Changes to e-waste disposal, plastics recycling start Jan. 1

Mayor\’s Office

Beginning in the New Year, a new state law requires residents to recycle electronic waste – particularly computers and televisions – instead of trashing them. This means that, effective Jan. 1, municipal waste-haulers will no longer collect any e-waste left curbside.  Luckily, Cherry Hill is ahead of the curve. Since 2008, the Department of Public Works (1 Perina Blvd.) has been home to a designated e-waste drop-off point, accessible to residents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Staff is available from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays to collect and store items dropped off by residents. During off-hours, a drop-off station is set up outside the building.

 

(South Harrison Twp, NJ) — Gloucester County Freeholder Deputy Director Robert M. Damminger announced that four drop-off events for the County\’s 2011 Household Special Waste (HSW) Collection Program have been scheduled.

The HSW Program is a series of periodic collection events conducted at specified locations where Gloucester County residents can drop-off their old oil-based paint*, motor oil, antifreeze, rechargeable batteries, CFL bulbs, fluorescent tubes, solvents, pesticides, pool chemicals, and similar materials for recycling, reuse, and/or proper disposal. This is a free service for Gloucester County residents. Businesses are not permitted to participate.

 

 

 

 

Newly Elected Councilmen 
Chris Del Borrello, Giancarlo D\’Orazio and Daniel Morley, 
Followed By Record Attendance at Luncheon Held at Wedgewood Country Club 

Washington Township, NJ – (January 9, 2011) – With overwhelming attendance at the January 2, 2011 \”Reorganization Meeting and Swearing-in Ceremony\” of Councilmen Chris Del Borrello, Giancarlo D’Orazio and Daniel Morley, the meeting marked the first Council Meeting in public forum for the newly elected majority.

The meeting commenced with a Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an invocation from Father

By CNBNews.Net   Gloucester City Council held a emergency meeting on December 29 in the municipal building. Two members of Council, Mayor William James and Councilman Nick Marchese were not present in person but did vote on a resolution via telephone conference call. PHOTO JOHN PAFF Since this is a first time that the public was aware of telephone conference call being used at a City Council meeting CNB asked sunshine activist John Paff if this was allowed under the Open Public Meetings Act. Paff said it was unclear and sent a copy to CNB of a ruling given on a similar question pertaining to telephone conference being used by School Boards in some communities. It reads as follows, OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT AND TECHNOLOGY  Over the last few months New Jersey School Boards Association staff have received a number of inquiries regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the use of telephone conference calls and e-mail as a means of communication among board members and administration. Attempting to answer those questions has been challenging, primarily because the sunshine law was drafted long before the advent of widespread use of Internet technology. Therefore, it is difficult to provide definitive answers. However, cases from jurisdictions outside New Jersey have begun to provide us some guidance. In addition, the spirit of the sunshine law has aided us in making certain generalizations that we can share with you and your having an understanding of the spirit of the law should assist you in making decisions regarding your own communication with other board members.   The Open Public Meetings Act

Leave it to the City of Gloucester City to upset OPRA activists across the state of New Jersey. Gloucester City Acting Clerk Kathy Jentsch issued a notice that her office will only accept two OPRA requests per day. Someone contacted Sunshine meeting activist John Paff who wrote his attorney, Walter Luers about her restrictions. Luers contacted the Executive Director of the Government Records Council to rule on this matter immediately.

 

 

 

Executive Director of the Government Records Council.

Ms. Starghill:

Please see the attached communication, immediately below, which I believe is self-explanatory. I am also attaching a jpg file of what was posted in the blog below. Before this Acting Clerk\’s \”policy\” causes a raft of lawsuits or GRC complaints (or both), would the GRC (consistent with its statutory duty to educate Records Custodians found in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(b)) communicate to this Clerk that she cannot arbitrarily change the dates on which OPRA requests are received? I suppose, that at the very least, the Clerk should be requesting consent for extensions of time to respond to OPRA requests, instead of engaging in the fiction of \”deeming\” requests to be received on arbitrary dates in the future. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Walter Luers, Esquire