| Author | Message | ||
     Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6906 Registered: 5-2001 |
So does Livingston. I find them to be even better stocked than West Orange when it comes to kosher foods. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4936 Registered: 10-1999  |
West Orange has kosher sushi, as a bonus. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14414 Registered: 10-2001  |
Nohero, Perhaps you can help me. On a scale of one to ten where 10 is an issue of vital importance to Maplewoodians, how would you rate the following: 1) changing the form of government 2) the Scopes trial 3) the types of olives that should be purchased during the Can-Can sale Thanks. As always, I appreciate your feedback. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14415 Registered: 10-2001 |
Personally, and I hope this doesn't cloud your judgement, I would say that it breaks down as follows: 1) changing the form of government (-286) 2) the Scopes trial (2) 3) the types of olives that should be purchased during the Can-Can sale (8.5) | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4670 Registered: 9-2001  |
4) Changing Sbenois picture to Boozo the Clown (me) 5) Adding a picture of Einstein to Joan's page (me) 6) Filling Mem’s glass with a great Port Wine (me) 7) Changing Tom Reingold’s picture to a glass of Rheingold Beer. (me) 8) Changing Nohero’s picture to John Wayne. (me) 9) Changing Strawberry's picture to the White House. (me)  OK, I'm going to back off you guys and take the question to the people who really count, the "silent" majority...  | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2492 Registered: 6-2002 |
sbenois: Sorry I have not come back to this thread until now and I don't remember what I had for lunch on Thursday. Interestingly, I do remember everyone I have ever voted for for the TC and I never gave much thought to who that person would vote for for Mayor. I always felt that that was up to the Committee members who were really selecting their own Chairman. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 440 Registered: 3-2005 |
ajc, I don't understand why you, as a Republican, would want this at all, nor do I understand why somebody who wants the public to have a greater voice in who is Mayor would want this. In the partisan election system being proposed by Fred, the Democrats would nominate a candidate for Mayor, and the Republicans would nominate a candidate. The reality of Maplewood is that Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 3-1, and that there is an enormous and decisive party line vote in Maplewood that almost guarantees the election of a Democrat, especially in elections that also contain a race for President, Senator or Governor. Despite the other thread on this board where the local Democratic chair "invites" any Democrat to put their name in the hat to be chosen as a party nominee, any nominee for Mayor (or TC) for that matter will be chosen by the party pooh-bahs of the Democratic party in a closed meeting. That means, in reality, a very, very, very small handful of people in Maplewood will select in a closed exclusive party session a nominee who will have a virtual lock on being elected in November. Sure, other people can run against their handpicked selection in a primary or the general election. But given how much money the Democrats have recently been spending on elections, how many people could afford to keep dropping $15,000 or $20,o00 of their personal money to challenge the Democrats? In the present system, if you are Republican, you have a very uphill fight to getting elected to the TC, but if you succeed, you stand a chance of becoming Mayor in a rotation system. In the present system, if the TC refuses to rotate the job and keeps re-electing a Mayor every 3 years who isn't very good, who is constantly stirring the pot, dividing the town, and not paying attention the real tax issues, we can vote against those TC members who did that the next time they are up for election. In the system Fred's proposing, a handful of personal loyalists can keep nominating the same rich guy to run as the Democratic nominee in a closed session and effectively keep himself in power for however long he wants by making the bar to challenging him financially too high. The entire process becomes determined by internal Democratic party politics, including who runs for "district leader" in elections that 99 percent of Maplewoodians don't pay attention to and thousands can't vote in even if they did. And may I point out that the last time I checked, the local chair of the Democratic party in Maplewood (who wasn't elected to that position by the public) was the personal salaried employee of Fred Profeta? Hope that's changed, but if it hasn't, you can see where it could become a problem. More democratic *in reality* than what we've got? Nope. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10284 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen, the thing you forget is that Vic DeLuca ran for the TC without the Committee's nomination against Fred Profeta and Ian Grodman. He won the primary and the general election. District leaders make up the Maplewood Democratic Committee and determine who will be the official nominee in the primary. Unless you are proposing a second primary election to determine who gets the endorsement of the Committee I don't think there is any more democratic way to handle the situation. A primary between, hypothetically, between Fred and Vic for mayor would be interesting to say the least. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6912 Registered: 5-2001 |
BobK: What you don't realize is that the Democratic Party in Maplewood split into two factions over the reval issue and still has not reunited. What occurred in the case of Vic DeLuca running for and winning a seat on then TC was a situation in which each faction got one of their candidates elected. Thus, Kathleen is correct in suggesting that a Mayoral partisan election in our town at this time would be decided by which ever of the two factions within the District Leader camp could generate the most support for their candidate. It is entirely possible that the existence of these two factions is a major contributing factor to the proposal to have our Mayor elected directly by popular vote. If the local Democatic party were more unified, I doubt that the possibility of election of our Mayor by popular vote would have come under consideration at all. Just my opinion. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2495 Registered: 6-2002 |
It is entirely possible that the existence of these two factions is a major contributing factor to the proposal to have our Mayor elected directly by popular vote. If the local Democatic party were more unified, I doubt that the possibility of election of our Mayor by popular vote would have come under consideration at all. Duh, do you think? | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 366 Registered: 8-2003 |
Joan, I respectfully disagree with your analysis; I think BobK is more on target. In Township Committee races, the Democrats have had contested primaries in four of the last five years. In those contested elections, seven seats were up for grabs, of which the party-nominated candidates won four and the challengers won three. That’s almost a draw, which clearly shows the nomination bestowed by the local party is no guarantee of election victory. Why wouldn’t, or couldn’t, the same thing happen if we had direct mayoral elections? We could still anticipate contested primaries within the Democratic Party, the outcome of which would have little bearing on whom the local party had nominated. Perhaps the only difference is that this would only occur every three or four years (the length of the mayoral term) rather than every year, as it does now. Kathleen, I’m not sure about your theory that a Republican on the Township Committee would eventually become mayor via rotation. That notion has never been tested. Ever since the Democrats started rotating the mayor’s position, they have held all five seats on the committee. It’s hard for me to imagine one party ceding the mayoralty to another under any circumstances. But I’ll withhold final judgment until we get to that fork in the road. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4681 Registered: 9-2001 |
Dear Kathleen, Bob, Joan, and Anon... Contrary to all the bluster, I don’t have anything at stake either way. I'm open to changing the system if voters will get more of a say in local government. What’s the real harm in looking at the possibility? I don’t buy into the distraction excuse for not doing it. Maybe a bi-partisan committee would be helpful to sort out some of the questions? Most people know the local Democratic Party is not unified. If nothing else, this discussion may get people thinking about it and how the voting process can be improved... Like the Bottomline, I’ll also withhold my final judgment until we get to study the options closer. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10287 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joan, I am well aware of the split in the Democratic Party between the Profetaistas and the DeLucaites, although I think it is about much more than the revaluation at this point in time. I find the concept of directly electing a Mayor interesting for that very reason. I also would like to see it combined with ward voting as well, because I think the resulting TC would be more representative of the Town as a whole for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6915 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ultimately, under our representative democracy system, the persons who get to determine who will be elected to any office whether this be TC member, Mayor or President of the United States are the persons who vote in the election in which said candidates are running for office. The persons who have the most potential clout in this system are those who are eligible to vote. Everyone of us who is (a) registered to vote, (b) a legal resident of the election district in which s/he would cast her/his ballot,(c) a United States citizen, and (d) not otherwise excluded by such factors as having had a sufficiently long incarceration is eligible to vote in the general election but only those of us who are district leaders get to determine who will have the official party endorsement and only those of us who are members of the dominant political party have the right to vote in the primary election in case of a run-off. This is still a case of a few of us making the decision for the many in regards to who is elected to any office. Under the partisan system we have now even in local elections, party unity is going to mean something when it comes to electing a Mayor, whether that decision is made by members of the TC (assuming any minority party members get elected to that body) or by popular vote in a general election, where pressure is going to be brought to bear on the loyal party members to vote for their party's candidate because of party affiliation rather than because of any special talents and skills a candidate would bring to the job. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4352 Registered: 5-2001  |
I don't think a ward system is something we want to seek. JMO. Our system works, and works well, especially if we have active district leaders. WOuldn't a ward system be more tied into County gov? Be careful what you wish for is what I'm thinking. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10294 Registered: 5-2001 |
How are wards associated with county government? Say for the sake of arguement if we had four wards, roughly following the school areas (Seth Boyden, Clinton, Tuscan and Jefferson) and maybe two council members elected at large, each area of town would feel they had representation. One arguement against this is that it would further divide the town, but imho I think just the opposite. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4353 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think it would divide the town. Also, suppose there really isn't someone willing to run in one of the wards thereby getting a less than desirable candidate? Look at our TC now. The members are from all over town and we don't have the ward system. I don't see a need for it. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6918 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with ffof. We are small town in size with a relatively dense population (as in living close together NOT as in mentality). Problems/issues which affect one part of town immediately or ultimately affect us all. We should want a TC which works to unify the town and make decisions based on what is best for all of us. I think the present TC form of government which we have does that very well. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4684 Registered: 9-2001 |
"... under our "Representative Democracy" system..." Sorry Joan, I'm still favor Bob's reasoning on this one. Everything about this stuff of us being more divided is a lot of BS. I believe if given the chance the people will choose "Representative" Government", as in representation and an equal say in what goes on in their part of town. Not that he's been inattentive to the town as a whole, but Vic's listening of the folks in the Hilton section has always been very strong in the past and reciprocal by them at voting time. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 672 Registered: 8-2001 |
By Fred’s logic, only 4 people in Maplewood voted for Maplewood’s Mayor in 2006. And I’m not referring to Vic, Ken Kathy and Dave. I’m referring to the 4 people that voted for Fred and not Ian in the election. If those 4 people had cast an Ian & Vic vote, Fred would not even have hosted a caucus at his home, where he was elected mayor by the TC. By Fred’s logic, the Planning Board shouldn’t choose its own chair. Or the Zoning Board. Or the Maplewood Democratic Committee. Or the Essex County Democrats. Or the National Democratic Party. Or the Community Coalition on Race. Or the Strollers. Or the Shop Rite Board of Directors. I’m curious to the timing of Profeta’s concern about electing the Mayor by a direct vote. The proposal came days after Huemer publicly declared his intention for the seat in 2007. Up until that time, no one can recall Fred being concerned about the democracy of Maplewood’s government. This is because Fred knows he won’t win a TC-only vote in 2007, so he’s banking on being more “popular” than Huemer and out-pointing him in a town-wide election. I don’t believe Huemer would lose that election, either. Fred needs to accept defeat and turn his attention to the town, and not his political future. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 367 Registered: 8-2003 |
Wards would be a disaster and they wouldn’t improve anything. Here’s the rub: how would people decide what constitutes “their part of town”? The Township Committee would draw the election map, wouldn't it? You don’t suppose there would ever be any disagreement over the map, do you? Any contention about exactly where the ward boundaries should run? Any fighting over what neighborhoods should (or shouldn’t) be associated with others? And how about locating the homes of incumbents and/or likely candidates? Think there would ever be any pressure to segregate some political figures into different wards -- or maybe the opposite, to force a confrontation between two incumbents from the same faction? Further, you don’t suppose this sort of disagreement would ever spill over into the local elections, do you? Think we might have contested primaries with factions who would draw the map differently? Nah, we would all be basking in the light of fair representation of all the neighborhoods in town. Heck, we’d probably be standing in a big circle in Memorial Park, holding hands. State legislatures deal with this issue all the time, both for legislative and congressional districts. They fight like hell over it, and disputes often end up in the courts. I can’t see how Maplewood would ever choose this approach. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2499 Registered: 6-2002 |
I have still not seen one post which tells me why the system under which the Township has been run for 80 years requires change. I really do not understand the problem. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5128 Registered: 3-2002 |
I mentioned wards first I believe..or one of the first to mention wards. I too think wards would be more divisive. I also thought that if you had a directly elected mayor, because of the divisiveness and disenfranchisement that might cause, in contrast to our current system, one of the best possible ways to balance that out would be through wards...giving people the perception of equal representation, combined with at large representation. But I dont want to see a need for wards, and I believe the only need for wards would be if there was a directly elected mayor to a four year term, so I dont want to see a directly elected mayor. And since I think there are way more important items for the TC to be working on than the issue of re-thinking the way Maplewood is governed, I dont think it should even be on the table. But I think a bunch of folks all said that at least twice each. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4958 Registered: 10-1999 |
"But I think a bunch of folks all said that at least twice each."True, Mr. Zona, but it does not hurt to keep repeating it. Put me down for no ward voting, and also for Anon's point, that no good argument has been provided in favor of changing our form of government. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4686 Registered: 9-2001 |
...so are we all to think that the dissent of a few for change in the system is the will of all the people? With so many other town governments functioning with different systems, I don’t see what the problem is. Not to be impolite, but isn't this typical of left wing politics? As in, "no good argument has been provided in favor of changing our form of government." So who gets to decide what a good argument is? Also, "I don’t think it should even be on the table." And, "I can’t see how Maplewood would ever choose this approach." Well, there have been reasons given, but obviously not good enough... IMHO, it should be on the table that is, if we give a damn about what other people think... And, we'll never know if Maplewood will ever choose this approach if we don’t even allow residents to vote on it... Saying there are more important things to be involved in may be true, but spending untold hours on state and national politics, including the war in Iraq shouldn't be any of them... Listen, it also doesn’t hurt then to keep repeating, "What's so wrong about letting the people decide?" Isn't that more Democratic than, “I don’t think it should even be on the table." | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5136 Registered: 3-2002 |
Art, Few have dissented here, fewer have supported it, most probably dont even give a crap and a portion of the population cant even name all the TC members. I respect your opinion and you voicing your opinion. Being the involved person you are, I especially respect it. I respectfully disagree with it too, though, in this case. And my belief that it shouldnt even be on the radar compared to other issues has nothing to do with my political leanings or my desire to stifle public debate on the topic...it's just how I feel, with no hidden agenda attached. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4688 Registered: 9-2001 |
I respect your opinion too Hank. The only reason I started this thread was to try and get the question out there for us to debate. IMHO, the jury is still out. I will admit that those opposed have made some very good arguments against it, but to stifle any further debate as some here have suggested is where I find issue... | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 441 Registered: 3-2005 |
art, I am surely the most and perhaps the only left-wing person posting in this thread, and I haven't suggsted stifling debate. So if you got a beef, it's not with left-wingers. I've stated what I think are the glaring problems with the proposal, and I'll add my preference that this not be a priority. State tax reform and the protection of citizens should be the priority, not stacking the political deck to give a handful of people long-term control of Mayor's chair. Bobk, My point was precisely that such primary challenges result in campaigns that are prohibitively expensive to most and politically unhealthy. It would skew attaining the Mayor's chair to the wealthy alone. Tom, I still think the present scheme gives the public more of a chance to boot TC members who won't respect the principle of rotating the chair. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 426 Registered: 1-2004 |
"I still think the present scheme gives the public more of a chance to boot TC members who won't respect the principle of rotating the chair." Teacher! Teacher! It's my turn! It's my turn! Oooooh! Oooooh! Call on me! Ooooooh. Ooooooh. I find that my vote means more if I vote to boot TC members who are ineffectual. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 941 Registered: 2-2002 |
I sense that this issue, in practical terms of advancement may have died a quiet death at the TC meeting last night. As had already been pointed out by the Mayor when he first proposed examination of the possibilities; -The TC cannot themselves change the form of government. Last night Vic sunk that point home by making an official motion that the TC "as a body" must remain neutral and non-participatory on the subject. Vic pointed out that citizens are free to do as they wish to study this issue and are free to try to "reserve meeting rooms" in town buildings etc, as is any other group but that that is as far as the TC goes. It was, (as it really had to be) a unanimous vote of agreement in that regard. Thus any "committee" to study the subject and all the great effort of petition drive to get 3,000 signatures etc would have to be entirely driven by citizen desire and effort. TC members CAN act independently, (and I think it was implied that perhaps some MAY), participate "in a fashion" although that could be tricky political ground, particularly given all the other issues to occupy their time. Personally, although I think that people sometimes like an idea simply because it is new I just don't see the necessary ground-swell of interest, or sense of need that would be required to take this issue all the way to a ballot initiative. Afterall, everyone is pretty busy with their own lives to additionally spend a great deal of time rearranging the deck chairs on a ship that to most minds seems to be sailing along well enough, (at least in terms of "division of power"). If people thought that changing the form of government would (for instance) magically lead to lowering their taxes, -that would be such a required incentive but of course no such case could ever be made without a great deal of invention and wishful presumption. I say all this despite the fact that last night Fred also mentioned that he had been approached by a fellow who is a professional mediator who was interested in conducting such a committee. I could be proved wrong, (although it's rare, heh heh), but I just don't see it happening outside of an exercise of limited academic discussion. R.I.P. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4690 Registered: 9-2001 |
R.I.P. As you say Steel, you're rarely wrong... But, the way I saw it, this issue got a real shot in the arm at the meeting last night. I agree, it’s a good thing the TC cannot change the form of government. I was also pleased to see Vic point out that citizens are free to do as they wish to study this issue. I always like it when politicians recognize one of our freedoms... FWIW, this issue can get very interesting. In the event this professional mediator for the "Citizens Committee" decides to move forward to get 3,000 signatures, IMHO, getting that number of voters would almost guarantee a majority vote in favor of a change in government next November. Contrary to your thinking, I believe most people are resistant to change. However, in this case I see a potential ground-swell of interest in the event this issue goes all the way to a ballot initiative. After all, isn't everyone interested in more of a say in their government? Finally, changing the form of government could magically lead to a lowering of taxes, that is if our officials take on the Corzine approach of zero spending growth, and will, “examine every program, measure performance, demand more for less, and root out spending that merely serves political not public purposes.” | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 442 Registered: 3-2005 |
Funny, but I missed Fred's earlier post to me. Guess who lost it that time? No, Fred, I don't hate you. I just see through your ideas and am willing to say so publicly. And I'm quite sure I'm not driving talented people from public service. Don't you read the kinds of things your supporters write on MOL about your colleagues? Yet you pop up to object when it's you. If anything does keep talented people out of office, it's a continuation of ruinously expensive campaigns. If you'd pay less attention to what you read on MOL, you'd be a better Mayor. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 443 Registered: 3-2005 |
Steel, Hot seat! Perfect. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 431 Registered: 1-2004 |
HEY kathleen - "I missed Fred's earlier post to me" No one gives a flying horse hockey puck  | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 435 Registered: 1-2004 |
kathleen's quote "If anything does keep talented people out of office, it's a continuation of ruinously expensive campaigns." Question...what local candidates have spent far and away the most money on TC campaigns in Maplewood history? Anyone? | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 436 Registered: 1-2004 |
Okay...I'll bite. Answer: Millionaire David Huemer spent the most on his own campaign, followed by Vic DeLuca. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5158 Registered: 3-2002 |
is this an example of feeding your inner troll? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10361 Registered: 5-2001 |
There are arguements for not going to a mayor council form of goverment but campaign expenses isn't one of them, especially if we go to ward voting. I will admit that possibly a mayorial race will get out of hand spending wise. However, campaigning in you local neighborhood is likely to be pretty inexpensive and may lead to people who don't have deep pockets running. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4703 Registered: 9-2001 |
Bob, what would wards look like for Maplewood if we were to consider them rather than all at large committee persons like we have now? I guess some how we would have to tie together the present voting districts we have now. In a way I kind of like the all or nothing approach to running for Mayor. I think the candidates as individuals would have to be more focused, accountable, and candid and about their vision for our town. Now take Vic as a self professed left wing liberal... if he or even David were to run for Mayor, their agenda for Maplewood would be a hell of a lot different then say a Fred, Ken, or Kathy, who are all more moderate Democrats. IMHO, our town politics shouldn’t be hard left or right, but more in the middle. Thus, I can see why more and more Republicans and Democrats I've spoken with want to support Ken and Kathy again for their second term. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12003 Registered: 1-2003  |
AJC, if what you say is true, then that seems like a reason to keep the system of government Maplewood has. Anyway, it seems that's a dead issue. The government is dead. Long live the government. |
