Panel recommends mayor-council government

Hillsborough voters to make decision in November.

By: Audrey Levine
   Township voters in November will decide whether to change Hillsborough’s form of government from township committee to mayor-council.
   Amid more debate over the group’s official report, the Charter Study Commission voted 3-2 on July 25 to recommend a mayor-council form of government for Hillsborough Township.
   The recommendation will be put on the Nov. 6 ballot for approval.
   The commission members voting for the mayor-council form cited its flexibility and opportunities to alter council sizes if needed as factors that make it a better fit for the township than the mayor-council-administrator form of government, which also was under consideration.
   Chairman Chris Jensen said that, although he can find fault with both forms, he believes a mayor-council government will allow for changes to be made as the township grows in size throughout the years.
   "A growth chart of the census shows Hillsborough is steadily growing," he said. "We need more administration and a mayor-council government allows for that."
   Vice Chairman Glenn van Lier said that many township residents have expressed their desire to elect their own mayor, something the commission had cited in past discussions. He said the mayor-council-administrator form of government does not provide for a separation of power, which would render the act of electing a mayor almost useless.
   "There is no point in directly electing a mayor unless we give the person responsibilities," he said.
   The system of checks and balances also was cited as being one of the main reasons for favoring the mayor-council form of government. Commissioner George Ostergren said a township should have a specific person in charge in order to maintain a balance of power.
   "We need to have clear executive lines of power," Mr. van Lier said. "With mayor-council-administrator, the mayor does not have more power than others."
   Unlike her fellow members, Commissioner Gloria McCauley said she would rather support a special charter to allow the public to elect its own mayor, while keeping many features of the current township committee form.
   "I don’t know why we need a separation of powers," she said, citing the fact that members are more equal in her choice form of government. "I believe the mayor-council government opens the door for corruption."
   In addition, Ms. McCauley said she was not an advocate for mayor-council government because the public had already turned down the proposition in the past. She said no form of government would be perfect, but if the commission chose instead to draft a special charter, changes could be made as needed to move into a mayor-council-administrator government.
   "The cost would be minimal in updating the form, rather than overhauling it," she said.
   Frank DelCore, of Hoagland Court, also expressed his regret over the recommendation of a mayor-council government.
   "I am disappointed that we chose a form that was voted down two years ago," he said.
   The commission also approved several recommendations concerning how the government should be run if mayor-council is selected by voters. In addition to unanimous approval of a partisan government — which would allow residents to directly elect a mayor rather than depending on elected council members to do so — and an at-large forum for the council, the commission discussed and approved the benefits of staggered terms for council members.
   Staggered terms require half of the council to come up for re-election within two years, with the remainder of the council going through the election process two years later.
   "A four-year term is bad because there is a potential for total turnover in the government," said Commissioner Bill Page. "We could end up with a brand-new council without experience. Staggered elections provide a cooling-off period."
   The final recommendation came in the form of the size of the council with the decision being to keep it at five members, after much debate about the benefits of adding two more members.
   "A larger council distributes the workload more," said Mr. Jensen, who initially supported a seven-member council. "Each member will have less to do so the work can be done more thoroughly."
   Mr. Jensen then cited drawbacks of adding members to the council, explaining that residents might equate the change with the way a larger city is run.
   "I think people will feel comfortable staying where they are with five members because it’s what they’re used to," he said.
   Despite the initially calm proceedings, the meeting became heated when discussions turned to the report originally drafted by Chad Ehrenkrantz, a University of Miami law student interning with the commission’s attorney. As the meeting turned hostile, Mr. van Lier declared that he would rewrite the report and then would send the draft out to the other commission members for revisions.
   "Glenn, I don’t know why you are so adamant to take charge of this," Mr. Jensen said as he tried to explain that the commission simply could work to revise the document it already had. "We have in essence a document we reviewed twice."
   The meeting erupted in argument when Mr. van Lier made a nondebatable motion to table discussions of the old report until he could review and rewrite it, a matter seconded by Mr. Ostergren.
   "Why is that you get to debate and I don’t?" Mr. Jensen asked in response to Mr. van Lier’s statement that he could not argue against the motion.
   Several residents who stayed until the end of the almost four-hour proceedings, and listened to Mr. Ostergren demand an elimination of the public portion of the meeting, expressed discontent over the way the meeting itself was handled.
   "I’m left with a bad taste in my mouth," said Valerie Chaucer-Levine, of Garretson Lane. "I have heard things in this meeting that ring true, but the rudeness I have seen directed to the public is a poor reflection on the commission."
   Despite the tension and arguments of the July 25 meeting, a revised draft of the report written by Mr. van Lier, as well as another one written by Mr. Page, were discussed at Monday’s meeting. Mr. van Lier said the commission used Mr. Page’s piece as the basis for the new report, while he discussed areas that could be changed or deleted.
   "I was allowed to lead the discussion on Monday and add or subtract pieces from Bill’s report (based on what I had written)," Mr. van Lier said in an interview Wednesday. "In the end, we will have one unified final report."
   The final report is due to the township clerk’s office by Aug. 7.