Reduction in fire calls reported for 2016

According to the Little Falls Fire Department's 2016 Annual Report, for the first time since 2010 there has been a significant decrease in the number Township and Montclair State University (MSU) fire alarms. 

 

A review of the Little Falls Fire Department's 2010 - 2016 Annual Reports provides a seven year overview of the Department's activities in responding to fire alarms.

Here are the facts:

The 2010 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2009 and October 31, 2010, reported that the Department responded to 596 alarms of which 178 (29.8%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2011 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2010 and October 31, 2011, reported that the Department responded to 767 alarms of which 224 (29.2%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2012 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2011 and October 31, 2012, reported that the Department responded to 741 alarms of which 267 (36.0%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2013 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013, reported that the Department responded to 711 alarms of which 305 (42.9%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2014 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014, reported that the Fire Department responded to 777 alarms of which 318 (40.9%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2015 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2014 and October 31, 2015 reported that the Department responded to 790 alarms of which 330 (41.8%) were from the MSU campus.

The 2016 Annual Report, for the period between November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 reported that the Department responded to 688 alarms of which 208 (30.2%) were from the MSU Campus.

In sum, between 2010 and 2015 the total number of township alarms increased from 596 to 790 and MSU alarms rose from 178 to 330, and in 2016 there were 688 township alarms and 208 MSU alarms representing reductions of 13% and 37% respectively in fire alarms.

Signs that Litter

As I drive along the township's main arteries I am appalled by the vast number of signs that litter these roadways. 

These signs create a negative appearance and an unattractive image of the township for both residents and visitors.

According to at least two township ordinances the posting and display of these signs is "illegal."

Specifically, township ordinance § 126-10 which addresses the subject of posting of notices. This ordinance states that "no person shall post or affix any notice, poster or other paper or device calculated to attract the attention of the public to any lamppost, public utility pole or shade tree or upon any public structure or building except as may be authorized or required by law and township ordinance § 126-16 which addresses the topic of unauthorized signs. 

This ordinance states that "no person or persons shall attach to or place on utility poles, sign poles, or trees any sign, posters, boards, etc., on any public street, property or building. Signs authorized by the utility company and the Township are exempt. Persons who place signs on poles and/or trees that are removed by the Public Works Department shall (be) fined $5 per sign removed for each and every sign in addition to any penalty imposed under this chapter. 

In addition, township ordinance § 126-17 addresses enforcement. This ordinance empowers the Police Department, the Building Department, Superintendent of Public Works and the Health Department to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

Clearly these ordinances establish the power and authority of several municipal departments to remove all unauthorized signs that litter the township.

Isn't it time that the township enforced these ordinances?

A Code of Conduct for council committees and mayoral advisory groups

Our town has several council committees and mayoral advisory groups. These groups facilitate public input into Town Council discussions, often resulting in the introduction of resolutions and ordinances.

While members of the respective committees and advisory groups should be commended for their commitment of time and energy, it is essential that they remain impartial and objective in the advice they render.

Indeed there are challenges and inherent restrictions placed upon these individuals in assessing and recommending various options in a conscientious and ethical manner. 

Thus there is a need for a general standard - a "Code of Conduct" - for all committee and advisory group members to ensure they are acting in a manner that is appropriate with regard to their duties and responsibilities. 

Here is an example of a model "Code of Conduct" for committee and advisory group members. 

Such a "Code of Conduct" would specify what committee and advisory group members shall not:

(a) Engage in any business or transaction or have a financial or personal interest that is incompatible with the discharge of his or her official duties;

(b) Place themselves in a position where she/he is under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favor on their part or who might seek in any way preferential treatment;

(c) Accord, in the performance of his or her official duties, preferential treatment to relatives or to organizations in which she/he or his or her relatives have an interest, financial or otherwise;

(d) Deal with an application to the Town for a grant, award, contract or other benefit involving his or her spouse, live-in partner, child or parent;

(e) Place themselves in a position where she/he could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any matter about which they can influence decisions;

(f) Benefit from the use of information acquired during the course of his or her official duties which is not generally available to the public; 

(g) Accept gifts, hospitality, or entertainment that could reasonably be construed as being given in anticipation or recognition of special consideration by his or her respective board or committee; and

(h) Disclose or release by any means, confidential information which they have acquired by virtue of their appointment with the Town for personal or private gain, for the gain of their relatives, affiliated organizations or their employer.

Time is of the essence for the Little Falls town council to adopt and implement a "Code of Conduct" to ensure that all members of council committees and mayoral advisory groups remain impartial and objective with respect to the advice and recommendations they render.

Today marks the seventh anniversary of The Gadfly

The Gadfly which started on December 6, 2009 as a blog under the auspices of the northjersey.com - aka The Record - came to an abrupt end on April 22, 2016 when the newspaper was sold to the Gannett news organization.  At that time, not only was the blog discontinued but none of the published blogs were archived by the new newspaper owners.

 

Thus, the history of events in Little Falls as reported by The Gadfly no longer exists as a matter of record within the newspaper's archives.

 

It was almost two months later, on June 16 that The Gadfly found a new home at blogger.com

 

Since then The Gadfly has posted 25 blogs.

 

A review of all posted Gadfly blogs since 2009 revealed that the two blogs that generated the most public comments/interest related to community issues. 

 

These included a blog posted on December 6, 2009 which focused on the newly erected cell tower in the Great Notch Fire Company's parking lot located at 170 Long Hill Road; and a recent blog, posted on November 2, 2016 about changes coming to Browertown Road. 

 

With the demise of Little Falls news coverage by Gannett publications' The Herald News, The Record and The Passaic Valley Today, The Gadfly is committed to keeping "an eye on the issues confronting the residents of Little Falls, New Jersey."