Of [ __ ] How do you like that? I always wanted to do this. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to the February 10th, 2026 meeting of Milbourne Township Charter Study Commission, which is called to order. In accordance with
section five of the Open Public Meeting Act, chapter 231, Public Laws 1975, be advised that the notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board and town hall and forwarding to the official designated newspapers that this meeting would take place at the
Bower Center at 8:00 on Tuesday, February 10th. Meetings uh meeting details and draft agenda have been posted. I'll kindly ask everyone to please all stand for the pledge of allegiance to our shouldy
and justice for all. Thank you. Of course. All right. I will now ask Dr. Con for a uh to note those who are present please. >> Mr. Miller >> here. >> Dr. Kong is present. Miss Parker Lent.
>> Mr. Tenner >> here. >> Mr. Der >> here. >> I note that we also have council Suzanne Sevasco of King Mansion Collins in attendance. >> Uh the record will show that we have a quorum for this meeting. Uh, did
everyone have a chance to uh read the uh agenda? >> Yes. >> Do I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Yes. Second, >> Cory. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Um,
may I have a motion to approve the February 2nd, uh, 2026 meeting minutes? Hopefully everyone read them. >> May I have a motion, please? So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I uh are there any commissioners with reports since our last meeting? >> Um sure. Uh so at the time committee meeting on February 3rd, I provided an update on the charter study commission's work thus far. Between that presentation and the articles that were published in
TAP and patch last week, we've been getting pretty good feedback um from the folks who are paying attention. So it's uh very encouraging. Uh thank you Dr. Khan. Uh anyone else? >> Mr. Biller and I have started our
outreach um to get in touch with uh township officials from other towns that were on our list that we have made a preliminary study of in terms of different forms of government they're following and so on and so forth. If anybody has suggestions of any
particular names we should reach out to, feel free to email us. Uh otherwise we're just going to uh look at the officials at various townships that we want to prioritize and just see who's available with >> Shanuk has already reached out to Red Bank. Obviously they're one of our
primary given that they've recently gone through the studies or they wanted to talk to them first >> or one of the first. >> Gotcha. >> I I thought um somebody mentioned to me about Verona. Is that on is that on your list? >> I don't even think it's on the list.
maybe cuz you know I I I restricted it by towns that have certain population downtown things like that. So um >> I think Corona has um >> they have nonpartisan it came up in one of our interviews.
>> Okay. Right. >> Do they have a downtown or >> they have like a strip like a road >> goes into like the next town. >> Yeah. >> It's not really a downtown. Let it be known that Joanna, Miss Joanna Parker
Lens, another charter uh charter commissioner has just arrived. She will be fined $10. >> And now the kangaroo court. >> Good to know. Just don't come. Don't uh Thank you.
>> that uh uh Thank you, Corey. Um all right. Um public comment to speak during the public comment period. Please follow the instructions. Uh ensure your Zoom display name shows
your first and last name. Uh click the raise hand button. You will be called upon in order and promoted to two panelists. Please turn on your video when called to speak. Clearly state your full name and whether you are a Miller resident or business owner to facilitate
an orderly meeting and permit all to be heard. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Uh a reminder that the public comment period is an opportunity for residents to share their views with the commission. Commissioners will not respond to questions or engage in
dialogue during the speaking time, but will carefully consider all comments at the end of the public comment period. Questions and discussions may be addressed at the chair's discretion. Uh Dr. Khan, is there anyone on Zoom that want to speak?
>> Uh anyone online is wishing to speak? You may raise hand now. No one wishes to be heard. >> Okay. I now close the first uh comment period. Are there any comments from the commission regarding any comments made by the public? Obviously not.
>> Um Ah, yeah. >> Okay, let's do uh old business interviews. Tonight, we'll be conducting a public interview with current mayor Frank Sakamundo and de deputy mayor Dave Cosgrove. These interviews are part of
our systematic factf finding product uh process to understand how Milbour's govern uh Milbour's government operates in practice. We've already interviewed municipal uh employees, including department heads and staff, and we're currently in the process of speaking
with current and former elected officials. The information we gather will help inform our analysis and ultimate recommend uh recommendations to voters and personally and uh from the uh commission. We are grateful to committee
menund and cosgro for agree agreeing to participate in these public interviews which allow our residents to observe our factf finding process firsthand. The questions this evening were provided in advance to both interviewees. Miss Park
lens and I will facilitate this interview. Mr. Tanner, Mr. Villa and Dr. Khan may also ask follow-up questions as needed. I now welcome the two committee men in to the front of the room which they are.
All right. Um uh All right. Uh let me start off please and um since everyone knows you gentlemen. Let's just start in with the uh
questions if you guys don't mind. Okay. Uh let's uh Dave, let's start with you and then Frank, you'll you know I'm going to ask the questions and then Dave will answer and then you'll answer and then maybe when Joanna does it you'll
answer then uh Dave will answer. Is that agreeable guys? >> Good. Uh David and I'm going to call you I'm gonna call you by your first name to you know takes too long. uh what does a typical week look like for you as a TC
member and how much time does a a position require? >> So the uh >> No, I I I I just want I just noticed Jeff walked in. >> Okay. >> Down the wall you guys.
>> So So typical work week is is probably uh three or four meetings. um depends on the week you know for the committees that that we all that's extra uh probably about maybe 10 to 20 hours a week and that depends on
the week. Some weeks are lighter than others. Um great thank you Frank. >> Um so I would be inclined to agree with Dave probably around 20 hours. Uh, now
that I'm mayor, um, I'd say it's quite a bit more than that. Um, so I would estimate at this point it's 30 to 35 hours a week. It's sort of like having a second a second job, uh, almost. Um, and, you know, I think it also can vary.
There are some committee members that are on, you know, more committees than others. I know that when, uh, Tara was on the, um, in her final year, she wasn't on any committees. So for her, you know, it would have been for a few hours, but but for me personally right now, it's about 35 hours.
>> Thank you. >> Can I just ask a quick follow-up question because I now that we have this unique position of like we you just switched over and you said the hours would have been this. Is it because of all the outside social commitments because you know the mayor typically
shows up to the grand openings and the hell's and the goodbyes and all the parties like what have you seen as the different big differentiator for you? So, there's a lot of that. Um, but there's also dealing with a lot of residents. Um, for some reason, um, you
know, I think people are not really aware that the mayor is just another committee person and they don't have any sort of magical powers. Um, but it seems like since I became mayor, I get a lot more emails, a lot more phone calls, a lot more people reaching out to me about
this that or the other thing. um especially right after the storm. Um so um you know I personally I'm the type of person that I try to respond to everyone and and and help them out and so that takes a lot of time but you know that can vary depending you know from mayor
to may do things different. >> One more really important question. Has anyone asked you to marry them? >> Uh I have not had a perform shock when I that was one of the powers of the honorary mayor position. the mayor and the deputy mayor.
>> The deputy mayor was able to marry >> people >> and now you have the unique opportunity to become emergency management, you know, signatory as well. >> Yes, I did get to do that >> earlier this year. >> Thank Thank you. Uh how long did it take
you to feel comfortable become effective in the role and what was the hardest part, David? Um, I'd say maybe about three months to get acclimated. Uh, I'll throw into that mix that I had been going to meetings for
about three years maybe and change, you know, so I kind of had a general idea at least from from an outsiders perspective of what was going on. Um, so so I think that that's about right about three months to to get in there. I mean, you're I'm always learning new stuff,
you know, so depending on what issues, you know, pop up and all that kind of stuff. Thank you, Frank. >> Um, so I too had been going to meetings for about a year and a half prior to uh being elected. Um, I would say it
really, so it takes a few months to get acclimated obviously, but I would say the entire first year you're really still figuring things out. Um, I see it as like first year is about getting introduced to it, figuring out how everything works, and then sort of
getting into a rhythm. Year two is where I think a lot of good stuff uh happens. Um year three uh then you're worried about you know potentially running for re-election again or you're lame duck. Right. So um
that would be sort of how I how I see it. >> Right. I failed to ask a baby a follow-up question. What was the hardest part? Which would you say? specifically getting acclimated. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um while you're looking that up, Frank, just just as far as the lame duck aspect of it. So, what what are some of the more difficulties that you faced sort of Well, I mean, you never did invest. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I was just I was
curious like for the township committee, you know, >> I do appreciate that the third year you're starting to run but or potentially being a lame duck. So, I'm kind of curious >> how the impact on lame it's it's more obvious to me how running can impact your time and and efforts and things and
even decision making. But I wonder. >> So I would say in your third year, if you're running for reelection, then you have to be a little bit more cognizant about the projects you bring forward and the votes that you take because they're
going to be scrutinized more um because of the upcoming election. Um if you are not um if you are not running again, you are a lame duck um then I
would imagine the issue there would be that you might not have the ability to see something through. So, you know, if you were to try and start an initiative, you might die on the mine and and depending where you are in your cycle, for example, if there's three months
left, your time in office, you might not be the one to want to champion, you know, whatever new initiative uh the town needs. >> We're going to get to those gonna get to those questions. >> I I think just learning um you know,
what happens on the other side. So, so what's what goes on the town hall, who's in charge of what and how they interact >> and interact with us. >> Thank you. >> Hard, but just >> uh when you joined the TC, how much
institutional knowledge carried over from previous members? Were there ongoing projects you had to pick up midstream? Dave, >> um I I think there was plenty of institutional knowledge because I was a year where there was, you know, one person running it. So there were still
four people that you know that were on the board and had been for you know for varying periods of time obviously but uh so so institutional knowledge I think was there I didn't feel like you know you know I needed to call the person who left you know and said what was what was
up with this um you know like I might have done you know when whenever we work at our various jobs like call you know the old person say >> right >> what was this about so and then the second part Sorry. >> Uh were there ongoing projects you had to pick up midstream?
>> There were I I think there was um certainly fair share issues um you know which continue even now um there was um trying to think there was there was another one that was kind of town hall
was going up the you know on and off on and off. So I think that was there. Those are the ones that talk. >> Great. >> Frank, do you want me to ask the question again or you got it? >> Um, why don't you ask it again because I
know the one I have is exactly what you have. >> Uh, when you joined the TC, how much institutional knowledge carried over from previous members? Were there ongoing projects you had to pick up midstream? >> Um, so that's a good one. So when I
joined the TC, it was both me and Ben joining. So there were a few people that came off. Um I was fortunate enough that the prior mayor um took it upon herself to get in touch with me and share a lot
of things with me. Um that was sort of a typical um I did not get that same sort of knowledge transfer from uh Michael Ornette. Um, and you know, I think part of that may have had to do with the fact
that we were sick parties. Um, but you know, there is a lot that you have to sort of pick up on. Um, and you know, I think the town hall renovation that Dave mentioned is is very interesting. That's something that we sort of had to pick up
midstream uh from the previous TC. Um, so you know, one of the things that I found challenging about that is all of a sudden we were given this design and the town hall looked like a a prison. It was a terrible design and we ended up, you
know, being able to um pivot and and and improve upon that. But um you know we didn't have a whole backstory as to why all of a sudden we were being given this design and and you know were there other permutations
before etc etc. So you know I do think that depending how many TC members turn over in a given year that really affects the amount of institutional knowledge that that progresses. Um I think another example of
um you know a project that you know was sort of an extreme um but didn't really get carried forward too well was telet park gateway project. So that was something that um was actually I think they made decisions
what in what I would call the lead duck phase was after the election it was clear that two of those individuals were not going to be on the TC anymore. Um I I'd have to go back and look at the minutes, but I do think decisions were made around that time and um that sort
of died on the vine when the new TC came in because there was no one there to champion that project. and we've since picked it back up again, but that took like an entire year before we got uh two years before we we really
>> I am uh I am very happy that the current TC picked up uh Gateway to Milbour because two administrations ago when Gateway to Milbour first came, Chris Rucker was
very involved in that and And I went in front of the previous uh two two administrations ago and I made a presentation and all five of them voted to have a
architect engineer come in and do a master plan for the gateway to the tune of $160,000 and it freaking went nowhere. We spent 160 grand and
one of the previous mayors didn't approve and I'll just leave it at that. I don't I don't want to get too involved, but uh that is something that I am passionate about. I'm a park park
park and wreck guy and I think our oak tree that's over a hundred years old should be preserved. I know Stacy at town forester has been looking at it but uh the gazebo is from
this uh from the 60s and that whole area can be utilized. Unbelievable. >> We did declare one of the things that I worked on was getting Taylor Park designated as historic. Mhm. >> So it is now considered one of our historic landmarks.
>> We get some more grants >> potentially. >> Right. >> Um >> can I ask a quick practical question? I know that some of us are loudspeakers, some of us are not. Are we sure that the public will be hearing because we're recording some very important questions and answers.
>> Are there that picks up? >> It picks up everything too much. >> I was curious. So, for example, when I was watching this last time from home, um I could hear people in the audience talking. >> Fantastic.
>> Now, when we used to TC meetings actually one time pick up people in the back row swearing. >> It wasn't him, right? Because I just want to make sure before we have to say I'm a big theatrical person. So,
>> give me more voice. Okay, let's um let me continue on. Uh the term is currently three years. Based on your experience, is that adequate time to learn the job and see projects through? Uh Dave, please. >> Yeah. Um I'll give you a mixed answer on
this one. I I think >> No, no, I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Because I I thought about this. You know, four was my knee-jerk answer to this. Four years would be nice. And then I started thinking is that is that me Dave Cosgr saying I want four years. You
know I run I I put the effort and time in it's or is four years good for the residents? Um and and my thought process on that is that um you know if residents vote for me um thinking they they like my policies, they like what and they
they think I'm going to do what they want done and I don't or I turn out to be a dud. um you know if I'm there for four years now they're stuck with me for four years. So I I you know I I I think there's I don't know if there's a clear answer there but you say three years if
I'm not doing what what my constituents want they can get rid of me in three years otherwise they're stuck with four years but I mean my preference is four um but just just a thought that you know to to think of this from the point of view of you know the whole charter
commission actually to think from the point of view of better for residents or better for politicians >> technically damage your recon Huh? >> Even >> the likelihood of a but
all joking or not even not that much if somebody's unhappy with either your work ethic or your they can approach you. So they can while you're in term they can approach you and maybe you change your mind or maybe you don't but there is some recourse while you're in office. So I kind of want to hear more about the
sort of the candidate perspective then. So why would you say four years? four years because because you know running takes it is an effort. >> Um and um it gives you four years to to to do it. I I don't know that there's a magic to it like you know that I don't feel like
I'm not going to accomplish something in three that I would accomplish in four. >> Okay. um you know, Frank's comment about, you know, um being a lame duck, you know, in in let's say year three or year four and maybe not be able to, you know, to have to be able to force
something through or not force it, but you know, to convince people to push it through. Maybe that's that's a little, you know, but but I think most projects can get done in three years, >> but four would be my my answer on that. But >> right,
>> um I think three years is definitely not sufficient. Um, as I said before, I think year one is, you know, getting your sea legs. Year two is when you're really getting into the swing of things, starting some initiatives, but then year three, you know, you're either worried
about reelection or you turn into a pumpkin at the end of uh your term. Um, I think four years really would be the right length of time. Um, as far as, you know, the concern Dave brought up about, you know, that not being good for the
residents, um, my answer to that would be I hope this charter commission will look at forms of government that offer recall initiative because that can solve some of those issues. So, if you have a Baltimore form of government, right, and
the TC passes an ordinance that you don't like, well, you can do a a referendum. you can force a referendum on that or you can there's a way to recall that force the vote. Um so I think some of these more modern components we're lacking would address you know any potential downside to a
four-year term. Now from a candidates perspective um you know having to run every three years that that is a lot. It takes a a lot of effort and the amount of time that you're taking for
campaigning is time that is potentially being taken away from other things like your your TC duties or your work or your your life balance. So, you know, having to do having four years I think would be the right number. That's my recommendation.
>> Thank you. Uh moving on. Milbour has TC elections every year. From your perspective, uh, as an elected official, how does that affect governance? >> It's obviously got different if if it's a year when there's two people being
elected versus one, I think there's a difference. Obviously, this year two people get two new people. um the effect I I I mean I guess it's a it's a different than the question I I
think I had on on the list but it's I I I don't disagree with the lame duck aspect of you know like that Frank had mentioned um and it's you know I don't know if that answers your question at all does it
>> yeah that's follows. Anybody? >> Um, Frank, can you let me read it again? >> Uh, I got it. >> You got it. >> The elections every year. Um, but I think elections every year are problematic from a number of different
perspectives. I think from the public perspective, I think people are tired of having to go through a campaign cycle every single year. Um, you know, it's it's just it's a lot. Um and then you know from a more practical standpoint
you know there's been significant turnover particularly in recent years you know and I think decades ago you know you had TC members that that stayed and and you know some held their seats for 10 years right but in the past few years it seems like there's been a lot
of turnover and depending on the year you could have 14% of the seat turning over. So um you know that causes some problems. Let me give you an example of this. So back in 2021 the affordable housing agreement um was signed. The
median tenure of a TC member during that time was just one and a half years and two members uh of that TC that ultimately made the decisions had only been in office for six months. Um and one of those one of them was the key
negotiators and they were added to the subcommittee during their first year. So you had, you know, people coming in that had no prior experience. I don't know if they had been attending TC meetings long beforehand. And in the case of the affordable housing, that process was done completely in the dark behind closed doors. So even if they had
attended TC meetings, they wouldn't have any knowledge that they gained. So they were just sort of dropped into it and have to make a decision that was going to have impacts for years and years to come. Um, so you know, I think that um that's
that's an example of of why we shouldn't have elections every year because there's just too much turnover. Um, you know, government moves slowly by design. And I mean, to me, I would recommend elections maybe every two years. I think
that, you know, that's how Congress does it. I think that's a lot more reasonable. uh if you had a fouryear term and every two years you're changing half of the the committee that's
>> that seems to be a theme um folks that we have uh been interviewing I'm going to now turn over u the next set of questions to commissioner Park >> thank you
um so let's go into partisan and local governance this um after committee elections are partisan based on your experience governing. How much does party affiliation matter for local issues? Um
any you want to start in particular on that one that hot items? >> I I could start. Great. Um I I don't think the decisions um that we make at the at the township community level are partisan. And I I
think if you look at um the votes this year, the votes last year, um they're across party lines. There's there is some rhyme reason to it because I think you can see how certain members vote on certain issues. But it's it's
really never been just a straight party for Republicans have been the Republican voted but the Democrats. Um, so, you know, I I think I I don't think it has um I I do think
party affiliation informs voters um on um what they may be getting on a vote or the way a person feels about certain things belong to a certain club, a Democratic club, a Republican club,
whatever the club it is, as a as a voter is going to inform me that, okay, this person probably will or may vote a certain way on a local issue on a conservative financial issue, not spending money, spending money. Having
said that, you know, some of the on the local level, right, um, you know, we I've seen, you know, money being spent where Frank and I voted against it. >> Um, and where, you know, so it's, you know, an example of, okay, on the local
level, it didn't make a difference. Um, but as a voter certainly I think I'd want to know that um before I pull the lever on a certain pops up >> before we go to you Frank uh since you touched upon our next question actually
if I could just maybe that's a followup. No it's great actually because we can follow up on it. I you segueed perfectly into it and then Frank will let you think about that for a second. you were giving, you know, while not specific examples of TC votes or decisions where party affiliation guided how members
voted, but you touched upon that they could in your shorter experience. Um, have you noticed uh you you set an example of how you didn't your party affiliations you're on different parties in case people don't know in the public and yet you voted together on things and
others in the party voted. So it it didn't it was in congruent with your parties per se. So in the specific situations that you might think about and you kind of cited now, did you feel that that party affiliation
had any bearing really on how you would vote maybe or think about things nationally? You literally just said you might have voted with Frank on a on a particular issue. Is there specific examples that you might have seen party lines aligning or
Got you. Um the the the recent election of mayor, you know, I think that was absolutely along party lines until the end. Um but you know and you know >> okay >> but that was you know
so that's an example but you know but I do think most of the most other than that with the mayor um I do think that people have voted across on a local level
>> I have two followups and it's for both of you one is do you see any let's let Frank speak and end because I have a question also So yeah, do you want to tackle the part A and part B almost the township committee elections are partisan statement based on your experience
governing? How much does party affiliation matter for local issues? >> Let me do that one first. >> Perfect. >> Um so look, I I don't think any of the local issues we face are partisan nature, the roads, parks,
um you know, the DPW, like none of these are should be partisan issues. And I don't think party affiliation should matter. >> Housing. Can I throw that in there for one second? Not to cut you off, but housing >> housing. Housing. Um, you know, that's
that's interesting because I think what we've seen in our town is people's thoughts on housing policy doesn't fall along party lines. And I think people >> the majority of people in town have a certain view of that. Now, I do think
that the, you know, something that that David said of how, you know, the party can help inform candidates. Um, I think that's that's not the case. And the reason I bring that up, you know, when I got into local politics, I was a
Democrat. I've been a Democrat for over a decade now because I had started going to meetings and I was speaking out against the, you know, all Democrat TC. um there was no way that they would let me run as a Democrat. So I had to change
parties just abroad and you know I don't I don't align myself with you know the one party or another 100%. So um you know to me that was that was a barrier that I had to overcome to run and that's a barrier that others might not
overcome. Um, and then I would say, you know, my, you know, my Republican label, I don't I don't think the way I vote, some of the initiatives that I've pushed like, uh, gas powered leak restrictions, that's something that would be
traditionally unpopular with the Republican party, and yet I was one of the ones championing it, right? So, um, to me, I I think that putting a a partisan label, uh, on a local election actually does a disservice to the
community because it doesn't necessarily inform what you're going to get. Um, because how someone, you know, votes on local issues might be different than how they think about things nationally. And quite honestly, because we have a two-party system, you might end up
having someone that had to choose one party or another. and they don't necessarily subscribe to all of the belief of that that party. Um, >> you had a followup, Cory. >> Well, so Frank, you just answered one of my follow-ups and that was going to be
is there a risk? You know, David, you had mentioned that that you could party affiliation can inform decision-making in vote. So, the the counter to that is there a risk about party affiliation informing a vote. So, you kind of just answered that right there. So, so Dave,
I'm just interested in your perspective. Do you think there's a risk of party affiliation for informing a vote? There's certainly a risk. Um, you know, Frank's example is a good example about the leap, right? Um,
>> so that depend on the person though. I just think about that for a minute, right? The person, right? I guess what I'm just making the distinguishing factor to me is if someone's going to vote for somebody, it provides information. Um I I I agree there's no
guarantee that someone who you thinks is going to vote one way is going to >> um you know and and then you're back to that my comment earlier about the three years versus the four years, you know. Well, ju just because I go ahead and then I can >> this is more of answering the question
they ask is is you when we were running we were talking to a bunch of people and one of the things people were concerned about the people who are concerned about partisan elections is hey you might have people then voting completely uninformed because they there isn't a large news source for information for TC and so
they're like oh I tend to be Democrat or I vote Democrat so I'm going to vote Democrat not knowing anything about the person and their politics and their views. and things like that. And so they knew that as a potential risk of partisan elections is that they're using it to inform their vote, but it's
misinformation arguably or potentially because, you know, maybe that person when they're on the TC or, you know, >> would not vote for the leaf blower perhaps, >> something even though they're even though they're aligned with the D, in fact, they wouldn't vote for the leaf blower or something like that. And so
there's some concern that having party affiliations, while informative, could be a negative information piece or something because they wouldn't don't do the work to find out about what their actual opinions are or plans and things like that. >> So I was wondering if you if you saw
that as a genuine concern or is that not you don't think it's a genuine? >> I don't I don't think so. I think because because I think that that voter, you know, who's who's >> uninformed? >> Yeah. Who's uninformed? Well, going down the line, right? So, >> yeah. No, no. Line voting. Someone walks
in the loop and just pulls the lever >> R across the board, D across the board, whatever, you know, because that's what they've done. >> Um, I I don't know how you fix that. I I think that person's still going to be out there even if we're nonpartisan,
right? You know, I'd like to think that people listen to like the the presentations and the debates that we all did over time and papers that you put out, etc., etc., and you know use the available information that okay Costco's a Democrat he's probably you
know he may very well look a certain way >> well people will still know your affiliation and you know the debate that people have been having with us like if if it becomes nonpartisan your personal affiliation is not a secret
>> unless you're harder to find I mean you know who's who's supporting you financially in in in you know who's >> well and quite frankly the people who take the effort to find out your party affiliation are probably also going to take the effort to learn more about you and listen to speeches and things like
that. It's the people who are showing up who are just voting for a national election or something like that and just >> well might they not vote for anybody? >> Yeah possible. Right. That's the question. >> Some insights I think I can offer on this. >> Um, if it's a it's a presidential
election year, you're going to get a certain number of voters that come out that don't vote in any other year. I've seen the voter data. Um, I don't have it in front of me, but there's a significant number of voters that show up only presidential elections. Um, then
you have say that's that's the most participation you get. But then you have congressional years. um second most and then the gubernatorial years. This year was a little bit of an anomaly. This year was more like a two congressional year in terms of turnout. Now there is a
and I've seen multiple years of data on this. Now there is a certain number of votes that you will get just by running as a Republican. Um I'm not going to share that number because I don't think it's relevant but it is significant number. There is a certain number of votes that you will get just by running
as a Democrat. You don't even have to run a campaign in either case. There's a certain baseline number of votes you're gonna get and those are the people that just blindly vote the line, right? Um, and I think that that's that does a disservice. Um, now I think what was
interesting is when you had the charter commission, when you look at the total number of votes cast versus the number of votes cast for the charter commission, you're seeing a difference because I think people that were just used to voting the line and weren't
paying attention to anything when it came time to vote for you guys, they may have left that blank. Uh, same thing with the school board, right? They're nonpartisan. if you look at there's more people that vote for, you know, the top of the ticket um and will go across the
line and they don't flip it over and vote for the BOE. So, I think if you have nonpartisan elections, what you would end up doing is you would have a have the people that are voting in those are the ones that are going to be more informed. Um, and you know, I think that
just overall is going to make for um, you know, a better a better rund down >> even if it's fewer voters potentially voting because we already have fewer voters is your point, right? >> It's voters. It's voters that have taken the time to learn about the candidates
and the issues. Um, and I also think that, um, you know, it's like with with the BOE, they're gone. You people do they they ask around, oh, BOE, like, all right, what is this person about? What's that person about? Who should I vote
for? They actually take the time to do the research. I was sitting as a poll watcher one time, um, and someone came in, but voting was about to close and she pulled out her phone. was trying to research presumably some those
candidates. You're not allowed to do that and the election sort of scolded the woman for that. Um but I think you know if if there is no party affiliation uh then people will be forced to do their homework. Um and if they don't
then honestly they're they were probably just voting the party line before and that's not beneficial. >> Uh do you mind if I have a followup question on this? Of course. Yeah. >> Um, this is something that I've been
thinking about since we've been uh interviewing, you know, in we interview new folks in private and now we're in the midst of interviewing um, you know, former TC
members. And should there be a cap on how much a candidate in Milbour Township should spend on his or her election and don't be afraid to ask.
>> Can I give you a part one to the question? >> Right. >> This is only if >> there is a nonpartisan because this was a concern for one of the former uh TC folks. They said if you no longer have a budget from a party and you have to
raise all the money yourself, right? What happens if somebody has funds here, but this person who doesn't have the funds may be more qualified? There's no party affiliation. How does that level set one person over another in terms of, you
know, finances? >> Thank you, Joanna. Joanna, >> that's part one and part two, >> right? Joanna posed the question a lot more eloquently than I did. >> Well, you have part two. I have part one. >> Okay. So, >> we finished each other. So, >> so I think nonpartisan elections
actually would help reduce the amount of money that is spent in elections overall. There is a small percentage of money that comes from the county, at least on the Republican side. There's a small amount of money that we get from
the county party. Um the rest of it we raise from residents in the town bank. Um on the other side um there's money that comes from the party. They tend to funnel it
through um you know other politicians from that party as opposed to necessarily getting a large chunk from from the county. I think if you take the partisan money out of it, then candidates are having to go to those
residents themselves and raise the the funds. And I think you're going to find um the you're going to have less over-the-top campaigns. I think it's going to lower the barrier to entry. Um, so that you know, individuals that want
to run, they're not necessarily competing against, you know, someone that's raising $100,000 uh for an election cycle because they're not going to have that party to fall back on. They're not going to be able to go to, you know, the big donors in that party and say, "Oh, I've noticed that
you've donated, you know, on a national level in a big way. >> I'm running as ex party. Would you donate to me, too?" I think the donations you're going to get are going to be from residents that are truly invested and believe in you. Um, and so
I think that will sort of level the playing field a lot more. Um, so I think that that would be a benefit, not not a detriment if we were nonpartisan. I think you're going to you're going to see less outside you're certainly not going to see outside money coming in
like you see um in some elections in the past. Can we just put Chris's question on the forefront for a moment though? Would you think it would be important in that case? While it may level set, let's say one person's a little more popular, has still has some affiliations that
might be RD whatever that might just be like, "Oh, I'm going to support you because I like you. It doesn't matter." Is there a cap that would be important and now you're you no longer have >> and then Dave, you'll they have that. >> I don't know that a cap would be
necessary. I think that naturally you're going to see the amount of money that's spent come down. >> Um, you know, the person that raises the most money isn't necessarily the person that wins the election. Um, we've
certainly seen we've seen that. That's that's not always the case. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, you wanted I don't know what a reasonable cap would be, right? Would I say 100,000? Would I say 150,000? Um I
think the most expensive campaign I was involved in raised about $100,000 and spent close close to that which I think is >> is ridiculous. I think that's nuts. I I don't think you should have to raise $100,000 to win in a local election
>> because at that point you're >> you're starting to run a campaign like you would for a much larger office. And I just don't think that's beneficial to >> I don't know if you can c it would be the lawyer says I don't know if you can
um I I don't you know having been through it I don't think you need a cap because it's hard to raise money. >> Um I mean you know some of you have run you know etc. Um but but I also think that the I'm not convinced at all that
uh nonpartisan elections um that money disappears that you were going to get and I still think that money flows but from your party affiliation or at least a lot of it. Um so I don't think that that's going to spread out if you have five people
running unaffiliated nonpartisan. I don't I don't know that that money disappears. I think one one point I would like to add um because the donations are public. >> I've had instances where I've had
Democrats say, "You know what? I want to support your campaign. I believe in your message. Uh, but I can only give you up to the amount that allows me to remain anonymous because I will get skewered by
my friends and neighbors if they see that I donated to a Now, obviously, the inverse could be true as well, right? >> I did have that in my campaign. A Republican wanted to donate did the same thing and said, I I can $200 or whatever it was, >> right? And and that actually happened
quite a bit um during during my campaign. Uh and so I think you know that that limited um limited things and you know look there's been local well there's been candidates you know that I' I've seen in my life that are of an
opposite party that maybe I would have liked to have donated to but would be reticent to to do that if that was going to be known but if it was nonpartisan you know people would pay attention to that also I mean if it were nonpartisan
they would just be affiliated So, so my followup question, it has to do with partisansship and not elections. Is for both of you. Do you think party affiliation is is important or relevant for county and state relationships and getting stuff done for the township?
>> I'll take um so I think it is not you would think that it would be but then let's look at what we had the last two years. We had Annette Romano as the mayor. She has very tight relationships with people in
the county. That's something that's well known, well established. Um, and we didn't really get a whole lot of additional funding versus when we've had other mayors. Um, and in fact, I think I think towns that are partisan, you know,
um, those county politicians may say, "Well, we don't need to spend money in Milbour because they're they're a blue town. They're going to vote for us anyway. We don't have to buy their vote." Whereas another town where it's maybe a little
bit more mixed or they're nonpartisan, they actually may spend more money there because they want to entice people to vote for them. And and I think there's been specific instances, I don't have them in front of me, I can I can get back to you on it, but I
believe there's been specific instances um where exactly that has been. Um now also, you know, there's nothing stopping Um, so you know, I'm mayor, I'm Republican. I have a meeting set up with the county next week. I'm going to go in
and I'm going to ask her something. Um, we had an event at the uh the Chinese Association event and I invited Rosie Begali. She's our assembly woman. She's a she is Democrat. No one thought to invite her. Called her up and invited
her. So, um, I don't think that having the the party affiliation is going to be able to get you more or less from the county. I think if you're nonpartisan, you might have a better chance of getting more out of the county because they're not going to think, oh, well, they're a guaranteed,
you know, blue or or guaranteed red now, right? >> So, let me ask you this question. And I'm sorry we're going. This is an This is a >> I don't think that's a guarantee. >> But David didn't answer. >> I'm sorry, David. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No, no. I the party affiliation. I don't
think it's a guarantee. I don't think there's any guarantee that if I had tremendous, you know, connections, you know, in in Newark that, you know, that I'm going to get money necessarily. It's actually true because how long did
it take the county to finally pave Glenn A, you know, and I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn, but where uh when Joanna and I and Jerry and I when we interview former TC
members, somebody said since we're a uh a fluent community, we seem to get less service and less dough coming back to Milbourne Township.
So that's a it's it's an interesting point. >> But anyway, I'm sorry. >> No, but it actually leads right into the next question what you're saying. >> Um when you think about issues like road maintenance, trash collection, budget
planning, public safety, do these issues have a partisan dimension? How so? Yes or no or yes. So >> my go I don't think there's a partisan dimension at all to that.
>> More than certain on that. >> Um no I I don't think uh these issues have a partisan um dimension and I think the example I gave with the leak clovers earlier was is a good example of how
you know, some of us voted, you know, opposite of what our party, you know, traditionally would have have voted for. >> Um, so I don't think it's a a partisan issue at all. >> I mean, trash collection,
>> right? >> What's what's partisan about that? You both have touched upon this in the last couple of questions, but I'm just going to state it. Some have st suggested that nonpartisan local elections would help focus on local
issues rather than national politics, while others believe party labels help voters. Uh you've both touched upon it a bit and you know, for each side. Um, what's your reaction to the idea of nonpartisan elections for Melbourne
specifically since you live here and this is being debated? Dave, do you want to start that? >> You don't have to if you don't want to choke him. >> No, no, no. That's fine. I'm just um >> Julie, the bottom line is what's your reaction to the idea of nonpartisan
elections for Milburns? I I I I think nonpartisan is fine, but I don't know if it's the best thing for the voters. >> Best thing for the voters or best thing for Milbour Township? >> For Milburn Township. Well, the voters. >> Well, the voters, the residents, >> the res. Okay. Gotcha.
>> D, if it was a yes or no question, what would you pick? I mean, obviously there are trade-offs involved in both scenarios, but if you were to ask to say, would you support nonpartisan or would you Yeah, you said you got you don't want to box yourself in
>> nonpartisan would be would be my pick. >> Okay. >> But but I also think you're as a committee, you know, you should be looking not what I want. >> Absolutely. >> You're one person ignoring everything. >> It's everywhere. Each person has an
>> ignorant question and because we provided them in advance, I actually made some made some notes on this because there's some points I wanted to convey. Um, so I mean I think that nonpartisan local elections would absolutely increase engagement and
improve governance. Um, she recently read a book by Öza Klein called one or polarized. He's a New York Times columnist and he discusses fascinating research on group psychology. The research shows that when you divide people into groups, even arbitrary,
meaningless groups, they often accept worse outcomes for themselves as long as it increases the gap between their group and the other group. They'd rather win than actually get better results. Um, this is called the gratuitous determination and it's exactly what
partisan labels think local level. I actually believe that this thinking is what led to the poor decisions uh in 2021 with the affordable housing. At that time you had single party all democratic TC and they seem to be more
focused on blaming the Republicans of the past for inaction uh you know rather than negotiating the best possible outcome for Milford. They accepted a suboptimal agreement, one that was worse
for the town overall because it allowed them to claim victory over the other side rather than thinking about what was best for Melbourne as a whole. Partisan framework created incentive to score political points. Um, you know, I've also seen in this recent election that
many of the voters didn't seem to want to hear what the candidate stood for. uh one, you know, particular individual was labeled as a party, you know, loyalist and um you know, the other side
exploited that and despite all of the the great things that this individual brought to the table, uh there are a lot of people that just couldn't that campaign on behalf of that individual. People would say, you know what, I absolutely I love this person. I've
known them for years and years and uh you know I wouldn't vote for them except for the fact that they're a member of this party and I just can't bring myself to vote for any member of that party. Even though I like this individual, I think they'd
make a great leader, I just I can't do it right. And that happened more commonly than than you would think. And I think that's really unfortunate because, you know, that shows that there are people in town that are putting party above practicality, putting party
above their own self-interest. Um, so I I personally think that nonpartisan local elections are absolutely the way to go. Um, and I also think it'll keep
national politics out of our local elections. Um, you know, I think this this past campaign cycle showed that people were trying to bring national importance into a local election and those national issues had absolutely
nothing to do with anything we're doing on a local level, right? What what do turf deals have to do with immigration policy, right? What do uh you know what do uh you know fixing traffic and and
improving the roadways and and uh you know the services the town offers what does that have to do you know with with you know gun control for instance right like these are apples and oranges and when
you when you have a partisan election it allows that stuff to get pulled in and I think that causes people to take decisions and vote for candidates that they ordinarily wouldn't vote for a party wasn't.
>> Do you can I follow up one question because I I'm thinking about this and I I think I understand who you're talking about, but you said you may go unaffiliated, but what if the folks who are running aren't unaffiliated? Don't you think that my couple of questions
ago, people will find out what party you are? I don't think it's that hard to find out. So if if somebody really cares if you're not unaffiliated, don't you think they'd have the same reaction that hey, he's still a blah blah blah and I don't want to vote for him because
that's the party label on a national level. On a local, we're we're not talking about it. But >> yeah, so 45% of the voters in town are unaffiliated. Um, and I think if we look at the school board, they're nonpartisan. And we've had far
more of a balance over the past 10 years of Republicans and Democrats getting elected to the school board than we have with JTC. Um, you know, it's it's actually quite surprising. If you go back, look up the party affiliation, all
the school board members going back 10 years, you're going to see that there's a lot more even of a mix. >> Um, and so I think that shows that simply being nonpartisan, there's a lot of people who won't bother to look it up. And I think that the other big problem with the partisan election
system is we've got 45% of the elector out there and if they want to run for office, they have to pick up a party, right? And they a lot of people that are unaffiliated, they're in the middle. They're they're like me. They don't necessarily subscribe to all the beliefs, the one party or another, and
it's a tall order to get someone to go that's deliberately unaffiliated and pick a party just to run. And we saw um a few years ago uh you know, Diane Iglow uh and Dave Marorrow tried to run as independents. That didn't work out too
well for them because as I said before, there's a certain number of votes you get for running as a Democrat, a certain number of votes you get for running as a Republican. If you want unaffiliated voters to be able to participate and run, there's a lot of them uh that could
make great contributions. I think you really need to bear that. >> You have the floor. >> Yeah. I I mean Diane and and and and Dave Mora running
is was an, you know, is is an example of how someone can run that's underappling. Both of them I think had been affiliated at least Diane for sure had um you know with the Democratic party but they they um they could run. they didn't win. Um,
you know, and maybe it's a function of, you know, people that went in and just pulled the D level, you know, the RF leopard. Um, but it's, you know, that option is still out there for people and they raised whatever
money they did raise, you know, for, you know, for their campaign. Hope that answered your question. >> Yeah, I think so. I mean, it's I guess if there were can either one of you think of any downsides or challenges if it were nonpartisan
because you're bringing up positives. Um, I don't know that there's a downside other than the fact that people might not do their homework and and know how somebody might vote based on their party. >> Is there concern that they wouldn't vote
then in that case? No, I don't think so. >> Okay. >> I don't think that's >> I think you guys already covered the potential benefits. >> A potential downside that I've heard that I don't agree with is that people might look at the last names of the
individuals and vote for people based on, you know, oh, I'm Italian. I'm gonna vote for the Italian. I vote for the the Chinese last name. >> They did that. But I think that does happen anyway. But
I also think what's interesting is >> I think your election, the charter commission, we 14 had 14 people run it. And looking at what I see here, I don't think people did. I think people >> they didn't vote by last name.
>> I don't think they voted I don't think they voted based on the Maybe it is a connection. I uh no I I I think the uninformed voter is always going to find
something to to latch on to or I think quite honestly they'll leave it blank because again there was a discrepancy between the total number of people that voted and the number of people that actually voted to the charter commission for the schools. >> Right. They're less interested in that or less informed and therefore they
don't want to cast the vote. Thanks. >> I had friends who were uninformed and didn't vote for me. >> I just had a quick follow up. I didn't get that. >> I think I know the answer based on what Frank was saying. >> Do you think having partisan elections
encourages or discourages or deters certain individuals from running? I think Frank, if I'm paraphrasing what you said, you think it deters the unopened voter from running. Um I'm paraphrasing what you said. >> Yeah. I think not just the unaffiliated
voters and I think it deters voters, you know, even if you are aligned with one party or another, you know, if that's like an unpopular party, you might be reticent to to run and have everyone know, you know, what your what your party is and have to, you know, go
along with all the the baggage that comes along with that. And I think that goes for either either party, >> right? You have view on this whether deter encourages people from running. But >> I think it it probably does. Yeah. Not probably. I think probably >> Yeah. I think it's hard to it'd be hard
to run as an independent. >> So if you're not running under a party label, you'll choose not to run. So this deterring individuals coming forward to serve on say I'm not doing it because I I'm not affiliated with party. I don't want to be affiliated with party maybe
or >> I try but >> I'm just trying to understand if you think there's a qualitative impact meaning some people are not going to stand up for this position or run for a DC position because they just don't want to be deleted is what I'm hearing from
this I don't want to be labeled as a certain person. Yeah, I can say um I'm on the local Republican committee job of the committee statutoily is to identify candidates and there have been candidates uh we approached that are
unaffiliated and we said you know you agree with us on a lot of these local issues would you be willing to run would you be willing you'd have to change parties because to run under the label you have change parties and uh we've had some great people say no you know I really I can't bring myself to
you know, give myself a party label. And he said, you know, whether whether it was the Democrats asking me or the Republicans, I, you know, I don't want to get caught up in in those party labels. So, I think it absolutely does deter u unaffiliated voters.
>> One one more followup if that's okay because I think the point you just brought up and I would like to ask that of both of you and probably weigh in because I've never worked in corporate America being self-employed. Um, I've had folks tell me that they don't who I've approached and said, "You'd be a
great candidate." They have been unaffiliated. They're like, "My job would prevent me from being affiliated and therefore I can't." And and for other reasons as well, like my job won't let me because it could cause controversy. So, do you have any
experience in your legal brain and your corporate? Definitely companies don't like I don't want to speak for every company but you know there's definitely in corporate America you know most companies are not going to want you to run for political office
>> at all or because you have to affiliate >> at all >> at all. Yeah, >> you have that problem, David. >> So, uh I come from African firms. Um and what I've seen in that industry
is they often will not let you run for in a partisan election, but they will let you run in a nonpartisan. >> Right. That's certain people told me and I just wasn't sure from >> I've absolutely seen that uh to be the case and that has to do with the
paytoplay laws um >> you know to some extent um but also more actually more so the paytoplay laws will only come into effect if that company so let's say you're a hedge fund you know
if you manage retirement funds that might be the town that you're And that would be a conflict. You can't do that. Um there's there. But um you know, a lot of companies now it's such a polarized
country. They they they don't want to get tied to one side or the other. And if they have a candidate, you know, that's running in a local election as a Democrat or a Republican, you know, that can that can that can bubble up. I mean, I there were news articles with my
Bloomberg that mentioned me as a Republican and I remember I was at work and people, you know, looking at their Bloomberg terminals, they came up to me and they're like, "Oh, I I know you're a Republican." And we're were uh elected
and, you know, companies not happy about the fact that uh they're getting associated with one or another. Also, I think it is limiting and there's a lot of people in town working jobs, finance or work jobs that you know those
partisan those partisan elections would >> even if the company doesn't have an issue with it. I know there might be people who would be reticent to run because you make a website and then you look for a new job and hey, what if the person that was going to hire you is is
one part of the other and it's like, oh, that person's that party. Forget it. I'll go with the next guy or something. So, I mean, even if even if there's no strict prohibition, you know, there it might be a limiter plate for some people to get involved. >> Well, we spoke with a few uh municipal workers who said they specifically
unaffiliated when they got a government job because they didn't want residents to feel one way or another about them. And it was uh it was interesting. It was an interview that you and I sat on and it was very interest I I hadn't really thought of it from that standpoint ever
>> um because I I don't think personally I think oh I've never judge you based on that but I didn't really think about it nor would I go look them up but it was something that was felt by that person and I was like that's an interesting comment that you go unaffiliated because I've never been so
>> well I worked in corporate America for a gazillion years and they wouldn't let you know run you know and But I had to give to their freaking pack they didn't agree with. So there. >> Oh, back to you. No.
>> Oh, back to me. Come on. Speedy. You're gonna go speedy because unless you guys have any follow-ups. I know that was an important section. >> Yeah, it wasn't. >> So, I know we took a lot more time than than our aotment stated here for 15 minutes. >> So, CD, I know you can speed through. The next is more about functionality.
>> Uh, okay. how um how the TC functions, how would you describe the working relationship among TC members during your time? And did you work collaboratively across party lines or were there divisions? Uh Dave, if you don't mind, >> I think we all work very well together.
Um no complaints. >> I voted for Frank. um for mayor clarify that go. >> So I mean I found that I can I can work
with anyone. It doesn't matter what their party is. Um and that's just me. I don't know if other TC members in the past would be willing to cross party lines. Um, you know, I think when you do the interviews of former TC members,
especially when there was more diversity in terms of of of parties, it'll be interesting to see what what you hear. But for me, you know, I'm able to work collaboratively. I will say, you know, I'll take my relationship with Annette for example. At the very beginning,
we're much more collaborative. Um but that totally went away uh when you know we had the election last year and she was running. Um and you know it created I think the fact that it was partisan it
created this unnecessary tension. Um and I think if we were nonpartisan that wouldn't necessarily have happened. It wouldn't have been a like you know us versus them uh mentality. So I think
the partition structure creates unnecessary tension uh when it doesn't need to be there. >> Well, you just answered the next question and you're so um I'm I'm going to skip that. Um >> but let Dave um answer part one and then
we'll move to part two for you as well so you can have a chance to opine. >> Part one though is which question? >> How would you describe the working relationship among TC members during your time? Did you work collaboratively across party lines or were the divisions? >> I I I think we all worked together as
you said >> I think. >> So I guess the part two you should answer because I think you started. Sorry about that. >> In your experience, what causes tension or disagreements on the TC policy differences, personal conflicts, partisan considerations or something
else? >> I just think it's difference of opinion of policies, you know, have vote on certain things. Mhm. Great. Thank you. Uh, are TC meetings generally focused on policy and big
picture decisions or do they sometimes get into operational details? >> Uh, Dave, please. >> I mean, primarily policy, but but there's certainly operational details. >> It's a little of both. say I mean it it
should be more policy big picture. Um but sometimes things come up and you know people are unhappy and then you start to look under the hood and start you know going through these operational details and and that can sometimes you
know I wouldn't say there's micromanaging but you know people do get a little bit more involved if there's problems that bubble to the surface and then you take the operation Great structural questions. Currently,
the TT TC selects the mayor from among its members. How well does that process work? Would it be better if voters directly elected a mayor? Dave, you want a tiebreaker?
>> You take that one. >> Mixed on it. I mean, I I I think an elected mayor is a good idea. Um, you know, I don't think a strong elected mayor is a good idea. Um, and and there's, you know, there's inbetweens there. You could you could
make instead of the the way we do the mayor now, you can have the mayor be the person who got the most votes, you know, of the people that are nominated, you know, or something like that or that. And even if that was done informally, something like that, as opposed to, you
know, a rigid a rigid thing. But I mean you you you've all of you have seen over the years that you know the election of the mayor. It's you know sometimes sometimes it's you know it's unanimous sometimes it's not sometimes it's like like this past. >> Yes.
>> For a second just because the in case the public is watching the recorded version and may not understand what strong mayor is. The strong mayor actually has leadership powers and control and more administrative. An honorary mayor is what our government
certainly right now has. And even we have the ability to recommend another strong mayor or honorary mayor. So right now we're talking about the honorary mayor position that you guys elect amongst or vote for amongst yourselves and your group of five. So
>> your turn. Um, so yeah, I just went through went through this. Um, and uh, I think that you have to have a directly elected mayor. I think the way that we've been doing it is unsustainable. Um, it leads to a lot of unnecessary
animosity amongst TC members. Even when, you know, it was a single party. I've I've heard stories from those TC members about all the backroom deals and the backstabbing and it really you know
created disunityity and disharmony and I think it affected the quality of the the governance at least in the you know the months that that preceded I people held grudges. Um so I think directly elected mayor is absolutely the way to go. Now,
to be clear, I think a strong mayor would be an absolute disaster for this. Um, and and I'll explain why. We are a town of very highly accomplished individuals. A lot of people in this town, they work and uh if we have a
directly elected mayor, it would take a certain type of person to give up their job and go for mayor or then you you'd be limited to people that are retired or didn't have a job. Um, so I think that you would not end up with the quality uh
individual that you would need that would be able to do basically what Alex does, right? The business administrator as a strong mayor. They tend to while there are some important that also of a business administrator, they have more of an executive role and executive function. And I also think that, you
know, every two, four, whatever the election cycle is, for you to lose that individual, then have someone else come in and have to take over all of those executive functions. You know, you're going to have a lot of discontinuity there. I think that's
going to affect services. There's going to be too much change. Um, so I would say directly elected me would be my my recommendation. And weak means honorary. Just so people who are watching, strong and weak just mean, you know,
>> yes, >> a job versus honorary. And your biggest power is to marry somebody and to sign off on emergency management, right? And go to social events. >> There are certain state statutoily defined bodies like planning board, uh
the zoning board, um that the mayor has the power to do. And some of them are with the consent of the TC. Um, but even with at least there's certain appointments you get as mayor. Now, what we've done is we've
tried to at least with all of the boards and committees that aren't controlled by state, we've changed those so they're by majority of >> Thank you. Um, currently, and think about this one, please. Currently
Milbour as opposed to the other one >> as opposed to the other. Currently Milbour has a five member township committee. The reason how come I said think about it is because we're getting various statements from
former TC members. That's how come I wanted you folks to think about this. uh based on your experience, is that the right size or would a larger or smaller governing body work better and why? >> Um Dave, if you don't mind taking that
one first, >> very hard question, right? >> It is. >> Um you know, because to to me that the concept of five or seven or you know, or some odd number um the idea is you you have an odd number. So So it takes three
people or four people is right. Um, so I I don't know that there's a lot of difference between five and seven. Um, I do think that, you know, as you folks consider this and come up with your report, if you make it seven or nine or, you know, pick a
larger number, it gets tougher to find people >> that that want to volunteer to do it. Um and um and I don't I can't think of a time when I was either watching committee meetings or you know now that I'm on it where I thought five versus
seven was going to make a difference on something. >> So I mean I'm I'm comfortable with five. >> Could I say you're wrong if you made a seven? No. >> You know but it would make it tougher to get you
know more people. You need seven people >> right? more smoke, >> right? Um, so I think five makes it difficult because three is a four, right? And so we're limited to only being able to have one-on-one
conversations and I think you guys are, you know, >> experiencing the choice of of public meetings act and and forums. Um, I think nine, the school board has nine. I think that's too many. That's unwieldy. Um, but you know what? Every year we seem to
have plenty of people running for school board and there's nine positions. So I think we had seven instead of five. That would be the happy medium. I think we would be able to find people especially if you staggered the elections if you did elections every two years for instance. I think you wouldn't have
trouble finding people especially nonpartisan too um to run. Um and also you know it would allow the subcommittees you'd have sub you have subcommittees of three. So you'd have better decision making. Instead of just two people, you'd have that third
person, that third opinion on the subcommittees. Um, and then there's also, you know, a mathematical argument to make. You know, with seven people, you can spread more of the work around, right? So right now there's five of us
and there's a ton of committees and there's new committees that we want to form that'll be very beneficial town, but we're all stretched really thin. I think Ben, for instance, on like seven committees. Um, and you know, I'm I'm on several committees and some of those committees like planning board that
that's a huge commitment. That that that's a big time suck right there. So, if you had seven people, I think we'd be able to spread the work out more. I think we'd get more done. There'd be more people to champion initiatives. Now, I would imagine the
township employees might prefer five versus seven or nine because when you have more people that are active and doing things, more is going to be asked of them, right? But more will get done.
So, I do think I think seven is probably the the right number. Do you think more would get done given the learning curve or do you think like if if not everyone's an active person and to your point a little
earlier let's say you have a dud you said what if someone's elected as a dud you have them for those four years potentially if that's where it goes now you have seven what if those productive conversations with the group of three you're not so productive and you talk to the fourth
person when you now switch you know your groups of and you can't find a point of uh community and and coming together and it could it cause more arguments on on the flip side just to play devil's advocate for a moment.
>> Yeah, I mean if you're in a meeting and you have seven people that all have to weigh in and have an opinion, obviously the meetings are going to take a little bit longer. Um but I think you're going to get better diversity of thought. I think that um I think you're going to
get a better outcome by having more voices at the table. Uh especially if you're if you're nonpartisan, you don't have, you know, party influences. Um I think that uh I think that in this case more is better, but two I think nine would be
too much. I think that would be way too >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, currently all TC members are elected at large. Would ward based representation be better, worse, and more? >> Dave, please.
>> Yeah, I think I think Ward would be a lot of people, right? How many I haven't counted the Wards, but that'd be more than seven for sure, right? Um it, you know, so so I' I'd say I I don't think Ward's better. I mean
people again people you know voters might feel better about the ward because then if you lived in Glenwood you've got you know a Glenwood person that you go to you know whatever section it is. So it's back to the voter versus
you know how I feel about it. So, the problem with Ward based voting, especially in our town where we're Melbourne, short hills, right? There's there would be more WS and Short Hills. And I don't know how the Milbourne people would feel about that, right? There's already unfortunately there've
been former TC members that have tried to stoke division between Milbour versus Short Hills and something I've worked very hard to try and eradicate because we're all one town. Um, but you know, I think if you had a word-based system,
there would be parts of town that feel under represented. Um, so I I don't think that would be a benefit. >> That's a good point. >> Thank you. Um, Milbour has a strong business
administrator structure. would where the DA has broad supervisory authority over departments and day-to-day operations. Based on your experience, how well does the current division of responsibilities between the
TC and BA work in practice? Dave, please. >> Yeah, I think it works fine. So, and and you know to hit number to hit the second one, uh I would I wouldn't expand reduce to say the VA's responsibilities.
>> Uh, say that again, please. >> I wouldn't expand or reduce the VA's responsibilities. >> Great. Uh, thank thank you. And a second part, Dave answered that. Uh, Frank, should the VA's authority be expanded or reduced or uh stay the same?
>> Um, I I think it's important that we have a business administrator. Um, I don't think I would expand or contract with the amount of responsibilities they have. I think there's a lot that's on the business administrator's plate. And
so, you know, if I were to make a suggestion, I honestly think maybe you need two assistant DAS. >> Yeah. Um, you know, there's I think people don't realize how much actually falls on on town hall employees,
especially, you know, people at Alex's level. Um, so yeah, I I would continue to have a VA structure. you know, I would like to see I think one of the problems with our form of government is, you know, right now the the VA doesn't
have any sort of protection against majority just getting rid of them at a whim. And I've heard stories of of prior TC's say, well, Mr. Business Administrator, you know, you're going to do it our way here.
We're going to get rid of you, right? And I think hopefully there's with these newer forms of government, there's some sort of mechanism where there's some sort of hearing or some sort of protection where you could have a VA say, "Wait a minute, you know, majority
says this, I disagree with it and trying to get rid of me, but I want to go on the record and be able to explain myself." that would be safer because the VA does help provide continuity. The TC members change the we've only had
two BAS in our history. >> Yes. Uh thank you. Um I'm going to next section I'm going to please give to commissioner. >> Thank you very much. We're on the homestretch gang. Um let's start with
Mr. Casgra, what are the biggest strengths of Milbourne's current form of government? >> I think the biggest strength of current form is that um we're all working together. Um you know, the TC members. So I I
think that's a testament to five people is a good number, you know, etc. >> Is that the former government or is that the people you talk? Well, it's the people, but I think that's, >> you know, I I think in any form of government, if you want me to riff
around that a little bit. Yeah. Any form of government, whether it's seven people, whether it's nonpartisan, partisan, >> people. >> Yeah. People make the difference. >> Um, and are there any specific things that you could think of? You were saying five you were happy with
the length of time. I guess we'll go can I just ask Dave both the strengths and the weaknesses and we'll go to you just so we can have uh you know as you're thinking about it and I guess you can compare and contrast what are the biggest weaknesses and we can flip block back and forth and ri you like if you
have a biggest weakness factor which I think we touched upon a little bit earlier but if you wanted to extrapolate and expand >> oh And we can go to Frank for a moment and come back to you for the weakness too. >> Yeah, let's do
second. >> Sure. >> So, I think the biggest strength of our current form of government is we're all at large. We don't have like a word based system. I think that's positive. Um
I think that we have having a honorary week mayor is a strength of the government. I'd like to see that continue. Um got a lot more on the negatives to say
you asked about the the strengths. Um but you ask about weaknesses. >> Not yet. >> Okay. Strengths. Um I think having uh I covered weak planner >> strong. >> Yeah, you talked about the strong VA was
I mean that >> that sort of comes along with strong mayor versus >> um >> so we have those things already. >> We have those things. Yeah, those are things that I would recommend >> keeping. Those are those are
You ready for a weakness over there? >> Yeah. I think the you know one of the weaknesses that even in one of your questions or kind of fashion is you know projects that get dropped Chris's comment too you know are
picked up um a weakness for sure you know between terms but it can be a strength too and I had my notes here complete streets um as an example right that was gung-ho for phase one I'll call it phase two never happened right um a bunch of
people got voted out of office I think you know as a result of phase one so you know it's um you know it's good in that sense right that we have people that you know projects don't necessarily have to get
finished see through people change their minds or the voters change their minds so >> could that be perceived as a weakness if something doesn't get finished though is and is that is that do you think that's a an election cycle length of time problem or that person picked a bad
thing to champion and now they're voted out and we're good. I picked a bad thing to champion and end up but it's a project that you know doesn't get completed and I I think that's what I you know had it as as the
>> you said you have a lot more negatives >> and you can chime in after in case you're like oh I could >> I'm curious too >> or you have a lot of things. So, I think the frequency of our elections is a weakness. I think every year it's not a
good idea. Um, I think that the fact that it's partisan is a weakness. Um, honestly, I think the five five is the wrong number. I think it's too few. I think we'd get a lot more done if we had more methods. So, I'd say that's a
weakness. Um oh uh so I think that by not being a Paul form of government we lack certain modern features that would have been very beneficial. So recall initiative
referendum. So, for example, when the affordable housing ordinances were put into place uh several years ago, if we had those modern features, those over ordinances could have been overturned utilizing some of these features, had a
referendum on it. Um I also think there's something like complete streets. That's another perfect example, right? That was something that you had the committee was all about. public didn't like it. That's something that they could have undone or stopped without
having to wait and change out the majority of the numbers. Um so the time committee for government is one of the oldest forms of government that exists in the state and uh I think it's obsolete and um you know those are
definitely weaknesses. just to the point. Um I think all forms of government have recall. So >> yeah, in the constitution >> we actually had a recall in our town a couple years ago. So we did it just the initiative.
The initiative referendum is a good idea mean citizens being able to do that rather than having need our permission >> and it also allows them to get something on the ballot they can do a binding referendum so something like the you
know space trust fund and that's something that you know people have wanted years but the DC didn't want to take it on the restrictions on gas powered leaf blowers that's something that had been talked out for years and years and I'm pretty sure if we had that feature she would have gone to a
referendum before that then the voters would easily >> power to the people >> just just to play devil's advocate there if um the whole idea of elections and having people represent us is that not everybody spends the time to make every
decision right so having a power of referendum do you think takes away a little bit from that meaning you are choosing people to make certain decisions for you as a town and then you don't like it, so you're just going to go back and have everybody again study
that issue and whatever. >> It's a fair question, but I think there's a barrier. There's a certain threshold you have to get to in order to get a referendum on the ballot. You need a certain number of signatures and I think it's not significant number. Um, and so if you look at towns
that have these modern features, you don't see like, you know, there being 20 referendums in any any given year. So I think it's used here judiciously and strategically. Um, so I don't think it will end up causing uh every little
issue to go to a referendum. I think having the option is a is a benefit, not a >> Well, we have one final question, almost final, second to final. Um, if you could change one thing about how
township committee operates or is elected, what would it be? You could also say nothing, I suppose. >> I mean, we we've made I I'll make the comment. And it doesn't mean we haven't made a lot of progress on this over the,
you know, over the last, let's say, year and a half. But transparency, I still think that's an issue. Um, you know, and and I still occasionally feel like we're going back to the dark age when, you know, no one was told anything. Um, but
it's it's it's, you know, so much better than it used to be. But I think he's still I still think we have to fight to keep that you know to keep us on the right path there with the transparency. >> Transparency. >> One thing that I could change I would
change the entire form of government form of government to >> nonpartisan elections and I would have seven instead of five. >> Many things >> that would be what I would do. Well, you said one thing, so I picked something that encompassed >> all of it. Got it. It has all of it. I
got it. >> Um, is there anything we have not asked you that you think it's important for us to understand or consider about how Melbourne's government works to make our jobs more uh fundamentally transparent and uh and
and inclusive uh when we're trying to make some decisions? And I think we covered everything, you know, other than just thank you folks for doing this. You know, it's important work and appreciate that you >> Yeah, I I agree. I think, you know,
kudos to you guys. I think this is long overdue. Um, and I think we're finally at a a point where people in town are starting to understand, you know, the issues. I think some of the things that we've gone through with the
overdevelopment and all that open people's eyes to you know fact that we have a local government and you know that people run uh for this and that these decisions that they make impact their daytoday lives. So um I
think it's all sort of work you guys are doing that very excited to see what you all come up with. Uh uh Chan, do you have something or Oh, >> no. >> Great. >> Cory, are you good? >> I'm good.
>> Dr. H. >> Oh, >> good. Uh, >> thank you, mayor and deputy mayor, for your time and your insights. And we really appreciate uh you folks coming here >> and working on our behalf as well. You guys are elected for a lot longer than we are. >> Yeah,
>> we're only here for >> under a year. So you're distrib That's a lot of time. >> Uh next item under old business community outreach. >> Yeah. So just I may have mentioned it in
my prior report. So, we did get the tab and the patch to publish the article. I think that was true of the last meeting as well or >> uh >> no, I think it came out after. Yeah. Um and then I was at the TP >> and I keep sending my list serve emails
with a host of BCC's. I don't know if anybody else here is sharing WhatsApp groups. I'm hoping that everyone's doing their come to the meetings. Share. >> Yeah. My friend Jeff and I, we remember the
item. I wish we had the item >> um Thank you. Thank Thank you, Dr. >> Uh public comment. To speak during the public comment period, please follow these instructions. Ensure your Zoom display name shows your first and last name. Click a raised hand button. You
will be called upon in order and uh promoted to panelists. Please turn on your video when called to speak. Gladly state your full name and whether you are a Milbourne resident or business owner. Facilitate an orderly meeting and permit all to be heard. Please limit your
comments to three minutes. A reminder that the public comment period is an opportunity for residents to share their views with the commission. Commissioners will not respond to question or engage in dialogue during your speaking time, but will carefully consider all comments
at the end of uh public comment period. Questions and discussion may be addressed at the chair's discretion. Uh do you want to take um the zoom first? >> Uh anyone on the zoom wishes to speak,
please raise your hand now. motions to speak. >> Anyone from the audience? >> Yeah. Um Jeff Phil in the public section. I want to thank everyone, especially Idan wasn't here last time. I was at the board of education strategic planning, but I want
to thank the current board um TC members who came and and spoke. Um the only question you might want to look into when you do the research which is if we go to say seven uh TC members you might be able to get a hybrid where
you have maybe four ward and three at large and that you might want to consider when other municipalities if they have more than five if they go to seven do they break it up to like a hybrid like four ward and uh three at
large that's something to consider um at the last meeting there was a lot of conversations about the fourth of July committee hopefully I know three few of you remembered um go look in the box I think my aprons were there for my company but years ago I donated we used to donate to
everything through that um there is an issue that might come up because after your last meeting on Wednesday and this is something that the TC might have to look at is oversight of advisory boards and whether they actually have
reorganization meetings or have extended their powers or powers or used their uh authority for improper uses. That's something that might have to be looked into is what happened on Wednesday morning. >> Can you elaborate on that Jeff please? a
bit more elaboration on um at the TC meeting um there was the CEDA committee I was appointed to they had a meeting um was supposed to be a reorganization meeting didn't come out to reorganization meeting ended up being a discussion about a mural that's going to
be done for the Fourth of July celebration of the tournament and the question was um how many participants did it have I raised that they ignored but did not reach out to historical black church and because of my contact with Reverend Marabel through Orange, I
reached out and I started questioning why certain organizations weren't um approached or why certain organizations were granted. There's going to be like 250 tiles. I think at this time at that time there was like 46 participants and certain people had like
eight tiles. And the question is, you know, did that this bureau that's going to represent the 4th of July? It's going to be a trended library eventually maybe being put in town hall. Did it really represent what the Fourth of July celebration should be doing and who had the power and authority to determine
know who were um the tiles were going to be that that's not thank you. >> Um anyone else? It's not. >> All right. Um I now close the public
comment period. Are there any comments from the commission regarding any comments made by the public? >> Um I'm aware of what occurred at the Cena meeting, but I think that might be outside of our jurisdiction as to what our mandate is. Um in terms of policy
>> policy um you know certainly if there is something systemic with regard to how the current form of government has created different advisory boards I think >> redundancy >> I think redundancy is something that did come up in one of our interviews. So I I
don't know if we can necessarily make or we can certainly make recommendations as to here's a form of government. Here's also some other best practices that might be considered. But that's that that would be >> best practices for oversight and redundancy. So it's like to bring it up as you know this is what we've noted and
observed based on comments that have come out from interviews and public public comments. Okay. Right. >> Thank you. Got it. Um, how about this one? May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting?
>> So, move. So, move. >> Second. >> I'm third. >> Great. Um, >> great to vote on. >> Oh, yeah. Let's vote. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Nice little finger.