Disagreement on what defines a "final offer"
By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
With their negotiations with downtown developer Nassau HKT yet to be resolved, members of Princeton Borough Council shifted their debate Tuesday to the transparency of the process.
At issue is whether certain information about the negotiations — including the borough’s previously issued final offer and answers to questions raised by residents along the way — should be made public.
Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman said recently that the questions submitted to the borough by residents Mark Freda and Mark Alexandridis will not be answered until closed session negotiations conclude.
But Mr. Freda attended the council meeting Tuesday to ask if the borough is planning on making its final offer public — a promise he said was made during its Aug. 7 council meeting.
”I might have said something like that — in that we would be addressing it fairly soon in September or whenever,” said Mayor Trotman. “And that was a final offer that we sent to Nassau HKT in writing. The reason that it hasn’t been made public is because there are still some issues that are being discussed in closed session.”
However, council members David Goldfarb and Wendy Benchley disagreed with the characterization of the borough’s latest proposal to Nassau HKT as a “final offer.”
”The so-called final offer, from my perspective, was never intended to be absolutely final and immutable,” Mr. Goldfarb said. “I don’t think that that was anybody’s understanding, frankly.”
Ms. Benchley agreed.
”I think that (Councilman Roger) Martindell keeps hammering away that this was our final offer, final offer, final offer,” she said. “Quite frankly, I think that is a misinterpretation.”
Rather, the proposal was the council’s attempt to “pull together all the different facts and come up with what we all agreed to would be a good negotiating stance,” she said.
But Mr. Martindell said Thursday that the Aug. 7 closed session minutes specifically refer to the borough’s proposal as a final offer.
Approval of those minutes was tabled Tuesday after Mr. Martindell said he needed to ask the borough clerk about them.
But he said Thursday that he has asked Borough Attorney Michael Herbert and the borough administration if those minutes can be released to the public.
”Everything in there is, to my mind, virtually public knowledge — or should be — and there’s no reason that I could see to keep them from the public,” he said.
Last month, The Packet acquired a copy of the July 10 closed session minutes, but they were nearly completely blacked out.
A note attached to the document by the borough clerk stated that the content was redacted, or edited out, because it was related to current negotiations with NHKT.
But Mr. Martindell said that those minutes featured “any number of paragraphs” containing factual information that could have been released to the public.
”I don’t want the same thing to happen with this set of minutes,” he said. “I’m concerned that we the governing body has provided no guidance to our staff on what can and cannot be released. I’d like the council to take up the subject explicitly and discuss it in public.”
Mr. Martindell also agreed with Mr. Freda’s comments Tuesday urging the borough to release its latest proposal to NHKT.
But while Mr. Goldfarb said he understood why Mr. Freda was “left with the impression” that the borough would do so, he said that decision was never put to a vote — and that he would have voted against it.
Mr. Goldfarb has said that many aspects of the redevelopment process are intentionally closed to the public so that it can transpire without a preponderance of opinions.
Still, Mr. Freda said releasing the position does the borough “no harm because the other side has already seen it.”
And while Ms. Benchley said that further negotiations don’t necessarily constitute a weakening of the borough’s position, Mr. Freda said “the lack of presenting the public with anything over such a prolonged period of time creates the perception or image that you maybe are giving away too much.”
”It’s hard to know,” he said. “I think it would be reassuring the public to understand, specifically, what are the issues and what does the borough believe the original agreement calls for.”
Mr. Martindell agreed.
”It doesn’t mean we have to maybe lay out for public review every step of our negotiations, or even our negotiation position at any particular time,” he said.
Mr. Alexandridis offered similar comments Wednesday.
”I think (providing) every detail may compromise some of their position. But certainly enumerating all the issues — I don’t see how that harms anyone’s negotiating position,” he said.
He said waiting to release the borough’s position until after it is essentially finalized in closed session won’t allow residents enough time to digest the agreement.
”You’ll get some fast food PowerPoint presentation from the administrator and then you’ll be asked to consume that information and potentially ask some questions,” he said. “And then they’ll vote on it in the next session.”
However, Mayor Trotman has said that the borough may hold more than one public session.
In the meantime, Mr. Alexandridis said he would at least like to know whether the questions he submitted to Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi will be answered.
Mr. Martindell addressed the same issue Tuesday.
”It’s not Bob’s fault. It’s our fault,” he said, referring to the lack of answers as “stonewalling.”
He said Thursday that he believes Mr. Bruschi is simply following the “apparent de facto policy of the governing body” to wait to answer questions until a resolution is reached.
Mr. Bruschi said Thursday that although he has promised answers to Mr. Freda and Mr. Alexandridis, he never gave them a time frame.
He said his initial notion is that the questions would be answered all at once — during a later public discussion — to avoid redundancy in the borough’s response.
”When we had this discussion, it was back in June — expecting that we would have a draft agreement presentation in the next couple weeks,” he said.
But because some of the responses are already prepared — and don’t pertain to specific negotiations — Mr. Bruschi said he will seek approval from Mayor Trotman to send them out.
”There will be some questions we will flat out not be able to answer yet,” he said. “The rest of them — they’re factual. There should be no problem.”
Also discussed Tuesday was the pending installation of the long-awaited pergola in the new plaza adjacent to the Princeton Public Library.
Although Jill Carpe, owner of the Shop the World store, cited concerns that screens to be attached to the structure would block her store, council members said they will make a determination after it is erected.