| Author | Message | ||
     SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 645 Registered: 2-2006 |
Two-three other threads touch on these issues: two in the Maplewood section on the proposed referendum and one in the SO specific section on it. | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 452 Registered: 7-2004 |
Do the math! For only 14,000* households, is it possible we really don’t need: 2 town administrators 2 chief financial officers 2 emergency safety officers 2 town clerks 2 tax assessors 2 tax collectors 2 police chiefs 2 fire chiefs 2 engineering departments 2 building departments 2 public works departments 2 recreation departments 2 health departments 2 library systems and 2 dog catchers If we never eliminate a single rank and file job, piece of equipment, building, or service contract, there’s such obvious opportunity for savings. And, if there’s no interest in getting with the program, saving money, and reducing taxes, then re-channel all of this redundancy into expanded services, and become the most desirable community in the state – further driving up everyone’s home value. P.S. Does anyone know what we pay all of these folks? *2005 U.S. Census Households: South Orange 5,522 + Maplewood 8,452. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4570 Registered: 5-2001  |
Good post, .02. If anyone hasn't already done so, download, print, sign & mail the petition TODAY: http://www.somastudy.com/ Also, ask you spouse/partner to sign. Time is running out. All signatures must be collected by the end of the month at the latest. Do it today! | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1878 Registered: 3-2003 |
3 municipal judges (2 for SO which has a population of 17,000 and 1 for Maplewood which has a population of 23,000.) West Orange and Montclair,with populations of 45,000, have 1 municipal judge each. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 492 Registered: 8-2001 |
Politicalmon, no I do not know that. All I know is that it is consolidated today and has been since 1999 when I moved here. So it sounds to me like when Maplewood split from South Orange, the school district remained intact. I did not know that. So to say it is consolidated is a misnomer, it is actually shared, because to call it consolidated implies there was once two separate districts which were combined. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2912 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: It is not the number of judges that would be the issue, but the number of sessions. So if the judge in W. Orange has three sessions but one judge it would still cost more than to have two judges with two sessions. In our case, we were ORDERED to add another session. Our judge preferred not to do another session thus we had to bring in another judge. The number of sessions needed if we merged would be unlikely to change because of a consolidation, thus we would have the same number of sessions although it could be possible we would have one less judge. However there is no question there is potential for savings from a consolidation and / or shared services. There is also potential for savings in capital expenditures too. | ||
| doulamomma Citizen Username: Doulamomma Post Number: 1718 Registered: 3-2002 |
Seems to make sense to me in terms of savings & doesn't hurt to at least look at it with a study. Got some signatures today & will send them your way, MHD (or whomever is collecting) | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12415 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since SO and MW already share a school district that eats up well over 60% of the tax revenue the two towns are a good candidate for possible consolidation. However, you are still going to need basically the same number of cops and firemen, etc. and I bet the chief of a 120 man PD makes more than the chief of a 50 man department. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 650 Registered: 3-2005 |
On another thread Fred Profeta said that he had been recruiting people to run for election as commissioners. Does anyone know who these people are? Is "SOMact" running a slate? Crabby, will you be running? It seems to me that despite all the verbal disclaimers, many people pushing for the petition have already drawn the conclusion the towns should merge. They are saying this is just a "study" to see if it's a good idea, but they already have their answer. I don't understand why this is being portrayed as a study to "consolidiate services" when it appears to really be about creating a new, single municipal entity with a different governing body, while at the same time keeping all existing services at present levels -- including building the new Maplewood police station, etc. My understanding of Corzine's initiative is to provide money to towns to search for ways to consolidate services, not merge governments. Am I incorrect about that? | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 495 Registered: 8-2001 |
At some point, "consolidating services" and "merging governments" must become the same thing. IMHO, combining services further without combining governments is a bad idea. I would rather see a single governing body, or no further consolidation at all. Otherwise at some point local government and local services will become disconnected and unaccountable. We already have significant disconnect between local government and the school district, if you ask me. I would not want to see more of that. Say hypothetically that all services were combined between the two towns. Would it be productive or counterproductive to have two autonomous governing bodies running the show? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. It should not be surprising that people who tend to think this would be a good idea are the ones advocating the study. I give credit to them for not jumping the gun, and advocating putting it up to a vote. That's a good position to take. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 652 Registered: 3-2005 |
wmb, Is this Alice in Wonderland? "Verdict first. Trial after!" I think it is insulting to the voters to swear up and down that you are asking them ONLY to approve a "study" when you have already arrived at a conclusion that will reveal --- TA-DAH -- that the only thing that makes sense is to merge governments. If the people who are advocating this are really advocating merging governements, then why sock me with a bill for a "study"? Let them come out and campaign for their idea upfront. Why the sham and pretense of "objectivity"? Is it to back us into a corner on this with the wide-eyed claim: "Why, who could possibly object to a STUDY? It's only a study. But time is running out! Quick, sign here. You're not really committing yourself to anything! Trust me." I've heard these pitches before. More important to me than money is candor from elected officials. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4572 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen, I have told many people that I favor a study because the cost is minimal and it may provide some very valuable suggestions. It may very well confirm the suggestions that Two Senses made above, which in a vacuum all sound very logical. HOWEVER, we MAY also find that IMPLEMENTING these changes MAY be cost prohibitive. OR, we MAY find out creative ways that it CAN be done. Right now, we don't know and won't know until a study is done. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 497 Registered: 8-2001 |
I don't think the people advocating the study are proposing that they be the ones to run the study, kathleen. And I've already said I'm skeptical of the "won't cost us much" argument for this study. It's one of the reasons I think the question of conducting the study at all should be put up to a vote. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 654 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Are you one of the peoople standing for election? Whatever your answer, may I point out you misunderstood my post. I wasn't asking if people favored "a study." Everybody always favors studying, right? I am asking if the people campaigning for these slots are in favor merging the towns -- and specifically, dissolving the two existing governents and creating a new single government. wnb, If I am reading the SOMact's website correctly, Fred Profeta is on the committee. Fred has posted elsewhere that he has recruted people to stand for election and run the study. In Maplewood, when Fred does that, that means these people are Fred's proxies. Fred doesn't get involved in things he doesn't run. It doesn't work any other way. I am not just making that up. People -- including Fred -- may show up here and urge that you "pay no attention to that insane woman, she's a Fred-bashing social pariah!" But I stand by what I wrote. That's why I want to know who Fred recruited to run. I don't think they will be independent of Fred and his conclusions about merging the two governments. And I think Fred feels he has a large political stake in how that is done and which politicians and constituencies in the two towns benefit from it and which don't. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 647 Registered: 2-2006 |
Here's a repost from the Maplewood thread. No one, including anyone on the committee who created the petition and worded the referendum, which committee is running a slate of candidates for the commission, has answered, on MOL or elsewhere, why only two tiny towns would be included and W. Orange specifically is not included. Several people have expressed a desire for a petition for a study with more than SO & MPLWD. Someone should collect signatures for a petition for a broader study and let the electorate choose either referendum or none at the polls. Here's the prior post about some of these things: J. Crohn and others, if the only choice SO and Mplwd have now is no study versus a study to consider shared/merged services ONLY with one another, that choice might be accurately characterized as one that would miss the boat entirely (no study) versus hopping on a boat that may be too small or too slow to get where we need to go anyway. This lose-lose scenario may be more likely if, as you state, state aid for studies may not be available indefinitely. The answer to the lose-lose scenario is to create another choice for ourselves by amending the petition and ballot question to include more towns besides SO and Mplwd in the study. When I asked Jeff DuBowy to do just this, he seemed resistant to the idea. I hope he and the other people behind the petition reconsider. About the partisan versus non-partisan aspect of the whole thing, I would feel better about the petition and commission if it were clear that more than one party (and even more than 2), were behind the petition. I don't know the party affiliations of everyone behind the petition, but if it were known that there were a diversity in party affiliations on SOMACT, among petition gatherers and on the commission, I would feel much more sanguine about it. Simply saying something is non-partisan without the requisite credentials to demonstrate a balance of power on this point is not persuasive, at least not to me. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4573 Registered: 5-2001 |
Editorial in today's News Record Two Town merger, anyone? For the last two years, it has been well- publicized that officials in Maplewood and South Orange have been mulling over the possibility of merging services. Now, a grassroots coalition wants to help propel that effort by gaining enough support from residents to create a ballot question for the November election. If this group collects at least 540 signatures in South Orange and 734 in Maplewood, the question will land on the Nov. 7 ballot in both towns. The question posed will be whether voters support creating a 10- member commission to study the possibility of a consolidation. If the ballot question is approved, that commission would include equal representation from each of the towns, with five members from Maplewood and five from South Orange. Each member of the commission would be elected at the same time the voters are deciding on the ballot question. Should the commission be realized, members of this group would begin a study of shared services that is projected to take six months. If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because the idea of a commission was tossed around last autumn, shortly after the towns received a $ 20,000 state grant to study the possibility of merging. That sum was supplemented by $ 10,000 from each municipality and went toward hiring Government Management Services to create the study. The first step was to create a commission to investigate a shared arrangement between the recreation and health departments. A decision to form that commission was supposed to take place last November, but that never came to fruition. Still, merging has remained part of the community dialog, and now that Gov. Jon Corzine has vocalized his support for consolidating municipalities, and wants to offer incentives for towns that do so, there’s a growing interest in setting plans to motion. The impetus for the study has always been fiscally motivated. Before Corzine’s announcement, some residents and officials saw the merger as a way to provide cost savings for the towns, since combining services would help curb administrative and building costs. Some proponents also believe a merger would be a positive step toward curtailing property taxes. But beyond the financial benefits, the latest effort to get the ball rolling seems to take on a more democratic flavor, with proponents of the merger working in the community to first gauge support from residents. If that support is hefty enough to warrant a ballot question, the commission could be created and the study will move forward. This is a smart approach to investigating the viability of the proposition. As it stands, in order for the towns to merge, residents from both Maplewood and South Orange would have to approve of the merger with a majority vote. The process of creating a ballot question will be a great way to first see if this idea resonates among residents before resources and time are spent on something that may garner very little support. That said, it would seem wiser to gather more than just 5 percent of each town’s population, so proponents of the study and merger would know where voters stood before the investigation commences. What’s interesting is that these towns used to be one community. They split in 1904, when South Orange broke away. It’s interesting that now, more than 102 years later, the possibility of a merger has been thrust back into the spotlight. We wish the coalition luck in their pursuit to make this a ballot question, so that residents will have a chance to weigh in on whether or not they see this as the future for this community. The coalition has until next month to gather the signatures and submit them to the Essex County Clerk’s office, in the effort to have the question make the election ballot. We applaud their democratic approach to the idea and we’re glad they want citizen input on the prospect, as these are the folks who would be affected. And as the coalition moves forward, we’d like to remind residents to keep an open mind as they consider the idea and whether it would be a good fit for our residents. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4575 Registered: 5-2001 |
BTW, Kathleen...to answer your question - I have not yet decided if I will stand for election as a commissioner. I first want to see if enough signatures are gathered to initiate the referendum. Am I in favor of merging the towns? If the study shows it would provide tangible benefits and would be cost-effective to implement, I would be in favor. However, I need to see a study with real data first before drawing a definitive conclusion. | ||
| J L Bryant Citizen Username: Jeffbryant Post Number: 70 Registered: 6-2002 |
Sorry, slight diversional back-up to Mr Rosner's judge/session clarification post above: "Our judge preferred not to do another session thus we had to..." Now, I don't quite understand a state-level assignment or determination of how-many-sessions-per jursidiction are required, but I do take exception to 'our judge preferred not to do?' The 'job requirements' changed slightly (more hours), they balked, and we still retained him/her? Or, in light of less sessions mandated for larger towns, we didn't question our session amount, so to keep our judge expenses (from taxes) in check? Let me try it this way. With a salary & time (or partially) paid for by our taxes, someone gets to pick & choose their work hours or length-of-expected-work-day??? "sure, I'll take the contract for you, but I'll set my hours and how frequently I'll work, especially if you change the expectations, ok with you?" "oh, ok... but you then won't work all the hours we are mandated to provide, so we may have to retain another, at more total expense than if only one would cover all hours?" Nice.... geeee.... I'm gonna go talk to my boss. What am I missing here? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 656 Registered: 3-2005 |
SORising, I agree the wording can and should be amended. On what grounds is it being resisted? MHD, Thanks for answering my question. I think if you and others want the study to really be a study, as opposed to a politically driven committee looking for a certain outcome, the people who end up running should be scrutinzed for what kind of track record they have with regard to showing respect for facts and not trying to twist them. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 657 Registered: 3-2005 |
PS SORising, The issue of a balance of viewpoints on the committee is more complicated than just "partisan versus non-partisan." For one thing, a lot of people tell you they are "independents" when they are really quite committed ideologues! But even more troubling, there has been a serious problem in Maplewood for years with Republicans calling themselves Democrats and running for elective offices in Maplewood in order to fool unaware voters. Fred Profeta has participated in recruiting Republicans to do this. I suspect Fred would be very happy to present you with a "balanced" slate -- whose main qualification for being there is that Fred wants them there. But I agree with you: Simply saying something is non-partisan without the requisite credentiaBls to demonstrate a balance of power on this point is not persuasive. And it is certainly not synonymous with "uninfluenced by politicians." | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 658 Registered: 3-2005 |
People are presenting this petition as if it were a "lose it or lose it" proposition. But if I am understanding the discussion thus far correctly, this or any other petition isn't required to create the Study Commission. Fred Profeta has posted elsewhere on MOL that the statute permits either town to authorize the study by resolution. So why are we being told there is an August deadline to do this? The story Fred tells in another MOL thread is that a group of South Orange residenets led by Jeff Dubowy formed the SOMACT petition drive after the BOT didn't vote to create a Consolodidation Study Commission during a joing meeting about sharing Heath and Recreation services on June 19. Fred wrote: "Some SO citizens, led by Jeff Dubowy, could see from the results of the 6/19 meeting that the governing bodies would not be able to muster the political will to authorize a full study. I made contact with them." He also writes: "I have been providing my input to SOMACT since it first coalesced in South Orange. I have also been instrumental in broadening its membership to Maplewood. And I have helped to recruit several persons who will be running for the 5 Maplewood commissioner seats." Fred added: "My view is that political will on the [South Orange] BOT will follow a grass roots expression of support. That's the way it works." It appears to me there is another road to getting a Cosolidation Study Commission that would look at a set of broader issues than Jeff Dubowy's and Fred Profeta's group wants to look at. The South Orange BOT and the Maplewood TC could write a better proposal than the one currently being circulated by petition. And it might be a more open process in reality, with all points of view being aired at public meetings. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3756 Registered: 5-2004  |
JL, While I can't speak to this situation specifically, for most government positions you cannot simply say "now you have to do 50% more work or you'll get fired." I know we can do that in the real world, but it doesn't work that way in government service. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 498 Registered: 8-2001 |
Kathleen has good points. I've been assuming the study would be conducted by an outside party with no vested interest in the outcome. I am 50-50 whether or not, if it comes up to a vote, I would vote for or against the referendum. It would depend in large part on the answers to Kathleen's questions. If such a committee is being "seeded" then forget it. I want a completely outside and uninterested third party conducting that study. That means paying people. So the payment stream also needs to be disassociated with local political interests. If it's local players conducting the study, then objectivity, and the appearance of objectivity, are out the window. The referendum better be clear on these points. If it is not, no way I'm voting for it. I'm NOT saying I want an outside third party deciding what, when, how, any such proposed merge would take place. The collection and presentation of the facts, however, warrant complete disinterested objectivity. Regardless, I do think in whatever form, nothing should proceed further unless and until there is a clear voter mandate to proceed or not to. Putting the referendum up to vote will settle the score on that count, one way or the other. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4577 Registered: 5-2001 |
Have you actually ever WATCHED the South Orange BOT in action? For a sampling of the "open process" take a look at some of the following videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHUFJTw9gA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajk9-G0n5Vk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45e92zemoEM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssi9kwSjpkM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuKXSRk4FE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkjqWVVQBUI Perhaps then you will have a better understanding on why this needs to be a citizen's initiative (particularly in South Orange) | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 662 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, I don't live in South Orange and, as I said to you in the other thread, if the citizens of South Orange want to sign this petition and use it to bypass their BOT, I have no problem with their doing so. What it problematic is the extent to which Fred Profeta thinks the residents of Maplewood should be conscripted into this process. Even if you don't want open meetings in your town hall about this, I want open meetings in my town hall. Our elected officials in Maplewood, with very few exceptions, have a diversity of well-informed, intellgent views. They are very keen analysts. If you all in South Orange want to go ahead and rush to a ballot vote, maybe you've got good reason. But you don't need us to do it, and I don't want to be bullied by South Orange folk into some notion we have to be rushed into it. We'll pass a resolution at the TC once everybody is back from vacation and we have an open process about discussing the language and the details and the mandate of a study commission. Thank you! | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2001 |
Well I don't understand this point. If not enough people in Maplewood want to put a referendum on their ballot then they won't get enough signatures for the petition, will they? South Orange residents can't sign a Maplewood petition after all. And if there are enough people in Maplewood who support it, then the petition will go forward. There's really no way for SO to "bully" or "rush" the residents of Maplewood to do or not do anything, is there? So what's the problem with that? You really don't think that the citizens of Maplewood can be trusted to decide this issue by direct vote? I mean, I don't care what happens in Maplewood in this regard, decide whether or not to do a study by Profeta flipping a coin for all I care, but I don't understand the logic behind NOT letting the people of Maplewood decide directly whether they support or do not support initiating this study. In SO, I most certainly want the people to decide. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1255 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, There is an August deadline because if all the filings and transmittals are not accomplished more than 60 days prior to election day, the referendum cannot appear on the November ballot. Could this all have been done better? Yeah. Whether or not we could be in a better position than we are; this IS where we are. If the Committee doesn't get this on the November ballot, the governing bodies may address the issues you'd like. They might not. But I don't see how they could act in time to meet the sixty day deadline. (Notice; First Reading; Second Reading; publication. All that stuff). The Committee wants to get a ball rolling. The authorizing statute limits the Committee as to the type of ball they may put in play if we are going to tap the State funds the Governor has reserved. Anyway, that's my take on the situation. TomR | ||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 483 Registered: 6-2005  |
There is always too much talk and not enough ACTION. Let's get this merger done and look to expand a regional shared services study with neighboring communities. Schools capture 55% of our taxes, this is the big issue to be addressed for efficiencies and overall effectiveness in operations. We also simply need greater state support of our school budget period. As for the merger, a savings of 10% on a combined municipal tax levy is a good start. This percentage was derived by a recent comparison of the Montclair municipal budget to a combined SOMA as reviewed by the shared services consultant hired by the two towns. And lastly, in today's age, we do not need county governments. Imho, this task should be consolidated at the state level. Point of Interest: South Orange was called Chestnut Hill, prior to being named South Orange; and Maplewood was known as Jefferson Village in honor of Thomas Jefferson. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1256 Registered: 6-2001 |
Wnb, No vested interest in the outcome? Everybody in the two towns has a vested interest in the outcome, and the Commissioners have to be residents of the towns. But if it eases some of your concerns, the heavy lifting in this study, if it comes into being, will be done by the State Department of Community Affairs which is charged with conducting an objective study of the fiscal aspects of the proposed consolidation, and reporting its study to the Commission. IF the Commission wants to hire someone to conduct additional feasibility studies, that person has to be approved by the Department, and the study has to be conducted under the supervision of the Department. No outside third party will decide whether we will consolidate. The Commissioners can't even decide whether we will consolidate. All the Commissioners can do is make a recommendation. Whatever the recommendation, if any, it would go on the '07 ballot for a yea or nay vote by a majority of the voters of EACH of the towns' voters who bother to show up. As I wrote above, that's my take on all this. TomR | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 663 Registered: 3-2005 |
wnb, MHD has been posting in the Maplewood section, and some of the arguments have been along the order of "Time is running out! This offer won't last! Why won't you sign? Don't you trust the voters?" But to get to the substance of your remarks: It's Fred Profeta I don't trust! Time and again I've watched him use "community process" as a way of avoiding making his underlying agenda clear. One of the virtues of us having the Maplewood TC rather than direct democracy is that it forces Fred to an open process and public input. Questions get aired. (Like questions about why this referendum is limited to a study of South Orange and Maplewood or whether merger stands any realistic chance of producing tax relief.) I know someone who worked with Fred for years in the CCR. At least nine months ago, that person said to me "You know, Fred's big thing is getting South Orange and Maplewood to merge into one town." From his posted remarks, it looks to me like Fred inserted himself into a political effort in South Orange just to put pressure on the South Orange BOT and its electorate. Do you see it any other way? Am I the only person curious as to why Fred did this when Mayor Fred, if he he is truly eager for a "study" commission, could have simply worked to get a resolution passed at the Maplewood TC? The other members of the TC are not obstructionists, and Fred has a political majority there. Why wait until November? We could have a study -- a truly independent study -- approved by September if it's good for Maplewood. I don't live in South Orange, but if I did, I might prefer John McKeon as my next mayor to Fred Profeta. I don't think Fred Profeta is willing to stand back from this process. I've never seen Fred Profeta willing to trust the voters by giving them honest information, beginning with his dissembling about his own party affiliations to get elected. This marks the third time in six years that Fred Profeta has schemed to change Maplewood's form of government, largely driven by a desire to get more authority to build big box development here. South Orange voters should have this information before being rushed into signing a petition that locks them into a certain agenda for a study commission, a petition that Fred could have vetted and rewrittien at his own TC if he really trusted processes he doesn't control. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 664 Registered: 3-2005 |
TomR, You are missing my point about the deadline. Is there anything statutory to prevent the Maplewood TC from taking this issue up the next time it meets and passing a resolution to create a study commission? People in South Orange may prefer a petition. But why is the Mayor of Maplewood pushing the petition, when he could bring up the issue more efficiently and with lots of public input at his own TC? | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 785 Registered: 4-2005  |
Kathleen - to answer your question, by having the people of South Orange and Maplewood put this on the ballot through referendum, it will allow the voters, through a democratic process, the opportunity to 'elect' their own commission if the study is approved as oppose to having the governing bodies appoint their own board. Every politician loves the phrase 'public input' but I think the voters are more partial to public choice. I met Fred for the first time about a week ago at a meeting - a very genuine guy and I think he has the best interest of the Maplewood residents at heart. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 665 Registered: 3-2005 |
Sheena, What question of mine are you answering? Your post appears totally unresponsive to what I've posted. You are talking theory. I am talking about who is running this process and a history of real-world behavior in Maplewood that takes power away from people and concentrantes into the hands of an executive. I'm not interested in some ideal world that doesn't exist. I'm dealing with the givens of this petition drive. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3758 Registered: 5-2004 |
How does having a referendum take power away from people and concentrate it in the hands of an executive? Given that residents will ultimately vote on this, how does this take any power from them? The petition is to have a referendum on whether to study this issue. I'm truly curious what harm voting on doing a study can have. | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 786 Registered: 4-2005 |
Kathleen, You stated "But why is the Mayor of Maplewood pushing the petition, when he could bring up the issue more efficiently and with lots of public input at his own TC?" That is was what I was responding to. The ideal world is that voters determine if a consolidation study is necessary, who would serve on it, and whether or not to accept the findings. So in this case, this is the ideal process. I have no interest in what personal motivation is involved as long as the end result is what the voters (aka those who 'show up' is how I like to put it) want and think is in their community's best interest. I can totally respect your opinion and your right to explain that opinion to the public and get them on your side. I'm simply stating what I think the 'pros' are of the current process that is taking place. I got seven signatures from people in Maplewood yesterday and they were all incredibly responsive to the petition drive.... | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 666 Registered: 3-2005 |
Sheena and Rastro, I can't keep posting the same thing over and over. You can re-read my posts. You are confused if you think that people who are questioning the motives -- and I'll add political savvy -- of the petition pushers are somehow interfering with a genuinely democratic process. People who don't take petitions and politicians at face value, with good reason, are not opponents of self-governance. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1257 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, I don't recall whether the time between the First Reading and the Second Reading of a proposed ordinance is two weeks or thirty days. In either event, I don't see how the ordinance could be adopted in time to meet the sixty days before election day deadline. As I wrote above, without regard to whether this could have been done better, this IS where we are now. As for why Mayor Profeta is supporting the petition, I cannot speak for him. I haven't discussed this matter with the Mayor, or the other members of our Twonship's Committee. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1258 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, I don't recall whether the time between the First Reading and the Second Reading of a proposed ordinance is two weeks or thirty days. In either event, I don't see how the ordinance could be adopted in time to meet the sixty days before election day deadline. As I wrote above, without regard to whether this could have been done better, this IS where we are now. As for why Mayor Profeta is supporting the petition, I cannot speak for him. I haven't discussed this matter with the Mayor, or the other members of our Township's Committee. TomR | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 667 Registered: 3-2005 |
TomR, Are you trying to tell me that the Maplewood TC can no longer pass a resolution because there is a petition drive in South Orange? My understanding is that November is only an issue for South Orange residents, correct? That's where YOU are in South Orange. That's not where people in Maplewood are. What would have happened if Jeff Dubrowy started his petition drive and Fred was uninterested? In Maplewood, according to Fred Profeta, Ken Pettis and Kathy Leventhal and Fred himself are on record that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by a resolution of the governing bodies. That's a majority right there. Residents are not wrong to demand that this issue being taken up by their TC. I see nothing that hinders South Orange from going ahead with its petition drive if Maplewood chooses to go the way of having its governing body pass a resolution after due consideration. Right? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4580 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen, What would be the point? Perhaps, if the petition drive in Maplewood is unable to gather enough signatures in time, Plan B could be having the TC do it. But why do you care if citizens are trying to accomplish this consistently with South Orange? You have already stated you are skeptical because Fred is involved. Would you be any less skeptical if this initiative was started with JUST 3 TC members, instead of 800 fellow residents on a petition, followed by a majority vote of the residents? |
