EDITORIAL
Webster defines a leader as a directing, commanding or guiding head of a group or activity.
We’d like to expound upon that by defining a Township Council member as someone who has been elected to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents.
Last week, when presented with an opportunity to be a leader, Councilwoman Doris Weisberg disappointed us.
She may have had a point that a proposed $30,000 raise for Township Manager William Guhl was exorbitant. She had the courage to question it, but she did not follow through.
During the debate over the raise, Councilwoman Weisberg presented findings from her own research that said Mr. Guhl would become the highest paid municipal manager in the state if the plan was approved.
She suggested that managers of other municipalities do just as good a job as Mr. Guhl, but they do it for less money.
When it came time to vote, she withdrew. Not once, but twice.
She abstained from the vote on Mr. Guhl’s five-year contract and voted "present" on the funding ordinance to support that contract.
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, one votes "present" when they do not wish to vote.
We cannot understand how the councilwoman could do so much research on the plan, conclude that she was against it and yet not stand behind her convictions.
Later, the councilwoman said a "no" vote could have been interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the manager, with whom she says she has an excellent relationship. Or it could have been construed as political wrangling. She says that other council members have abstained for this purpose in the past.
We disagree with Councilwoman Weisberg. We believe a "no" vote would have recorded her objection to a raise that she saw as too large. We believe that an abstention is not a substitute for a "no" vote. It is not a vote at all.
If she voted against the increase, some may have disagreed with her and some may have cried partisan politics. But at least her objection would have been noted.