| Author | Message | ||
     bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 461 Registered: 8-2003 |
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and I find that I am of two minds about the current referendum effort. On the one hand, the current state law empowering consolidation between towns is a blunt tool, to say the least. If the real goal is to gain efficiencies through shared services, we should seek ways to be flexible and include multiple municipalities, even counties. The forced pairing of municipalities under the consolidation statute seems rigid and constraining, especially given a literal reading of the statute. And as a practical matter, I find it hard to foresee Maplewood and South Orange actually merging anytime soon. On the other hand, the state is agitating (or at least posturing) to put resources into the shared services area. That translates to money, expertise and attention. The governor himself has been speaking about it recently. I can see great benefit in being at the forefront rather than standing on the sidelines as this issue unfolds over the next couple of years. Why not accept the state’s consulting money along with the ostensible expertise of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)? We could use our study commission as a bully pulpit to both entice support and challenge the conventional wisdom. I would love to confront the folks in DCA by saying, “OK, we made the effort to form a study commission. Now, please show us where to find the savings. Give us details. Get technical. We’re waiting with open minds. We’re listening.” The ensuing dialog, which would play out not just here but in Trenton, would be very interesting and provocative. It might even be productive, as well. - Tom Carlson | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8175 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom: I find your interpretation of future events to be very optimistic and if we could be sure that the DCA representative facilitating our partially State funded study (we are still talking matching funds here) could be encouraged to explore shared services alternatives beyond the Maplewood/South Orange pairing, I might agree with your approach. Unfortunately, I have been in the facilitator role in municipal government often enough to expect that DCA will have an agenda which forces us to stick more closely to the letter of the study authorized by the referendum, assuming the electorate approves it in November. Do you have anything at all you can point to which would indicate that the DCA representative could be convinced to (a) focus on shared services as a primary rather than last resort aim for the study and (b) allow the focus of the study to expand beyond South Orange/Maplewood if the the referendum as worded does not provide for this expansion? I hear you about the need to show the State early that we are strongly in favor of streamlining the way in which municipal services are funded in this State but I think there might be more effective ways of doing this, such as pressing for the proposed new legislation to be adopted before elections are held in November and then jumping in with a broad based proposal from Maplewood. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2001 |
Yabbadabbadoo asked on 8/25 "what happened to the supporters of the referendum since the disclosure of Assembly Bill A51?", and wondered whether "the Maplewood contingent will be in the village again tomorrow collecting signatures." All supporters appear to be alive and well, and were responsible for collecting approximately 175 signatures this morning. More will be collected tomorrow. My information is that the job in South Orange is just about complete after today's results. Maplewood is close behind. It is certainly legitimate to ask what impact A51 has on the present petition drive. In my view, it has no impact, either legally or with respect State "politics." Legally, I think that the bill is flawed. It authorizes a "representative group of registered voters" to petition the Local Finance Board in Trenton for authorization to conduct a consolidation study, and states that "justification of the group's standing to serve as the community advocate" shall be part of the application to the LFC. The bill provides no criteria for determining what groups will be judged "representative", nor does it address the possibility of 2 such "representative" groups presenting plans which differ. Understandably, the backers of this bill are trying to make it easier to get a consolidation study going, but I would not support this procedure. Why is the opinion of a "representative" group superior to the voice of the entire electorate, established by results in a general election? Sbenois reported on 8/20 that "people in Trenton" were "discouraging communities" from "going the petition/ballot route." My experience has only been with the Governor's office, and I have not received any discouraging word. I informed his staff in charge of this issue that M and SO are proceeding by petition (as did others), and have been invited to Trenton, along with a representative from SO, to be part of the conversation regarding financial incentives and the shape of the State's effort going forward. A date for the meeting has not yet been set. It should be within the next several weeks. M and SO would not be at the table if this petition drive were not in progress. The drive has demonstrated that the towns are interested at a grass roots level in consolidation issues, and that has given us credibility which puts us ahead of other municipalities. In order to make our local interest coincide with Trenton's present focus, it was necessary to move this matter forward now. That was not going to happen by action of both governing bodies. The citizens behind this petition drive understood that, and decided to seize the moment and enhance our voice at the right time. Sbenois also stated that "the exclusion of other communities from the study runs contrary to the intent and spirit of the statute." Joan asked Tom whether he had any information to indicate that DCA would "allow the focus of the study to expand beyond South Orange/Maplewood if the referendum as worded does not provide for this expansion?" I agree that this study should be as broad and as regional as feasible. Consistent with the timing issues I mentioned above, it was not possible to obtain consent from other towns now to join the effort. No other towns in the region have focused on shared services to the extent that M and SO have. But I certainly hope that the necessary interest can be generated. A serious and well-publicized statement by our voters on the referendum will likely have that effect. The entire subject of shared services is a "work in progress" in Trenton, and I see no reason why leadership communities, such as M and SO, would not be allowed to expand the inquiry to include regional and county interests. That is certainly the result I would work to achieve. I hope that, given our position, we are in a position to influence that result. I don't find any legal impediment to expansion. Joan has also expressed concern that this study will necessarily focus on total merger rather than the sharing of services. Nothing in the law states that this should be so. The precise language of the question in the referendum is set forth in the statute and may not be altered; unfortunately, that question does speak more about merger than the other alternatives - but there is no need for the commission to have that focus to the exclusion of the alternatives. Regarding cost of the study, on 8/19 Joan estimated M's share at $25,000. Under present rules, the State picks up 50% and the towns split the rest. Joan's estimate is based upon a $100,000 total. I think that is on the high side, but ultimately it is probably irrelevant. I do not expect the present rules to continue, and it is likely that the Governor will be providing significant incentives (over and above costs) to towns which demonstrate serious committment to study. In his post today, Tom Carlson said that "we should seek ways to be flexible and include municipalities, even counties", noted the "great benefit in being at the forefront rather than standing on the sidelines as this issue unfolds over the next couple of years", and recommended telling the folks in DCA that "we made the effort to form a study commission; now please show us where to find the savings." Right on Tom! I can see no reason not to let the voters decide whether a study should be done. If the answer in November is "yes", our leverage is multiplied. If there are benefits to be gained by sharing, local or regional, let's allow the State to tell us. I encourage voters to sign the petition. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8183 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred: Thanks so much for the very helpful summary and clarification of where the consolidation/shared services initiative presently stands. Do you have any information to indicate what level of savings to municipal taxpayers in Maplewood and South Orange could be expected to be generated by either full consolidation or optimum sharing of services between these two municipalities? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15626 Registered: 10-2001  |
This just in from Sbenois Reporting Services: The ballot question as proposed in the petition: "Shall a joint municipal consolidation study commission be formed to study the feasibility of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed, and to make recommendations thereon; or, in the alternative, to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services?" Here is the exact wording in the Statute. Notice that the section I've put in bold has been taken out. "Shall a joint municipal consolidation study commission be formed to study the feasibility of consolidating (insert the names of each of the municipalities named in such ordinances or petitions) into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed, to study the feasibility of consolidating the local school districts of the aforesaid municipalities, and to make recommendations thereon; or, in the alternative, to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services?" | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8187 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sbenois: Since Maplewood and South Orange already have a consolidated school district, the framers of our specific petition most likely considered this aspect of the legislation to be unnecessary as pertains to a consolidation study limited to Maplewood and South Orange. The fact that studying school district consolidation would not be a factor under the present wording of two towns petition/referendum and the fact that the single greatest opportunity for cost savings would be in our consolidating our school district with neighboring municipalities or in the alternative sharing educational services, I see another reason for rejecting the wording in our present referendum. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 462 Registered: 8-2003 |
I would make an analogy to music. Some look at the statute like a piece of classical music that must be played note-for-note, just as the composer wrote it. Instead, I see it from the perspective of a jazz musician who has a good look at the annotated score and then starts improvising on the theme. If and when we form this commission, I believe there will be a lot of latitude for creativity. And I believe it will be us, not the state, who will be in the driver’s seat. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion, of course. To me, many people are being overly literal minded about the scope of the proposed commission. No doubt they see my approach as far-fetched. So it goes. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3040 Registered: 5-2001 |
bottomline, you do realize that any state endorsed commission is really looking at the types of municipalities that are contiguous and small and have not yet combined school their districts. That, from what I understand, is the driving force behind what Corzine is putting forth. While I don't mind the improvisation - to continue your music theme - I would prefer our combined "musical" talents and energies be put to better use in a concerted effort to reduce our reliance on property taxes to fund education. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that over the years the state has decreased its funding to all municipalities vis education. I would like that to change. The effort that is going on now to collect signatures would, imo, be put to better use in being a productive part of the Education Funding Committee. I smell ulterior motives since more involved and brighter people than I are getting signatures and they have not yet joined this important Committee. As far as shared services are concerned, why should we need a referendum for this, and why oh why should we limit this to South Orange. And why is there such a rush. Wendy Lauter | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 463 Registered: 8-2003 |
Wendy, 1) I never said there was a rush. 2) I only speculated that we might be able to leverage this situation to our advantage, despite the narrow wording of the statute. 3) I am aware of the decreases in state funding. 4) I don't realize anything, one way or the other, about other commissions in other communities. Are there other such commissions currently active in the state? If so, what are the statistics about the sizes of these municipalities and their relationships to their respective school districts? 5) I am struck by your allegation of ulterior motives. Could you please elaborate? It’s clear there is a range of opinions on this issue, but it seems to me the underlying motivations are pretty transparent. I don’t see what’s ulterior in any of this. All the best, - Tom | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 767 Registered: 1-2004 |
$$ | ||
| pseudonymous Citizen Username: Berry_festival Post Number: 259 Registered: 9-2003 |
or power | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8198 Registered: 5-2001 |
...or both. Or, more likely a diversionary tactic to reduce the pressure on Trenton to make the effort to tackle this issue themselves in a meaningful manner. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 394 Registered: 11-2003  |
Joan: BINGO!! FF | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1107 Registered: 2-2002 |
Joan is absolutely right. -This whole thing is like the state has tossed us a shiny object to distract us from their own accountability. It is classic "sleight of hand". The shine will wear off over time as citizens really begin to see what would be necessary to achieve truly merged services beyond the already existing school system (one more powerful local government) and what would not be achieved (much, if any savings). In fact I believe that we could easily end up paying more for reasons stated below. And meanwhile the state skates along for more years doing nothing but spending more money in the wrong direction while we decide whether to fire one fire chief or maybe need to have two co-chiefs and one new big-big chief. Meanwhile in Trenton they chuckle "whew, that takes a load off for the next five years". I still contend that over time with one larger local government in place there will be a far greater opportunity for incompetence and abuse particularly in an area so interested in "development". The larger a government gets the less accountability it holds to individual concerns. The bigger it gets, the less transparent it gets. -We have all seen that demonstrated a thousand times. Why bring it on ourselves? (why would there need be TWO governments to manage ONE of everything else, -that would make no sense). South Orange in particular already has seeming difficulty holding their government accountable to many questions and to respond appropriately. Why would they ever believe that that would become easier with a government that had a wider power base? Why would Maplewood or South Orange voters want to dilute their own voice in their own local governance? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15637 Registered: 10-2001 |
Were enough autographs collected? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8214 Registered: 5-2001 |
For those who think this is a no cost action, consider the difference between spending our taxpayer dollars (municipal and State) for a series of narrow scope studies which may or may not be studying the right thing and may or may not be leading to any recommendation to any action once the study is complete and which may result in consolidations which end up costing taxpayers even more than they are paying now and taking the estimated $250 million dollars earmarked for this purpose and using the money to provide direct aid to education and/or municipal government for our most tax stressed municipalities/school districts in the State or providing direct tax relief to seniors (who do not generally use the school system) by paying all or part of the school tax portion of their tax bill from a dedicated fund. Which approach would result in the most immediate and long lasting tax relief for those who need it most? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15642 Registered: 10-2001 |
Is this a trick question? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8216 Registered: 5-2001 |
The trick would be to get Trenton to pass legislation that actually does something positive to address the real property tax problem in NJ. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15643 Registered: 10-2001 |
Did Frederico get enough signatures? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 734 Registered: 2-2006 |
Isn't the deadline the last day of August, sbenois? Won't know until then. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8219 Registered: 5-2001 |
I thought the deadline was September 8th. | ||
| Reader Citizen Username: Reader Post Number: 6 Registered: 4-2006 |
Somebody told me they got enough signatures from both towns. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8222 Registered: 5-2001 |
Do you know if enough of those signatures were valid? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15652 Registered: 10-2001 |
I wouldn't be surprised if someone in SO (suppostive of the BOT majority) steps forward to have the petition declared invalid because the proposed ballot question does not meet the form as mandated by the statute. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8224 Registered: 5-2001 |
Even though the school district is already consolidated? I'm not sure they would win that argument but it would make for a decent delaying tactic. Assuming enough valid signatures were obtained from voters in both towns, does anyone know who will be running for the commission seats in each town? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3017 Registered: 6-2002 |
I don't care who is "officially" running. I'm voting for you. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4611 Registered: 5-2001  |
Just wanted everyone to know that enough official signatures have now been gathered in both Maplewood and South Orange for a referendum to appear on the ballot in November to decide if a study of shared services should be done. Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to gather a significant number of signatures in such a short amount of time! | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3024 Registered: 6-2002 |
MHD: Have any candidates submitted enough petitions to be on the ballot to be on the Commission? | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2006 |
According to the clerk's office, as of COB today, Maplewood did not have enough signatures. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8250 Registered: 5-2001 |
Foxhound: Did Liz tell you how many more signatures are needed? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3031 Registered: 6-2002 |
Does anyone have the correct information or will we have to wait until Town Hall opens on Tuesday? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4612 Registered: 5-2001 |
anon, I am quite certain that both Maplewood & South Orange have enough official signatures for this referendum to go forward. I don't know if any Commissioner candidates have submitted enough signatures, yet. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1289 Registered: 6-2001 |
I don't have any definitive information on this subject, but it strikes me that an apples and oranges dispute is occuring. MHD tell us that the requisite number of signatures have been collected. Foxhound tells us the requisite number of signatures have not been filed with the town clerk. Have all signatures collected been filed? TomR | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6203 Registered: 3-2002  |
It all comes down to machinations taking precedent over decision making. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 770 Registered: 2-2006 |
Sooooooooo.....................................? What does the Maplewood clerk say now about the number of petitioners for the referendum? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15693 Registered: 10-2001 |
The petitions have been certified in both Maplewood and South Orange. The question will be on the ballot in each town in November. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4619 Registered: 5-2001 |
Merger question makes the ballot By Philip Sean Curran, Staff Writer Wednesday, September 6, 2006 5:47 PM EDT South Orange and Maplewood, two towns that split more than 100 years ago, will decide this autumn if they ought to study merging as a way to lower taxes. More than 1,500 South Orange and Maplewood voters signed petitions to have a ballot question Nov. 7. It will ask if there should be a 10-member consolidation study commission, made up of five residents from each town. A “yes” vote does not mean the two towns will merge. Rather, it creates the commission of members who would have to make a recommendation sometime in 2007: either to merge or share certain services. Voters will chose the commissioners from their town on Election Day. In South Orange, Howard Levison said that he, DuBowy and three others are running for the seats. DuBowy, speaking Tuesday, helped gather signatures to make the referendum possible. “The reaction was very positive. People were extremely willing to sign,” he said. Andrea Marino, who collected signatures in Maplewood, found “overwhelming support for this.” It was not known who is running on the Maplewood side. Mayor Fred R. Profeta Jr. said Tuesday that he would not be a candidate. Yet he was pleased to see things move forward. “I’m glad to see the citizens of both towns express their support for a systematic process that will supply all of us with more information about possible economies in municipal services,” he said Tuesday. Asked if he thought the referendum would pass, he answered: “That remains to be seen.” But Township Committeeman Vic De Luca said he does not believe a merger of the two towns will bring the tax relief that some think. Rather, he said, broad tax reform is necessary by state lawmakers. De Luca said he is “not interested in consolidating with South Orange.” Yet he did not rule out running for one of the five Maplewood seats on the study commission. Maplewood and South Orange share a common history. Up until 1904, they were one community, said Maplewood historian John Bausmith. One of the issues that split them was over schools; South Orange felt it paid too much compared to Maplewood. Ever since, the two towns have enjoyed a sometimes tense relationship. For a short time, they even operated under the same name, South Orange. In 1922, residents of the township of South Orange agreed to change the name to Maplewood. During the 1970s, there was a major division over a South Orange-backed plan to close Maplewood Junior High, now Maplewood Middle School. But the push to study consolidation has little to do with nostalgia. Residents in both communities pay high property taxes and want to see where savings can be found. “I think the message is people want to save money,” DuBowy said. http://www.localsource.com/articles/2006/09/06/news_-_record/news/local/doc44ff39760b79a496897988.txt | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5803 Registered: 10-1999  |
Even though our towns are very similar, and form essentially a single community, there are still a lot of differences in how each municipal government operates. There are a lot of complex issues to resolve, if the towns are to be re-combined - issues which have little or nothing to do with actually saving money. I asked this question in another thread, but I'll ask it again, here. If I want the towns to study how to reduce costs through shared services (whether just between them, or in conjunction with other municipalities), but I think that studying how to actually merge the towns would not help get us there, how should I vote? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12594 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nohero, I try to stayout of purely MW/SO issues since I no longer live there, but I think you should vote for the commission, since its mandate is to study shared services as well as outright merger. Shared services are kind of a three headed monster. You might save some money by combining services, but then you probably are going to need a board to supervise and oversee operations, which may not be very efficient. The third point is that if you share most services (police, fire, building inspections, health department, rec department, public works, etc.) and have boards for each the current municipal governments may become irrelevant. I just hope that you folks try to do what is best for the average taxpayer and not vote based on politics. I am getting the impression that people who support the DeLucaites don't like the idea of a merger, because they don't think he would play well with SO voters. Conversely, I think Profetanistas tend to support the idea since they feel that SO would probably support him. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5805 Registered: 10-1999 |
Bobk - I don't think your description of who is for or against a merger is accurate. I'm not sure anyone on the Township Committee is "for" a merger. For example, at the TC meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Pettis was asking if the ballot question could be re-worded, to de-emphasize merger and focus more on shared services (including, with towns in addition to South Orange). At least, that's what I thought I heard. Mr. Profeta also seemed to be stressing the shared services aspect, in discussing the ballot question. A merger is neither good nor bad, it's just complicated, and at the end of the day it is unclear whether that is the most useful thing to study. I don't know why the towns did not just apply for a "SHARE" grant from the Division of Local Government Services - http://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/share/joint/ref8_share_prog_grants.shtml After the studies, the State will also provide implementation funding. For example, in May the State gave $53,000 to Chatham Township and Chatham Borough to implement shared recreational programming. http://www.nj.gov/dca/news/2006/pr050106.shtml The State requires some matching funds for the studies, but something like this (combined with the pending A51) seems a more direct way to get where we seem to want to go. |
