| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15661 Registered: 10-2001  |
Does anyone have any recollection as to how the committee studying the change of government (the vote for our own Mayor drive) was formed? Is it a private initiative or was it authorized by the TC? I see in the N-R today that they're getting ready to make a presentation to the TC and I'm curious to know if it's just private citizens doing it or if they walk in with some mandate to have performed the review. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5779 Registered: 10-1999  |
As I recall, this was not an official committee formed by the Township Committee. It's a group that came together to study the issue, I believe around the time Mr. Profeta commented on the issue at or before the January 1 reorganization meeting this year. Members of the Township Committee did meet with them, as part of this study process. Here on the message board, we had a lively discussion about it this past January (the conversation took a detour into kosher foods, but it eventually got back on track): /discus/messages/3132/98928.html?1138414283 As I wrote at the time, the "Vote for your own Mayor" question is kind of a misnomer. The real issue is whether the Township Committee form of government (where the five elected members choose one of their own as the chair, with the title of Mayor) should be replaced by another form of government. Personally, I don't see why that should be, but I'm interested in seeing the comments of the study group. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15662 Registered: 10-2001 |
Got my answer. So this group was not a Charter Commission formed by ordinance - rather, it was just a private group? If so, what are the next steps if they have something worthwhile? Appointment of a Charter Commission if 3 votes go for it? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5781 Registered: 10-1999 |
I don't believe that the Township Committee can appoint an official Charter Study Commission. I think the options are:
Interestingly enough, under state law, if a petition is filed or an ordinance is pending to propose a change in the form of government, a joint municipal consolidation study commission (such as the one being discussed at this link) cannot be formed. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15664 Registered: 10-2001 |
Exactly the reason why I was asking. I happened to be reading the statutes this morning and stumbled onto the wording related to when a Study Commission may NOT be formed and one of the triggers is when a proceeding is in place to change the form of government.
Next up is checking whether the converse holds true under the Faulkner Act. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15665 Registered: 10-2001 |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5782 Registered: 10-1999 |
I don't believe there is a corresponding provision in the Faulkner Act. I suppose those sections you note could be read to include the Consolidation Law as well, but that's not clear. The provisions you note were last amended in the 1950s, predating the current consolidation law, which is from the 1970s. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15666 Registered: 10-2001 |
Wouldn't an accepted, filed petition for a Study Commission reviewing the merging of the two towns be considered "proceedings are pending pursuant to section 1-18 hereof [40:69A-18] or any other statute providing for the adoption of any other charter or form of government available to the municipality"? I guess it depends upon the definition of charter? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15667 Registered: 10-2001 |
Hmmm, I wonder if the "hurry" related to the recent petition drive for the Study Commission had quite a bit to do with the sequencing of these two initiatives. If the Form of Government issue had been pushed through in the TC first (perhaps by a 3-2 ordinance calling for an election of a Charter Commission), then the Consolidation Study would have been DOA - for both towns. Makes for a good mystery novel. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8234 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hopefully. the TC is aware of possible ramifications of any decision they might make to officially move for a change in municipal government structure at this time. Has anyone brought these sections of the law to the attention of the township attorney or to the attorney presently serving on the TC? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15668 Registered: 10-2001 |
We are only responsibile for the virtual government. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5784 Registered: 10-1999 |
But, Mr. S, isn't at least one of the potential "Yes" votes for a change in government, also collecting signatures for the Consolidation Study Referendum? How does that fit into your theory? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2153 Registered: 5-2001 |
S and Nohero - theories aside for a sec - with all of the really big challenges facing Maplewood is this really the time to create another layer of government that will widen the exsisting hostilities between the 5 TC members? Just what Maplewood needs, another election which will drain money and volunteers from "real" causes because our 5 elected officials can't get it together. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15670 Registered: 10-2001 |
(no) (how are you) (I hope your summer has been a good one) | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2154 Registered: 5-2001 |
Summer has been loverly here - hope your summer was peachy too. Back to the topic if I may. A little background about me - I love this town, I take my walks, I volunteer here and there, and I've dipped my toe into the politics and personalities that govern Maplewood once or twice. When I support a candidate it's because I believe that s/he is a public servant, a person who puts the good of the many above his or her ego. I'm disappointed in all of our commiteepeople and their willingness to put their petty personal aspirations (ie blind egos) before the good of the town. It's become so fractious that real public servants aren't going to even consider putting their hands in the whirring fan blades of the TC. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5786 Registered: 10-1999 |
I agree, that we don't need either the change-the-form-of-government vote, or the consolidation-study-commission vote. I think the form of government we have is fine, and there are other (and better ways) to go about planning for shared services between the two towns, or with other towns as well. I read the News-Record last night, and saw their editorial which suggested that both proposals could wind up on the ballot this year. I wonder who provides information like this to the paper, especially since (as noted above) both proposals legally can't be on the same ballot. Also, I wish the News-Record would realize that it's not just an issue of "electing the mayor" - it's an issue of fundamentally changing the form of government. For example, taking power which is currently exercised by all five members of the Township Committee, and placing it into the hands of a single individual. But that's a discussion for another day. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15672 Registered: 10-2001 |
By the way, to answer your question above, there would be no issue with an individual getting signatures for one and voting yes on another as long as the proper sequence was followed. The statute says "no petition may be filed". So once it's filed, a subsequent yes vote on moving the Form of Government issue forward would seemingly be okay. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5787 Registered: 10-1999 |
That may be debateable. More to the point, I hope our government officials don’t try to get both issues onto the same ballot. They are both very serious matters, that propose two very different courses of action in terms of reorganizing the Township’s government. If shared services is the urgent priority, then discussions about changing the form of government can be put aside for another day. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15673 Registered: 10-2001 |
Can we put both of them aside for another day? Or year? Or decade? And in other news that IS important: Mr. Miller has resigned from the BOE. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 132 Registered: 10-2001 |
Nohero - our government officials will not try to get both issues onto the same ballot. Any citizen initiative to put a form of government issue on the November 2006 ballot would require about 2,800 signatures before 9/8. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5788 Registered: 10-1999 |
"Can we put both of them aside for another day?"Yes. "Or year?"Yes. "Or decade?"I can't plan that far ahead, but it's not a bad suggestion. As for the other, important news - Yes, that is extremely important. Maybe Dave can uncomplicate the Education topic (or, at least, update the titles of the sub-topics so that everything important doesn't have to wind up under "Informational Posts") so that can be discussed. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3025 Registered: 6-2002 |
Mayor Profeta: If the referendum to set up the Commission passes and the Commission begins to meet, doesn't that put the issue of changing the form of government on the back burner until the Commission issues its report? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8251 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anon: If the Commission meets and a recommendation to consolidate with South Orange is approved by the electorate of both towns, won't the question of changing Maplewood's form of government be moot? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3030 Registered: 6-2002 |
Joan: I would think so. That's why I asked my question. If the referendum is approved and the Commission selected and seated there would seem to be no sense in continuing to study a revision of the form of government. But you and I may be missing something so I hope the Mayor will clarify this. |
