by Audrey Levine, Staff Writer
There was standing room only for residents who turned out for Monday’s Borough Council meeting to question the need for “fixing something that is not broken.”
That’s the way many described an ordinance that would abolish the Recreation Commission, while establishing a Recreation Department and committee instead.
”As far as I can tell, the commission has done a good job,” said Mike Janes, Recreation Commission chairman. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
The ordinance, introduced by a 5-1 vote with Councilman Ed Komoroski providing the only dissenting vote, replaces the Recreation Commission with a department run by a director and a seven-member committee appointed by the mayor.
The proposed ordinance is slated for an adoption vote Dec. 15.
The department director would maintain the same responsibilities that current Director Rich Armstrong has, administering athletic and recreation programs, operating community centers and doing other work for activities being offered to children, senior citizens and all residents.
The department’s director and assistant director will report to the borough administrator.
The committee, like the commission does now, will work with the director on recreation activities.
But for many residents, the big question surrounding the proposed ordinance itself was why a change is even necessary.
”What upsets me most is that this was placed on the agenda and the commission wasn’t consulted first,” said Kenny Kosensky, of North Fifth Avenue.
Several residents echoed this concern, and questioned why the council was moving forward with this ordinance now, saying that a few days notice is not enough time to make a rational decision for this kind of change.
Mayor Lillian Zuza said she would arrange a time to meet with the members of the commission to discuss the proposed ordinance. She described the ordinance as a step in making the local government work better.
”We’ve spent the year restructuring, and this is just another way of restructuring the government so it runs more efficiently,” she said.
She said only the name will change, but the responsibilities of those involved, and the programs offered for residents, will not.
According to Mayor Zuza, the decision to draft this ordinance was made to put fiscal responsibility for recreation squarely on the shoulders of the mayor and council.
”I feel those hard fiscal decisions should be made by the Borough Council,” she said. “Right now, we have no control over the budget.”
Tuesday, Mayor Zuza said this change is part of a continued effort to restructure Manville’s government to better serve the residents. Part of this restructuring has included severing multiple shared services agreements to bring the services back to the borough.
”This ordinance is a continuation of what we started,” she said. “We are very happy with what the commission has done. But a commission is autonomous and a committee reports to the council. We are elected officials and we are responsible for what the borough does.”
Councilman Ted Petrock said, at the meeting, that this change is simply a matter of fiscal accountability, as the recreation director will report directly to the Borough Council, rather than to a commission.
”This was just a way of pulling back on the autonomous body,” he said. “It puts the onus on the council.”
Still, Mr. Janes questioned whether the commission had actually done anything wrong, and said that the commission’s 2008 budget had been reduced by $25,000, with another $10,000 eliminated when this year’s Community Day was canceled.
”I don’t understand how I cannot take this as an attack,” he said. “I feel like we’ve done something wrong.”
Mayor Zuza and the rest of the council reiterated that the commission had done nothing wrong, and that the roles of the members of the new department and committee will not change, they will only be reporting to the council instead of to themselves.
”This is the best way to be accountable for the funds for the people who are elected,” Councilwoman Kathy Quick said. “Public funds should not be in the hands of volunteers.”
Aside from questioning the need for this change, many residents asked what would happen to those currently holding positions in the commission.
”Maybe we should put in the paperwork that they all keep their jobs when the ordinance passes,” Rich Mumber, of Huff Avenue, said. “I understand that things aren’t going to change — but they’re going to change.”
Mr. Petrock made a motion to approve an amendment to the ordinance stating that those serving in the commission, and Mr. Armstrong, will automatically be reinstated in their positions for the remainder of their terms if the ordinance is approved after a public hearing Dec. 15. The amendment was unanimously approved by the council.
One resident asked if the hiring freeze, which Mayor Zuza announced Nov. 10, would affect the members of the commission.
Ms. Quick said that the hiring freeze is based on a case-by-case evaluation of the positions, and these posts would not be eliminated.
In a separate interview, Mr. Komoroski said members of the council should have met with the commission to discuss the ordinance before it was introduced to the public.
”The council didn’t get across what the problem is,” he said. “Why did this have to be pushed through this year?”
Mr. Komoroski added allowing the council to have final say on the recreation budget could turn it into a “politically driven machine,” and he hopes that programs do not get cut in the long run.
”If there are no changes, why even bother doing this?” he said and cited the fact that about 60 people turned out for the meeting to voice objections to the proposed ordinance. “Something that involves the town should be run by the townspeople. (The council is) the voice of the community, if the people say they don’t want something, then it shouldn’t happen.”
Despite statements from the council that nothing would change with the recreation opportunities in town, many residents expressed concerns about this ordinance being instituted at all.
”In closing, I object,” Mr. Kosensky said.

