Do you remember where you were one year ago today - July 25, 2007? I was with a handful of fellow residents in the multi-purpose room of the Hillsborough municipal building. We were expecting to witness the culminating vote of Hillsborough's first Charter Study Commission. We were not disappointed.
The five CSC members - Chris Jensen, Glenn van Lier, George Ostergren, Gloria McCauley, and Bill Page (named to the commission after the death of original member George Fenwick) - had recently completed a study on forms of municipal government available under New Jersey's Faulkner Act, as well as a study of our current Township Committee form of government.
For eight months they interviewed experts and current and former members of the various allowable forms - Mayor Council, Mayor Council Administrator, and Council Manager - sifted evidence, and had some lively discussion along the way.
For all of the politics involved, there was also history being made. If the CSC voted to recommend a change, it would be just the third time in Hillsborough's 236 year history that voters would have the chance to opt for a new form of government.
Still, it wasn't exactly "edge of your seat" theater. You could tell by the make-up of the CSC that the recommendation would be for Mayor Council - just like you could tell by the make-up of the audience that night that the recommendation would fail at the polls in November.
What do you think? Did the voters make the right decision? If we had voted to change to Mayor Council, we would be in the midst of an exciting election campaign right now to seat our first directly elected mayor and five council members.
I must admit, it would be pretty exciting.
As we grow - add a train station, a Main Street shopping district, maybe even a 1500 unit retirement complex! - Hillsborough will undoubtedly become larger and more complex.
But that's o.k., I hear they have a form of government perfect for that!
Showing posts with label CSC Charter Study Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSC Charter Study Commission. Show all posts
25 July 2008
22 December 2007
Factually Speaking
I continue now with my comments on the Letters to the Editor of the Hillsborough Beacon from December 20.
Commission presented truthful information - Glenn van Lier, Commissioner, Hillsborough Charter Study Commission. Mr. van Lier writes about the campaign against government change. He believes that the Charter Study Commission provided truthful, factual, and useful information during their study. I agree. Before the charter study, I did not know about all of the different forms of government that were available to Hillsborough. And while I admit that I was predisposed to keeping our current township committee form - because I could not see any major flaws in it - my mind was definitely open to finding a better government for Hillsborough if one existed. I could not have been confident in my final decision to vote no if not for the information provided by the Charter Study Commission. Thank you Glenn, Chris, George, Gloria, and Bill!
Here is where Mr. van Lier and I apparently disagree. He seems to believe that a rational person knowing all of the facts about the Mayor-Council form of government as presented by the CSC could not have possibly, conscientiously voted no. He believes the only way a person could vote no is by listening to the well-financed "lies" of Residents Against Larger Government. This is an incorrect notion.
Although the CSC presented many facts about the TC and MC forms of government, the conclusions they reached from those facts were in many cases merely opinions or judgements. For instance, Mr. van Lier stated many times during the study that the system whereby township committee members acted as liaisons to the various departments was "confusing". The testimony of our township committee members was that it was not confusing at all! The department heads report to the administrator. The liaisons are in place so that the township committee members can confer with each other - so that all five can be kept abreast of what is happening in the departments, without having to be on top of each one on a daily basis.
Liaisons are just one example. Township Committee Member Carl Suraci came to the microphone on more than one occasion at a CSC meeting to question whether certain facts about the TC form of government should be placed with the strengths or the weaknesses. In fact, the CSC acknowledged this uncertainty by placing "annual elections" on both lists!
What Mr. van Lier describes in his letter as lies are really only different conclusions. One of the RALG lies - the Beacon recommendation - was no lie at all. The Hillsborough Beacon editor said that there was no overwhelming need for change, and from that he concluded that we should vote yes. The RALG concluded that we should vote no.
In essence, the CSC did exactly what they should have done - lay out the facts and let the people decide. The voters said no to a "more complex. larger government".
And that's a fact!
Commission presented truthful information - Glenn van Lier, Commissioner, Hillsborough Charter Study Commission. Mr. van Lier writes about the campaign against government change. He believes that the Charter Study Commission provided truthful, factual, and useful information during their study. I agree. Before the charter study, I did not know about all of the different forms of government that were available to Hillsborough. And while I admit that I was predisposed to keeping our current township committee form - because I could not see any major flaws in it - my mind was definitely open to finding a better government for Hillsborough if one existed. I could not have been confident in my final decision to vote no if not for the information provided by the Charter Study Commission. Thank you Glenn, Chris, George, Gloria, and Bill!
Here is where Mr. van Lier and I apparently disagree. He seems to believe that a rational person knowing all of the facts about the Mayor-Council form of government as presented by the CSC could not have possibly, conscientiously voted no. He believes the only way a person could vote no is by listening to the well-financed "lies" of Residents Against Larger Government. This is an incorrect notion.
Although the CSC presented many facts about the TC and MC forms of government, the conclusions they reached from those facts were in many cases merely opinions or judgements. For instance, Mr. van Lier stated many times during the study that the system whereby township committee members acted as liaisons to the various departments was "confusing". The testimony of our township committee members was that it was not confusing at all! The department heads report to the administrator. The liaisons are in place so that the township committee members can confer with each other - so that all five can be kept abreast of what is happening in the departments, without having to be on top of each one on a daily basis.
Liaisons are just one example. Township Committee Member Carl Suraci came to the microphone on more than one occasion at a CSC meeting to question whether certain facts about the TC form of government should be placed with the strengths or the weaknesses. In fact, the CSC acknowledged this uncertainty by placing "annual elections" on both lists!
What Mr. van Lier describes in his letter as lies are really only different conclusions. One of the RALG lies - the Beacon recommendation - was no lie at all. The Hillsborough Beacon editor said that there was no overwhelming need for change, and from that he concluded that we should vote yes. The RALG concluded that we should vote no.
In essence, the CSC did exactly what they should have done - lay out the facts and let the people decide. The voters said no to a "more complex. larger government".
And that's a fact!
19 November 2007
Bizarro World
"Shall a charter study commission be elected to study the charter of the township to consider a new charter or improvements in the present charter and to make recommendations thereon?"
Haven't we already done this?
Yes, we have - now it's someone else's turn. This Friday, while we Hillsborough residents are making turkey sandwiches and nursing our tryptophan hangovers, residents of the Union County Township of Union will be celebrating the 199th birthday of their township, and considering whether to make its bicentennial year its last.
More Deja Vu.
A local citizen's group had been organizing a petition drive to put a government change question on next year's ballot. The group, Citizens for a United Union, has called for a Mayor-Council form of government with a directly elected mayor, with both ward representatives and at large councilmen. The Township Committee, some of whom support the idea of a directly elected mayor(!), introduced the charter study ordinance because they questioned the motives and financial backing of CUU, and wanted to prevent the spread of misinformation.
As we know from our own recent history, a charter study ordinance trumps a petition drive - if it is introduced and adopted legally - and apparently the Township Committee in Union has all of their ducks in a row thus far. Perhaps they learned from the missteps in our town.
I don't know a lot about Union Township, but I do know this. Its 54,000 residents live in a municipality that is 9 square miles in size. That comes out to 6000 residents per square mile. Contrast that with Hillsborough's 40,000 residents in 54 square miles - or about 750 per square mile - and you can see that a government form used by the cities may actually be appropriate for Union Township. This is one large densely populated township!
Ready for the twist?
Union County democrats have had control of the Township Committee for ten years - and they are the ones resistant to change! We know from Hillsborough's Charter Study that one of the main reasons behind the push for government change is that the party on the "outs" wants "in", while the party in power, wants to stay there. We also know that this is not a good reason to change government forms.
Unlike Hillsborough, there may be a few good reasons to change forms in Union - about 6000 per square mile!
Haven't we already done this?
Yes, we have - now it's someone else's turn. This Friday, while we Hillsborough residents are making turkey sandwiches and nursing our tryptophan hangovers, residents of the Union County Township of Union will be celebrating the 199th birthday of their township, and considering whether to make its bicentennial year its last.
More Deja Vu.
A local citizen's group had been organizing a petition drive to put a government change question on next year's ballot. The group, Citizens for a United Union, has called for a Mayor-Council form of government with a directly elected mayor, with both ward representatives and at large councilmen. The Township Committee, some of whom support the idea of a directly elected mayor(!), introduced the charter study ordinance because they questioned the motives and financial backing of CUU, and wanted to prevent the spread of misinformation.
As we know from our own recent history, a charter study ordinance trumps a petition drive - if it is introduced and adopted legally - and apparently the Township Committee in Union has all of their ducks in a row thus far. Perhaps they learned from the missteps in our town.
I don't know a lot about Union Township, but I do know this. Its 54,000 residents live in a municipality that is 9 square miles in size. That comes out to 6000 residents per square mile. Contrast that with Hillsborough's 40,000 residents in 54 square miles - or about 750 per square mile - and you can see that a government form used by the cities may actually be appropriate for Union Township. This is one large densely populated township!
Ready for the twist?
Union County democrats have had control of the Township Committee for ten years - and they are the ones resistant to change! We know from Hillsborough's Charter Study that one of the main reasons behind the push for government change is that the party on the "outs" wants "in", while the party in power, wants to stay there. We also know that this is not a good reason to change government forms.
Unlike Hillsborough, there may be a few good reasons to change forms in Union - about 6000 per square mile!
07 November 2007
You Fool!
Is there such a thing as a foolish vote? Proponents of ballot question 5, which would have changed Hillsborough's form of government from Township Committee to Mayor-Council might say yes.
If you've been reading the letters to the editor and browsing the internet forums these past several weeks in the run-up to the election, it's easy to form the opinion that the 40% who voted for change think the 60% who voted against it are fools. After all, according to the "vote yes" contingent, the vote no crowd was swayed by a big money campaign, duped by lies, and cheated out of their vote.
Well, it's easy to say that now! Of course, those of us who were skeptical from the start - before the campaign - are told that we didn't have an "open mind". No matter that the only individuals in this process legally required to have open minds were the Charter Study Commissioners - and at least one of them, probably two, had their minds made up before the study began.
And here's the twist - I haven't met anyone who voted no on question 5 who thought anyone that voted yes cast a "foolish vote". People that voted yes obviously felt that having a directly elected mayor and separate branches of government trumped any problems or uncertainties of the Mayor-Council form. And that was a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reason to vote yes.
As we see from the outcome Tuesday, it appears that it was unwise to castigate no-voters and fence-sitters for their personal choices. Truly, there are no "foolish votes", only foolish people.
If you've been reading the letters to the editor and browsing the internet forums these past several weeks in the run-up to the election, it's easy to form the opinion that the 40% who voted for change think the 60% who voted against it are fools. After all, according to the "vote yes" contingent, the vote no crowd was swayed by a big money campaign, duped by lies, and cheated out of their vote.
Well, it's easy to say that now! Of course, those of us who were skeptical from the start - before the campaign - are told that we didn't have an "open mind". No matter that the only individuals in this process legally required to have open minds were the Charter Study Commissioners - and at least one of them, probably two, had their minds made up before the study began.
And here's the twist - I haven't met anyone who voted no on question 5 who thought anyone that voted yes cast a "foolish vote". People that voted yes obviously felt that having a directly elected mayor and separate branches of government trumped any problems or uncertainties of the Mayor-Council form. And that was a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reason to vote yes.
As we see from the outcome Tuesday, it appears that it was unwise to castigate no-voters and fence-sitters for their personal choices. Truly, there are no "foolish votes", only foolish people.
05 November 2007
100 Reasons to Vote No
At one of the first Charter Study Commission meetings, I asked the commissioners to characterize Hillsborough and delineate some of its problems. Describing Hillsborough was easy - it is a suburban community with some semi-rural areas, and little commercial or industrial development. Defining the problems was harder.
I agree with one of the local newspapers that "there are no overwhelming problems facing the community that demand change". The problems that Hillsborough does face - notably development pressures and Route 206 traffic - won't be solved by changing from the Township Committee to the Mayor-Council form of government. And that's too bad.
I attended many Charter Study meetings, and watched the rest on video - and from the very beginning I have been looking for a reason to change. You would have to be a fool not to want to make your town, and your life, better. Lots of reasons were given for why a change is needed - "direct election of mayor", "checks and balances", "four year terms for mayor and council" - but those are merely consequences of voting yes, not reasons TO vote yes. I don't see how any of those things will make the town better, only different.
I have also been following the "Vote No" campaign. For a lot of voters, their statistics concerning the property tax increases in other towns that have changed are particularly compelling. For you skeptics, consider this: if there were any towns where property taxes went DOWN by 39% or 16% or even 2% after changing to Mayor-Council, don't you think you would have heard about it by now?
The Mayor-Council form of government is a more complex form that undoubtedly works best for more complex towns. It allows the mayor to do things that we don't need to be done, and forbids the council from doing things that we have come to expect. It's not right for us.
I'm voting no on Question 5. This is not a vote against the work of the Charter Study Commission, or even a vote against Mayor-Council, but rather a vote to preserve our simple form of government - one which is small and close to the people. A government that isn't broken, and that is working every day for our community.
And if you're wondering about the title of this blog - this is my 100th blog entry for On Hillsborough, and I wanted to work in the number 100 somewhere. You don't need 100 reasons to vote no, you just need one. Make it a good one.
See you at the polls.
I agree with one of the local newspapers that "there are no overwhelming problems facing the community that demand change". The problems that Hillsborough does face - notably development pressures and Route 206 traffic - won't be solved by changing from the Township Committee to the Mayor-Council form of government. And that's too bad.
I attended many Charter Study meetings, and watched the rest on video - and from the very beginning I have been looking for a reason to change. You would have to be a fool not to want to make your town, and your life, better. Lots of reasons were given for why a change is needed - "direct election of mayor", "checks and balances", "four year terms for mayor and council" - but those are merely consequences of voting yes, not reasons TO vote yes. I don't see how any of those things will make the town better, only different.
I have also been following the "Vote No" campaign. For a lot of voters, their statistics concerning the property tax increases in other towns that have changed are particularly compelling. For you skeptics, consider this: if there were any towns where property taxes went DOWN by 39% or 16% or even 2% after changing to Mayor-Council, don't you think you would have heard about it by now?
The Mayor-Council form of government is a more complex form that undoubtedly works best for more complex towns. It allows the mayor to do things that we don't need to be done, and forbids the council from doing things that we have come to expect. It's not right for us.
I'm voting no on Question 5. This is not a vote against the work of the Charter Study Commission, or even a vote against Mayor-Council, but rather a vote to preserve our simple form of government - one which is small and close to the people. A government that isn't broken, and that is working every day for our community.
And if you're wondering about the title of this blog - this is my 100th blog entry for On Hillsborough, and I wanted to work in the number 100 somewhere. You don't need 100 reasons to vote no, you just need one. Make it a good one.
See you at the polls.
04 November 2007
No "Off" Year in Hillsborough
Will you be voting on Tuesday? If you will, you won't be alone - it will only seem that way. Many of Hillsborough's voters will likely stay away from the polls this year. After all, this is traditionally the most "off" of "off years" - no Presidential race, no US Senators, no Congressmen, no Governor. If only there were some other local question to galvanize voters.
Just kidding.
On November 6 Hillsborough will choose whether to keep its current Township Committee form of government, or change to a Mayor-Council form of government. Each form has its strengths and weaknesses. Yes and no are each valid choices - just as TC and MC are each valid forms of government.
How will you vote? This is your chance to make a pitch right here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment". Take a minute to let us know how you are voting and why.
Just kidding.
On November 6 Hillsborough will choose whether to keep its current Township Committee form of government, or change to a Mayor-Council form of government. Each form has its strengths and weaknesses. Yes and no are each valid choices - just as TC and MC are each valid forms of government.
How will you vote? This is your chance to make a pitch right here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment". Take a minute to let us know how you are voting and why.
02 October 2007
Elect Your Own Mayor - Or Not?
Hillsborough voters will be heading to the polls next month to decide if they should elect their own mayor. At least that is what some would have us believe. And I must admit that I have fallen into this trap myself - trying to weigh the pros and cons of an elected versus an appointed mayor - when really this isn't the question at all.
Hillsborough currently operates under a Township Committee form of government - an evolved form of the New England town meeting of the 17th century. One Hundred Forty years before Hillsborough received its 1771 Charter my 8th great grandfather and his brothers attended many such meetings in Windsor, Connecticut's first town. Since meetings were held only once or twice a year, a small committee of citizens was chosen to solve problems and make decisions in the interim periods. This has now become our township committee - a 375 year old traditional government.
Considering the history involved, it almost seems inconsequential who gets to sit in the "big chair". What is important is knowing that our mayor has never been "appointed". This is a misleading word, used in this case to mean the opposite of "elected" - and it does indeed convey that sense. But in fact ALL of our township committee members are elected by the people. Voters know before they pull the lever that anyone who wins a seat on the committee could potentially be chosen by that body to serve as the mayor. Anyone deemed by the public to be unsuitable as mayor should not be elected to the committee.
Having said all that, I realize that there is support among residents for a direct election of the mayor by the people. Unfortunately, the nine month charter study has shown us that under our current form of government, direct election of the mayor is not permitted. This is the reason residents voted to have a charter study - to find out what forms of government were available, and if there were any that allowed a directly elected mayor within the framework of the township committee. The answer is no.
The only question left before us now is do we want to give up on the township committee by changing to a "more complex - larger government"? Do we want to wade through page after page of unrequested, unproven, and unappetizing soups, salads, and entrees to get to that little piece of mayoral dessert at the end?
Take a look around. Hillsborough is healthy because we skip dessert. Let's take a pass next month too.
Hillsborough currently operates under a Township Committee form of government - an evolved form of the New England town meeting of the 17th century. One Hundred Forty years before Hillsborough received its 1771 Charter my 8th great grandfather and his brothers attended many such meetings in Windsor, Connecticut's first town. Since meetings were held only once or twice a year, a small committee of citizens was chosen to solve problems and make decisions in the interim periods. This has now become our township committee - a 375 year old traditional government.
Considering the history involved, it almost seems inconsequential who gets to sit in the "big chair". What is important is knowing that our mayor has never been "appointed". This is a misleading word, used in this case to mean the opposite of "elected" - and it does indeed convey that sense. But in fact ALL of our township committee members are elected by the people. Voters know before they pull the lever that anyone who wins a seat on the committee could potentially be chosen by that body to serve as the mayor. Anyone deemed by the public to be unsuitable as mayor should not be elected to the committee.
Having said all that, I realize that there is support among residents for a direct election of the mayor by the people. Unfortunately, the nine month charter study has shown us that under our current form of government, direct election of the mayor is not permitted. This is the reason residents voted to have a charter study - to find out what forms of government were available, and if there were any that allowed a directly elected mayor within the framework of the township committee. The answer is no.
The only question left before us now is do we want to give up on the township committee by changing to a "more complex - larger government"? Do we want to wade through page after page of unrequested, unproven, and unappetizing soups, salads, and entrees to get to that little piece of mayoral dessert at the end?
Take a look around. Hillsborough is healthy because we skip dessert. Let's take a pass next month too.
20 September 2007
Good Question
Does Hillsborough's current Township Committee form of government really operate without any checks and balances? Charter Study Commission members George Ostergren and Glen Van Lier certainly think so. They each cited the lack of checks and balances as a reason they support changing to the Mayor-Council form - which includes a divided government and a separation of powers between the Mayor (Executive) and Council (Legislative). Only commissioner Gloria McCauley dared to ask the question "Why do we need a separation of powers?" Good question.
The answer is that "separation of powers" is not required for our government to have checks and balances. Municipal governments in New Jersey operate within the framework of state laws and regulations. The state, in essence, is the first check to local government power. This is a different arrangement than what we see in Washington, where the national government answers only to itself.
The Founding Fathers knew that separation of powers was limited in its ability to prevent government from becoming too powerful. That is why the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The press served then and now as the ultimate government watchdog - and one of the best checks to corruption and tyranny. The press, in all it's forms, serves in this same capacity in Hillsborough - as the eyes and ears of the public.
There are a few more safeguards in our Constitution - right there in the first amendment: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And of course, the most important of all - freedom of speech. The right to openly criticize the government, and the people in it.
New Jersey allows a simple form of government such as the Township Committee to exist without a traditional separation of powers because it is a form of government that is close to the people. This closeness allows the first amendment freedoms to be absolutely effective in providing the necessary checks and balances - something that is increasingly more difficult as government gets bigger, more complex, and further from the people.
The bottom line - we don't lack what we don't need. Separation of powers is an unnecessary medicine for an already healthy Hillsborough.
The answer is that "separation of powers" is not required for our government to have checks and balances. Municipal governments in New Jersey operate within the framework of state laws and regulations. The state, in essence, is the first check to local government power. This is a different arrangement than what we see in Washington, where the national government answers only to itself.
The Founding Fathers knew that separation of powers was limited in its ability to prevent government from becoming too powerful. That is why the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The press served then and now as the ultimate government watchdog - and one of the best checks to corruption and tyranny. The press, in all it's forms, serves in this same capacity in Hillsborough - as the eyes and ears of the public.
There are a few more safeguards in our Constitution - right there in the first amendment: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And of course, the most important of all - freedom of speech. The right to openly criticize the government, and the people in it.
New Jersey allows a simple form of government such as the Township Committee to exist without a traditional separation of powers because it is a form of government that is close to the people. This closeness allows the first amendment freedoms to be absolutely effective in providing the necessary checks and balances - something that is increasingly more difficult as government gets bigger, more complex, and further from the people.
The bottom line - we don't lack what we don't need. Separation of powers is an unnecessary medicine for an already healthy Hillsborough.
19 September 2007
Check Please
Some of the most animated testimony heard at Hillsborough's Charter Study Commission meetings came from former Township Committeewoman Sonya Martin on the topic of checks and balances and separation of powers. Her contention was that in our current Township Committee form of government, neither was present. She's half right.
"Checks and Balances" - "Separation of Powers" - It's hard to use one term without mentioning the other. In our democracy these two tenets are closely related, but they are separate ideas. In fact, "checks" and "balances" are two separate concepts themselves.
Think of it this way: checks are the safeguards built into our Constitution to keep the government from becoming too powerful. There are many different kinds of checks. Balance is the idea that no one part of the government should be stronger than any other part. Separation of powers is one of the mechanisms that makes checks and balances work. The separate branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - each have designated powers that can serve to thwart an unreasonable domination by any one branch.
On a national level, where government functions are carried out basically in one city far from most of the population, and where there is no higher authority that the government is answerable to, separation of powers is the key to providing checks and balances. In the absence of a babysitter, far away from the scrutiny of the public, they babysit each other - and despite the occasional tantrum, this system conceived by our founding fathers has served us well for over 200 years.
Separation of powers provides great checks and balances, but it is not the only safeguard given to us by the founding fathers. In fact, it might not even be the most important. Read tomorrow to find out what checks and balances are being employed in Hillsborough today - and why Ms. Martin is half wrong!
"Checks and Balances" - "Separation of Powers" - It's hard to use one term without mentioning the other. In our democracy these two tenets are closely related, but they are separate ideas. In fact, "checks" and "balances" are two separate concepts themselves.
Think of it this way: checks are the safeguards built into our Constitution to keep the government from becoming too powerful. There are many different kinds of checks. Balance is the idea that no one part of the government should be stronger than any other part. Separation of powers is one of the mechanisms that makes checks and balances work. The separate branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - each have designated powers that can serve to thwart an unreasonable domination by any one branch.
On a national level, where government functions are carried out basically in one city far from most of the population, and where there is no higher authority that the government is answerable to, separation of powers is the key to providing checks and balances. In the absence of a babysitter, far away from the scrutiny of the public, they babysit each other - and despite the occasional tantrum, this system conceived by our founding fathers has served us well for over 200 years.
Separation of powers provides great checks and balances, but it is not the only safeguard given to us by the founding fathers. In fact, it might not even be the most important. Read tomorrow to find out what checks and balances are being employed in Hillsborough today - and why Ms. Martin is half wrong!
18 September 2007
More CSC Cut and Paste
What does the Charter Study Commission think of Hillsborough's current form of government - the Township Committee? They conducted many interviews of current and past members of our own Committee and spent many meetings discussing the strengths and weaknesses of Hillsborough's 236 year old government form.
The following list of "pluses and minuses" is taken from the chart created by the CSC and displayed at their meetings. It is copied and pasted here from the Hillsborough Charter Study web site.
Township Committee - Pluses
- Simple; Close to the People; Accessible
- Make Changes Every Year via Annual Elections
- Small Government, Small Number of Elected Officials
- Few Layers of Government
- Have It Already - Know What We Have, Don’t Have To Change
- Easiest Access and Easiest to Understand by Residents
Township Committee - Minuses
- Mayor Not Elected By People
- No Checks and Balances; No Separation of Powers
- No Chief Executive - Limited Powers of Mayor
- No Initiative & Referendum
- Annual Elections Detracts From Governing
- Unclear Responsibilities & Accountabilities
- New Mayor Every Year - Inconsistent Governing; Poor Attention for Large Issues and Long Term Goals
- New Department Liaisons Every Year - Confuses Dept Heads; Inconsistent Direction; Learning Curve
- Closest Faulkner Act Form is Small Municipality and NJ State Law Says Hillsborough is Too Large to Adopt That Form
- Can’t Choose Non-Partisan
- Heavy Workload for Committeepersons
These lists are a good start, but could use some editing. For instance:
The following list of "pluses and minuses" is taken from the chart created by the CSC and displayed at their meetings. It is copied and pasted here from the Hillsborough Charter Study web site.
Township Committee - Pluses
- Simple; Close to the People; Accessible
- Make Changes Every Year via Annual Elections
- Small Government, Small Number of Elected Officials
- Few Layers of Government
- Have It Already - Know What We Have, Don’t Have To Change
- Easiest Access and Easiest to Understand by Residents
Township Committee - Minuses
- Mayor Not Elected By People
- No Checks and Balances; No Separation of Powers
- No Chief Executive - Limited Powers of Mayor
- No Initiative & Referendum
- Annual Elections Detracts From Governing
- Unclear Responsibilities & Accountabilities
- New Mayor Every Year - Inconsistent Governing; Poor Attention for Large Issues and Long Term Goals
- New Department Liaisons Every Year - Confuses Dept Heads; Inconsistent Direction; Learning Curve
- Closest Faulkner Act Form is Small Municipality and NJ State Law Says Hillsborough is Too Large to Adopt That Form
- Can’t Choose Non-Partisan
- Heavy Workload for Committeepersons
These lists are a good start, but could use some editing. For instance:
- Are the annual elections a plus or a minus? - this appears on both lists!
- The mayor IS elected by the people, just not directly. The president of the United States is also not directly elected - remember 2000?
- There is a misunderstanding of what liaisons do. The department heads report to the Administrator. Liaison duties are divided among township committee members so that each member can be made aware of what is happening in the various departments by consulting their fellow committeemen.
- The testimony of the township committee was that their workload was NOT heavy - but in essence this is purely subjective.
- Responsibilities ARE clear, and people ARE accountable.
- No checks and balances /no separation of powers - this one is key. To find out why, read tomorrow.
17 September 2007
CSC Cut and Paste
This November Hillsborough residents will be asked to vote on a proposal to change their form of government from the Township Committee form to the Mayor-Council Form. The Charter Study Commission is currently working on an informational flyer which they intend to mail to households in October.
I'm not sure what information will be contained in the flyer, but there is a lot of information in the CSC final report - including what the CSC feels are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed Mayor-Council form.
The following was taken directly from page 22 of the final report.
Strengths
1. Presidential System of Government
a. Separation of Powers
b. Checks and Balances - Veto Power
c. Mayor Elected by People - Accountable
2. Initiative & Referendum
3. One Chief Executive
4. Consistent Governing
5. Elections Not Every Year - Less Distraction
6. Partisan or Non-Partisan – Choice
7. Most Efficient with One CEO
8. Clearly Delineated Responsibilities
Weaknesses
1. More Complex - Larger Government
2. Mayor Not Required at Meetings
3. Except for Recall - Mayor for 4 Years
4. Council Cannot Interact with Staff
5. Potential Turnover of Staff
6. Confusing for Residents
7. Elevated Potential for Conflicts
8. Possible Stalemate in Government
9. Too Much Power in Part-Time Mayor
Personally I find the weaknesses here to be formidable - and from this list alone, I can't see how the CSC could possibly have recommended Mayor-Council. But of course there's more to it than just this list - maybe the Township Committee form is so terrible that it just has to go. We'll take a look at that tomorrow.
I'm not sure what information will be contained in the flyer, but there is a lot of information in the CSC final report - including what the CSC feels are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed Mayor-Council form.
The following was taken directly from page 22 of the final report.
Strengths
1. Presidential System of Government
a. Separation of Powers
b. Checks and Balances - Veto Power
c. Mayor Elected by People - Accountable
2. Initiative & Referendum
3. One Chief Executive
4. Consistent Governing
5. Elections Not Every Year - Less Distraction
6. Partisan or Non-Partisan – Choice
7. Most Efficient with One CEO
8. Clearly Delineated Responsibilities
Weaknesses
1. More Complex - Larger Government
2. Mayor Not Required at Meetings
3. Except for Recall - Mayor for 4 Years
4. Council Cannot Interact with Staff
5. Potential Turnover of Staff
6. Confusing for Residents
7. Elevated Potential for Conflicts
8. Possible Stalemate in Government
9. Too Much Power in Part-Time Mayor
Personally I find the weaknesses here to be formidable - and from this list alone, I can't see how the CSC could possibly have recommended Mayor-Council. But of course there's more to it than just this list - maybe the Township Committee form is so terrible that it just has to go. We'll take a look at that tomorrow.
21 August 2007
Do Your Homework
I've been thinking about the recommendation made by Hillsborough Township's Charter Study Commission to change our form of government from the Township Committee form to the Mayor-Council Form. Residents will have a chance to vote yes or no on the proposal eleven weeks from today. Have you made up your mind yet? Before you do, you might want to read the final report of the CSC posted here.
The final report also includes a minority report recommending a "special charter" - a government that would be unique to Hillsborough, and would require action by the New Jersey legislature. The special charter option was never given serious consideration by the CSC, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
I have more to say on this topic, but I'll wait for you, dear readers, to digest the report.
And if you've already made up your minds, here's another assignment - come up with a charter study related caption to this photo. Don't worry, they're all good sports - they would have to be to take this photo!
03 August 2007
Five Minus Five
In yesterday's blog entry I gave you my list of the top five things Hillsborough's Charter Study Commission got right - the "pluses".
Today we'll do the "minuses". Once again I'll start things off by listing my top five. and I'll be looking for another five from the comments section.
Here goes:
Today we'll do the "minuses". Once again I'll start things off by listing my top five. and I'll be looking for another five from the comments section.
Here goes:
- Commissioner Georeg Ostergren - Sorry George, as much as I hate to disparage a former school board member, and someone who has given so much of his time to the town over the years, I have to say that your contempt for the public, and you use of profanity puts you at the top of my list.
- Not following Dr. Reock's Prime Directive - Charter Study expert Dr. Ernest Reock told the CSC explicitly that they must not make a recommendation based on what they think the public will vote for, but rather on what their study shows will be the best for the town. Yet at recent meetings, commission members based their recommendations on what would be most palatable to the public, and said so! even though they believed other choices were better - five council members rather than seven, for instance.
- The choice of towns for study - I think too much emphasis was placed on towns that had been through charter studies. I would like to have seen the CSC choose some townships that had never had a charter study - why does their government work so well that they have never even thought of changing.
- The Final Report - What a mess - based on a misunderstanding? Chris Jensen is concerned that the report holds up well to any legal challenges - after all, there are things that are required to be in the report, and he wants to make sure all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed. Glenn van Lier desires a report that is easily readable - one that almost acts as the first piece of campaign literature, if you will. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid and shouldn't be mutually exclusive - but so far we have seen walkouts, threats of walkouts, name calling, fist banging, and the like - Insane!
- The Pluses and Minuses themselves - Despite Mr. van Lier's recent assertion that no one from the public has been able to dispute the plus and minus lists, there indeed were residents who came to the microphone at meetings and did just that - Frank Herbert and Carl Suraci to name two.
I have more, but I want to hear from you! Where did they go wrong? Let me know, below.
02 August 2007
Five Plus Five
For the past eight months Hillsborough's Charter Study Commission has been evaluating alternative forms of government, as well as our current Township Committee form, to determine whether or not to recommend a different form of government for our town. During the evaluation process, they employed wall charts listing the "pluses and minuses" of the different government forms.
Now that the CSC has made their recommendation, I'd like to turn the tables on them and list the top ten pluses and minuses, or hits and misses, of the Charter Study Commission. What they did right, and what they did wrong.
I'll get things started, but I'll be looking for your suggestions in the comments section of the blog.
Let's start with the pluses:
Now that the CSC has made their recommendation, I'd like to turn the tables on them and list the top ten pluses and minuses, or hits and misses, of the Charter Study Commission. What they did right, and what they did wrong.
I'll get things started, but I'll be looking for your suggestions in the comments section of the blog.
Let's start with the pluses:
- The selection of Chris Jensen as chairman - I don't see how any of the other four could have done as good a job, with the possible exception of George Fenwick, whose health probably precluded him from that position.
- The selection of Bill Page to replace Mr. Fenwick - Mr. Page was the third runner up in the election, but was the only one of those three willing to take on the job. He has proven to be thoughtful, studious, and most importantly even-tempered. A great choice.
- Public comment at all of the meetings - The commission was not required to have public comment at all of the meetings - only at the ones designated as Public Hearings. Yet they adhered to the long-standing Hillsborough tradition of letting the people have their say.
- Frugality - The commission has thus far spent only a fraction of their budget - which means a lot to a skeptical public.
- Videotaped meetings - I tried to go to most of the meetings - in fact I think I went to every one up through my election to the Board of Education in April. When I couldn't attend, I was able to catch the meetings on Channel 25, and later on the Township web site.
01 August 2007
A Question of Balance
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.
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.
26 July 2007
CSC Final Vote!
After 8 months we finally get to the meeting that matters. On Wednesday night, Hillsborough's Charter Study commissioners had their final deliberations leading up to their recommendation for a new form of government.
Commissioner Bill Page started things off at this poorly attended meeting by comparing and contrasting the Mayor-Council (MC) form and the Mayor-Council-Administrator (MCA) form. He concluded, that although the forms had many similarities, he prefers the MCA form because the mayor presides over council meetings and therefore the whole government is together and available to the public.
Commissioner George Ostergren reiterated his preference for the MC form, stressing the need for strong checks and balances. He also stated that although it has been said that his mind has been made up from the start, that isn't exactly true. Yes, he was biased towards the MC form because of his decade long research into the topic, but he was "willing to sit here and listen" for 8 months, and his mind was open to other opinions.
Commission Chairman Chris Jensen disfavors MCA because there are no options available. He said that one day Hillsborough might want to have wards, or non-partisan elections, or a different number of council members - but that would require changing the form of government once again. He is in favor of the Mayor-Council form because it allows options to be changed as the town evolves.
Commissioner Glenn van Lier strongly desires the separation of powers that are inherent in the Mayor-Council form. He believes the town needs a mayor that "has authority - the buck stops here". He also likes the idea that the directly elected mayor in the MC form serves four years, unlike the appointed mayor of the Township Committee who might serve only one.
Commissioner Gloria McCauley is opposed to the Mayor-Council form because it is too much of a big-city form of government: "it does not make sense to take something that works and turn it upside down". She recommends a special charter which would follow from the Township Committee and MCA forms, and have a directly elected mayor.
At this point a motion was made to recommend the Mayor-Council form of government. The vote was as follows:
George Ostergren - yes
Gloria McCauley - no
Glenn van Lier - yes
Bill Page - no
Chris Jensen - yes
After a short recess, the commissioners added the following options to their recommendation:
1. At Large Council members - no wards
2. Partisan Elections
3. Staggered Terms (elections every two years for four year seats)
And after a lengthy discussion about whether to have five or seven
4. Five Council Members
So there you have it. What do you think of the recommendation, and the job that the commissioners did? Let me know in the comments section.
Commissioner Bill Page started things off at this poorly attended meeting by comparing and contrasting the Mayor-Council (MC) form and the Mayor-Council-Administrator (MCA) form. He concluded, that although the forms had many similarities, he prefers the MCA form because the mayor presides over council meetings and therefore the whole government is together and available to the public.
Commissioner George Ostergren reiterated his preference for the MC form, stressing the need for strong checks and balances. He also stated that although it has been said that his mind has been made up from the start, that isn't exactly true. Yes, he was biased towards the MC form because of his decade long research into the topic, but he was "willing to sit here and listen" for 8 months, and his mind was open to other opinions.
Commission Chairman Chris Jensen disfavors MCA because there are no options available. He said that one day Hillsborough might want to have wards, or non-partisan elections, or a different number of council members - but that would require changing the form of government once again. He is in favor of the Mayor-Council form because it allows options to be changed as the town evolves.
Commissioner Glenn van Lier strongly desires the separation of powers that are inherent in the Mayor-Council form. He believes the town needs a mayor that "has authority - the buck stops here". He also likes the idea that the directly elected mayor in the MC form serves four years, unlike the appointed mayor of the Township Committee who might serve only one.
Commissioner Gloria McCauley is opposed to the Mayor-Council form because it is too much of a big-city form of government: "it does not make sense to take something that works and turn it upside down". She recommends a special charter which would follow from the Township Committee and MCA forms, and have a directly elected mayor.
At this point a motion was made to recommend the Mayor-Council form of government. The vote was as follows:
George Ostergren - yes
Gloria McCauley - no
Glenn van Lier - yes
Bill Page - no
Chris Jensen - yes
After a short recess, the commissioners added the following options to their recommendation:
1. At Large Council members - no wards
2. Partisan Elections
3. Staggered Terms (elections every two years for four year seats)
And after a lengthy discussion about whether to have five or seven
4. Five Council Members
So there you have it. What do you think of the recommendation, and the job that the commissioners did? Let me know in the comments section.
20 July 2007
The Good Old Days
I must admit that when I walked to the microphone at Wednesday's Charter Study Commission public hearing, I was quite nervous. Committeeman Carl Suraci had just finished addressing the Commission, mostly concerning the validity of their conclusions regarding the Township Committee form of government. Mr. Suraci's main concern was that the testimony of the current township committee was discounted during the Commission's evaluation of our present government.
What reporter Pamela Sroka-Holzmann described in the Courier News as a "heated debate" actually included much gavel-pounding, arguing during the ensuing recess, and, eventually, commissioners abandoning the dais. Ms. Sroka-Holzmann is decidedly NOT a sensationalist reporter!
After the recess, Mr. Suraci concluded his remarks by pointing out the inclusion of Hillsborough as No. 23 in Money Magazine's list of the top 100 places to live in the U.S. This is what I was thinking about when I got up to speak.
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. Looking back fondly on by-gone days can give one a sense of happiness and peace. The problem with the "good old days" is that you can never recognize them until they're gone - although there are often clues.
Could it be that we are living in the good old days right now? One clue certainly is that Money Magazine ranking. Can't you imagine people looking back on Hillsborough 30 years from now saying, "I remember when this was the 23rd best place to live in the country, they didn't know how good they had it".
Another clue just might be our form of government. The Township Committee form is a living piece of history that has served this town well for 236 years. There is no doubt in my mind that one day it will need to go - vanish like the buggy whip and washboard - and that is going to be a sad day. But there is a reason that it has lasted so long - from Washington drilling his troops on the mountain, to the heyday of the railroads, and beyond - and that is because it works.
Until Hillsborough becomes so complex, so populous, and so full of problems that we need a full-time professional mayor to run the town, we should be very careful about losing what we have - a simple, effective, and responsive government, of the people, by the people, and for the people - just like in the good old days.
What reporter Pamela Sroka-Holzmann described in the Courier News as a "heated debate" actually included much gavel-pounding, arguing during the ensuing recess, and, eventually, commissioners abandoning the dais. Ms. Sroka-Holzmann is decidedly NOT a sensationalist reporter!
After the recess, Mr. Suraci concluded his remarks by pointing out the inclusion of Hillsborough as No. 23 in Money Magazine's list of the top 100 places to live in the U.S. This is what I was thinking about when I got up to speak.
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. Looking back fondly on by-gone days can give one a sense of happiness and peace. The problem with the "good old days" is that you can never recognize them until they're gone - although there are often clues.
Could it be that we are living in the good old days right now? One clue certainly is that Money Magazine ranking. Can't you imagine people looking back on Hillsborough 30 years from now saying, "I remember when this was the 23rd best place to live in the country, they didn't know how good they had it".
Another clue just might be our form of government. The Township Committee form is a living piece of history that has served this town well for 236 years. There is no doubt in my mind that one day it will need to go - vanish like the buggy whip and washboard - and that is going to be a sad day. But there is a reason that it has lasted so long - from Washington drilling his troops on the mountain, to the heyday of the railroads, and beyond - and that is because it works.
Until Hillsborough becomes so complex, so populous, and so full of problems that we need a full-time professional mayor to run the town, we should be very careful about losing what we have - a simple, effective, and responsive government, of the people, by the people, and for the people - just like in the good old days.
18 July 2007
15 July 2007
CSC
Hillsborough Township's Charter Study Commission. I've managed to avoid the topic up till now - how, I don't really know. Changing our form of government is potentially the most important issue facing Hillsborough today, and it needs to be here in the Hillsborough Blog.
I suppose I have steered clear of this topic because I have never been able to figure out how to get started. Now I have an idea, and I need you!
In just a few weeks the CSC will make their recommendation, and I am sure to be covering it extensively. But in the meantime, I want to hear from you right here.
What do you need to know about the CSC? What don't you understand about the various forms of government? Is your mind already made up? Are you pro-change or no-change?
Let me have your input in the comments section of this blog. I am not an expert on this by any means, but together we can figure it out.
I suppose I have steered clear of this topic because I have never been able to figure out how to get started. Now I have an idea, and I need you!
In just a few weeks the CSC will make their recommendation, and I am sure to be covering it extensively. But in the meantime, I want to hear from you right here.
What do you need to know about the CSC? What don't you understand about the various forms of government? Is your mind already made up? Are you pro-change or no-change?
Let me have your input in the comments section of this blog. I am not an expert on this by any means, but together we can figure it out.
26 June 2007
Hillsborough Mining, Montgomery Manufacturing, cont.
Thursday July 23, 1953 - Montgomery Township Municipal Hall. 8:30 p.m.
So much for drama. As the assembled crowd inside and outside the Municipal Hall waits impatiently to hear the outcome of the recent Planning Board meeting concerning the application by 3M to build their proposed quarry and roofing tile granule manufacturing plant, word finally comes from their neighbors to the north. By pre-arrangement with Hillsborough, Montgomery Mayor Ficken will not read the Planning Board vote until 8:30, when Hillsborough reads theirs.
The outcome of the Hillsborough vote is the only real drama here, as people have known for days, after word spread in this still small town, that Montgomery had approved 3M's plan. When the call finally comes, Mayor Ficken announces that Hillsborough's Planning Board has not yet reached a decision (they did indeed approve the plan a few days later).
The approvals in Hillsborough and Montgomery lead to a summer of unrest in both townships. Citizens' groups in each town - Montgomery's led by famed pollster George Gallup - collected petitions for a change in government. Petitions were delivered to the respective clerks, and questions were put on the ballot for later that summer.
Dr. Gallup compared the campaign season that summer to the Civil War. "Sometimes a father will be on one side and a son on the other. Men who have been good friends all their lives are arguing. Next door neighbors are no longer in agreement".
Ultimately both ballot questions failed at the polls - Hillsborough's voters declined to change to a Council-Manager form of government by a vote of 972 to 408 - and the 3M plant was built.
It is interesting to note that 3M's announcement last week that it would be closing its Montgomery/Hillsborough facility (amid continuing concerns about the accumulated rock dust and wastewater management!) come during a time when Hillsborough once again contemplates changing its form of government. Also interesting is the evolution of the relationship between Hillsborough and Montgomery - destined to be partners in geography (re: the 206 bypass) for at least another 54 years and beyond.
So much for drama. As the assembled crowd inside and outside the Municipal Hall waits impatiently to hear the outcome of the recent Planning Board meeting concerning the application by 3M to build their proposed quarry and roofing tile granule manufacturing plant, word finally comes from their neighbors to the north. By pre-arrangement with Hillsborough, Montgomery Mayor Ficken will not read the Planning Board vote until 8:30, when Hillsborough reads theirs.
The outcome of the Hillsborough vote is the only real drama here, as people have known for days, after word spread in this still small town, that Montgomery had approved 3M's plan. When the call finally comes, Mayor Ficken announces that Hillsborough's Planning Board has not yet reached a decision (they did indeed approve the plan a few days later).
The approvals in Hillsborough and Montgomery lead to a summer of unrest in both townships. Citizens' groups in each town - Montgomery's led by famed pollster George Gallup - collected petitions for a change in government. Petitions were delivered to the respective clerks, and questions were put on the ballot for later that summer.
Dr. Gallup compared the campaign season that summer to the Civil War. "Sometimes a father will be on one side and a son on the other. Men who have been good friends all their lives are arguing. Next door neighbors are no longer in agreement".
Ultimately both ballot questions failed at the polls - Hillsborough's voters declined to change to a Council-Manager form of government by a vote of 972 to 408 - and the 3M plant was built.
It is interesting to note that 3M's announcement last week that it would be closing its Montgomery/Hillsborough facility (amid continuing concerns about the accumulated rock dust and wastewater management!) come during a time when Hillsborough once again contemplates changing its form of government. Also interesting is the evolution of the relationship between Hillsborough and Montgomery - destined to be partners in geography (re: the 206 bypass) for at least another 54 years and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)