| Author | Message | ||
     kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 668 Registered: 3-2005 |
PS: I should point out that reading Fred's post, there is some ambiguity about Ken's position. Fred wrote while Ken Pettis was serving on the Joint Services Committee last year, that Committee unanimously recommended that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by resolutions of the governing bodies." However, Fred also characterized Ken Pettis's position regarding after 6/19 as being that he "did not oppose it." | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 669 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Yes. Or let me put it this way: If the members of the TC not already politically aligned with Fred were either part of this petition drive or had proposed that the TC vote to create a study commission, it would have a great deal more credibility than a rush-job project backed by Fred Profeta and Henry Hamel after they saw political organizing taking place in South Orange. Also, I don't think it is insignificant that I was told months and months ago that Fred Profeta's major interest was consolidating South Orange and Maplewood. He's now portraying himself as agnostic on the issue and only interested what a "study" would reveal. You believe that? Fred has posted he has been recruiting members to run for the commission slots. He's been asked 3 times or more who these people are. Why no answers? Surely some people reading these theads know who. Why are you so interested in getting people in Maplewood to sign this petition? IIt's not your town and we have a fully functioning, diverse governing body that looks out for our diverse interests. | ||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 484 Registered: 6-2005  |
Kathleen, I sure hope he doesn't pick Huemer. Do you understand the humor?  | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4581 Registered: 5-2001  |
Kathleen, So to be clear - your are skeptical of Fred, but would be less skeptical if there were wider support among your government? If so, wouldn't you be even LESS skeptical if there were wider support among your fellow citizens? My interest in having Maplewood's petition drive succed is so that South Orange's petition drive is successful. If we collect enough signatures in South Orange, but Maplewood falls short, we will have just wasted a lot of time. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1260 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, No. I am writing that it is my understanding that there is not sufficient time for the Maplewood Township Committee to adopt an ordinance to place the consolidation referendum on the ballot this November. If I correctly understand your second point; I live in Maplewood. As to either town; if the residents want the opportunity to decide for themselves this November, I believe that simultaneous petitions are the only way to provide that opportunity at this point in time. If Jeff started a petition drive and our Mayor had been disinterested, I think we'd be in the same situation as we are now. When the Committee initially started the petition drive in each of the towns, it was Ms. Marino of Maplewood, not our Mayor, who was the Maplewood representative on the Committee. As to your remaining comments; I can only repeat myself. Could this have been done better? Yes. Would I have preferred it had been done differently? Yes. But this where we are NOW. If the residents of the two towns are to be able to make a choice as to whether to have a study Commission this November, I do not see an alternative to the simultaneous petitions. TomR | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 671 Registered: 3-2005 |
TomR, You are talking apples to my oranges. It is my understanding that the Township Committee of Maplewood can authorize the creation of a study commission all by themselves. I base this understanding on Fred Profeta's MOL post of Aug 11. He wrote: "The statute permits either town to authorize the study by resolution even if the other does it by petition." Obviously there IS an alternative to simultaneous petitions. I don't want the Maplewood side of the study to be run by Fred and his unnamed slate of candidates to the commission. Is that clear? I believe that if this matter was vetted by the Maplewood TC, the entire TC would find ways on insure the complete independence of the any Consolidation Study Committee that was formed. I think South Orange voters have the right to know who Fred Profeta recruited to run for the commission. If Fred is controlling those slots, I believe that the "study" will not be a genuine "study." It will be a rubber stamp for Fred's agendas. I don't believe that is what people in South Orange signing this petition want, but that is what they will get unless they insist on answers and credible reasurrances. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 672 Registered: 3-2005 |
TomR, Andrea Marino has been a highly active political supporter of Fred and Fred's candidates for several years now. She is not indpendent of Fred. But read again the story that Fred posted about how he got involved and his recruiting candidates. This is not a process Fred is willing to stand aside from, or be honest about. He wants to merge the two towns. He's already come to that conclusion. This isn't about "studying" for him. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 673 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Why are you trying to twist my words? My point is that Fred Profeta is not telling you or the people signing the petition in South Orange who he recrutied to run for the commission slots in Maplewood -- and why he recruited them. Do people signing the petition in South Orange want Fred Profeta controlling 50 percent of study group? That would really be a waste of time AND money. | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 787 Registered: 4-2005  |
Kathleen, It's a democratic process. Fred can create a slate if he wants and you or anyone else can serve as an opposition and get your name on the ballot as well. If the people in Maplewood vote to create a study commission - they then have the opportunity to vote on who will serve on the commission. If they don't like the names that have been provided that's not Fred's fault or anyone else for that matter... If you have a problem with Fred that's fine but why try and make the process look flawed? If you ask any voter that they have two choices 1) be heard by the TC and let them (TC) make the decision on whether or not to do a study and who will be appointed and whether it will be implemented or b) get to vote on whether to do the study, vote on who will be on the commission and vote on whether you accept the findings..... I would be so bold as to say 98% of people would choose option B. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 674 Registered: 3-2005 |
Sheena, I believe the process is flawed for the reasons I stated. That is why I am telling people it is flawed. You seen to have some kind of problem with people having information on which to base their vote. Many people voting in Maplewood will not recognize the names provided on the ballot as nominee for commissioners -- and certainly they are entitled to the information that some if not all were recruited by Fred. It is Fred's fault if he will not disclose why he recruited them. You can't have it both ways: "Why not vote to have an independent study?" and "Why are you warning voters to check out whether the nominees are independent?" You've already declared yourself uninterested in the political motives of those pushing the petition. Others have learned ignorance and even innocence in politics does not create bliss. Your "bold" assertion that 98 percent of people in Maplewood would rather vote in a process generated by Fred with half-information than one vetted by their elected TC, whose variety represents all constituencies in town, not only Fred's, tells me you don't know much about Maplewood. I won't say you were born yesterday, but you were the one who brought up the fact that you only met Fred last week. The rest of us have been watching him for several years now, and you cannot fault the voters of Maplewood for not swallowing automatically whatever Fred candy-looking substance Fred is holding out to them. To others, I want to add that on my way to dinner, I suddenly realized that I had been thinking of someone else with a sound-alike name when I typed what I did about Andrea Marino, whom I don't believe I've met. My apologies for the lapse. I don't know if Ms. Marino is among the candidates Fred has recruited to run for the commission -- but that's because so far nobody will reveal who they are or why Fred recruited them. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4582 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen, The conspiracy theory is getting a little stale. As Sheena stated, ANY REGISTERED VOTER who collects 25 signatures can run to be a Commissioner. If you are so afraid of the Commission being "packed" by Fred, why not collect signatures for yourself (or others)? Let the Democratic process decide the Commission. If the TC decides on their own to do this study, instead of by voter referendum, guess who APPOINTS the Commission? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 677 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Fred Profeta is the person who posted the news that he recruited people to run. I didn't make up "a conspiracy." You can read his post. Why do you feel so threatened by the idea that South Orange voters should know whom Fred recruited and why? It's a simple question. But a lot rides on the answer. Don't you imagine Fred is going to spend money to get these people elected? He's got a lot of money, and he isn't shy about spending in on campaigns to get himself more in control of things. Fifty percent of any study commision produced by a petition will have to be made up of people from Maplewood. If I or other people in Maplewood collected signatures and ran a slate to counter or stop Fred, wouldn't South Orange voters want to know it was my slate and what it was for? Why don't you want petitioners to have information about Fred's motives? It's rather odd you would be against the Maplewood TC creating a commission in full public view but are attacking me for merely asking who Fred's undisclosed candidates are. If you want to put the issue to rest, find out who Fred recruited and post the names here. There's nothing wrong with people having that info, and there is something wrong with trying thwart inquiry into it. To others, I still haven't met Andrea Marino, but I spent a few minutes with the search feature on MOL and discovered that over the course of several years, she has been a dedicated cheerleader for Fred and a rather caustic opponent of anybody who doesn't agree. I have no idea if she will be a commission member or not. Perhaps MHD will find out for us. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3759 Registered: 5-2004  |
TomR, I believe what Kathleen is saying is that there would be no need for a referendum (and thus no deadline) if the Maplewood TC simply decides to create a study commission. Rather than put the question in the hands of the voters, she is saying the TC can act on it's own to create the commission that the referendum would otherwise authorize. So in South Orange, because of the incompetence of our BOT, we would likely have to go the route of: Petition Referendum on ballot/commissioner elections Creation of commission Whereas in Maplewood, it could go: TC resolution to create study commission Discuss/Debate TC vote on resolution Creation of Study Commission I believe the advantage that Kathleen sees in the Maplewood method is that: 1)Fred does not "control" it 2)People can discuss the issue at a TC meeting, rather than via electioneering. Kathleen, please correct this if I am incorrectly interpreting your position. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 651 Registered: 2-2006 |
A good summary, Rastro. Thank you. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 675 Registered: 1-2004  |
The petition route allows individuals to run for the positions whereas the ordinance route the positions are appointed by the TC. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 678 Registered: 3-2005 |
Rastro, Thank you. That is precisely what I am saying. In Maplewood, the TC is made up of people who bring very different values to the table than Fred does. They have many times stopped Fred from doing things that were undemocratic and narrowly driven by Fred in his zeal for big box development, selling off public lands and concentrating authority in his own hands. They are strong advocates of open government whereas Fred prefers committees he can control. Fred has a habit of presenting things as "grass roots initiatives" and "objective studies" that are in fact covers for things he alone wants and doesn't want to have to work politically with others to achieve. Howard, Who is running for the commission slots in South Orange and why? You are working on SOMact with Fred so you should know the answer to this question: Who has Fred recruited to run for the commission slots? What are you doing to guarantee that this commission is free of political influence? Your first post on this subject was August 10. How are ordinary citizens in the middle of August supposed to organize themselves to get on a ballot by the end of the month? What is the time frame for people to get their name on the ballot? Thanks. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 679 Registered: 3-2005 |
Sorry. One other question: It is my understanding that The State Department of Community Affairs appoints a non-voting member to the Commission to provide a fiscal analysis of the benefits/detriments of merger. If that is the case, what the heck are the 10 local citizen commission members doing other than discussing politics? And why can't the two towns just hire an independent fiscal analyst to tell us the fiscal benefits/detriments of merging? What is this August fire sale? It looks extremely politically driven -- especially since Fred posted the day after you posted: "My view is that political will on the BOT will follow a grass roots expression of support. That's the way it works." Fred appears to be interested in a tactic, not a study. And if his tactic works, the BOT is going to end up appointing the commission anyway. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 682 Registered: 3-2005 |
Looking at the SOMact website, it appears that people have until mid September to get a place on the ballot. Is that correct? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 676 Registered: 1-2004 |
kathleen, I will try to answer your questions: Howard, Who is running for the commission slots in South Orange and why? You are working on SOMact with Fred so you should know the answer to this question: Who has Fred recruited to run for the commission slots? I am in the process of collecting petitions for my nomination to the commission. I am aware of others who have expressed interest but do not know if they are currently obtaining signatures. I do not know if Fred has “recruited” anyone – why don’t you ask him directly. What are you doing to guarantee that this commission is free of political influence? There are two alternatives in creating the commission – Petition or Ordinance. Petition path provides for the candidates to be elected whereas the Ordinance path provides for the elected bodies (Town Council or BOT) to appoint commissioners. The public will have choice by electing individuals that are independent and our basis for the petition path. Your first post on this subject was August 10. How are ordinary citizens in the middle of August supposed to organize themselves to get on a ballot by the end of the month? What is the time frame for people to get their name on the ballot? Candidates need to obtain and deliver 25-signed petitions to the Town clerk 40 days prior to the next election. It is my understanding that The State Department of Community Affairs appoints a non-voting member to the Commission to provide a fiscal analysis of the benefits/detriments of merger. Correct. At no expense to the Townships the DCA is required to provide a financial report within five months of the commission creation. If that is the case, what the heck are the 10 local citizen commission members doing other than discussing politics? They are responsible for producing a report/recommendation on either services or consolidation within ten months of the commission creation. This can be done with the help of professionals/consultants who report to the commission. Grants are available from the State – see: http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/interloc/intrmenu.shtml And why can't the two towns just hire an independent fiscal analyst to tell us the fiscal benefits/detriments of merging? We have tried this without success – my observation is that it is driven by politics. What is this August fire sale? It looks extremely politically driven -- especially since Fred posted the day after you posted: It is my impression that all the members of the Shared Services committee (both Towns) buy into putting the question on the ballot. We (SOMact) saw an opportunity to move the process forward by having it placed on the November Ballot. "My view is that political will on the BOT will follow a grass roots expression of support. That's the way it works." Fred appears to be interested in a tactic, not a study. And if his tactic works, the BOT is going to end up appointing the commission anyway. That is your opinion. Looking at the SOMact website, it appears that people have until mid September to get a place on the ballot. Is that correct? The beginning of September. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 509 Registered: 8-2001 |
I don't know Kathleen, I was with you on making sure the commission is not heavily seeded for political reasons, and there needs to be checks and balances in place for that, but there's just no way you're going to convince me a TC run commission with power to directly appoint participants is more democratic than a grassroots petition campaign and ballot referendum, and you'll not convince me that "community input" at a town council meeting gives the people more control than direct vote for or against a referendum. I've seen too many town council meetings where volumes of complaints and dissention are listened to in due course and then those in power decide whatever they want anyway. Kathleen, I can't get past the fact that you are saying you don't trust Profeta, yet because of that mistrust, you want to give him more power in this process, and relegate the voters to the role of standing in a town council meeting and airing their grievances. This just seems highly illogical to me, so much so I thought I must be misinterpreting what you're saying, but you're saying it over and over so many times here that I just can't get past it. How exactly does this work? You don't trust Profeta so you want him to unilaterally take control of this process? You think he's trying to seed the committee so you want him to instead to have full power to directly appoint its members? I do hope whoever will be drafting this referendum is paying attention, the language used is going to have to be clear and precise, and go into some detail about HOW the study will be conducted, BY WHOM (or how they will be chosen), and explain the FUNDING SOURCE of it too. Full disclosure is essential. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5744 Registered: 10-1999  |
Wnb: The wording of the referendum is already set. The law sets out how it should be worded: “Shall a joint municipal consolidation study commission be formed to study the feasibility of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed, and to make recommendations thereon; or, in the alternative, to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services?”In the referendum (and, in the law setting up the study commissions), the study of "shared services" is secondary, to the study of consolidating the municipalities. It's interesting to read that the purpose of the petition and referendum is to force the South Orange government to look at shared services. But, under the law, there is no way to have a referendum to force the municipal government to actually take part in any shared services. Any subsequent referendum would only be about consolidating the two towns. So, as I may have written before, the two towns should look at sharing services. There must be some other way to get South Orange on board to do that, short of initiating a referendum process about combining the two towns. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 677 Registered: 1-2004 |
If interested the following is the link to the Statute: http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/interloc/joint/muni_consol_act.shtml | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 683 Registered: 3-2005 |
Howard, Thank you for your responses. I note that you didn't say my opinion was incorrect. Fred has posted on Maplewood Online that he is recruting candidates to run for election to this commission. Those were his words, not mine. I already have asked him who, and so have others. He hasn't answered. Is Fred recruiting candidates in coordination with SOMact, or just on his own? Why did SOMact take so long to make this petition drive public? According to Fred's history, Jeff Dubowy appears to have started it in June or early July. Why wait until Aug 10 to make it known? wnb, I'm not sure how to respond to your post, since you started it by saying that there is no way I could convince you of my point of view. I can respond to the second part of your post, however, where you misrepresent my point of view. I have posted several times that, in reality, for the past five years, Fred's actions in Maplewood have been most effectively checked by the town's OTHER elected representatives. The other members of the TC are the ones who have been most attuned to Fred's never-ending efforts to sneak past changes in the structure of government, etc. They force issues Fred would prefer to settle in private meetings into open meetings, including appointments and "committees." Most people in Maplewood lead busy lives and don't have time to be full time watchdogs against power grabs. Several members of the Maplewood TC understand the problem and act on behalf of the ENTIRE town in helping to rein in Fred. This is not some big secret. If your motive for signing the petition is genuine curioisty about the pros and cons of consolidating services or the towns themselves, then I think it is appropriate to ask, before signing, how much influence Fred Profeta is exerting over the process thus far and whether the people running for the commission in South Orange are aware of Fred's history. Harold's remarks don't leave me with a lot of confidence he is willing to turn over rocks for himself to see what's under them. Fifty percent of any commission Harold might sit on will be made up from people from Maplewood. I wish Howard were more curious about how those people got on the ballot and had better answers about what he intends to do to keep any study commission free of political steering. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 678 Registered: 1-2004 |
kathleen: I also didn't say it was correct. There were a number of reasons: - We needed to coordinate the effort with Maplewood. - Maplewood was in the middle of Primary elections and we were of the opinion that it was not appropriate to make this one of the issues. - We needed to give the BOT a chance to take on the initiative. Jeff spoke on the issue - Shared Services before the BOT but did not receive the support we were looking to achieve. We then launched the petition campaign. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 684 Registered: 3-2005 |
PS wnb: In one of the more dramatic instances of citizens in Maplewood rallying to check Fred, a petition for a referendum to put an instance of using eminent domain on the ballot for voters to decide was signed by 1800 Maplewood residents. Fred called the ballot initiative a "threat to democracy" and instead used taxpayer money to commission a private commercial poll of an unrepresentative sample of residents, which he called "scientific" and then used as a cover to retreat from his untenable position. People in Maplewood don't want to have to keep signing petitions and storming City Hall to protect fundamentals in Maplewood from Fred's designs. One of the issues on which people get elected and defeated in Maplewood is whether they will act with sufficient independence from Fred. And with good reason. As I've said before, this is the 3rd time Fred in five years Fred has agitated to change Maplewood's form of governemnt -- which by and large works reasonably well for everybody in Maplewood except, apparently, Fred. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 685 Registered: 3-2005 |
Howard, This is incredibly interesting. You say: "Maplewood was in the middle of Primary elections and we were of the opinion that it was not appropriate to make this one of the issues." Who is that "we" to whom you are referring? Ken Pettis and Kathy Levanthal? You know, "we" the Maplewood VOTERS might have very well wanted it to be one of the issues. So much for true love of electoral democracy and people power. When was that decision made? Fred claims he didn't make contact with Jeff Dubowy about this until after June 19th -- well after the Maplewood Primary. Why did you in South Orange "need" to coordinate the effort with Maplewood? As Fred Profeta has already posted elsewhere, LAST YEAR a majority of members of the Maplewood Township Committe had already made a unanimous recommendation via the Joint Services Committee that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by resolution of the governing body. Since there was already the political will among our elected representatives in Maplewood to do this a year ago, why was South Orange supposedly waiting for "Maplewood?" Who is "Maplewood" according to you? Finally, you said that Jeff spoke on the issue of Shared Services to the BOT? What date was that? And what date was the launch of the petition drive in your calendar? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4584 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, Kathleen...you caught us. This entire petiion drive is simply an elaborate scheme to cover up the assasination of JFK, the whereabouts of Elvis, the so-called moon landing, the existence of UFOs and the REAL reason that socks disappear in the dryer. You see - Fred is behind all of those things. We need to make Fred mayor of the universe so we can keep them hidden from the rest of the population for all eternity. This petition drive is simply a cover-up for that objective. Your repeated questions have forced me to crack. I just couldn't keep it a secret anymore.  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10528 Registered: 4-1997  |
It was the only way to do it because the "laser beam" wouldn't work. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 679 Registered: 1-2004 |
kathleen, please do not try to drag me into your political issues with Fred. My focus is on discussion of the Study questions. To answer your questions: Finally, you said that Jeff spoke on the issue of Shared Services to the BOT? What date was that? And what date was the launch of the petition drive in your calendar? You can watch the whole presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuKXSRk4FE Why did you in South Orange "need" to coordinate the effort with Maplewood? As Fred Profeta has already posted elsewhere, LAST YEAR a majority of members of the Maplewood Township Committe had already made a unanimous recommendation via the Joint Services Committee that a Consolidation Study Commission be formed by resolution of the governing body. The process requires both Towns to have approved a ballot question. Placement on the ballot can be done either by Ordinance or Petition. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3768 Registered: 5-2004 |
Howard, I haven't read into this issue much, so perhaps I'm asking an obvious question. Is the ballot question necessary? I understand that there are two ways to get it on the ballot, but if the BOT and TC decided to pass resolutions creating the appropriate commissioner positions, would that work (forget the incompetence of much of our BOT for a moment)? Or must there be an actual vote by voters to get State funding? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 680 Registered: 1-2004 |
Yes, the question is necessary. There is a State Statute that allows for a "Study" Commission that specifies the process includes placing the question on the ballot. This can be done by Ordinance or by Petition - Ordinance path the governing bodies appoint whereas Petition path individual members must petition and be elected. All members of the Shared Services Committee that has been studying the issues recommended that the respective governments pursue a study. When presented at a Joint Meeting the question was stonewalled (my word) and pushed off to some future date. We (SOMact) feel that this is something that can benefit to both Townships and therefore must be accelerated. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5747 Registered: 10-1999 |
A referendum is legally required in order to study proposals to merge the towns. A referendum is not legally required in order to study proposals for shared services. I know that folks have argued that this is the only way to get the South Orange government to consider shared services, but maybe this is an issue that should be addressed at the next Trustees election. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 681 Registered: 1-2004 |
Nohero: Are you willing to put off doing something for another year? Placing the question on the ballot will provide an opportunity for the residents to express an opinion. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5748 Registered: 10-1999 |
As I asked MHD on the Maplewood version of this discussion, "If there is a referendum, will a vote in favor of a study commission be interpreted as a vote in favor of looking at consolidation, or just a vote in favor of looking at shared services? And, how to distinguish the two?" The answer was that both would be looked at. The residents may be expressing their opinions, but the vote won't distinguish between people who want more shared services, and anybody who wants to vote for completely merging the towns. By the same token, if the referendum is defeated, some politicians may argue that it demonstrates that people are against more shared services, when that may not be what the voters intended at all. Also, if the committee discusses merging the towns, it has to address more than just the potential savings. The form of government is a big issue, for example - something which has little to do with saving money, which is what the whole exercise is about. Combining the "shared services" issue, with the "merge the towns" issue, makes the discussion more complicated, imho. It sounds like Maplewood is ready to discuss how to save money by sharing services. There must be some way to get the South Orange government on board. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 686 Registered: 3-2005 |
What a lot of hooey that I am not raising legitimate questions that the petition drive organizers simply don't want to answer. And what answers they do give are misleading. Rastro asked if a ballot referendum was "necessary" but it is NOT. It is only "necessary" in the eyes of the people who want it. They are angry at the South Orange BOT. The real question is, Howard: Why is Maplewood being dragged into YOUR issues with YOUR BoT? But I'd also like to know: Can anybody think of a single downside to South Orange or the petition drive had the drive been launched during the Maplewood primary? Please explain the rationale Howard posted: "Maplewood was in the middle of Primary elections and we were of the opinion that it was not appropriate to make this one of the issues." What were they thinking? If Howard won't explain, anybody else care to guess? I'm stumped. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8077 Registered: 5-2001 |
If a TC resolution is sufficient to place the consolidation/shared services referendum on the ballot and Maplewood is still going the petition route, does this mean that the majority of present members on the TC does not favor the resolution as presently worded? If this is indeed the case, doesn't the TC have the option of rewording the referendum which would appear on the November ballot to have a broader base in terms of which municipalities Maplewood might consider consolidating and/or sharing services with? If the TC has this option and flexibility and chooses to act on it in short order, we wouldn't have to worry about the number of signatures already gained on petitions with the present wording being lost if the referendum question were to be re-written at this time. Why then, the insistance on such a narrowly worded petition? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 687 Registered: 3-2005 |
Could someone also clarify for me whether doing a reval in Maplewood would be triggered by the mere formation of the Study Commission, or by the vote in the two towns to actually merge? Thanks. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8079 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen: There would have to be a reval if the two towns merged to determine the relative value of each property in the new municipality. South Orange is facing a reval now in any case. Maplewood may be considering one since relative property values seem to have shifted since the last reval was done. Sharing services would not in and of itself trigger a reval. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 688 Registered: 3-2005 |
Nohero wrote: The form of government is a big issue, for example - something which has little to do with saving money, which is what the whole exercise is about. I think "saving money" is how it is being presented to people and obviously people are curious to have an authoritative answer to that question. But that doesn't require an elected commission to study merging the towns. The towns can hire the kind of independent fiscal analyst the state insists be indpendent of the elected "commisioners" anyway. In fact, just Maplewood can hire somebody to do it, yes? Isn't the budget of South Orange a matter of public record? People's personal ideology about what "form of government" a merger should take is hardly trivial when it comes to putting them on a commission "studying" whether to replace both town's elected governments with something else. Yet this petition drive has been organized in such a way that the general public is being given less than 2 weeks to find a suitable variety of candidates, whereas the petition drive organizers have been considering their moves for months. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 689 Registered: 3-2005 |
Joan, Thank you. Just to be clear: A reval in what is now Maplewood would only be mandated if the voters approved a merger with what is now South Orange to create a brand new municipal entity. Correct? |
