Dear Editor:
Nonfeasance is defined as a failure to act when there is a duty to do so, resulting in harm or damages. With an incoming administration, the Parsippany Town Council meeting of January 6 opened with high hopes and the well-wishes of the town, but with its failure to act on its mandate, the Council managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in less than an hour.
Near the end of the meeting, Councilman McGrath made a motion to reverse the two PILOTs passed in December during the lame duck session against the wishes of the town. There’s little doubt the objection of the town to PILOT’s contributed to the surprising election results in November.
A basic tenet of the widely used Robert’s Rules of Order is when a motion is made, there must be a second to consider a motion for discussion. To the utter shock of the audience, there was no second to Councilman McGrath’s motion by any of the other Council members. It was shocking because PILOT projects in Parsippany have been the most contentious topic of the last two years. The Council should have known the motion to reverse two PILOTs, passed in a lame duck session, would be raised because the anger of the town towards previously passed PILOT’s, no doubt contributed to their victory.
Something so contentious and adversely impacting on the long-term fiscal outlook of the town should be discussed and debated and not swept under the rug. And therein lies the nonfeasance. The new council members should have welcomed the opportunity to shine on their first day, to debate and vote to reverse a fatally flawed, unpopular PILOT ordinance. If one is not willing to debate such an important topic, why run for the office? The new council members took their first opportunity to miss an opportunity.
If they have any desire to govern, the Council should immediately revisit Councilman McGrath’s motion, second it, debate it and vote to reverse the two PILOTS passed in December. The reversal of the warehouse PILOT should be easy as the PILOT passed with construction well under way, and the developer should not depend on it. Reversing the residential PILOT may be more difficult but should be pursued, as it is in the long-term interest of Parsippany. Inaction will quickly earn the disdain of the town that was willing to give a chance to the new administration. Until the reversal of the two PILOT’s takes place, it will appear the new council members ignored an obvious mandate and sought office for all the wrong reasons.
Jack Raia
