Charter Study Commission’s second public hearing
gives chance for residents to weigh-in on studies
By:Paul Szaniawski
The gears for change may slowly be turning in Hillsborough as public support may be picking up steam in the direction to change the town’s government.
During the Charter Study Commission’s June 27 public hearing, residents discussed a government transition and which form would fit Hillsborough best.
Another development may also lead to the public’s support to change the government type on the same night the commission revealed a professional estimate of how much a change would cost.
After early speculation of an expensive transition, the commission was notified that changing the town code would cost $23,000, according to commission Chairman Chris Jensen.
Cost may have been the defining factor in November 2005 when Hillsborough residents voted down a direct petition to change the government.
"There was a political committee called Residents Against Wards (R.A.W.) that came out to defeat it," Mr. Jensen said.
RAW campaigned on the part of citizens who were against changing Hillsborough’s government form, who feared the government option of voting wards may tear the town apart. The political group claimed changing Hillsborough’s municipal government type would cost more than $700,000.
The $23,000 estimate came from General Code, a company based out of Rochester, N.Y., that currently handles Hillsborough’s township code. Less than two months ago, Mr. Jensen asked the company to come up with an estimate.
Attorney fees are not included in the cost estimate. The hourly rate for township legal counsel is $125. If the charter study were to recommend a government change and voters accepted it, then township attorneys would have a limited time constraint to finish the codification.
Although the amount to change governments would be much less than anticipated, Mr. Jensen wasn’t sure if it was enough to guarantee a different outcome at the polls than in 2005.
During the public hearing, Valerie Chaucer Levine, of Garretson Lane, recalled the public’s November 2005 decision to vote down a mayor-council form of government.
"The public had already made its opinion on it and I don’t think (wards) should be revisited," Ms. Chaucer-Levine said.
Although she didn’t feel changing to a council-manager should be recommended, Ms. Chaucer-Levine believed Hillsborough residents wanted a mayor. Since 5,000 residents signed a petition for a change to a council-mayor form, it was evident that direct election of a mayor was at the top of the public’s wish lists, according to Ms. Chaucer-Levine.
A government’s strong central figurehead could grab more state grants for Hillsborough by keeping his or her foot on the gas pedal for the state’s attention, she added. She felt the town may have been better off with an elected mayor in the past.
"I think that us not having a central figure really hurt us," Ms. Chaucer-Lecvine said.
Another member of the public in attendance also felt a mayor could heal Hillsborough’s wounds.
Following the advice of the prior meeting’s last guest speaker, David Sandahl of Hopewell, Frank Herbert first analyzed Hillsborough’s problems to see which form of government would best fit. Mr. Herbert, of Baird Drive, rattled off a list of township committee issues including the mayor’s short term of one year, the lack of a separation of executive and legislative powers and the mayor’s election without public input.
By process of elimination, Mr. Herbert said the government forms of mayor-council and mayor-council-administrator were the only choices capable of solving these issues.
For Mr. Herbert, the deciding factor between the two forms seemed to be public convenience: he liked that residents could address both the mayor and the council during the same township meeting when both parties would be present one of the features of mayor-council-administrator.
"I’m really starting to feel that MCA would be the way to go if you recommend a change," said Mr. Herbert. "The man from Berkeley Heights said it’s the closest to what we have now."
In a mayor-council-administrator form there are six members of the legislative town council and a full-time administrator that wields executive power while helping the mayor run the town. The legislative and executive powers are separated.
Also, there is no possibility for wards in the MCA form, while a mayor-council form allows for the creation of wards by the council.
"I don’t personally think Hillsborough likes wards and it isn’t big enough for wards," Mr. Herbert said.
Glenn Van Lier, commission vice-chairman, challenged Mr. Herbert’s final verdict. Mr. Van Lier asked the resident if he was nervous about endorsing the mayor-council-administrator forms since it has been used by only three New Jersey townships in 20 years.
"It doesn’t matter to me," Mr. Herbert replied. "What works for us works for us."
One defining difference between the MCA form and Hillsborough’s township committee is the length of the mayor’s term. Berkeley Heights switched to a mayor-council-administrator, in part, because it allowed the mayor to stay in office longer than a year.
"The advantage of having more than one year, that is four years, is it provides continuity and allows to get things done beyond the township," said Ms. Chaucer-Levine.
She added that another way to inject continuity in Hillsborough’s government would be to elect town council members to staggered terms, a point made by commission member Bill Page at a prior meeting. This way only a maximum of two seats could be changed every year. Staggered terms are required in a mayor-council-administrator form.
The public input did not seem to heavily sway any of the commission members’ opinions but it did support some their existing views.
"Everything that was said tonight is along my same line of thinking," Mr. Page said.
He agreed with comments made during the public hearing and would like to see a mayor who is accountable to residents.
Still, Mr. Page said his mind wasn’t made up.
"But I don’t know what I’m going to choose yet," he added.

