The Jersey City Independent "

Photos: Steve Gold

The Healy administration’s plan for the Jersey City Incinerator Authority (JCIA) to absorb the Department of Public Works (DPW) was introduced to the City Council by a 6-2 vote Wednesday night. Ward C councilwoman Nidia Lopez and Ward E councilman Steven Fulop voted against the plan; Ward B councilman David Donnelly was not able to attend the meeting due to a family medical issue.

The six council members who did vote for the ordinance, however, took a conciliatory tone for the assembled public — including plenty of local union members who led a protest against the plan prior to the meeting — that packed council chambers. While acknowledging the plan lacked the specifics necessary to make such a drastic decision, these council members voted for the measure, citing the bleak necessity of managing the city’s large budget shortfall.

“Although I’m going to vote ‘aye,’ it needs a lot of work,” Ward D councilman Bill Gaughan said amid loud boos from the crowd. “There are union issues [and] issues of people’s retirement. I hope that, in preparing to bring this back in two weeks, we’ll have those answers.” 

Council president Peter Brennan and Ward A councilman Michael Sottolano, like Gaughan, expressed reservations about their affirmative vote, with Sottolano suggesting that the item could always be tabled in two weeks if the council isn’t provided with the details it is looking for from the administration.

At-Large councilman Ray Velazquez, however, took a more defiant tone, saying that his responsibilities went beyond simply pleasing those in attendance.

“I’m going to do what I feel is in the best interest of the people of Jersey City, and the people of Jersey City want us to make tough decisions so their taxes don’t keep going up. That’s what I’m going to do,” he said. ”And at the end of the day, when I’m no longer here, I’m going to feel comfortable with the decisions that I made, which I think are in the best interest of the city. You can hoot and holler all you want because my obligation goes further than the people here today, but to everyone in the city.”

But Fulop, the most vocal of the two opposing the bill, once again said the process employed by the city to merge the two entities is flawed. He thinks that the city should heed the July recommendation of outside attorney Eric Bernstein and merge the autonomous JCIA into the DPW instead of the other way around.

“Creating a fair process, creating clarity, that’s the proper way [and] that’s what’s fair to the city,” he said Wednesday. “A lot of people are scared for their pensions and their livelihood. Put yourself in their position — you’d be sitting out there as well.”

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Local 68 representative Salvatore Costanza (at right), whose union includes operating engineers, also took issue with the process, saying he and his members were upset that it hasn’t yet included them.

“Who is being affected? Before next meeting we need to sit down with unions,” he said, addressing the council. “If you don’t ask us what we can do, then yeah, you’re going to upset quite a few people out there. I’m hoping we can have meetings from now until the next board meeting because we really need to get answers. Tell these Union 245 people what’s going to happen to them. I’m embarrassed to say to them that I don’t know what’s going on.”

Another union representative who spoke during the meeting also took issue with the way the proposal came about, and said the workers have been asked to give back more than their fair share already.

“We object to the time and manner in which this happened,” Jersey City Supervisors Association president Ben Anderson said. “We object to the elimination of civil services, which provides protection to public employees and provides a toolkit for the employer as well. [We object] to how this will affect our pension, health benefits and retirement status in the future. In this calendar year we’ve lost 16 days already, lost our traditional health benefits. We’re now carrying the brunt of the cutbacks.”

Anderson echoed Fulop’s suggestion that the city consolidate the JCIA into the DPW instead.

“We want you to sit by the study commissioned by the council itself,” he said, referring to Eric Bernstein’s July memo.

Fulop also continued to harp on the politics behind the move, saying that anyone who believed that politics would not play a role in the decision of which employees the merged entity will retain were “living in a dream world.”

“I don’t understand why people would say they’re concerned about lives and timing and still vote for [this],” he said. “It makes absolutely no sense.”

Lopez, in voting no, cited the same rationale that led several of her colleagues to express reservations about the bill: a lack of details. She said that while she understands the importance of making structural changes to attack the budget deficit, that lack of details forced her to vote no.

Prior to the meeting, a group of unionized workers from the DPW and their respective union heads had gathered outside City Hall to protest the measure.

Parks supervisor Santo DellaMonica suggested the city could save more money by folding the JCIA into the DPW, as Fulop is suggesting. As for his members and co-workers, he said the job protections afforded to civil employees will disappear under the JCIA.

“This merger that they want to do here is going to take away our job security,” he said.

For now, the ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing and final vote at the next City Council meeting, Tuesday, November 23.

Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.