February 14
...serving up your daily dish.
The Star Ledger reports today that Ray Tamborini, the Bloomfield councilman who was arrested for drunk driving on Saturday night, has given up two jobs that allowed him to drive a township vehicle.
Last night, Tamborini resigned as coordinator of the township's Office of Emergency Management and chairman of the Local Emergency Planning Council. Both jobs allow the three-term councilman to drive a town vehicle, like the red Jeep Cherokee town officials said he was using on Saturday.
Mayor Raymond McCarthy said the council accepted the resignation. Aside from that, what will happen to Tamborini is unclear, McCarthy said.
Tamborini apparently did not offer to resign his council seat. The Ledger story confirmed our report yesterday that state police were called in to perform the breathalyzer test. The township attorney says the case will be heard outside of Bloomfield in fairness to Tamborini.
No word on whether he will resign his other seven town jobs?
Posted by: Eddie Shore | Feb 14, 2006 12:03:06 PM
Look on the bright side - at least he's now qualified to run for President and Vice President of the US.
All kidding aside, I hope the guy wakes up, counts his blessings that no one else got hurt, pays his debt and is allowed to get on with his life - Good Luck.
Posted by: man in the street | Feb 14, 2006 12:08:27 PM
And finds a way to stop drinking, or at least never gets behind the wheel after drinking again.
Posted by: skipwith | Feb 14, 2006 12:13:50 PM
Because someone has been stopped for DUI, that does not necessarily indicate someone has a drinking problem. If the police stopped everyone who was driving after many of the (non-bikie, by the way) parties I've attended in the last 20 years, hundreds and hundreds of drivers would have been nailed. The wine flowed..etc.
That does not mean I hold a brief for Mr. Tamborini. Nor should it be construed as a defense of drunk driving. But this is probably an offense that can happen to most anyone out there save absolute teetotalers and WCTU members in their dowdy, flowered frocks and sensible shoes, it is not reserved solely unto alcoholics and to suggest otherwise is foolishness.
It was also somewhat cruel, in the prior thread on this matter, to allude to Councilman Tamborini hanging out at a bar (unnamed, interestingly) nightly. That one proves nothing save the glee of unsigned innuendo.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 14, 2006 12:48:40 PM
No one suggested nor implied that the man is an alcoholic - that's for him and/or his family and Doctor to decide.
But it's obvious that the man had an issue re: controlling his intake in this instance - and that led to a problem, a BIG one. Thank God for his sake that no innocent bystanders were hurt. It's not worth going to prison over one shot too many.
Posted by: man in the street | Feb 14, 2006 12:59:59 PM
"Nor should it be construed as a defense of drunk driving. But this is probably an offense that can happen to most anyone out there save absolute teetotalers"
That is an abhorent attitude. No responsible person drives after too many drinks or with a blood alcohol over the limit. Driving drunk doesn't just happen to you as a matter of course during your life. You choose to be an asshole and put other people at risk when you choose to drink and drive. At the minimum, a person driving drunk needs to lose their license to drive. If it were up to me, I'd also impound their car.
Posted by: max | Feb 14, 2006 1:03:15 PM
Whatever happened to Montclair's regulating township vehicles usage by town employees?
There was a Montclair Times Article back in October 2005 and I think that Mayor Ed Remsen commented here at Baristanet as well
October 2005 Montclair Times article
on 12/28/05 in an interview with the Montclair Times Mayor Remsen said “We need to sit down and discuss this with Joe [Hartnett],” and also said that it was a 2006 resolution.
December 2005 Montclair Times article
So, what's happened with the 27 Montclair municipal vehicles that are being driven by township employees 24/7
- some aren't even decaled as being township cars.
Anyone have an update????
Posted by: badd_patti | Feb 14, 2006 1:04:08 PM
Normally "responsible" people make mistakes daily, max. That does not mean you should automatically face the justice of Judge Isaac Parker in every instance. Each case is different. Perhaps you remember when Hillary Clinton backed out into someone else's car some evening a while back? That sounded like an alcohol-fueled offense from what we were given by her pr people.
You never once drove during your youthful years when you were under the influence of something? Then you most likely are indeed a better person than most who post here. That doesn't excuse their conduct.
If Councilman Tamborini pleads or is found guilty by trial, I assume he'll pay the requisite price. Until then, I was merely suggesting that the self-righteous, and self-appointed, Furies posting on this matter hang back for a while. He deserves at least half as big a break until his court date as, say, either Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy has frequently gotten in the past.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 14, 2006 1:13:44 PM
"You never once drove during your youthful years when you were under the influence of something? Then you most likely are indeed a better person than most who post here. That doesn't excuse their conduct."
No I didn't, unlikely, and no it doesn't.
Just because people do dumb things doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for it. Tough laws on drunk driving aren't meant to be forgiving for a reason. People don't have a right to a driving license if they can't behave responsibly while using one. Call a cab, designate a driver. It is easy.
Posted by: max | Feb 14, 2006 1:22:16 PM
"...as, say, either Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy has frequently gotten in the past"
Don't forget Bush and Cheney while you're at it - and also don't forget to throw in a little cocaine for Bushie also.
Posted by: man in the street | Feb 14, 2006 1:32:25 PM
Cathar, I didn't name the bar because I didn't want to get the bar in trouble if that is a possibility. And I didn't say "nightly." I was not saying he is an alcoholic but that it is possible that he has left the bar and driven home in this condition on previous occasions and just not been caught.
I do need to point out that Mr. Tamborini's blood alcohol level of TWICE the .08 legal limit is not a matter of having one too many glasses of wine with dinner or accidentally having a third drink on an empty stomach. We're talking the equivalent of 6 dry martinis, or more than 8 beers or glasses of wine, in a 4-hour period for a grown man of 180 lbs. I checked it out on Google and found a calculator for this. Depending on how long a time period it was or how much he weighs, it might differ slightly but we're talking about a large intake of alcohol here. And the calculator only went up to 8 beers so I don't know how many it really would be. So no, I don't think most people have gone driving off at this level of inebriation except maybe after a frat party in college. I'm not trying to be holier than thou about this but please do not minimize the offense.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | Feb 14, 2006 2:07:02 PM
Cathar, this wasn't youthful exuberance. He's reached an age where his should have a better sense of his physical limitations. (Although what probably happened is that there's been a shift in his aging metabolism, and he can no can longer process the same amounts of alcohol he's been used to imbibing.)
I was expressing a sincere wish -- I don't feel fury-ous -- that he either decide to stop drinking, if it's just not working for him anymore, or at least decide to not drive on the nights he's drinking -- call a cab, get a ride.
Posted by: skipwith | Feb 14, 2006 2:21:17 PM
And no I wasn't drinking when I typed that. :-)
I make a lot of typos, always have. (Even *with* the preview function. Ohhh, you wouldn't want to see the posts without that.)
Posted by: skipwith | Feb 14, 2006 2:41:02 PM
for once, i agree with cathar (wink!)
responsible adults often make mistakes.
the problem with drinking is that the more you drink, the less able you are to gauge your ability to drive.
this does not, of course, make it excusable. but i don't think anyone should be expressing outrage over this.
Posted by: Left Of Center, like Suzanne Vega | Feb 14, 2006 2:57:42 PM
Again, Mr. Tamborini has to face not only his Maker, but first the legal system. This web site is too often a court of first resort, so often I wonder if the real purpose of most posts isn't to pre-disqualify folks as jurors when their chance comes up.
Mauigirl,why wouldn't you wish to get the bar where you said Tamborini bellies up into trouble? Because you go there yourself? That might not fly with max. If you have a regular sot who continues to regularly get served, that used to be cause for dismissal in places I worked, whether or no he got behind the wheel afterward. (Hordes of underage drinkers were another story entirely at one place, there they were key to its very survival.)
The cocaine reference above is exceptionally low. A little below par for the poster's course, and unwarranted. All sniggering about drug use by politicians and their families, however, really should start with that seeming temple of sanctimony, the Carter White House.
Max, you still might try calming down. No one is suggesting "walkies" for drunk driving. But that it is, alas, a relatively common offense might be seen by the Star-Ledger's recent look at the driving records of our state legislators. I am impressed you have remained pristine by contrast, pray you'll continue to do so.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 14, 2006 2:58:30 PM
"I am impressed you have remained pristine by contrast, pray you'll continue to do so."
Life goes along much smoother with just a little bit of foresight rather than a butt-load of hindsight. If you plan to drink, make alternative plans for transportation. No transportation plans, don't drink - it won't kill you to miss one.
And I'm not other than calm. I just think the "everyone does it" excuse is no more legit for adults than it is for teenagers and shows just as much maturity.
Posted by: max | Feb 14, 2006 3:11:37 PM
Cathar, I believe in individual responsibility. I don't hold the bar/restaurant accountable for someone's drinking habits. Sure, if one person served someone 8 drinks in a row, that's one thing, but we don't know that is what happened. The bartender may have changed shifts, didn't realize how many he had, etc. And sometimes people don't show their level of inebriation until they get up to leave, especially if they are experienced drinkers. It's up to the person who is drinking to take responsibility for their actions. That said, Mr. Tamborini will have his day in court and is indeed innocent until proven guilty. I really have nothing against him, I am hoping this will be a wake-up call to him to be more careful in the future, that's all.
Posted by: mauigirl52 | Feb 14, 2006 3:46:16 PM
But bars are indeed responsible at some point, mauigirl. (As are private hosts.) And to some point. The concept of "liquor liability" is well established, if somewhat liquid (no pun intended) in application. Bartenders are in fact trained in such vagaries. Or should be if the establishment is a decently run one. It's often not easy to cut someone off who is nearing inebriation, I know (and sometimes you can tell yourself, what the hell, he only lives a short drive away....). But good bar and restaurant personnel develop a sense of how to do so. ANd of the necessity to do so.
I will refer you to that huge judgment against the catering firm Aramark, which at Giants Stadium kept serving beers to a hapless lush who on the way home from a game caused a tragic crash. While I often wince at huge tort suits, I do agree Aramark was at clear fault in that one.
Was Tamborini in fact at that bar which you don't wish to cause trouble for on the night of his arrest? You might wish to mull this one over.
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 14, 2006 3:59:50 PM
Mauigirl - don't mull over anything.
I don't know Mr.Tamborini., never met him, attended the same events, zip, zero zilch....and yet even I know what bar your talking about.
That's the problem with being a public figure - the public is aware of you and whatever you do.
Posted by: hrhppg | Feb 14, 2006 4:44:21 PM
Keep the bar out of it. People just want to know which bar he was at for gossip purposes. Isn't it enough gossip to know that a councilman was arrested for DUI after hitting 2 parked cars while driving a town vehicle?
Posted by: Dana | Feb 14, 2006 5:17:56 PM
"He'll have his trial outside of Bloomfield"
Ah, he had twice the legal blood alcohol and hit two parked cars - is he going to actually make them use taxpayers money trying to plead innocent to that?
Was he charged with anything else?
Posted by: max | Feb 14, 2006 5:33:53 PM
Mauigirl, this one is up to you. Not to others who may have their own agendas. I just wanted to remind you that the place that serves the drunk doesn't necessarily get off scot free. Even shouldn't, as in the Aramark case.
hrhppg, people should be aware of what "public figures do" if it affects their job performance or leads to charges. Isn't even "Caesar's wife" classically assumed to be above reproach for good reason? That concept annoys you for some reason on the councilmanic level?
Posted by: cathar (8T) | Feb 14, 2006 5:45:51 PM
