Perhaps overlooked in the excitement(!?) surrounding last weeks Charter Study Commission recommendation was this acknowledgement by the commission about 2005's Question 3: Petition signers, and by extension, voters, may not have known exactly what they were signing, or voting for.
Question 3, or Q3, was a question on the November 2005 ballot asking voters to approve a change in the form of Hillsborough's government from Township Committee to Mayor-Council, with a directly elected mayor and seven councilmen - three at-large, and one each from four designated wards.
Petition organizers collected thousands of signatures in order to have this question put directly to the voters. The petition signers focused naturally on the one provision of the mayor-council form that was of most interest to Hillsborough voters - the direct election of the mayor. They were much less focused on the other aspects of the proposal, such as the wards, and the separation between the mayor and the council.
Wards, however, were a factor in the election, and Q3 was narrowly defeated. There is no doubt that the Q3 petition led directly to the Charter Study ordinance the following year which established the Charter Study Commission, and for that reason you could say that Q3 was successful in its ultimate purpose of bringing the idea of government change to the public.
The admission last week that people "were not told - didn't read further than just directly elect your own mayor" is an important step in leveling the playing field for the upcoming campaign season. Charter Study Commission Chairman Chris Jensen has acknowledged that voter education is important prior to the November vote. He has said that the commission has a lot of work to do in this area over the next three months - but i think he would agree that a knowledgeable voter, with a proper understanding of all of the issues, isn't necessarily a pro-change voter.
The bottom line is that we should always trust a well-informed electorate to make the right decision - and know that an uninformed person on his way to the polls would do us all a favor by turning around and heading home.
Greg - not entirely true. Yes, Glenn DID say that at the July 25th meeting, which surprised me. But at that point, what was going on behind the scenes was that he was working very hard to get and keep Gloria aligned with what was then his agenda, which was to revamp the report with his name on top of it. So he was probably willing to do or say anything just to insure that Gloria remained on his side.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't part of the Q3 effort, as I've often stated, but I helped gather signatures outside the municipal building on one occasion. Volunteers were given very clear instructions on what to say to prospective signers. We were all told to explain the entire proposal, including the wards. Of course, it had to be explained to us first. Not only was this done, but we were all provided with several pages of detailed explanation to help us, make sure we got it right, and to show residents who wanted more information. AND, the entire proposal, including the explanation of the 4 wards and 3 at-large council members, was printed on every petition sheet. So I know that's what we were supposed to do. And I did it. So did all the other people who were volunteering with me that day.
Now, to Gloria's illustration of the lunatic waving her hands outside the post office no one can say if that one person did what she was supposed to do, and explained the proposal in full, including the wards, to Gloria and other residents she spoke with. No one can say with certainty what anyone does in ANY situation, if they themselves are not also present.
But I do know what this petitioner was SUPPOSED to do. So you are not correct when you say, "The petition drive focused naturally on the one provision of the mayor-council form that was of most interest to Hillsborough voters - the direct election of the mayor. There was much less information provided about the other aspects of the proposal, such as the wards, and the separation between the mayor and the council."
Again, this may have happened on occassion, but it wasn't what was supposed to happen, and many measures were put in place with the intent of preventing this very thing.
Val, because your comments did not go to the heart of what I was trying to say, I have edited the third paragraqph to address your concerns.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see what you changed, but no matter. On reflection, I guess technically you were correct. To catch the attention of passerbys, petitioners probably did focus most attention on the "elect your own mayor" aspect. Which you must agree was the natural thing for them to do.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think anyone was trying to hide anything. Furthermore, I don't think anyone even thought wards were going to be such a big problem. Don't forget, most of this was done before RAW formed and mounted their negative campaign.
In retrospect, you and others may not have agreed with the Q3 proposal. But if you could put yourself in a petitioner's shoes, and put yourself back to the time when signatures were being collected, you would see that probably 99% of the volunteers did not feel that they were presenting anything negative or "bad" in any way.
For myself, I wasn't even pushing the notion of change on signers - I emphasized that signing the petition only put a question on the ballot, which would enable all residents to then weigh in on their preference. I am a firm believer in allowing voters to make the final decision. And that was a fine point that everyone missed - that the petition wasn't going to change the government - the voters in November were the only ones with the power to bring about any change.
I did not like to see giving the voters this opportunity to decide being obstructed the way it was. Hence, I ended up backing Page for the CSC.
As an aside, if no one stepped up to run, I was going to run myself. Not because I was dying for the job, but I felt it was important that someone do it. I was thrilled when Bill was finally persuaded to run, as he wasn't dying to either.
So Simple
ReplyDeleteAlthough Mr. van Lier took a long time to admit this, RAW educated the public as to what was really on the ballot. A Fact that Mr. van Lier has finaly Publicly Admitted to in one of the last CSC meeting. Also, there were NO lies in the RAW literature as Mr. van Lier falsely points out.
Clearly, many people did not understand what they had signed or what they were about to vote on. The RAW literature educated the people and that is the reason Mr. van Lier saw such a shift in voter preference away from the overall major approval that the Hillsborough’s Democratic Party sponsored push poll originally showed for Q3 just a few short weeks before the election, to the turn around surprising defeat of same.
I agree with Greg. I do not fear the vote of an un-biased and well educated public. It will be interesting to see just how good of a job the CSC does in providing a truthful, factual and un-biased education to the public between now and November. To the good, among the many garbage posts found on the NJO – Hillsborough – Forum, I have seen a handful of good truthful exchanges of information between some posters concerning certain aspects of the CSC recommendation. Unfortunately on the other hand, I just read a very bias letter from Commissioner van Lier in the Hillsborough Beacon where he twisted certain facts and referred to the CSC recommended form of government as a “Better” form than what we have. Sorry, but Commissioners van Lier's job, along with the rest of the Commission, is to educated the public in the facts and only the facts, not their opinions. It is then up to the public to decide if Mayor- Council is actually a “Better” form of Government then Township Committee for the people living, voting and paying taxes in Hillsborough.
Let me add this --- IF Mayor Anthony Ferrera wrote a letter to the Beacon and said: - A NO vote in November means you get to keep the best form of government this township can have, the same government form that made us the 23rd best small town to live in the entire United States of America.--- You can BET Mr. van Lier would be screaming FOUL, FOUL, FOUL! As such Commissioner van Lier should be aware of what he writes.
I usually stay out of these type of forums, but I need to say just a few things here. Greg, thank you for your faith in my role of the chair of the CSC.
ReplyDeleteTo 08844 I have to disagree on two things specifically. The cost of $700,000 that RAW claimed was absurd. To that end I took it upon myself to get a realistic cost of recodification to the people. Joe Bruno (council vice chair, MCA form) from Berkeley Heights, whose town uses the same comany (General Code LLC) as Hillsborough to maintain their ordinances, brought a $35,000 price to the CSC as their cost of change in government. The estimate I received from General Code was $23,000. There will of course be additional costs, but I think we can say that the $700,000 price tag has certainly been proven to be a political fairy tale. I don't like to use the "L" word, as the word "libel" begins with the same letter.
I could address other points also, but I think that instead of living in the heat of 2005 we should concentrate on the issues of 2007.
I also think that if the mayor wrote a letter as you stated, many people would say he had egg on his face because of his public support of an elected mayor when the CSC ordinance was passed.
Can we let Q3 finally go away?
Have a good day everyone.
Chris, thanks for your comments, and I'm glad you found the blog.
ReplyDeleteI have a different take on the relationship of Q3 to the CSC. First of all, the $700,000 figure means absolutely nothing to me. I have said for almost two years now that I would be willing to pay 10 times that amount if I thought it would improve the town. Another way to look at it - what's $700,000 divided by 235 years, assuming our new government lasts as long as the current one? That's just $3000 per year. I think we can afford that.
Maybe as many people were scared away from Q3 by the $700,000 figure as were drawn to it by the "elect your own mayor" (when it wasn't really just elect your own mayor).
That leaves wards. The CSC has stated that the public did not want wards, and they did not put wards in their recommendation. But the voters probably didn't understand what wards were all about either.
Notwithstanding, Chris, your comments to me a couple of weeks ago about the job the CSC still had to do in informing the public, I was still somewhat skeptical about the CSC's desire to try to better educate the public this time around - until Glenn made that admission last week. I think that was an important step, although I don't think it was calculated at all. It sounded genuine to me.
Mr. Jensen
ReplyDeleteI have no idea where the $700,000 number came from, but it generated skepticism on behalf of the electorate because the Q3 backers could not debunk the information as they clearly had no idea what the true cost of government change was. So in reality the message that was sent was --- We Don’t Really Know How Much This Will Cost.
As far as the $23,000 estimate from General Code, why don’t you take some time here Mr. Jensen and explain precisely what we get for our $23,000 and evenly more important, what impact the General Code workbook will have on the township?
Also, maybe you could enlighten us all on the apparently true rumor that a Berkeley Heights township lawyer resigned his job with the township stating the workload brought on by their government change had create too much work for him to do, claiming that an entire company of lawyers will be needed to enact the change.
Perhaps you could also, enlighten us on fellow commissioner’s McCauley’s statement that she feels the CSC hasn’t looked into the cost of change any where near close enough. I’ve watched all of the CSC meetings and frankly I have to fully agree with Ms. McCauley’s statement as cost was never really discussed, but was eluted to as outside of the CSC’s control and up to that of the new government.
Given that, I say the only thing we actually know for sure about cost is ---- No Change, No Cost!
P.S. Let’s be fair and keep Q3 alive as long as some have keep Greenbrier alive.
Mr. Jensen
ReplyDeleteAs it Stands Now the only person I know of with egg on their face is a fictional character by the name of redware.
To 08844 - OK, about costs. They were never eluded. I discussed them specifically in public. I recieved a genuine estimate from the company that our town does business with to handle that project. I don't think that you can do much better than that, or capriciously throw that figure over your shoulder. It is very real, and on paper. And just FYI, I was the only one to address costs of codification. Any new government would be wise to use that estimate and company. Since no one can look into a crystal ball and see the future exact figures. I think we have done justice to this matter. I think that if Ms. McCauley actually did say that we never discussed cost, she missed a meeting, She certainley saw the estimate, as I showed it to all the commissioners. Now we also had a Berkeley Heights Council vice chair tell us their costs. If you think that anonymous blog postings on the NJO forum are better evidence that a council members' testimony, then I can't help you. The figures are in black & white.
ReplyDeleteYou Failed
ReplyDeleteTo answer my direct questions. You answered in a manner similar to taking your car for repair and being told just one of the parts for repair in $23,000 and the rest of the cost is out of the mechanics hands, but will be necessary if you want the car repaired and running.
The cost to change government forms here MUST be expressed in its Entirety. Not some convenient low ball, clearly stratified number.
So I ask again:
As far as the $23,000 estimate from General Code, why don’t you take some time here Mr. Jensen and explain precisely what we get for our $23,000 and evenly more important, what impact the General Code workbook will have on the township?
Also, maybe you could enlighten us all on the apparently true rumor that a Berkeley Heights township lawyer resigned his job with the township stating the workload brought on by their government change had create too much work for him to do, claiming that an entire company of lawyers will be needed to enact the change.
Explain to us too, is the cost of change in Berkeley Heights fully completed and fully recorded? Could you, also, enlighten us on how many ordinances Berkeley Heights had on it’s books when the government form was changed?
Yu go on to say – “If you think that anonymous blog postings on the NJO forum are better evidence that a council members' testimony, then I can't help you. The figures are in black & white.”
To that I say Factually – No Change No Cost and yes I may very well take the word of an anonymous blog posting over that of a council members testimony, because let’s face it, there are a lot of politicians walking around in New Jersey whose words are worthless!
There is no convenient low ball figure as you put it. This is reality. The figure that came from the vice chair of Berkeley Hieghts is reality. You simply do not want to accept those numbers, so fine vote as you please. Please just go away with your mysterious unknowns and your doom and gloom attitude. You have done NOTHING to shed light on costs as I have, you simply sit in the peanut gallery and say "no, that's not right". Well I for one am fed up with you, go do some work, come up with some real numbers backed up by real companies and then we may talk again. You don't wnat truth, you do not use real numbers or facts. You simply wish to scare people into beleiving that some mysterious bad thing will happen. Hogwash. If this process was all that bad, why would over 50% of NJ change to use this form of government? Because they are all stupid and want higher taxes? Please, save your rhetoric for your campaign literature, as it has no place here. I am ending this conversation at this point, because it is not possible to have a reasonable conversation with an unreasonable person. Have a good day.
ReplyDeleteI’m trying to
ReplyDeleteCome up with real numbers. Maybe I could if you’d answer my questions.
As far as the $23,000 estimate from General Code, why don’t you take some time here Mr. Jensen and explain precisely what we get for our $23,000 and evenly more important, what impact the General Code workbook will have on the township?
Also, maybe you could enlighten us all on the apparently true rumor that a Berkeley Heights township lawyer resigned his job with the township stating the workload brought on by their government change had create too much work for him to do, claiming that an entire company of lawyers will be needed to enact the change.
Explain to us too, is the cost of change in Berkeley Heights fully completed and fully recorded? Could you, also, enlighten us on how many ordinances Berkeley Heights had on it’s books when the government form was changed?