Montclair Mayor Fried’s proposal to move municipal elections to November was tabled by a 4-3 vote Tuesday night, with swing vote Renee Baskerville joining Cary Africk, Rich Murnick and Roger Terry in opposing the plan.
Tabling the motion, rather than voting on it, meant there was no council debate on the proposal, but there were fireworks in the public comment portion of the meeting, after resident Joan Checca, who had helped circulate petitions to bring the ordinance forward, told the council it should be “ashamed” of itself for copping out.
“What that referendum was looking to do was to increase the number of citizens who elect our representatives,” she said. “By tabling it, you’re avoiding the issue, and you couldn’t even bother to vote. Frankly, I think tabling it was a copout. I think you should be ashamed.”
Councilor Baskerville defended her vote, questioning the propriety of Mayor Fried’s involvement in collecting signatures as a potential conflict of interest.
“That’s just crazy!” Deputy Mayor Weller-Demming blurted.
Nick Lewis chimed in: “What happened tonight was an incredibly cynical, shockingly anti-democratic act by the majority of this council who are making a clear effort – again – to deny the rights of Montclair residents to decide an important issue by trying to block this thing so it cannot get on the ballot.”
Lewis and Weller-Demming continued to spar with Baskerville. Baskerville called Fried’s attempts to subvert a majority of the council — which wanted a study on the issue — “anti-democratic”
and said she wanted a legal opinion on the issue. She also suggested that some councilors were just trying to extended their terms by six months.
“Those of us that wanted to have public input, we wanted to hear from the public and we wanted to put it on the ballot in May 2012, at a time when it would not extend our terms of a self-serving anti-democratic matter, were very much in favor of public input,” Baskerville said.
Lewis, who also circulated petitions, adamantly defended his right as a citizen to petition government. The debate soon degenerated into accusations of lying and interruptions. Weller-Demming said she never agreed to surrender her rights to a council majority. She added that the number of signatures collected on the petition was greater than the number of votes cast in the last municipal election.
First Ward Councilor Rich Murnick and Second Ward Councilor Cary Africk defended the process of establishing a commission to get all of the facts and gathering more public input at the council’s September 20 meeting before going any further. Mayor Fried, for his part, called further study of the issue and the charges of conflict of interest a pair of
“red herrings,” and he added that May elections attracted too many fringe voters at the expense of mainstream voters. Lewis vowed that he and his camp would get the referendum on the November ballot by going to court, through Fried diplomatically avoided mention of such a strategy.
Resident Peter Zorich, a potential Montclair council candidate, said that Fried’s points were well-taken but opposed moving the 2012 elections before their scheduled date and thus extending the current council’s terms.
Most of the evening actually passed without controversy. An ordinance creating the title of zoning officer for the township construction official, was referred to the Planning Board for further review, as was an ordinance about temporary structures. The council extended its contract with Clary Anderson LLC for one year after attempts to find a bidder for a new management contract fell through. Township Manager Marc Dashield endorsed Clary Anderson LLC’s deal to pay the township five percent of its revenues, with the township responsible for capital improvements, saying it would buy time to look at long-term alternatives.
Dashield also urged Montclair residents to go to the township website to see if they qualify for federal disaster assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, and he reported that the Realty Appraisal Company has loaded the data bank on the reassessments onto its server and is beginning field work in determining property values.
In the executive session, Dashield briefed the council on two alternatives for a new retaining wall for the pond at Edgemont Park, a pre-cast wall or a natural stone wall, with the former wall as the cheaper alternative. Dashield said he hoped to produce a study on longevity and maintenance costs. In the meantime, a resolution rejecting bid proposals for a stone wall in a preference for a pre-cast wall was pulled. The township hopes to complete this project before winter.
“We’ll work it out,” Dashield said.
What a shame.
“More details in the morning.”
more details:
https://montclair.patch.com/articles/township-councils-actions-shocking
But the details are better explained here:
https://www.northjersey.com/news/129351203_Montclair_Mayor__supports_may_head_to_court_to_get_election-change_referendum_on_ballot_.html
Or you can just read Steve’s version, just filed.
The law is clear. If the council fails to enact it after a petition is certified, it automatically goes on the ballot in the next election. The council should not need a judge to force them to abide by the law. I’m not fan of Fried, but the law is the law.
“In the executive session, Dashield briefed the council on two alternatives for a new retaining wall for the pond at Edgemont Park, a pre-cast wall or a natural stone wall, with the former wall as the cheaper alternative. ”
Why are budget issues always conduced in “executive session”. This slate of candidates ran on transparency.
And could Lewis maybe wear a nice shirt or (Heaven forfend) a tie, when he’s sitting on the council? You know, like show a little respect?
And could Lewis maybe wear a nice shirt or (Heaven forfend) a tie, when he’s sitting on the council? You know, like show a little respect?
And if he’s going to wear Birkenstocks, could he at least wear a nice, clean pair of white socks under them?
Last night’s fight over the referendum reminds me of another little problem with this council, to add to the myriad others. They believe the Public Comment portion of the meeting is there so they can debate the public on whatever issue happens to come up. No, folks. It’s for the public to comment. It’s not for Renee to ramble on about what she thinks, or Roger, or Rich. It’s for the public. Council members get hours to discuss what they want. Let the public have their few minutes.
Nick…I actually agree with you on this. 😛
The council members are not limited to 3 minutes each, so they have plenty of time outside of public comment to air their opinions and reasons. I can’t think of a single time that a public comment has had any influence over the predetermined positions of the council members anyhow. Well, except when the 5% across the board budget cuts were considered and every union member showed up to the meeting and scared the !@#$# out of the newbie council.
The merits and variables of changing the election date will now be vetted by a Council appointed Commission. That’s the right thing to do for such an important issue.
What was incredible to hear is the passion from some on this Council demanding that the vote be moved under the guise of more democracy and further, accusing those who wanted more evaluation as being idiots and anti-democratic.
Where were those same reps defending the open vote for the Montclair school board during that election referendum — using the same principles? The elect-a-board vote was another issue with equities on both sides. However, it clearly took away power from the current Mayor and his core supporters. Now, they perceive it in their interests to change the Council election date and potentially shift the voting demographic.
Unfortunately, the only constant here I see is the political hypocrisy and intellectual flip-flopping of Messers Fried, Weller and Lewis.
Mayor Fried “added that May elections attracted too many fringe voters at the expense of mainstream voters.”
I am getting a little weary of hoping that the Mayor *really* didn’t say what is attributed to him here on Baristanet. Today, my hope rests on the indirect quote “too many fringe voters at the expense of…”?
I am not even sure what it means, but it it destined to take its place at the top of an ever-growing list of ill-conceived, amateurishly populist, undergraduate-level class studies influenced, and just plain dumb quotations from our current Mayor.
On my list, it’s sure to leap past his We-need-to raise-taxes-to-make-Montclair-more-affordable spiel.
I am getting a headache trying to figure out is there is indeed any consistent principle to this man. He opposed allowing ANY voters to have a say in who sits on the school board. Now he claims to champion public participation, but only if it is properly watered down?
“And could Lewis maybe wear a nice shirt or (Heaven forfend) a tie, when he’s sitting on the council? You know, like show a little respect?
……
And if he’s going to wear Birkenstocks, could he at least wear a nice, clean pair of white socks under them?”
Did I really vote for this man? SHOOT ME!!
I am completely lost here. First the election isn’t going to be moved. Then there’s a petition drive that succeeds. So it will be put on the next election ballot as a referendum. Now it’s going to be evaluated in committee.
Just wake me up when we know the election is.
Mayor Fried, for his part, called further study of the issue and the charges of conflict of interest a pair of “red herrings,” and he added that May elections attracted too many fringe voters at the expense of mainstream voters.
Like waltermitty, I smack my head that a mayor would be stupid enough to say something like this in public. This is right up there with “the elect-the-board people are just angry and they don’t know why” and “Chinese kids are smarter than Montclair kids in science and math.”
Although, considering May voters elected Fried mayor, maybe he’s right.
Well, this is one fine mess.
I propose the township election be moved to the general election cycle that has historically the highest voter participation – the Presidential years. This way, both sides on this issue will be have their primary objectives met.
I also think it is time to have our elected State representatives weigh in with their support or their reasons against it. This is an important local issue and, quite frankly, I’m surprised the media has not put the question to them. After all, the incumbents will clearly benefit from increased voter turnout from a overwhelmingly Democratic town. Their support to move our elections to the 2012 general election would put questions of their motives to rest.
The law is very clear:
“40:69A-191. Submission of ordinance to voters; withdrawal of petition
If within 20 days of the submission of a certified petition by the municipal clerk the
council shall fail to pass an ordinance requested by an initiative petition in substantially
the form requested or to repeal an ordinance as requested by a referendum petition, the
municipal clerk shall submit the ordinance to the voters unless, within 10 days after final
adverse action by the council or after the expiration of the time allowed for such action,
as the case may be, a paper signed by at least four of the five members of the Committee
of the Petitioners shall be filed with the municipal clerk requesting that the petition be
withdrawn. Upon the filing of such a request, the original petition shall cease to have any
force or effect.
40:69A-192. Timing of election at which submitted to voters
a. Any ordinance to be voted on by the voters in accordance with section 17-36 or
section 17-42 of this act (C.40:69A-185 or C.40:69A-191) shall be submitted at the next
general or regular municipal election occurring not less than 40 days after the final date
for withdrawal of the petition as provided for in section 17-42 of this act (C.40:69A-191), ”
https://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/miscpubs/other/optional_muni_charter_law.pdf
Petition certified by clerk Aug 24.
Council has until Sept 13, (20 days) to pass the Ordinance called for in the petition.
Withdrawal deadline (10 days after passage deadline), Sept. 24.
Failing passage, the clerk puts it on the ballot for the next election provided it’s at least 40 days after the withdrawal deadline. 40 days after Sept. 24th is Nov. 3. The election is Nov 8th.
So, it goes on the ballot, no matter what the council does or does not do. I don’t see why lawyers or judges need get involved. The clerk should simply follow the law. (if she doesn’t she should be fired, by the way). If members of the council don’t want the law followed, then it’s up to them to prove some aspect of this situation does not fulfill the legal requirements and seek some kind of injunction.
ROC, you’re not a lawyer! Didn’t you hear Mayor Fried tell everyone only lawyers can decipher law?
Just to be clear, my proposal is that the Council majority reverses itself and votes to move the election.
The Council majority has sufficiently demonstrated they can block any initiative that may arise in the extra 6 months the minority is in office.
PS: I think the Mayor misspoke and he meant the minority, not the fringe. H/e, it was funny.
We can’t decipher plain laws without experts.
We can’t decipher “how to intervene” in matters of pond curbs without His Lordship, The Lord High Chair of The Historic Preservation Commission.
Why, we’re not good for much at all…
“Just to be clear, my proposal is that the Council majority reverses itself and votes to move the election.”
I disagree. It should be put to the public in a referendum.
An upside down budget, a record amount of tax appeals, a mountain of debt, and this clown we call our mayor, with the earring in his ear representing us on TV, is on a crusade for moving HIS election? Is he serious? Are we really spending that much time on something that should be a back burner issue even in a good economy?? This is what you get when you elect these tree hugging, Berkenstock wearing idealist liberals. This town needs leadership from a practical group of professionals that are well schooled in finance, knows their way around a balance sheet and income & expense report and can make prudent and fiscally responsible decisions. No more drips like Fried and Remsen that go off on these tangents and in the end put this town deeper and deeper into jeopardy.
amen nocorzine.
Oh no, here come the partisan debate. I’ll see you all on the next thread.
oh my Lord! what a mess. ‘Roo – when they tell you it’s time to vote, can you please call me? I’ll pick you up. Otherwise I am lost. If it weren’t for the sample ballot that comes in the mail, sometimes I wouldn’t even know. ha-ha.
ps. RoC, I know you have said before that you’re not a lawyer, but you certainly must play one on TV! Would you like to do some pro bono work with regard to my Slumlord Oak Tree?
Stu, this is not a partisan debate. Its about what this town needs? This town is drowning in debt resulting from bad decisions made by people that would otherwise be found singing “Give Peace a Chance” at a bra burning ceremony at the Washington Monument. Do we need a guy in office worried about bike lanes, bike racks, relations with China, moving an election to favor his party, sustainable this and that, Green this and that. If we were in better shape fiscally, maybe. However, the facts are that this town is in shambles from a fiscal standpoint and needs to elect people that know how to properly manage the finances of this town.
“Did I really vote for this man? SHOOT ME!!”
The one bright light in all this is the possibility that the next election will get more attention. We’ve getting a nice view of just how a poorly chosen council can hurt us.
For example, since we voters get no direct say on school/BOE matters, we need to choose a mayor with the proper background to make such dictatorial choices for us. Deep involvement in a school system is one clear possibility, but I imagine that there are other backgrounds that could serve as well.
I, for one, remain amazed that in this time of perpetual budget crunches the BOE member primarily responsible for the generation of new revenues within the schools was not re-appointed. I don’t know yet that this idea will die with her departure – I certainly hope not – but the removal of her voice and expertise from the process will do us no good as a town and as taxpayers.
Similarly, I’d like to see all council members have the background to read and understand large budgets. The ideal council will understand the difference between operating and capital costs, and why one doesn’t fund the former by selling off assets or using proceeds from debt sales.
Perhaps it is a lot to ask of us. I do have some hope, though, that this council has taught us that we cannot afford to be less than vigilant in our roles as town citizens and voters.
…Andrew
Reasonable people can disagree over the pros and cons of moving the election. I happen to think its a bad idea for a variety of reasons. But Fried, Weller and Lewis have lost all credibility on the issue and have misrepresented the facts. We SHOULD getto vote on the issue but there is absolutely no reason — legal or other — that it has to happen in November as asserted by Fried. If they had simply put their personal interests aside and pushed for a May vote.. any change would apply to the next council. But that way Fried, Weller and Lewis don’t get their extra six months in office or the re-election advantages they would enjoy should it pass.
With such a conflict of interest, How can anyone trust their motives?
“This town is drowning in debt resulting from bad decisions made by people that would otherwise be found singing “Give Peace a Chance” at a bra burning ceremony at the Washington Monument.”
You must be older than me, nocorzine, to conjure up this image. And I’m older than dirt.
@nickcharles:
And let’s not forget Mayor Fried’s call to “renounce” those who post anonymous criticisms.
How I am supposed to “renounce” people when I don’t know who they are…..
I’m still waiting for the economic benefits that Fried promised would come from our new relationship with China. Can’t wait to see the costs of the storm cleanup as well. The last time the town faced a huge revenue issue, the sewer authority was created to mask a 14% municipal tax increase. 2006 was a tough year due to the microburst cleanup. So what authority can this council of spenders create to hide our double digit municipal tax increase? It’s Trenton’s fault and that fat Republican especially.