it spent in 2025 due to unfilled/attritioned positions.

Health insurance — was the renewal actually shopped?

The first speaker, Stef Bootwala, who has experience of working on insurance renewals professionally, pressed the central question: were there competing bids, and what were their rates? She acknowledged the township can’t set provider rates but argued that with many providers and annual renewals, a discovery process to share the township’s financial picture and negotiate is standard and can create “wiggle room” to avoid switching. She noted a ~7.5% increase is within the current market standard (up from ~4% historically, now 7–9%), and asked whether Bloomfield’s financials were “fully shared and negotiated.” She described avoiding layoffs at her organization by working with the union to reduce dependent premium coverage and pausing other benefits, and recommended the township consider premium-coverage reductions or switching providers as long-term cost control.

Health insurance — the “outside of local control” challenge

I tested the “outside of local control” phrase with four demands for on-the-record answers:

1. Produce Bloomfield’s actual SHBP comparison — not the statewide average — showing what the State Health Benefits Program would cost this town; who ran it and what it found. Framed the absence as “a sales pitch… on faith.”

2. How did Bloomfield do against its own pool? Metro HIF costs rose 28% in one year; the fund covers 22 entities — what was the fund’s overall increase, and did Bloomfield come in above or below the pool average?

3. The chairmanship — the mayor chairs the HIF executive committee; the township pays ~$22M/year, ~⅕ of its budget. Yes/no: is the chair compensated? Did the mayor vote on or discuss Bloomfield’s membership/renewal? Did she authorize her name/title in the fund’s marketing?

4. Recusal — under the Local Government Ethics Law, has the township attorney reviewed whether the chairmanship requires recusal from the budget vote; is any determination in writing; has a Local Finance Board advisory opinion been sought? Explicitly acknowledged the determination belongs to the LFB, not the dais, and asked the council to hold the vote until residents have answers. (Speaker was given a 30-second warning and wrapped.)

Tax increase size, sustainability, and the “5% control” claim

A first-time speaker made the comparative and structural case:

• Criticized the township’s repeated use of the flat $584 figure while omitting the percentage, which prior years always included (citing 4.5% last year). At 12%+, compounding would double the tax rate in ~6 years — “not sustainable.”

• Challenged the “council controls only ~5%“ framing: personnel/staffing is ~60% of the budget and headcount is ultimately a council lever; twice-weekly trash isn’t state-mandated. Called the 5% claim “misleading.”

• Benchmarked against neighbors: Montclair under 3%, South Orange 3.9%, Belleville ~3.7%, calling Bloomfield’s 12%+ “among the highest in the state” — and noted checking prior years ruled out a one-time spike, since Bloomfield was also high last year. Asked what the structural problem is.

• Questioned next year’s plan: a hiring freeze saves little short-term given low government turnover; switching new hires to different insurance is good long-term policy but won’t help 2027.

• Asked the council to table the vote for one month to produce a public, ideally independent/academic explanation of “how we got into this position” and a credible forward plan — arguing the vote is really about residents’ confidence it won’t repeat.

“Other expenses” and unexplained line-item jumps

Raised by multiple speakers across the hearing. Specific figures cited:

• Administration “other expenses” up ~380% (one speaker: “105 to 504,” a ~$400,000 increase).

• General appropriations / other operations nearly doubled.

• Purchasing “other expenses” from ~$1,500 to $50,000, unexplained publicly.

• Terminal-leave line from $10 (or $10,000) to $50,000 — one speaker asked whether it reflects a specific retirement/separation and which position/payout.

• Parking utility from $785,000 to $1.185M (~$500,000 increase).
  The consistent ask: a line-by-line, department-by-department budget, which speakers said they’d requested and not received.

The PR / communications contract

Two speakers targeted the outside communications/PR contract:

• One argued it should be an in-house staff position rather than a 1099 contract, because a contractor is “beholden to the administration” and inclined to “hype up” policy rather than give facts — citing the sewer-fee information session as “really an advertisement.” Suggested a Bloomfield College graduate could fill a durable staff role.

• Another cited the firm at ~$16,600/month (~$200,000/year), contrasted with a prior administration’s ~$45,000/year, and called it misaligned priorities to fund PR while cutting police, fire, and DPW.

Process, access, and legitimacy of the hearing

A strong recurring theme:

• Norm Sutaria detailed that the only pre-budget hearing was in November, daytime (~9–4), poorly advertised, not televised — inaccessible to working residents — and contrasted Montclair, West Orange, and Plainfield, which hold evening hearings with department-head presentations. Called for accessible evening hearings as “one concrete thing that we must change,” and said residents are “treated as revenue… transactional rather than transformational.”

• Jonathan Mejia questioned why public comment exists if the outcome is predetermined — noting the 28-day window, that this was residents’ first chance to comment, that many can’t attend (summer, dinner, returning from work), and asking whether a true line-item presentation would ever happen.

  * Mayor’s clarification: she corrected the record that the budget was introduced June 30 at 6 p.m. in chambers and livestreamed, not mid-day.

It is important to note that no speaker spoke in favor of the budget as presented; the recorded sentiment was uniformly critical or seeking delay.

Repeated, specific calls to table the vote (one month) and to produce a line-item budget went unaddressed before adoption.

No Conflict of Interests, They Said

One issue that was brought up by me and Doug Grant whether Jenny Mundell needs to recuse herself as she chairs the Metropolitan Fund. I asked if she were compensated. The Mayor recruited the attorney Steven Martino to give a categorical statement of no conflict of interest. In fact this is what he was asked to do at least two times, and this is what he said:

So Mayor Mundell took the conflict question head-on — she wanted everyone “speaking from facts.” Good. Here are the facts she put on the record.

She explained that Bloomfield belongs to a health insurance fund with roughly two dozen other public entities, that rates are negotiated by a third-party administrator the fund appoints (Aetna), and that she sits on the fund representing the Bloomfield Public Library and chairs it because the members elected her to run the meetings. “That is the extent of what I do for them.”

Then the part we didn’t know: “In fact, there is a stipend, but I have never taken it. I have it directed immediately back to the public library.”

The chairmanship is compensated. Until she said so, that fact was in no public document I could find. To her credit, she disclosed it. But redirecting the stipend doesn’t erase it — where the money goes is a fact about her generosity; that the money exists is a fact about the arrangement, and only that was ever in question.

Then she turned to the township attorney Steve Martino: “Could you do me a favor and let people know if there is a conflict for me in voting tonight?” He answered that he did researched it and found no conflict, because as chair she has “no more influence than anyone else” — every fund representative has equal voting rights.

He may be right that chairing the fund doesn’t legally disqualify her. But notice what his answer addressed: her power over the fund. That’s not the question the ethics law asks. The Local Government Ethics Law asks whether her role at the fund might impair her objectivity when she votes, as mayor, on a budget sending that fund roughly $22 million a year. “She has no more votes than anyone else on the board” doesn’t reach that.

And there’s a structural problem no wording fixes: the township attorney’s client is the township. When a resident questions a governing-body member’s conflict, the township’s own lawyer reviews it and reports to that same body. There’s no independent counsel for the public in that room. The mayor supplied the facts, the township’s lawyer supplied the conclusion, the body accepted it and voted. That isn’t corruption — it’s the township evaluating itself and finding itself acceptable.

The body that actually adjudicates these questions is the Local Finance Board, not the township attorney. Its determinations are binding in a way in-house advice is not, and as far as the record shows, it has never been asked. Any resident can ask it — and I intend to.

The Adopted Budget

In a relatively short meeting (a little longer than just one hour), the mayor and the council members spoke very little outside of the reading of the titles of resolutions. The public comment was also on a short side considering the unusual timing (at 6 pm on a Tuesday). So, with little fanfare, the budget passed with five Yes votes and two No votes.

Council members Tracy Toler-Phillips and Nicholas Joanow voted no. Mayor Jenny Mundell and council members Rosalee Gonzalez, Sarah Cruz, Monica Charris Tabares, and Jill Fischman voted yes.

The adopted budget raises the municipal tax rate over 12% — about $584 more for the average homeowner, nearly three times last year’s increase. The resolution balances revenues and appropriations at $114,514,853, funded in part by $7.3 million in surplus, $1.99 million in delinquent-tax receipts, and $79.26 million raised through the municipal tax levy.

One interesting exchange took place after the public comment, when the mayor was not sure (!!!) what was the percentage increase with the adopted budget:

It is important to note that Steve Wielkotz took some time to look it up, himself. So neither the auditor nor the mayor knew the percentage increase from the top of their head.

Interestingly, this $114.5M "amount to be raised / total revenues" figure is the current-fund total that reconciles to UFB-2's $114,514,853.48 column — it is a different total from the $110.4M and $111.7M on the presentation slides and the $129.5M all-funds figure on UFB-3. That's not an error; it's the fourth distinct "total" in the set, each a different fund scope. It's also further evidence that the town circulates several non-matching totals without ever labeling which scope each one uses — this one, the legally operative one, appears on none of the public slides.

And then it was over. A quick roll call, a gavel, and adjournment. No statement from the mayor. No explanation from any council member who voted yes. After an evening of residents asking to be heard — line items, a pause, a straight answer on the conflict — the response from the dais was silence and a vote. One hour and eight minutes. That's how long it took to adopt one of the highest municipal tax increases in New Jersey.

Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips recorded a video walking through her vote:

The mayor’s explanation came later, and in the form you’d expect: a Facebook statement so smoothly on-message it’s fair to wonder whether Tara Dowdell’s PR firm had it written before a single resident spoke. Residents got five minutes at a microphone. The administration got a press release. Only one of those was prepared in advance.

Four words carried this entire budget: outside of local control. They were on the slides, in the press release, and in the administrator’s opening — and every time a resident pushed, on the insurance renewal, the SHBP comparison, the PILOTs, the PR contract, the line items marked only “other,” those four words were there to close the door rather than answer the question. But the costs are statewide and the increase is local: Montclair held under three percent this year, South Orange under four, all facing the same pensions, the same mandates, the same health care market. Bloomfield chose twelve. “Outside of local control” is not an explanation — it is a boundary drawn around a set of choices to keep residents from examining them: who chairs the fund, whether the renewal was shopped, whether the abatements still make sense, whether a $200,000 communications contract outranks the police, fire, and DPW positions this budget cuts. Those are decisions made inside that building, by the people on that dais, and adopted in sixty-eight minutes without one member of the majority explaining one vote. A budget is the clearest statement a government makes about who it answers to. Not to us, residents. This one thing was clear.

Recently, on June 27, and without much “local” knowledge of the event, a neo-Nazi hate music festival sprung up at Bloomfield’s Broughton Avenue Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post. I wrote about it here in the Bloomfield Chronicles on July 15, in Report on Key Moments in Hate Music, and described the “Vengeance Music” festival in the context of how this music has been pervasive in our society for decades and how it has evolved.

As another concerned resident, Paul Barrett, a writer and neighbor of ours in Bloomfield, has published an article analyzing the hate metal festival and providing context. Below is an excerpt of his full article which published in Moment Magazine:

The vast majority of area residents didn’t know about Vengeance Fest VII until after it was over. Several people rose at a Bloomfield Town Council meeting on July 13 to lodge impassioned condemnations. Earlier, Mayor Jenny Mundell had issued a statement saying that the town “unequivocally rejects hatred, discrimination, racism, antisemitism, extremism and any ideology that conflicts with our values of inclusion, dignity and respect for all people.”

But at the council meeting, legislators seemed flummoxed as to what the town could have done about such an event, because it was held on private property. The local VFW quartermaster said he didn’t know about the festival’s white supremacist theme or about the prior cancellation in Garfield.

Poster advertising the June 27, 2026, show in Bloomfield, NJ.

“Hate music” is cacophonous music with lyrics characterized by themes of bigotry and/or white nationalism. It isn’t new, but I never considered it could crop up in my seemingly placid precinct, where, by the way, the mayor and town council are all Democrats and our U.S. congresswoman, Analilia Mejia, is a progressive Democrat…

For the full text of Paul Barrett’s article:

https://momentmag.com/what-was-neo-nazi-hate-music-doing-in-my-town/

Moment Magazine is a publication that focuses on culture and politics from a Jewish perspective. Paul Barrett is a former journalist with The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg Businessweek magazine, and is currently an adjunct professor at the NYU School of Law.

Here is Paul’s author page where you can find a number of articles he has written about Trump’s persecution of immigrants and why he believes Jews have a special obligation to speak up for immigrants and resist ICE, the detention camps, and now, neo-Nazi hate music at our local VFW.

Thank you for reading.

We were told the state plan was too expensive. We left. Our costs went up 28% anyway — and the alternative turned out to be run by the same people.

Last July I wrote that Bloomfield’s budget was a mirage. This year the town isn’t even pretending. The 2026 municipal budget raises the tax rate 12.25%, from 1.331 to 1.494. The average homeowner pays $584.29 more — about $48.69 a month, nearly three times last year’s increase.

The township’s explanation is four words long: costs “outside of local control.”

Sixty-one and a half percent of that increase is health insurance. That number is on the town’s own slide. And the story behind it is not a story about forces beyond anyone’s reach. It is a story about who gets paid, and who decides.

📊 The one number that explains the budget

By the township’s own presentation, health insurance accounts for $5,660,000 of the appropriations increase — 61.5% of the total. Liability insurance adds $451,000. Pensions add $1,239,116.

The state-certified budget book puts the insurance appropriation at $20,780,000 rising to $26,670,000: up $5,890,000, or 28.34%, in one year.

Six of every ten new dollars you are being taxed is health insurance. Everything else in this budget is a footnote.

🚪 The choice that wasn’t

Bloomfield does not participate in the State Health Benefits Program. Sheet UFB-8 confirms it: no SHBP medical, no SHBP prescription drug coverage.

The reason usually given is that the state plan is too expensive — and the state plan is in serious trouble. The State Health Benefits Commission approved a 36.25% increase for the Local Government group in 2026, following 16.4% in 2025, 7.4% in 2023, and 20% in 2022. Roughly 115% over five years. The state’s own actuaries have described it as a death spiral: rates rise, healthier employers leave, the remaining pool gets sicker and costlier, rates rise again. About 560 local government entities remain, down from roughly 700 four years ago. Treasury has projected a negative reserve balance of some $209 million.

So Bloomfield went elsewhere. Our employees are covered through the Metropolitan Health Insurance Fund, a joint self-insurance pool administered by PERMA Risk Management Services — 22 public entities, 5,400 employees, 13,000 members, an annual budget of $106–126 million. Bloomfield’s roughly $22 million is close to a fifth of the whole fund.

Here is what residents were told this would buy. On the fund’s own website, under Testimonials, attributed to [former ]Councilwoman Jenny Mundell: the fund provides Bloomfield, its library, and their employees with “premium stability year over year,” making the benefits budget “much more predictable.”

Now the result: 28.34% in one year.

That is not stability. That is not predictability. That is not, by any ordinary use of the words, a more cost-effective alternative.

🧾 The comparison nobody has produced

The defense of that number is always the same: yes, 28% — but the state plan went up 36%, so we came out ahead.

Ask for the document.

The 36.25% is a pooled statewide average for the Local Government Employer Group. It is not a rate anyone quoted to Bloomfield. Nobody has published what the SHBP would actually have charged this town, with this workforce, with 454 retirees on the books. As far as the public record shows, that comparison has never been run and never been disclosed.

Which means “we beat the state plan” is not a finding. It is a claim about a hypothetical, made by the people who chose the alternative, marketed on the alternative’s own website.

Residents are being asked to accept a 28% increase on the strength of a number that has never been shown to them.

And there is a second comparison that has never been shown. The Metropolitan Fund covers 22 entities. If the fund’s overall costs rose less than 28.34%, then Bloomfield did worse than the pool it joined — and the stability argument collapses entirely. The fund publishes financials and meeting minutes. That number exists. Nobody at the podium mentioned it.

🐙 Same landlords, different door

Here is what makes this more than a bad renewal.

New Jersey does not negotiate hospital rates for its public plans. It delegates that job to insurers — mainly Horizon and Aetna — who are paid a fee to negotiate and pay claims. Horizon collected roughly $500 million for that middleman role between January 2020 and June 2024. As quoted in NJ Democrat’s most recent article, Chris Deacon, formerly an assistant director at the state Division of Pensions and Benefits, has described the incentive problem plainly: when insurers spend someone else’s money, they have no reason to drive prices down.

Rutgers researchers find 96% of New Jersey hospitals are affiliated with larger systems, and that this consolidation raises prices. The Office of Legislative Services reports hospital charges rising faster than inflation and faster than national benchmarks.

Now the other door. In September 2025, acting State Comptroller Kevin Walsh reported findings from an investigation into three public joint insurance funds: contracts steered to politically connected vendors, procurement law violations, conflicts undisclosed for years. His central conclusion was that Conner Strong & Buckelew and the entity operating as PERMA had never disclosed to regulators that they function as a single business — overlapping employees, shared leadership, writing the rules for contracts and then winning those contracts. Walsh called it a “covert takeover” of a public function by a private entity, and found the arrangement would have given the two firms control over procurement for six joint insurance funds covering nearly 300 government entities.

Conner Strong was founded by George Norcross. A spokesman called the Comptroller’s report factually inaccurate and politically motivated, and noted prior state reviews had found the funds compliant.

Two points of precision. The Metropolitan Fund was not among the three funds Walsh investigated. And the Metropolitan Fund was created in 2020 by Joseph G. DiVincenzo, who serves as its Fund Coordinator, the son of Joseph N DiVincenzo Jr, Essex County Chief Executive who is seeking 7th term in office.

But Metro is administered by PERMA — the firm at the center of those findings. Its membership is a roll call of Essex County and North Jersey: Montclair, West Orange, Irvington, East Orange, Maplewood, Millburn, West Caldwell, Union. Its Executive Committee is chaired by Bloomfield’s mayor.

So this was never a choice between the machine and an escape from it. It was a choice between two structures that route public money through the same brokers, the same administrators, the same carriers, and the same consolidated hospital systems. The state plan collects through Horizon. The fund collects through PERMA. The hospitals get paid either way.

We didn’t escape. We changed doors in the same building — and the second door was held open by people we already knew.

🪑 One person, every chair

There is a reason “outside of local control” is the wrong phrase, and it has a name.

Jenny Mundell chairs the Executive Committee of the Metropolitan Health Insurance Fund. The fund’s own website says so, in plain type, under Executive Committee: Jenny Mundell, Chair, Bloomfield Public Library.

She is also the Mayor of Bloomfield — the township that pays roughly $22 million a year into that fund, close to a fifth of its entire budget.

She sits on the governing body of the entity that provides Bloomfield’s health coverage, and she presides over the governing body that buys it. She represents one taxpayer-funded Bloomfield institution on the fund’s board — the Public Library, which residents fund through a minimum library tax of $2,785,801 this year, itself up 8.78% — while chairing the council of the other.

Then there is the sequence.

As a councilwoman, she gave the fund a testimonial that still sits on its marketing page today, promising Bloomfield employees and taxpayers “premium stability year over year” and a benefits budget that would be “much more predictable.”

As mayor, she took the chair of that fund’s Executive Committee.

As mayor, she introduced a budget in which that fund’s costs rose 28.34% in a single year, driving 61.5% of a 12.25% tax increase.

And as mayor, she told residents those costs are outside of local control.

They are not outside her control. She chairs the body.

That is not an accusation about her motives. It is a contradiction between two of her own public statements, both documented, both still online. Either the mayor has meaningful influence over Bloomfield’s health insurance arrangement — in which case “outside of local control” is not true — or she chairs a fund whose costs she cannot affect, in which case residents deserve to know what the chairmanship is for.

New Jersey's Local Government Ethics Law bars local officials from acting in matters where a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement might reasonably be expected to impair their objectivity. Whether this arrangement crosses that line is not for a Substack to decide — it is for the Local Finance Board. But it is precisely the kind of question a municipal ethics board would exist to examine, which is why I asked this council to create one in May 2026. They did not.

One more disclosed fact, offered without a theory attached: Mayor Mundell is employed as Vice President of Development at RWJ Barnabas Health, New Jersey’s largest hospital system. Development work is charitable fundraising, not pricing, and I am not suggesting she sets hospital rates. But reporting by The New Jersey Democrat documents that RWJ Barnabas employs a striking number of politically connected figures — a former governor’s chief of staff, his deputy, a former executive director of the state Democratic Committee — and the mayor of Bloomfield. Readers can weigh what that pattern means. What is not in dispute is that hospital pricing is the root cause of the largest line in this budget, and that no township document has ever named it.

Mayor Mundell inherited the mayor’s office from Michael Venezia, now Assembly Majority Whip. The fund she chairs was created by Joseph G. DiVincenzo, who serves as its Fund Coordinator. Its membership is a map of North Jersey machine towns.

None of this is illegal on its face. That is rather the point. The system does not require anyone to break a rule. It only requires that the same small group of people hold enough chairs at once — and that when the bill arrives, everyone agrees it came from somewhere else.

👥 What they never mentioned: we insure more retirees than employees

Sheet UFB-8 contains the fact that appears in no slide, no press release, no public statement:

Covered members Annual cost Active employees (net of contributions) 253 ~$8.6 million Retirees 454 ~$13.5 million Total 707 ~$22.1 million

Bloomfield pays about $13.5 million a year to insure people who no longer work here, and $8.6 million to insure people who do.

Retirees are 64% of covered members and 61% of the cost. Employees contribute roughly $1.2 million toward a program grossing over $23 million — about 5%. In Paterson, employees cover about $11 million of an $83 million bill, roughly 13%.

Inside those numbers: 30 retirees in the employee-and-spouse tier cost $114,535 each — more than double the active-employee equivalent. That is the fingerprint of early retirees who are not yet Medicare-eligible.

Nowhere in any public budget document does Bloomfield disclose its total unfunded retiree health liability. That number exists. It is calculated annually. It is not in front of you.

✂️ The savings that feed the cost

The presentation claims $1,043,053 in reductions through attrition. Slide 5 itemizes them: 8 Fire positions, 8 Police positions, 5 DPW, 3 Administration, 1 Finance. Sixteen of twenty-five are public safety — in a budget the press release says protects public safety.

But attrition does not remove those people from the books. Police and firefighters retire early, often in their fifties, years before Medicare. A retiring officer moves from the active column to the retiree column — the column that is already bigger and more expensive.

At the average retiree cost of roughly $29,600, sixteen retirements represent something in the range of $474,000 a year in new retiree health costs, recurring for decades, against $1.04 million in one-year savings. And the state actuary projects local government retirees who left early and are not yet on Medicare could face increases of as much as 36% in 2027.

The cost-cutting measure is a deposit into the cost driver.

💵 What you are paying

By the township’s own presentation, $21.60 of every $100 in monthly municipal taxes goes to employee insurance — second only to police and fire at $27.80.

On the average $5,307 municipal tax bill, that is roughly $1,146 a year, per household.

❓ Questions for July 28

The Budget Hearing and Adoption Meeting is Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The budget is not yet adopted.

1. Produce the SHBP comparison. What would the State Health Benefits Program actually have charged Bloomfield for 2026 — not the statewide average, our number? Who ran it, and when?

2. What was the Metropolitan Fund’s overall cost increase for 2026? Did Bloomfield do better or worse than the pool average?

3. What are PERMA’s administrative and program-management fees, and when were they last competitively bid?

4. What is the township’s response to the State Comptroller’s September 2025 findings regarding PERMA?

5. Is the Metropolitan HIF Executive Committee chair position compensated in any form?

6. Did the mayor participate in any vote or discussion regarding Bloomfield’s membership or renewal in the fund?

7. What is Bloomfield’s total unfunded retiree health (OPEB) liability?

8. How much of the $1,043,053 in attrition savings is offset by retiree health costs those same retirements created?

9. Why does the presentation report a $9.2 million appropriations increase while the certified state budget book reports $10.9 million — and why do slides 10 and 11 report different totals for the same budget?

📌 The point

I am not arguing Bloomfield should rejoin a collapsing state plan. I am arguing that residents were sold a cheaper alternative, were never shown the arithmetic behind that claim, got a 28% increase anyway, and were then told the whole thing is outside local control — by an administration whose mayor chairs the fund in question.

Every one of those things can be true at once. Together they describe something other than bad luck.

“Outside of local control” is not an explanation. It is a way of ending the conversation before anyone asks who is inside it.

📣 What you can do

• Come Tuesday, July 28, 6:00 PM. The budget can still be amended.

• Demand the SHBP comparison document. If it does not exist, that is the answer.

• Demand the OPEB number before adoption, not after.

• Ask for a multi-year health insurance projection in every future budget presentation.

• Support state reform. A5337 would overhaul State Health Benefits Program governance. Reference-based hospital pricing — pegging rates to Medicare, as Oregon and California have done — was endorsed by Governor Sherrill’s own transition team on fiscal responsibility.

• Share this. Then bring someone with you.

🧾 In plain English

If you read nothing else, read this.

1. Your town taxes went up about $584 this year. That’s roughly $49 a month. Last year’s increase was $205.

2. Most of that increase is health insurance. Six out of every ten new dollars go to covering town employees and retirees. That is the town’s own number, from its own slide.

3. Bloomfield doesn’t use the state health plan. The state plan for local governments is failing — its costs have roughly doubled in five years, and towns keep leaving it, which makes it worse for everyone still in it.

4. So Bloomfield buys coverage through a private pool instead. It’s called the Metropolitan Health Insurance Fund. Bloomfield pays it about $22 million a year.

5. That pool was sold to us as stable and predictable. Our costs from it went up more than 28 percent in one year.

6. The town says it beat the state plan. Nobody has shown the math. The 36 percent figure officials point to is a statewide average, not a price anyone actually quoted Bloomfield. As far as the public record shows, that comparison was never run.

7. Switching pools didn’t get us away from anything. Both routes send money to the same hospitals, the same insurers, and the same administrators. New Jersey doesn’t negotiate hospital prices — it pays middlemen to do it. Hospital prices keep rising faster than inflation.

8. The mayor sits on both sides of this. Jenny Mundell chairs the board of the insurance fund. She also runs the town that pays it. She publicly praised the fund, then told residents its costs are “outside of local control.”

9. Bloomfield insures more retirees than working employees. 454 retirees, 253 active workers. We spend about $13.5 million on the retirees and $8.6 million on the people still on the job.

10. Cutting police and fire jobs doesn’t save what it appears to. Eight fire and eight police positions were eliminated by not replacing people who left. Those people don’t disappear from the budget — they move into the retiree health column, which is the more expensive one.

11. The town has never told you what it owes long term for retiree health care. That number is calculated every year. It is not in any public budget document.

12. The budget is not final yet. The hearing is Tuesday, July 28, at 6:00 PM.

Disclosure: I am an elected Democratic District Leader in Bloomfield. Readers should weigh that. Every figure here comes from the township’s 2026 User Friendly Budget, its June 30 budget presentation and press release, or the public records cited.

Sources: Township of Bloomfield 2026 Municipal User Friendly Budget (Sheets UFB-1, 2, 3, 8); 2026 Budget Presentation; township press release, June 30, 2026; NJ League of Municipalities; Office of the State Comptroller, September 9, 2025; Metropolitan Health Insurance Fund; reporting by the New Jersey Monitor and The New Jersey Democrat.

Well, this slipped under the radar for me, and looking at this map, maybe that’s why New Jersey alarm bells didn’t go off anywhere around here when Kyle Powell’s Vengeance Music Fest happened this last June, in Bloomfield. In the chart above from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), New Jersey is not listed as owning a hate music group.

KEP Productions is listed in California, but is Engorge a hate music band?
Kyle Powell, a musician in the band Engorge, is also the Producer of KEP Productions which is listed in Riverside California and on the SPLC Hate Music Map. His band, Engorge is described as heavy metal, death metal, true necro black death metal, but not exactly as white supremacist. KEP Productions, however, is in the business of putting together bands and promoting festivals and events. Kyle Powell states that it’s all about music. He features upwards of 20 bands and gets 250-300 people of all ages and of every ethnic background who come from all over the country.

In the United States, we do have a history of heavy metal and racist skinhead (but not all skinheads are racists) culture intermingling and influencing each other. And before the Internet, music festivals that featured white supremacist music were a big tool in the recruitment toolbox, but the advent of the Internet and gaming took on the recruiting work for the most part in the last several decades.

And after several decades of the Internet racist recruiting, it seems the music festival piece is coming back to the fore. Surprise!

According to the SPLC, we are in a key moment:
“The intersection of hate music and racist skinhead culture remained pronounced in 2025, with many skinhead group members actively participating in hate music bands. Labels have evolved into far-right cultural hubs, offering not only music but also merchandise such as clothing, flags and books that reinforce white supremacist ideologies.”

So we now have “merch” too as well as intermingling bands!

Christopher Magiarics, senior investigative researcher at the Anti-Defamation League, added that Kyle Powell promotes racist bands, and his festivals intermingle white supremacists bands—such as Grom and Nokturne—in with the other genres. Grom and Nokturne are part of the National Socialist Black Metal subgenre of music and both groups utilize Nazi symbols in their band logos.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

This Substack article should give the reader—who may be a novice at white supremacist music—some insight into this history. We have always experienced white supremacists in the United States, and for some reason, it is often a taboo subject. It’s not unusual for “normies” to be unaware of white supremacist music and especially its lure for recruiting new members into the fold. Consider this your intro.

And back to Bloomfield

Did anyone in Bloomfield municipal authority understand all of this before a certain venue allowed Kyle Powell’s music festival to be booked? This writer does not know, but let’s use this as a moment to understand what has been brewing in this country for a very long time and be aware.

We have 1^st amendment rights, but we do not have the right to discriminate and promote hurting other humans especially for their race, ethnicity, gender, or any attribute of a person that was not a choice, but the consequence of their birth. White supremacy is a problem in this country and it’s time to face it and learn a better way to live with one another.

End with John Lennon’s Let’s Give Peace a Chance.

References:

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/hate-music/

https://www.nj.com/essex/2026/07/controversial-nj-music-festival-tied-to-white-supremacy-finds-a-new-home.html

https://idavox.com/index.php/2026/07/03/how-dare-you-make-us-relocate-our-hate-nazi-show-promoter-mad-after-having-to-take-their-canceled-festival-down-the-road/

https://idavox.com/index.php/2026/06/14/heads-up-we-got-ourselves-a-nazi-concert-happening-in-nj/

https://www.aol.com/news/metal-festival-shift-secret-venue-100444977.html

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/aryan-freedom-network-afn

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/05/660642531/right-wing-hate-groups-are-recruiting-video-gamers

Share Bloomfield Chronicles

Contemplating the reality, it’s 2 years and 8 months, with no movement in sight, why does this case seem to disappear and drag on, and why does it seem as if the story of the fire house racism cannot get some legs in the main-stream media? There are some obvious reasons to many of us here in town, but I decided to check AI to see if we are missing something.

According to Google AI, this is what I found.

A breaking story in Bloomfield, Essex County New Jersey must compete with breaking news from New York City and statewide political scandals. Without sustained, disruptive street protests or multi-agency federal oversight interventions, metropolitan desks routinely relegate municipal firehouse disputes to their local suburban bureaus.

This is interesting “..must compete with breaking news from New York City and statewide political scandals.” So as long as NY City has more news and NJ continues with statewide political scandals, then we are doomed to let a this local story of racism die.

And then the second part of that paragraph:
Without sustained, disruptive street protests or multi-agency federal oversight interventions,…. According to this statement, we need sustained street protest or multi-agency fed oversight.

Many of us already know this, but let’s see what else AI tells us about the big secret of racism we have in Bloomfield.

Below here are a series of screenshots of the AI and the referenced links are at the end of this article.

Links to the Montclair Local News and The Jersey Bee referenced in the above illustration are available below.

The initial “appearance of active resolution” for some reason allows media outlets to often view the issues as “resolved.”

The link to The Jersey Bee referenced in the above illustration is available below.

Links to The Jersey Bee and the Facebook post referenced in the above illustration are available below.

Major national media syndicates frequently classify municipal workplace discrimination suits as standard civil litigation rather than systemic civil rights crises unless they spark massive, sustained public unrest or multi-agency federal oversight interventions,

The link to the Montclair Local News referenced in the above illustration is available below.

Tight management of the flow of information by the township administration.

Link to the Facebook post referenced in the above illustration is available below.

So GOOGLE AI has made it clear that our aggressive localized crisis management, a crowded regional news cycle, and the common media framing of municipal lawsuits as localized legal disputes impedes us, meaning Bloomfield, to render consequences, to apply justice, to learn, to grow. According to GOOGLE AI, it doesn’t look good for us to move in a positive direction, correcting the bad behavior, and truly embrace justice for Patrick Thomas.

Lastly, and also according to GOOGLE AI, while high-profile civil rights attorneys like Ben Crump amplified the surveillance video on social media, —the video of Walter Coffey tossing the noose at Patrick Thomas—it seems as though local institutional friction has kept the story contained. Local watchdogs have noted that the town council’s management of public comment periods and strict control over meeting formats have occasionally muted sustained, disruptive town hall protests that usually draw national camera crews. [1]

Ultimately, while local platforms like the Bloomfield Chronicles Substack continue to demand Chief Venezia’s firing, the combination of Coffey’s removal, a new mayoral administration, and standard regional news framing have kept the narrative anchored strictly within Essex County. As pointed out in specifically in Satinik Margaryan’s Bloomfield Chronical https://bloomfieldchronicles.substack.com/p/from-news-to-spin-inside-the-pink Pink slime fills our local information vacuum on this story.

Fire Chief Lou Venezia owns TAPInto Bloomfield along with Joseph Coletta (a retired Deputy Chief). Lou happens to be Mike Venezia’s brother. Mike is our former mayor and current assemblyman, and this fraternal relationship “appears” to be coincidental to the whole story—well it’s never stated out loud in TAPInto Bloomfield. So it must be unrelated. Right?

It is clear, that we are in a media vacuum, with some of us considering that Bloomfield containing this story so well feels like 1950’s Alabama. Unresolved racism complaints and media vacuums are not mutually exclusive. Actually, they form a symbiotic cycle.
This is a sad statement on our town and our society fighting for justice for Patrick Thomas and living in a media vacuum that dates us back to the 1950s and squelches justice and civil rights.

Links referred to above:

https://montclairlocal.news/2025/11/bloomfield-firefighter-sues-township-fire-chief-and-fellow-firefighter-for-racist-environment/

https://jerseybee.org/2025/12/02/bloomfield-firefighter-patrick-thomas-sues-township-fire-department-fire-chief-for-racist-environment/

https://jerseybee.org/2025/12/16/bloomfield-firefighter-walter-coffey-no-longer-employed-by-the-township-mayor-says/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BloomfieldPulse/posts/25087232100945541/

Below is the Fire Law Blog referred to in the Facebook Bloomfield Pulse link above
This Blog also contains a link to a PDF of the 11/16/2025 Complaint

https://firelawblog.com/2025/11/17/new-jersey-firefighter-files-25-million-federal-civil-rights-suit-over-noose-incidents/?fbclid=IwY2xjawS7x0hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE2YkpjelBTY0lXRG9NenpQc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtrlBTclBtpKXwRVZp0MbwVRsIiqbuF_G_Bqoqe5DDJSXxpJbqFM_UclAeNr_aem_DUBqutR4wvstWGctN3gnpg

Horsham Township firefighter was fired after the fire company said he made a racist comment while responding to an emergency https://www.facebook.com/reel/1310895160547959

Here is a story for background and notice how the pendulum swings:

New Amsterdam 1660, now downtown Manhattan, Wall Street area—swampy water everywhere and none to drink

When the Dutch landed a settlement at the narrow southern tip in what is current day Manhattan Island, they would spend over 200 years working to establish a clean source of fresh water. Especially at its narrow, southern tip, the water below ground was brackish and undrinkable. Centuries, really millennia, before the Dutch landed a colony at this southern tip, ponds and creeks flowed around hills and between trees. This swampy woodland sustained nomadic Native Americans and wildlife, but a settled lifestyle on a swamp in 1624 proved to be problematic. The Dutch dug shallow wells into brackish water and built cisterns to collect rain.

And why did the they desire to live in such a place? The times then required water travel, so understanding ocean and river history, makes it easier to understand our early history and colonial choices. Some of the most important and interesting history of our early country centers around coastal and river geography but that’s for another time.

Potable water is a life sustaining necessity.

In 1624 lower Manhattan island, sanitation and drinking water were a such an enormous problem, it has been said that the Dutch were so dehydrated and defenseless that by 1664, this allowed the English to take over without a fight. Water is essential for our lives.

Potable water was available in the northern areas of the island but the problem of transporting it to the southern end took a couple of centuries to properly solve. After the Revolutionary war, in 1798, Joseph Browne proposed to the Common Council to find a water source beyond the Manhattan island. He reminded the Council that development would continue polluting local water, and since the city was cash strapped, Browne suggest that a private company could fund the project of creating a water utility. (Sound familiar?)

A waterworks bill was ratified into law in April 1799. In September, Browne, his brother-in-law Aaron Burr (yes, Alexander Hamilton’s rival in banking) and a group of wealthy citizens established the Manhattan Company and were to find a water source outside the city, and this would help to end yellow fever and cholera. Burr used a legal loophole to found the Manhattan Company, a rival institution to Hamilton’s that used surplus capital to become a bank.

By 1802, the Manhattan Company’s waterworks ran with 21 miles of leaky wooden pipes. Customers complained of undrinkable water, tree roots pierced pipes, and repairs were delayed. In 1803, yellow fever killed 600. From 1804 to 1814, New York battled an average of 20 fires a year, and the Manhattan Company’s waterworks failed on this too. The company that was to be the savior of the city’s water supply was deemed a failure. Also, during this time, Burr would become Vice President, kill Hamilton in a duel, and tried for treason, but his bank thrived.

The city continued to struggle to find potable water through the 1820s.

By 1832, over 3000 New Yorkers died from cholera. At that point, consideration began again on an idea that had been floated in the Common Council’s chambers before, but it had always been dismissed as too costly.

The treasurer of the city’s Board of Health, Myndert Van Schaick, advocated the city shift its water source to the Croton River, 40 miles north.

A young civil engineer, De Witt Clinton, Jr. surveyed the Croton River and found it unlike any waterway around New York City. The river was fresh, clean and vast. Surrounded by rough terrain, development could never encroach its waters. An aqueduct would have to bring the water to Manhattan. Van Schaick facilitated a bill that established a Croton Water Commission to oversee the project.

At the next election in April 1835, the ballots would ask voters to decide on the Croton Aqueduct: “Yes” or “No.”

Newspapers, understanding the importance of the project, argued that a better quality of life was worth a prospective tax increase. And the cholera epidemic was still fresh in everyone’s minds. A snowstorm resulted in a low turnout, but the “yes” votes won, and this would forever change the future of the city.

Early New York history illustrates a municipality going from nothing to a privatized system that failed and to the municipal water utility that—now further expanded but to this day—still underlies Manhattan’s water source.

This is one story of water utility privatization vs municipally run, and since we are an old town in another old state that was once a colony, we grapple along with other municipalities in New Jersey with this decision—privatize or continue with the municipally run utility?

In the early Manhattan illustration above, the decision to move away from the inept privatized system was met by the voters and voted in. The citizens of New York city had a voice in their future. Unfortunately, in New Jersey, while we see more and more of our local governments moving to privatization there is a little-known law that went into effect on February 5, 2015: WIPA, the Water Infrastructure Protection Act. This law effectively silenced our voices. Our town may decide to privatize and do so without our input unless we are quick to move to a petition.

The private water industry was instrumental in passing WIPA. In 2010, then Governor Chris Christie formed a task force to determine areas where the government services could be provided by the private sector. Two of this group’s five members had ties to private water companies. One served as a former chief lobbyist for New Jersey American Water.

Supporters of WIPA say that fast-tracking privatization is necessary to revitalize our crumbling water systems. But is privatization the only alternative?

For some reason, some of our local governments in New Jersey question their own ability to run their municipalities, especially when it comes to water and sewer infrastructure, and with that idea that “it is too much for us to do,” they declare it is time to privatize and sell off their municipal utility.

We are an old town in an old state that was once one of the 13 original colonies. Face it, it’s too late now to pack up our Conestoga wagon and move out west. We are here, and for those of us who chose to stay, it’s time to get to work.

We can debate the pros and cons of privatization vs municipalization but the most urgent story right now is WIPA. There is a loophole of hope for voters in this law. We can keep our voices heard in town hall. If and once the town—or any other town in our state—announces plans to privatize, we have a 45-day window to collect petition signatures. The petition must be signed by registered voters in a number of votes in Bloomfield equal to at least 15% of the total votes cast here at the last election where members of the General Assembly were elected. By my estimates, 18,885 of us here in Bloomfield voted in the November 2025 election—so then 15% is a 2,835 petition signature minimum required. Let’s shoot for 4,000 and win. Do we have 40 people who can find 100 people to sign? 80 people who know 50? We are a town of over 50,000 people. We can work together.

And in the meantime, we are not at only two choices with our water utility. Yes, it needs to be maintained, but really, we need strong and creative minds to work through how to fix our system. Simply signing a check to an outsourced vendor is not paramount to success. In the end, it will be just another big bill for us. Our council needs to work for us. We need to work. We need to be ready to organize and petition. We need to vote.

References:

James F. Kelly, The Nation; July 16, 2015; Chris Christie Is Turning Tap Water Into a Private Commodity; https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/chris-christie-is-turning-tap-water-into-a-private-commodity/

Jonathan Schifman, Smithsonian Magazine; November 25, 2019; How New York City Found Clean Water; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-new-york-city-found-clean-water-180973571/

Thomas M. Hanna, David A. McDonald, Utilities Policy; August 4, 2021; From pragmatic to politicized? The future of water remunicipalization in the United States;

https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/pragmatic-politicized-future-water-remunicipalization-united-states

In Bloomfield, examples of holding onto power by force, from the county committee to the halls of Trenton, are numerous. For this writing, I’ll touch on just four of the ways to keep power by force:

1. Control public agendas

2. Establish patronage networks

3. Depend upon the demise of local news

4. Cover-up in the hope that time plus the assistance of a public relations firm can “disappear” our ongoing case of “alleged” discrimination in our Fire Department.

Bloomfield’s 11/2023 Fire Department scandal reverberates throughout town—but not even into the next town—for some reason. It was well covered up for two years, but now, we are back at flare up in Bloomfield, and at the center of it all is Fire Chief Lou Venezia, you know, Mike’s brother

Since this case was brought back to sunlight with the complaint filed November 16, 2025—two years after the initial noose tossing incidents—several town’s people show up at our Town Council meetings and speak about the racism and other ongoing municipal problems we experience in Bloomfield. At one of these meetings, on June 8, 2026, we had our Fire Chief, Lou Venezia, you know, Mike’s brother lash out at this public meeting calling a constituent who speaks at the podium about problems in town, calling him a “f’ng moron.”

The behavior is indicative of a pattern in Venezia’s behavior and the outburst that ensued was gaveled to calm by Mayor Mundell’s call to the police chief to restore order. But not a word from her about the Chief’s behavior, that evening, and to this day, June 28, 2026.

Below here is the transcript and video of my latest essay at the podium. On June 22, I continued my call for accountability and made note of Lou Venezia’s behavior calling Bloomfield citizen, William Jarrett, a “f’ng moron.” For background on this case from the onset of the initial noose tossings, see the notes at the end of this article.

Our point is to not give up. We will not permit the abuse of power in government, we must hold people accountable, and until that happens, there will be no improvement for this town and for its citizens to aspire to our full potential.

Patrick Thomas deserves justice, and until that happens, the collateral damage accumulates.

______________________________________________________

Transcript of the video:
How do people stay in power by force in local town government?

Here’s a couple of ideas: Controlling Public Agendas—Leaders may limit public comment times, frequently go into closed-door meetings or abruptly shut down dissenting voices; Establishing Patronage Networks—Jobs, lucrative muni contracts, commission appointments all heavily distributed to loyalists ensuring compliance.

My opening statement. And now I’ll let you know that my essay now goes in reverse chronological order.

At the last town council meeting, on June 8, I spoke of the alleged racism in the Fire Department which was captured on closed-circuit TV of the noose tossed at Patrick Thomas. My main point to that essay was that where is the accountability?
What have we done in Bloomfield to better ourselves?
How do we prevent such cases?

I spoke at that meeting fairly late into the evening because prior to my reading to the public at the last meeting, the rules were changed and those of us who did not sign-up the list before 7:00, were told we couldn’t speak. We persisted.

So we were able to speak at the end the closed-door session, and the meeting that followed the closed-door session, AND it was a long night

And prior to the change of the rules, earlier in the town council meeting, William Jarrett spoke at the podium. William Jarrett had signed on the signup sheet and he spoke at the regular time. And Jarrett spoke, and after he returned to his seat, Doug Grant began to speak.

AND then—this is from Greg Babula’s account of the event. He observed that an exchange between Chief Venezia and Mr. Jarrett quickly drew the attention of others in the audience. Based on what Greg personally overheard and what was reported to him by Jarrett, Chief Venezia directed the comment “you’re a real f*cking moron” at Mr. Jarrett, and repeated the word “moron” multiple times. The situation escalated to the point where the Mayor called for order. The Police Chief came over to calm things down.

That’s a summary of Greg’s account.

For me, I was sitting in front of Mr Jarrett, my back to him, and my observations agree with Greg’s statement, but, here is my vantage point. I stood up, turned around to see the escalation—Venezia and Jarret—just as the Police Chief came over and stood on my left side. I had three men at a bit more at arm’s length from me, over 900 pounds of testosterone ready to explode. And then, it stopped.

I don’t come here to be involved in violence, the threat of violence, or to listen to a department head call a constituent curse-words. But here I am. And here we are. This is Bloomfield.

Again presenting this essay in reverse chronological order, I go back in time to the end of the year, 2017.

A news article: Deputy Fire Chief Placed On Paid Leave

This is the published account that was authenticated by our then township attorney and by the attorney from the Firemen’s union local.

2017 letter alleged discriminatory and dangerous working conditions at the fire department that resulted in an investigation of the conduct of then Deputy Fire Chief Lou Venezia, the brother of then Mayor Michael Venezia. Deputy chief has been placed on paid admin leave. The authenticity of this account is verified by the president of the union local. The letter mentions that he puts firefighters in danger by operating outside of the norms. He uses insulting and offensive language. He’s forced members to train to the point of vomiting. He asks members to make political donations saying, “If you take care of my brother, I’ll take care of you.”
Lou ordered the opening of a secret ballot box to determine how the firefighters voted. Deputy Chief Lou openly backed one candidate and wanted to find out who voted otherwise. For some reason, he seemed very concerned about who sits at the top of the union. (Reminder: My essay tonight, how do people stay power by force.)

So once again I say, one way to prevent the abuse of power in government is to hold people accountable.

Patrick Thomas deserves justice and so do we all.

Link to full video town council June 22, 2026: https://u.peg.tv/s/hpwwkv

BELOW: News 4 VIDEO FROM: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/news/nj-firefighter-in-court-after-allegedly-taunting-coworker-with-noose/5315916/

Reference: Sarah Wallace Apr 12, 2024 — A white New Jersey firefighter was arraigned in court Friday on a felony bias intimidation charge.

References:
Eric Kiefer, Patch Staff; January 5, 2018; Bloomfield Suspends Deputy Fire Chief, Brother of Mayor: Reports; Bloomfield Patch.com. https://patch.com/new-jersey/bloomfield/bloomfield-suspends-deputy-fire-chief-brother-mayor-reports

Matt Kadosh, NorthJersey; January 3, 2018; Bloomfield deputy fire chief suspended; Northjersey.com. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/essex/bloomfield/2018/01/03/bloomfield-deputy-fire-chief-suspended/998029001/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z115627d00----v115627d--63--b--63--&gca-ft=143&gca-ds=sophi

by Announcement, July 12, 2018; Louis Venezia Becomes Bloomfield Fire Chief During Department Fire Promotion Ceremony; Montclair Local.
https://montclairlocal.news/2018/07/louis-venezia-becomes-bloomfield-fire-chief-during-department-fire-promotion-ceremony/

Patrick Thomas v Township of Bloomfield; Bloomfield Fire Department; Walter Coffey; Chief Lou Venezia https://montclairlocal.news/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Patrick-Thomas-Complaint-11-16-25.pdf

I know. Another sewer-fee post. You and I are getting tired of them. But wait: there is more.

When we were all invited to that in-person information session about the sewer fee on June 10th, one question, and the answer it got, stuck with me. Here’s the moment on video.

In this video snippet, Stefanie Santiago asked: “Who among the presenters initially proposed this idea Initially proposed this idea as a solution?”

Steven Wielkotz, Township Auditor: “Actually, the idea was originally proposed by the former chief financial officer. Okay. During the budget process in 2025.”

SS: And she’s no longer on staff, correct?

SW: Correct.

I found that hard to believe. Jennifer Semler, our former CFO, is a convenient name to put forward: she no longer works for the township and isn’t here to answer for it. And the timing is hard to ignore. Semler resigned on June 20, 2025 — just three days before the budget was introduced in 2025 (by the way, our 2026 budget is even later than last year’s).

So I did what Mayor Mundell so often suggests residents do. I filed an OPRA request. Here it is, as submitted:

Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., I request copies of the following government records:
All email communications, including attachments, sent or received between January 1, 2025 and June 20, 2025, between former Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Semler and any of the following:

The Township Administrator (and his office)
Mayor Jenny Mundell
Any member of the Bloomfield Township Council

Subject matter: sewer fees, sewer utility charges, sewer rates, or the establishment, calculation, or billing of any sewer fee or sewer utility. Suggested search terms: “sewer fee,” “sewer rate,” “sewer utility,” “sewer charge,” “sewer billing.”

Late tonight — after the township requested an extension the day before — I got my answer. I’m presenting all of it to you, exactly as received:

The records arrived as a single email thread — and it isn’t the document the auditor’s story would lead you to expect. It’s about stormwater.

Here’s the chain, oldest to newest. On February 27, an outside consultant blasted out a marketing email for a webinar on stormwater utilities. The next day, Administrator Anthony DeZenzo forwarded it to CFO Jennifer Semler with one line: “Is there any value in looking into this?” On the morning of March 3, 2025, Semler answered.

Her reply is the only place the sewer appears anywhere in what I received:

Probably not at this time, not if we are looking to make a move with the Sewer.

She goes on to say a stormwater utility might make sense as a 2026 project, but not something for 2025.

So Semler did put the sewer in writing. But look at how. She isn’t proposing a sewer fee here. She’s declining to chase a different new utility — and she names the sewer only in passing, as her reason for holding off. In this email, the former CFO is the brake, not the gas pedal.

And then there’s the phrasing, which is the part I keep rereading: “if we are looking to make a move with the Sewer.” Collective. Stated as a given. As of March 3, 2025, “the move with the Sewer” is already something Semler can gesture at in a single clause and assume the administrator understands — a settled, shared direction, mentioned offhand in an email about something else entirely. That reads far less like the private brainchild of the person writing it than like a plan that already existed around her.

Two things I won’t overstate, because the record won’t carry them:

First, “a move with the Sewer” is not “a sewer fee.” It’s vague. It could mean a fee, a rate change, a utility, a bond, a capital project — the email doesn’t say. So this line doesn’t pin the fee on Semler. But it doesn’t show her inventing it, either.

Second, one email can’t prove anyone lied. What it shows is narrower and still damaging: the auditor’s specific claim that Semler “originally proposed” the sewer fee during the 2025 budget process, is unsupported by the records I obtained, and sits in tension with the one sewer-relevant sentence those records do contain. A verbal proposal in a budget meeting remains possible; a single email can’t rule it out. “Unsupported by the record, and contradicted in tone” is as far as the document takes me. So that’s as far as I’ll go.

But the most interesting thing in this OPRA return isn’t what’s missing. It’s that one phrase. “We are looking to make a move with the Sewer,” written as established fact on March 3, 2025, means someone pointed this township at the sewer before March 3. The real question was never whether Jennifer Semler proposed the sewer fee. It’s who set that move in motion in the first place — and when.

Here’s the question that survives whether the auditor lied that night or was simply mistaken: why point to the one person who is no longer here to defend herself?

Maybe it is because everyone in that room understands how toxic “sewer fee” has become, and an absent former employee is the safest place to set it down. Or maybe the real answer is less comfortable that the idea came from somewhere the panel would rather not name.

There are candidates worth asking about. I am raising them as questions, not conclusions, because I don’t yet have a document tying any of them to the 2025 proposal:

The clearest historical antecedent to this ordinance is the failed sewer charge of 2011 — and it came with an instructive cast. Its champion inside the finance office was then-Director of Finance Robert Renna, who pitched it as “fair and equitable.” The mayor who backed it from the dais was Raymond McCarthy. Notice the echo: in 2011 the sewer charge was carried publicly by a finance official, and in 2026 the panel’s answer for who proposed it was, once again, a finance official — this one conveniently gone. McCarthy, for his part, is back in town government today as chairman of the Zoning Board. Did a long-dead idea get a second life under a more agreeable council?

And then there’s NW Financial — the firm that prepared the confidential sewer memo. An idea has to start with someone. Did it start there?

We will learn some of these answers sooner or later. In the meantime, I am left with the question I keep coming back to: when the honest answer was available, why reach for the one that points at someone who already walked out the door?

Well, Bloomfield, we got it. After a marathon town council meeting — three hours and twenty-three minutes — and in the face of an outpouring of public outrage over the sewer fee, the missing transparency, and a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility, the Mayor and council voted to do it anyway. The sewer fee is authorized. It starts July 1st, 2026.

The vote split 5–2, with Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips and Councilman Nick Joanow the lone no’s. And on the other glaring question of the night — what, if anything, happens to Fire Chief Lou Venezia after he called resident William Jarrett a “f***ing moron” during a council meeting — there was nothing. No announcement, no discipline, no acknowledgment. Just silence.

Almost thirty residents stepped up to the podium, from a young boy worried about a McDonald’s near a school to the evening’s sole defender of the sewer fee, Ryan Wangner — vice chair of the zoning board and a financial supporter of Team Venezia/Mundell (his name’s in the ELEC filings, if you’d like to look). The mood was bleak; that much was clear from the video and the speeches, even watching from home rather than in the room. But here’s the thing worth holding onto: residents came, residents spoke, residents cared. On a summer weeknight, in a packed room, late into the night — they showed up. That’s the story underneath the vote.

As usual, the night opened with proclamations honoring Juneteenth and Caribbean American Heritage Month. Once the readings and the photos were done, the meeting turned to the hearing of the public — and that’s where it got real.

The first at the mike was Donna Ryan who can be credited to be the most persistent resident researching the sewer fee. She even put together a website https://www.keepbloomfieldfair.org/ where she posts all her updates about her research on the sewer fee. Donna urged the council to table the sewer fee, arguing no one — public or council — has the information to vote responsibly. After a June 18th visit to the Passaic Valley Sewage Commission, she confirmed Bloomfield pays only for sewage entering PVSC’s main trunk line while remaining responsible for maintaining all its own municipal lines. A June 19th email asking what that maintenance cost last year and will cost next year went unanswered by the full council; Montclair, by contrast, dedicates $2 million annually to its lines.

On process, Donna invoked N.J.S.A. 40:49-2: substantial amendments must be reintroduced on first reading, and attaching rates to an unadopted ordinance makes it materially different, requiring fresh notice, publication, and hearing. The amendment, she noted, includes no guarantees against rate hikes, no independent sewer use study, and no rate freeze for seniors — who would receive a bill even under an existing tax freeze. The council has a rate study, they argued, but not a sewer use study, and a confidential rate study informs no one whose name wasn’t on it.

For context: Verona has seen ~4% annual increases since adopting its ordinance, Cedar Grove 12% this year, Montclair 18%, and Nutley faces a 7.2% hike in 2027 despite a current freeze. Belleville and Glen Ridge have no sewage fee at all. Her ask: abstain, table the items, build a budget line by line, prove fiscal responsibility, then justify a fee.

Right after Donna was finished, Khalifah Shabazz, Bloomfield Township attorney, interjected during the public comment and raised a point of order, arguing that the agenda conflated two legally distinct steps: the general public comment period and the public hearing required by law for the second reading of the sewer ordinance. She asked that the public hearing on the ordinance's adoption be formally opened as prescribed by statute, then followed by public comment on all other items, so the process couldn't be challenged as legally defective. The mayor clarified that a public hearing accompanies every second reading and that residents commenting now would be heard on the record. Shabazz accepted that residents could speak to the ordinance during this period, but pressed that the public hearing itself be explicitly noted in the record. This was interesting because the public was quite clear that there would be two distinct opportunities to speak during the night.

After this interruption, the next speaker, Dawn Samson, opened by chiding the council on basic respect, arguing that residents who come to the podium deserve at least eye contact and acknowledgment rather than attention only when their comments benefit the council. She then turned to the Halcyon Park Pond, which she lives directly across from: a spring odor strong enough to keep her windows shut, and a pond losing water so fast that the DPW recently spent roughly four hours refilling it, only for the level to drop again and leave the fountain slanted and noisy. She pressed a series of unanswered questions — whether the liner tear is worsening or masking a bigger problem, where the escaping water is going, whether it risks erosion or even a sinkhole, and why the repairs weren't filed as one comprehensive project alongside the mucking permits instead of dragging through phases since November. She closed by asking who is paying for the constant refilling and sewer runoff, demanding a realistic timeline and permanent fix over "endless unanswered promises," and urging the town to drop the pilot programs and put existing assets like the $10 million Votech and the long-empty South Junior to use — "Bring the charm back to Bloomfield, not condos and fast food and smoke shops."

Joan Hussey built her comment around a question: how do people stay empowered by force in local government? Her answer — by controlling public agendas, retreating into closed-door sessions, and rewarding loyalty through jobs, contracts, and appointments. Working backward in time, she linked the June 8th meeting, where the rules changed mid-session to bar speakers who hadn’t signed up early and where Chief Venezia (by Greg Babula’s account, which matched her own) cursed at William Jarrett until the police chief stepped in, to a 2018 published account alleging that then-Deputy Fire Chief Lou Venezia, brother of the then-mayor, was placed on paid leave amid claims of abusive conduct and of ordering a secret ballot box opened to see how firefighters had voted. The thread running through all of it was accountability: “Patrick Thomas deserves justice, and so do we all.”

Doug Grant said he had served each council member a formal legal notice — copied to the clerk, township attorney, media, and residents — documenting five violations in the sewer fee items, warning that a yes vote was now a knowing personal decision rather than a protected legislative act. The five: Ordinance 13893 tries to amend an article that won’t exist unless 13789 passes the same night; the fee is a tax in disguise, with the $192 million levy showing zero offset and the township $2 million over its cap, so residents pay twice; the ordinance was drafted by bond underwriter NW Financial, whose CEO concealed a $350,000 retainer and retroactively added privatization language to his website; the VP who drafted it isn’t registered with the SEC or MSRB for municipal advisory work; and all of it has been reported to both agencies in active investigations. The ask: vote no, table the items, and demand independent legal review.

William Jarrett turned the chief's insult into the spine of his comment, repeating "I'm a moron" as a refrain to catalog every position that had earned him the label — standing with Patrick Thomas, defending Councilwoman Toler-Phillips, challenging the sewer fee, NW Financial's record, and the Votech purchase — before turning the word back on the council. I’m posting his comment verbatim, as transcribed by TurboScribe AI:

William Jarrett, I’m a moron. In fact, I’m an effing moron, according to Fire Chief Lou Venezia.

I guess in this town, a moron is someone who values ethics over self-preservation, merit over cronyism, and integrity over insults. I’m a moron because I won’t be intimidated. I’m a moron because I stand with Firefighter Patrick Thomas.

I’m a moron for finding it autocratic when the mayor cuts off public comment, rolls her eyes, scrolls on her phone, or changes meeting rules without warning. I’m a moron because I think Councilwoman Toler-Phillips deserves to receive any document that she requests, that she be heard from the dais, that she serve on committees, and that she be allowed to do the job.

Mayor interjected (as usual, to chide): “Sir, you’re going to have to keep your comments directed to the entire council. Thank you.”

William continued:

Oh, I’m talking to all of you. Make no mistake. And that she be allowed to do the job that we elected her to do.

I’m a moron because I think it unethical that our mayor serves on the chair of the MHIF, to whom we pay $17 million, I’m sorry, it went up, $23 million a year. I’m a moron for being incredulous when you tell us that the sewer fee constitutes any kind of cost savings to our residents. I’m a moron because I see the development of a new sewer fund as the first step towards WIPA and privatization.

I’m a moron because I think NW Financial, author of this sewer scheme, is a conflicted and underperforming municipal advisor with a history of at least two SEC violations, was fired for their role in leading Jersey City to a $250 million deficit, and currently stands accused of committing multiple SEC and MSRB violations. I’m a moron because I’m suspicious as to why the township will not release the township’s payroll transaction register, vendor history report, the sewer RFP and RFQ, and our contract with PVWC. I’m a moron because I would expect our township administrator to present multiple budget options with and without RIF.

I’m a moron because I want to see the facts of those budget options and not rely on histrionics about increased crime rates, illegal drugs and guns, fewer paved roads, canceling senior programs and broken playgrounds. I’m a moron because I believe township auditor Steven D. Wielkotz, has performed numerous ethical violations that prevent him from auditing our budget, if we ever get one. I’m a moron because I think the $10 million purchase of the Votech School using our funds was not forward-thinking, it was a political favor and possibly fraudulent.

I’m a moron in my belief that the township’s communication issue is not being solved by the Tara Dowdell group, but it’s everything about improving this administration’s image. I’m a moron because when I read Mike Venezia claim you as part of his majority, I see you as serving him and not us. I’m a moron because the sum of the good you’ve done does not outweigh the conflicts of interest, the fiduciary negligence, the ethical violations, and the intimidation and suppression of citizens wishing to have a voice in their government.

So my name is William, I’m a resident of this town, and thanks to you, I am a moron. What are you?

As you are following along, it is clear that the sewer fee dominated the night. Nearly every speaker urged the council to vote no or table the ordinance, hitting the same core objections: a lack of transparency, no published budget to justify the fee, and the absence of a hard cap on future increases. Carlos Aguirre, a homeowner of about ten years, spoke against the sewer tax, citing a lack of transparency and the burden it places on the town’s most vulnerable residents — veterans, people on fixed incomes, and working families. He urged the council to vote in the public interest, noting residents had turned out in numbers to register their opposition and that a yes vote would put members on notice. Diane Doherty warned that separating sewer charges from property taxes would shrink residents’ federal and state deductions, potentially pushing seniors out of eligibility for Anchor, Senior Freeze, and Stay NJ; she also noted residents weren’t told the proposal had been studied for a year. John Riley framed it as a deliberate “shell game” to dodge the 2% property tax cap and its referendum trigger, leaving residents exposed to unchecked future hikes. Several speakers — Nelsha Moorji, Ted Glick, Adrienne Kalosieh, and others — zeroed in on NW Financial, the firm that drafted the ordinance, citing its role in Jersey City’s quarter-billion-dollar deficit and questioning why the township hired it. Morgi and Carolyn Vadala both pressed on PVSC itself: Moorji questioned why the assessed-value-based calculator applies to a flat usage fee, while Vadala flagged PVSC’s 35% cost jump over four years and asked who is scrutinizing those contracts. Kalosieh and others stressed that small businesses — already facing vacant storefronts along Broad Street — were never informed, and that renters would see the fee passed through without any rent relief. A young resident Zachary put it succinctly: “McDonald's, the rats, the sewer tax, it's all driving me crazy. If the sewer tax isn't passed after this, I'm gonna be happy, and you might be happy too.”

All -Gender Restroom Signage Drew Consistent Support: Norm Sutaria, Michael Hoeweler of Bloomfield Pride, Liz Figenshu,Ruth Kunstadter, and others backed the single-stall signage as a simple, low-cost measure benefiting trans and non-binary residents along with parents and anyone using a single stall. The ordinance later was approved.

The Patrick Thomas noose incident and fire department remained a flashpoint. Joan Hussey and Jane Califf placed the unresolved threat against firefighter Patrick Thomas in the historical context of lynching and called the town’s inaction demoralizing given Bloomfield’s diversity branding. Yvette Rock, recounting her own father’s near-lynching in Arkansas, demanded the fire chief’s removal. Multiple speakers — including a parent who asked for a neutral HR/EEO investigation — called for accountability for Chief Venezia’s conduct, both regarding the noose case and his cursing at a resident in chambers. Kristinn Sigridarson closed the night still asking how the chief could call a taxpayer an “effing moron” in front of the council without being fired.

Solar and energy came up again. Califf, Glick (a decade-long solar advocates), and Daugherty all pointed to years of stalled solar plans — paid-for studies and signed contracts that produced no panels — and tied it to rising costs and the Strait of Hormuz instability, urging the council to revisit solar as the cheaper, future-facing option.

Overdevelopment, pilots, and flooding generated frustration. Speakers objected to continued PILOT-eligible apartment construction while existing complexes like the Avalon sit half-empty, argued new development worsens third-ward flooding, and criticized the proliferation of smoke shops. Riley and Julianna Kantrow both opposed the proposed McDonald’s near a school and busy intersection on traffic and safety grounds. Claire Mooney pressed on years of unfulfilled flood-mitigation promises since Ida, noting the engineering study still reads “draft.”

The public comment process itself became a recurring complaint. Several residents — Daugherty, Moorji, Sutaria — criticized the inconsistent, last-minute sign-up rules and proposed an online portal so participation isn’t a scramble. A broader theme ran underneath: residents feeling unheard, met with deflection (”we’ll email you”), eye-rolling, or no follow-up, with a closing speaker, Shannon Alexander, calling out the mayor specifically for not making eye contact.

Several speakers raised standalone items. Liz Figenshu and John Riley called on Bloomfield to divest its $25 million from Citizens Bank over the bank’s financing of GEO Group and CoreCivic, citing Jersey City’s divestment as precedent. Larry Cohen, a Humane World volunteer, asked the council to pass a preventive ordinance barring future puppy-mill pet sales, joining 155 other NJ towns. David O’Farrow demanded a police detail for speeding on his street where two autistic children live, and broadened into pointed allegations about police details at businesses he claims host known criminal activity and the absence of narcotics and financial-crimes units — an exchange that escalated into a prolonged back-and-forth with the chair over his time limit. Norm Sutaria and Jonathan Mejia both questioned $2,500 in public funds for a mural on a private garage, asking about site selection and security lighting.

Running through nearly every comment was a single demand: more transparency and a council that visibly listens, with several speakers noting the packed, late-running room as proof of how much residents care.

The Sewer Fee Ordinance

After all this preceding commentary, the public were given a separate opportunity to speak on the sewer fee itself, during the hearing on an ordinance amending Chapter 454 of the Code of the Township of Bloomfield, titled “Sewers,” by adding a new article establishing sewer service charges. With that, the public hearing on Ordinance was opened.

Here are the main issues raised about the sewer fee, specifically:

1. It’s double taxation, not savings. The most repeated objection was that the fee doesn’t replace property taxes — it stacks on top of them. Doug Grant pointed to Resolution 14.2 on the same agenda setting the 2026 tax levy at the full $192 million with zero reduction for sewer revenue, and to the auditor’s June 10th testimony that the township is $2 million over its levy cap with this fee as the “linchpin” to avoid cuts. Sewer costs stay in the levy, the fee is added on top, and residents pay twice. Norm Sutaria and Jonathan Mejia echoed that any apparent savings is a mirage — once the fee carves sewer costs out of the tax levy, the gap simply gets refilled with new taxes or fee hikes.

2. No cap on future increases. Several speakers warned the fee is uncapped and could climb every year to paper over future deficits. Mejia laid out the slippery-slope concern most fully: nothing stops garbage collection, snow removal, recreation, or road costs from being pulled out of property taxes later and reimposed as standalone fees, setting a precedent future administrations could repeat whenever the budget runs short. Donna Ryan invoked Montclair’s 18% jump as the cautionary example of where a “nominal” first-year fee leads.

3. Budget first, fee second. A recurring demand was that the council hasn’t shown the math. Donna Ryan pressed hardest: she emailed asking what was spent on municipal pipes last year and what’s projected next year and got no answer, arguing the township can’t justify a fee without first presenting a budget, going line by line, and demonstrating real cuts. The point that the township could produce a tax-levy number but not a maintenance-cost figure struck several speakers as evidence the case for the fee hasn’t been made.

4. A conflicted, unregistered advisor drafted it. Grant’s central allegation was that NW Financial Group — the township’s bond underwriter — wrote the ordinance, the rate study, and the rate calculator, with the work done by a VP not registered with the SEC or MSRB, while CEO Michael Hanley’s conflict-of-interest disclosure concealed a $350,000 five-year retainer and privatization language was added to his website after the filing. Ryan Wenger pushed back here, noting the last three administrations used NW Financial and questioning why the objection surfaced only now.

5. Renters and tenants have no protections. Cetaria flagged that building owners aren’t required to disclose how they calculate and pass through sewer fees, opening the door to price gouging — a four-unit building billed $40 could charge each unit $20. He pointed to Jersey City’s tenant protections as a model and called for an appeals process for leaks, defective meters, and one-time spikes, citing a neighbor’s $500 bill from a burst pipe with no forgiveness mechanism.

6. Unanswered technical and PILOT questions. Cetaria raised a long list of gaps: no five-year rate chart (which NW Financial could readily build from PVSC data), no public view of the Bloomfield–PVSC agreement, no clarity on whether PILOT properties — current, future, income-restricted senior housing, or arrangements like the Sacred Heart redevelopment — would pay or be exempt, and no data on stormwater infiltration into the sanitary system or when a dye test was last performed.

7. Other towns prove it’s a choice, not an inevitability. Donna Ryan pointed to Glen Ridge and Belleville keeping sewer costs in their general budgets as evidence Bloomfield isn’t cornered into a fee. Ryan Wangner argued the opposite — that PVSC increases are coming regardless and other municipalities have already adopted this model, framing it as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” (however, we have grounds to doubt a lot of Ryan’s claims, as I pointed out above). Gary Skinner closed with a sales metaphor: negotiation only begins when someone says no, and the council had simply failed to sell the fee — so vote no.

8. The human cost on seniors and fixed incomes. Donna Ryan formally objected on behalf of her 101-year-old grandmother on Willard Avenue, noting seniors under a rate freeze will still owe the fee — confirmed at roughly $30 by the tax office — and that for those on limited incomes, even that is too much.

A few speakers also asked the council to explain its reasoning aloud: Stef Bootwala requested each member state the rationale behind their vote so residents could understand why, given how many questions remained unanswered.

“Confidently, Yes”: A Vote That Was Never in Doubt

What was striking was not that the majority disagreed with the room. It’s that the room didn’t move the Mayor and the majority of the Council members an inch.

Hours of testimony. Documents, PVSC figures, sourced research, plain questions. And when the roll was called, the substance was still sitting there unanswered. No five-year rate chart. No Bloomfield–PVSC agreement. No answer to Donna Ryan’s simple question about what the township spent on its own municipal pipes last year — or what it plans to spend next year. Nothing on stormwater infiltration. Nothing on the PILOT exemptions beyond the deed-restricted carve-out. Nothing on the NW Financial conflict allegations, on the merits, at all.

What the public got instead was process. A webinar. FAQs in 158 languages. A two-month pause. The Mayor kept reciting the ways residents had been allowed to speak — as if being allowed to speak were the same thing as being answered. It isn’t.

Mayor Mundell sat through all of it and emerged untouched. Residents brought paperwork. She brought two words: “Confidently, yes.” No engagement with a single objection. No nod to a single unanswered question. Several hours of detailed testimony, and not one degree of movement.

Councilwoman Cruz at least talked — though what she offered was defensiveness dressed up as principle. She ran through her résumé: 21 years a homeowner, 26 a resident, three kids through the schools, a decade of rising property values she was happy to credit to this Council. As if seniority were an answer. She called the criticism “insulting and demeaning” and insisted every meeting is public and transparent — which addressed the tone of the complaints and dodged their content entirely. The complaint was never that the meetings were secret. It was that the questions asked in those meetings went unanswered.

Then she went further. She said she “question[ed] some of the people and their comments about their actually living in this township” — which, from the dais, isn’t a point of order. It’s a way to wave off testimony you’d rather not answer. And she recast the whole night’s research as a personal attack, vowing she would not be “scared or gaslit or threatened or bullied into having a vote any way that I vote.” That’s a neat trick: turn pointed accountability into intimidation, and your refusal to engage it into courage. For good measure, she noted she’d handed out 250 business cards and gotten two emails back — offered as proof of her openness, landing as a boast to the roomful of people standing right in front of her. At no point did she touch the substance. Not the rate chart. Not NW Financial. Not the maintenance figures. The performance was of a Council member wronged, not one being questioned.

The two no votes looked like a different governing body.

Councilman Joanow said he’d been frozen out until two weeks before the ordinance hit the agenda — and never told what it was really for. “Never was it said to me that the onus of this sewer tax apparently is to fill a budget gap, not for the equality in terms of payments.” On the amendment’s silence about the senior freeze, he didn’t hedge: “if it’s not written, it ain’t there, folks.” And on what happens once sewer costs leave the operating budget and the CAP no longer applies, he saw exactly where it goes — a “Pandora’s box that we have no control over.” He is retiring in December. He is not leaving this one behind quietly. One this is important to note, something that we all have seen repeatedly, but never so plainly, as last night. The disrespect was most naked when Councilman Joanow tried to explain his no vote. As he laid out being excluded from the process, Mundell cut in — “Councilman, that’s not true” — talking over a colleague mid-explanation of his own vote. Joanow had to defend his floor twice: “Don’t sit in my shoes,” and then, plainly, “Don’t interrupt me, please. These are my comments. If you find them in error, then you may correct me. Let me finish, if you don’t mind.” It’s worth sitting with what that means. The mayor had just spent the night insisting residents be patient and respectful, that the Council “respected you when you spoke.” Yet when an elected colleague — a senior, a member of her own governing body — rose to explain a dissenting vote, she couldn’t extend him the basic courtesy of hearing him out without interruption. If that’s how she treats a fellow Council member on the record, it tells you everything about how much the public testimony before it was ever going to count.

Councilwoman Toler-Phillips voted no for the reason the whole room had been circling all night: “I’ve had only oral presentations about the budget. I have not seen any line items about the budget at all.” She pressed the renter question the majority never touched — 51% of Bloomfield rents, the fee is “a pass-along fee,” and nothing in this ordinance stops a landlord from raising the rent and pocketing the difference, the way Jersey City’s utility-transparency rule does.

Two members grounded their votes in the missing information. The other five voted yes without it.

The Rest of the Night

The all-gender restroom ordinance — the one bright spot of the night — passed unanimously on first reading. Credit belongs to Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips, who brought the ordinance forward in collaboration with Garden State Equality and Bloomfield Pride, though it was Councilwoman Rosalee Gonzalez who read it into the record. The council didn't hold back its enthusiasm: members offered "100% yes," "another confident yes," "definite yes," and "without a doubt, yes," with Gonzalez thanking the sponsor for bringing it forward and Councilwoman Fischman thanking Bloomfield Pride's Michael Hoeweler and Mary Valentine for speaking on something so personal. Toler-Phillips, who had split from the majority all night on the sewer fee, noted the rare consensus: "We don't always agree, but we agreed to this time."

The two dissenters held their ground on the money. When the amended sewer ordinance came up for first reading, Joanow returned to the renter question he’d raised all evening — with 51% of the town renting, he argued the township had at best met the bare minimum notice requirement and owed large apartment owners direct notice of the change, given its drastic impact on their business model. He and Toler-Phillips both voted no. Minutes later, on the consent resolution that actually set the sewer service charges under Chapter 454, Toler-Phillips again voted no, the lone holdout as the rate structure cleared.

From there the agenda turned routine, and the unanimous yes votes rolled in: a modified loading zone so a bus could safely pick up a disabled child on Beardsley Avenue, a no-U-turn designation to fix an illegal-turn safety problem on John F. Kennedy Drive near Belleville Avenue, a stop-intersection update, and several disabled-parking additions and removals.

Under new business, the council awarded the public-art contract for the Dodd Street mural — the one Norm Sutaria and Jonathan Mejia had questioned during comment. Here the council finally supplied the answer residents had asked for: the mayor explained the mural grew out of a quality-of-life conversation on the block where neighbors flagged a graffitied private garage, that it’s grant-funded, and that the township worked with the owner to use the wall. Fischman and the mayor both walked through the selection process — an RFP reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee’s art subcommittee before reaching the council — directly addressing the “how was this site chosen” question raised earlier.

The council also authorized estimated tax bills to be mailed out:

One last thing to watch. After a night of complaints about chaotic sign-up rules and a 7 p.m. cutoff sprung without warning, Mundell asked the township attorney to review the meeting bylaws and bring recommendations next month. That could be good news — an online sign-up portal, consistent rules, the access residents actually asked for. But the request wasn’t limited to sign-up procedure. It was an open-ended invitation to revisit “our processes,” handed to the same majority that just sat through hours of testimony it plainly didn’t enjoy. A review like that can just as easily come back with a shorter comment period, a tighter clock, or mandatory advance sign-up dressed up as housekeeping. Which version shows up will tell you a lot. The recommendations are due at the next meeting, and they’ll surface in the agenda packet before any vote — so watch for them, and read the fine print. The instinct to make the next packed room a little quieter is a powerful one, and it rarely announces itself as what it is.

Well, this is a wrap. Over three hours, a packed room, and a long list of serious questions — many of them summarily ignored, and a few waved off as misinformation by a council that mostly didn’t want to answer. The substance went unaddressed: no rate chart, no budget line items, no straight answer on what the township spends maintaining its own pipes, no reckoning with the NW Financial conflict. But something was different this time, and it matters. Residents proved they care, and they show up — on a weeknight, in June, well past everyone’s bedtime, and they’re not going away.

And lurking behind all of it is the accountability that still hasn’t come. Nearly two years after a noose was thrown at firefighter Patrick Thomas, Fire Chief Lou Venezia — who, by multiple accounts in this very chamber, cursed at a resident at the last meeting and has a documented history going back to 2017 — still has not been disciplined. The town keeps hiding behind the pending litigation. But a court case is not a reason to do nothing; it’s a reason the public keeps asking, and will keep asking, until someone answers.

The biggest fight is still coming. This year’s budget hasn’t been introduced — though the tax levy is already sitting right there in the meeting packet. The Mayor has dragged this process out until exactly the stretch of summer when working people take a few days here and there, when attention drifts and rooms thin out. That timing isn’t an accident. The hope, plainly, is that the slow days bring less public hoopla and a quiet return to the old ways — budgets rubber-stamped while no one’s watching. So here’s the thing to remember as the weather warms: the budget is the whole ballgame, and they’re counting on an empty room to pass it. Don’t give them one.

On the night of June 15th, the Bloomfield Democratic Committee held its 2026 executive reorganization over Zoom. When it was over, the same slate aligned with the county line had won every contested office: Michael Venezia re-elected chair (43–18), Corey Anderson first vice chair (44–19), Robert DeMarino treasurer (36–28), Jun Serrano sergeant-at-arms (42–21), with Jason Martinez and Desantila Gjata unopposed for the remaining seats.

A majority winning is not, by itself, a story. Slates win; that is what slates do. What makes this one worth writing down is everything around the vote: who ran it, how the ballots were collected, who was allowed to cast them, and what happened when members asked whether any of it followed the rules.

The Referee Worked for the Chairman

The election was administered by Alex Wolfe, the Executive Director of the Bloomfield Democratic Party, installed at the top of the meeting as “temporary chair” to run the vote. An election needs a neutral hand on the controls. This one didn’t have one.

Wolfe was not a disinterested official. By the chairman’s own account — Venezia said it out loud, on the record — Wolfe “has worked for me since he’s 12 years old.” The person running the election was the long-time employee of the candidate who won it.

And he didn’t merely press the buttons. As the administrator, Wolfe could watch the ballots arrive in real time. He announced the running count as it climbed — “I’m seeing 51 ballots submitted,” and later sixty — because the admin view showed him the tally as members voted. He alone controlled when the poll opened, when it closed, and when it was extended. When the primary platform faltered, it was Wolfe who decided, member by member, who would receive a backup ballot by private email. He could see who had voted on both systems. And at the end, it was Wolfe who hand-combined the totals from the two separate voting tools into the official result.

There was no independent observer with the same visibility, no neutral custodian of the count, no one in the room positioned to check him who was not aligned with the people he worked for. At one point Wolfe shared his screen, he said, “to avoid any appearance of impropriety.” The appearance of impropriety was not the screen he was sharing. It was the structure of the entire night: the winning side’s staffer, watching the votes come in, running both ballot boxes, and certifying the result.

The Ballots That Went to People Who Weren’t There

The integrity question is not only about who counted. It is about who was allowed to vote.

The committee’s bylaws — the 2015 bylaws that Former Councilman and Mayor Ted Gamble read into the record, the only set he said the committee has “ever followed” — are unambiguous. Article III, Section (c):

“Only members of this organization who are present in person shall be entitled to vote on any matter presented at a meeting of this organization. No proxies shall be recognized and no form of unit vote shall be permitted.”

Present in person. No proxies. Yet ballots in this election were emailed to every duly elected district leader regardless of whether they attended the meeting at all. Asked directly whether members who were *not in attendance* could still vote, Wolfe confirmed it: yes, by virtue of receiving the email. That is absentee voting — a vote cast by someone who is not present — which is the precise thing the rule forecloses.

The chair’s defense, offered when members objected, came in two parts, and both deserve a fair hearing. First: that since COVID, the Essex County Democratic Committee adopted a remote-voting provision that governs Bloomfield. Second: that on advice of attorneys, “virtual presence” on Zoom counts as being present “in person” in the legal sense. But where do we have a record of remote-voting provisions?

Take both at face value, and they still don’t reach the problem. Grant that joining the Zoom counts as being present — that defense covers the people *on the call*. It says nothing about ballots sent to district leaders who were never in the meeting in any form. And as Gamble noted, even if the committee wanted to permit voting other than in person, that change “would have had to be voted on by the committee.” It never was. The ECDC provision was asserted but not produced. The bylaws themselves were requested twice that day and not sent. Chairman-candidate Norm Sutaria put the deeper problem plainly in his own remarks: the committee, he said, had been “operating without bylaws for at least the past two years,” with ElectionBuddy deployed “with no clear understanding of the process, procedure, or safeguards.”

An election was run by rules that the people running it could not, when asked, produce.

The Margin That Could Not Be Checked

Here is where the procedural questions stop being abstract.

The treasurer’s race was the closest of the night: DeMarino over Meisel by eight votes. During the meeting, Matthew Meisel (BC contributor) moved to strike the results and rerun the election with only credentialed members actually present — on a simple and damning premise. If the bylaws (or even the chair’s own “present” theory) limit the vote to those in the meeting, and if the margin in a race is *smaller than the number of voters who were not in the meeting*, then the absentee ballots could have decided the outcome. For treasurer, with a margin of eight and a disputed head count that swung between roughly 54 and 64 participants as people dropped in and out, that was not a hypothetical.

The chair did not resolve it. He declined to entertain the motion because the vote was, conveniently, still open. The appeals that followed were noted and denied. The newly re-elected chairman waved the whole thing off with a count he could not substantiate — and then, to the new members watching their first meeting, said: “this is how we operate. Enjoy.”

The motion deserved an answer. It got a gavel.

The Pattern Underneath

Step back from the procedure and the vote totals tell their own story. Across every contested race, the same roughly two-thirds bloc prevailed and the same one-third minority lost — and it was the same dividing line each time. As I said in my own remarks tonight, for the past two years duly elected district leaders who did not run on the county committee’s slogan were shut out of this organization’s meetings. That is not an abstraction to me. It is why I ran.

The reform side did not lose because it was disorganized. The challengers included a sitting professional treasurer in Matthew Meisel — a working chief financial officer, certified or not — running against the incumbent. They included district leaders whose entire platform was that no elected member should be excluded from the committee they were elected to. They lost the way you lose to a slate: by a steady, repeated margin, race after race, administered by the slate’s own staff under rules no one would put in writing.

Continuity at the Top

None of this is new for Bloomfield. Michael Venezia has chaired this committee since 2016 and, by his own count, has been a committee member for sixteen years. In that decade “Team Venezia” took every seat on the Township Council. When Venezia left the mayoralty for the state Assembly in 2024, it was the committee he chairs that produced the shortlist to replace him, and Venezia who anointed the successor the council installed. He is now an Assemblyman and a Majority Whip in Trenton — and, as of June 15th, still the chairman of the local party that decides who gets the line in Bloomfield.

A 43–18 chairmanship vote is not a contest of ideas. It is a measure of how completely one organization has consolidated the room — even when the room is a Zoom call, and even when the rules are improvised on the night.

What a Fair Version Would Look Like

The result has been certified. The questions it raised have not been answered. They are answerable, and they come down to documents and a head count:

1. Produce the operative bylaws — the ones actually in force, not promised “by Wednesday” and then circulated after the fact.

2. Produce the ECDC remote-voting provision the chair cited, and the attorney opinion that “virtual presence” satisfies the in-person requirement.

3. Produce a count of how many ballots were cast by members not present at the meeting, race by race — so the public can see whether the treasurer’s eight-vote margin survives the people who, under the committee’s own rule, should not have been voting.

4. Hand the next election to someone neutral. No candidate’s employee should run the vote, watch it arrive, and certify it.

I ran for first vice chair on one promise: transparency, and a seat at the table for every district leader. I lost, 44 to 19. I am not writing this because I lost. I am writing it because the same nineteen keep showing up — through the primary, through the conventions, and now through a reorganization that could not, when asked, account for its own ballots. A machine survives by making its control look procedural. The first thing that punctures it is a question the chair won’t answer.

“This is how we operate,” the chairman said.

It doesn’t have to be.

Sometime in the last year, behind closed doors, someone in Bloomfield’s township administration made a decision. Not about how to save you money — but about how to make a budget problem disappear before you noticed it. The sewer fee is a means to an end. The Township Council would like you to believe that moving the sewer usage portion out of your property tax and into a separate fee will save you money.

It won’t.

An accountant puts it plainly: whatever savings exist for the average Bloomfield taxpayer will be, in their words, “de minimis” — minimal to the point of being almost meaningless. And that’s before accounting for the costs the township incurred to get here: a yearlong study by NW Financial, implementation expenses, and the ongoing administrative burden of running an entirely separate billing system. When you add it all up, the cost of this “solution” likely exceeds whatever it saves — for taxpayers and the municipality alike.

So if this isn’t really about saving money, what is it about? That’s what this piece is here to answer.

My previous article for the Bloomfield Chronicles laid out why the sewer fee was suspect — and the numbers have since proven those suspicions right. What the Town Council is calling a cost-saving measure, and what Greg Babula, our newly nominated 2nd Ward councilman, has aptly dubbed “the Toilet Tax,” is not the money-saver they’d have you believe. It’s a budget maneuver — and the next section explains exactly why.

The budget is in dire straits — and the administration knows it. When the Mayor and Township Administrator introduced the sewer fee, they presented taxpayers with a false choice: accept the fee, or face either a massive tax increase or devastating cuts to police and fire. What they never offered was a third option: structural reform. There’s been no serious conversation about streamlining operations, finding new sources of recurring revenue, eliminating redundancies, or addressing the conditions that created this fiscal hole in the first place. Make no mistake — today’s crisis took years to build. This crisis didn’t materialize overnight.

It was built over years of personnel decisions that now consume roughly two-thirds of the discretionary budget. When you hire someone in the public sector, they’re typically with you for 25 to 30 years. Decisions made a decade ago compound onto every succeeding Council. The warning signs were visible: last year, the auditor disclosed that $14 million in COVID relief funds had been used for police salaries as “revenue replacement” — and when that money ran out, the gap would need to be filled somehow. That moment has arrived.

The sewer fee is a budget gimmick. It was not designed primarily to save money; it was designed to get the Township under the state’s municipal budget cap. To understand why that matters — and what it means for your wallet — you need to understand how New Jersey’s CAP laws actually work.

THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET CAP LAW

New Jersey’s Municipal CAP statutes limit how much a municipality can increase its annual tax levy. Before going further, a few resources worth reading:

• Municipal budget basics: NJ 21st Century

• The 2025 COLA adjustment (2% → 3.5%): NJ DCA Local Finance Notice 2025-14

• What Bloomfield’s own Township Auditor says about CAP banking: W-CPA Blog

Two statutes are in play:

The 1977 Appropriations Cap (N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.1 et seq.) caps the increase in total municipal spending at 2.5% over the prior year. Municipalities can pass an ordinance to raise that ceiling to 3.5%, and any unused headroom below 3.5% can be “banked” for up to two years. Exempt from this cap: debt service, pension contributions, certain health insurance costs, and other state-mandated expenses.

The 2010 Property Tax Levy Cap (N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.44 et seq.) limits the annual increase in the property tax levy itself to 2%. Certain unavoidable costs — large pension or health benefit increases, capital improvements, debt service, emergencies, and deferred charges (think flood damage or last winter’s snow removal) — can be excluded if specific criteria are met. Unused levy increase authority can also be banked, but for up to three years rather than two.

So what does all this mean in practice?

Bloomfield has two separate ceilings it has to stay under every year — one on total spending, one on how much it can raise through property taxes. Both have escape hatches: certain costs don’t count toward the caps, and unused increase authority can be saved and spent in future years.

Here’s the key takeaway: when a municipality moves a cost outside the property tax levy — say, by converting it into a standalone fee — that cost no longer counts against the 2% cap. The town can then use its remaining cap room for other spending, or bank it for later.

That’s exactly what the sewer fee does. By pulling sewer costs out of the tax levy and billing them separately, the Township frees up space under the cap — space that can be used to increase other spending without triggering the legal ceiling. Residents pay the same money, or more, but the town gets to claim it stayed “under the cap.”

That’s not savings. That’s accounting.

THE REAL “WAY TO A MEANS” OF THE SEWER TAX REVEALED

At the June 10 sewer tax presentation, Bloomfield’s township auditor made a statement that deserves more attention than it got. At the 28:41 mark of the WBMA replay, he said the township is “still about $2 million over the tax levy cap in order to have a balanced budget” — even after the cost-saving measures the administrator described.

Read that carefully. After all the cuts, Bloomfield is still $2 million above the legal ceiling. That leaves the Council with four options:

Cut spending further. If the budget isn’t brought under the cap, the State won’t approve it, taxes can’t be collected, and Bloomfield risks running out of operating funds. The township would then need short-term borrowing notes — at interest rates taxpayers foot the bill for — just to keep the lights on.

Use a budget gimmick. Move costs out of the tax levy so the budget falls below the cap on paper. This year it’s the sewer fee. What’s next — a separate garbage fee? The administration’s justification is that many towns already do this and Bloomfield’s rates would be among the lowest. But that’s exactly the logic that leads here: death by a thousand fees. Former Councilman Tony Gallo, who served in the early 1980s, put it well — the best thing that generation did for Bloomfield taxpayers was fold garbage collection into the property tax, making it deductible and eliminating per-household billing costs. This Council may be undoing that work, and future Councils won’t be bound by what this one decides.

Put it to a referendum. If the budget exceeds the cap, residents can vote on whether to accept it or force cuts. That’s democracy working as intended. By engineering a workaround instead, the Council is bypassing the public’s right to weigh in — and insulating itself from accountability at the ballot box.

Seek a State waiver. Nearly impossible to obtain without extraordinary circumstances. If Bloomfield qualified, they’d have pursued it already.

The bottom line: the sewer fee was not designed to save taxpayers money. Any savings are minimal — likely wiped out by the upfront, implementation, and ongoing administrative costs of running a separate billing system. This isn’t simplification; it’s added complexity, added expense, and a structural problem left completely unaddressed. The real purpose is to move a cost off the books so the budget clears the state cap. That’s not fiscal management. That’s a shell game.

A Predetermined Outcome: How the Council Is Forcing This Through

The township administration, and certainly the mayor, had been studying this initiative for over a year before it went public. When it finally did, the rollout felt less like a policy proposal and more like a fait accompli. It took a primary election to force new facts into the open and confirm what many residents had already suspected.

When it smells like a rotten fish, it’s a rotten fish.

The political fallout was immediate. Even the establishment’s own candidate in the Second Ward felt compelled to denounce the sewer fee in the final stretch of the campaign just to survive the primary. The second reading of the implementing ordinance — originally scheduled before June 2nd — was quietly pushed back. The delay wasn’t about gathering more information. It was about avoiding a wipeout.

Public pressure worked. Residents demanded to know how the fee would affect them individually, not just in the abstract. The result: a sewer fee calculator, produced only after the delay that the primary forced. None of this transparency was offered voluntarily.

Now that we have some actual numbers, let’s see what those “de minimis” savings look like in practice.

HOW MUCH ARE WE SAVING WITH A SEPARATE SEWER FEE?

Let’s walk through a typical example for a Bloomfield homeowner with a ⅝” incoming water pipe — the most common size in town.

The inputs below come from an example published on the Bloomfield Pulse. Your water usage is measured in CCF — one CCF equals 100 cubic feet, or roughly 748 gallons. In this example, the homeowner used 10 CCF in the fourth quarter, meaning about 7,480 gallons.

Here’s how the fee is calculated: every account pays a flat base charge, which covers up to 6 CCF of usage. Anything above 6 CCF is billed at an additional $0.525 per CCF. In this example, the homeowner’s total annual sewer fee comes to $98.03.

But that’s only half the picture. Right now, a portion of your property taxes already goes toward sewer costs. The calculator backs that amount out — subtracting your current sewer-related tax share from the new fee — to show you the net change. That offset is proportional to your property’s assessed value.

In other words: the $98.03 isn’t all new money out of your pocket. What matters is the difference between what you’re already paying through your taxes and what you’d pay under the new fee. That’s the number we need to examine.

The calculator does one more thing: it backs out the sewer-related portion of your current property tax bill — proportional to your assessed value — and subtracts it from the new fee, so you can see your actual net change.

So what does this actually mean for your wallet?

The table below cuts through the noise. Same house, same assessed value, four very different outcomes depending on your tax situation.

📊 Sewer Fee Impact by Taxpayer Type
Assumes: $350,000 assessed value (approx. Bloomfield median) · 4.40% sewer share of property taxes · $98.03 annual sewer fee · 27% combined federal/state deduction rate for itemizers

The only group that loses money outright is the one that can least afford it: seniors on fixed incomes who itemize their taxes.

For everyone else, the “savings” range from a cup of coffee to a fast food combo meal — per month. This is what the Township Council delayed an ordinance reading, bypassed a public vote, and restructured the entire municipal budget to deliver.

If this is the plan, Bloomfield’s taxpayers deserve better than a Big Mac’s worth of savings and a shell game for a budget.

The Precedent Problem

What precedent does this set? Every time a Council exceeds the budget cap, will the answer simply be to peel off another line item and convert it into a fee? And will they keep doing it knowing that only 15% of voters show up — and that the party establishment will cover for them regardless of the consequences?

The risks going forward are concrete:

More fees are coming. Garbage collection, recycling, and the infrastructure portion of the sewer system could all be candidates for the same treatment if the budget situation continues to deteriorate. We saw how easily it can be done — it took a primary election to slow this one down. The next Council election is two years away. That’s a long window for mischief.

The cap protection disappears. Right now, the sewer-related costs inside your property tax bill cannot increase by more than 3.5% annually under NJ’s Municipal CAP law. Once those costs are moved into a standalone fee, that protection is gone. The Council can raise the sewer fee by any amount it wants, through two ordinance readings, with no cap and no referendum. The mayor essentially confirmed this at the June 10 presentation.

Don’t think it won’t happen. Look at your water bills over the past few years. The base rate — covering up to 6 CCF — went from $22 every four months, to $22 every three months, to $27 per quarter, to $33 per quarter. Did you notice? Did anyone stop it? Probably not, because almost nobody tracks municipal agendas closely enough to catch a rate change before the bill arrives.

That’s exactly what they’re counting on.

Questions Bloomfield Taxpayers Should Be Asking Right Now

Here are some questions the taxpayers of Bloomfield should ask our Council representatives before they vote for moving the sewer fee out of our property taxes.

Before the Council votes on the second reading of the sewer fee ordinance, residents deserve straight answers to these questions. Bring them to the next Council meeting.

1. Can the sewer usage fee be raised by more than 3.5% in any given year?
If the answer is yes — and it is — the Council should vote no on the second reading.

2. Will this Council guarantee that the sewer fee will never increase by more than 3.5% annually?
They cannot. No sitting Council can bind a future one. If they won’t make that guarantee, they should vote no on the second reading.

3. Will this Council guarantee that this won’t become a template — that no future Council will use the same maneuver to create additional fees and dodge the CAP?
Again, they cannot. If the answer is anything less than an ironclad yes, they should vote no on the second reading.

4. How did we get here?
Large portions of this year’s budget increases are CAP-exempt — but that doesn’t explain years of structural drift. What decisions over the past decade brought us to a $2 million gap, and what could have been done earlier to soften the blow?

5. When will this Council start being straight with us?
Not what you want us to hear. Not a sell job. The real reason things are being done, in plain language, before the vote — not after.

Transparency isn’t a courtesy. It’s the job.

CONCLUSION

The real reason the Council moved the sewer usage fee, the Toilet Tax, out of the property tax levy is no longer in dispute. The township’s own auditor said it: the budget was $2 million over the CAP. The fee wasn’t primarily about fairness or savings. It was about the math.

If fairness had been the actual goal, the township could have addressed it within the existing structure — creating a separate rate tier for commercial and industrial properties that consume far more water than a typical residential ⅝” connection. That option was never seriously discussed publicly.

This crisis didn’t materialize overnight. It was built over years of personnel decisions that now consume roughly two-thirds of the discretionary budget. When you hire someone in the public sector, they’re typically with you for 25 to 30 years. Decisions made a decade ago compound onto every succeeding Council. The warning signs were visible: last year, the auditor disclosed that $14 million in COVID relief funds had been used for police salaries as “revenue replacement” — and that when that money ran out, the gap would need to be filled somehow. That moment has arrived.

Also worth asking: last year, $500,000 was transferred from the surplus fund into the general fund to help hold the tax line. Bloomfield also received $2 million from the State’s discretionary “Christmas Tree Fund.” Where did that money go? What does the budget look like without it? How much deeper is the structural hole than what’s being shown to the public?

These are not gotcha questions. They are the basic disclosures any governing body owes its residents.

Whatever path forward this Council chooses, the approach matters as much as the outcome. Involve the public — including the residents and advocates you’d rather not hear from. Present the options honestly. Explain the tradeoffs in plain language. And don’t try to force a decision through before an election and call it governance.

Bloomfield’s taxpayers have already shown they’re paying attention. The primary proved that. The question now is whether this Council has learned anything from it.

“You all will fill the gap that this sewer fee takes up in our taxes with additional expenses. Essentially, our taxes won’t go down, even though you’re removing this out of it. Is that accurate?”

A three-Mississippi silence followed. The mayor, arms crossed, tapped her hand once on her arm. The township’s financial advisor gave a cautious side-eye and tapped his foot. The township administrator and his CFO, stared intently at the township’s financial auditor.

“Well, taxes, no,” the auditor said. “Taxes will not go down.”

Now we know what the proposed sewer fee is for: to plug a $2m hole in Bloomfield’s budget.

And it will receive its final vote at the council meeting on Monday, June 22.

This was never about equity. It’s about raising revenue. The proposed fee was first introduced at the April 20, 2026 council meeting.1 At that meeting and since, the administration has repeatedly told taxpayers that the sewer fee is to create equity among sewer users in the township. It’s not fair, the argument goes, that we all pay into the same pot for sewer service, but some of us use much more than others. But now we know the main reason is to raise revenue, and improving payment equity is just a nice side effect.

Everyone will have a new sewer fee, and no one’s property taxes will go down. The typical household will pay a $100 sewer fee per year. And this is where the administration’s shell game begins. You save money, they say, because that’s less than the $211 of your property taxes spent on sewer service.

But that $211 isn’t coming back to our pockets. It’ll be spent on other things.

The sewer fee can increase in the future. Is there any cap, one resident asked, on the sewer fee rates in the future? No. “It would be irresponsible for us to put a cap on it when we don’t know what the sewer cost is moving forward,” the mayor said. She did add, “We could explore only increasing it by what the rate increases for sewer.” At the moment, that limit is not in the proposed ordinance.

The administration has not seriously explored other options to close the budget gap. The township’s outside auditor, Steve Wielkotz, presented a slide that asserted that 93.8% of the township’s budget is “externally driven cost.”

93.8% of the budget is on autopilot and untouchable by the council? That’s not true. Rather, there’s no political will to take a hard look at the budget.2

Wielkotz explained that the administration had already identified $1m in cuts, but still has a $2m budget gap. Hence, the sewer fee.

Former council candidate Stephanie Bootwala and I asked if the mayor and council have reviewed budget scenarios without a new sewer fee. Yes, the mayor eventually said. But have they? They haven’t shared a no-fee scenario with the public.

The township has been paying more and more each year for sewer service, but staff haven’t tried to reduce those increases. The township’s sewer pipes drain to the treatment plant of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (PVSC), along Newark Bay.

The cost of sewer services has increased over 35% in the last 4 years. At $5m per year, it’s one of the largest line items in Bloomfield’s entire budget. “We’re just trying to meet the increase in costs from Passaic Valley,” Mayor Mundell.

Based on this, township staff are do everything they can to trim the PVSC bills, right? It doesn’t sound that way.

Resident Norm Sutaria and I asked about the PVSC billing. How are PVSC’s rates set? Is there a contract between the township and PVSC? Do township staff have a way to verify the accuracy of PVSC billing, which is based on the amount of water and how dirty it is?

The township administrator and CFO weren’t able answer any of these questions.

Again—this is one of the largest line items in Bloomfield’s budget. Why are staff so passive about these charges? And how can they recommend implementing a new fee before trying mitigate the increases?

The administration wants to control the conversation. This session was titled “Sewer Fee Collection Transition,” as if it’s a foregone conclusion. “We don’t have a budget,” Santiago reminded Wielkotz, who quickly countered with, “We have a semblance of a budget, and this is the final piece of it, in order to have a balanced budget.” We taxpayers just aren’t allowed to see any budget scenarios until we swallow a sewer fee. And the mayor has labeled any outside discussion on this topic—which would include this post!—as misinformation.

During my time running against the Bloomfield mayor and her partner for a small seat on the County Committee, I learned a lot about how local politics is run and how individuals will go to great lengths and stoop very low to try and defend a seat they feel someone is entitled to.

Let’s get one thing straight - in the United States of America, no one is entitled to any elected position, no matter how big or small.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Why don’t we start at the very beginning?

Before being asked by a well-connected resident to run for County Committee, I had no idea what running for office entailed. I soon learned the inner workings of local politics and was exposed to the malpractices of the Democratic Machine of New Jersey and Essex County. Having lived in Bloomfield my entire life, I’d absolutely heard about the corruption in town, and I was surprised, but not shocked, when I realized just how deep the machine’s corruption runs. I feel it is my duty as a resident of Bloomfield to report what I witnessed.

Every election begins with petitions. A hopeful candidate must receive a certain number of signatures on their petition to be on the ballot. Here’s where the corruption starts - thanks to OPRA requests, it was found that many petitions turned in by machine candidates were unsigned. One candidate was not even a registered Democrat. Yet, these petitions were accepted.

As many are already aware, the June 2nd election was residents vs. party bosses, grassroots vs. big money. Voters had the choice between continuing to be led by officials who receive enormous donations from entities doing business with the town to ensure personal gain or being led by residents who do not have inside connections to said entities.

The outcome proved that Bloomfield residents are becoming increasingly aware of the unethical practices by the Democratic Machine and are beginning to say “NO”. Not one candidate was exempt from a serious competitive race, especially for the town council.

In the first ward, Stefanie Santiago earned 46% of votes against incumbent Rosalee Gonzalez’s 54%. In the second ward, Greg Babula won his race against Jason Martinez and Paul Bonica with 53% of total votes. Finally, in the third ward, Stef Bootwala earned 42% of votes against incumbent Sara Cruz’s 58%. After this close election, the machine knows its days are numbered.

Let’s talk fear-mongering. If you know anything about the Democratic Machine in New Jersey, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that misinformation and fear were used in an attempt to sway the election in favor of party bosses. Before the June 2nd election, the current mayor of Bloomfield sent out a secret email to select residents, accusing the opposition of “taking part in a MAGA-style smear campaign”. For an establishment Repub- oops, I mean Democrat, to call a section of the Democratic Party that’s much farther left than theirs “MAGA” is proof that they cannot run on their record and must spread misinformation and fear monger. This secret email also attempted to spread fear by claiming the opposition would destroy programs like Oakside Seniors and the Municipal Youth Internship Program, and would “cut Bloomfield off from vital county and state funding partnerships” (though the machine continues to rob our public schools of fair funding due to tax breaks for developers). These claims have no basis in reality and force us to ask, “Where do they get their information?” Well, if you’re a Bloomfield resident, the machine says don’t get information from neighbors, don’t trust what other residents say, only listen to the elected officials. Ultimately, they are attacking local independent journalism in a time when Americans cannot trust controlled media. Very MAGA-style to say “only trust the information coming out of political offices”, don’t you think?

You may be thinking, “What makes one say the machine cannot run on their record?” If we take a look at the majority of the town council’s voting record and their inability to defend said record in a debate, you’ll see two main issues. The first issue is the lack of questions asked by town council members before voting; how in the world could someone make an informed decision without completely understanding what exactly they are voting for? The second issue is the voting record itself. If Bloomfield residents take a look, they’ll see a consistent pattern of the majority of town council members voting against the residents’ best interests. Please refer to the town council’s votes on the resident-built Flood Mitigation Committee and the new developments in town that aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.

It is enraging as a Bloomfield resident to see the majority of the council mindlessly vote on serious issues.

You should be enraged that our elected officials in Bloomfield believe residents are so uneducated and asleep that they’d fall in line with being more heavily taxed and fall for claims that residents who educate their neighbors are corrupt. When’s the last time you saw someone from the machine at your door with facts rather than fear tactics? Here are the facts that the machine is terrified of you knowing:

The new sewer fee - our local officials lied to us, saying they’re saving us money when we are all aware that this new fee would be an extra charge on top of existing taxes.

Tax breaks for developers - as stated before, these unethical tax breaks result in our public schools losing funding from the town. Furthermore, Bloomfield is losing state funding due to these tax breaks because the state believes we are seeing much more property tax income than we really are.

Conflicts of Interest - Just one example of many, due to a conflict of interest between the former mayor, Michael Venezia, and his brother, Fire Chief Lou Venezia, a racist hate crime at the Firehouse went unchecked, resulting in the victim suing the town.

Let’s change routes: let’s talk about select Democratic machine candidates and their fans’ treatment of us grassroots candidates. While talking to voters outside the early voting location, I met some nice people from the opposition. Unfortunately, I also met individuals who thought it was okay to treat us Progressive Democrats (aka their opposition) like scum off the bat. It makes you wonder - what information are these individuals getting from the machine that makes them think it’s acceptable to treat humans like garbage?

While on the topic of behavior, why don’t we discuss the privately hired town administrator? (That’s right - the town administrator, a very powerful seat in town, is not an elected position, but appointed by the administration.) Here is my account of the intimidation attempt that took place on June 2nd:

As my running partner and I were talking to voters outside the Civic Center on Election Day, an old white man, later identified as the town administrator, came over and told us, “Everyone should support the mayor”. As a candidate running for county committee against the mayor, I recognize this as a (failed) intimidation attempt.

How embarrassing for him.

I let him know that in the United States, people can support any candidate they want.

Old political insiders continue to be ignorant of the fact that these juvenile tactics to intimidate or spread fear do not work among my generation. I absolutely do not tolerate such needlessly divisive and pathetic behavior, especially from older officials who should know better.

Intimidation tactics don’t stop with the town administrator. I’ve had multiple residents report that individuals from the machine coerced them into putting up lawn signs. Some of these residents told me, “Don’t worry - we’re still voting for you”. Additionally, there were numerous reports of law violations by machine candidate and incumbent Sara Cruz’s team, also having to do with lawn signs. I witnessed residents complaining that Cruz's lawn signs were stuck in their lawns without consent. Needless to say, other machine candidates followed the lead by sticking lawn signs on public property.

This primary election was the most competitive Bloomfield has seen in way too long. Ultimately, in my case, the machine succeeded in keeping a small seat away from a young resident so the mayor could continue to hold two elected positions. While completely unethical, this practice is not uncommon. In contrast, a former deputy mayor in a surrounding town explained that upon becoming deputy mayor, she gave up her County Committee seat. This is an example of an ethical practice I would like to see in Bloomfield rather than hoarding power. However, as stated before, not one race was exempt from being extremely competitive. Even with misinformation spread and lots of money spent by the machine, my partner and I secured over 40% of the votes in this race, ensuring a truly competitive election.

I remain hopeful that my hometown of Bloomfield, New Jersey, will one day be free of corruption. I am disappointed but not surprised at the behavior and treatment of humans that I have witnessed during my time as a political candidate, and the fear-mongering, intimidation, and misinformation the machine utilizes to protect its power. It is not within my capabilities as a person to remain silent in the face of oppression and injustice. I will continue to speak out about my hometown’s corruption until it is history.

I feel compelled to speak out about two troubling situations that occurred at this past Monday’s Bloomfield Town Council meeting because they raise serious concerns about how residents are treated when they engage with their local government.

Bloomfield has long benefited from residents who care enough to attend meetings, ask questions, and hold their elected officials accountable. That kind of civic engagement should be welcomed and encouraged. Unfortunately, two incidents I witnessed Monday night raised concerns about whether residents are being treated with the respect they deserve when they participate in the democratic process.

Although the incidents involved very different circumstances, both point to the same underlying problem: when Bloomfield residents make the effort to attend public meetings, voice their concerns, and participate in local government, they should be treated with respect and encouraged to engage—not discouraged from doing so.

A Disturbing Exchange Between a Township Official and a Resident

The first incident involved Bloomfield Fire Chief Lou Venezia and resident William Jarrett.

Mr. Jarrett had just returned to his seat after speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting. In his remarks, he referenced the acts of racial hostility allegedly directed at Bloomfield firefighter Patrick Thomas by a former firefighter, which are the subject of Mr. Thomas’ lawsuit against the Township. Mr. Jarrett also reiterated concerns that many residents have raised regarding the Township’s response to those allegations and made comments critical of Chief Venezia’s leadership of the department.

After Mr. Jarrett returned to his seat, I observed an exchange between Chief Venezia and Mr. Jarrett that quickly drew the attention of others in the audience. Based on what I personally overheard and what was reported to me by Mr. Jarrett, Chief Venezia directed the comment “you’re a real f*cking moron” at Mr. Jarrett and repeated the word “moron” multiple times. The situation escalated to the point where the Mayor called for order and the Police Chief came over to calm things down.

To say that I am appalled that our Fire Chief—or any Township employee—would speak to a resident in this manner during a Council meeting would be an understatement.

What makes the incident especially troubling is that the comments appear to have been made in response to criticism voiced during public comment. Residents have an absolute right to question, challenge, and criticize their government. That right is not contingent on whether public officials agree with what is being said, nor should residents have to worry about being insulted for exercising it.

Public officials and Township employees do not have to agree with residents. They do, however, have an obligation to treat them with professionalism and respect.

I believe two things should happen immediately. First, Chief Venezia should issue a public apology to Mr. Jarrett for conduct unbecoming the head of our Fire Department. Second, the Mayor and Council should initiate whatever review or disciplinary process is appropriate under Township policy, while fully respecting Chief Venezia’s right to due process.

Bloomfield residents deserve nothing less.

A Sudden Change to Public Comment

The second incident may seem less dramatic, but I believe it is equally important because it concerns the ability of residents to participate in their government.

For as long as I can remember, residents wishing to speak during public comment would add their names to a sign-in sheet before the meeting. After all of the individuals on the list had spoken, the Township Clerk would ask whether anyone else in attendance wished to address the Mayor and Council. This allowed late arrivals and others who had not signed in to participate. It was a simple, fair, and effective process that served the public well for many years.

The other night, however, that procedure changed without notice.

After the final person on the sign-in sheet spoke, no opportunity was given for additional speakers to come forward. Instead, the Mayor immediately moved to the next agenda item. Several residents who still wished to speak objected, but were told they would have to wait until the end of the meeting.

That opportunity did not come until nearly two hours later, after the Council had recessed into closed session and the chambers had been cleared and reopened to the public.

Whether intentional or not, the practical effect was that residents who wished to address their elected officials were forced to wait through nearly the entire meeting before being permitted to speak.

I am troubled by what appears to be an arbitrary departure from a long-standing practice that has worked well for residents and has never, to my knowledge, posed any meaningful problem. If there was a reason for the change, none was publicly explained.

In Bloomfield, public comment is not a procedural inconvenience. It is one of the most important ways residents participate in local government and communicate directly with their elected representatives. Any change that makes participation more difficult should be carefully scrutinized and publicly justified.

Why This Matters

What troubled me most about both incidents is that they involved residents attempting to participate in local government and make their voices heard.

In one case, a resident who criticized Township leadership was subjected to insults by a senior Township official. In the other, residents were effectively denied the opportunity to speak during the portion of the meeting when public comment has traditionally occurred.

The details may differ, but the result is the same: residents walk away feeling that their participation is unwelcome, inconvenient, or subject to retaliation.

That should concern everyone, regardless of political affiliation or viewpoint.

Healthy local government depends on public trust. It depends on residents believing that they can attend meetings, ask difficult questions, express disagreement, and hold officials accountable without being ridiculed or marginalized. When that trust erodes, civic engagement suffers.

As our nation prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is worth remembering that the right to petition and criticize government is among the most fundamental rights in our democracy. At the local level, that right is exercised every time a resident walks to the microphone during public comment.

Government should be doing everything possible to encourage that participation—not making it more difficult.

I urge the Mayor to restore the longstanding public comment procedure and ensure that any resident who wishes to speak during the initial public comment period has the opportunity to do so, whether or not they arrived early enough to sign the sheet.

And I urge Township leadership to reaffirm a simple principle: every resident who participates in the democratic process deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

Bloomfield is stronger when residents are engaged. We should never lose sight of that.

In Insidernj, 24 hours ago, an article announced that New Jersey lobbyist and Chair of the Essex County Democratic Committee as well as the entire State Democratic party announces “he’s gonna go progressive” and he plans to caucus some of us along.
Unbeknownst to me, a just-reelected District Leader in Bloomfield, and very active in organizing community organizers and putting good people to work as neighborhood communicators, as well as active and early member of the Essex Reform Democrats (ERD), well this article made me feel, ummmm how to say it, maybe the best word is “used.” After reading it twice, it seemed very likely that LeRoy was referring to us, the ERDs.

(NOTE: See more about the Essex Reform Democrats at the end of this article.)

Initially, some ERDs worried that something or someone was up, so today, a day later, I decided to do a bit of research and write. Besides actively working to find good people to improve our County Committee, I write critically about our Dem party because we can do better. I love my town and my state, and want better for us all.

To research, I decided to see how LeRoy’s article has landed. Afterall, it’s been out for 24 hours now. My research consists of simple traffic on the article:

After 26 hours, the article has 885 visits:

Now let’s look at social media:

X
124 views, 1 '“like” but it’s only been on the X app for 2 hours
at 3 hours, while I’ve been composing this article, views on X have increased to 161. At 4 hours, while still composing this article, views on Xhave increased to 168 with 2 likes.

Insiders’ post placing the article in Facebook:

FaceBook: 3 likes, 3 negative replies, and it’s been up for 3 hours
(Readers are having difficulty with the term “Progressive.”)

The Essex County Dem Committee on Facebook at 19 hours

49 likes, 3 replies, and it’s getting forwarded.
But, still traffic on the article: After 26 hours, the article has 885 visits.
In the statement on Facebook along with the article:
“We are excited to announce the creation of the new ECDC Progressive caucus and look forward to their insight and ideas to help ensure the future success of Essex County Democrats. We are constantly working to expand the county’s Democratic tent to make sure we are truly reflective of the values of our Party, and we remain committed to making sure every county Democrat has a seat at the table….”

In this statement above, from our County Party, the “seat at the table” business rings quite hollow, since our Bloomfield Dem Chair, ASM Michael Venezia, does not invite us to Committee Meetings. Even Chair LeRoy Jones has explained to Mike that he should not exclude us, but to no avail.

Lastly, looking at the article’s traffic:

Instagram, which is the Essex County Democratic Committee Inc.’s preferred social media

88 Likes

With my research here, my inquiry as to how much traffic LeRoy’s article gained, I’m less upset than I was yesterday about his using us to gain a label and possibly more power or popularity in the Dem Party. In Essex county, we are currently very divided about budgets, transparency, and racism in our Fire Department. Last Monday, at our Bloomfield town council meeting, after a constituent spoke at the podium about these issues, and then after he sat back down in his seat in the audience, the Fire Chief, Lou Venezia, Mike’s brother leaned across the aisle and verbally antagonized the constituent calling him a “f’n moron” several times. I sat in front of this incident.

Our mayor, annoyed at the “outburst” demanded quiet, called for order, and made no statement about what our Fire Chief had just done. No look of surprise at the verbal abuse the Fire Chief just made in public for several of us to witness. No apology. Fist on chin. Hard stare.

Constituent statement preceding the altercation

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1740518493976344

Constituent statement during the altercation

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DjStbvmTL/

That is par for the course in Bloomfield. LeRoy flooded the zone with yet something else, but we will focus on what we need to do and stay true to one another.

Next week, we have our County Committee Reorg meeting. This is the post-election meeting to set the tone. The old guard, the machine folks, are less secure in their reelections recently, so they try something new with us. They throw an olive branch, a fake offering and make it look like many of us will bail to become the rubber stampers and go-along get-along democrats of the past. Most of us will stick together. Essex Reform Democrats know that as long as lobbyists run our party, New Jersey will never prevail as the best it can be. We are here to reform and build a better party.

See more about Essex Reform Democrats at https://www.essexreform.org/

In honest transparency of my research, I Googled
“essex announce formation”
and the posts above are what I came up with. I also made sure to check Facebook and X. I found nothing on BlueSky.

Last night was the first town council meeting since last week’s primary — which may go a long way toward explaining the open disregard for the public on display from the dais. Not enough people showed up to vote for the primary, the Mayor kept her majority, and the message from the front of the room seemed to be that she no longer has to pretend otherwise.

Before six (!) proclamations, we listened to Urban Planner Paul Grygiel (who knew we had one) to talk about “Affordable Housing Administrative Agent & Housing Rehabilitation Program.” He gave a verbal overview of a plan to hire Acuity Consulting Services to run a new municipal home improvement program, offering eligible low- and moderate-income households up to $25,000 in forgivable loans for major repairs, funded through the affordable housing trust fund. But there were no visual aids and no advance notice to the public. With the mayor’s closing talk of “advertising through all available resources,” it read less like a real informational session than a PR rollout staged for the room.

Then, for over 30 minutes, six proclamations were presented and photos taken. Well-deserved public acknowledgements of the work of great groups and initiatives were presented: Proclamations for Pride Month and for Mary Valentine of Bloomfield Pride, Youth Band 40th Anniversary, Bloomfield Stitchers, Women Veterans Appreciation Day. It's worth pointing out that after the proclamations were read and the photos taken, Mayor Mundell all but encouraged people to leave. She said: "If you were here for proclamations and you want to, that's the end of our proclamations, so if you want to, I'll give you a minute to get up." If anything, she should have encouraged people to stay — especially given the matters on the agenda for the rest of the meeting.

The Public Comment Period

The public comment started with Ted Glick’s statement about what happened on the day of the election. To remind everyone, in the morning on June 2nd, Mayor Mundell posted the following statement:

Ted Glick came last night to set the record straight. He apologized for tapping the Mayor on the shoulder and laid out his own account of what happened. Watch the video I recorded below — I wanted to capture Mayor Mundell’s reaction as Ted spoke:

The Mayor offered no response, save for what her face gave away. She did not accept the apology, either. My read is that she had been counting on her version of events to stand unchallenged: to be cast as the victim of harassment. It is also worth understanding why Ted brought up MAGA at all. Here is one of the things that troubled him, and troubled many of us, myself included:

What was clear is that Mayor Mundell never expected Ted Glick to show up and speak for himself.

Next, Affan Ahmed from Investcorp, a global private equity and real estate investment firm that recently purchased The Royal [luxury] apartments. He said the firm wanted to introduce itself and expressed enthusiasm about joining the Bloomfield community, describing Investcorp as professional real estate owners and operators with projects across the U.S. that seek to invest in communities committed to growth — a quality he said Bloomfield clearly demonstrated. It's hard to say what he made of his firm's investment as he sat through the rest of the council meeting and watched the dysfunction and disunity unfold.

Matthew Font, a resident displaced by the 27 Park Place roof collapse three months ago (which displaced about 40 people), thanked the town for its help and noted a June 6th fundraiser that raised roughly $200. He then pivoted to a broader concern: the leaking pond at Halcyon Park, which he argued reflects regulatory negligence and could eventually cause a sinkhole if left unaddressed. Basically, Matt's point was that the town's failure to inspect and maintain isn't a one-off — it's a throughline.

The next public comment deserves to be reproduced in full (especially considering what happened when William Jarrett when he joined the public in the chambers).

Post-election, I thought it would be good if we reflected on where we find ourselves from when we last spoke.

I want us all to see and acknowledge the ethical crossroads in which we find ourselves. I want to remind you of your inaction on the racial discrimination of firefighter Patrick Thomas. There has been no account taken of Fire Chief Lou Venezia and his role in fostering a department of hatred.

No explanation for Township Administrator Dezenzo’s alleged cover-up of keeping Walter Coffey on payroll in order to secure his pension. No word if Walter Coffey was even fired. No apologies, no accountability, just business as usual.

Mr. Dezenzo continues to be responsible for a budget that’s seen illegal utility sweeps and unlawful terminal leave payouts. A budget that is presumably short by about the amount the proposed sewer fee is expected to collect from us. A budget that, once again, is late.

Mr. Dezenzo, the Mayor, and your financial professionals continue to hawk the sewer fee, most recently preying on Bloomfield’s senior citizens. It’s a shameless exploitation of the neighbor-to-neighbor network for your own political agenda. Our Township Auditor Steven D. Wielkotz continues to market this sewer fee proposal, violating numerous ethical standards.

This should immediately nullify his audit. As a financial watchdog, his role in promoting the utility fee that he’s required to audit constitutes a clear conflict of interest and a self-review threat. An auditor audits.

Period. NW Financial, the professionals responsible for this sewer study, which the Mayor purposely withheld from specific Council members and the public, has a financial history with the Passaic Valley Water Commission. They are directly asking this Town to provide a revenue stream to their other client, who collects this revenue.

Doesn’t this seem the least bit shady to you? Heck, Jersey City fired NW Financial after they advised them all the way to a $258 million deficit. Did anyone Google them? Speaking of conflicts of interest, the Mayor continues to chair the Metropolitan Health Insurance Fund. But why does MHIF identify her as Chair of Bloomfield Public Library and not as Mayor of Bloomfield? I mean, we see Mayor Jenny Mundell plastered all over our Township signs, parking meter covers, Juneteenth festivals, skin cancer screenings, learn to ride a bike, and resume building workshops.

But not when she’s chairing the MHIF, whom we pay $17 million a year. It just seems very odd and very conflicted. We still have issues of transparency.

The Town is now involved in litigation because it will not release the Township’s Payroll Transaction Register and Vendor History Report. Why? Seriously, wouldn’t it be cheaper just to fulfill the request? Unless, of course, there’s something there you don’t want the public to see. Speaking of keeping things from the public, you continue to silence Councilwoman Tolar Phillips, whether through not providing her copies of requested material like the sewer study, silencing her on the dais, or not assigning her to one committee.

I ask you, please let Councilwoman Toler-Phillips do the job that we elected her to do. You continue to disparage local journalism as misinformation, yet not once correcting the public record on allegations. By not once correcting the public record on allegations of financial misconduct, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and systemic institutional racism.

Is this what our $10,000 a month PR firm, the Tara Dowdell Group, is advising? Silence? Why does Bloomfield even need a PR agency anyway? Excuse me, you have 30 seconds. Isn’t the truth supposed to be free? Imagine if that $10,000 a month was used to help clean up Halcyon Park Pond or ridding Bloomfield of the rats in our streets and inside one municipal plaza. I know you have a team of lawyers that we pay for, advising you that everything you’re doing is legal.

Three more sentences, please. Thank you, sir. Your time is up.

Next, please. Clerk, please call the next one. Thank you.

That pretty much says it, doesn’t it?

Shortly after William Jarrett sat back down, he was confronted by Fire Chief Lou Venezia, who openly insulted him in front of numerous witnesses. Although the police were alerted to what was happening, the Mayor and Council simply proceeded with the rest of the meeting. There was no acknowledgement of the incident — and no signal of any kind that the Fire Chief's behavior was unacceptable. If anything, it only adds to the mounting public pressure to fire Chief Venezia. Because I posted this exchange on Facebook as it happened, I heard from many people who occupy important positions in Essex county and beyond. This is not to be tolerated.

I spoke next. Here is the copy of my remarks. I asked if there were any update to the budget and whether they have any explanation why Bloomfield PD assisted NJ State Police to subdue the protestors at Delaney Hall on May 30th. I did not get any response.

Doug Grant used his five minutes to raise several grievances. He noted, for the record, that the township had been served with a complaint he'd filed weeks earlier. He criticized the Neighbor to Neighbor nonprofit (headed by Councilwoman Sarah Cruz) for a one-sided, pre-election presentation on the sewer tax — which he insists is a tax, not a user fee — and said he'd demanded equal access and reported the group to the IRS for potential 501(c)(3) electioneering violations. He also questioned the township's retention of NW Financial, a firm he says Jersey City fired and which he argues has a conflict of interest advising both Bloomfield and the Passaic Valley sewer authority; he reported them to the SEC and MSRB. He closed by arguing Bloomfield is operating in a deficit and that the council should vote no on all spending until a budget is presented (the point that I also highlighted in my public comment).

Mary Valentine, who earlier received proclamation, spoke on the resolution being introduced by Tracy Toler-Phillips about gender-neutral bathrooms. She framed it through "universal design" — like sidewalk curb cutouts, a change that costs most people nothing but matters a lot to those who need it. She argued it benefits everyone (shorter lines for women, changing tables accessible to single dads) while being especially important for the safety and comfort of trans, non-binary, and gender-nonconforming people. She contrasted this with proclamations and Pride events, urging the council to move beyond symbolic support and pass something that makes a real difference.

After everyone who had signed up to speak had done so, Mayor Mundell cut off Norm Sutaria, who wanted to speak but hadn’t had a chance to sign up beforehand. Normally calm and collected, Sutaria was visibly distraught at being denied the chance to speak publicly. Unlike previous meetings, where the Mayor or the clerk would ask whether anyone else wished to speak, this time Mayor Mundell refused him the time. Chief Ricci then approached Norm — a move that was plainly unnecessary and only deepened the tension we’d felt all night. I would also note that the practice of allowing only pre-registered speakers to comment may run afoul of New Jersey’s open public meeting requirements, and I am following up on that. Mayor Mundell did promise that Norm can speak at the end of the meeting.

Here is a picture that is worth thousands of words:

The Business as Usual

Next, the Mayor and Council went through the business part of the meeting. There was not a single pause to reflect on the questions posed by the public, Fire Chief’s unacceptable behavior, nor the issue with not allowing Norm Sutaria to speak.

I want to put a pin on Bloomfield Broad Project Aspire. It seems to me the the mayor and the council are pushing another PILOT agreement.

Town Council members then discussed various initiatives and proposals. One prominent issue was rats. Councilwoman Cruz reefed about rats, at times, insulting our collective intelligence, and the bottom line is that the Health Department and Sarah Cruz think that the residents are to blame for the rats and the absence of cats. This is what Sarah Cruz actually said on the topic:

A lot of our large apartment buildings also just put their bags out on the street so I know that we have a system in place. I hope I can hear a little bit about it tonight from the health department of what that looks like when fining residents and finding homeowners and business owners but I think we probably could look at that differently to increase those fines and the last thing is cats.

I’ve been talking about this for years. Actual cats. So I understand that there was a time that we had like something with the animal shelter where the cats were trapped neutered and released and something changed about that and over time the rat population increased or there’s less cats out there.

In other communities in Canada and other places I see things where cats are used to mitigate rats. It’s a crazy concept but it’s also I think very forward thinking and we should explore it.

Health Director Maya Harlow walked the council through Bloomfield’s rodent mitigation efforts: 52 complaints since January 1st, 19 of which resulted in violations, with grace periods of 24–48 hours to correct issues. She detailed the department’s tools — requiring pest-control and garbage contracts at inspections, a GIS mapping project that uses eight years of complaint data and machine learning to predict rodent hotspots, a bin ordinance, and a new requirement that garbage cans have lids. A colleague identified four ward 3 hotspots now under biweekly inspection (Halcyon Park/Franklin Street, Bloomfield Center, and the Staples complex near Ampere). Council members raised lidless trash cans, residents’ fear of being fined for reporting, and natural predators — in a pitch to have young people build owl houses in the parks.

What’s striking, though, is where the responsibility keeps landing. Again and again, the framing was that rodent control is a “community and social responsibility” — that residents with private property must keep it clean, that violations fall on owners, that the public should report problems and police themselves. The township positioned itself as educator and enforcer, but rarely as a provider. And that raises an obvious question the meeting never confronted: if the goal is genuinely to fix the problem rather than punish residents, why not equip them to succeed? Rat-resistant, lidded containers distributed to Bloomfield residents would do more to deny rodents food and harborage than another round of educational flyers and fines. A town that can build a global award-winning GIS prediction model can surely invest in the one thing that would actually help residents comply — rather than mapping the problem with one hand while billing them for it with the other. Interesting enough, after we left the meeting, we saw a rat running on the stairs of the municipal building.

Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips introduced an ordinance amendment requiring single-stall bathrooms in offices, businesses, and township property to be gender neutral. She emphasized it involves no construction — just changing signage — giving existing businesses 180 days to comply and having new businesses do so when they open. She asked the council for support in passing it, framing it as a step toward greater inclusivity that would bring Bloomfield in line with towns like Maplewood, Montclair, and West Orange.

Councilman Nick Joanow raised a transparency concern about water-rate Ordinance 556, which the council passed unanimously in November. He objected to language stating that rates “may be changed or altered without notice by the mayor and council,” arguing it’s troubling for public transparency and professionally embarrassing for council members who couldn’t account for an unannounced increase. He pushed to amend the wording to reflect reality — that rates should only change with proper public notice. Throughout his remarks, the Mayor repeatedly interrupted and pushed back, insisting that rates can only lawfully be changed through a noticed, voted-on ordinance and warning him not to suggest otherwise without a factual basis. The exchange ended with both agreeing the language could be clarified, though the Mayor was firm that no rates had ever actually been changed without notice. Well, people were not happy when they received their most recent bills! 

After returning from closed session, the council moved to approve two police department promotions — an acting lieutenant and an acting sergeant — even though the written resolutions weren’t present. The motion was made by Councilwoman Charis-Tabares and seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez, passing nearly unanimously (Councilwoman Fishman recused). What’s notable is the ease and speed of it: with the township operating under what increasingly looks like an unacknowledged fiscal crisis — a point raised repeatedly throughout the night — promotions carrying real, recurring salary costs arguably shouldn’t sail through this quickly, and certainly not before the resolutions themselves were even on hand to review.

Second Public Comment Period

Finally, the last people who remained after the closed session were allowed to speak (to a nearly empty auditorium).

Norm Sutaria slammed the inconsistent, in-person-only sign-up as designed to disenfranchise and urged online sign-up like Jersey City’s. He read a letter from Donna Ryan supporting aggressive rat enforcement and bin replacement and opposing the sewer ordinance, then added his own objections: no appeals process, no renter protections (renters being ~50% of Bloomfield), and pointed to Jersey City’s ordinance on fair utility billing.

Stefanie Santiago backed the gender-neutral bathroom proposal, condemned the earlier situation of the fire chief’s verbal abuse of a resident. She, as founder of the Immigrant Justice Network, also questioned Bloomfield police units assisting the state police who were pushing protesters away from Delaney Hall using tear gas and horses.

Stef Bootwala also supported the bathrooms’ ordinance, and then revealed the sewer fee’s beneficiary, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, is in litigation over pollution-related health harms in Newark — noting Montclair and Nutley residents saw bills triple under similar fees.

Joan Hussey asked to exempt five-eighths metered homes from the increases, then pressed the town on the buried, unresolved Patrick Thomas firefighter noose case, demanding accountability before it costs Bloomfield financially and legally.

Jonathan Mejia opposed the sewer fee, said no one he’s spoken to wants it, and challenged residents over dismal turnout, only a fraction of 45,000 voters, urging them to stop venting online and vote in candidates outside the political machine. He repeated the appeal in Spanish.

The throughline of the night was a government more comfortable with ceremony than accountability. Thirty minutes of proclamations and photos came easily; transparency on water rates, candor about the township’s fiscal condition, and any acknowledgement of the fire chief’s conduct did not. Residents showed up with research, documents, and specific demands: on the sewer fee, the unresolved Patrick Thomas case, the disenfranchising sign-up rules, and were too often met with interruption, deflection, or silence. What emerged is a portrait of the mayor and council that treats inclusion as a photo opportunity while sidestepping the harder work of governing in the open. The real question Jonathan left in the room is the one that lingers: residents keep voicing frustration online and at the podium, but until that frustration translates into turnout at the ballot box, the status quo has every reason to expect it can wait out the noise.

The bus stop on Glenwood Avenue, between the CVS and the Bloomfield train station, was always busy, but riders did not have a place to sit. Riders would sit in the grass, or on the sidewalk, exposed to the elements, until activists from ROUTE and Lackawanna Coalition, in conjunction with the Bloomfield council, successfully pushed for a bus shelter.

It was a small improvement in the grand scheme of regional transportation, but for the people who use that stop every day, it mattered.

Much like the bus riders on Glenwood Avenue, Bloomfield citizens deal with issues where their expectations of convenient transit collide with the current reality. Regional mobility shifted dramatically since DeCamp Bus abruptly ended commuter service in April 2023 after giving riders only 3 weeks’ notice.

The former DeCamp territory in Essex County remains the only post-Covid service to not be fully restored by NJ Transit. Instead, residents were left with limited, rush hour-only bus service. Residents of the north side of Bloomfield who purchased homes to be near DeCamp Bus stops now find themselves cut off from the transit they sought. New apartments are springing up on all sides of the Bloomfield train station even as the station only has service to Hoboken every two hours on weekends. This service was presented as a no-cost pilot in 2009 using existing equipment and remains the only option for a one-seat ride to the city on weekends.

At the end of 2025, for the first time since DeCamp abruptly stopped service, Montclair, Bloomfield, and Glen Ridge published surveys asking residents how the current transit options are meeting their needs. The response across thousands of residents was immediate and resounding: the demand for transit never disappeared, even as service did. Across Bloomfield and surrounding towns, transit riders are improvising workarounds, taking the Newark light rail to Newark, driving to the PATH, driving to other stations such as Secaucus Junction and Brick Church, driving to Weehawken for the ferry, or even taking an Uber all the way to Hoboken.

The surveys show, perhaps for the first time, the workarounds and latent demand in stark relief. In Bloomfield, 78% of survey respondents prioritized more consistent train service, including weekends and off-peak hours, while nearly 61% reported traveling to New York City on weekends in the prior six months. Many residents call out that the schedule is inadequate and say they would use more transit if service were more available. People are also noticing the disconnect between transit-oriented growth and a transit system that becomes significantly less usable on weekends. The survey results suggest something important: residents adapted to reduced service, but adaptation should not be confused with satisfaction.

I believe the best infrastructure is noticed least, but in Bloomfield’s case, a system that should be seamless becomes an obstacle to negotiate on the weekend, something I like to call the “calculus proof.” Bloomfield residents organize their lives around transit, but the system is increasingly not meeting them halfway. NJ Transit’s own data confirms that weekend and off-peak demand now exceeds pre-pandemic levels while weekday peak demand lags, but the system remains optimized for Monday-Friday commuting. It is time to end this disconnect, and the survey strongly suggests Bloomfield residents already believe this. They spoke loudly and clearly when finally asked whether the current situation was acceptable.

Given NJ Transit’s stated constraints around buses and bus drivers, I believe our first ask should focus on improving weekend train service while also studying and planning for eventual full restoration of the DeCamp Bus territory, including communities such as Belleville and the north side of Bloomfield that relied heavily on DeCamp service.

Hourly weekend service on the Montclair-Boonton line is operationally modest, cost-effective, widely supported in the community, and deserving of serious public consideration. It would give Bloomfield the same level of service that neighboring communities like East Orange, Orange, South Orange, and Maplewood enjoy, and allow Bloomfield to fulfill its promise as a transit-oriented community.

Bloomfield is already functioning like a transit-oriented community in how people live, build, and travel. Our transportation network should reflect that reality seven days a week, not just during weekday rush hour. The demand is clearly there, and the current system is not keeping pace with how residents actually live and travel. We hope this year’s NJ Transit budget will include funding for hourly, weekend service on the Montclair-Boonton line serving Bloomfield and Watsessing Avenue stations, with studies for full DeCamp restoration. Bloomfield has been without coherent weekend transit for 3 years, and it is time to end this.

Something we’d been preparing for months has finally happened: yesterday was our primary election. It made for a long day — there was still so much to do right up until the doors closed at 8 p.m. sharp.

Afterward, we all gathered at the Old Canal Inn to tabulate results and wait for the numbers to roll in from the Essex County Clerk’s unofficial results page. Little by little, we started to see them — some signs of hope, some signs of letdown.

What follows is my read on how everyone performed in this consequential primary. These are my subjective musings, though I do try to back them up with data and facts. So take it all with a grain of salt and don’t come at me if I didn’t crown you or your candidate a winner.

Winners

Analilia Mejia

Congresswoman Analilia Mejia won her third election this year without much hesitation. The election was called in her favor less than 20 minutes after the polls closed. She won over 81% of the democratic votes and she will face Joe Hathaway, again in November 2026. He seems to want a rematch, but considering his landslide loss in April, I am not too worried about Congresswoman Analilia Mejia finally being able to serve a full term. She has already been a very active lawmaker, making frequent oversight visits to Delaney Hall, voting, and questioning Trump administration officials in congressional hearings. This was one just from today:

Frank Velez

This is a bit of a cheating. Frank Velez won his election three weeks ago in May in an non-partisan election, but his victory energized candidates in Bloomfield and made them belief that anything is possible. When people are tired campaigning and knocking on doors, it helps seeing this achievement. The youngest mayor who unseated the two-term incumbent Mayor Michael A. Melham in Belleville, stopped by our election watch party last night.

Deb Engel

Deb Engel, the former deputy of Maplewood, won her seat as an Essex County Commissioner at Large last night! This was an exciting win because Deb Engel did not receive Essex County endorsement back at March 2026 Convention. In fact, only four candidates from the announced candidates received this endorsement. Nonetheless, she decided to run without the endorsement. She attended community events, like the ones in Bloomfield, participated in many meet and greets, and had the most visually appealing flyers and lawn signs. Deb Engel later in the campaign teamed up with Marques Aquil Lewis, and they both were endorsed by Mayor Ras Baraka.

The results of yesterday’s election shook up the establishment, for sure! Deb Engel is one of the top four finishers in the Democratic primary for four At Large seats.

With 96.87% of the vote counted, Engel is in third place with 31,211 votes, behind Verona Councilwoman Christine McGrath with 38,543 votes and West Orange Democratic Municipal Chairman Adur R. Yasin with 32,657 votes. The only incumbent running, Wayne Richardson, is in fourth place with 30,549 votes.

Having Deb Engel on the board will broaden access to the Essex County Board of Commissioners, considering her campaign promises and her top issues. Here is an excerpt from her Facebook post last night:

Today marks a change in the way Essex County runs. I am the first independent candidate, not endorsed by the Essex County Democratic Committee, to win the Democratic primary for County Commissioner At-Large. We’ve shown that when people have new ideas that are responsive to people’s needs, we can take on entrenched power and we can win.

This shows that the best candidates are the ones who are not afraid to forge ahead even if they don’t get the county’s nod (a-hem Corey Anderson)!

Essex Reform Democrats

There were a number of district leaders for Essex County Democratic Committee who ran on Essex Reform Democrat banner, as opposed to ECDC Inc slogan for the ones who were affiliated with the county. Notwithstanding no material support aside for a data analytic tool, many Essex Reform Democrats won. Many ERD endorsed candidates won: Deb Engel countywide, Greg Babula for Bloomfield council, and 55 district leader won across 8 municipalities. This number may grow due to a number of write-in candidates under ERD banner. Myself and Tracy Toler-Phillips were able to protect our district leader position under Essex Reform Democrats. This is the description of the group’s purpose from the website:

Essex Reform Democrats seeks to foster changes at the state and county levels that will benefit the many and not the few. We seek to: establish rules for Democratic Party that are fair and transparent; assure more participation in the election of state and county party leaders; require bylaws at the municipal level; and prohibit party, state, and county officials from personally profiting off relationships with any government entity.

We believe Essex Reform Democrats can serve as a big tent that makes real progress on building up a New Jersey Democratic party that is a national leader in fairness, transparency, and public service.

Bloomfield Elections: Greg Babula

Greg Babula, one of the three insurgent candidates for Ward seats, won the primary against Jason Martinez, a Venezia/Mundell hand-picked candidate and Essex County Employee. Greg Babula who announced his run relatively late in season, was able to amount an aggressive canvassing operation, and educational campaign. He hosted a few well-attended meet and greets. He sent out a mailer about the sewer fee and testified in front of the zoning board on the proposal of a drive-through McDonalds on Broad street, in Ward 2. He was able to capture enough attention to pull out upset for Team Mundell and Michael Venezia, specifically, considering that Ward 2 is his home ward. Of course, four high-profile endorsements raised Greg Babula’s profile above that of Jason Martinez (who belatedly was endorsed by the governor and Cory Booker). Greg will replace the long-serving Councilman Nick Joanow who decided not run again.

These results were most welcome last night at the Old Canal Inn. Greg Babula received 1159 votes (53.02%) to Jason Martinez’s 964 votes (44.1%). There was no Republican primary, thus Greg Babula will be unchallenged in the general election in November.

Tracy Toler-Phillips

While Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips didn’t run in this primary — apart from joining me on the ballot for a District Leader seat, which we won — she still came out ahead by gaining another ally on the council. Given how unwelcoming the current council and the mayor has been to her, Greg’s background is a real asset: he’s served on the Planning Board, the Environmental Commission, and the Historic Preservation Commission, and worked with the Brookdale Park Conservancy and the Bloomfield Center Alliance to support our parks and downtown.

​Honorable Mentions

Stefanie Santiago and Stef Bootwala

I really believed we could pull off a clean sweep of the council and elect both Stefanie Santiago and Stef Bootwala. I saw the momentum, the energy, the excitement of the volunteers — people were drawn to both of them. I watched Stef Bootwala canvass and marveled at how easily she could talk to anyone. Stefanie Santiago organized informational sessions explaining the district leaders, the Bloomfield Democratic Committee, and the Essex County Democratic Committee. Both worked methodically and tirelessly, handling everything from flyer design to community meetups — runs in the park, small gatherings in coffee houses and living rooms.

And they showed up where it mattered: volunteering for the displaced families at 27 Park Place, visiting Delaney Hall to help stock the hospitality tent. They never hesitated to use their candidacy to confront the issues that mattered, speaking up at council meetings. Considering that both are mothers of young children who also work full time, what they accomplished is astounding. They came within striking distance of winning — and they built a community along the way. From text-message groups to sign-ups for the early voting site, people turned out for Stefanie, Stef, and Greg. They were vastly overspent compared to the rival ECDC slate, and perhaps that made the difference. But they reached deeper and further into people’s hearts.

For this town’s sake, I hope both of them stay as active and involved as they were even before they ran. We need them.

Losers

Michael Venezia

Michael Venezia didn’t have to run a major race this year, and the one he did run, he barely won — squeaking through for his district leader seat. His fellow ECDC-endorsed district leader candidate lost outright, which means he’ll now share the district with Essex Reform Democrat Norman Nicolai rather than an ally.

He also lost his own Ward — and that’s the telling part. As chair of the Bloomfield Democratic Committee and a sitting assemblyman, Venezia had every institutional advantage and still couldn’t carry his own candidate, Jason Martinez, who happens to be his legislative aide. His effort showed it: a lackluster endorsement video that landed only after the opposing slate’s triple endorsement, and a day spent working voters outside polling places. For a former mayor and current assemblyman, that’s not the campaign of someone confident in his standing. With his influence already on shaky ground — and his biggest Belleville backer, Michael Melham, no longer in his corner — this election looked less like a stumble than a pattern.

Jenny Mundell

While Mayor Mundell managed to hold two of her incumbent seats, she lost the third to the insurgents. She didn’t run a major race herself (only a defense of her district leader position) but she made her presence felt everywhere else. Whether through campaign contributions, her #TeamMundell hashtag, or a few strange videos, she was all in.

And yet the wins aren’t impressive. Incumbents Sarah Cruz and Rosalee Gonzalez held on, but only barely — Stef Bootwala and Stefanie Santiago came within striking distance of both. That a shoestring insurgent campaign could push the deep-pocketed TeamMundell operation this hard should give Jenny Mundell real pause. Will she be this lucky in two years, when she’s on the ballot herself alongside the at-large council members?

Her tactics raise the same question. Between fear-mongering emails to constituents and pressure on local businesses not to host insurgent events, this was not the campaign of a leader confident in her support. None of it suggests someone with broad, durable appeal to the residents of Bloomfield.

Bloomfield Democratic County Committee

The Bloomfield Democratic Committee’s district leaders were also up for re-election. The insurgents, those not endorsed by the ECDC, won a number of these races, and most incumbent insurgents held their seats. Interestingly, Councilwoman Jill Fischman couldn’t hold on to her district leader position. It raises a fair question: how does someone win a council seat at large, yet fail to earn the support of her own neighbors to keep representing them at the district level? This isn’t new, either. In 2024, the same thing happened to Essex County Commissioner Carlos Pomares, who lost his district leader seat. When people elected to wider offices can’t carry their own block, what does that tell us about the organization beneath them?

And I know for a fact that the people running against Tracy Toler-Phillips and me were pressured to run. Why? Is it that chairman Mike Venezia, like Jenny Mundell, simply can’t tolerate dissenting voices?

Apparently, the BDCC also struggles to train its members in proper conduct as poll greeters and challengers. Stefanie Santiago witnessed a disturbing incident in which the BDCC treasurer, Bob DeMarino, acted aggressively toward her and struck a campaign volunteer with a cane. She documented the whole episode in an Instagram post:

Finally, consider how this organization actually operates. It has failed to convene a single meeting of the full body of district leaders since the reorganization meeting. It does no canvassing for national or state candidates. Nor does it educate about its purpose or roles. It functions less like a political organization than a private club — and a patrimonial one at that, where loyalty to the chairman matters more than the work. That is the style of governance that rules at the BDCC.

Residents of Bloomfield

In a heated primary dominated by urgent local issues : the new sewer fee and a badly overdue municipal budget, and shaped by high-profile endorsements that made statewide headlines, with Senator Andy Kim, Congresswoman Analilia Mejia, State Senator Britnee Timberlake, and Mayor Baraka lining up on one side and Governor Mikie Sherrill and Senator Cory Booker on the other, Bloomfield residents by and large still didn’t grasp the importance of this local election. And so, in the end, we lost — not to any one candidate, but to our own absence.

The numbers tell the story. Turnout was just 15.5% — roughly 6,200 ballots out of nearly 40,000 registered voters, fewer than one in six. Even our most engaged precinct topped out at under 27%, and most of the town never showed up at all. For all the attention from the top of the ticket, the future of our town was handed to a small, committed minority while the rest of us stayed home. That isn’t democracy working the way it should — it’s the rest of us forfeiting our say.

The loss wasn’t shared evenly, either. Turnout ranged from 6.2% to 26.7% across our precincts, and that spread isn’t random noise — it means some neighborhoods reliably make their voices heard while others, year after year, go quiet. Ward 2 carried the town; parts of Wards 1 and 3 barely participated. When whole sections of Bloomfield don’t vote, they don’t just lose an election — they lose a seat at the table on the sewer fee, the budget, and every other decision that lands on their doorstep.

And because so few of us turned out, it took so little to decide it all. With turnout this low, races can swing on a few dozen votes per precinct. That should alarm every resident: it means the direction of our entire town can be set by a sliver of the people who live here, while the overwhelming majority — the rest of us — have no hand in it. We didn’t lose because we were outvoted. We lost because we didn’t show up.

In the end, the real story of this primary isn’t any single winner or loser — it’s how few of us showed up to decide it. The energy is there; we saw it in the volunteers, the meetups, the campaigns that came within striking distance on a shoestring. The challenge now is to carry that energy past Election Day. In two years the stakes will be higher, and Bloomfield can't afford to sit another one out.

It is June 1st — the eve of the primary, and the campaigns have one last day to knock on doors before the polls open. A lot of Bloomfield has already voted, by mail and during early voting, but tomorrow is when it gets decided; in a town this blue, the June primary is the whole ballgame. I am writing this now, before a single result is in, because the choice on the ballot is bigger than the names printed on it. It is a choice about how Bloomfield is governed at all.

The climate in New Jersey is overall very charged. We are seeing the rise of using police force against protesters at Delaney Hall. Many people have documented the abuse first from masked ICE agents (inside and outside of the facility) and then state troopers who were sent in by the governor. Mayor Ras Baraka also instituted a curfew at the site of the protests at Delaney Hall. Meanwhile, immigrants in Delaney Hall are continuing with their hunger and labor strike and while some visitations have resumed many people still have not seen their loved one in Delaney Hall.

So, with this background, and Delaney Hall being only 15.5 miles from my home, things are getting tense in Bloomfield. As I wrote last week, the progressive candidates Stefanie Santiago, Greg Babula, and Stef Bootwala received endorsements from Senator Andy Kim, Congresswoman Analilia Mejia, and State Senator Timberlake. This week they also received Mayor Ras Baraka’s endorsement.

The incumbents (Sarah Cruz (Ward 3) and Rosalee Gonzalez (Ward 1) and the handpicked candidate Jason Martinez (Ward 2) from Team Mundell received endorsements from the governor Mikie Sherrill and Senator Cory Booker. Neither of them made an appearance nor made a special video endorsements. Their endorsements were generic and seemed to be rushed (judging by the quality of the graphics).

The Stakes

If all three progressive candidates win tomorrow, Mayor Mundell loses her council majority in January 2027. That outcome looks very possible — the progressives have drawn serious endorsements, run a disciplined ground game, and out-canvassed the field. And she doesn’t need to lose all three races to be in trouble. Even one or two progressive wins would erode her bloc, since the newcomers would line up alongside Councilwoman Tracy Toler-Phillips. That arithmetic, I suspect, is what produced the genuinely bizarre video she posted to Instagram last night — the one in which she enlisted her dog, Ace (apparently without his informed consent), to help coax the electorate toward her incumbents and Jason Martinez. She even allowed that she “didn’t want to speak for Ace” before going ahead and speaking for him.

Watching the mayor’s video last night, I was struck by how completely she misunderstands, or simply refuses to accept, the limits the Bloomfield charter places on her office. The pattern is everywhere. It is in how she runs council meetings, how she turns up at events, how the Bloomfield Buzz lands in our inboxes stamped with her photos, how she delivers State of the Township addresses, how her face anchors the campaign literature. At every turn she wants to be the sole face of Bloomfield, and she wants everyone to know she is the mayor.

Nowhere is this clearer than the sewer fee debacle. When the records were finally obtained through OPRA, the correspondence with NW Financial ran between Mayor Mundell, Carmine Sarno (Treasurer and Acting CFO), Steven Wielkotz (Registered Municipal Accountant), and Township attorney Khalifa Shabazz. Not a single other council member was on this confidential memo— unless they were quietly blind-copied.

In practice, she has claimed a role the charter never gave her: mayor as CEO.

But that is not the office Bloomfield created. Mayor Mundell’s video leaves the impression that running the town is the work of its elected officials — the mayor and council who “oversee that policy,” “approve a budget,” and have to “get along” to make the place function — with the mayor as the figure stewarding the process and speaking for where Bloomfield is headed. The charter assigns those roles very differently. Governing is done by the Council collectively: § C8 requires the body to “act as a whole” and expressly bars it from performing administrative functions, and the day-to-day running of the Township is delegated to a full-time Administrator whom the Council, not the Mayor, appoints (§ C7-D). The Mayor is defined in § C9-A as nothing grander than “the Councilman at large” — one member of that council.

Her distinctive powers don’t change that. Presiding over meetings, appointing committees, introducing the budget ordinance, vetoing ordinances and resolutions (§ C9) — every one of them operates inside the council’s legislative process, and even the veto is reversible: under the general law the charter runs on, an ordinance still takes effect if the council overrides by a two-thirds vote of all its members. None of these powers place the Mayor above the council or put her in charge of the town. So the video’s portrait of the mayor as the leader who keeps Bloomfield running contradicts the charter itself, under which she presides over a deliberative board of equals while a professional administrator actually runs the municipality.

Powers of the Mayor under the charter (§ C9)

The charter’s opening clause gives the Mayor “the powers and duties prescribed for the office by general law, the Charter and ordinances,” and then specifies five:

Council member (§ C9-A). The Mayor sits as the Councilman at large — a full, voting member of the seven-person Council, with the same legislative role as the other members.

Presiding officer (§ C9-B). The Mayor chairs council meetings she attends and appoints council committees. This is gavel-and-agenda authority, not command over staff or departments.

Approval and veto (§ C9-C). The Mayor approves or vetoes ordinances and resolutions, but the veto acts only on the council’s own legislation and can be overridden by a two-thirds council vote. It is a check inside the lawmaking process, not executive control.

Budget introduction (§ C9-D). The Mayor “consult[s] and advise[s]” the Township Administrator while the budget is prepared, then introduces the budget ordinance. Note the wording: she advises the Administrator on the budget; she does not prepare or administer it.

Delegated duties (§ C9-E). The Mayor performs any additional duties the Council chooses to delegate by ordinance — and the Council can amend or repeal that delegation at will.

The Mayor has no independent executive or administrative authority. Running the Township is vested in the Administrator the Council appoints (§ C7-D); the Council governs collectively and may not even run administration through its own committees (§ C8); and the core governing powers — adopting the budget, levying taxes, spending, and organizing offices — belong to the Council as a whole (§ C7), not to the Mayor.

In short: the charter makes the Mayor a presiding member of a board that legislates collectively, with a professional administrator running the town. It does not make the Mayor the town’s executive.

Bloomfield Has a Patrimonial Government

This view of her role hews far closer to a different style of government than the democratic one our charter sets out. Political theorists have a name for it: patrimonialism. And once you see it, the pattern stops looking like ordinary ambition and starts looking like a coherent way of ruling.

The term comes from Max Weber, who set it against what he called legal-rational authority — the kind a charter embodies, where power flows from impersonal offices defined by rules, and where obedience is owed to the position and the law, never to the person who happens to occupy it. Patrimonial authority runs in the opposite direction. As Weber put it, “the object of obedience is the personal authority of the individual which he enjoys by virtue of his traditional status. The organized group exercising authority is, in the simplest case, primarily based on relations of personal loyalty, cultivated through a common process of education” (1947, p. 341). The ruler does not administer an impersonal state; she presides over something more like a household, staffed by loyal retainers, in which the line between the public office and the private person dissolves. As Jonathan Rauch (2025) wrote in the Atlantic piece about this government style, “… patrimonialism is suspicious of bureaucracies; after all, to exactly whom are they loyal? They might acquire powers of their own, and their rules and processes might prove obstructive. People with expertise, experience, and distinguished résumés are likewise suspect because they bring independent standing and authority. So patrimonialism stocks the government with nonentities and hacks, or, when possible, it bypasses bureaucratic procedures altogether.”

Apply that to Bloomfield and the picture is uncomfortably exact. Under our charter, our allegiance is supposed to run to offices and laws — to a council that governs as a whole and a process anyone can read in black and white. Under the logic on display, we are instead called to abide by the personal authority of Mayor Mundell. Those who do not abide are simply cast aside. And the path to success in Bloomfield politics is not competence, or service to a defined public function, but proximity: to curry favor and pledge loyalty to her and to the Essex County organization behind her.

You can see the same instinct in who gets kept and who gets pushed out. Mayor Mundell does not seem to want people with independent expertise and institutional memory; she wants people who are loyal. I watched it happen firsthand from my own seat on the Rent Leveling Board, and the pattern reaches well beyond it. Institutional knowledge is walking out the door: longtime members of key bodies such as Historic Preservation, Zoning, Planning, are gone, and even the flood committee has been eliminated notwithstanding public pushback.

None of this is new. I wrote about the same thing happening in the Mundell administration a year ago :

These moves, alongside the broader removal or rejection of other experienced committee members, appear to be petty — less about improving community involvement than about political retaliation. By sidelining individuals with deep institutional knowledge and established community trust, critics argue, the Council risks sacrificing continuity and expertise. Mayor Mundell, for her part, says her goal is to introduce new people — an idea some praise for its potential to infuse fresh perspectives, but which others fear could erode the committees’ collective know-how.

That is not a republic of offices, which is what the charter built. It is a court. She did not start this (and of course, as a woman, the label is not quite correct). But she is just a piece of the patrimonial puzzle found in NJ. NJ Democrat Substack has written two pieces on Michael Venezia that peg him as a mini-boss. They have picked their candidates for Bloomfield council to perform their loyal duties: Sarah Cruz who also is Asm Venezia’s chief of staff and Jason Martinez who also works for Essex County. They are the guaranteed supporters of Mayor Mundell’s vision of mayorship in Bloomfield.

This is why this primary election is such a flash point that made the mayor release the video last night. She is worried she is losing her grip on the council, and her power, which is only assumed, and not codified in law.

So tomorrow, vote for the kind of government the charter actually wrote down — offices and laws, not courtiers and loyalty.

Stefanie Santiago, First Ward (1F) — Bloomfieldforprogress.com

Greg Babula, Second Ward (1F) — Gregforbloomfield.com

Stef Bootwala, Third Ward (1F) — Bloomfieldforprogress.com

And of course, don’t forget:

Analilia Mejia for NJ 11 - https://www.analiliafornj.com/

Deb Engle for Essex County Commissioner - https://www.debengelforessex.com/

Marques-Ali Lewis for Essex County Commissioner https://www.facebook.com/MinisterM.Lewis