| Author | Message | ||
     Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8069 Registered: 5-2001 |
MHD writes: "If the petitions are not completed this month, the referendum will need to wait at least 1 year to the next General Election. Why lose a whole year?" Does this mean that you fully expect the State consolidation money to still be available next year? If so, wouldn't it be to our advantage to take the year to examine our best alternatives in terms of regionalization be it consolidation or shared services rather than rushing into a SO/M exclusive arrangement which may not be the best choice for all concerned? This Commission campaign is taking on a little too much of the hard sell for my taste. I would rather take the time to comparison shop a bit if the alternative to do so reasonably exists. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 675 Registered: 3-2005 |
Excuse me, Foxhound, but Fred Profeta posted on Aug 11: "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." Fred's post indicates that a majority of the Maplewood Township Committee had ALREADY recommended that the governing bodies of the towns create a Consolidation Study Commission. Why did Fred suddenly leap to bypass the TC to have a petition drive if the votes were already there on the TC? Or did Ken or Kathy withdraw their support? Why can't we have a public hearing to hear from all the TC members on this? And one more time: Whom did Fred recruit to run for the 5 Maplewood slots on the Commission? Are you one of them, Foxhound? | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2006 |
My statement is based on one on one conversations with elected officials from both towns and I stand by it. Perhaps you should ask FP why he posted what he did. | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2006 |
....and no. I have no desire to take part in any commission. For the record, and as a Maplewood resident, I don't think that consolidation is the right way to go. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3004 Registered: 6-2002 |
I stay away from MOL for a couple of days, because I have a life and a job, and come back to find my self attacked. However since the attack against me was in the same breath as the attack aginst Wendy, I find that I am in good comapny. anon, Why have you not asked Fred to please answer your question about who he recruited? Because I asked it too? You should get off MOL sometime and find out what the real world thinks of the people who form such a cozy mutual admiration society here. I did get off MOL which is one reason why I have not repeated my question to Mayor Profeta. I will wait for his answer or take his silence for what it signifies. Thinking that I did not nag Fred to answer my question because you asked it also is either logical in that it would not be necessary to ask it again or else is the epitome of paranoia if it means that I abandoned my position simply because you agreed with it. I have heard and seen the name "Henry Hamil" before, but I have absolutely no idea as to who he is. And I am still supporting Joan Crystal for the commission whether or not she favors it and whether or not she chooses to run. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 676 Registered: 3-2005 |
Foxhound, It appears Fred posted what he did because a unanimous, official recommendation made by three Maplewood Township Committee members in the presence of many witnesses would be pretty hard to hide or spin. But if Fred wants to retract it, he's free to post. Why don't you go ask your sources who in Maplewood switched their support for passing a resolution to create a study commission? Was it Ken, Kathy or Fred? And while you're at it, how about finding out the names of the people Fred recruited to run for the commission? Anon, poor you, If you don't want to get criticized, quit trying to paint false portraits of me as somebody whose values and even rhetoric are not shared by many other people. Feel free to declare yourself an admirer of Wendy's values and rhetoric. But don't presume to speak for others in your eagerness to to suck up to Fred and be loyal to Wendy, no matter her idiocies. | ||
| Crazy Guggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 903 Registered: 2-2002  |
be wild, beguiled, be a frenetic child... | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 680 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hope that was directed at the people who cherish and express gratitude toward those who insinuate anti-Semitisim in the middle of a discussion of municipal issues. That kind of low mentality gets the response it deserves. To others, There is actually a rather interesting discussion of this issue occurring on the South Orange section. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8078 Registered: 5-2001 |
Duplicate of post I made on the parallel South Orange Specific thread on this topic based upon statement made there which stated that TC has the option of passing a resolution to place a consolidation/shared services referendum on the ballot in November and eliminate the petition route now being taken: If a TC resolution is sufficient to place the consolidation/shared services referendum on the ballot and Maplewood is still going the petition route, does this mean that the majority of present members on the TC does not favor the resolution as presently worded? Assuming this is the case and assuming the majority of TC members would support some form of regionalization referendum, doesn't the TC have the option of rewording the referendum which would appear on the November ballot to have a broader base in terms of which municipalities Maplewood might consider consolidating and/or sharing services with? If the TC has this option and flexibility and chooses to act on it in short order, we wouldn't have to worry about the number of signatures already gained in the support of the present wording being lost if new and broader resolution were to replace the present wording. Why then, the insistance on such a narrowly worded petition? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 691 Registered: 3-2005 |
Joan, I'm not clear what you mean by "Maplewood is going the petition route." As far as I can tell from Fred's posts in this thread, a few people in Maplewood are out collecting signatures for the petition. I don't know of any official position by the town body that Maplewood is going any particular route on this. Fred posted that last year he, Kathy Leventhal and Ken Pettis, as members of the ongoing Joint Services Committee gave a unanimous recommendation (along with some SO trustees) that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by resolutions of the governing bodies. Fred has also posted that in a "rare" meeting of both the Maplewood TC and South Orange BOT, Fred and Kathy Leventhal "spoke in favor of a study" and that "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." Fred finally posted this on Aug 11: "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." Fred has described his position regarding the petition, but I don't see in his post any indication of how the rest of the Maplewood TC regards the petition or its wording. As to the issue of rewording the referendum already put in play by the petitioners, I hope you get an answer. I don't know. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8081 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen: When I began raising the issue of whether the wording in the present petition was too narrow to be of benefit to Maplewood (ie SO/M specific with no mention of the possibility of studying consolidation or as a alternative shared services with any other municipalities in our region) one of responses I received was that with less than a month in which to gather the needed signatures and with the number of signatures already gathered on the existing petition, there wasn't time to achieve a more broadly worded referendum in time for the question to appear on this November's ballot. My point is that if Maplewood has the option of going the TC resolution route (there are four other members of the TC in addition to Fred), we would still have time as a municipality to consider a more broadly worded referendum in support of a study which might have a far greater liklihood of streamlining municipal givernment in our region and producing real tax savings as a result. Based upon your above summary of positions TC members have taken in the past, it seems possible that there would still be time to achieve a broader referendum if a TC resolution approach were to be used. | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2006 |
According to the Maplewood website the TC will be on Springfield Ave tomorrow morning. Why not go out and ask them where they stand. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 692 Registered: 3-2005 |
Foxhound, Do you know which members will be there besides Fred? It's usually not all of them. Joan, One of the most bizarre things to me about this petition drive is that the petition was not presented to the public for signatures until the last possible moment. Needless to say, the notion that we MUST sign on to a troubling ballot proposal THIS YEAR when we could have a better process by taking more care and time is not just wrong, it's bad governance. If Maplewood taxpayers want to see their property taxes reduced -- and why shouldn't they? -- they need to pour their political energies into switching the bulk of funding for the schools through an income tax. But I would draw your attention to another quote from Fred. He wrote: "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." You are right that there are four other members of the TC. Perhaps they are less fixated on consolidation with South Orange as the ultimate goal than Fred appears to be, and open to avenues of meaningful taxpayer relief for Maplewood. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1264 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic & Joan, With regard to the suggestion that it would be a better approach for the Township Committee to authorize a ballot iniative for a consolidation study by way of a resolution; can either of you tell me whether a resolution CAN be adopted in sufficient time to make the November ballot deadline? I'm familiar with the requirements for the adoption of an ordinance, but less so insofar as a resolution is concerned. Can a resolution be used for a purpose which will require the expenditure of Township funds? Is a resolution subject to the same, or different, requirements for public notice of the proposal; publication of the proposal; First Reading; and Second Reading of the proposal, prior to adoption? Any guidance in this regard would be greatly appreciated. If either, or both, of you believe that the whole matter would be better presented next year, a simple response to such effect would obviate the necessity of answers to the foregoing questions. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1265 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, A parting thought for the evening. I don't know whether the petition initiative in either of the two towns will be successful. IF, however, the petitions are successful, the Commissioners will be elected at the same time as the consolidation study is passed upon by our respective electorates. Given the foregoing, and given your deep concern on this matter, will you be circulating a petition seeking a ballot slot for one of the Maplewood Commissioner positions? If you will be circulating a petition, send me a PM. I'll sign. I think you're wrong. I think you're focusing on the wrong issue. But I also think that uninamity of opinion on any committee, or this Commission, is not a good thing. How say you? TomR | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8082 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: As I have stated previously on this and the South Orange specific thread, I favor taking the time needed to come up with a viable proposal for consolidation/shared services rather than going with a referendum limited to South Orange as a prospective consolidation/regionalization partner. If this can be accomplished through the TC, fine. If not, there appears to be nothing to prevent Maplewood from entering into discussions with any town it chooses regarding sharing of services to the benefit of all. If such discussions prove successful, we would be in a much better position to consider meaningful consolidation next year. The major problem with this approach some might tell you would be that all the good shared services/consolidation partners will be gone by then (as a result of this year's pairings) but I don't think that is the case. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 696 Registered: 3-2005 |
TomR, I agree with Joan that the notion that all the good shared services/consolidations partners will somehow be gone after November or 2 weeks from now if the petition effort fails is -- well, I'd say it's a red herring. So of course there is time to get this right for Maplewood's residents. I don't wish to see the petition drive succeed, so I won't play any part in it. But I'm unclear about something: Should a referendum appear on the Maplewood ballot, will it be possible to vote against the referendum but for individuals running for the commission slots? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8088 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen: Good question. As I understand it, both issues (referendum and Commissioners would appear on the same ballot if enough signatures were obtained for each. While this might seem confusing, I think it important that each voter vote for the Commissioners whether or not they vote to support the Commission (assuming more than five candidates' names appear on the ballot for Commissioner). This way, voters would have some input into the system were the Commission referendum to be passed in November. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1268 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic & Joan, Thanks to both of you for being as clear as you both have been regarding your respective preferences for next November as opposed to this November for consideration of a study proposal. Both now, and later, are positions worthy of respect and serious consideration. I do not speak for the Committee, but I do get the impression that some people in the two towns feel they have waited for "next year" for too many years. The opportunity presented itself for a group of individuals to put a ball in play. They have. The same opportunity presented itself to other interested individuals with viewpoints differing from that of the Committee. Those individuals did not avail themselves of the opportunity. The whole issue could have been handled differently. It could have been handled better. It wasn't, and it hasn't been. Might other towns be interested in sharing services with our Township? Possibly. Have any interested individuals asked other towns? I dunno. A suggestion that the current petition iniative shackles our choices is disingenuous. Any number of iniatives could have been pursued over the years. It hasn't happened. Interested individuals could have sought out other towns as shared services partners. They could have crafted a wider reaching referendum. They could now seek a position as a Commissioner if the referendum is adopted. They haven't. They didn't. And both of you have indicated that you will not. You may not like the course the Committes is pursuing. That's fair. You may not like the speed with which the Committee is seeking to accomplish it's goal. That's fair. (I don't like it much either). Some people don't like action for the sake of action. That's fair, and generally, I'd agree. But I also know that the current order is not working well for either town. I don't know that consolidation is a good idea, but I do think that taking a look at the benefits and detriments of consolidation is better than doing nothing, which is what we've been doing. A question for both of you, or anybody else who may know. Which other towns in Essex County have ballot referenda for consolidation sudies scheduled for the November ballot; or are seeking to have such a referendum placed on the November ballot? TomR | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8097 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: I don't know if any towns have achieved enough signatures for a consolidation study referendum to be on their ballot but I have heard (not from a primary source) that "Millburn and Livingston" and "Montclair, Orange and West Orange" may be considering such studies. I am not sure how relevant this is to whether South Orange and Maplewood should authorize such a study. My biggest problem with all of this is that I think the process outlined by the State is not the way to go about this. I would prefer it if the State were to conduct a comprehensive study of all of the State's municipalities looking at such factors as population/demographics, tax base/tax stress, municipal services provided, size of municipal government work force, infrastructure, equipment, resources, debt service, presently shared services/ resources/ staffing, geographic proximity, underutilization of resources, undue stress on existing resources, etc. and then issue a single report which would show what real gains could be achieved (if any) if certain municipalities were to consolidate or if that were not advantageous, which municipalities could benefit from sharing certain specified municipal services. Then the municipalities in our State would have something specific to offer the voters of this State regarding possible consolidation referenda or possible municipality resolutions needed to implement these changes. | ||
| Dogbert Citizen Username: Dogbert Post Number: 129 Registered: 1-2006  |
Has Jamie Ross taken a position on this petition and the commission, or on shared services for that matter? | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 458 Registered: 8-2003 |
Joan, I would augment your good idea by having the study include the role and participation of county governments. I am disappointed that the state’s emphasis seems to be only on the (ostensible) benefits of sharing among municipalities. Seeking greater efficiencies at the county level, and greater cooperation between municipalities, counties and the state, could also yield tax savings. From a political standpoint, of course, it might be much harder for state leaders to lean on the counties than on cites and towns. But at least we could study the matter. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6111 Registered: 3-2002  |
I agree with bottomline...there is no mention anywhere of counties in any of the information Ive read (and I just finished reading a bill relevant to all this that is before the State now...I am guessing we will hear more about this bill on MOL in the very near future). I guess its easier to fight City Hall than fight County Hall. Its unfortunate because Id be curious about a real study outlining the savings if we did away with county government. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8101 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bottomline: Agreed. Such a study could also examine the traditional roles of municipalities and counties in New Jersey and consider ways in which restructuring these roles might make provision of some of these services more effective and more economical. Hank: Lately I've been considering the opposite approach -- eliminating municipalities and going with a straight county government. However, as a first step, and to keep the electorate from completely freaking out, I think we need to begin by taking a look at the services presently provided by counties and seeing whether additional services could be moved to the county (more centralized) layer -- public works and social services are two such areas which immediately come to mind as do centralized procurement and record keeping, computer networking, engineering, code enforcement, tax assessing, and economic planning and development. I also think we need to take a look at the way in which municipalities are grouped into counties. Current border towns such as ours may find they have more in common with municipalities in the neighboring county than they do within their own. There is a lot to explore here and the present legislation and resulting referendum petition here in Maplewood encourage far too narrow a focus. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15581 Registered: 10-2001  |
Sorry I didn't get to it sooner Hank. Assembly bill A51 - which is expected to pass by January - rewrites/revises parts of the Municipal Consolidation Act including the definition of new procedures that allow a group of citizens with standing in the community to go before the Finance Board and get approval for a Consolidation Study - no ballot question is required first. The intent of the law is to make Consolidation Studies easier to initiate. Indeed, I spoke to people in Trenton about this on Friday and I was told point blank that they are DISCOURAGING communities interested in Consolidation from going the petition/ballot route right now pending passage of this bill. All of this makes the notion that we ought to be hurrying into this via petition/ballot question a total fallacy pushed by people who have either not done their homework or aren't sharing the full story. A51...http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A0500/51_I1.HTM New Procedures...
Further, the exclusion of other communities from the study runs contrary to the intent and spirit of the statute. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8109 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sbenois: Thank you so much for posting this. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3015 Registered: 5-2001 |
But the question remains, regardless of whether we consolidate Maplewood into another entity or not, how to further push consolidation of services with South Orange and/or other municipalities. It appears South Orange doesn't have the political will to do so as I mentioned a few days ago. Maplewood apparently does. I thought some of you might find this excerpt from an email I received a few days ago interesting. I don't know the person who wrote it (nor have I heard his name) but he was part of a flurry of emails I received regarding the petition "drive", the initial large email very much in favor of this petition. I'm leaving his name off of this of course. Take it for what it's worth: "Coincidentally, I had a lengthy conversation recently with a member of the state task force mandated to study the feasibility of sharing services between/among townships. This person told me that consolidation is not necessarily a bad idea--though it may be complicated to implement, and costly--for small municipalities, but anyway as far as Maplewood and South Orange are concerned there would be little or no money saved and maybe money lost, and that there are a number of quite formidable obstacles (labor contracts, to name one of many)[emphasis supplied]. Moreover, I for one who live in Maplewood do not look kindly on the South Orange government which I view as, at best inept, and, at worst really smarmy. I am not in favor of this petition, therefore, though I'd love to save money somehow if we could." Of course we would all love to save money. The key to that for our community is to make sure that education funding reform moves forward and NOT to make sure that a petition drive is successful, particularly based on what Sbenois has just posted. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8111 Registered: 5-2001 |
There is no reason why we can't move forward on a number of different initiatives. While I agree that alternative methods of funding education is the best way to obtain real property tax relief for Maplewood residents, I also believe that we could see some real savings if shared services were approached intelligently. We shouldn't give up entirely on shared services or consolidation just because we continue to push for school funding reform. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3016 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree Joan in so far as shared services. As far as consolidation, if the above person is correct, it does not seem beneficial for us. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8112 Registered: 5-2001 |
Consolidating ONLY with South Orange may not be beneficial for Maplewood real property tax payers if reduction in real property tax is the prime motivator but there are many more consolidation possibilities, some of which could be of benefit to us financially. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1040 Registered: 7-2003 |
I am afraid that this 'consolidation of services' will not save us a dime. It is the proverbial red herring. Many municipalities have tried it and it simply does not work. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8139 Registered: 5-2001 |
Chris: Could you be more specific? Could you cite some examples to back up your statement? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 699 Registered: 3-2005 |
Referring to seboinois's posts above, how are "citizens with standing in the community" identified or defined? My problem with the ongoing petition inititiave is precisely that I don't see any effort being made to ensure meaningful representation of Maplewood's socio-economic and geographic diversity on the commission, not to mention vetting candidates for their qualifications to analyze various forms of government and who wins and who loses politically in a consolidation. TomR, I can only keep repeating that it is not a choice between "this Novermber" and "next November." The Maplewood TC can act on its own to establish a study and I think its actions would result in a higher quality study protected from political machinations. As sbenois pointed out, this initiative is being pushed by people who either haven't done their homework or aren't telling us the whole story. You write: "The current order is not working well for either town." I'm not sure what you mean by "the current order," but if it is property taxes, you have to switch to a different way of supporting the schools other than property taxes if you want a lower property tax bill. Everything else will fall far short of the mark. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1270 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, If you know of a way that an ordinance or resolution can be passed in time for the November ballot, please share the information. I can't see how an ordinance can be adopted in time, and have admitted my ignorance of the proceedures for the adoption of a resolution. The current order is the way we do things now. It hasn't worked very well insofar as getting anything done to share services. A group of residents wanted to try a different way. I'm willing to consider the different way. As I wrote elsewhere, I think it is time for one, or more, or the Committee members to address the impact that the pending legislation has on their ballot initiative. TomR | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 694 Registered: 2-2006 |
Has there been any discussion in Mplwd about sharing or consolidating DPW, recycling or garbage hauling services with SO? Does anyone know? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8144 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: Can you please expalin to me why it is so important to place a referendum on this November's ballot? The only option which would be authorized by such a referendum were it to pass is a study to explore the consequences of consolidating with South Orange. Passing a referendum is not necessary for a shared services study. Passing the proposed referendum will not authorize the resulting study commission to look into possible consolidation with any other municipalities since they were not named in the referendum. Our options increase exponentially if we wait a while. SOrising: The best way to get an answer to that question is to contact one or more members of the TC and ask them. There contact information may be found on Maplewood's official town website. Since garbage hauling is not a municipal service in Maplewood, that would not be up for consideration at the moment as a shared service. What other public works programs would you like to see shared by South Orange and Maplewood? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1272 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan, The important thing is NOT that a refendum occur this November. The important thing IS in the fact that the two towns' governing bodies weren't moving forward. Shared services are not a new or novel idea. I believe you were at the CBAC organizational meeting in '03 when I asked George whether the sub-committee for municipal finance would be looking at shared services arrangements. Everybody seems to think that examining shared service arrangements would be a good thing. We haven't gotten very far. A group of concerned residents took it upon themselves to get a ball rolling. The ball they put into play calls for a decision by the residents this November. Their ball; their schedule. Would I prefer things were different? Yes. "I wish rain water were beer. I wish we had wings." But it isn't, and we don't. If this ballot initiative was creating interference for some other plan of action, I might feel differently. Being unaware of another plan of action, I will not fault the Committee's action. But the sands continue to shift. I am most displeased with the Committee's silence on the threads which Committee members started, as well as the active South Orange thread addressing this matter. Particularly since Sben brought A51 to our attention. TomR | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8147 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: Are you saying that you view the consolidation referendum primarily as a catalyst to get our local governments moving in the direction of shared services? If so, I think there are more effective methods (at least in Maplewood) to get a serious study of shared services off the ground. The majority of our present TC members have gone on record as favoring some form of regionalization. However, no study, no matter how successful is going to force South Orange to share services with us if they don't want to and remember this study would be focused on consolidation not shared services, would be advisory not compulsory, and would be limited to an examination of Maplewood and South Orange (which up to now has been adverse to sharing with us). One of my concerns with the existing wording of the referendum is that a study limited to South Orange and Maplewood would draw attention and energy away from the more pressing need to achieve a far broader scope in our move to achieve shared services which will have the joint impact of reducing municipal costs for member municipalities and improving quality of service in those areas which are regionalized. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1274 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan, I intended to express no such opinion. There are other options available. We haven't utilized them. TomR | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 393 Registered: 11-2003  |
What happen to the supporters of the referendum since the disclosure of Assembly Bill A51? Did they decide that the proverbial jig is up? Will the Maplewood contingent be in the village again tomorrow collecting signatures? And what about the Oranginos? FF |
