Thursday, December 30, 2010

HPD problems cost $1.5 million

HPD problems cost taxpayers $1.5 million
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
BY MARK J. BONAMO
HACKENSACK CHRONICLE
Managing Editor
HACKENSACK - People everywhere, including in Hackensack, are making New Year's resolutions this time of year. And whether the people of Hackensack realize it or not, their elected representatives on the City Council have also been making end-of-the-year resolutions.

FILE PHOTO/THE RECORD
These resolutions, made in the past two months, differed significantly from past years, because this wasn't any ordinary year in Hackensack. Charles "Ken" Zisa, the city's police chief, was arrested twice, criminally charged with insurance fraud and official misconduct, suspended from his job, indicted, and arraigned in court. These events involving Chief Zisa have all occurred since the end of April, which is when the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office began monitoring the city's approximately 107-member police department.
According to publicly available records, the city appropriated $500,000 at the start of the year for legal services, up from $400,000 in 2009. This increase was tied to the costs of defending 11 lawsuits filed since June 2009 by 22 current and retired Hackensack police officers in federal and state court against the city, the chief and other superior officers.
The legal bills resulting from defending so many lawsuits has far surpassed the budgeted amount for legal services. Since November, the council has approved a series of resolutions that has appropriated more than $350,000 to pay legal bills. As of Dec. 7, the total appropriated for legal services and court costs equals $860,500.
This number does not include another source of cascading costs: the city's bill for proceeding against four Hackensack police officers in separate administrative disciplinary hearings. All four officers were suspended with pay for long periods of time, in some cases over 18 months.
In the end, more than $600,000 was paid for suspended officers' salaries.
Breakdown of HPD turmoil's known costs
The resolutions that raised the limit for the City of Hackensack's legal services appropriations began to be passed at the Nov. 9 City Council meeting, when resolution number 345-10 added $50,000 to the original $500,000 municipal budget appropriation for legal services and costs.
Resolution number 379-10, passed at the Dec. 7 council meeting, added an additional $195,000 for legal costs.
Another Dec. 7 resolution, number 380-10, tacked on $101,000 for legal services, with an additional $14,500 designated for the category of legal/city attorney. Hackensack's city attorney is Joseph Zisa, the cousin of Chief Zisa.
Combined, the three resolutions passed by the Hackensack City Council in November and December resulted in $360,500 being added to the city's original legal services appropriation for the year.
The costs of the four separate police administrative disciplinary hearings in which the city required legal representation are also well documented. The hearings, which began last year and concluded a few weeks ago, involved four members of the Hackensack police force: Police Officers Joseph Al-Ayoubi, Anthony Ferraioli and Alessandra Viola, as well as Sgt. Vincent Riotto.
All four officers were suspended with pay for protracted periods of time because of the administrative charges filed against them: Al-Ayoubi for 18 months, Ferraioli for 10 months, Viola for 18 months, and Riotto for 19 months. Chief Zisa, who is now suspended without pay from his over $190,000-per-year job, filed the charges against all four officers.
Public records compiled by DataUniverse, an open search source for public employees' salaries found at www.app.com, indicate that as of Dec. 2009, Al-Ayoubi was paid $86,892 annually; Ferraioli was paid $119,312 per year; Viola received $124,720 in annual pay; Riotto was paid $138,037 per year.
Multiplying the four officers' salaries by the number of months that they were suspended with pay shows that Hackensack taxpayers paid out a total of approximately $635,362 in police officer salaries to members of the city force who were not out on the streets protecting and serving citizens because of their suspensions.
The $860,500 appropriated by the City Council for legal fees added to the $635,362 in police salaries paid out to the four suspended officers totals approximately $1,495,862 in costs to Hackensack taxpayers with no clear end in sight.
The fiscal aftershocks of the police administrative hearings have yet to be completely tabulated. Ferraioli and Riotto are both appealing the guilty verdicts that they each received. A decision in the Viola case had not been rendered as of press deadline. (The administrative charges against Al-Ayoubi were ultimately dismissed.) All four officers are also among the 22 current and retired Hackensack Police Department members who have filed lawsuits since June 2009 in state and federal court against Chief Zisa and the city, the outcomes of which have yet to be determined.
The Hackensack Chronicle filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request with the Hackensack clerk's office on Dec. 3 for records of the city's complete costs for the lawsuits and the police administrative disciplinary hearings. The OPRA request covered legal costs incurred by the city both this year and in 2009, when the lawsuits were initially filed and the police hearings began, and specified information on bills accrued for outside legal counsel.
According to the OPRA law, the City of Hackensack was required to answer The Chronicle's request for these records in seven business days, which would have been Dec. 14. The Chronicle did not receive a reply from the city clerk's office until an email was sent to the Chronicle's editor on Dec. 16, stating that the city government was unable to immediately comply with the OPRA request. As of press deadline, The Chronicle had yet to receive the legal bill records it was entitled to under OPRA.
Numbers don't lie, and they do add up. With or without city confirmation, the escalating cost to the city government of the police department crisis is apparent and a cause for concern. Conversations held with city and state officials, and, more importantly, with Hackensack taxpayers tell a sobering, sometimes contradictory, story.
City manager, council members, state senator address unrest's cost
Hackensack City Manager Stephen Lo Iacono addressed the fiscal issues created by the turmoil in the city's police department.
"Unfortunately, we've been hit with a number of suits and a number of situations, and we only have one choice - defend ourselves," said Lo Iacono, who noted that not all of all the funds appropriated by the city for legal services to date went to issues tied to police department problems. "That takes attorneys, and that creates legal fees."
Hackensack Mayor Karen Sasso added that she believes that moves have been made by the City Council to lessen the city's financial load regarding potential legal fees yet to come.
"None of us enjoy the position that we're in, but we've already taken steps to consolidate all of these cases and have tighter control," said Sasso, who was elected to the City Council in 2005, re-elected in 2009 and became mayor again this year as part of the city's one-year rotating mayoral system. "I think we will see great improvement moving forward."
City council members Michael Melfi, Jorge Meneses and Marlin Townes, who were all elected to the council in 2005 and re-elected in 2009, could not be immediately reached for comment.
However, Councilman John Labrosse is not so sure that Hackensack taxpayers will see real relief from mounting legal costs arising from trouble within the police department any time soon.
"The better that the city did during the administrative hearings. . . they think helps them in the federal lawsuits. But, it also can hurt them," said Labrosse, who was sworn into office in 2009 shortly after the first wave of police lawsuits were filed. "It's very, very disheartening to see this keep going. It's like getting on board the ride to Hell."
Labrosse also expressed worry that the bills generated by legal fees will hit Hackensack residents even harder with the advent of the 2 percent municipal property tax hike cap in 2011.
"As a Hackensack citizen and as a councilman, I want closure. I want this over with," said Labrosse. "When is this going to end? What is this going to cost us? If we can't raise the taxes, the money has to come from somewhere, so city services could suffer. The sooner this is all done, the sooner the city can heal."
From her office in Trenton, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck) also cast a concerned eye on the largest city in her home district, knowing full well that all New Jersey municipalities can expect considerably less state aid in light of the state's serious financial predicament.
"The state is not in the business of defraying legal costs that arise out of management problems in a given community," said Weinberg. "I think that Hackensack residents should be asking their leaders a question: why did this happen?"
Community feels the sting of police turmoil's cost
Bobby Egan is well known in Hackensack for asking questions.
The owner of Cubby's Restaurant on South River Street, Egan, 52, has been a regular presence at City Council meetings over the years, voicing his opinions about how the city is governed clearly, loudly and bluntly.
Egan is also recognized for a rather interesting side job. He has been an unofficial American ambassador to North Korea, a country considered by many to be one of the most inscrutable, least transparent and potentially dangerous in the world.
When expressing his view of the cause of Hackensack's continuing police unrest, Egan felt a certain sense of déjà vu.
"Ken Zisa is the Kim Jong Il of Hackensack," said Egan, making a direct reference to the North Korean dictator. "This whole thing has cost us so much. But we get what we deserve by voting these people in."
"It's not just the chief of police. There has been a rotten regime in office since Jack Zisa was mayor," added Egan, referring to the former mayor, who is Chief Zisa's brother and who was in office when the suspended chief was appointed the city's top cop in 1995. "This town has been on a downhill cycle ever since."
Other city residents who rarely, if ever, go to City Council meetings also expressed their dismay about what the problems in the city police department is doing to Hackensack.
For Joseph Cicchelli, principal of Hackensack's Fairmount Elementary School, the idea that $1.5 million of taxpayer money could be better spent led to a teachable moment.
"We could buy independent libraries for every child that we teach with that money," said Cicchelli, 57, a city native who has spent his adult life educating his hometown's children. "In these times of austerity, it's hard to fathom what you could do with that kind of money, and where else the community could benefit from it."
"We in Hackensack are a proud people," added Cicchelli. "We stand up for each other, and we defend each other. But when one does something that isn't deemed to be socially acceptable, we all feel it. It's a black eye for all of us."
At his popular Cuban restaurant on Main Street in downtown Hackensack, owner and city resident Benito Rivero looked to his family's past when questioning the city's future.
"I come from an immigrant family where we were taught to go lean and spend what you have. Don't over spend," said Rivero, 40. "Let's figure out a way to spend less. From the perspective of a business owner, I'm against any kind of waste."
Down the block on Main Street, barbershop owner and city resident Ray Reed, 51, was smoothly plying his trade when asked about the cost to Hackensack residents of many months of police department uproar.
Speaking quietly over the buzz of his clippers, Reed cut right to the quick about what he believes needs to be done in Hackensack.
He called for a change to be made in Hackensack. Reed wants that change made not by any means necessary, but by one all residents can easily participate in: a trip to the voting booth during the next municipal election in 2013.
"The chickens have come home to roost. The bill has come due," said Reed. "Taxpayers here are getting a raw deal, but things will get worse before they can get better. And until we get this government out of office, nothing is going to change. We've got to start all fresh."
E-mail: bonamo@northjersey.com

Saturday, November 6, 2010

October 19 2010 Council Meeting

WHERE'S MELFI?

WASN'T AT SEPT 21ST MEETING EITHER.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Latest Complaint filed against Chief, Padilla, Garcia & City

Well when I started to post this it was the latest complaint. Now I find out there is a 20th officer who has filed against Zisa - this is just beyond ridiculous


LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. ZIDZIUNAS, LLC
JOHN J. ZIDZIUNAS, ESQUIRE
33 Plymouth Street, Suite 202A
Montclair, NJ 07042
973-509-8500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARK B. FROST & ASSOCIATES
MARK B. FROST, ESQUIRE
7 North Columbus Boulevard, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-351-3333
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LAURA CAMPOS, RICHARD
MELBER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHIEF C. KENNETH ZISA,
CAPTAIN TOMAS PADILLA,
CAPTAIN DANILO GARCIA, and
CITY OF HACKENSACK,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.:
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
1
INTRODUCTION
1. Each of the Plaintiffs in the within action were retaliated against by being detrimentally
transferred for supporting candidates opposed to Defendant Chief Zisa and/or failing to
contribute to various public and PBA elections. Furthermore, Plaintiff Campos was
sexually harassed by Defendant Garcia with the knowledge of Chief Zisa and, under
threat of retaliation, was forced by both Zisa and Garcia to change an official report.
JURISDICTION
2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and 1343(3) and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.
3. Jurisdiction lies over state law claims based on the principles of supplemental
jurisdiction, as codified at 28 U.S.C §1367.
4. The amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeds the sum of one
hundred thousand Dollars ($100,000).
VENUE
5. All the claims herein arose within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey and involve Defendants who reside within the jurisdictional
limits. Venue is accordingly invoked pursuant to the dictates of 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and
(c).
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Laura Campos is a citizen of the State of New Jersey residing at 7 Madison
Avenue, Midland Park, New Jersey.
2
7. Plaintiff Richard Melber is a citizen of the State of New Jersey residing at 112 Davis
Drive, River Edge, New Jersey.
8. Defendant Chief C. Kenneth Zisa is, and was at all times material hereto, the Chief of
Police of the Hackensack Police Department, located at 225 State Street, Hackensack, NJ
07601.
9. Defendant Tomas Padilla is, and was at all times material hereto, an Officer with the
Hackensack Police Department, located at 225 State Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601.
Defendant Padilla is a Captain with supervisory duties and authority to institute
disciplinary action.
10. Defendant Captain Danilo Garcia is, and was at all times material hereto, an Officer with
the Hackensack Police Department, located at 225 State Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601.
LAURA CAMPOS
SEXUAL HARRASMENT
11. Plaintiff has been a police officer in the City of Hackensack since January 2002.
12. Since Plaintiff has been a police officer at Hackensack Police Department, she has been
subjected to sexual harassment by Captain Danilo Garcia beginning in the fall of 2002
and continuing to 2010.
13. In the fall of 2002, Captain Garcia was a desk lieutenant and Plaintiff was a patrol officer.
Furthermore, Defendant was Plaintiff’s supervisor.
14. The desk at headquarters where Lieutenant Garcia was stationed contained a large stash
of pornographic magazines
15. Defendant Garcia stated to Ms. Campos, while looking at the magazine, commented to
3
the Plaintiff if the woman’s ass was real. Garcia further commented by stating to the
Plaintiff that “your ass is real.”
16. On other occasions while looking at pornographic magazines, Garcia made a number of
sexual remarks to Campos related to Plaintiff’s vagina and pubic hair.
17. Campos, still under probation since she had only been in the department for less than a
year, did not make any complaints at that time for fear of losing her job and/or retaliation.
18. During the year of 2003, Garcia repeatedly spoke to Ms. Campos in a sexual manner,
always making comments about how good she looked in a uniform as well as stating how
good her “ass” looked.
19. From February 6, 2004 to July 7, 2004, the Plaintiff was temporarily assigned to the
narcotics division under Captain Arthur Mento. While on that detail Garcia stated to the
Plaintiff “Nice JF look.” He further stated, “Gotta look like a crackhead, right?”
20. Plaintiff did not know exactly what “JF” stood for and was later told that JF stood for
“just fucked.”
21. At that time Plaintiff complained to Captain Mento about the incident. No action was
taken against Defendant Garcia who was a Captain at that time.
22. After the temporary assignment Garcia continued with his sexual harassment and made a
number of advances in 2004.
23. In May of 2005 Plaintiff spoke with Captain Garcia about her schedule since she was
planning on getting married to patrol officer Brian Corcoran, her fiancé at the time.
Garcia had previously separated the two of them by changing her schedule so she would
not be able to see him while at work and so Garcia could make more sexual advances to
4
the Plaintiff which Plaintiff rejected. Plaintiff requested that her schedule be changed and
in doing so, Defendant stated to the Plaintiff “how dare you? I run the fucking division
and I will schedule officers as I see fit.” Garcia further stated that Plaintiff is illiterate,
and commented that she should write in English and not in “spicklish.” Defendant
Garcia stated that he had the Chief’s full support in everything as it relates to her. He
further stated that he was having every tour commander and sergeant review her reports.
24. In the summer of 2005 she was at a local bar in Hackensack known as Lazy Lanigans. At
the time Garcia wanted to buy Plaintiff a drink and she refused. At the time there were
numerous officers from the department at the bar. When Campos rejected the drink
Garcia said to her “you know what Campos needs is a real man to fuck her.” Her fiancé
was in the vicinity and got into an argument over the comment that resulted in a shoving
match between Corcoran and Garcia. After the incident Plaintiff was assigned to a
walking post which was used as punishment in the City of Hackensack.
25. In September 2005, Plaintiff was assigned a dispatch position. Garcia entered the radio
room and put his hands on her left shoulder and started to rub them and implied in a
sarcastic tone that Plaintiff had “slashed tires on his truck.” After this conversation,
Plaintiff was assigned to a walking post even though he knew that she did not slash his
tires.
26. Later that fall, Plaintiff was involved in an arrest that required her to work overtime and
she sought overtime payment. Captain Garcia was the individual at that time who had
authority to approve the overtime. He refused to do so and started berating the Plaintiff.
27. A few days later Plaintiff contacted Chief Zisa and in front of the Chief and two deputies,
5
stated that she had been subjected to sexual harassment, sexual advances, humiliation and
other abuse from Captain Danilo Garcia.
28. Despite these complaints, no action was taken against Captain Garcia.
29. In 2006 Plaintiff was out for a back injury and gall bladder surgery from February 13th to
June 30th. During that time period, Defendant Garcia tried to hurt Plaintiff’s career by
forcing her to come back to work before she was physically able to do so under the threat
of retaliation that Plaintiff would be forced to take a 40% disability pension.
30. Fearing that she would be put out on pension and further retaliation would take place,
Plaintiff came back to work in the beginning of July of 2006.
31. On December 6, 2006 at a Christmas party, Garcia once again made sexual advances
toward the Plaintiff and stated to her “why aren’t you shaking your nice ass?”
32. In August 2007 Plaintiff was once again at Lazy Lanigans with a friend. Garcia came to
the bar and stated to the Plaintiff, “I hear you are not with Brian Corcoran anymore. Are
you ready for some of this?” as he grabbed his crotch.
33. In December 2007 at another holiday party, Defendant asked the Plaintiff where
everyone was going after the party and Plaintiff stated that she was going home.
Defendant put his hand on her back and said “don’t be like that.” After that incident
Plaintiff was transferred to walking.
34. In May 2008 Plaintiff was working patrol when she dropped off reports when Garcia saw
her in the radio room and stated to her that he heard her ass was looking good at the HCop.
party. Plaintiff stated to Garcia that she had to leave and would not converse with
Plaintiff.
6
35. As a result of Plaintiff refusing to speak with Defendant, on July 17, 2008, Garcia took
Plaintiff out of the AR-15 response team for which plaintiff was qualified to participate.
36. Plaintiff was told by Lieutenant Pierce that Defendant Garcia has a personal thing for you
and won’t give up.
37. At the October 8, 2008 Beefsteak dinner fundraiser for Padilla Garcia again tried to buy
the Plaintiff a drink and she refused. Defendant continued to try to buy Plaintiff drinks at
the beefsteak dinner and told her that her “ass looks really good in those jeans and those
fuck-me boots.”
38. On March 17, 2010 Plaintiff was traveling north on Railroad Avenue in an assigned radio
car.
39. As she got closer to the intersection of Railroad and Berry she noticed Garcia driving an
unmarked car. He then followed her into the Dunkin’ Donuts on Passaic Street.
40. Plaintiff thereafter bought doughnuts for the housing children and proceeded to her
assignment at 230 Central Avenue. Garcia continued to follow the Plaintiff.
41. Soon thereafter Plaintiff parked her car on Central Avenue and Garcia drove by and
continued west on Central Avenue.
42. These acts were done to the Plaintiff to intimidate the Plaintiff for her past rejections of
Defendant’s sexual harassment.
PBA ELECTIONS
43. In June of 2008, a Policemen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) delegate election was held
inside the locker room of the Hackensack Police Department (HPD).
44. The two candidates running for PBA delegate were Police Officer Joseph Inglima and
7
Detective Tina Clouse.
45. Prior to the election, Chief Zisa and Captain Padilla made it openly known to all HPD
officers that he desired Clouse to win the election and they must vote to Clouse to
demonstrate their loyalty to them.
46. Zisa made it apparent that failure to vote for Clouse would result in direct retaliation in
the workplace but not limited to undesirable positions, assignments that were considered
disciplinary assignments, like foot patrol, or failure to promote others who were up for
promotion on eligibility lists.
47. To achieve the election of Clouse, Zisa instructed Officer Cinque to wear a sign on his
back that read “Vote for Clouse” prior to the election. The sign was observed by nearly
all HPD members prior to voting.
48. Zisa further instructed Sergeant Jamie Barrios to stand in front of the ballot box and
demand that all officers show him the written votes. Barrios took note on a newspaper
recording the names of those who would not show their vote.
49. On the day before the election Sergeant Trezza approached the Plaintiff and stated do the
right thing by voting for Clouse. He further stated if she did not vote for her that her
assignment could be changed.
50. Plaintiff was further told to vote in front of Barrios and show him her vote. Barrios
requested the Plaintiff to show him her vote.
51. Plaintiff went to a private area to vote for Inglima and did not show her vote to Barrios.
52. In July 2008, just weeks after the election, Plaintiff was transferred to Community
Resource Center and her hours were changed.
8
53. Plaintiff was told by Captain Wright that the reason for the transfer was due to her failure
to support Clouse and that to take her assignment as punishment for her failure to support
Clouse.
54. The assignment was detrimental to the Plaintiff in that she has two children and her hours
were changed from 1:00PM to 9:00PM. This gave little time for Plaintiff to assist her
children with homework assignments and other activities. Prior to the transfer, Plaintiff
worked four days on four days off, and the four days on she was able to have coverage
for her children with the father of the children. Under this new schedule she was unable
to arrange for the necessary coverage of her children.
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
55. In the early part of 2004, Plaintiff responded to an alleged robbery and wrote a
subsequent report involving the then girlfriend of defendant Chief Zisa, Kathleen
Tiernan’s son, because he was a suspect in a robbery.
56. In writing her report, Plaintiff initially specified the name of the aforementioned
individual juvenile involved in the case. Under threat and fear of retaliation, plaintiff was
ordered by her superior officer, Captain Garcia, to change the report not to implicate
Tiernan’s son. Garcia further indicated to plaintiff that the order came from Chief Zisa.
57. Upon information and belief, Chief Zisa shredded reports relating to this matter knowing
that these reports could be used against him at a later date.
58. At that time, Plaintiff had already been subjected to numerous retaliatory acts and sexual
advances by Captain Garcia and, fearful of further retaliation to a walking assignment
and other retaliatory assignments, Plaintiff changed the report to remove Tiernan’s name
9
from the report as a suspect.
CAMPAIGN DONATIONS
59. During Plaintiff’s career, Plaintiff has been threatened with retaliation if she did not
support Zisa’s candidacies for State Assembly and other elected offices and other
individuals that Defendant Chief Zisa supported, as well as for the candidacies of
Defendant Tomas Padilla for County Freeholder.
60. Plaintiff, at the time she was initially employed by the City of Hackensack, was a
registered Republican.
61. In 2005, she was requested to switch parties so she could support Zisa and his
candidacies and other individuals that he supported. Plaintiff throughout her career
contributed to Chief Zisa’s candidacies under fear of retaliation.
62. In the fall of 2008 she was requested by Sergeant Trezza to purchase a ticket for a
Beefsteak dinner to support Captain Padilla who was running for County Freeholder.
63. She was requested to not only purchase the ticket, but also donate $125.00 to his
campaign.
64. Plaintiff initially refused to donate $125.00 but did purchase a ticket for $65.000. She
was told by Officer Corcoran that if she did not purchase the ticket that she would be
retaliated against.
65. Since Plaintiff had already been retaliated against for her failure to support Tina Clouse
in the PBA election for state delegate, fearful of further retaliation, Plaintiff contributed
the monies to Defendant Padilla.
10
RICHARD MELBER
66. Plaintiff Richard Melber is a police officer in the City of Hackensack and was hired in
November 1987.
67. Plaintiff was a partner with Joseph Inglima in the traffic division from 2001 through
2006.
68. In 2006 Plaintiff was transferred from the traffic division to the patrol division where he
remained until August 2008.
69. In May 2008 Plaintiff publicly supported Joseph Inglima and nominated him to become
the PBA delegation.
70. It is well known in the Hackensack Police Department that Plaintiff Melber not only
nominated Inglima for State Delegate, but also supported him openly for this position.
71. In mid-June 2008 the PBA State Delegate election was held.
72. The two candidates running for PBA delegate were Police Officer Joseph Inglima
(Inglima) and Detective Tina Clouse (Clouse).
73. Prior to the election, Chief Zisa made it openly known to all HPD officers that he desired
Clouse to win the election, and that they must vote for Clouse to demonstrate their loyalty
to him.
74. Zisa made it apparent that failure to vote for Clouse would result in direct retaliation in
the workplace.
75. To achieve this end, Zisa instructed Captain Dennis Cinque to wear on a sign on his back
that read AVote for Clouse, prior to the election.
76. Chief Zisa also directed a “Vote for Clouse” sign be affixed to the City vehicle that
11
patrols the police department parking lot.
77. These signs were observed by nearly all HPD members prior to voting, including
Plaintiff.
78. Moreover, Zisa instructed Sergeant Jaime Barrios to stand in front of the ballot box and
demand that all officers show him their written votes.
79. Plaintiff was told in advance of the election that failing to show Barrios his vote was
considered a “no vote” for Clouse, and disloyalty to Zisa.
80. Barrios took notes on a newspaper recording the names of those who would not show
their vote.
81. Plaintiff made it openly known to his superiors and Zisa that he would not vote for
Clouse and that he supported Inglima.
82. Inglima ultimately won the PBA election.
83. For not supporting the Chief and Clouse, Plaintiff was retaliated against by Chief Zisa
and beginning in August of 2008 was transferred from patrol to a walking post at a
Federal housing area for a period of almost one (1) year. This area was known as a high
crime and high drug area. Plaintiff was ordered to walk in this area alone.
84. This assignment was made by Chief Zisa and was for the purpose of retaliating against
the Plaintiff for his support of Inglima at the PBA election.
85. Prior to the transfer, Plaintiff was making approximately $10,000.00 per year in overtime.
86. As a result of the transfer, Plaintiff received no overtime work.
87. Not only was the transfer to the housing authority a retaliatory punishment, but also the
hours that Plaintiff had to work were also retaliatory in that he had to work every
12
weekend as well as working from 5:00PM to 1:00AM, which gave him very little time to
spend with his family.
88. Prior to the 2008 PBA election and subsequent thereto, the Plaintiff has been asked by
various police officers in the Hackensack Police Department to donate monies to the
campaigns of Zisa as well as to the campaigns of Padilla.
89. Contributions were made by the Plaintiff in fear of retaliatory assignments for supporting
any of these candidacies.
COUNT I
PLAINTIFF LAURA CAMPOS V. CHIEF KEN ZISA AND TOMAS PADILLA
42 U.S.C. §1983
(FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS)
90. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-89 as though each were
individually stated herein at length.
91. Defendants violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that Defendants, acting under
color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of the privileges and immunities secured to her by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, in particular,
her right to hold employment without infringement of her First Amendment right to
freedom of speech and association.
92. Defendant Chief Zisa willfully and recklessly transferred, demoted, disciplined and
threatened Plaintiff with discipline for her refusal to support Chief Zisa’s candidacy and
those he supported including Padilla and Clouse in order to deny Plaintiff her First
Amendment right to free speech and association.
93. Defendant Padilla, acting through other police officers, threatened Plaintiff with
retaliation if she did not support his candidacy for public office.
13
94. Defendants’ actions were to penalize and retaliate against Plaintiff for her exercise of
fundamental First Amendment rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court:
i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of
herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff as secured by
the United States Constitution;
ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices;
iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain,
suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage
increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress
and other damages;
iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees;
v. Award punitive damages;
vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
COUNT II
PLAINTIFF RICHARD MELBER V. CHIEF KEN ZISA
42 U.S.C. §1983
(FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS)
95. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-94 as though each were
individually stated herein at length.
96. Defendants violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that Defendants, acting under
color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of the privileges and immunities secured to him by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, in particular,
his right to hold employment without infringement of his First Amendment right to
14
freedom of speech and association.
97. Defendant Chief Zisa willfully and recklessly transferred, demoted, disciplined and
threatened Plaintiff with discipline for his refusal to support Chief Zisa’s candidacy and
those he supported including Padilla and Clouse in order to deny Plaintiff his First
Amendment right to free speech and association.
98. Defendant Padilla, acting through other police officers, threatened Plaintiff with
retaliation if he did not support his candidacy for public office.
99. Defendants’ actions were to penalize and retaliate against Plaintiff for his exercise of
fundamental First Amendment rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court:
i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ retaliatory acts complained of
herein have violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff as secured by
the United States Constitution;
ii. Enjoin Defendants from continuing said retaliatory practices;
iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain,
suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage
increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress
and other damages;
iv. Award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees;
v. Award punitive damages;
vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
15
COUNT III
PLAINTIFF CAMPOS V. CHIEF KENNETH ZISA,
TOMAS PADILLA, AND DANILO GARCIA
(COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY)
100. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-99 as though each were
individually stated herein at length.
101. The Defendants named in this count conspired to violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment
rights including but not limited to freedom of speech and freedom of association, by
coercing Plaintiff, under threat of retaliation to financially and politically support the
candidacies of Defendants Zisa and Padilla and other candidates of Defendant Zisa’s
choosing including PBA elections.
102. Defendant Zisa conspired with Garcia so he could sexually harass the Plaintiff without
taking any action as well as so he could perform acts of official misconduct in having
Plaintiff change an official report involving Tiernan under threat of retaliation.
103. Further, Plaintiff has been required to retain an attorney to assist Plaintiff in asserting
Plaintiff’s claims and protecting Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court:
i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ acts complained of herein have
violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United
States Constitution;
ii. Enjoin Defendant from continuing said practices;
iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain,
suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage
increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress
16
and other damages;
iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees;
v. Award punitive damages;
vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
COUNT IV
PLAINTIFFS CAMPOS AND MELBER V. CITY OF HACKENSACK,
DEFENDANT ZISA AND DEFENDANT GARCIA
(VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983)
104. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-103 as though each were
individually stated herein at length.
105. Defendant City of Hackensack developed and maintained a number of deficient policies
and/or customs which caused the deprivation of Plaintiff Campos and Melber’s
constitutional rights.
106. Defendant City of Hackensack’s policies and customs encouraged Defendant Zisa to
believe that he could violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs with impunity and with
the explicit or tacit approval of the Defendant City of Hackensack.
107. The deficient policies and practices allowed Chief Zisa to conspire with others including
Defendant Garcia to force Plaintiff Campos to change her report in the criminal
investigation of his then-girlfriend Tiernan’s son by threatening and intimidating
retaliation against the Plaintiff. Said acts were in violation of the law and constituted
official misconduct on the part of Defendants Zisa and Garcia.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court:
i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s acts complained of herein have
violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by the United
17
States Constitution;
ii. Enjoin Defendant from continuing said practices;
iii. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain,
suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage
increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress
and other damages;
iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees;
v. Award punitive damages;
vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
COUNT V
PLAINTIFF CAMPOS V. CHIEF KENNETH ZISA, CITY OF HACKENSACK
VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
(N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. – SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION)
108. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding allegations of paragraphs 1-107 of this
Complaint as though each were individually set forth herein at length.
109. Defendant’s actions aforesaid violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. in that Plaintiff has been discriminated against on
account of her sex/gender and has been continuously subjected to a hostile work
environment that is severe and pervasive because of her sex/gender.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court:
i. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s acts complained of herein have
violated and continue to violate the rights of Plaintiff as secured by the United
States Constitution;
ii. Enjoin Defendant from continuing said practices;
18
iii. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain,
suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, wage
increases, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress
and other damages;
iv. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees;
v. Award punitive damages;
vi. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Zidziunas
JOHN J. ZIDZIUNAS, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. ZIDZIUNAS, LLC
Dated: May 18, 2010

Sunday, May 16, 2010

May 4 2010 Hackensack Council Meeting

May 4 Hackensack City Council Meeting - estimate of 200 in attendance

There was a lot of video to process. I hope I got all the parts. If I missed anything, please let me know. I apologize that some is out of order. I did my best to break it down into small segments and identify them.

Part I - beginning of meeting


LoIacono "explains" - note he says we had a choice about monitor- accept the help or fight it. Doesn't seem like much of a choice ...


"Public Hearing" issue



"You'll have to sue us"

council response


this is out of order - should be before response (above) - sorry got distracted


this one ends with only a "Thank you" (a disingenuous one at that)

Taking on debt

and more debt

UMA speaks

Beginning of public comments and the "fun". One person (near the end of this @ about 7:15) makes an obscene gesture to the citizens of Hackensack

the rest is more public comments. It's still a work in progress. More to be added as it is available

this part of the video has technical problem - will re-post when resolved - after the first one video is OK

at the end of this a "membership" card was revoked

COW (work session) May 4, 2010

This is the meeting that is supposed to start @6:30 before the Council meeting. But on this night the Council met behind closed doors until 7:15 without announcing that they would be in closed session. Then after this short meeting they went back into closed session. Check out the list of litigation cases read off at the end of the second part of this.

New Officer Oaths & Promotions up next - need to take a break from posting

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Last 2 parts of March 3rd council video

March 3 Council - the one that "doesn't mean anything"

I have 2 more clips to post, but one has technical issues to be worked out.

5th clip @ 3:30 is when fireworks break out

Thursday, March 11, 2010

3rd Ward Town Hall

The video with the "yellow sheets of flame" is the second one in Part I

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

3rd Ward Town Hall Part II

Again, the audio is not that great because not everyone had a microphone

3rd Ward Video Part I

This is part I of the 3rd Ward town hall meeting. The second part will be posted shortly.

The second video below is the part with the "yellow sheets of flame"

I apologize for the sound. Not everyone had a microphone.

Friday, February 26, 2010

"yellow sheets of flame"

Do you think maybe Rome is burning while Nero (the administration) is fiddling around?

Article in today's Chronicle
http://www.northjersey.com/news/85451557_Flyer_fight_at_city_s_Third_Ward_meeting.html?page=all

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Third Ward Town Hall Meeting


Monday February 22, 2010. From 7 to 9 pm at Logan Family Center, 247 Central Ave, Hackensack.

Meeting will address issues of concern in 3rd Ward.


2/26 - the "spinmaster" had to respond to the flyer that was distributed - not very well tho


and what's with the new logo on the city website (see above)????
kinda like putting lipstick on a pig, eh?

Saturday, February 13, 2010

CITY & HPD IN THE NEWS AGAIN

TWO ARTICLES IN THE CHRONICLE ON FRIDAY

FRIST ONE
Rulings let critial complaints against Hackensack police chief go forward
Friday, February 12, 2010
BY MARK J. BONAMO
Hackensack Chronicle
MANAGING EDITOR
In a series of opinions filed on Feb. 2 by two federal judges in Newark, the First Amendment complaints lodged by numerous current and former Hackensack police officers in two separate lawsuits filed against Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa and the City of Hackensack were allowed to advance to trial. Complaints of civil racketeering also were allowed to proceed.
The four opinions handed down by U.S. District Court Judges Stanley R. Chesler and William J. Martini permitted the primary allegations of the plaintiffs, which focus on their constitutional right to free speech and freedom of association, to proceed in the two separate lawsuits. One of the lawsuits in question was filed by seven current and former police officers against Chief Zisa, other members of the police department and City Attorney Joseph Zisa; Officers Anthony Ferraioli and Aldrin Lamboy filed the other suit against the chief and the city.
Both lawsuits largely stem from the June 2008 Policemen’s Benevolent Association election for union delegate. The allegations in the lawsuits claim that police officers were retaliated against for failing to support the chief’s political candidacies and those that he supported in this and other elections by means of demotion and reassignment to punitive beats. The plaintiffs also allege that they experienced a pattern of extortion from Zisa and other police officers regarding political donations for these candidacies.
These lawsuits represent two out of the five filed against the chief and the city since June 2009 that involve a total of 15 plaintiffs. The suits, which have been filed in federal and state court, all allege that Chief Zisa, who served as a state assemblyman from 1994 to 2002, misused his authority to sway the outcome of local, state and police union elections. The chief has strongly denied these allegations.

Judges dismiss some claims; others stick
The judges dismissed some of the claims in the lawsuits against Chief Zisa. Judge Chesler dismissed six of the 19 counts in the suit filed by Ferraioli and Lamboy, and Judge Martini dismissed four counts, including state racketeering counts, in the other suit filed by seven current and former police officers.
Martini also dismissed one of two counts against Capt. Thomas Salcedo and all counts against Detective Phil Carroll. Salcedo offered no comment, while Carroll could not be reached immediately for comment.
However, Martini did allow other critical claims to go forward, including those alleging civil rights violations and the federal racketeering claim made by Hackensack police officer Scott Sybel, who maintains that he was coerced into a business partnership with Chief Zisa to build homes but never received any compensation from the partnership.
In his ruling, Chesler also allowed the primary claim of First Amendment abuses to advance and did not dismiss the plaintiff’s allegations that they were retaliated against for using their right to free speech and freedom of association.
"The amended complaint plausibly pleads that by being subjected to pressure to cast their vote for a particular candidate and later retaliation for failing to bend to that pressure, plaintiffs faced a significant impediment to participation in union-related activity," Chesler wrote. "Assuming the truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, the amended complaint portrays a scenario in which the public employer effectively attempted to control the labor union leadership."

Contrasting views of judges’ opinions
Chief Zisa had an optimistic viewpoint about the judge’s rulings.
"I’m very pleased that before the city has even answered the complaints, the judges have decided to dismiss numerous claims," he said.
City Attorney Zisa, the chief’s cousin, also had a positive outlook regarding the opinions.
"We anticipate more opinions coming out," he said. "We believe that they will follow the same pattern as these opinions, where they are dismissing numerous counts on these complaints."
At a city council meeting later on Feb. 2, the city attorney emphasized his views about the opinions.
"This is a very good day for the City of Hackensack," he said.
Richard Malagiere, who is acting as lead counsel for the city and as Zisa’s attorney in these lawsuits, indicated that after the discovery process, the lawsuits could progress in his client’s favor with regard to the First Amendment allegations.
"I don’t believe that all of [the First Amendment claims] will be around," Malagiere said. "I believe that we will be able to effectively get some of them dismissed on summary judgment."
Conversely, Mark Frost, a Philadelphia-based attorney who is representing 12 of the 15 officers with pending lawsuits against the chief and the city, including the lawsuit in which Judge Martini rendered a ruling on Feb.2, was encouraged by the opinions handed down by the federal judges.
"I’m pleased with the judges’ rulings in allowing the main claims to go forward," Frost said. "Chief Zisa’s acts of retaliation against my clients were clearly in violation of their First Amendment rights. These are very serious claims and we are going forward with all of them. Any assertion that these are frivolous allegations is one of false bravado."

SECOND ONE
Hackensack councilman says PD needs outside investigation
Friday, February 12, 2010
BY MARK J. BONAMO
Hackensack Chronicle
MANAGING EDITOR
2 Comments John Labrosse has been a mechanic in the plant operations department of Hackensack University Medical Center for almost seven years. He has held a Hackensack City Council seat only since July of last year. But Labrosse is now shifting uneasily in that seat and distancing himself from the other four council members. In light of the spate of lawsuits filed against Hackensack Police Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa and the City of Hackensack since June, Labrosse believes that the machinery of local government may be on the verge of a breakdown.
"We’ve been sitting here for months speaking about the Police Department and its issues. I think we need to take a step back and have somebody come in and take a look at it," said Labrosse at the Feb. 2 city council meeting. "We should do it out of fairness to the taxpayers more than anything else. This isn’t a matter of guilt, who’s right or who’s wrong, who’s filing lawsuits or who’s not. This is a problem that is spiraling out of control, and we don’t know where it’s going. It’s a scary thing. To be quite honest, with the apathy in this town and all of the citizens that aren’t aware of what’s going on, people are going to wake up and it’s going to hit them in the head one day."
Labrosse’s comments came in the wake of the rulings made the same day by two federal judges in separate lawsuits that allowed the most serious allegations made by current and retired Hackensack police officers to proceed to trial, including alleged First Amendment violations and civil racketeering accusations.

Contending views of court rulings clash at council meeting
The lawsuits in question are two out of the five filed against the chief and the city, involving a total of 15 plaintiffs. The allegations in the lawsuits center on claims that police officers were retaliated against for failing to support the chief’s political candidacies and those that he supported and experienced a pattern of extortion regarding political donations for these candidacies.
While the First Amendment claims were permitted to advance to trial, other claims were dismissed by the judges. For example, in the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge William J. Martini, four counts, including state racketeering counts, were dismissed in a suit filed by seven current and former police officers against Zisa, other members of the police department and City Attorney Joseph Zisa.
However, Martini did allow other critical claims to go forward, including civil rights violations and a federal racketeering claim made by Hackensack police officer Scott Sybel, who maintains that he was coerced into a business partnership with Chief Zisa to build homes but never received any compensation from the partnership.
Still, City Attorney Zisa publicly expressed a positive view of the day’s events at the Feb. 2 council meeting.
"This is a very good day for the City of Hackensack," said the city attorney, who is the chief’s cousin. "We’re very happy with the judge’s decision."
Some members of the public who spoke out at the meeting countered the city attorney’s viewpoint.
"He’s trying to make a rosy picture out of a very dull picture," said Emil Canestrino. "It’s not good news."
"We have to ask for an independent review, somebody outside of Hackensack, to look at what is actually going on here," added resident Regina DiPasqua.

Labrosse presses on with call for outside intervention
At times during the heated debate in recent months over the future of the Police Department, some residents have called for radical surgery on Hackensack’s body politic, including calls for Chief Zisa to resign, an official state Attorney General investigation of the Police Department, even a state takeover of the approximately 100-member police force. But for now, all Labrosse is asking for is some sort of look-see into the current state of affairs at police headquarters on State Street.
"I’m not asking for people to step down," said Labrosse at the council meeting. "The chief has said [that these type of municipal lawsuits] are a trend in New Jersey. I’ve never seen a trend where there has been this many lawsuits against the city and its police department. I’m not comfortable with it, and I think that we need someone to come in and look at it," concluded Labrosse to applause.
In a later interview, Labrosse reiterated a major reason why he felt that he had to speak out at the council meeting.
"Apathy is the death of democracy," Labrosse said. "It’s just that simple."
who’s not. This is a problem that is spiraling out of control, and we don’t know where it’s going. It’s a scary thing. To be quite honest, with the apathy in this town and all of the citizens that aren’t aware of what’s going on, people are going to wake up and it’s going to hit them in the head one day."



ONE ONLINE TODAY

Probe of Hackensack police chief is urged
Friday, February 12, 2010
Last updated: Saturday February 13, 2010, 3:13 PM
BY MONSY ALVARADO
The Record
STAFF WRITER
HACKENSACK — The Bergen County Prosecutor has been asked to launch an investigation of the police chief, an attorney who represents a city police officer in his disciplinary hearing, said Friday.

Patrick Toscano, attorney for Police Officer Anthony Ferraioli, said the county office may be looking into claims of official misconduct and insurance fraud. Toscano made the announcement minutes after testimony ended in Ferraioli’s disciplinary hearing. He said a city attorney sent a letter to Prosecutor John Molinelli, which prompted him to send one to the prosecutor as well.

“My office was contacted this week telling us that the BCPO wants to look into I believe into these allegations,” said Patrick Toscano, who represents other city police officers with pending disciplinary charges. “I want to make several of my clients available to them for the investigation.”

Molinelli said Toscano and the attorneys representing the city in the administrative hearing have reached out to him during the proceedings. He declined to talk about the information contained in the letters sent in recent weeks, but said he did tell someone in his office to reach out to Toscano after he received the attorney’s latest letter.

“I won’t disclose whether we are conducting an investigation or not, he said. “We will decide what or if any action needs to be taken.”

Police Chief Ken Zisa said Toscano’s latest claims have nothing to do with the Ferraioli case, and declined to talk about them further.

“How many things has he accused me of throughout this thing,” he said. “He has accused me of countless acts, and I’m not going to discuss any of them.”

Ferraioli, his wife and William Wilks, an investigator hired by Toscano, were the last witnesses to testify at the hearing. Ferraioli, a 21-year veteran, is accused of posing as an internal affairs captain in an online community forum and posting comments. He is also charged with lying about the incident when questioned by internal affairs officers. If found guilty, Ferraioli, whose wife has testified that she authored the postings, could lose his job.

Wilks, a retired Verona police chief, spoke at length about violations to state attorney general guidelines, which he says were committed during the investigation. He said the city officers made several missteps: they never informed Ferraioli in writing that he was the target of an internal affairs investigation, they conducted an improper seizure and search of the computer in the officer’s home and the evidence was not handled properly.

“One of the things that the AG guidelines directs is that the investigation is supposed to be thorough and objective, and that certainly is not the case here,” he testified Friday.

After the hearing, Zisa defended the way the probe was conducted, saying that Wilks’ testimony reflected inaccuracies and contradictions. He also added that the rights offered to officers who are the subject of an administrative hearing are very different from those given in criminal proceedings.

“Legislatively and judicially it has been recognized throughout the years that police officers do not have the same rights administratively as they do criminally,” Zisa said. “There is a reason for that; it’s because you need to maintain order and discipline at its highest level.”

Under questioning from Toscano, Ferraioli briefly testified that he bought the computer for his wife, Dawn Fray, and that he never used the internal affairs captain’s name to post on the Internet. Philip George, the city’s attorney, did not cross examine him.

City Manager Stephen Lo Iacono, who acted as the hearing officer, asked that written summations be submitted to his office on March 15. He ordered written rebuttals be sent two weeks later, after which he said he would render a decision.



CAN'T WAIT TO READ SUNDAY'S PAPER

is this beyond ridiculous or what?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Jan 19 2010 Council Meeting

PLEASE NOTE

THE HOST SITE - blogger.com - IS HAVING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH VIDEO PLAY BACK ON ITS ENTIRE SITE, NOT JUST THIS BLOG. TRY FAST FORWARD THEN PLAY IF YOU CANNOT ACCESS THE VIDEO. THEY SAY THEY HAVE FIXED IT, BUT THESE VIDEOS ARE NOT ALWAYS WORKING

ALSO POSTED ON YOUTUBE tagged Hackensack City Council





Sorry some of this may be out of order and/or duplicate - got distracted and lost track of uploads.







Tuesday, February 2, 2010

video issues

blogger.com is having a problem playing uploaded videos. They are working on the problem. Hopefully it will be fixed shortly.

And right after I posted this I tried again and video worked. Keep trying. Sorry, it's beyond our control. If you use the arrow below the video to fast forward buffering starts, then press play arrow and video should start. Sorry - hope this gets fixed soon.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Jan 5 2010 Council Meeting








DON'T KNOW WHY THIS ONE IS HERE TWICE

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Dec 22 continued meeting on Dec 30

Seems there was a question as to whether or not a citizen asked a question ...

Dec 22 Council Meeting

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Dec 8 Council Video

December 8, 2009 Hackensack City Council Meeting

Sunday, January 3, 2010

new website about HPD goings on

http://hackensackcorruption.com/

Take the time to read, watch & listen. If even 1/10th of this is true, we got a problem Hackensack.