TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—After the three-member council majority sent approximately 11 non-union municipal employees notices that they would be discussing their employment, and offering them an opportunity to have the discussion in public, councilors and the township attorney discussed whether they needed to send the notices in the first place.
Township attorney Kenneth Poller told the council majority that the Rice notices are only needed to be sent to employees if they planned to discuss their employment in closed session. The Rice notice allows the employee to require that their job be discussed in public, rather than closed session.
At one point, Poller told the council that members could discuss municipal employees’ jobs in public without notifying them via a Rice notice. He said, however, that the council could—as a courtesy—notify employees that they planned to discuss their jobs in public.
Council Vice President Steven Cascio said that the 11 employees sent Rice notices so far were sent them to “be safe rather than sorry” in terms of letting them know that their employment was likely to be discussed.
The three-member council majority includes Independent Michael DeSena, council president, Cascio, a Republican, and Independent councilor Michael Ullman.
Administrator Mark DiCarlo told Pascack Press that as of April 9, only 11 municipal employees had received Rice notices. He said Rice notices “seem to be going out a third at a time. Thus far only 11 employees were noticed. We are expecting the remaining non-union town hall employees to be noticed.”
Approximately 30 non-union employees work at town hall, and 31 union employees, including 22 officers in the police PBA union and nine DPW workers in a union. He said these numbers did not include seasonal employees or crossing guards.
Rice notice comes from a state appeals case, Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education, 1977. Under public information law, a public body in New Jersey—such as a board of education or a municipality which is going to discuss the employment of one or more specific individuals must notify those individuals at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
This Rice notice must include the time and place of the meeting and that the individual’s employment will be discussed.
It must also inform the individuals affected that they have the right to request that the discussion be held in open session, and how to request this.
Generally, most prior personnel discussions have been held by council in closed session, with council passing a resolution stating they were going into closed to discuss matters exempt from the state’s Open Public Meetings Act. The act lists personnel matters as one area exempt from public meetings.
During a discussion on DiCarlo’s position later that night, DeSena asked DiCarlo a question about a week’s vacation that was added to his benefits last year.
Mayor Peter Calamari told DeSena though DiCarlo had been Rice-noticed, he could not engage in a dialogue with DiCarlo over the added vacation week. Calamari said he had given up the week in lieu of a 2% annual salary increase.
Calamari said he put DiCarlo in for a 2% raise in the 2024 budget, with his salary increasing to $136,782, and three weeks’ vacation. Both Cascio and Ullman said that it was not their understanding that DiCarlo would get the third vacation week “in perpetuity.”
Last year, DiCarlo accepted a third vacation week in exchange for not receiving the 2% annual salary increase. Cascio and Ullman said they thought the exchange was only for one year, and he would remain at two vacation weeks after last year. Generally, most employees get two vacation weeks over their first five years of municipal employment.
Calamari said he would favor a 4% raise for DiCarlo if the extra vacation week were taken away. Cascio asked to look at the meeting minutes where DiCarlo’s extra vacation week was discussed.
Ultimately, the council voted, 3-2, to approve DiCarlo’s salary, which included a 2% increase, and the three weeks’ vacation. DeSena, councilman Tom Sears and councilwoman Daisy Velez voted to approve the compensation package.
Councilors also discussed other employees in public on April 8, addressing job qualifications and job performance. Following open session, they adjourned to closed session to discuss additional employees who had received notices.
They discussed the DPW administrative secretary, purchasing assistant/qualified purchasing agent, assistant clerk/elections secretary, assistant to clerk/Board of Health secretary, and more, requesting more information or voting on individual positions.
Both Velez and Sears said they opposed issuing Rice notices to employees, with Velez noting those receiving the notices often suffered “unneeded stress.” Sears said it was “a sad day when we cannot trust the employees that are running this town.”
Near the end of a nearly 15-minute discussion on April 8 of when to send Rice notices, Calamari said that because the council majority ran on a 10% municipal budget cut, he’d heard that municipal employees feared any budget difference needed to achieve a 10% budget reduction would come from salary cuts.
He said this was “a very stressful time” for employees who receive a Rice notice and know about the council majority’s promised 10% budget cut.
Previously, DeSena said that when employees receive a Rice notice, it is not meant in a negative way. “All we’re really doing is following the letter of the law.”
He said “There was never ever any ill intent of us Rice-noticing people,” noting such notices were required for employees whether discussing either a promotion or demotion.
“In my heart, I’m not trying to persecute anybody at town hall,” said DeSena, after hearing Planning Board chair Leonardo Sabino, who praised the work of planning and zoning board secretary Grace Kalish, who had received a Rice notice recently.
“So I don’t know where this whole negative aura came from and the emails that I see going around town hall setting this defense up that we’re going after the employees,” added DeSena.
Poller said he previously explained why and when Rice notices were necessary. “There’s nothing that says you’ve got to have a Rice notice if you’re discussing a position in public.”
He said getting a Rice notice could cause a municipal employee “concern” due to their employer planning to discuss their employment in closed session.