How we pick successors needs repair

PACKET EDITORIAL, Nov. 4

By: Packet Editorial
   It’s ironic that a public question to reform the way New Jersey chooses a successor to the governor should be on the ballot next week — at the very same time the need to reform the way New Jersey municipalities choose successors to their mayors has become evident.
   At the state level, the line of succession from the governor to the Senate president is widely viewed as an abomination. Invoked in each of the last two administrations, it has empowered a single individual to preside simultaneously over both the executive and legislative branches of state government — an ill-advised breach of the principle of separation of powers. That neither Donald DiFrancesco nor Richard Codey abused this temporary position of extraordinary power is a tribute to their fundamental decency, not to the wisdom of this constitutional peculiarity.
   On Tuesday, voters will have the opportunity to remedy this situation by amending the state constitution to create the position of lieutenant governor. As noted before in this space, the proposal on the ballot is far from perfect — among other things, it doesn’t specify what, exactly, the lieutenant governor is supposed to do — but even this flawed reform would represent a vast improvement over the status quo.
   Unfortunately, no such remedy is in the offing for the system of succession in use at the municipal level. Yet, as the present situation in Princeton Borough makes plain, if the state’s system raises concerns about abuse of power that might be described as Machiavellian, the municipal system is so clumsy and confusing as to be downright Byzantine.
   The untimely and unfortunate death of Princeton Borough Mayor Joseph O’Neill — a true gentleman and scholar who will be sorely missed in our community — has brought the need for reform into bold relief. Without going into excruciating detail (the mere fact that the process cannot be fully explained in this space is proof enough that it needs fixing), the borough could conceivably have three mayors in the next three years — one appointed to fill the office until next November, another elected then to fill the remaining year of Mayor O’Neill’s unexpired term, and a third elected in November 2007 to a full four-year term.
   It is also conceivable — indeed, it appears likely — that a game of musical chairs will be played on the Borough Council, with council President Mildred Trotman being selected (from a state-mandated list of three nominees presented by the party, in this case the Democrats, of the person being replaced) to serve as mayor. Ms. Trotman’s fellow Democrats will then have to submit three names of nominees to succeed her on the council, from which her erstwhile colleagues will choose one.
   Then, next November, the whole game could start again, with Ms. Trotman choosing to run for the one year remaining in the mayoral term, or go back to running for a council seat, or leave public life altogether. Another council member may then run for mayor, or be appointed if Ms. Trotman decides to leave the job. The Democrats can then come up with three more names for mayor — and three more for at least one, and maybe more, council seats — until nobody can keep track of who is holding what position for how long.
   There’s got to be a better way. We see no reason why the council president shouldn’t automatically succeed to the mayoralty, especially if they are of the same political party. (Only if they aren’t would it be necessary to revert to the more cumbersome system used now.) The council could then choose a new president from among its remaining members, and appoint a new council member until the next general election. This would remove at least one time-consuming step, thereby streamlining the process and reducing, if not eliminating, undue confusion.
   We hope neither Princeton nor any other community has to go through this process again any time soon. But knowing that it will happen — somewhere, sometime — steps to reform the process should begin now. And it would be especially fitting if reform were accomplished through the kind of swift, no-nonsense action that marked Mayor O’Neill’s own service to the community — and of which, we are confident, he would heartily and cheerfully approve.