| Author | Message | ||
     ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4632 Registered: 9-2001  |
Today's Star Ledger: Popular vote for Mayor is urged...pg. 17 The only question I have at this point is how will the Township Committe come up with a bipartisan group of residents to study the issue? Who among us (besides me) feels like they can be bipartisan about this matter? In the event the Mayor asks for a sign up list, I want to be on it.... Anyone else on MOL interested in serving on the committee? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1146 Registered: 3-2004  |
count me in. i dont vote for either major party. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4921 Registered: 10-1999  |
The options for municipal government in New Jersey are listed by the League of Municipalities - http://www.njslom.org/types.html Maplewood is under the "Township" form of government, and if we wanted to change, we could pick from some (but not all) the other choices on that list. At first glance, if we did elect the mayor, then that would not be the only effect of a change. The Office of Mayor would have greater authority (including veto power) than it has now, under most of the options. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6502 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think we have other priorities before this one. Schools, taxes, etc. I don't believe that our form of government is a major factor in any of these issues. I would be highly disgruntled if any resources were put into this before dealing with the other issues at hand. In terms of partisanship, I don't believe that it should matter in a town our size. Democrat or Republican are not, IMHO, relevent to our issues and the good of the community. Party affiliations for TC are silly. Granted, I have never voted for anyone on the Republican ticket for TC but that is because I have not liked any of the stands on issues. If our elections were non-partisan, maybe candidates would not feel the need to stay within party politics and be able to be creative with their proposed soultions. Imagine a Democrat openly supporting surveillance cameras or a Republican openly supporting some sort of new fee because they thought it was best for the community. Imagine that there was no party-based finger-pointing or name calling on MOL during election time because we could discuss each individual candidate's platform. Instead of hurling "Lib" or "Con" at someone, it would be "Profetista", "DeLucite", etc.  | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5094 Registered: 3-2002 |
my very first thought off the top of my head on this is if we all vote for a mayor, then the town should have ward or district representation too...my second thought is -- things appear to be fine as they are. Im curious and open to hearing all the reasoning behind the suggestion. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10166 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would like to see the Mayor elected directly by the people and to have a four year term. Basically, while the idea of switching Mayors every couple of years had merit when we had a think alike, act alike Town Council (and this goes back to the Grasmere years), now that we have different view points on the TC a Mayor should have some time to make an impact. Also, I am probably the only person in Maplewood who would like to see the council elections held by districts (wards) to insure fair representation of all the neighborhoods here, as well as to reflect the economic and racial makeup of the Town. Fire when ready, Gridley. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1149 Registered: 3-2004 |
i agree with wardss. i also agree that party affiliation should be done away with, especially at this level of government. that way people would vote for ideas , not parties. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 412 Registered: 1-2004 |
yeah, but look at what a mess SOrange is. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10167 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guess some others feel the same way about wards, which surprises me to be honest. Our posts must have crossed on the "internets". I have mixed feelings about non-partisan elections. I agree that party has very little to do with local government. However, turnout for non-partisan elections (held in the spring) is usually miniscule if you take South Orange as an example. Offsetting that is that the real election for the TC in Maplewood is the Democratic primary. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 252 Registered: 9-2003 |
I'm with Greentree, we've got much bigger fish to fry than this. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10170 Registered: 5-2001 |
If we go this direction do we want a "strong mayor" or a "weak mayor" form of government? I think this is usually defined around the power to veto legislation. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 932 Registered: 2-2002 |
Several issues here: 1) Holy cow, for the umpteenth time, - our town gets MAJOR money out of Trenton precisely because of our local democratic leadership's close relationships with Codey, (in particular), soon-to-be governor, Corzine and others. To say that local party affiliation does not matter in that regard is to ignore reality on that issue. Switching to a non-partisan local election would be to shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of getting money out of Trenton and getting money out of Trenton makes everything else that much easier. What bigger issue is there in Maplewood than taxes? - and one of the best methods presently available to us to keep them down is to get money from the State for various programs and projects. Common sense and a long history of getting grant money such as the recent MILLION dollars for the police station should tell as much. We do not live in an isolated vacuum here that would ever make local party affiliation "silly". 2) Meanwhile, I have heard Fred recently state that part of his reasoning to consider a direct election of a Mayor is that presently a Mayor can be essentially elected by one person, (including himself) in the case of there being a 3-2 vote amongst the TC members for that bully-pulpit position. He feels that a townwide election would be more democratic. It is a thought which deserves some consideration. Voters should also be aware that the TC cannot do this, (if it should be done) on their own but that it would involve getting enough signatures on a petition to make it a ballot initiative, -when and if ever. 3) As to "by ward" elections, (as I understand the concept) -Personally I feel that that would unnecessarily restrict the pool of qualified people who would be willing to serve, as you could potentially have an abundance of candidates from one ward who the town would overall support but whom then some of which would then be defacto excluded from the process of such a choice because they would have to be from different wards. Thus we could end up with the lesser of talent for the town overall under the banner of "ward representation". Additionally all twenty-something districts in town are already "represented" through the district leaders who generally try to come to a consensus as to who would be the best candidates based on their strengths to serve the town as a whole. If as in the past some fractional portion of these leaders feel "unrepresented" by the majority choice then they are free to run their own slate in the primary. -Thus Maplewood already gets as wide a choice as possible in a sensible way and as always, ANYONE, is free to run for district leader without the approval of anyone else. -They would just have to go out and talk to their neighbors to directly enlist their support. I also don't feel that there has been a great deal, (or any) sense that one portion of town is being served by the TC as a whole at the expense of others, -at least certainly not as a function of where they live, particularly since we presently have TC members from all parts of town and the town is afterall, comprised of only approx 4 sq miles. 4) And finally (Greentree on this one point), I'm afraid, (from my own perspective), that you, (us all), will very soon see not one but a MAJORITY of the local democratic TC members "openly supporting surveillance cameras". Apparently some present TC members are already willing to depart from "traditional" party sentiments to do what they each feel is best for the town and thus do not feel bound to such affiliation on any particular issue. That is why you see so many 3-2 and 4-1 votes. Carry on. | ||
| mplwdian Citizen Username: Mplwdian Post Number: 124 Registered: 3-2003 |
Actually, Nohero, under the form of government (Mayor-Council-Administrator) suggested by Mayor Profeta in his January 1 speech, the Mayor's authority is about the same as under the present system, and in some ways less. Berkelely Heights went from Township Committee to MCA last November (by an 80% popular vote margin according to Profeta) and the similarity of powers was one of the selling points. There is a 6 person at-large council, over which the Mayor presides but only votes to break a tie. The Mayor is the town's Chief Executive Officer, as is Maplewood's Mayor now under its bylaws. The Council prepares the budget, not the Mayor. Appointments need the approval of the Council. The "veto" authority is not real under the MCA form, because it can be overriden by a 2/3 vote of the 6 person Council, which is the same as the majority needed to pass an ordinance in the first place. Elections may be partisan or non-partisan. Hank - I can't tell you what all the reasoning was behind the suggestion, but here's what Mayor Profeta said on the subject in his 1/1 speech: "But I think that there is one major area where our democracy is deficient. I was elected Mayor unanimously by my colleagues. And I am grateful to them for that vote of confidence. But I wasn’t elected today. I was elected 2 weeks ago at a political caucus in my living room. Now there’s nothing improper about a political caucus. Many towns have them. We’ve been having them in Maplewood for years. But they are political. Which means that there is political give and take. The votes are not always unanimous. Sometimes they are 3 to 2. That means that one person decides who will be the Mayor for all 24,000 people in town. Is that right? Why shouldn’t you elect your Mayor? Under our bylaws, the Mayor of this town has real power. We will vote on those bylaws today, as we do every year. They state that the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Administrative Officer of the town. Between Township Committee meetings, the Mayor acts for the town in many ways. I sign contracts every week. I speak on behalf of the town. When developers come here, they want to talk to the Mayor. Officials from other levels of government communicate with the Mayor. It is the Mayor who runs the Township Committee meetings. It is the Mayor who talks to the Township Administrator on a daily basis. I don’t think that this kind of power should be conferred by the 5 of us. I think it should be conferred by you. There are many municipalities close by which directly elect their Mayor. West Orange does. Westfield does. Morristown does. So do Hillside, and Irvington, and Orange, and, of course, South Orange. And last November, 80% of the voters of Berkeley Heights decided to go with a direct election in 2006. In my opinion, one of the significant disadvantages of Maplewood’s present system is that it detracts from the honesty of our elections. We should vote for Township Committee candidates based purely on their individual worth. But we don’t. Very often, an important issue is who will that candidate support for Mayor. That would all disappear if you directly elected your Mayor. So would the frequency of primary fights. And so would the fracture in our local Democratic Party. In its place, we would have a Mayor with a real mandate – and a town council with real freedom to represent your best interests. That’s what the people of Berkeley Heights decided that they wanted. And only the people can make this change. It must be decided by ballot question. It goes on the ballot if 20% of the registered voters sign a petition in favor of that ballot question. In Maplewood, it would take about 3,000 signatures. There are several forms of government which allow for a direct mayoral election. The one chosen in Berkeley Heights is called Mayor-Council-Administrator. It provides for a Mayor and a 6 person council, with all members elected at large. The Mayor presides at meetings, but only votes to break ties. The Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer. This form was favored in Berkeley Heights because of its similarity to the Township Committee form. Like us, Berkeley Heights has been governed by a Township Committee for many years. I am proposing that we follow the Berkeley Heights example and appoint a bi-partisan, 6 person committee, to examine the several forms of direct election government and decide whether we should go with one of them. If the committee favors a change, it would be in charge of collecting signatures. The Township Committee should not control the process. This is a decision which you should make. After all, we are talking about more democracy. All of us up here should favor more democracy. Bob Grasmere’s legacy was 23 years of leadership. I would like my legacy to be a commitment to more democratic leadership." | ||
| extuscan Citizen Username: Extuscan Post Number: 576 Registered: 6-2001 |
Voting by wards is a terrible idea. Do you really want Maplewood to be officially and forever divided up by its geography? Do you really want a board member to sell the rest of the town short in favor of thier little piece of Maplewood, because those are thier constituents? Unify unify unify. BTW who votes for House Majority Leader? oh... the House... | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10174 Registered: 5-2001 |
Last time I checked, and my math skills really suck, two thirds of six is four. If the Mayor vetos a piece of legislation he may have cast the deciding vote in a three yea, four ney situation. I am going to presume that the Mayor doesn't get to vote in the override vote, so he still has veto power in that particular case. I admit to quibbling here and do support the concept. Traditinally, and I admit this is no longer the case, the Jefferson neighborhood has been over represented on the TC. I think, and oddly there seems to be a fair number of people who agree, that ward voting would make a lot of sense in a community as diverse as ours. I think the risk of "less qualified" candidates is one we should be willing to take. The compromise may be to go with a Mayor/Council form of government with partisan elections by ward. | ||
| annettedepalma Citizen Username: Annettedepalma Post Number: 368 Registered: 11-2001 |
I've lived here almost eleven years. I've run three municipal campaigns and have actively participated in several others. I've never heard a single voter express support or lack thereof for a particular candidate for TC based on who the candidate would support for Mayor. This is a phantom issue. Before we embark on a wholesale reorganization of our government structure, the people who favor the reorganization have the burden of proving that our current form of government is not working and why, and further show how changing it to another form of government will remedy those deficiencies. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14390 Registered: 10-2001  |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 437 Registered: 3-2005 |
This conversation is disingenuous in the extreme. Fred Profeta and Alison Zeifert want to stop David Huemer from becoming mayor and they would like to see Fred made Mayor-for-Life. Fred always has a lofty sounding speech to pull out of his back pocket ("I'm an independent" "I'm a liberal" "I'm for tax cuts" "I'm for Hillary" "I'm against the war") when he wants something really badly -- and he always wants the same thing: the Mayor's chair. The issue of "non-partisan elections" or "ward system" is beside the point. If Alison is correct in saying that Fred is proposing an MCA form of government, those would be partisan elections and council members elected at-large. AJC, "bi-partisan committee" doesn't mean "non-partisan." It means a committee made up of Democrats and Republicans. (Since Fred is both, I suspect his next suggestion be that he be the committee.) Annette, we don't talk enough or else I don't speak loudly enough in your earshot. I frequently ask candidates whom they will vote for for Mayor. And you can be dead sure I will come the next election. The issue is a referendum on Fred Profeta and his effots to turn the Mayor's seat into his own fiefdom and glory throne. If you think Fred as Mayor has been out of control and a never-ending font of bad ideas, as I think he has and so do the MAJORITY of those who have served on the TC and watched him up close, you probably don't want to give him a "mandate." I've got no problem seeing Fred lose a Mayor's election directly, but for what it's worth, the present form of government, which doesn't make the mayor a self-aggrandizing pooh-bah, is very serviceable and does a lot to restrain egomaniacs. It's irreplaceable virtue is that I don't have to know the Mayor to have access to power through any TC member. Right now, any of the TC members can act powerfully on my behalf, take up my ideas, get the ball rolling, etc. It's a very community-based, user friendly system with power distributed more widely. Now you can all jump up and down and huff "well, I do declare!' for my saying this all so impolitically. I'm going to go back and read that thread about the PBS expose of freaky white liberals who want to make the children of problematic rabbis children sing Negro spirituals, or some such insidious thing. Oh, those white liberals! You can't take your eyes off them for one second! | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 439 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here's a proposal: If Fred Profeta thinks this is such a good idea for democracy in Maplewood, let him pledge he won't run for Mayor. Not that Fred's pledges mean all that much, but it's a start. Otherwise, the issue should be looked at for what it is and debated for what it is: A power play by Fred who doesn't really want to have to work with other elected officials and has plenty of autocratic tendences. No -- that's not personal. It's a blunter-than-usual assessment of Fred Profeta's performance as a politician, something which needs candid discussion because Maplewood deserves better leadership. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 253 Registered: 9-2003 |
Oh heavens! Politicians seeking making power plays and seeking to hold on to office? Say it isn't so! | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1518 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mayor is a relatively powerless position in our town. What we really need to vote on is the school budget. It's time to abolish the BOSE system and have a direct vote. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 119 Registered: 10-2001 |
Kathleen - It is absolutely astounding that you can generate so much unvarnished hate for other human beings. Even on your characterization of my sins, I am guilty of nothing more than being a "never-ending font of bad ideas." And, of course, they are only so "bad" as measured against your set of zealously held beliefs. You can be sure of one thing Kathleen - I have no desire to establish a "fiefdom" anywhere within range of you. "Mayor for life"? Have you totally lost it? I just hope that your mean-spirited venom isn't driving talented but more tender folks from the goal of public service. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4635 Registered: 9-2001 |
AJC, "bi-partisan committee" doesn't mean "non-partisan." I remember a few years ago when I thought I was a physical conservative, and couldn’t even spell politician correctly. Then one day I saw my name on a ballot, and all of a sudden I was one!  Seriously, you’re right Kathleen, I was thinking "non-partisan"... Unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced, independent, neutral… Thank you for pointing it out for me. Listen, I imagine who ever is picked for this committee would hopefully be both "bi-partisan", and "non-partisan”… Given the comments and the political persuasions represented thus far, I'm beginning to wonder if it’s possible. Several years ago, this same issue was defeated by the Republicans in town. At the reorganization meeting on Sunday, Bob Klein, who was on the committee at that time with Mayor Grasmere, started to refresh my memory when we were interrupted. What I remember was we worked hard to defeat it to help keep the Democrats off the Township Committee. Looking back afterwards, we realized over the years there were a lot of talented individuals, like a McNanny, who didn’t get to serve. Will this be a more Democratic form of government, I truthfully don’t know? My only hope is that who ever agrees to sit on this “Bi-partisan” committee, does so unbiased, and with the utmost integrity. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10180 Registered: 5-2001 |
Art, what is a "physical" conservative? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4636 Registered: 9-2001 |
...it's a 6', 230 pound conservative who hangs out around the Village Square looking for "a little" action!!!  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 933 Registered: 2-2002 |
Suddenly the word, "Rollerball" came to mind. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4639 Registered: 9-2001 |
OK, lets get back on topic... Who following this thread feels fully capable of being completely unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced, and independent, and would be willing to serve if nominated for this committee? What say you Steel, BobK, Johnny, Fruitcake, Kathleen, Sbenois, Annettedepalma, Extuscan, Mplwdian, Crabby, Libertarian, Hank Zona, Greenetree, Nohero, and of course me? FWIW, because I'm not sure about which way to go, I feel I could listen to all sides and make an honest decision. What say the rest of my fine other wordy friends? Hey, everyone on the TC usually reads all this stuff anyway, so even if none of us are invited to serve, we can still debate on line to see how this should all go forward anyway... | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 935 Registered: 2-2002 |
Meanwhile, -Just for the record; -If Fred or ANY future Mayor truly wished to turn the seat into a "glory throne" I would be happy to design and physically build the thing. I can promise that it would be way-cool, (see thread, "The Art of Politics" and here pic of earlier chair), but I'm afraid that I could not work with a committee on the subject.  | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11781 Registered: 1-2003  |
I don't know what I favor. I think everyone here as at least a point to consider. But I don't understand how a majority of the TC can feel Fred is out of control (which is kathleen's claim) and a majority of the TC also elects him as mayor (which is what happened in the last few years). If three (or more) out of five people felt he was out of control, then there would be two or fewer to elect him. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4645 Registered: 9-2001 |
Hey Steel, great chair for anyone trying to make a point. Listen, I'm sorry you can't work on the committee, but who knows if they'd pick one of us anyway? OK, moving forward, who's next? That's me and the Libertarian interested, and Steel's out... so 3 down and 12 to go... How about... Nohero, Greene, Hank, and Bob? You guys jumped right in the converstion at the beginning. Kathleen, I suggest after your comments to Fred you're a very dark horse to win a seat on this committee.  Kathleen was bad again! | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1161 Registered: 3-2004 |
Who following this thread feels fully capable of being completely unbiased, impartial, unprejudiced, and independent, and would be willing to serve if nominated for this committee? me. i volunteer. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4646 Registered: 9-2001 |
Tom, where the hell were you pal? The ship sailed, and the initial crew is on board. Listen, if you're still really interested in this thread, I think I can work you in... | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11782 Registered: 1-2003 |
I get the joke, but beyond that, what are volunteers being rounded up to do? And I am not sure I'm unbiased, but I can always try. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 5645 Registered: 5-2001  |
Fred, Kathleen is not a person, but a software program. The specific thread content is cut and pasted into the program, and the "Hate Filled, Insane Extremist Response" option is chosen, and wallah, a perfectly stupid, nasty post pops out. Seriously, if Kathleen is against you then you are doing something right. Keep up the excellent work and cheers! | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4647 Registered: 9-2001 |
Dear Tom, It’s a committee that I believe is picked by the Mayor, or the Township Committee to see if it’s a good idea for residents to vote directly for the Mayor each year rather than only three members of the committee doing it. Listen, as long as you already get this thread is ALL a big joke, and the fact you’re not sure if you’re unbiased, that makes you at least honest. And, given you don’t know what’s going on here anyway, you’ll be perfect for this committee. Therefore, by the powers invested in me, I say you’re in pal… OK, it looks like Mem has thrown her beautiful and very talented self into the fray… I love it when she gets mad… Are you in or out Mem? So now, that’s 1 not likely to ever make it, 2 out, 3 in, and a Mayor in a Bad mood! Hey, this is beginning to remind me of the, (excuse me if this sounds too politically correct) the Holiday song, “The Twelve Days of Holiday’s” ... | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11800 Registered: 1-2003 |
Please call me if you really need me. I'm in the book. I'm not sure how useful I can be, but I'll listen. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 365 Registered: 8-2003 |
To me, the underlying issue is pretty simple. I’m not saying the answer is simple, just the question. And the question is this: Do you want a parliamentary system or a presidential system? In a parliamentary system, the members of the legislature are elected by the public, then the majority party (or faction or coalition) chooses the executive leader from among their ranks. This is how, for example, the Prime Minister of Britain is chosen (and where the term Prime Minister comes from.) In the presidential system, such as we have for our national government in the U.S., the legislative and executive branches are elected independently. In particular, the executive leader (president) is chosen directly by the public, not via congress. This leaves the possibility, of course, that the president and congress may not always be from the same party. In this simplified analysis of mine, Maplewood’s local government is a parliamentary system. One of its hallmarks is that the mayor is inherently aligned with the majority of the Township Committee because that’s who chose him. Some, but not everyone, see this as an advantage, i.e., that if the mayor has a working majority he can get things accomplished. On the downside, this arrangement may lead to chronic political struggles since the balance of power on the Township Committee can be in play every year at election time. In this view, then, the mayor would have a better chance to get results if he were elected directly by the public and for a longer term, say three or four years. One of the knocks on this approach is that it might create a cult of personality around an individual at the expense of effective governing. Separately, there is the basic question of whether voters should be entitled to elect their mayor directly. To me, this is a philosophical question distinct from the matter of governance structure. To be honest, I’m not terribly moved one way or the other by this notion. After all, we’re empowering our elected representatives with all other aspects of running the local government, why can’t they select their own chairman as part of the process? However, if there might be genuine practical benefits to restructuring our local government and the associated elections, let’s give it a fair hearing. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4653 Registered: 9-2001 |
"...if there might be genuine practical benefits to restructuring our local government and the associated elections, let’s give it a fair hearing." Bottomline, that's a statement truly representative of your handle, and I agree. Let’s give it a fair hearing... This will be a true test of government by the people and for the people. The trumpets have already been sounded for the arrival of another long draw out and expensive primary fight this year. Do we as residents want to see our elective officials embroiled in yet another expensive power struggle over who sits as our Mayor? I hope that won’t be the case. We elect these officials to spend their time and talent on making this a better place to live, not to spend their time fighting over who will be mayor. Our Mayor has, IMHO, unselfishly reorganized and responded to the call for a primary fight with a sensible solution to try to unite the Democrat Party in Maplewood. And, in some ways it could also pave the way for Republicans to have a better chance to be a part in local government, and truly a Democratic direction for our community to take. So, how can more “POWER TO THE PEOPLE” be a bad thing for us, unless there are some among us who think we’re not smart enough, or not qualified to make these decisions? Either way, as Mayor Profeta has clearly pointed out, “Only the people can make this change.” | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4654 Registered: 9-2001 |
OOOPS, I've got to slow down, please replace the word "reorganized" with "recognized". Thank you... | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14394 Registered: 10-2001 |
Well the people think that this issue is number 2,845,378 on the list. Let's worry about taxes and the concept of cameras and the schools and the sidewalks and the fields and the libraries all of those other things that truly are important. Who sits in the Mayor's chair and the machinations of the local MDC are unimportant. There is little reason to change the structure of town government at this time because a local party can't get its act together. That's their political problem, not the concern of the town. Arturo, the size of your pancakes is more important to the average Maplewoodian than this issue. |
