CHARTER CHANGE DEBATE

Letters about charter proposal

Say no to No. 1
To the editor:
   
Ten former mayors of Hopewell Township expressed their support for the charter change in a letter here last week.
   What a surprise! It would have been far more surprising had they not supported it. For those with a taste for political power the change is equivalent to turning a child loose in a candy store.
   I believe astute township voters will be able to read between the lines and realize that the message this group of ex-mayors is sending us is, perhaps, not the one they intended to send.
   The little-used form of government they are urging on us should be defeated.
   Vote no on public question No. 1 next week.
Robert E. Seibert
Hopewell Township
Wants to elect mayor
To the editor:
   
I have noticed a number of signs in the area encouraging township voters to vote against the Charter Commission recommendation for a mayor-council-administrator form of government to replace the present "committee" form. Their reason is that it is "too costly" and "too risky."
   At the Oct. 27 public meeting, most members of the public who spoke up were worried about giving an elected mayor with a four-year term too much power, especially if all members of the council belonged to the same political party as the mayor. Too costly because the new form would add a sixth member to the council, the cost of having to revise all the township ordinances, "if it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it", etc., etc.
   The chief executive at the federal, state and county levels are all elected for four years and I have never heard anyone being afraid that those individuals have too much power. How many times have you written to any of these officials and received a response to your particular question? I’ve written may times and still do. You might get an acknowledgement of your letter, but never get a response! At least with a mayor, I can walk into their office and speak face-to-face with the person. Our mayor would have the power to make a number of appointments, but not without the advise and consent of the council, just like all of the above listed chief executives.
   We can all vote for the president, governor and county executive. So why can’t we the people be entrusted to vote for our local mayor? I just cannot understand why so many people in the township have no interest in having any say as to who will be our mayor. No one has given me a simple common-sense response to that. There are a number of advantages in having the same mayor for four years, the main one being continuity of actions that extend beyond the one year that present mayors are in office; also the accumulated rapport and trust when dealing with other municipalities, government officials and corporations, etc.
   As to the cost — presently the township has 14 department heads. This would be reduced to six. As I understand it, no one will be fired. There may be reduction in pay, but that will probably be up to the new council, just like it would be up to the present committee. Supposedly the money saved in reducing the number of department heads would more than offset the added cost of another council member who gets paid around $4500. The Charter Commission chairman stated that Oct. 27, before the public meeting. He contacted the municipality that changed to the mayor-council-administrator form of government not long ago and reaffirmed the fact that there was barely any change to their budget.
   The cost of changing or reaffirming existing ordinances as required by state statutes has not been adequately pinned down by the Charter Commission to the satisfaction of some members of the public who claimed that it could cost as much as $100,000 or more. The commission chairman strongly refuted that amount. The cost would depend on how many ordinances and resolutions would have to be totally rewritten, make only slight changes or merely reaffirm them. And what if it did cost us $100,000, how much is that compared to the several million dollars that past committees have wasted in paying for cancellation of projects and legal fees for which the taxpayers have nothing to show for their money.
   And finally, the statements made concerning "if it ain’t broken, don’t try to fix it" and we have had the "committee" form of government for 200 years, without any major problems, so why change it? How many times over the years have you gone to the boss or co-worker and asked why something was being done as it was and gotten the answer, "because that is the way it’s always been done." In my many years of life experience in personnel management and facility maintenance management, I seldom found anything that could not be improved on and "because that is the way it’s always been done" was never an acceptable response.
   In last week’s Hopewell Valley News, 10 former mayors, almost equally divided by political party, all based on their experience as mayors, endorsed the Charter Commission’s recommendation for the mayor-council-administrator form of government for Hopewell Township. So get out there on Election Day and vote yes for a 21st-century form of government and you elect who you want as mayor.
Sevy DiCocco
Hopewell Township
Reject charter change
To the editor:
   
After having examined the Charter Study Commission final report, read the opinions in this paper and listened to the commission hearings, I believe I must urge my fellow citizens of Hopewell Township to reject the charter change in the upcoming election because it will add to our tax burden and will increase the risk of a dysfunctional township government.
   Taxes and services are among the key issues in our community. The commission report includes no meaningful cost analysis. I believe that this change will result in significant added up-front legal and reorganization costs and annual operating costs. These added costs will pay for more bureaucracy, not more services. Corporate America is rapidly changing to a flat organization structure because flat organizations cost less! The commission was completely off the mark on this point.
   The assumption that a new form of government will solve problems experienced several years ago is naive. It is the people, not the forms of government that make the difference. Our current form of government worked for decades. Many have argued that the problems of a few years ago were based in part on persons or groups that became too powerful and unwilling to listen to the citizens.
   Assuming that this is at least partially true, I am concerned that the proposed charter change will create a mayor with few practical checks and balances with complete power to hire and fire. The real risk exists that professional positions will become politicized. Why would anyone want to have a system that creates one position with this much power and the potential for abuse?
   It is the people of the township that matter. I believe the proposed change will create a government less responsive to the people. The option of a "Special Charter" would have provided for a directly elected mayor and a stronger administrator without the risks inherent in the change proposed by the Charter Study Commission.
   Vote no on Municipal Question #1.
Ken Hill
Hopewell Township
Vote yes on Nov. 8
To the editor:
   
Every January someone picks our mayor!
   I think we as a community would benefit from taking that job on ourselves rather than waiting to see whose turn it is, who has the political power, or who the compromise candidate might be.
   The thoughtful, deliberative work of the Charter Study Commission ended with a recommendation we as a community should endorse with our support on Nov. 8. Community organizations and groups throughout Hopewell Township will benefit from the continuity of leadership the mayor-council-administrator form of government will provide. With a four-year term our mayor – like the mayors of the boroughs — will have the opportunity to rise above partisan issues, build relationships and partnerships that will result in a deeper understanding of the issues, and be accountable for the decisions made for more than one election cycle.
   Join me in supporting the work of our dedicated community volunteers by voting yes on Nov. 8.
Sheryl L. Stone
Hopewell Township
Things

we don’t want
To the editor:
   
"Direct election" or "derelict election"? I attended several of the Charter Commission meetings. By those wanting change, the most frequent reason given and most frequently heard by the Charter Commission was "I want to elect the mayor directly, just like I elect the president." The lack of awareness that we do not directly elect the president amazes me. In New Jersey, we only elect 15 of the 538 electors, who in turn vote for the president, fewer than 3 percent, and have absolutely no say about the other 97+ percent In our local form of government, we vote for 100 percent of the five committee members who choose the mayor from amongst themselves each year. Every year, we either vote for one or two committee persons. In this way, we are able to evaluate the performance of the current mayor and the majority coalition by making annual affirmations of or adjustments to the majority coalition. Incredibly, the question placed on the ballot states that the new government form would have "the mayor elected directly by the voters at elections held in November…" This is at best misleading. In three of every four years, there would be no November mayoral election, and no way to change the mayor without a difficult, expensive, and divisive recall election, regardless of the mayor’s performance, competence, honesty, or personal relations. Even though the initial election could be by a margin of just one vote, we would be giving up our power to substantiate whether the mayor is performing well and representing us satisfactorily. Is this direct election of derelict election?
   "Mayoral continuity" or "voter relinquishment"? The second most cited reason for change by the Charter Commission was continuity. What a scheme! To get continuity, we must relinquish our vote in three of every four years! This is voter relinquishment!
   "Authority and accountability" or "unbridled power with zero accountability"? The third reason given for the change would give lots of authority to the mayor. The mayor, especially the first-term mayor, could appoint and also could fire, solely at his or her own discretion (or whim), all officers, professionals, department heads, board members, and commission members for four years. The council would only have consent power for some of the officers, but none of the others. The council would only have limited dismissal power for the administrator (after a 4-2 vote, it would still have to give the administrator three months’ salary, about $25,000, unless the administrator committed a crime or act of moral turpitude), even less for the department heads (dismissal only for a crime or act of moral turpitude), and none for the professionals, boards, and committees. This is unbridled power for the mayor! Where is the accountability? Not after one year. Not after two years. Not after three years. After four years, the mayor could walk away, or even worse, use name recognition to try for eight years!
   "Separation of powers" or "concentration of power"? The Township Committee relies heavily on information and guidance from the administrator, attorney, engineer, treasurer, planner, and department heads. In the recommended form of government, these professionals would be handpicked by and serving completely at the discretion of the mayor. If the mayor does not encourage them to do so, why would they voluntarily help the council? Council members would be operating largely in the dark, dependent on what the mayor wants them to know. Even the council’s budgetary power would be limited because after the budget is established at the beginning of the year, the mayor has discretion on how to charge expenses. This is not a system of checks and balances, but is concentration of power!
   Vote no to Municipal Question #1. For Hopewell Township, we do not want derelict election, voter relinquishment, or concentration of unbridled power.
Len Ramist
Hopewell Township
Take their advice
To the editor:
   
I can appreciate and very much respect those who have raised concerns about the Charter Commission’s recommendation for Hopewell Township’s form of government to change to a mayor-council-administrator structure. I have carefully considered the criticism of the commission’s recommendations and have reached a different conclusion. I support the charter commission’s recommendation for change to the mayor-council-administrator form for the flowing reasons. As residents of Hopewell Township, we need to consider that electing our mayor is fundamental to our democratic roots; it is also a privilege most of us hold dearly in our hearts as Americans. Take a moment to examine the criticism of the commission’s recommendation. Too, risky, costly or gives one person too much power?
   Let’s take a hard look at some of the risks; there is a risk that 14 department heads will need to consolidate down to six departments. This sounds more like a cost saving opportunity to me. Instead of having people run around saying that it will cost the township added expense to appoint directors to head each department, consider this; North Brunswick restructured and increased salaries for each new department director an extra $2,000 per year for their new job functions. That added $12,000 to their budget. Or, consider this risk; the mayor can appoint the administrator, directors, and professionals. So, with all the changes that can take place with a new form of government, a new mayor would risk appointing all new leaders? Sounds a little preposterous to me.
   Too costly? Short-term costs vs. long term efficiencies and benefits are most likely the argument we should be having. About the cost to rewrite the administrative code, former North Brunswick Mayor Paul Matacera said the new code was not much different than the old. The Charter Commission estimates the cost to rewrite the code at roughly $10,000-$15,000. This cost sounded reasonable to Mr. Matacera who was mayor for 17 years under the mayor-council-administrator and must be familiar with some of the costs.
   One person has too much power? Hopewell Township has several well-documented directives such as: a deliberative wastewater management plan that calls for limited growth throughout the town. We also want to keep our residents safe from massive, unwanted traffic on our roadways. The overwhelming majority of residents live in this community because they want to maintain the rural character and the pastoral surroundings that we enjoy throughout Hopewell Township. So, what is the fear? Would the residents of Hopewell Township elect a mayor or a council who felt otherwise? I believe the answer is no. There is a balance of power in this form that will keep everyone honest and true to the town mission.
   We ought to have faith in the Charter Commission’s recommendation. We must have faith that our elected officials are there to serve the citizens of Hopewell Township. We must have faith that the balance of power will stand up to any despot who seeks the political spotlight. The world is growing and Hopewell Township is growing. We need to look to the future and to a form of government that will stand the test of time. It is time for a change! Vote yes on Nov. 8.
Mark Iorio
Hopewell Township