Brigantine Petition Aims to Oust Public Safety Director

Update: The move to eliminate the position of Public Safety Director in Brigantine moves forward with confirmed petition signatures. The petition put forth by ‘Concerned Citizens For Brigantine’, had 548 signatures. While some were invalid, only 465 valid signatures were needed. That being said, the Brigantine city clerk certified that the petition did have enough valid signatures to move forward.

This puts Councilmen Pullella & DeLucry in a tough spot. Thus, still no official decision on locking down the Public Safety Director position with their hand picked choice of Dan Howard.

At this past Wednesday’s council meeting, Mayor Guenther and Councilman Simpson called for a vote to eliminate the Public Safety Director position. The request was quickly smacked down by the majority Democratic vote.

Council will vote on the Concerned Citizens petition at the next council meeting: Wed., Feb. 19th.

If Mr Pullella, Mr. DeLucry & crew disagrees with this certified petition signed by local residents, the Public Safety Director position will then be decided by a special election.

City Council will have 20 days to act on the petition. If adopted, acting Public Safety Director; Dan Howard, would be given his pink slip and sent packing. This could certainly be a public relations & political nightmare for Pullella & DeLucry.

If the Democratic majority of council ignores the citizen petition, they’ll tap the taxpayers to pay for a special election.

Subscribe BrigantineNOW

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

9 thoughts on “Brigantine Petition Aims to Oust Public Safety Director”

  1. Yes sir, Mr. Carroll, it’s that pesky United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, getting in the way of Tyranny again. Imagine that sir, a small group of citizens, would stand up and challenge the government! How dare they “disrupt” the kingdom?

    Hmmm, let me check, just where do they get the nerve?

    Amendment I

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Thank God, that less than 500 people, or just 1 person, can stand to challenge the government.

    1. Mr. Doran you draw a very interesting comparison. No question that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to a “small” group of citizens rights to challenge unjust action by any government.

      My point is the actions of the city government do not appear to be unjust. It also appears to me that the city council is looking for ways to reduce unneeded expenses which is the obligation they owe to the taxpayers of Brigantine. That obligation is to all of the taxpayers including those who pay taxes but who are not year around residents. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not give a minority (year around residents) the right to bludgeon the majority (summer resident taxpayers).

      In plain English the year around residents have no right to exploit the part-time residents!

      Using your theory would you not agree that “taxation without representation is tyranny”.

      1. Mr. Carroll, I took exception with your original post, as it seemed to suggest that the petitioners were purposely disrupting government. In your opinion, you surmised that it was to challenge an “unjust action”. I disagree.

        The petitioners have a right to seek redress of grievances, and in exercising that right, it is unfair to accuse them of “disrupting government”. Would you be so quick to accuse a defendant in a court case of “disrupting government” by pleading “not guilty” and demanding a hearing?

        I’m also curious as to what statistics you used to conclude that year round residents are “a minority”. However, we do agree that government spending and its impact on the taxpayer, (whether he/she votes or not) is the main issue. The math appears fuzzy, and it is not clear that the actions of the Democratic majority on Council will result in getting taxes under control. Our taxes have steadily climbed even with the change in party rule. There are political agendas at work here, I’m not convinced that any party in control has the silver bullet. But, it is clear to me, that the present leadership has created the most dysfunctional city government I have seen in decades.

        I suspect we agree more than we disagree. Thank you for the spirited discussion, I appreciate your point of view.

        1. Mr. Doran, thanks for your response, we most likely do agree more that disagree. However, I believe that the current government was fairly elected and they should be given the chance to govern without disruption by forcing special elections over what is clearly their decision to make management changes.

          Right or wrong the voters can either keep them in office or replace them but give them the freedom to operate within the law during their term in office.

          Based on my experience managing a business the current course of action by disenchanted parties will result in chaos.

  2. It seems to me that at the Council level politics comes before the best for the populus. Perhaps it is in our best interest to vote on important issues ourselves; eventhough many voters vote by Party affiliation only!! Well nothing is perfect.

  3. Jacqueline crahalla

    I wonder the outcome had our city mgr chosen someone from the ranks of our police or fire depts to be the public safety director rather than someone new to brigantine. Surely there are qualified leaders within the existing brigantine personnel.

    1. The City Manager is charged with the responsibility of hiring and firing. While there may be “someone” working for the city who may be qualified it is the manager who calls the shot. Brigantine may need new blood and someone with an outside prospective may be the best choice.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *