The issue of whistle blowing could have been further appealed, particularly in light of new case law. It may not have been in front of the current court, but there others of competent jurisdiction that could have intervened if petitioned to do so. At the very least a better settlement could have been reached with that prospect alone.

As for the agreement in principle, why was there a vote if an "agreement" was made? The council lacks the authority to come to an agreement in principle without adhering to OPMA, hence the vote. No agreement could have existed since they lacked the ability to do so without a proper vote.

As for discussing the particulars of the case, Ms Swain nor any of the other council members discussed them with me, I knew what they were about. Had I in the course of my daily activities run into a story like the one Lisa's husband found, it would have connected dots, wouldn't you?

with you on that David.

David. I didn't bring family into it, Swain did. Since I have never read any of your brilliant posts before, I gotta ask, do you swim at the Y or work there too?

Oh, Bruce- a little sarcasm from bullies doesn't bother me. No, I've never met Councilwoman Swain. She did NOT bring her family into this, a reference to her husband's opinion does not open up her daughter to immature attacks.

That's not why he lost by so much. He lost because he refused to join the Republican Party.

Maybe I missed something, but she took information from a constituent, granted one that she is sleeping with, brought it to the professionals being paid and asked for advice. I'm not a fan of democrats, but she did the right thing, maybe the wrong conclusion, but the right thing nonetheless. As a practicle matter, they should have brought it to her. The fact the guy on the other side of the table was the Mahwah (R) mayor now appears a bit more suspect, doesn't it?

Tommy P, you are missing something. She didn't bring it out in the open. She had yet another secret meeting with her understudy in order to undermine any prospect of the council moving forward. A vote no isnt a big deal. It becomes one, when at one meeting an agreement is reached, and then at the open meeting the story completely changes and no explanation is offered. This is the best answer she can give...2 weeks later? She has been pouting for months now and is working hard to be as difficult as possible. T

Go Figure wins! Many thanks to everyone who participated.

The better question maybe is why are laws so complex only someone with a masters degree can figure the laws out?

There is a line Ms Swain may have crossed, but as a practical matter, if we don't prosecute the blatant abuses of the sunshine laws like the Republican breakfast with the Chamber of Commerce, a case where there is no witness since her husband can't testify will never be looked at.

The back and forth is not destroying Fair Lawn, but rather helping. It exposes a greater number of people to the inner workings of local government and people are becoming more disgusted. Understanding you have a problem is the first step to addressing it.

Cindy - I admit I have no law degree; the extent of my legal experience is arguing a traffic ticket a few years back and occasional episodes of "People's Court". I also admit I am somewhat concerned that we presumably pay the borough attorney to be an attorney...then we have council members disregard his legal opinion. I don't think you need to have anything hanging on your wall to arrive at that concern.
It was good of Councilwoman Swain to bring the article up to Mr. Mondello. If I am reading the article correctly, they held off on the vote in order for him to digest the info and render an opinion based on it. His opinion - the professional opinion which Fair Lawn paid for - is that the info did not change the situation Fair Lawn found itself in with regard to this lawsuit.
If a mechanic tells me my car is broken, and I can fix it right now for 500 bucks or keep driving it and risk a whole lot more in repair/replacement costs, of course I'm going to try and research it myself. I may get a second opinion, I may ask a relation who knows something about cars, I may bring all this up to the original mechanic to see what he thinks. Ultimately, you can say "I'll take my chances." You have every right to do that, no matter what anyone else says.
Unfortunately, the "car" we're talking about here has everyone in Fair Lawn in the backseat, and I can't help but envision an "O'Doyle Rules!" scenario for it if the Dem council members continue to be partisan in their decision-making.

I know my analogy is overly simplistic and not-so-sturdy, but I was trying to work that Billy Madison reference in, analogy-be-damned. Still, this whole thing stinks. Thank You.

tony using your analogy it looks like we are gonna get ripped off and then continue to pay money getting the same thing repaired. im referring to the next messina lawsuit and than the other officer lawsuits that will follow that.
should the town lay down and continue to accept these lawsuits and have the taxpayers dish out a couple million dollars?
you seem to bash the dems for whats going on but the truth is the dems have nothing to do with whats going on. the reps have the majority and can out vote them on ANY issue, therefore they can do whatever they want.
why dont you point out the most important question everyone seems to be overlooking? Why after all these numerous buglaries and lawsuits do we still have police chief rose, the person responsible for all these lawsuits (not the dems)?
why isnt the majority doing anything about our incompetent chief of police?

bad analogy - First off, that handle is not fair. It's called SELF-deprication for a reason.
With regard to "laying down to lawsuits"-no, I don't think we should lay down to lawsuits. It costs FL money. Based on the info related to this lawsuit, it seems we had to choose between bad and worse. It was either we foot the bill for half of 550k, or we risked shelling out even more than that without any assistance from the insurance company. It's a difficult decision, and I'm sure I would have explored my options as well were I a council member. In the interests of Fair Lawn, I think I would have put the issue to rest and take the lesser of two hits. But hindsight's always 20/20.
With regard to the second Messina lawsuit, I'm not even going to pretend I know all the facts. I'm also not going to pretend I know more than an attorney that gets paid to handle situations like this. I hope the council follows my lead.
As for the majority "doing whatever they want"-that doesn't seem to go over well when decisions they make are politicized; when attempts at decision-making are met will calls for resignation and other sorts of counter-productive tomfoolery.
I don't mean to blame Dems for the problems we're having (including the troubles in the police force you refer to). All 5 council members have to share the responsibility until it's normalized. However, I can't see that happening when everyone says "Yes" behind closed doors, then 2 say "no, you should quit!" when those doors open.

tony it doesnt matter if the dems vote yes behind close doors and no in public- they can be out voted in every issue (unless donovans puppets cant vote due to conflict of interest).
if anything i would assume the republican majority are happy we have these partison issues because it takes the attention off the crappy job they are doing. and by crappy job i am referring to the taxes they are disguising as fees and the fact that they are not doing anything about our incompatent police chief who is costing us millions.
so tony let me ask you this- the issue of our dems and reps not getting along is more important to you than the majority disguising taxes as fees (even though gov christie is openly against this) and allowing an incopatent police chief to remain in charge?

and peluso's been openly saying they should quit since day one. and this is coming from someone who voted for mr cosgrove. however are republicans arent acting like republicans. governer christie is strongly opposed of elected officials also having paid government jobs and strongly opposed of diguising taxes as fees and our republican majority does not seem to care

I'm a little confused by your question. It sounds like you're telling me that I don't care about "higher taxes disguised as fees", then you go on to bring up the dual-office double-dip meme that took Patch by storm this past November. I didn't realize this was a zero-sum game where I could only concern myself with one FL problem.
I care about higher taxes. I care about knowing whether incompetence is running rampant in our public offices. I also care about getting things done the right way. The right decision shouldn't be partisan, it should be logical. It should be fair, and it should be thought-out. I know you keep saying it's no big deal because the Reps have the majority, but until some common ground is found between the parties, every time a logical, fair, and well thought-out decision is knocked down for political reasons, FL suffers. Another bad analogy: Dems vs Reps is like Alien vs Predator...no matter who wins, we lose.

Also BA, (and I'm asking because I genuinely don't know what you are referring to), what do you mean by "taxes disguised as higher fees", and how does this relate to the lawsuit issue?

Lenny, I do not to hide the fact that I am a Republican, but I certainly do not always tow the party line, what's right is right and I will always stand on principle. I started the comments on this article by praising the Democrats. Read the comments on this site, I am attacked by Republicans amost as often as the other side. If I were a member of the FLRC, I'd get the Agosta treatment for sure.

To Bruce.....Doubt they could agree on that with out pouting and throwing insults at each other.

The guy anonymously bashing you behind a fake handle is right, Bruce! Stop anonymously bashing people behind a fake handle!!!
Also, you're an "idiot" and a "coward" for calling people names..........oh wait...

Too bad you're both unwilling to engage in debates on issues, preferring to make sophomoric personal attacks.

I think we're in agreement that 1) taking either side too seriously is bad for your memory/health; and that 2) "Councilman Poppycock" would be an excellent name for a character in either a Wes Anderson movie or an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine.

I'll take your word for it. I can't make heads or tails out of that budget.
As for a big change, I agree.

Allen, its not Rose and Metzler, this goes back before Metzler when we employed a secretary way over her skill level. Dont forget Weinstien is involved too. Its Rose and Wienstien, Rose and Swain, Rose and Tedeschi, Rose and Kwasniewski....and most of All, Lustgarten get mention because of his connection to Rose .Enough with one party trying to make the other look worse. Fix the town!.I dont know why they would still have Chief Rose and Captain Crook in office. Look at how they run the place. Besides multiple lawsuits, businesses are getting broken into at alarming rates and the chief is absent.