Mayor-council-administrator the wrong way for Hopewell Township

GUEST OPINION

By David Sandahl
   Troubled by persistent conflict between members of its Township Committee a few years ago, Hopewell Township voters authorized a Charter Study Commission last year to determine whether our government could be made stronger, more responsive, more efficient or more economical, as state law provides.
   Unfortunately, what we got is a recommendation for a flawed form of government that is likely to be less responsive, less efficient, more costly, and more prone to conflict than the Township Committee form we have today.
   What went wrong?
   Flawed proposal — The Hopewell Township Charter Study Commission (CSC) has recommended a mayor-council-administrator form of government, featuring a powerful four-year mayor, a professional administrator, and a six-member council.
   Of the several forms of government available to New Jersey towns, state statistics indicate that the mayor-council-administrator is almost never used; only two of New Jersey’s 566 municipalities have adopted it in the past 24 years.
   Why is it so little used?
   The proposal has serious flaws:
   — With unprecedented abilities to hire and fire, the dominating new mayor would have extraordinary power over decisions such as land use and development.
   — A total reorganization of township government, which would disrupt services and add two layers of management, is mandated.
   — We can expect a year of conflict in 2007 as the new mayor, council members, administrator and department heads jockey for position and power in the new government.
   — A complete rewrite of administrative laws is required, as expensive attorneys counsel the competing interests, while public legal fees mount.
   — The experience of other towns suggests implementation would add more than $250,000 to the township budget, which would add another 20 percent to the 2005 local tax increase.
   How did the Hopewell Township CSC settle on such a flawed proposal?
   A flawed analysis—The CSC failed to deliver a thorough, balanced assessment of the facts and the options for change.
   — The CSC did not appear to explore information contrary to its predetermined views.
   — The CSC did not conduct a broad-based survey of residents as Charter Commissions in other towns have.
   — The CSC made little effort to calculate the costs of change and the ongoing costs that its proposal would impose on township taxpayers.
   The CSC recommendation seems to be based more on academic abstractions than concrete facts.
   A better way—The CSC could have recommended an approach better suited to the real needs of Hopewell Township — a Special Charter. (Details on this and other information about charter change can be found at http://soundHTgov.blogspot.com)
   Adoption of such a Special Charter could give Hopewell Township a stronger administrator and a two-year term for the mayor. Changing the term of Township Committee members could reduce the number of elections from once a year to once every two years.
   Taken together, these changes would solve the problems cited by the CSC, but with far less cost and disruption.
   Hopewell Township voters should reject the fatally flawed mayor-council-administrator proposal by a voting no on Municipal Question No. 1 on Nov. 8.
   
David Sandahl is a member of Citizens for Sound Hopewell Township Government.