| Author | Message | ||
     oots Citizen Username: Oots Post Number: 456 Registered: 6-2001 |
unless you study combining police & fire depts-you will not save any big$$. police & fire dept combined services will be to politically incorrect to touch. oots | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4557 Registered: 5-2001  |
Joan, Admittedly, the issue is that the petition must be completed by the end of this month (less than 3 weeks from now) to get on the November ballot so there has not been a whole lot of time to gather all information that is being requested here. Putting the referendum on the ballot costs nothing. If/when the petition drive is successful and a referendum is established that is certainly an appropriate time to debate the pros/cons of having a study. Right now, what is the harm to simply create a referendum? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 633 Registered: 2-2006 |
What is an Abbott district school? | ||
| pseudonymous Citizen Username: Berry_festival Post Number: 257 Registered: 9-2003 |
My primary question in this proposed sharing of services is... what would be the input/role/influence of the South Orange BOT (and its committees)? I ask because as a Maplewood resident, I will need to be convinced of the benefits of combining services -- or anything else in our two towns. I've religiously read the South Orange Specific thread and often read in stunned silence about unusual goings on in South Orange. I love both of these towns but the South Orange BOT needs to get it's act together before I could be convinced to share anything that would involve them or their (in)ability to make and enforce decisions that are beneficial to the community. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4558 Registered: 5-2001 |
psuedonymous, C'mon, you don't want to share in the cost of Tau?  | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2680 Registered: 3-2003 |
TomR: "You urge us to sign a petition for which no explanation is being provided as to the necessity or desirability of a consolidation." That's because the petition is only for convening a commission to examine whether there is any desireability to sharing services or consolidating the towns. If the commission came to the conclusion that such a thing was desireable, then the "necessity" of it coming to pass would be voted on directly by the taxpayers. SORising: "So, other than the schools, geography and history, all of which suggest a study would be good, I don't see compelling reasons to limit it to two very small towns that might have a hard time surviving if W. Orange, Montclair and E. Orange combined (they are talking now) and Millburn/Livingston/SH did, especially if it turned out if either SO or Mplwd wanted to go its own way indefinitely. Would it be possible that SO/Mplwd, if they did not act deftly and wisely would need to share/consolidate services with Newark?" Dunno, but because other municiplaities are faced with the same challenge/opportunity we are, I think we might as well start looking at our options now. State aid to do so is available. It might not be indefinitely. Joan: "I am not totally opposed to the concept of exploring ways in which we can share and/or consolidate services -- in fact I would strongly support such an effort if I thought it were being done in such a way that we could see a real improvement in the efficiency and economy of government at the municipal level. However, I need to see a more carefully thought out and presented prospectus before advocating signing this petition." Unfortunately, the state's deadline constraints don't seem to have permitted the development of that sort of documentation. "Here is another idea: Should we consider merging our school district with at least one nearby Abbott district? If we were to do this wouldn't our resulting consolidated school district result in our receiving substantially greater aid to education than we do now? Isn't this where the greatest potential for real property tax savings can be found at the moment?" Perhaps so, in the short run, but I expect merging the school district with Newark and/or Irvington would produce a rather large wave of white, not to mention upper-income black, flight from both SO and Mwd. Median income would fall, as would property values. If that happened, taxes as a percentage of income would probably level out to about what they are now... | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2681 Registered: 3-2003 |
"My primary question in this proposed sharing of services is...what would be the input/role/influence of the South Orange BOT (and its committees)?" As far as I know, none, unless they or their representatives were elected to the commission. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 122 Registered: 10-2001 |
The News-Record reported that I "was not part of the petition drive" but that I "supported it." That is only partly accurate. I do support the initiative, wholeheartedly, and I am also working on the petition drive. I will be in front of the Post Office tomorrow morning gathering signatures, and will certainly be available for any questions people might want to pose. I do not have an opinion as to the advisability of merging the two towns, and will not have one unless the voters approve the study and it is completed. I have been providing my input to SOMACT since it first coalesced in South Orange. I have also been instrumental in broadening its membership to Maplewood. And I have helped to recruit several persons who will be running for the 5 Maplewood commissioner seats. My information is that the Maplewood drive has already collected approximately 100 signatures without a concerted effort. We will see what we get tomorrow. I think that all of the questions regarding the structure, powers, and responsibilities of the Commission have been answered by the website or by posters. I might be most helpful in shedding some light on the history of this issue in SOM. The present Joint Services Committee is composed of myself, Ken Pettis, and Kathy Leventhal from Maplewood, and Mark Rosner, Allan Rosen, and Art Taylor from SO. At the end of last year, the Committee made three unanimous recommendations - that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by resolutions of the governing bodies, and that the two bodies consider the mergers of the Health and Recreation Departments. Later, the Recreation recommendation was changed to recommend only the merger of the Rec. Advisory Committees. I can discuss the latter two recommendations if anyone is interested. They would improve the quality of services, but essentially save no money. Obviously, the most controversial recommendation related to the consolidation study. The agreed-upon timetable was for the SO BOT to first consider these proposals, to be followed by Maplewood. SO did that, at the end of the year, and there was no organized support for the recommendation. No decision was made as to next steps, and the issue disappeared from the table. There was no point in having the Maplewood Township Committee discuss the issue inasmuch as it had no traction with the BOT. Instead, the focus turned to Health and Rec., and both governing bodies met in a rare joint meeting on 6/19. Regarding the large issue of consolidation, Kathy Leventhal, myself, Mark Rosner, and Allan Rosen spoke in favor of a study, but no one else expressed support. On the Maplewood side, Ken Pettis did not oppose it; Vic DeLuca said he would not be for any sharing anything (big or little) unless it had a demonstrable benefit for Maplewood; and David Huemer raised legitimate concerns about civil service (not likely to be an issue in the future because of legislative proposals - I can discuss). Some SO citizens, led by Jeff Dubowy, could see from the results of the 6/19 meeting that the governing bodies would not be able to muster the political will to authorize a full study. I made contact with them. At the last TC meeting, I announced that this citizen initiative was about to get into gear in both towns. The statute permits either town to authorize the study by resolution even if the other does it by petition, but my position as a member of the TC was to advocate proceeding by petition so as to achieve equal citizen support. Regarding cost, that necessarily has to be an estimate. Only the two Princetons have attempted this since the statute was enacted. There the Commission was formed, merger was recommended, and at the next election the recommendation was passed by one town, and defeated by 51/49 in the other. Since then, the two towns have merged many of their large services, though keeping independent identities. The cost of the study was $30,000. I have been informed by a consultant that the cost is likely to be double that now. The State Department of Community Affairs appoints a non-voting member to the Commission as soon as it is formed. DCA must provide a fiscal analysis of the benefits/detriments of merger (or anything less) in 5 months. DCA is typically assisted in this by a consultant picked by the Commission. That is where the expense is generated. I am not opposed to the study of sharing services with towns in addition to SO. The Commission could report on the desireability of considering that. Other towns could join the discussion. But if the Commission recommended a total merger of anything, that would be limited to SO/M. Merger of anything less than the two towns, including the merger of individual servies in more than 2 towns, would not need to go to a vote in 2007 - the governing bodies of the concerned towns could effectuate that without additional citizen input. Please talk to me tomorrow if you have questions. Fred Profeta | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1747 Registered: 3-2002 |
Would you happen to know roughly how much the Princetons are saving by sharing services? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15543 Registered: 10-2001  |
Would you happen to know roughly why the linkage is Maplewood/South Orange instead of say Maplewood/Millburn? | ||
| hch Citizen Username: Hch Post Number: 337 Registered: 8-2002 |
Maplewood/South Orange already share a school system. Maplewood and South Orange are geographically much closer. Most of Millburn and Maplewood are separated by South Mountain. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 123 Registered: 10-2001 |
susan1014: I do not know roughly how much the Princetons are saving. Obviously they have calculated that it is worth it. We will know the details when a Commission hires its consultant, and he begins digging. By the way - 5 municipalities in Bergen County have merged their Fire Departments for considerable savings. I'm afraid that I do not have the details on that either. Glen Ridge now gets all of its Fire service from Montclair, and pays for it. West Orange, Orange, and Montclair have begun talks about merging Fire. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8023 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred: Thanks for your input. I am still a bit leary of signing a petition under such time constraints that the basic assumptions as to what such negotions would encompass and could be expected to accomplish in the best case scenario needs to be taken on trust and determined only after the matter is decided on by the voters. I just wish a little more up front time had been provided for pre-planning. Your take on how present attempts to share services with South Orange were derailed by the BOT makes me even more leary of looking primarily to SO for such a partnership. I'll look for you in the village later this morning. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 124 Registered: 10-2001 |
Joan: My view is that political will on the BOT will follow a grass roots expression of support. That's the way it works. In truth, there are at probably 4 SO trustees (and maybe more) who favor this study, but other factors have prevented their speaking with an organized voice. | ||
| KRNL Citizen Username: Krnl Post Number: 118 Registered: 9-2005 |
I support adding Millburn to the mix, whether we are talking about shared services or consolidation. Unlike some of the other towns (Montclair) mentioned previously, it is contiguous to Maplewood. If you look at it geographically, the three towns together loop around S. Mountain Reservation and from that perspective South Orange even shares a common border with Millburn. I have always viewed Maplewood and S. Orange as one community, but in the past couple of years see a divergence that I find disconcerting: S. Orange using tax-payer money/special gimmicks to support "development" that never happens, public art, etc. I suspect the tax-payer discontent in SO is one reason they dominate the committee supporting this "study". Our communities need to find more ways to reduce their overhead--if additional shared services work, I'm all for it. If consolidation would ease our tax burdon, I'm all for it. If consolidation should be on an larger scale--Maplewood, SO, WO, Millburn, Livingson and West Orange, for example--let's do it. Think of the possibilities! | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1245 Registered: 6-2001 |
A member of the Committee has pointed out a possible error in my methodology for analyzing the costs/savings to residents of the two towns. Until we figure out which of us is correct, ignore my prior postings on this subject. TomR | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8024 Registered: 5-2001 |
I spoke at length this morning with Fred Profeta and Henry Hamil regarding this petition drive. While I chose not to sign the petition because I do not believe that a consolidation with South Orange only or a concerted effort to share services with South Orange only is the way to go, I think it only fair to point out a valid consideration they both raised which has not been mentioned as of yet on this thread and which could serve as a convincing argument for others. The point being: you have to place a referendum on the ballot and have it approved by the electorate to have the option of considering consolidation and/or shared services under the terms of the legislation. Thus signing the petition now circulating is the best way for us to keep our options open. This a point each of us should consider in deciding which way to go on this issue. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2957 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ms. Crohn: Thank you for the compliment in suggesting I run for the commission. I doubt I will, but I do think Joan would make an excellent candidate. But I have some question about the election process: 1. Are the candiadtes on the ballot at the same time as the referendum, or does the referendum have to pass first and then an election at a later date? 2. If the former, when do petitions have to be filed by a candidate? 3. If the latter, when would the election take place? 4. Maplewood has partisan local elections in November. South Orange has non-partisan local elections in the Spring. Will the referendum and the election of commissioners be on the November ballot in both Towns? If so, is that really a good idea since there will be partisan races, such as for US Senator, on the ballot? 5. I would assume (always dangerous)that the election of commissioners is non-partisan. Is that correct? On a related note, Ms. Crohn, you said: It is, of course, not impossible that the process of electing commissioners and developing the study could become politicized anyway. Mayor Profeta then posted: I am also working on the petition drive. I will be in front of the Post Office tomorrow morning gathering signatures, ...And I have helped to recruit several persons who will be running for the 5 Maplewood commissioner seats Fred, With all due respect your very active involvement will fuel perceptions that this entire matter is political. Not only are you the Mayor, but you are seen as the titular head of the Democratic Party, and the leader of one faction of that Party. You are actively supporting the Democratic candidates for the TC who will be on the November ballot. Do you see this as a problem? Have you thought about distancing yourself from the process? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2958 Registered: 6-2002 |
you have to place a referendum on the ballot and have it approved by the electorate to have the option of considering consolidation and/or shared services under the terms of the legislation. Really? You mean if the governing bodies of two towns decided to share services without a referendum it would be illegal? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 634 Registered: 2-2006 |
Many helpful remarks. Thank you. A few thoughts with reference to previous comments: although I live in SO, I wonder if the "can't-pull-up-their-socks" syndrome of the SO BOT might be mitigated or even obviated if services, departments or towns would actually merge down the road. In a merger, a new governing board of the towns would come into play, new elections, etc. If Mplwd's population and territory is larger than SO's, wouldn't there be a majority of reps from its territory? Not sure how it would work with something short of merger and maybe that would be more problematic. But in governing a shared rec, health, fire or police department, couldn't the same principle be operative, that Mplwd would still have a slight majority? J. Crohn and others, if the only choice SO and Mplwd have now is no study versus a study to consider shared/merged services ONLY with one another, that choice might be accurately characterized as one that would miss the boat entirely (no study) versus hopping on a boat that may be too small or too slow to get where we need to go anyway. This lose-lose scenario may be more likely if, as you state, state aid for studies may not be available indefinitely. The answer to the lose-lose scenario is to create another choice for ourselves by amending the petition and ballot question to include more towns besides SO and Mplwd in the study. When I asked Jeff DuBowy to do just this, he seemed resistant to the idea. I hope he and the other people behind the petition reconsider. About the partisan versus non-partisan aspect of the whole thing, I would feel better about the petition and commission if it were clear that more than one party (and even more than 2), were behind the petition. I don't know the party affiliations of everyone behind the petition, but if it were known that there were a diversity in party affiliations on SOMACT, among petition gatherers and on the commission, I would feel much more sanguine about it. Simply saying something is non-partisan without the requisite credentials to demonstrate a balance of power on this point is not persuasive, at least not to me. anon, my understanding about some of your questions are that commission members and the referendum question for the study would both be on the November ballot for SO voters. Don't know when people running for the commission would have to file, but assume it may be in the enabling legislation for the referendum. Maybe their deadline is the same as for the referendum petition, i.e., the end of August. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2963 Registered: 6-2002 |
Interesting that someone could end up running for a non-existent position. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 125 Registered: 10-2001 |
Anon: 1. Yes, the candidates are on the ballot at the same time as the question on whether the Commission should be formed. If the answer is "no" to the question, then the commissioner election is irrelevant. 2. Both of these votes will be in the November election. You asked whether that would be "a good idea since there will be partisan races, such as for US Senator at the same time." Do you feel that referenda should only be conducted in towns which have non-partisan elections? In any event, the statute determines when the question will be considered, and that is in the next general election. 3. The election of commissioners is non-partisan in the sense that there is no need to be nominated by a party to get on the ballot. Since the County Clerk has never printed such a ballot before in Essex, I have no idea how the candidates will be listed. I cannot imagine that it would be important to list their party of registraton. 4. Re my involvement as a supporter of the petition drive, you ask whether this is a problem because it "will fuel perceptions that this entire matter is political." I don't know what "political" means in this context. It is not a Democrat/Republican issue or an issue which has split the Democratic party along any historical lines. Two of us collected 108 signatures in the Village today, and no one whom I asked to sign the petition said "no." No one could articulate a reason why the voters should not have the right to answer the question. Not detecting any "split" among the citizens, I cannot imagine why there would be a split in the Party. I have worked on this matter for quite some time now, and am very much in favor of the study so that we can have some definitive answers. Might my involvement influence some votes, one way or the other? Possibly. Is this a "political" problem? I don't think so. Would it be honest not to openly support an effort which I have assisted? No. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15547 Registered: 10-2001 |
When is DTR going to unveil his Wessex County plans? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2969 Registered: 6-2002 |
Since the County Clerk has never printed such a ballot before in Essex, I have no idea how the candidates will be listed. Fred: That was part of my concern when I asked if it might be a problem to have the election of commissioners on the November ballot. Certainly there is no problem with the referendum itself being on the November ballot. That happens all the time. You said that you had recruited certain candidates to run. Who are they? Are they active in the Democratic Party? Are any of them active Republicans? I guess the entire thing could become partisan if Mr. Albini comes out against it, or if he actively supports different candidates. As for South Orange, given the continuing divisions there I can imagine competing slates of candidates denouncing each other. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8025 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred: I said "No" when you and Henry asked me to sign the petition yesterday in the Village because I agree with the above poster who stated that such study could be a lose/lose situation for both towns concerned. I would much rather see a petition which provides for the possibility of our merging with a larger number of towns or at least with a town or towns which would better compliment each other's strengths and weknesses. Henry pointed out that Maplewood and South Orange were recently shown to be tied for second in a listing of the most tax stressed municipalities in the State. We also have relatively similar demographics. I could be convinced to change my mind if someone could explain that the advantages of passing such a referendum would outweigh the disadvntages of not having a referendum on the ballot at all. Would we really be entirely out of the consolidation/shared services game if we did not have a referendum of any sort on the ballot in November? Has any attempt been made by our two town governing bodies or other empowered interested bodies/persons to get other towns in our region to agree to our placing their names on our ballot for the purposes of a study? As I understand it, the commitment at that point would be for a study only -- not a formal agreement to merge or share services. Wouldn't it be in each town's best interest to leave their options open for working with as many of their neighboring towns as possible? Another question which has just occurred to me: As a border town, are we limited to considering merger/sharing of services with towns in Essex Couty only or can we also look into merging/sharing services with towns in Union County or even Morris County if towns such as Millburn and Livingston came to eventually be included in our study grouping? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8026 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anon: Thanks for the vote of confidence but would it be realistic for me to ask persons to vote for me as a commissioner when I have so little confidence that the findings of a study to merge/share services with South Orange will show that the benefits outweigh the cost of the study itself? If there is any way in which we could broaden the scope of the question under discussion, I would gladly support it. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15548 Registered: 10-2001 |
No. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2955 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks for printing that portion of the proposed referendum S. I didn't realize it was worded that way. No way do I want to spend any amount of our money or state money to look into consolidation as one entity particularly or even shared services and limit it just to South Orange and Maplewood. There's a reason why we separated years ago and although those reasons have changed there are absolutely still strong reasons why we should remain separate. This is like the NJ legislators lacking the political will to do something about property tax reform themselves and instead putting the onus on the people for a constitutional convention. While I'm sure the recently expressed desire by some people in Maplewood to change our form of government from a weak mayor/township committee has nothing to do with the timing of this, I think that's another reason for Mayor Profeta to take a step back from this. He would be better off really making political inroads with the BOT in SO in pushing for the best ways to consolidate services with them (as we did with our baseball/softball program) and other similar communities. Joan, any consolidation of our school district should NOT be with an Abbott district. The fact that they are an Abbott district already shows how dissimilar we are. It would not help any of us imo. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2971 Registered: 6-2002 |
Thanks for the vote of confidence but would it be realistic for me to ask persons to vote for me as a commissioner when I have so little confidence that the findings of a study to merge/share services with South Orange will show that the benefits outweigh the cost of the study itself? Yes, it would. If there is any way in which we could broaden the scope of the question under discussion, I would gladly support it. By you serving on the commission and insisting on broadening its scope. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8028 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wendy: I never said that I favored merging our school district with an existing Abbott district; merely that this would be one of the surest ways of reducing our real property taxes should the newly constituted school district still qualify for Abbott designation because that would make us eligible for all sorts of aide to education from the State. Real cost savings through consolidation or sharing of services won't come easily and the steps needed to bring it about won't please a lot of people -- at least in the short term. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2972 Registered: 6-2002 |
sbenois: Is that the actual language that will be on the ballot? If so I predict that the "nays" will greatly exceed the "yeas". Why is there no langauge about "saving money"? Isn't that the point? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2973 Registered: 6-2002 |
I never said that I favored merging our school district with an existing Abbott district; Good Joan. As your campaign manager I would strongly urge against your saying or even implying any such thing. (On the other hand, what a great way to solve the "illegal student" problem. If you can't beat em, join em) | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8030 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anon: As I understand the exisitng legislation, another town would have to be mentioned specifically in your town's referendum and your town would have to be mentioned specifically in their's for consolidation to become a topic of study by a given town's commissioners. Thus no broadening of the agenda -- at least in the short term. Who knows what could be on the table in future years? The mechanism for sharing services and specializations exists now and would not require a study if existing municipal bodies could reach agreement through existing channels. Hopefully I am wrong but it doesn't sound as if broadening the agenda is an option for the commissioners elected in November, assuming they get the vote of confidence to serve on anything at all. Open question: Does anyone know who in Maplewood is planning on running for a seat on this Commission and whether they plan to run individually ro as a slate(s)? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2977 Registered: 6-2002 |
Once you are elected you set the agenda. If the TC can vote on the war in Iraq, the Board of Commissioners of South Orange and Maplewood can make overtures to Millburn, Summit, or wherever. Certainly they can study various alternatives. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 641 Registered: 3-2005 |
Fred Profeta said he had recruited certain candidates to run. Who are they? Jennifer Crohn? Henry Hamil? Surely someone knows the answer. I find it incredible that Fred came out and posted: "Two of us collected 108 signatures in the Village today, and no one whom I asked to sign the petition said 'no.'" Plainly Joan Crystal said 'no,' and that was obvious even before Fred posted. Is truth on holiday for August? Fred wrote: "Would it be honest not to openly support an effort which I have assisted? No." Would it be dishonest for Fred to disguise his interest in becoming the most powerful office-holder in both towns? Yes. Fred wrote: "No one could articulate a reason why the voters should not have the right to answer the question." Is that the way the question was put to residents by Fred? What is this arm-twisting? Pace, Wendy, but this is Round III of Fred's efforts to change our present form of government into a strong executive form that does away with the local Democratic Party through non-partisan elections. That's why this is being thickly wrapped rhetorically in so much faux-democracy packaging. (The scam of choice of today's GOP elitists!) The actual result would be to give voters in both towns fewer choices and less control. I think Fred spies an opportunity to exploit the dissatisfaction of many South Orange residents with their current leadership. Likewise Jennifer Crohn, who so effectively teamed with Fred to elect Wayne Eastman to the BOE. They're a match made in anti-liberal heaven. I agree that the political thrust to merge services should be broadened to include other surrounding towns and be in tune with current state aims to eliminate local fiefdoms that boost taxes. It shouldn't be about a handful of conservatives looking for a power base in two overwhelmingly liberal communities. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 126 Registered: 10-2001 |
Wendy: As a lawyer, you should check the law before you post. (NJSA 4:43-40 et seq.) The statute provides the exact language that must be used for any ballot initiative to propose the studying of any level of service sharing. Sbenois should not be held to the same standard of care. With respect to broadening the scope of the study to include towns such as Millburn, see my earlier post on how to accomplish that. There is a great deal of interest in M/SO now for this citizen initiative - witness the success in the Village yesterday with no negative comment. That interest should be harnessed in sevice of the broad goal of consolidation. We have a degree of commanlity with SO that is unique. Many people already think of us as one community. Anyone who feels that Millburn is eager to share anything with us at the moment is naive. I have spoken to the appropriate persons in Millburn. Interest on Millburn's part will have to be nurtured by demonstration of financial benefit. A vigorous effort in M/SO, with the full and visible support of the Governor, will do a lot to promote that sort of interest. Your analogy of this citizen effort to the movement for a constitutional convention is, in my opinion, pretty apt - except that here it is not so much the legislators shifting the onus as the people taking it. I support the shift to a constitutional convention at the State level. Don't you? Why does a citizen initiative make this effort less worthy in your mind? Should we jeapordize that effort in order to punish our governing bodies for lacking "political will"? I've described the local political situation in previous posts. I've worked hard to change that behind the scenes, over many months, but to no avail. So I turned to supporting the citizen initiative because I think that this is an important issue for our two towns. I happen to think that the Mayor's support is helpful in building citizen support. But you, as you did with the Mayor's Ball, discern a "personal agenda" which you feel is inappropriate. Wendy, it is the Mayor's job to back initiatives which are potentially beneficial to Maplewood. I will continue to do that, and you will continue to find ulterior motives. And so it goes. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8031 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen: I told Fred and Henry that I am in favor of regionalization on a broad scale but that I can't agree with the wording in the proposed referendum because I consider it far too narrow to meet our needs. Thus Fred's reworded statement in his most recent post is essentially correct, assuming nobody he spoke with yesterday expressed broader opposition than I did. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 635 Registered: 2-2006 |
F. Profeta, thank you for your explanations which provide valuable information to those who need to decide this issue. You have explained why Millburn would not want to consider shared services or consolidation with MPLWD (or SO), at least any time soon, but why wouldn't West Orange consider these things with MPLWD AND/OR SO? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15551 Registered: 10-2001 |
a) Dearest Anon, I never said that it was the exact language to be used in November. My contribution to that post was simply the copying and pasting of text, the word "NO", and the hitting of the post message button. b)
Dearest Frederico, Before you go about disparaging the boys at Sbenois Engineering for exercising less care than a lawyer (((  ))), I'd suggest that you take an awfully close look at the website that was included in this thread's very first post which sought to explain what this whole mishoooooooooogaaaassssssssssss is all about - that would be the same website is where I took the quote from.
So if more care is required, I'd suggest that you get those who put the site's text together into a good, or perhaps only half-way decent law school so that suggestive phrases like "this important and time-sensitive question can appear on the November 2006 election ballot for all voters to consider" won't be misconstrued by lawyers. Or those of us with an even smaller intellectual capacity. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2978 Registered: 6-2002 |
Now I'm totally confused. Isn't the exact ballot langauge included in the petition? If so there is no need to go to a Law Library, Fred or some other supporter of the Referendum can simply post it. If the petiton does not contain the exact wording of the Referendum, how can the petition be valid? How can someone be asked to sign a petition to but a question on the ballot without being told exactly what that question is? |
