Chimes of Freedom

Lately, there has been alot of misinformation about the Village's plans for moving municipal elections to November and I thought it would be worth clarifying the situation.

A majority of the Board of Trustees has agreed, in principle, to move our municipal election to November, starting in 2013.  In fact, an ordinance to implement the change was drafted by Village Counsel and was requested to be put on the May 14 meeting agenda.  (However, the Village President chose to omit the request, along with 3 other agenda requests, for an undisclosed reason which I can only assume was because he did not support the idea, despite the verbalized desire of a majority of the Board for the election move.  The suppression of agenda items by one person is simply contrary to what a democracy is all about.  Each member of the Board has the right to express themselves on any topic, but stifling that expression is simply unacceptable.)

Similarly, moving the election to November will improve the democratic process by increasing voter participation as has been shown in towns like Mahwah which already moved their non-partisan municipal election from May and held their election in November 2011, resulting in a 41.6% turnout, compared to a 16.2% turnout in the prior May election.  In addition, another 19 municipalities (out of 86 nonpartisan municipalities) have also agreed to move their May non-partisan Municipal election to November starting in either 2012 or 2013. (and over 85 percent of School Boards in NJ have also decided to move their non-partisan elections from April to November:  http://www.njsba.org/sb_notes/20120222/november.html). 

Likewise, voter tunout in South Orange is also far less in May (dropping to a record-low 11% in 2011) than in November as shown by the following chart that was compiled by the Charter Review Committee:
Year      May       November
2005       26%            48%
2007       36%            24%
2009       18%            45%
2011       11%            29%

Aditionally, moving the municipal election to November will save taxpayer money.   According to the Charter Review Committee, municipal elections in South Orange that are held in May cost approximately $22,000 every time they are held.  Clearly, moving the municipal election to November and consolidating all elections at one time will eliminate this extraneous expense.   Quite simply, moving the municipal election to November will save money and increase voter participation, which is a win-win for all taxpayers and residents.

I initially had my own concerns about moving the election to November due to the perceived fear of partisan influence in our non-partisan elections.  However, I ultimately weighed the potential for greater voter participation in our democracy as far more important.  It is a simple fact, based on historical data, that in everyone's busy lives, people are more likely to be aware of and participate in an election when it occurs in November.

Since the next South Orange municipal election is not scheduled until 2013, we do not need to act immediately and ultimately the Board of Trustees agreed to observe the results of the 2012 November non-partisan elections in other municipalities in order to have more data before formalizing the move for South Orange in 2013 later this Fall.  There has also been some consideration to include this as a referendum on the ballot in November since moving the election will also extend the terms of all seven members of the current Board of Trustees.

However, just like placing all requested items on a public agenda, moving elections to November seems to be the most obvious choice for an open, transparent and participatory democracy.

Mary's Place

There has been a lot going on in South Orange, so it has been a while since I updated this blog. However, one of the biggest issues currently looming is the threatened demolition of the Graves mansion owned by Marylawn of the Oranges on Scotland Rd. In addition to the demolition of a significant historic building, a potential development of a residential apartment building on the site is also rumored, despite the violation of the present zoning that would require.

I have heard from many residents who are upset about this situation and many of them came out to Monday's Board of Trustees meeting to express their opposition for this demolition/development and to express their support for the creation of a Historic Preservation Commission.

The idea of a Historic Preservation Commission has been considered by the Village for MANY years and some background can be found on the Village website at http://www.southorange.org/historicpreservation.  Ultimately, having such a commission in place would be a good thing for the Village to help preserve our architectural history, and on May 14, the BOT unanimously passed  the ordinance on First Reading which creates a Historic Preservation Commission.  The Ordinance must now be reviewed by the Planning Board and be brought back to the Board of Trustees for a public hearing and Second Reading, which is currently scheduled for June 11.

I completely sympathize with the residents who are concerned about a development that threatens their neighborhood, having gone through the same experience when 198 apartments were proposed to be built in the quarry, in MY neighborhood over 10 years ago.  At the time, we were told by the Village that "This fight has been fought...this property will be developed".  It was incredibly frustrating to be told there was nothing we could do, but in the days before Facebook & Twitter, we banded together, created a website, raised money, hired an attorney and fought the proposal for 5 years, until a compromise for 62 million-dollar townhouses was eventually approved.

I would like to urge Marylawn to work with their neighbors and with the Village to identify a better solution than the wholesale destruction of a significant building that could never be replaced. (and to not pursue a development project that is not supported by the current zoning)

People move to our community for many reasons including our proximity to NYC, our vibrant and diverse population and - yes - our unique and charming architecture and history. As a community, we strongly value our past and take great pride in it. In fact, the Board of Trustees recently approved the renovation of our own historic Village Hall, which will come at considerable expense. Yet, we felt that preserving our heritage was a key value in the community and something that was worth doing.

I am well aware of the economic challenges that everyone is facing these days. However, there are always alternatives that can and should be explored, and with enough creativity, I am sure a viable solution to what is currently being proposed can be found.

Easy Money

Last year, South Orange residents were quite surprised to receive their tax bills, which showed an increase of 4% in the School portion of the bill. With the average homeowner already paying over $15,000 per year in property taxes and the school taxes making up the large majority of our bill, that resulted in a material increase during a year when people were still seeing flat or declining incomes.

Last November, I along with other members of the Board of School Estimate made it crystal, crystal clear that the Board of Education should not raise taxes any higher than 2% going forward. While I am well aware that the 2% “CAP” imposed by the State ALLOWS for increase greater than 2% (due to exemptions, cap banking etc), that does not mean that it SHOULD be done, except under extremely dire circumstances. This year, that was clearly not the case.

This year, the Board of School Estimate was asked to approve a tax levy increase of 2.16% overall, which equates to a tax rate increase of 2.73% in South Orange (due to the equalization between Maplewood/South Orange and the hybrid rate that is calculated due to differing fiscal years for the Municipal and School budgets). While 2.16% is not radically larger than 2% in the grand scheme of things, when we are starting with such an enormous base to begin with, every dollar adds up and in the end, 2% means 2%. It’s that simple.

Ultimately, when it became apparent that the Board of School Estimate would not support the proposed increase greater than 2%, the Administration brought forth an alternative, which reduced $165,000 from the capital budget and the overall increase was brought to exactly 2%. I commend the Administration for working with the Board of School Estimate to meet our request, as well as for implementing a much improved process for reviewing the budget this year. (In years past, the Board of School Estimate was presented the budget during a workshop 2 weeks in advance of the vote, whereas this year, budget discussions occurred over multiple meetings during the year beginning last summer)

For next year, I have asked them to improve things even further. The Administration speaks of a variety of important “gaps” – the achievement gap, the District Factor Group gap and the gender gap. However, they never discuss or even consider what I like to call the Tax Gap; that is, the additional expense it costs to live in South Orange and Maplewood versus surrounding communities. South Orange and Maplewood are already among the highest taxed communities in the state of NJ with a material tax gap between us and many of our neighbors. Last week, I took a look at the local press of some surrounding communities to see what THEIR school budget increases were this year and found the following:

• Livingston 1%
• Millburn .65%
• Montclair 0%
• West Orange <1%
• Springfield 1.84%
• Summit 0%
• Caldwell - .64% DECREASE
• Berkeley Heights – 1.7% DECREASE

With these other communities rising well under 2% (or some even decreasing) and South Orange/Maplewood proposing increases of 2% or higher, the tax gap will only widen, making our communities less attractive for new residents and less desirable for existing residents to remain. This is just untenable.

As the parent of a 4th grader in the District, I want nothing more than a high quality education for my daughter and for ALL kids. However, this MUST be done in a more fiscally prudent manner for the sake of all residents. I urge the Administration and Board of Education to think creatively and to actively explore what surrounding communities are doing which enables them to provide high quality education, with much lower tax increases than we are being asked to approve.

Move along man move along

Recently, the Governor signed Bill S3148 which "Establishes procedures for districts, municipalities, or voters to opt to move the annual school election to November and eliminates vote on school budgets for such districts, except for separate proposals to spend above cap." For the first time, School Board elections that are held in April each year can be held at the same time as the November General Election.

Some statistics from the Clerk's office shows the staggering differences in voter turnout between April (Board of Ed Elections) and November (General Elections) over the past few years:

2011--April: 9.68%....November: 29.39%
2010--April: 8.01%.... November: 39.69%
2009--April: 1.21%..... November: 47%

On the surface, that is a very compelling reason alone to move the election to November and ultimately where I wound up. However, it is worth noting that there are multiple dimensions to this issue that need to be carefully considered:

• Agreeing to move the election to November, allows the Board of Education to create and pass a budget WITHOUT approval of the Board of School Estimate (or the public), as long as it is within CAP. There are currently enough exemptions, such as healthcare, debt service and loopholes, such as CAP banking that conceivably could result in tax increases far greater than the 2% CAP. (Currently, the Board of School Estimate is responsible for approving ALL budgets and bonding of the BOE, and acts as a natural "check and balance".)




• On the flip side, holding elections in November will likely engage more voters, particularly ones who are concerned about fiscal issues (not JUST education issues), so the election could act as the same "check and balance".




• Moving the election to November will inevitably result in more costly campaigns. Currently, candidates can easily target voters who have previously voted in BOE elections with limited mailings etc. The pool of voters in November is much larger and will require larger mailings and more money.




• A campaign for the April 2012 election is already underway and to shift the date at this late date would be unfair.




• While Maplewood already passed a resolution supporting the move to November, the Board of Education declined to do so. Ultimately, the timing of the Board of Education election SHOULD be the responsibility of the Board of Education.

In the end, myself and the majority of the BOT agreed that Board of Education elections should be moved to November, but not until 2013. South Orange will be communicating our desire to have the election moved to November starting next year and would like the Board of Ed to take the initiative to do so.

Next up for discussion is the consideration of a similar move of MUNICIPAL elections from May to November. While I think there are different "risks" to be considered, such as the potential influence of partisan politics in a non-partisan election, ultimately, I think the increased engagement and turnout of voters has to trump that. (and may be less of a risk if ALL elections, including Board of Ed, are held on the same day)

As always, I'd love to hear what you think.

We Take Care of Our Own

With 2012 well underway, there are quite a number of recent personnel changes in the Village that are worth sharing:

At the end of last year, Mario Luciani formally retired as the Director of Public Works after many years with the Village. We thank Mario for all his years of service and wish him the best as he begins the next chapter in his life. To fill the shoes left by Mario, we recently promoted Tommy Machetti as the new Director of Public Works. Tommy was previously the Assistant Director and is well versed in all aspects of the department. We know he will do an outstanding job and wish him lots of success in his new role.

Earlier in 2011, our previous IT Manager, Mauricio Garcia, left the Village to work for a private company. Our Media Technician, Stan Wilkinson, immediately stepped up to the challenge to take over Mauricio's responsibilities. He did such a great job, that recently, we formally promoted Mauricio to the title of IT Manager and we will now be looking for a part-time media technician to fulfill Stan's prior responsibilities. Likewise, we know Stan will do an outstanding job and wish him lots of success in his new role.

In mid-December 2011, Deputy Clerk, Sherri Golden went out on a temporary medical leave. Her husband, Derek, was to be receiving a kidney transplant and Sherri, in turn, graciously and unselfishly volunteered to become a kidney donor for another individual. I am happy to share that both surgeries and recoveries were successful and Sherri will be returning to the Village on January 30.

Lastly, as everyone already knows, Village Administrator John Gross resigned in August and Reagan Burkholder has been acting as Interim Administrator while a search was underway for a new Administrator. After a thorough search, including numerous interviews, the BOT appointed Barry Lewis as our new Village Administrator on January 23 and he will be officially starting work on January 30. Barry comes to us from Mountain Lakes, where he served as their Administrator, and Spring Lake and Mine Hill before that. Mr. Lewis has a BA in Political Science from the University of South Florida and a Law degree from Florida State. In Mountain Lakes he created a budget in 2010 which had a 2% increase (but would have been 0% without the loss of state aid) and in 2011 had a 0% increase. He also successfully obtained more than $20M in grants and funding partnerships and negotiated many interlocal agreements during his tenure in Mountain Lakes, Spring Lake and Mine Hill. I welcome Barry to South Orange and look forward to working with him!

I hope everyone will joining me in congratulating all of these employees on their recent achievements!

The Price You Pay

On November 8, 2011, you will have the opportunity to vote on a referendum to determine if The South Orange Board of Trustees should begin to receive PAYMENT for serving the Village. I urge you to vote NO on this referendum for a variety of reasons:

Serving as a volunteer is a longstanding Village Tradition

Since the Village was settled, serving as a member of the Governing Body has been an honor and a privilege for those who want to serve the community. In all that time, this honor has been done by VOLUNTEERS who were not paid for their service. People served the community because they wanted to do the right thing for the Village, not because they were looking to supplement their income. This tradition is an important part of the culture and history of South Orange and should not be changed.

Providing compensation is not necessary

Serving the Village on the Board of Trustees is a part-time position. The Village already has a large payroll of full-time paid staff that handle the day-to-day operations of the Village. As a member of the Board of Trustees, I can say firsthand that serving on the Board of Trustees does not require a financial outlay for any mandatory expenses. In fact, the Board of Trustees already receives complimentary admission to many political fundraisers, a complimentary parking sticker to park in any permit space downtown and other perks. No compensation is required for the Board of Trustees to complete their duties.

Changing the Charter opens a Pandora’s Box

Altering the Village Charter to provide monetary compensation to the Board of Trustees will open a Pandora’s Box that can never be closed. What begins as a modest “stipend” today, will inevitably grow over time. Simply view the graph of Congressional salaries over time as an example of how, when given the opportunity, politicians love to pay themselves more and more money over time.

Our Taxes are already overly excessive

In this time of flat incomes, reduced services, reduced staff, and skyrocketing property taxes, we simply cannot afford a new expense added to the budget. The taxes in South Orange are outrageous and we need to find ways to REDUCE the budget, not INCREASE the budget by adding an additional expense to pay volunteers for serving their community. We simply cannot afford it.

VOTE NO ON MUNICIPAL QUESTION #3

Please share this with your friends and neighbors or go to http://nopayforpoliticians.wordpress.com/ for more information about the election.

Real World

At what point will people say enough is enough with the offensive tax bill in South Orange, specifically and Essex County, in general? After all the recent debate and discussion about the Municipal Budget, the certified tax rate has been released showing an overall tax increase of 4% - increasing the average homeowner's tax bill by almost $600 this year to a total of $15,260.

The breakdown of your tax bill for 2011 is as follows:

The County portion went from .389 to .413 (a 6% increase)
The School portion went from 1.486 to 1.546 (a 4% increase)
The Municipal portion went from .729 to .749 (a 2.7% increase)

County Open Space remained at .015

Municipal Open Space remained at .01

Total rate = 2.733 per $100 of valuation

While most people are seeing their incomes remain relatively flat and we continue to see the challenges every day of the ongoing recession, the taxpayers of South Orange are being told to support a 4% increase to their already excessive tax bill. To make matters worse, there were very clear options this year for both the School tax and Municipal tax increases to be much lower: The School District recently received a $1M "rebate" from the state that could have been used for tax relief and the Municipality received a similar amount when the arbitrator's ruling for the Police union contract came in significantly less than was budgeted (and paid by taxpayers) over the past 3 years. That savings could have EASILY been used for tax relief, but wasn't. In addition, no structural changes were made to the budget at all this year - rather small discretionary spending items (like a business recruiter, holiday decorations and downtown concerts) were cut this year, and will simply return to the budget next year. As a result, I voted "no" for the Municipal Budget and likewise voted "no" on the School Budget.

When the average South Orange homeowner already has a tax bill over $15,000, it is completely unsustainable to raise it by over $600 each year - especially in light of the 2% CAP mandated by Governor Christie and the State of NJ. This budget crisis was further highlighted during the recent controversy over the retention of the CFO and Administrator. As I stated at the time, the financial terms that were proposed were not in the best interest of the taxpayers. Yet, no consideration on how the proposed deals would impact the budget was even discussed.

We all moved to South Orange for different reasons - including our housing stock, our proximity to NYC, our people and our sense of community. However, unless something is done to hold the line on taxes, our community will become far less desirable as a place for people to come to live or as a place people choose to stay. In the meantime, I will continue to scrutinize every expense we are asked to approve and will continue to vote "no" when I feel an expense is excessive or unnecessary. As always, I welcome your thoughts and input.