| Author |
Message |
    
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10372
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:53 am: | 
|
Basically, the way I see it is that the revolving mayor approach championed by Vic and David worked fine when we had a TC that was pretty much philosophically in lock step. This isn't the case, as Art points out, anymore.
I think a Mayor should have a period of time to try to implement his vision and be relelected or not based on how the voters feel about his success or lack thereof.
Ward voting is a little more dicey. However, I do feel it would give people who can't afford a town wide campaign a chance to participate.
However, I think Vic pretty much has been able to kill this. David, whose vision of our community is much different than Fred's, will probably become Mayor next year based on seniority on the TC. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6945
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
This should not be about rotation or seniority. The TC should choose from amongst themselves the person who (a) wants the job and (b) the majority of TC members considers to be the most qualified and someone they could work with effectively. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4718
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:47 am: |
|
"This should not be about rotation or seniority."
Thank you Joan... I guess half a loaf is better than none!  We’ll get back to the change in government issue after the committee studies the pros and cons...
Meanwhile, IMHO, David's vision of our community will have to be echoed by Annette and promoted effectively by him in the primary fight that I'm sure should raise its ugly head in the near future.
Our town has moved in the right direction under Fred's leadership. His vision is positive, his results impressive, and he advocates many progressive improvements for our future. I would like to know how and why David's vision and leadership would be better. What’s broken that he thinks needs to be fixed?
In the words of our wise and experienced thought guru Joan, "This should not be about rotation or seniority.” Therefore, if the committee can’t agree on who should be Mayor without a primary fight, then why not let ALL the people do it, not just the registered Democrats?
The Primary Election voting procedure is flawed as it removes all the Independents and the Republicans from participating in the Democratic process, therefore, in this community, our primary election will effectively elect who will be our next Mayor.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12019
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 7:21 am: |
|
Art, if that is your major concern, I have some advice for you: register Democratic.
My father used to own a house in Southampton, NY. He used to joke that the Republicans are the left wingers there, to indicate how right wing most people there are. He is generally more leftist than I am. But he decided to register Republican and vote there rather than in NYC, his primary residence. After registering Republican, the town started complying with his requests, such as repaving his street. He lost the ability to vote in Democratic primaries, but he was able to do what he wanted. And it didn't hurt him that his affiliation didn't match his ideology. In fact, it was a source of jokes.
Voting in the primary could be as easy as that for you. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 370
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:17 am: |
|
Quote:The Primary Election voting procedure is flawed as it removes all the Independents and the Republicans from participating in the Democratic process, therefore, in this community, our primary election will effectively elect who will be our next Mayor.
Art,
That's the whole point of primary elections -- to segregate the parties from one another and from unaffiliated voters. If you joined the wrong party, don't blame the system.
FWIW, when the Republicans controlled local government they didn't even have contested primaries. They handpicked their candidates and nobody in either party had a choice. Now the Democrats offer choices at primary election time, but somehow you see the process as flawed. Cry me a river of those big elephant tears.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4721
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
...silly boys. Art is not going to register as a Democrat and he also didn’t choose the wrong party. Listen, don’t miss read me, I’m not crying about the system... I’m doing something to change it!
FWIW, I’m not all that interested in voting in the primaries. My interest is in the lack of fairness in the present system. The primary voting system for Mayor is flawed, as it removes all the Independents and the Republicans from participating in electing the Mayor.
The point of primary elections is to bring forth the best choice of the party. Segregating the parties from one another and from unaffiliated voters is NOT really intended to represent the final election...
Therefore, if you are really saying all Republican and Independent voters in Maplewood should change registrations because they joined the wrong party, and you don’t think they deserve a say in the process to elect the mayor, I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken… Check it out, there are twice as many registered Independents and Republicans than there are registered Democrats.
When the opportunity to vote on this issue reaches the voting public, we’ll see who has bigger tears...
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10392
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Art has a point. Relatively few people vote in the Democratic primary here in town.
However, being a "Democratic" town does seem to help us in getting state aid. The police station being the latest example.
Deep down I think local elections should be non-partisan. However, my practical side doesn't want to cut off our noses in spite of our faces. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4726
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Bob, this conversation is more about voting for Mayor than what party is in office...
Personally, I don't see much of a chance of a Republican or Independent getting elected in Maplewood, much less taking over control of the Township Committee for the next fifty years or so...
IMHO, non-partisan would be great, but a fairer and more balanced system would at least give the other guy a chance to participate in some way in the process.
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 371
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Quote:Check it out, there are twice as many registered Independents and Republicans than there are registered Democrats
Then why in heavens name don't they put their own candidates forward?
If you've got more voters, why sit around bellyaching about the Democratic primary? Find some qualified candidates and use your superior vote totals to get them elected.
Art, when the Republicans had a five-to-nothing majority on the Township Committee, I never heard you complain about unfairness or lack of choices. Now your side is on the outs, and you’ve found a whole new interpretation of what’s fair. I must admit I find it amusing. But it is a bit hypocritical, isn't it?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12040
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hmm, Democrats are outnumbered but have an unfair advantage?
|
dytunck
Supporter
Username: Dytunck
Post Number: 274
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Quote:Art has a point. Relatively few people vote in the Democratic primary here in town.
Bobk, you don't know what you're talking about. Actually, relatively many people vote in the Democratic primary here in town.
Quote:However, being a "Democratic" town does seem to help us in getting state aid. The police station being the latest example.
We were a "Democratic" town when DeLuca ran as an incumbent Mayor against the County machine. It's not just about being "Democratic", but being connected to the right Democrats. Right?
Quote:Deep down I think local elections should be non-partisan. However, my practical side doesn't want to cut off our noses in spite of our faces.
You propose Presidential primaries in February, school elections in April, local elections in May, and General elections in November, right? To increase turnout?
And ward elections.
Bobk, please reconsider. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10395
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 5:04 am: |
|
Dytunck:
1. Last year around 4000 people voted in a hotly contested Democratic primary. There are somewhere north of 14000 registered voters in town. I guess it depends on what one means by "relatively".
2. Getting state aid is nice and I don't see Joe D. trying to run Maplewood or putting his friends in no show jobs or anything like that. Vic and Jerry managed to honk off just about all levels of the State and County Democratic party. I am more than willing to admit their stands were usually on principal.
3. I like the concept of non-partisan local elections. There are problems, low turnout being among them as seen in South Orange. However, we also have that problem here as the Democratic primary is the defacto general election. I am not proposing this among the reforms btw. Also, the primaries here are usually in late May or early June, not February as you indicate.
4. A large number of voters here, mostly of moderate income and minorities, feel disenfranchised. Ward voting would make for a more diverse TC and avoid the historical problem where the Jefferson area is over represented.
|
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 449
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:21 am: |
|
Profeta- Jefferson neighborhood
Kathy- ?don't know where she lives
Ken - The street with the gate
Huemer - Oakland Av
Vic - somewhere east of Spgfield ave
5 people on the TC all living in diff neighborhoods. One black. One woman. Looks diverse to me. What am I missing? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10398
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:41 am: |
|
Crabby, the diversity of address is new. A few years ago three of the five TC members lived in the Jefferson area and I think that is pretty much the history of the TC. Kathy lives in the Berkshire Park neighborhood, near Clinton school.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4989
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:46 am: |
|
Bobk - as you say, "a few years ago" there was less geographic diversity on the Township Committee.
But, that changed, without the need to go to a ward system.
Also, there's still no reason to think that any member of the Township Committee, no matter where he or she lives, is not concerned with all areas of the Township.
Splitting the Township into wards would be a drastic step, and at this time there does not seem any good reason to do it. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10399
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:00 am: |
|
Nohero, this is mainly because the Profetaistas made a real effort to have some geographic diversity on the TC. Personally, I would like to see this continued, which may or may not happen with the current system.
I will admit that neighborhood representation is controversial, but it seems to work in Montclair and other towns not to different from ours. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 372
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
BobK,
I would respectfully disagree with your notion that diversity of residence for Township Committee members started with Profeta, although he has continued to champion it. To my mind, it really started with the shift from Republicans to Democrats in the 1990’s.
One of the challenges in this type of discussion is to precisely define regions within Maplewood. I sometimes use a simple model of four regions, as follows:
| W | West of Valley St. | | C | Central - between Valley and Springfield south of Elmwood and Oakland Rd | | NE | North of Elmwood and Oakland Rd | | SE | South and east of Springfield Ave (Hilton neighborhood) |
Using these divisions, here is a list of Township Committee members and the location of their residences going back to about 1990, as best as I can remember.
| Gibbons | C | | Grodman | C | | Huemer | C | | King | C | | Cosgrove | NE | | Leventhal | NE | | Pettis | NE | | DeLuca | SE | | Davenport | W | | French | W | | Grasmere | W | | Keane | W | | Klein | W | | Leibman | W | | Profeta | W | | Siegel | W | | Smith | W | | Ryan | W* |
* Ryan lived in the NE district (Midland Blvd.) when first elected, then later moved within town.
Looks pretty lopsided toward the west, huh? But now let’s sort this by party affiliation.| D | Gibbons | C | | D | Grodman | C | | D | Huemer | C | | D | King | C | | D | Leventhal | NE | | D | Pettis | NE | | D | DeLuca | SE | | D | Davenport | W | | D | Leibman | W | | D | Profeta | W | | D | Ryan | W* | | R | Cosgrove | NE | | R | French | W | | R | Grasmere | W | | R | Keane | W | | R | Klein | W | | R | Siegel | W | | R | Smith | W |
Not quite so bad when you focus on the Dems, huh? Still a little light in the eastern districts, especially Hilton, but not dominated by the west the way the Republicans are. It's clear the trend away from the west preceded Profeta, starting with Ryan and Gibbons, then DeLuca, King and Huemer.
It’s important to note that this crude analysis is based on looking at the map, not on population. To draw firm conclusions about balanced representation we would need to add neighborhood population data into the mix.
|
dytunck
Supporter
Username: Dytunck
Post Number: 275
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
Bobk:
Quote:1. Last year around 4000 people voted in a hotly contested Democratic primary. There are somewhere north of 14000 registered voters in town. I guess it depends on what one means by "relatively".
Only Democrats are allowed to vote in hotly contested Democratic primaries. Unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote too, but then the are no longer Unaffiliated, they're Democrats. Taken as a percentage, what would you consider "relatively few"?
Here's the result from the June 2003 Primary: Registered Democrats: 5,172.
Voters in the Democratic Primary: 3,478. That means that of the voters that declare themselves to be Democrats, 67.2% of them voted. That's pretty decent, in my opinion.
Some districts enjoyed far more impressive voter turnout numbers.
D2: 80.5%
D17: 86.9%
D15: 78.6%
D16: 75.8%
D8: 92.3%
I would call that relatively many voters.
The 2004 Primary was uncontested.
The 2005 numbers are even higher, across the board. Over 200 more Democratic voters voted in these elections.
I trust you'll agree that the "relatively few" remark needs correction.
Quote:2. Getting state aid is nice and I don't see Joe D. trying to run Maplewood or putting his friends in no show jobs or anything like that. Vic and Jerry managed to honk off just about all levels of the State and County Democratic party. I am more than willing to admit their stands were usually on principal.
Yes, but isn't easier to obtain State and County money without "honking off" politicians out of principal?
Quote:3. I like the concept of non-partisan local elections. There are problems, low turnout being among them as seen in South Orange.
Right. There isn't the kind of impressive turnout Maplewood has. What's wrong with the system as is, then?
Quote:However, we also have that problem here as the Democratic primary is the defacto general election.
That's a problem for who? Democrats? Republicans? Voters who choose to not declare a political party?
Quote:Also, the primaries here are usually in late May or early June, not February as you indicate.
As a matter of fact, the Primaries are never in May. They are currently scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. But that changes in 2008, when the Primaries will be moved to the last Tuesday in February.
Therefore, your suggestion of non-partisan elections would mean February, April, May and November elections. That's what I said earlier.
Do you think 3 elections in 10 weeks would increase voter turnout or increase voter burnout?
Quote:4. A large number of voters here, mostly of moderate income and minorities, feel disenfranchised.
Really??? How do you know that? How large is that number?
Quote:Ward voting would make for a more diverse TC and avoid the historical problem where the Jefferson area is over represented.
That's crazy talk. Thanks, Bottomline for your analysis.
Geez, Bobk, get off it already.  |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10403
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
|
What is this? Attack Bob K day?
Bottomline, I am in awe of your research and so quick also. However, I think you would agree that the change in diversity of address on the TC is a recent phenomena and something that could change in the future. As I think I have said before, there are arguements both ways here, but looking at the possibilities makes sense to me.
Dytunck, I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about registered Democrats and I am talking about registered voters. At least in theroy, I would like to see unaffiliated voters and, yes, even GOP voters have some say in who governs us by having a meaningful choice in a general election (even if it means crossing party lines) as opposed to the decision being made in a partisan primary.
To be honest I vote for people to govern Maplewood, not to make political statements that hit me in the pocketbook. Ouch!
Thanks for the information on the change in the primary dates. I forgot. Having an early primary will make NJ more of a player in the National scene I think, but it is still a primary, not an election.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10404
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Probably not, because you think the only voters here are registered Democrats.
I is one, btw.
Edited to note: Dyteck removed the post this one was written in reply to. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4992
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:25 pm: |
|
"What is this? Attack Bob K day? " Don't be silly.
Every day is Attack Bobk Day! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10405
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
 |
Haight-Strawbury
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6689
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
BOBK is a jerk!
Gotta love attack Bobk day! Right Dave? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10411
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Actually I have managed to honk off both wings of the local Democratic party, and I am very proud.
I know Bottomline is a prominent Profetanista and I think Dytunck sometimes posts as a spokesman for the DeLucaites.
Personally I think looking into the direct election of the mayor makes sense and while we are at it why not look into other potential changes as well? |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 450
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Call me crabby , but we already have "wards" with our District system. Of all the twenty something districts and 40 something leaders, representing the whole town, how many actually are good and do their job? 6 or 7? Just because you have wards, does not mean you will find willing good volunteers in those areas. I don't care where the people live on the TC, I want them to care and put all they've got into it.
Dytunck and DeLuca. Together. Catchy. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2532
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:30 pm: |
|
We used to have direct election of the Tax Collector (or was it the Assessor?) and the Town Clerk. Should we go back to that?
How about direct election of the President of the Board of Education? The BOE spends more tax money than the Town and school issues often seem to be more of a concern to citizens than Town issues. Why should only the members of the Board get to choose?
In 90% or more of Congressional Districts the Primary, Democratic or Republican, is the only "real election". Members of the other party are "disenfranchised". Should there be direct popular election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives (third in line to the Presdiency)?
Wouldn't this be a far more democratic country if the people elected the Attorney General of the United States and the Chief Justice?
Just a few things to think about.  |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4730
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
"Just a few things to think about."
So lets keep it simple. Forget the wards, just vote for six committee members and one Mayor...
BTW, stop picking on Bob! I started this damn thread and I want everyone to pick on me for a change...  |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:45 am: |
|
LOL, but I still think we should have a form of government with a stronger mayor than our current sytem allows.
Maplewood may be to small for ward voting and there are other positives and a fair number of negatives as well. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4731
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
What are you talking about Bob, we already have two strong Mayor's on the committee now... |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4732
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
Lets get back on track, and forget about the wards...
http://www.njslom.org/types.html
Rather than the Township form of government, the two others I favor are:
Borough
NJSA:40A:60-1 et. seq.
VOTERS ELECT
Mayor and 6 Council. Elected at-large. Mayor has a 4 year term. Council has staggered 3 year terms. Partisan
ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNING BODY
First week in January
MAYOR
Head of municipal government. Sees that state laws and borough ordinances are faithfully executed. Presides over Council. Votes only to break ties. Can veto ordinances subject to override by 2/3 majority of Council. Appoints subordinate officers with Council approval; after 30 days or upon Council disapproval, Council fills posts.
COUNCIL
Legislative body of municipality. Overrides mayor's veto by 2/3 majority of all members. Confirms mayor's appointments. Gains appointment power upon failure to confirm mayor's appointee or after office vacant for 30 days. Has all executive responsibility not placed in office of mayor.
ADMINISTRATION
Mayor is head of municipal government and sees that state laws and borough ordinances are faithfully executed. Council has all executive responsibility not placed in office of mayor. Council may delegate, by ordinance, all or a portion of executive responsibility to an administrator. Council may adopt an administrative code.
Town
NJSA:40A:62-1 et. seq.
VOTERS ELECT
Mayor and Council. Partisan
ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNING BODY
First week in January
MAYOR
Head of municipal government. Chairs Council with voice and vote. Can veto ordinances subject to a 2/3 override by Council.
COUNCIL
Legislative body of municipality. Overrides mayor's veto by 2/3 majority of all members. Appoints all subordinate officers, except municipal clerk, tax assessor and tax collector, who are appointed by mayor and council. Has all executive responsibility not placed in office of mayor.
ADMINISTRATION
Mayor is head of municipal government and has all powers vested in mayor by general law. Council has all executive responsibility of municipality not placed in office of mayor. Council may delegate, by ordinance, all or a portion of executive responsibilities to an administrator. Council may adopt an administrative code.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10420
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Anon, you make it sound like voting for your own mayor is some sort of revolutionary idea. It ain't. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 34
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Chew on this:
Why does a town of merely 23,000 that is completely contiguous with all neighboring towns need a mayor and TC of its own at all? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4735
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
I'll take a shot at that Eponymous...
I'd say it's because being completely contiguous to everything is the primary reason why all the Democrats left the big cities in the first place. Furthermore, they would have that much less to fight over if they no longer had their local politics... |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2536
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
BobK: In Maplewood it is. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 447
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Bobk,
Dytunck has been a co-chair of Fred's campaigns. Like he said, you don't know what you're talking about. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10426
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 5:08 am: |
|
Kathleen, thanks for the information. He always sounds like a DeLucaite to me. LOL
I make very little effort to find out the real identity of posters here. If they choose to post under a screen name, fine by me. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4742
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
...you're so easy to get along with Bob. When I grow up I want to be easy and helful just like you and...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kathleen! |
dytunck
Supporter
Username: Dytunck
Post Number: 277
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
On behalf of DeLucaites®, thank you.
Bobk, meet me under the cell tower at 2:01 on 2/01 for further instructions. Semper erratus, my brother.
Dytunck
Dytunck
`'|'`'|'`'|'`'
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page