Talk:Morris County, New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Counties (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties.


Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

County Library Turns Down $10,000 Per Year Since 2004[edit]

All, I added this section and another Wikipedian removed it claiming it was POV. Rather, it is fact, written as fact, and it is POV to remove it. I personally spoke with some Freeholders who told me they were not aware of this -- not aware the Library turns down $10,000 of tax grants from the federal government at a time when every tax dollar counts in New Jersey, one of the only states in serious financial trouble at this time. Not aware this was done because the people running the library chose to follows American Library Association guideleines instead of community standards.

So I ask you all, should this not be included? What rewording might you suggest?

In addition to the Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Morris County Library System has full power to affect tax revenue. The Morris Automated Information Network, which supplies Internet service to area libraries, decided to turn down $10,000 in federal funding, each year, starting in 2004, just to be able to maintain unfiltered Internet access in the public library system rather than comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act. The Library's Integrity, editorial, The Star-Ledger, Sept. 11, 2004. Internet Freedom Will Cost Morris County Library System $10,000, editorial, Echoes Sentinel, Sept. 15, 2004.

Thanks. --SafeLibraries 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it for a few reasons. The main one is this is an article about Morris County, not the Morris County Library system where this info might be relevant. This is not a major controversy in the County and I would be surprised if a majority of residents even cared were they aware of it. The county library's budget this year is $4.5 million so $10k is not a major issue. Also, I object to the phrase "rather than comply". The federal law gives the option of accepting the money or unfiltered Internet. The library chose the latter and thus are in compliance with federal law. If they accepted federal dollars but refused the parental filters then they'd be breaking the law but that isn't the case here. This all happened two years ago and that commentary you cite applauds the library for their stance. Where is the controversy here? More importantly, why is this relevant in an article about Morris County? --dm (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The section of the article had to due with the Morris County budget. So did my addition. The $10,000 per year that you think is "not a major issue" per year is money that the county is not taking in because of the library. So, in this budget section of the wiki, also about the Freeholders, it must be said that some Morris County budget items are affected by the Library. Yes, this is a Morris County page, and the Library System has chosen to turn down $10,000 per year in funding. It definitely belongs here. Perhaps on the library's page too.
As to the language "rather than comply," you need to know that the library used to get that money yearly, until they were required by CIPA to install filters. Rather than comply, they choose to turn down the federal money rather than complying with CIPA to maintain the $10,000 per year. This is the specific reason why they turned it down. So it does belong on this wiki page.
And let me add this. I'll bet everything that if County residents were polled, they would rather comply with CIPA and get the $10,000 per year, per library, county wide. I'll bet this because this is the result in poll after poll after poll elsewhere. People don't even know this is going on, in large part.
And thanks for saying I added a link to arguments that applaud the library. I was trying to be fair on all sides, Fair. Encyclopedic. On the other hand, your efforts to claim $10,000 is irrelevant and the library system has nothing to do with the County's budget show your point of view clearly.
I await to hear what others say about this. --SafeLibraries 22:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You keep insisting that the library refused to comply with CIPA. This is not true. CIPA only requires Internet filters at libraries that accept federal E-rate funds. The Morris County Library chose not to accept the funds so they are in compliance with the law. They are not the only library to do this, hence this is not notable. This article should not be about everything that happens in Morris County. A library system with a $4.5 million budget refusing a $10,000 grant is not notable. --dm (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you are just wrong or using wishful thinking. To keep the funding, they must comply with CIPA. They chose not to comply with CIPA; that is why they are not getting the funding anymore. But for CIPA, they would still be getting that money to this day. Noncompliance is perfectly legal and I never said it wasn't. Nevertheless, they are not complying, and the county is out the money. Would you be happier with "they chose not to comply with CIPA" rather than "they refused to comply with CIPA"? However you phrase it, CIPA was the reason they no longer get the funding, and they specifically chose not to comply with CIPA.
You then said, "They are not the only library to do this, hence this is not notable." Similar sentences supported this POV of yours. Irrelevant. This article is not about the library or about filtering or about CIPA or even about noncompliance with CIPA. This article is about the governance of Morris County and who pulls the financial strings. The article says the Board of Chosen Freeholders pulls the financial strings, but that is not strictly correct where the library system gets to turn down $10,000 per year in federal funding. And without even the Freeholders' knowledge, until recently. So because it affects the county's bottom line and responsibility therefor, it is relevant here in this article that is discussing the county's bottom line and responsibility therefor. --SafeLibraries 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You said, "The article says the Board of Chosen Freeholders pulls the financial strings, but that is not strictly correct where the library system gets to turn down $10,000 per year in federal funding." The article says that the Board of Chosen Freeholders has the power of "Preparing and adopting the county budget" which is accurate. The library is refusing federal money which of course the county doesn't have control over. CIPA gives each library the option to accept the federal dollars or unfiltered Internet. This is only about the county budget in a tangential sense. The library's budget is separate from the county's and it has other sources of income besides the county. It does not affect the county's bottom line as it does not affect how much money the Freeholders choose to allocate to the library. How could it if the freeholders didn't even know about it?
As far as compliance goes, I believe the library is in full compliance with CIPA. CIPA gives two options to libraries and they accepted one. An analogy: the federal tax code allows me to itemize or take the standard deduction. Many people choose the standard deduction even when it costs more in taxes. Are they refusing to comply with the tax law? Of course not. A library refusing to comply with CIPA would be one that accepted federal funds and then failed to use the required Internet filters. That's not the case here. --dm (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You are playing words games. Pick another word if it makes you happy but you know exactly what I am saying that you are excusing as being irrelevant. And the "library's budget" is not the issue here. Let's agree to disagree and await further input. Seeing none in about a week, I'm adding that information back in as you are the only dissenter and your arguments amount to word games and distractions about library budgets and the minimal impact of $10,000 per year per library and the like, and you admitted I pointed to links supporting your point of view, and the Freeholders I spoke with expressed concern that this was occurring and were interested in learning more, so it is incorrect to imply it's inconsequential just because "the freeholders didn't even know about it." That's like saying there's a low murder rate because no one's finding the bodies. --SafeLibraries 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put this debate on WP:RFC so that others might weigh in. Please don't take unilateral action. Wikipedia decisions are supposed to be based on consensus which clearly doesn't exist here. Also, I did not admit that the link "support[ed my] point of view". I have been careful to keep my personal feelings about this issue out of the debate. My point of view is simply that this information doesn't belong on this page. --dm (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a notable event worth mentioning. The library system is taking a stand, and that's notable. 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To be able to determine if the fact belongs in the article, a little more information is needed.

  • What does "the Morris County Library System has full power to affect tax revenue" really mean ? Can the library board decide on its own to raise taxes ? If so, to what extent ?
  • Is the library budget part of the county budget ? (i.e. what happens when the library has a deficit ?) If it's not, the fact doesn't seem to belong in this article.
  • What is the size of the county budget ?
  • Does the county have a healthy budget ? Are there financial problems, that are substantially worsened by refusing the federal funds ?

I feel that this article needs more information on the county budget and expenses. In that larger context, the CIPA funding could be mentioned (with one or two sentences). In the meantime, I would suggest to put it in a Trivia section. --LucVerhelst 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I agree with you -- let's get more voices. I'll make no further changes without consensus. As to county budgeting, I'm not the expert, though I suppose I could try to "look it up." I do think the library budget is part of the county budget. The library cannot raise taxes, so I may have used the wrong word, but don't take my personal lack of financial savvy to mean the issue is not valid. I don't know about the library's budget, other than they reject $10,000 per year since 2004. I do know, however, but without cite, that Morris County is one of the best run counties in the whole USA, and to that extent, the $10,000 is likely no biggie. Oh, the library board on its own can decide to turn down funding that the county could have had, and would have had had the citizens been polled instead of following a small group who follows the ALA's policies to skirt CIPA and US v. ALA. Yes, it's legal to skirt CIPA, but that's not what the citizens would want if they were asked -- that's only what the ALA acolytes want. Friends For Safer Libraries is another organization where a child was exposed to inappropriate material that likely would not have been there but for a small group of library trustees who decided to circumvent the US Supreme Court in the very case they themselves joined and lost in the US Supreme Court, and they are not collecting $104,000 per year. -- A "Trivia" section may, uh, trivialize the issue, and it is not trivial. The library taking a stand may be notable but not here -- here it's notable they get to affect the County's bottom line. Hey, if I was personally in charge of turning down $10,000 per year of money that could have gone to the County governemtn, is that not notable? The library does it under cover of the ALA and suddenly that's not notable? --SafeLibraries 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts added below.

Fact 1 says "Morris County government is run by the Board of Chosen Freeholders [BCF]. Among their responsibilities are ... the County Library." That tells me that the Board of Chosen Freeholders is responsible for the County Library. That puts to rest the question of who is responsible for the library and casts sharp relief on the County Library's turning down federal money without BCF knowledge, let alone approval -- the BCF is responsible for the County Library.

Fact 3 is the anticipated 2006 budget. In it we see relevant items. A) We see items less that $10,000 are taken into consideration in the budget. That puts to rest the issue of whether $10,000 is too inconsequential to care since they care about items of even significantly lesser amounts -- $10,000 is not trivial. B) We see itemization of "Book Fines - Library." That puts to rest whether the BFC is tracking County Library monies -- they are tracking library monies. --SafeLibraries 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact 4 shows says, "a man was using one of the public computers at the Morris County Library in Hanover Township to view and print child pornography" and "He saw the man access web sites named Boy Lovers, Man/Boy Lovers, and Child Starlets and use the library printer to copy images of male children which focused on their genitalia" and "he often viewed child pornography web sites at the county library because it was near where he worked." This puts to rest the issue of whether this is all just idle talk -- it's deadly serious, it's not trivial. This also puts to rest the issue of whether people would do this in such a public area -- they do this nationwide regularly, and as we can see they do this right in the very library that is CHOOSING TO MAINTAIN UNFILTERED ACCESS EVEN KNOWING OF NJ V. SISLER'S FACTS. This also goes to the importance of the budget issues -- how/why does the library continue to refuse to use filters given fact 4, and given fact 4, the library's ability to affect the county's budget as is does is all the more shocking.

If the county's shooting ranges had protective gear that was purchased by the range and was inadequate and people continued getting injured, is it not notable if no one does anything to take over control of the range to properly administer budgeting safety equipment? Well maybe that's not the best example, but it approaches the outrage people might have that people at the range get to spend or refuse funding for safety gear where serious problems are known to be evident. Similarly, people at the library get to speand or refuse funding for Internet safety gear where serious problems are known to be evident. --SafeLibraries 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, this page discusses the county's budgeting and the like. Since the County Library has a direct effect on that as all these facts are showing, my original effort to add in text that you excised remains valid, only now, because you have forced this RfC, the facts are coming out that are further strengthening the gist of my original suggestion. Reword it as you like but it must be included. --SafeLibraries 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is not a trivial matter. The proper authorities should deal with the problem.
In the context of an international encyclopedia however, I'd like to see some proof on the relevancy. I'm a European, I might be interested in Morris County, and look it up on Wikipedia, and I also might be interested in CIPA, correlated funding and the important issue of child protection problems associated with it, and might look that up in the relevant article, but I don't believe I would be interested in a large paragraph of this one subject in the other subject's article. --LucVerhelst 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Perfect question. The answer is CIPA, CIPA funding, and child protection problems associated with CIPA are totally IRRELEVANT to this article! So I agree with you!! However, that is not the subject of the article. Morris County governance and budgetary matters is the subject of this article. Relevant to this article about Morris County governance and budgetary matters is that the Morris County library system is, whether allowed or not, making decisions on behalf of and directly affecting the budgetary matters of Morris County. To that extent, to the extent the library affects governance and budgetary matters here in Morris County, that needs to go in the article. Why? Because I want it to? Who cares what I want. It goes in because it is a fact. Factually, this is what's happening, and it is directly relevant to this article.
Now you say you are from Europe. You are reading about governance and budgetary matters of Morris County, State of New Jersey, United States of America. You are reading about the BCF. Are you getting the full picture? No. Why? Because the library also has a small but notable part in the governance and budgetary matters of Morris County. This may not be strictly legal, and I am not saying it is not, but it is actually happening, it is non trivial, indeed it is encyclopedic, and it should be included. Granted there does not need to be a write up about CIPA, the perils that befall children if CIPA is not followed, and the existing crimes already known to occur in the Morris County library system like in fact 4. But that's not for the Morris County page, at least not this section of the page. What is, however, is the library's effect on the material that DOES appear on this page.
Now if we just add a quick blurb about the library also affecting a small chuck of the County's budget, people would naturally want to know why, in what area does it affect the budget. The answer to that is it turns down $10,000 per year since 2004 of federal money that the Conty used to get yearly before CIPA required Internet filters in certain public libraries, and this particular library was one of those libraries. That is not the best wording, but that is the essential fact that needs to be included. It is quite remarkable that in a government that is so tightly controlled, something like this has slipped through the cracks in a way that may actually result in future criminal activity as it already has in the past as shown in fact 4.
By the way, Morris County is really one of the better counties in the entire USA, according to polls I've heard on the radio over the years rating various regions or towns of the USA. Just keep your eyes open when you go to the library. ;-) --SafeLibraries 12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I can't remember the specific cite, but the European library main organization specifically diverges from the ALA on these issues. --SafeLibraries 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see no one else is complaining. So, for the single one who has, I will change the language. How about this single sentence:

The Morris County Library has a small impact on county tax revenues: the Morris Automated Information Network, which supplies Internet service to area libraries, turns down $10,000 per year in federal funding, starting in 2004, to obviate the need to comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act so as to maintain unfiltered Internet access.

And these will be in reference tags: The Library's Integrity, editorial, The Star-Ledger, Sept. 11, 2004. Internet Freedom Will Cost Morris County Library System $10,000, editorial, Echoes Sentinel, Sept. 15, 2004.

Thanks. I'll add this next week or so if no further comment appears here on this matter. --SafeLibraries 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think this info really belongs on this page but in the spirit of compromise I won't object to the addition you propose provided you make one small change. "County tax revenues" should be replaced with "the county budget". The library's decision has no effect on the county's tax revenue as this is federal grant money. --dm (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts with cites[edit]

Let's all add facts here and number them, then we can easily refer to facts by number. Give source first.


Morris County government is run by the Board of Chosen Freeholders. Among their responsibilities are our parks, roads, jail, nursing home and the County Library.

2) Meet the Freeholders is the Freeholder's web site.


--SafeLibraries 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

4) NJ v. Sisler, 353 N.J. Super. 590, 803 A.2d 700

The record below consists of the following testimony before the Morris County Grand Jury. FBI Agent [MrAgent] received information in November 1999, that a man was using one of the public computers at the Morris County Library in Hanover Township to view and print child pornography. [MrAgent] went to the library on December 15, 1999, and saw a man subsequently identified as defendant sitting in front of one of the library computers and using the Internet to view images of children engaged in what [MrAgent] described as prohibited sexual acts. He saw the man access web sites named Boy Lovers, Man/Boy Lovers, and Child Starlets and use the library printer to copy images of male children which focused on their genitalia. [MrAgent] did not testify as to the number of copies of each image that were printed. He did say the copied pages were piled about an inch and a half thick.
The following day, December 16, 1999, the defendant admitted to Detective [MrDetective] of the Morris County Prosecutor's Office that he often viewed child pornography web sites at the county library because it was near where he worked. He admitted having photographs and images of nude young men at his home and explained that he often masturbated while viewing the pictures.

--SafeLibraries 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Morris County Board of Taxation[edit]

Morris Tax Board Never Gets Bored of Traveling; Members Visited Alaska, Orlando, Other Spots on Public Money, October 27, 2006, by Lawrence Ragonese, Star-Ledger Staff

trimmed excessive quoting from copyrighted source - see history for complete text

© 2006 The Star Ledger © 2006 All Rights Reserved.

Adding this pursuant to US Copyright Section 107 Fair Use. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"More Republican"[edit]

Text stated that Morris County was "more Republican" than any other New Jersey county. This was cited as needing a citation. This request was removed saying that it was cited in the rest of the paragraph. But the rest of the paragraph merely stated that Morris County had voted Republican in various elections. This does not make it "more" Republican than any other. A neutral source is needed to make that observation. It cannot be "proved" by inserted cited material on voting. A comparative analysis must be made by and outside source. Not Wikipedia editors inserting voting records. Student7 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My attempt to either delete this or place a fact tag on it, resulted in inadvertent automatic editing by my child-friendly pc, which I am forced to use. Temporarily, I hope. I won't try to change it again, but it still needs justification which it doesn't now have. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch non-settlements[edit]

Editors keep trying to place the Dutch in Morris County when they couldn't because they didn't get along with the Lenape. Therefore, there was no "Dutch history." No Russian history either. Or Chinese history, etc. If the settlers aren't there, there is no history. It is a non-event. The Chinese can do anything they want between 1620 and 1680. It doesn't get reported here if Chinese never made it as far as Morris County. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Index is missing for municipalities map[edit]

The caption of the municipalities map near the bottom of the page says to click on it for an index to the municipalities. The index does indeed appear on the clickthrough page,,_New_Jersey_Municipalities.png -- but it is not immediately obvious, and you have to scroll down to find it. I believe the list should be on the main page of the article itself, perhaps with a show/hide toggle, and ideally in a two-column table, rather than two back-to-back tables. But I don't know how to achieve this. Kirkpete (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


The "highest point" is of a sign on top of some hill. However, it has two people standing prominently besides it. This seems mostly self-promotional for the two. Probably should be deleted for that reason. It should be replaced, anyway. Student7 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)