I made no mention of any party affiliation in that post. However, if you truly want to "say it like it is" on Jan 11 2012 it was reported in Patch "From his own research, Metzler said it appeared the borough cancelled flood insurance on the facility around 2000-2001" The anti-Dems that post here called the prior councils negligent and worse for something for which they had no control and yes, regardless of party affiliation the prior councils deserve an apology.

It isn't uncommon that insurance carriers initially deny claims. I'm glad Metzler fought and eventually got the money. I'd also think with his many prior years serving Fair Lawn he would be aware of what was insured and by whom. That's his job.

It was an accusation with the assumption via the article that it was uninsured out of negligence. How would you describe it? The attacks came from the people like you posting here, and still do.

Thanks for the advice Go Figure! But..where did I say you attacked me? And how WOULD you describe it?

If that is your position you do realize they are being replaced by basically the same thing in the same place, right?

We don't need to plunder the "savings" to do that. We are paying him $15,000 because of the "car incident", he may not be able to buy a nice new car with that, but he can lease a very nice one, on us!

We need more people like Lenny in Fair Lawn.

Are you sure you remember hearing that from Democrats 12 years ago when the trailers were installed or did you hear that this year from the same people that said the town cancelled the insurance out of negligence, to save money and "kick the can down the road"? Then there is always the question of how movable are 10 yr old trailers that sat in the same place with the same tires when you have about 2 days notice and do you use your limited time and resources to move them or for preparations to save people.

Would it be fair to say that FEMA did not consider the trailers to be portable since Mr. Metzler had to convince them that they were?
If that's the case, it seems the chain of events would be 1) portable trailers purchased so that they can be removed easily in a flood 2a) trailers became permanent 2b) insurance was not purchased to cover the now permanent structures 3) flood 4) FEMA considered the trailers permanent, did not reimburse for damages 5) Mr. Metzler worked his magic.
Despite the behind-the-scenes splotchiness, I again commend Mr. Metzler for another job well done.

Tony, you should really read the articles instead of just the comments. The article states that FEMA did not pay because mobile equipment is UNINSURABLE. Metzler then had to go to our own insurance company and prove they were portable. (probably not too hard since a govt entity already ruled them as such, but yes, good job taking pics of the wheels). It's more like having work done in your mouth and passing your claim between dental and medical insurances until one of them pays the claim.

Metzler was Dir of Emergency Services 1990 until he became the Manager in 2005, during which time these were purchased and installed. He later worked (and still works according to his LinkedIn) for FEMA. With all this experience and knowledge his comment when he was first rehired that his "research" showed the people who let him go were negligent set off a firestorm of criticism that has proven false. It is still my opinion that those falsely accused deserve an apology.

Bellair,
Despite the inference in your somewhat snide opening, I read the articles, I read the comments, and I read your explanation. When the trailers became "functionally immobile," it would stand to reason that they were no longer portable. Would it have then been the borough's responsibility to get insurance at that time? I only ask because I am wondering what would have happened if Mr. Metzler was not able to win on the technicality. Again, I'm reading it as portable=FEMA covered it, not portable=need insurance.

"Would it have then been the borough's responsibility to get insurance at that time?" Good question Tony, Why don't you ask the person who was Borough Manager at the time the trailers were "functionally immoblie", Mr Metzler.

Isn't the better question, why is Fair Lawn running an entertainment business that competes with the employers of 2 sitting council members? Wouldn't the private (profit or not-for-profit) sector do a better job? We loose hundreds of thousands a year on that project.

Issues like this should not be taking up the Manager's time. What's next Borough Bingo? Borough bowling? Borough strippers?

BB, Assuming it was his responsibility to purchase insurance, I suppose that would be a good question to ask of Mr. Metzler.
So if I follow your logic correctly 1) Whoever said that the people responsible were negligent owe those responsible an apology 2) Mr. Metzler was responsible, as he was the borough manager at the time and 3) Mr Metzler said that those responsible were negligent...then is it your assertion that Mr. Metzler owes HIMSELF an apology?
CHECKMATE

T-Money,
You know I love you and all, but if Borough Bingo was a thing, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.
Borough Bowling can't come soon enough.

Entertainment business? Tommy Boy, are you in the right place? None of the Council members are in the entertainment business. 2 work for the county, 2 work for the Y and one is self employed.

Tony, before we get into whether or not you can follow logic maybe you can explain how you gleaned "portable=FEMA covered it" from the article which states "FEMA's guidelines prohibit insuring mobile equipment."

BB, sure thing. By the way, I apologize for kidding around with you. I forgot that the fate of the entire political system as we know it rests on your shoulders. I'll try and choose my words carefully, I know how mumbling on a local news website is no laughing matter (for you).
Well, if I am reading this correctly, FEMA prohibits mobile units from being insured.
I suspect that that does not preclude the borough from getting insurance anyway if it wanted to; it just means that FEMA would simply not cover equipment that was already insured. Admittedly, I am not an expert on the matter, but if that is correct, a mobile unit that is not insured would be covered by FEMA in the event of loss, and a mobile unit that is insured would be covered by that insurance in the event of loss. Since 1) it was not insured and 2) FEMA did not consider it mobile, FL was left holding the bag were it not for Mr. Metzler's diligence.
But what do I know, I like you am another person on the sidelines playing Monday Morning Quarterback to actual people doing real things.

Antonelli: "Entertainment business? Tommy Boy, are you in the right place? None of the Council members are in the entertainment business.... 2 work for the Y...."

"Entertainment is an action, event or activity that aims to entertain, amuse and interest an audience ("audience" can consist of one person)." -- Wikipedia

By that definition, the Y provides entertainment.

No matter how you want to look at it, its hard to make the case the pool is in any way essential. So while we are short cops, enjoy the pool, which incidentally violates N.J.A.C. 8:26 in a number of ways.

Aye!

Great! Here comes Bill Clinton.