Excellent. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Welcome to the March 26, 2026 meeting of the Milbourne Township Charter Study Commission, which call to order. In accordance with section five of the Oprah Public Meetings 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 officially designated newspapers that this meeting would take place at the Bower Center at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 26. Meeting
details in the draft agenda have been posted. Uh, Commissioner Bill will please stand. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, liberty and justice for all right now. Okay, I will now call a roll call vote to those who are present. >> Mr. Miller, >> present. >> Dr. T here. Miss Parker >> present. >> Mr. Dem >> here. >> Mr. Gerber
>> here. I note that we also have council John Sebasco of King Mans in attendance. >> All right. The record will show that we have a quorum for this meeting. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> So move. >> All in favor?
>> I uh may I have a motion to approve the March 19th, 2026 meeting minutes? So move. >> All in favor? I
>> uh reports. Are there any commissioners with uh reports since our last meeting? >> No. >> No. >> Good. Because we have a lot of work to do. Are there any other reports? No. Okay.
Public comment. Speak during the public comment period. Please follow these instructions. Ensure your Zoom display name shows your first and last name. Click the raised hand button when the public comment is announced. You will be
called upon in order and promoted to panelist. Turn on your video when called to speak. Clearly state full name and whether you are a Milton resident or a business owner to 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 revenues 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.
Uh, does anyone have something to say? Uh, Jay Morelli, uh, President, uh, like to commend the commission on the last few Thursday meetings. Um, I thought the information presented, uh, and ch was
fantastic. uh and a lot of uh good discussion on uh for the most part on both sides of the topic. Um I'd like to uh uh ask a question. Um and I know I haven't been
to every meeting. I think I watched them all. Um and I did just watch Sunday's session this afternoon. Um but are has the commission brought in a strong mayor to discuss the
perspectives from that side of the equation? I get the sense the feeling um is uh against that in general but um to be complete um I don't know if one has been brought in. I may have missed it and if not if you plan to bring one in.
Um next comment regards um partisanship. Uh it seems that some people believe partisanship is only a national issue. Um partisanship occurs
at every level of government uh in different ways. I grew up in the city of Chicago in the 60s and 70s. Uh Richard J. Daly was mayor. If you wanted a city job in the city of Chicago, you needed to be belong to the Democratic Party.
had nothing to do with national politics. So when you consider partisanship or when we talk about it, it's important to realize partisanship occurs at every level and it's different. Just because an issue is
national and it's partisan doesn't mean it's a local partisan issue. Just because there's a local partisan issue doesn't mean it's a national issue. So I think it's important to distinguish uh between national partisanship and local partisanship. And I think Diane Edgllo
even um brought this up in her much read uh letter u where she talked about party influence at the local level impacting uh a decision to be made um uh in our town. Um, finally, I'd like to comment
on the vicious verbal partisan attacks on Jean Cosgrove on Sunday. I think the commission missed an opportunity to denounce what were clearly partisan uh statements meant to disparage an
individual not responding to even the topic at hand. And I think where Mrs. Cosro was even responding to a question from Mr. biller and to be attacked in that nature and not to denounce that as a commission, I think you missed a a
great opportunity. Um, and I think it's because of this type of behavior that is tolerated that people choose not to comment publicly in TC meetings or at these meetings because they know that they're going to be attacked. Um this is
not only tolerated but in some cases this is celebrated as the individual received a fist bump after his attacks on a person uh just speaking their opinion. Watch the video. You'll see the
fist bump at the end. >> Did Did you see that we kicked him out of the meeting? >> You didn't kick him out. >> We did. Yes, we did. No. >> Yes. Strike one strike. First of all, before before he spoke,
>> before he spoke, I think your biller said a statement, okay, in in regarding folks have different views, okay? And let's respect each other. And then when argue with each other, that that was the the set setting of the rules. And then
when uh the individual turned around and was verbally um abusive, >> I said that strike one. Then immediately I said strike two. I said strike three. He said you're out of here. >> Then yeah, then I bang this out of
watch the video. What I heard is >> you didn't hear scream strike one, strike two, strike three. >> What I heard on the video >> and he literally said get out of here. Get out of here. >> Said you're out of here. >> No, he said what I heard on the video. I'm going to ask you to leave
>> out of and then the individual stood up and said, "I'm leaving." Did the fist bump on the way out >> and then and then my understanding was, and maybe I'm wrong, is that he was allowed to remain in the room. >> Well, you know what? You know what? I'm
I'm I'm going to end this I'm I'm going to end this uh discussion right now because we have a lot of work to do and I'm a person that I I want to move on. It was an unfortunate incident. The guy was kicked out and the conversation >> and then our attorney actually re
restated the rules and said that was decorum was needed. But you didn't hear me say strike one, strike two, strike three. >> Commission should denounce post comments publicly. >> I denounced them. >> All right. No, none of us supported. We didn't like it. He was on I thought it
was inappropriate. >> It was totally inappropriate. >> That that behavior had no place here, which is what Cory was saying that >> I anticipated it was going to happen. I warned not to do it. He still did it. We took action and we and he he left. >> It happened twice. >> He he came back only to listen. He was
not allowed to speak again. >> He did publicly apologize. I wish he had done the right thing for dinner with us talking before, >> but I think that's the end of this talk. >> Yep. >> Um does anyone else have anything to say? Jean? >> Okay. I'm going to read um what I'm
saying. Um, I just want to let you know that I didn't have time to listen to the video of the meeting since it was only posted today. Um, I also wanted to um comment about what I heard from township
committee member Ben of Redbank. I don't know his last name. >> Ben Stallman was here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Person from Red Bank. Gotcha. >> Okay. So, um I don't know if you can hear me. Can you
hear me? I can hear you. Okay. He said in their um nonpart partisan election uh that they had two slates and one person run running unaffiliated. And then my take on this was it seems
like the equivalent or similar having these two slates and unaffiliated person to having our current two-party system. Um, so
the concern that was expressed by the members of the public and I'm not sure because I can't didn't re you know hear the video again was about the unaffiliated individual running in a two-party system and not
getting selected and wanting to have nonpartisan to give that person a chance. So, um, so anyhow, um, I'd see that just being a repeat
because, uh, what I see this situation that he described is essentially two slates of likeminded people. So even though it's called likeminded people, it's the equivalent of having a
partisan party system like we have now. and the unaffiliated person is not selected for a slate is at a distinct disadvantage just as I think most people agree now.
So I don't see it as a solution and I don't think going nonpartisan in having it even as you guys get a chance to decide whether to put it or not um up for a vote. You know,
it's important that you consider that and I think that you should not have it as on the ballot to vote on. And I also want to say I differ from what Jay says about
Washington policies and local policies not ne you know not overlapping necessarily. As I said at the last meeting, I was in Washington DC advocating for the GCA
on behalf of clean air and clean water. What I found was there actually were differences of opinion between both parties, partisan differences. And >> I'm going to stop you now.
>> No, but No, >> no, no. later on. You mean >> No, but I just that's only one second. But I'm saying that that the parties are important >> and I think we should keep them. >> Thank you. >> Um does anyone else want to say
something now? We're going to have another um public, you know, comment later. >> I'm sorry. >> Anyone online to speak? Raise your hand. Oh, >> stand or >> Yeah. No, no, you can sit. Stand.
>> Charles Bambber, uh, was in the poet section. Uh, I have to say I've been in town for, uh, 29 years. And for 25 of those years, I was quite content to stay in my own little
world and not get involved in politics and not get involved in any committee work. Uh, but I saw what was going on in the town and I thought I should get involved and and and
uh have a chance to have a say and perhaps make a difference. I also saw uh and my heart went out to the people who lost everything in the flooding in town and their in their homes and their
businesses. I'm an engineer with over 50 years of experience and I felt that even though my home does not flood, I'm on safe ground, but I I wanted to get involved because I knew I could do something in that. And when I the first meeting of the flood mitigation
committee, I was confronted with partis partism that what am I doing on the committee, you know, and and being confronted to the point that I told the chair. I'm here to help the town. I I'm here to to to share my expertise and try to
solve a problem. This is completely apolitical. Politics has nothing to do with this and I really resent it. and if this is going to go on, take me off the committee. There were several other instances where I said, "Look,
this can't go on, and I'm not doing this for political reasons. I'm doing this to help the town." the last township committee meeting, somebody stood up at the podium and called me out personally and accused me of something I had nothing to do with that the Army Corps
of Engineers was proposing and and saying it was my design. Uh so um and I think all of that was rooted in politics. So I have to tell you I'm sick of the politics because we have so many wonderful people in this town. We've got
neighbors fighting each other. It's making enemies out of people. If there's a way to get rid of that and make it apolitical at our local level, I'm a big supporter and I'm all for it. I understand it's not going to be difficult. It's not going to be easy to
implement by any means to try to keep parties out of it, but we need to do something because it's disgusting what's going on right now. >> Thank you. I'm sorry for walking I'm sorry for walking late. Um, if it goes
nonpartisan, which I'm completely in favor of, would you have more than just as it is now two or for each party running? Would it be an open site like the board of eds and it be just like randomly picked? Is that the goal of nonpartisan
>> randomly picked? like um like through like how the order like it's not alphabetical like how they decide like the board of ed names. So that's the goal not to be just stuck with >> it. It would be governed by I believe the New Jersey election.
So you could have eight people running, right? And I think when we spoke, I wasn't sure if there was an answer because some people asked me, would they ever allow rank choice, which if you're gonna have eight people running, not in New Jersey, we don't have a government a state. >> I was I was going to uh
comment on that because I actually did some homework that and everything. I also went to council and we here in the state of New Jersey, we don't have Frank >> rank >> and not you couldn't put it into your own local by hand. Okay. Thank >> I was from above us,
>> a moral resident. Um I just to somewhat um butress what both Jay and >> Charles had said. The reason I supported uh and voted for the commission to be
formed um was the fact that I believe that it's time for Milbourne to go completely nonpartisan, unaffiliated, have people run the the election or run for for office based on whatever the
Faulner Act calls for for nonpartisan government, have an elected mayor. Um, and I think that would serve Milbour uh the best in the best condition that it could. Um, having partisan elections
in this town over the 14 years that I've lived here, I have seen, as Charles referenced, more and more vitrial and more and more national um anger come into what is our
local elections. We have enough issues to deal with this in in this town to have partisanship override a lot of what needs to be dealt with. Infrastructure, school systems, uh flooding. I mean, there's a number of of issues where we
need to take partisanship out of it. And that's why I supported forming this committee to evaluate the available forms of government. My opinion. Thank you. Um, anyone else? >> Someone online.
>> Oh, someone online. >> Um, Regina's iPhone. >> Hi, good evening everyone. I actually wasn't sure I was going to be able to speak, so I greatly appreciate this opportunity. Um, Regina Truit, Short Hills. Um, just
first off, I want to say thank you to the volunteers who are serving on this commission. Volunteers are the backbone of Milbourne and I know that's been a lot of work for you. I appreciate that. First off, I wanted to say that I'm in favor of partisan elections. Um, full disclosure, I'm a district leader for
the Democrats, but I've thought a lot about this and also, frankly, thought about when it would be time for me to leave my own party. Um, and I have to say that my decision is that partisan elections are important. You don't have to align with every single thing in the
party, but it does help you determine the political affiliations and policy platforms of your candidates. And that is crucial when you're trying to figure out who are they and what do they stand for. Another key component that is in favor of partisan elections is the very
real aspect of funding. When you run an a partisan election, you get funding from the party, the local party. >> And that really is helpful. To take that away in some place like Milbourne or in many towns around our country means that
only people with financial assets and resources can run for office. The funding behind political parties is significant. Um, as many of you know, I ran for the board of ed twice. Was great experience. I won both times. Um, and I will say that, um, it was quite a bit of
money out of my own pocket, though I did get some donations from friends and family. Most of it was self-funded. It was thousands of dollars. Not everyone has those financial resources, and they should be able to run with funding from the party. Um, the committees, I hear you. It looks like there's been some bad
feelings on committees. I want to say the last uh I know when Annette Romano was mayor and I believe that mayor Sakammani is also chosen by partisan people to be on committees. That's important and should probably be a value set that's ascribed. I don't think partisan uh elections should prohibit
that from happening. Every mayor should strive and every township council should strive to have bipartisan membership on their committees as a goal, as a standard goal. Um and lastly, I want to say the vitriol that happens during elections. Um, unfortunately, it's part
of human nature. I can tell you with someone who ran in a nonpartisan race twice, it does get um, heated. Um, when you have talented, smart people running, they're going to do the best way of convincing you that they're the best candidate, and sometimes that means
attacking the status quo. It's not always friendly and nice. Um, and it is a way to differentiate between your candidates. Um, anyway, that's those are my comments. And lastly, I just want to say I um agree with Mr. Moriel that the commission should apologize to Gene
Cosgrove. That was a striking display of of lack of control. Um I hope he's okay. Quite frankly, I I I hope the gentleman is okay. That was worrisome to me more more than anything. But also, um I I do think the commission should apologize to
Mrs. Cosgrove for that for the outburst. And I appreciate that you um uh sent him out of the meeting. Um, but but I do think the commission should apologize on behalf of of what happened to Mrs. Cosro at the last meeting. Anyway, thanks again. Have a great night.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Regina. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Um, Frank Zack Mandy President. Um, so I want to push back on this notion that, you know, you're not going to be able to run or fund an election unless you have partisan elections. Um, you know, when I
ran uh two years ago, I think maybe 15% of the funding came from the county party. The rest of it was raised from individuals in town. Um, the money we raised, we had just as many donors that were Democrats and independents as they
were Republicans. So I think that shows that if you have the right candidates, you're able to raise money independent of any sort of, you know, political structure. Um, I also would urge you to look at the BOE. Every year the BOE has
elections. They're nonpartisan. A lot of people run and they're able to do a lot with very little funding in many cases because when you take the outside money from those parties out of it, it actually helps level the playing field
quite a bit because then everyone has sort of a fair chance to go and raise money. Um, and so I I actually think that moving to nonpartisan local elections, if that's what you know, uh, you guys decide to put on a referendum and the town chooses, I think that's
going to be a benefit overall and it's going to take the amount of money required to successfully execute campaigns and I think it's going to lower that threshold considerably and I think it's going to level the playing field. I know that our opponents, they got a lot at the time, two years ago,
they got a lot of money from people that were out of state. They got money from their party that was funneled from, you know, organizations out of state, people out of state or other, you know, party politicians in the state. And I just think that in local elections, you ought
not to have that type of money uh from from outside political sources flowing in. Now, obviously, nothing is prevent that from happening under nonpartisan elections. However, uh if you look at the BOE, you don't see that happening there. I think if you look at other
towns that have gone nonpartisan, you look at their elect, you're going to see that, you know, you're not getting political parties that are donating uh money. It's coming from individuals. So, you know, I think nonpartisan helps level the playing field and it will actually help make it easier for people
to run and uh not me as much. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Let me let me ask a part B the question. If you go nonpartisan, do you have to have an elected mayor? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Yeah. Just speaking individually,
Dave Cosro, um it it sounds to to me like um partisan versus nonpartisan. You're still going to have the partisan parties, the party, the uh funding these endeavors, you know, funding the
elections. Um, nonpartisan doesn't stop that. And and maybe most importantly, a nonpartisan does not stop a local party from endorsing a candidate. So, you know, people look at this and are are feeling or thinking that this is a
panacea uh that fixes, you know, people attacking people um you know, politically or personally. It's not. Um the the reality is the Republican party and the Democratic party are most likely still going to endorse somebody who's
in, you know, independent or nonpartisan. It's still going to be there. It's not I I just think people are kidding themselves having been through an election uh and you have as well. They're kidding themselves if if that if they think that type of animosity, the type of smart out
comments is going to disappear. It's not. um you know and and maybe it's a national discourse you know that we all need to have or maybe it's we need to police ourselves better you know when when we interact with people but you know I keep hearing partisanship is
causing this and I don't think it is my opinion >> thank you um anyone else okay good >> I'm going to have you folks back later. Not to worry. I now close the first
public comment period. Are there any comments from the commission regarding any comments made by the public? >> I think we should hold off on that till after we have the uh deliberations unless somebody wants to say something. >> I think if anybody has something to say,
it's probably a good time because it's fresh in our minds right before we start to deliberate. So if anybody, you know, feels strongly about anything that said >> took some notes and that'd be great. Yeah, go ahead. >> No, I meant so we can do a wallet deliberating on a particular point, I think. Okay,
>> good. Yes, >> no business. >> What? >> I think thank I thank the public for commenting and I do want to apologize to Miss Mrs. Cosgrove. Um, you know, I think that the behavior was inappropriate and I'm happy to say that
in public and I apologize on behalf of >> I I don't think we caused it. So apologizing because >> well I ap I apologize that it happened in my meet date in >> fact I anticipated it and tried to cut it off at the past beforehand but >> I hope you feel that you were hurt
>> I hope you feel that you were hurt that's all >> I guess I was going to express yourself >> I guess my only comment here is >> my focus is not not the individual as much as um that
if we know have knowledge now that the in particular, people that might have a chance of acting out to be at the ready for it and and to also be at the ready for people we don't even know that might happen to show up for the first time and
and to act more quickly about it because it was quite threatening. >> 30 seconds I did strike one, strike two, strike three. >> No, no, no. I don't I'm not I'm saying bodyguards. >> I'm saying no. I'm I'm just saying I You got the gavvel there. What? whatever it
is. So, like >> I was gabling. >> I know. But I I don't know. Get a better plan. Get a quicker plan. I don't know what it is. Whether you need the police or something, but it was very threatening to have someone's trying to talk me down and not allow me to speak.
And and I think sometimes you take it I don't know, right? like when you kind of casually know a person you think maybe I'm safe but may you know I'm not I don't want to go further but I think acting quickly is in the best interest
of everyone not necessarily that individual but another time may come up again unexpectedly and you need to have a a quick plan of I don't know what it is to react and get somebody out of the room >> I don't know what TC does whether it's
the police being here or not. I don't know if that takes that. >> I think I think >> I thank the public for making comments. I think we'll address them all in her once we go through the rest of the meeting. >> Sure. >> New business discussion of next steps.
>> Before we begin deliberations, I want to briefly reflect on the work that has brought us to this point. This is our 16th meeting as a commission. For context, the Redbank Charter Study Commission held 16 total meetings over
its entire process. The Bradley Beach Commission held 15. We have equaled or exceeded both. In phase one, we have structured private interviews with 12 current Milbour Municipal employees and
16 current and former township committee members. 28 interviews covering every major department and every era of Milbour governance back to 1991. In phase two, we went beyond our
borders. We spoke with elected officials and managers from other New Jersey municipalities who who have lived through exactly the governance questions we are deciding. In total, we conducted 43 interviews across
36 in individuals. Throughout we have held two rounds of public comment at every meeting, recorded and posted every session and have been guided by excellent legal counsel. We have done the work. Now we
will deliberate. Deliberations. We have before us a set of of determinations the commission must make tonight. I want to work through them in order one at a time.
Some of these questions we have studied in depth over many months. Others are consequential choices that follow from our primary decisions and that we that we will need to address tonight for the
first time. Let's take them one by one. Ready? Ready. Pan ready. Everyone >> no idea what's coming. You just wait. Commission recommendation.
Our threshold question. Do we recommend that Milbour adopt a alternative form of government under the Forner Act, recommend a special charter, or recommend no change?
>> I can start off by saying, >> please do. I I think a change is needed and the reason I say that is by practice was uh has chosen to have an audience and
appoint a business administrator >> which practically speaking is very similar to a uh council manager form. Uh so we have a township committee form. I don't hate to repeat everything but just for the just very briefly where the
township committee has executive powers but by ordinance we have chosen to put a lot of that executive power in the hands of a business administrator. So one of the forms or options under the Faulner act is a council manager form
where that happens by statute. And uh and in my mind it seems like the past leaders of Milville have chosen to enact a form which was simil which is similar to the council native form anyways. So it makes sense to make it cleaner and
adopt a different form from the township committee form because it seems like in the past we have felt it was inadequate to address our needs as I tend to agree and on top of that I feel like our current form of government limits some really handcuffs are options
um for example size of council and things like that that we >> can only be three or five members we cannot have seven under the current form uh we cannot have any direct petitions and referendums on the ballot by reporters. So there are a lot of um
disadvantages of the current form which is why the popular act created reforms I believe and uh many townships have chosen to take advantage of the new forms and we haven't so far. Um so that's my reason at least recogn
>> I think regarding the this portion it it seems like if we're already practicing under that I I understand that that's a good likely forward thinking more modern way of doing what we're doing but codifying it right so that I mean I I don't think I disagree with this
particular number >> um and I don't think no change is what should happen here um nor do I think special charter is appropriate I don't think we need to go bespoke and create something of our own and create all sorts of issues I think there's a reason why these were created to try to move
forward if if not antiquated but just make it better. So just to repeat there are three options the commission has as corresponded on before keep the current form recommend a special charter if you have to go to the legislature to be blessed
or third choose one of the acts what we're saying is special charter is not an option what we're saying is uh we do want to change from the current form so we don't want to stick with the current form so now the question becomes what form do we want
>> I mean everybody we interviewed um from the council manager form of government really strongly recommended. I think there were a lot of good people who were smart and you know well spoken and had experience in
I guess former BA positions and you know just a combination of of years of experience. So I feel like we've been guided that way from other townships, from other, you know, the equivalent of business administrator manager role and that it was rated superior. So I think
that I can totally get behind. I feel like we I feel convinced that by all the people we've interviewed um who already have these other forms of government and the equivalent of a DA position. That was my you know biggest concern is to make sure that what we have the good
thing going that we have doesn't change >> right >> because the formal government changes like we have a good thing going >> so keep the best parts of it make certain things a little bit better right so this form makes that happen >> the criticisms we heard about the term
the constant annual elections those criticisms of our current power of government like those criticisms we heard in our interviews with people they cannot be addressed within the current form. That's that's right, council. We cannot move to staggered terms and
elections every two years instead of bodies in the current form. >> That's correct. You have to move for act. >> Correct. So we we did try to think about hey are there ways to address or perceived shortcomings within the current form of government. And the answer to that is there's really no way to do that,
>> right? >> And it was overwhelmingly like evident like when we started doing the municipal boost first, right? So we started that. The biggest complaint was that you know this discourse goes away in the beginning of the term this and that like every single year there's like there's a
thing you have to kind of wait and you can't get business done. So this forced >> and the feedback we received on this was not just modern. It w it it extended through >> through various different administrations whether it was
Republican, Democrat, whether it was, you know, 2020s or 1990s. It was that that feedback was consistent. So of all of the issues, this one seems to be something that would be >> Yeah. >> And no question. I think there was one
member of the public who ever said to me, "I like it every single year because I get to know that I can vote somebody in or out." So there was one person, but overwhelmingly people were like, "Oh gosh, if it's, you know, if it's going to calm things down, >> it's so it didn't really sway me away from, you know, like first I was like,
well, maybe we don't." I started off with maybe we need to change, right? >> And I need to be convinced, do we need to change? And each conversation I've had with you guys and had with the interviewees um got me to the next place of thinking. I wasn't convinced it was this council
manager until we started to learn from the people who actually have those forms of government that that's a really good more modern version of what we have with some more optionality. So we could still stay five, it could go up, it could go, you know, the same. Um and that's, you know, different portion there, but it
allows us options. So, I'm just going to put my thoughts on the record. I I agree. Um, I think, you know, township committee as a form of government dates quite far back in time, back when parks country looked very different and back when the needs for our local municipality were very
different. Um, that's probably why as five people that had all legislative and executive authority. Um, as we moved into the modern era in our town specifically, we created the BA ordinance in 1984. We've been very lucky that we've had good continuity with just
a VA ordinance because that ordinance can at any time be changed by a majority of the government. Um, and I think that given that you know by tradition we have sort of found ourselves in a almost de facto council manager form of
government. I think the transition towards a council manager is not the biggest change so to speak because we've already seen that the township committee is comfortable you know grant deferring their executive authority to an appointed business administrator. Um, so
>> and I think the the fact that in the council manager format you don't have department heads being at the risk of like that's another thing that like it it actually makes it really truly a statuto day, right? You can't just change it back because that was a nightmare that you know when Tim Gordon
said >> if you hire me >> and that's our former business administrator if anybody hasn't heard that from the last you know >> meetings he said you can't each run a department. It's just not it's not going to work. We've been very lucky that it is written in our town ordinance, not
that the governing body members should not interfere with department heads. >> Um there are other municipalities, some neighboring ones, um that have exactly the same thing written in their ordinances, but are not respected by tradition. So, it's much better to have that legal firewall be defined by state
statute rather than something that our governing body can at will revise. And also it is we have been lucky to only have two business administrators but you know at some point we might have to look for a new one without that statutory protection. You might not get the same
quality person in that role because they feel that you know they're going to want to go someplace that has statutory protection. >> Now I I do want to address Mr. Morali's question about the mayor council. Um, I think that in all of our phase one
interviews, everyone seemed to be pretty comfortable with the way legislative and executive authority is, you know, split currently between the township committee and the business administrator. Um, I think there were a couple members that we had interviewed that specifically said that a directly elected mayor with
executive function specifically in that mayor position was a bad idea in our town. mainly because the folks in our town that would stand to serve. For example, I think Summit has a directly elected executive mayor. I believe she had to retire from her medical practice
in order to take over as the mayor. So, >> right. I think it would grossly eliminate, you know, the like who would want to do that? Like what if if if you ever considered running be like, "Oh, I I really don't have the time to do it, so I can't do both career and mass. Let me just not run." So I think it just
would eliminate, you know, >> and I think the the continuity aspect was a little concerning in the mayor council form because every time you have a new elected mayor, you sort of have a new elected administrator and your whole executive branch is going to go. So currently, >> just to be clear, we're talking about a strong mayor.
>> This is we're addressing Mr. Mo's question about the mayor council and whether or not we considered it. I did also because I have an interest in the affordable housing issue. Um, I did notice in our local tab, uh, reporting in West Orange, they've been having
pretty big issues, shall we say, about they have a mayor council system. Um, and their mayor is not in alignment with their council. So, their mayor has decided to choose a planner, which is their right to do for their fourth round forum housing. Um, and their council
does not agree with that decision, but the council holds the parrings. So the council has chosen not to pay bills for the plan and it is my understanding that they have missed all of their fourth round housing element deadlines and there's just you know all these builders remedies. So I think just that just that
scenario alone I think the worst case is where the executive mayor is in opposition to the council that holds the first strings and the legislative power, you know, that's just a not a good situation. Well, the the other point that kind of in my view works against the strong
mayor form is strong mayor appoints an administrator and after four years you have a new mayor, you're most likely going to lose the administrator too, >> right? >> Uh because the new mayor is going to probably want to have his or her person as the administrator. So you need you
potentially lose two experienced people at the same time in that form of government. is that's a handicap and that's actually pointed out in the 1972 report that uh had and considered this form of home.
I mean, there hasn't been a I was going to say there hasn't been a strong argument in favor of um but there really hasn't been a an argument in in favor let alone stronger or otherwise >> right I think I think there are larger
cities >> right I meant for the municipality of our side >> correct but our side that kind of doesn't >> a demographic major >> summit has a reward system so it's it's just and and we I think we all really thought very early on that when we were interviewing people that the ward was
not award- based system wasn't going to be fair for our town and it would just create more factionalized you know decision making and and people feeling unrepresented. So that didn't seem smart not to change that role of government for our
>> well the board can mean any form. So that's not system. >> Correct. But for us what what works in summit is the fact that it is a board-based system and a strong mayor. It seems to to work in their town. We weren't going to go to that. So the strong mayor just seemed to be like
negated a little bit. >> And not that we didn't consider it. we shouldn't interview a person who I mean certainly many of us many people know the summit mayor and have spoken to the summit mayor but it wasn't a formal interview process because it seemed like it wasn't going to work for our town it was we were advised against the strong
mayor by a lot of other >> so J to answer your question we did not interview the strong mayor per se but we did consider that form and deliberate over it and felt like it wasn't as >> I mean I I think I had the fundamental concern that it would limit the number
of people and type of people that could run. And so fundamentally, I just um I don't know that there was anything that that because we had considered talking to the summit mayor that she would have said that would have changed that fundamental issue. Right.
>> I think in our town as well, there's a tradition of the governing body. Everyone on the governing body has an equal voice. And I think we spoke with a lot of members of the governing body that in past and current that appreciated the ability to do that. Um,
you know, the lack of a hierarchy I think is something that is valuable in our town and it's it's a tradition that I think going from what we currently have to a mayor council would just be such a big leap that it would be, you know, a little bit of a shock versus council manager which most closely
approximates what we currently are operating with. That's what I was going to allude to, you know. So, and um I also believe uh you know that what system is out, you know, we we all we all agree on that. >> Oh, that's >> wow.
>> That's uh discussion item number four. So, >> we'll get to it. >> So, >> all right. >> Uh do we want to formalize I think we're all in agreement here. Um we
>> we are zeroing in on the council manager form just to make data public. Yes. Number two type of option form. >> Mhm. >> I guess before we do that I just want to emphasize again and I know we we did touch on it briefly. Um the annual elections um you know the election
fatigue and also just the the multiple overlap. Um, just as an example, right now, uh, counter committee members serve three-year terms. Since there's elections every year, someone could potentially be serving with three different cohorts of people, and that
makes it very difficult to determine, you know, whether or not this person contributed to, you know, stuff that you would like to reelect them for or not. Um, and I think the annual election cycle, as was told to us by the municipal employees, was just a nightmare for them. Um I think even
before we had started this process some employees had reached out saying if if you don't do anything at all please get rid of annual elections and I think you know the only way to get rid of annual elections is to make a recommendation for change to one of the follow >> also think with annual elections you
don't let scabs heal you know these elections everyone has agreed whether you're in favor of partisan or not that elections can get pretty rough and when you're having them every year you know it almost is like the election never stops because you know by the time one's
over sure you have a a period of of you know a renewal but you you know there are points where these issues that come up in the election just are sort of sparked again like you know when you're choosing a mayor for example in the
annual reconstruction meeting at least as currently and then I think you know and you start having in sort of late winter early spring the parties start discussing about who they're going to put up for election. So you're you're
still through election. I just I think having annual election I think having elections every two years at least allows some people to the temperature to lower a little bit. Um, so piggybacking off of that, the the
the quote that sticks out in my mind was um when Mayor Tambber Verona said, "If you have annual elections and you have a partisan system, your window of governing is January through March." Yes, I was >> because because by the time April rolls
around, the primary is sort of in session and people are focusing on the next election and you just can't get anything done because people are thinking about what different votes mean for their election that year >> and and policy doesn't get um you know
you know what what it should and uh the municipal employees you know get up get overworked and everything. So yeah, I'm total totally >> the overhead I think overhead for just training new people, especially given our experience in the last 10 years or
so, you know, I think there was >> two or three people that for more than one term. So for the municipal employees, yeah, it's just constantly getting everyone up to speed and they can't do their actual jobs. Frankly, I'm I'm surprised it hasn't caused some of
our paid administrators to leave um because they've had to deal with, you know, the the shrapnel of our elections. >> Well, just goes to show you we really have great people in this town who work here, >> but we're not we might not always have great people and so we need to set up a
system that protects our town, >> right? So I think we did one and two inadvertently. So I think >> let's formalize the recommendation. So we do want to change and we want to recommend a council manager form of government.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Should we take a roll call vote or >> um that's unnecessary. You'll vote once at the end on the report. So I vote your recommendation to incorporate in and >> at the end. Okay. Good.
Um all right. Size of council. Under council manager, the council may have five, seven or nine members. The mayor sits as one of those members as equal to
um I'm happy to >> kick it off the freaking one for me. Um yeah so I my thinking on this one is I think seven is the right number for the size of the governing body. Um currently
we have five and a lot of members have noted that it feels a little light mainly because they have so many different subcommittees that has to sit on. Um I believe Mr. Stler when he came to speak with us he said he's on six or seven different committees. Um I think
a that's just a lot of work for an individual and I think that actually disincentivizes people from running just because they know that they have to undertake so much work. The other issue with five um and I think we've experienced this as a body is that you
can only meet one-on-one without activating a forum um and then having to call a public meeting. And I'm always a firm believer that when you have a discussion one-on-one, it's exponentially less effective than when you have a third person there. And just, you know, jumping in, seeing where gaps
might be had in terms of logic. I think three person subcommittees are very very much stronger than a twoerson subcommittee. Um, and so I think seven is is a good number. I think nine is is too many. I think you're likely to sort
of have too many cooks in the kitchen. Um, but with seven, I think you get a good diversity of opinion. You get the sort of benefit of a threeperson subcommittee. Um, and a sort of a mathematical point. Um, with seven
people, um, you only need, let me get this right, you only need three meetings of different subcommittees to reach the whole committee. So the first person talks to the second and third person. That's one meeting. Uh the second person can talk to the fourth and the fifth person.
That's the second meeting. And the third person can talk to the sixth and the seventh person. That's three meetings. With five people, you need to actually have four meetings. One and two, two and three, three and four, four and five. So in some sense, even though you have more people, you gain some efficiencies from
the additional people. I I also well yeah if there's >> if there's not then you know it's a problem it's not a number problem. I also think uh with seven
I personally think and and in uh interviewing folks around town I think we'll get more qualified people that would not run before but will run
now and everything. So, I think seven I think seven is is the uh is the number that I'm leaning for that I'm comfortable with. >> But but if we don't always get five qualified people, how are we going to get seven qualified people? It's two
more bodies that you have to add to, you know, giving up time for work. And >> so, I will say that was one of my concerns is like, okay, are we going to be diluting the talent pool? On the other hand, are we, you know, to to Chris's point, you know, might somebody
say, "Hey, I feel like I can't commit the time, but now that it's seven, I don't have to go to as many committee meetings, so maybe I I will." So, so I do feel that there's there's an interesting tension there. The other thing I think we need to consider though is that our population is growing. >> Yes.
>> Um, well, it has grown, >> but it will be growing unfortunately. Um, >> oh, >> over the next, >> for better or for worse, it is going to >> Yeah, we won't get into, >> right? >> Yeah, different debate. Um, and so if
our township is growing, it would make sense that our township committee reflects the growing population and it gives more people to be an active participant. >> Can I ask the question that some of us may know the answer to but the public might not? If we settle on a number now,
>> can that change in the future? It can change before we write a report if we want to change it in the future. >> If let's say if let's say you know if let's say there's a recommendation and the recommendation is seven nine something different than five what happens um say four years down the line
or there's not enough candidates being attracted and and you only get five people running like what happens? So if if the decision is made and the voters ultimately adopt moving to the council manager form of governance, there is a provision in the law that permits all of these alternatives that we've been
speaking about. Now um the size of the governing body, the division of the municipality, the frequency of the of the frequency of the elections, um whether it's a direct or indirect mayor and partisan or nonpartisan, all of those things um after four years can be
readressed. um by either initiative or referendum. So that can be done in the future without needing to go back through the whole charter study commission again. This process is only necessary to actually change the form of government, not to change those alternate alternates
once we are inside a ferment form. Can >> can you expand on that? You're saying the the councilmen themselves cannot by majority choose to change that form. It has to be a referendum. They they can they can um they can submit that
question to the voters. They cannot do it just by wait I'm sorry let me just let me just review the statute here. I want to make sure I spoke correctly. >> Um no the governing body needs to the question needs to be submitted to the voters but the initial ordinance needs to receive um an affirmative vote of
twothirds of the of the council. I apologize for having my back to all of you. It's difficult to speak to Mr. Tana and look at all of you at the same time. So, so if it's a seven member committee, five of them get let's ask this question on the ballot and see
>> sorry. >> So, so if it is, if it's a five member committee, you'll need four people to say five member council, sorry. You'll need four people to say let's ask the question about size of the governing body or partisan versus nonpartisan or
division of municipality again to the voters. So they can decide to ask the question and then send answer to the voters again but they can only do it once every four years. >> That's correct. That's correct. It's four years after the charter study recommendation has been submitted or four years after the alternatives have
last been voted on. >> It could be just one alternative. It doesn't have to be all. could be. >> You you can you Yes, it can be one or you can choose to put more >> or or the voters can initiate a referend initiative and ask >> that is that is also correct. Let me get
the numbers out. I have them right here. Um the voters can propose an ordinance pursuant to the initiative process. Um the difference from a general initiative is that in this circumstance to change one of the alternatives you need 15% of the voters who voted in the last
election in which members of the general assembly were voted on. >> All right. So I think this is an important >> it's a numbers game. >> So this is an important point for the public to understand that uh basic decision we're trying to make is to move to the Faulner Act form of government.
That's what we just said we're going to recommend. Um but there are alternatives within the form of government. Alternatives related to governing body size, division, municipality, all those things we have listed here and those then can be changed either by the people or by the councilmen themselves without
this elaborate charter commission process again. So we're not stuck to one or the other choices. So I just want people >> easy but >> may not easy but it's possible. It's easier than a charter commission, >> right? Definitely easier than this. Uh I just want people to have an open mind
when we have a recommendation done that nobody is stuck with it forever. It moves us to a modern form of government and then it's in the hand of the people and the elected representatives to make changes in some of the alternates as we're calling it. I just I just want that to be
>> I like uh the seven member um >> when we have big decisions brings us back. >> Yeah. Bring it right back. >> I need to be convinced. I I feel >> when we have big decisions to make when
the council has big decisions to make, right? >> I think there'll be better robust discussions as opposed to five people like you know three three people will will will get
together and you know you know >> okay I'm concerned about the robust >> calling this not a robust Yeah, we are having a robust >> but that's what concerns me. We've had robust discussions in the past 10 years. We've had either single parties, you
know, robust discussions when TC was one party, you know, in mix, I think it's a people problem. It's not, you know, a number problem per se and my one concern several concerns about this particular number issue is that it introduces two more robust voices and that you have to
convince each other more. And I get the forum part and I know it would be more fun to talk to three people and get you know another opinion. Sorry. Sorry. >> Two sorry go from two to three. But no no I'm talking about so to have a quorum >> rather like so to not be in a quorum to
talk as three people versus two people. That's what I'm talking about. Sorry to be clear. So the concern for you was having twoerson conversations wasn't as robust as having a third person there to you know argue with a little bit. I work on a two-person team. We have other
members of our team, but we are primarily the two of us leads. There's plenty of robust discussion between the two of us and we go knock down dragout. >> That's personalities. That's personal. >> Given those personalities, if I have a third person, I don't know how I could argue with that third person. That was, it's enough to have the two of us in the
room having robust discussions about how to price a house, how to do this. Like, I don't know that I want to fight with another person. I feel like these two people that I, you know, the two of us can get to those decisions. I feel like there to me I never felt handcuffed having to just talk to you or just talk to you and Chris and I have had plenty
of disagreements about how things get done or you know and we end up okay you and I have had robust discussions for hours and and you know convincing each other well what about this and we start off with one point at the end we're like oh gosh we've totally changed our minds about when we're looking at the
interviews so I don't feel like I've been had an inability to be convinced properly and then when I if I doubt what we've discussed I'm like let me go check in with, you know, each one of these commissioners to say, "We this is what we talked about. What do you think?" And
I think I don't think that was a problem for me as much as it was for you. And I respect that because I think we look, we all negotiate differently. We all think differently. We all approach logic differently. And I still am worried about two more voices on top of the five
that we have. It's a system. It's a number system that wasn't broken. We we identified the government might be broken. Just not even broken. just might use some um additional tweaks to make it better >> to to improve it. And I never I want to leave something better than we left it that we started
>> and I wonder is it really going to make it better? But then you're asking the efficiency question. Is five more efficient? Is seven more efficient? >> Right. >> Too many voices sometimes or too many people in somebody's head and now our business administrator which will now be a different game has to talk to more people.
>> But the efficiency is from two different perspectives, right? One is the perspective of the manager >> with the council. >> Correct. And I'm worried for the manager >> and one is the council itself trying to be more efficient with the subcommittee. >> Subcommittees. I understand. I get that.
>> I think I heard you had the uh manager of Verona I guess >> talking to us and his view was very clear that hey five years it can't be fully closed. We're not legally allowed to keep it fully. I'm sorry.
>> We'd love to is good. Thank you. >> Perfect. Much better. Um so I think uh his view was as a manager he felt managing the five person council was
more efficient for him. But when we when I questioned and said, "Hey, but what about the council itself and its subcommittees? How have you worked with uh how have you handled subcommittee questions?" And then he was spending more time because they were not as many
appreciate subcommittees convincing everybody of the same question as opposed to a subcommittee convincing your members. I I'm not I think the question the question you agree on that subcommittees might be more efficient with seven is an important consideration
>> and that overrules for me the efficiency from the manager's perspective. There's a push and pull there but I think seven makes it better for the council. >> So you're in the seven camp as well. on the I I've oscillated but now I'm on the seven camp because I do think um I do
think that the workload on a five member council is quite a lot. >> Mhm. >> Um and it it will help bring more people to run if they know they don't have to spend as much time as the P council uh body would have to. I also think also,
and this is a theory that we'll never know until maybe we live it, is that is it possible, and we keep talking and we we know that we've been living through some tough elections locally, there's a lot of vitriol. Is it possible that having more seats
that you can give out, so more cookies to give to the kids will cause less temper tantrums because there are more opportunities to sit. And so if you have more cookies to give out, maybe we'll have less temper tantrums because you have, you know, >> more voices heard.
>> Yeah. Well, not even just more voices heard, more opportunity. >> So, you know, if more people show up and >> Hey, more people show up, that's arguably a good thing, too. >> Um, but no, the idea is like currently
>> the the grip on seats is so tight. I think that is partly con that partly contributes to the animosity and the tension in elections. And so if you loosen some of the grip, you might actually deescalate the tone and have
better elections, too. >> Okay. So Ben said the last time they ran on the post and they were they're seven, but they've always been seven, right? So I don't know that that was a big change for them. I I think piggybacking on both of these points, I think when you have five, the stakes on each the stakes for
each seat is much higher, right? Each individual controls 20% of the body. When you have seven, each individual% >> um so and so it it it le it feels less like a struggle for life and death, right? Like when you need four people to
make a majority decision versus three, that threshold is that much higher. And that goes back to Shanik's point, which is when it's that much harder to make a decision, I think that actually decreases the manager's workload, right? Because there's fewer just there's more inertia necessarily because it's harder
to reach a consensus and so the manager is probably doing less. Now I just let me um >> I think what we can do even beyond giving a council size recommendation is um talk about some best practices in our report because when we spoke to I
believe uh the manager in Mountain Lakes they have seven Mitchell Stern he said that >> they're tiny >> they have tiny they have 4,000 >> that was my concern it's like how many how could seven people >> but they they use the seven sort of as a way to build up a bench of people that
can then mentor you know future people coming along right so you know I think a lot of Mr. McDonald's hesitation is that he he just thinks, "Oh, that's 40% more work." But I think there's efficiencies to be gained from building up a bench, having mentorship. So, >> and then the family dinner that came
from Rand, right? So, that was actually I think so I think if if there is the natural mentorship, right? So, you and I were arguing over that the other day where I was like, I'm very much on the fence about the number thing and I think the best practices that make me feel better like if we can actually have a
list of recommendations based on all of the research that you have to be able to do and there are so many qualified people who've been in these roles that that we can you know learn from um and compile like okay well if this then that of course it's not codified it's not you
know statutes but it's something that could become the best practices that is, you know, the FAQ of what to do so people can actually come in and not feel like they have a year to catch up where somebody takes them under their wing and and it becomes part of the natural progression.
>> And I do think that going back to the subcommittee thing because I this is very near and dear to my heart. I think having a three person subcommittee where you can have one senior member mentor two junior members that adds in additional efficiencies as well. Mhm. >> Right.
>> I think comments from the township administrators or township managers, >> it's going to be natural that they're going to want less potential bosses in in their ear. So, you know, I I take their perspective a little bit with a grain of salt. But I also think in
reality, even if you have more people in their potentially in their ear, I've definitely served on boards and committees that were bigger than five. And realistically speaking, you have some people who will step up in a bigger way and you know less pe and some people
who unfortunately don't step up. But you know protecting that manager. I think there's an innate thing that will protect the managers in that there are some you'll rarely have seven people that are all alphas and want sort of to to step up and and be an annoyance and
and you know there are there are um you know especially in this form there are statutory protections for that manager anyway so as opposed to our current form. So, are you >> So, I I I'm in favor of the seven. >> You are. >> Seven.
>> Seven. But can I make one last point? I'm sorry. I'm really annoying. Um I think the another consideration is when you have a vote that requires a supermajority like a bond ordinance. When you have five people, that's four versus one, right? So, if you're that one person, it's hard to sort of have a
discussion with yourself if you're in opposition to it. Um with seven people, it's five versus two. you know, two people can still have a robust discussion on the deis and maybe, just maybe, they might be able to convince a third person, right? But when you have that 4-1 versus 52 dynamic, I think
there's something to be said on >> Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with the policy. >> Yeah. >> Social majority definitely. >> Okay. That that that's a more fair point for me rather than the behind the scenes conversations that you can have with three people versus two. Um I I I get
that, but um >> I definitely have a lot of conversations, too. I do too. I always win. >> Like, you know, >> I always lose, unfortunately. >> Oh, no. I'm a >> uh Corey uh I think I've said my piece. >> No, seven.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. I I look I mean I I I wanted to be convinced. I'm I think I can get there. Um I think the supermajority point is probably much more valid for me. I've been writing my little notes to myself because I'm
arguing with myself this evening. I'm the only one >> reluctantly. So, >> I I might be losing on this one because I I understand. Look, you guys are very smart people. I understand um I'm willing to concede that I may not be right and I understand that I was
definitely listening to Mr. Tambbor in my mind and I was listening to our VA because I was trying to not create more work. That being said, having never served on those subcommittees, I know what it's like to have 15,000 free things to do, which is why I was late coming from the rumage sale, you know.
So, it's like my subcommittees, it the more people we recruit. >> Yes. >> And tonight was we had more people, so you were able to leave early to make sure you're prepared because you knew I would be late. >> So, it's like Right. But I think that's the thing. That's a push and pull. So, I guess if that's the case, if it's really the subcommittee and the supermajority
two S's, I could actually get on board with that because those two are valid points um that I was not considering as strongly. I was considering Mr. Champ or I was considering, you know, the other folks who were coming from five that never changed. >> So, they didn't know what they didn't know and we don't know that we don't know. But I don't want to create more
work for people in our DC that are going to be elected officials basically working for free and also for our BA turning for new manager form. I I can get behind that. >> Okay, council seven. >> Thank you. >> All right,
question number four. Division of municipality at large or wards. Council seats can be elected at large or divided into wards with some at large seats with seven members. The options are three wards
with four at large or seven at large. I'll open this for discussion though I will note that very few of the individuals we spoke with in phase one have expressed a pres uh preference for a system. So I'm going to make this
short and sweet. Nobody here wants a ward. Correct. >> I'm going to say it like you would. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> Thank you. All right. >> I think we should I just have >> for the sake of public opinion and those who might be in favor of a word-based system out in the public. I do think we
need to give it a moment to explain why because I I understand this is something that each individually probably feel strongly about. A lot of people recommended against it for our type of town. There was a lot of concerns from former and current TC members that there
could be factions. So how do you how do you ward the system? Like do you go to South Mountain Deerfield and Barton? How do you do that? Now one section is bigger. So now you have to divide it among these lines and it'll be neighbors against neighbors. >> That's my biggest thing is like we're already we already have enough vitrial
like we don't need to add another point. >> Milberg versus Short Hills, we're all the same township, but you know by virtue of having two schools in one district and they're smaller like it's just how do you how do you have representation be fair, right? And once we went through that with every single person we interviewed who served or is
serving, it's like that doesn't seem like it's going to >> nobody. So I feel >> nobody wanted a war. Nobody >> Well, you could have some at Ward members and some at large and some representing WS and couple at large members. Right. We didn't want that
because >> a council person should be representing the whole town no matter what in the best interest of Right. >> Right. So you're not speaking just on one neighborhood. you're speaking first at the end. Yeah, I think that's >> I think we're too small of a municipality to divide us
>> into boards. >> You're talking about like Newark or something like that. You have a big area and and then there's a greater possibility that you don't have representation. Sure. But >> um of the issues that we heard from the public
uh and a feeling of non-representation was not one. One of one of you guys argued with me, I can't remember now who probably you because I think you and I have argued the most um is that with seven people because that was somebody's point that seven people actually gives you more representation potentially as
well. >> So, you know, you're at large but you also have seven different people with the voices of you know representing the town. So that would >> potentially so that would negate the need for a you know representation from each neighborhood or ward so to speak. So, I think I think if that's if that's
fair enough, >> right, >> to get the public to, you know, if somebody is pro ward, they can at least hear why we're not pro ward. >> So, are we all in agreement? No water. >> Council, no water. >> All right. Uh, question five. Frequency
of elections. This is a big one for me. Concurrent or staggered? Uh concurrent means the full governing body runs at once every four years. Stagen means elections every two years
with initial terms assigned by lot at the reorganization meeting. >> I I am in favor of >> that wasn't clear, Chris. Not >> let me read it again. >> Would you? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I was too
staggered because uh frequency of elections concurrent or staggered. Concurrent means the full governing body runs at once every four years. >> Okay. >> Staggered means elections every two years with initial terms assigned by lot
at the reorganization meeting. department >> just for the postal action because you need to figure out who will take a two-year term add initially right so that's by lots >> is that something that we should have legal explain because I think we may actually commissioner Tana just so that he said exactly what I was going to say
at that first at the first reorganization meeting of the new government if we wind up in a position where we have a new government um >> basically at that meeting it needs to be figured out who is going to take the shorter term and only have two years and who is going to get the full four-year
term that after that point everyone will be entitled to. So it's literally just picking out of a hat. Some people will pull pull the short straw for two years, some people will pull the long straw for four years and that's how just that first initial governing body would be determined
>> and then subsequently what happens and would it be um the same time as presidential elections? >> Well, that is a whether whether that's that's another question. >> You mean November? Is that what you're asking? Are you asking me was it in November? >> Well, I know Livingston always has it at
the same time as the presidential election. That way, people are more apt to come out and vote. >> Well, that's just happen. That would be if you had four terms that happen to line up with the president. does, I believe. >> I don't think ours work.
>> Yes. >> So, >> I I I would I am in favor of a four-year term because it allows you to get more work done in a bigger period. I'm also in favor of staggered elections so that
you have some continuity and don't have the risk of like an entire turnover all at one time. Yeah, I think it would be a nightmare of four if all five well seven seven people would now all go away after four years. That would like you restart
everything. That that's not a good >> from an election perspective. Like you then have the population having to >> evaluate a full slate of seven people. >> Yeah, it's hard enough getting people to pay attention to local elections,
>> right? just in case you don't have the same people rerunning which in our history recent history we haven't had people stay on. >> Well, just to put on the record under the council manager form, it is four years. >> It's not a shorter term. It's not an option. So, >> correct. >> Uh it is a four-year term. The only
option is do we stagger it or do we make it concurrent? >> Right. Well, concurrent I think would just to eliminate everybody. If no one chooses to run, what happens? You have seven people going away. You seven new people coming in. It's like the learning curve for all seven will be there's no mentorship. One would think we need stagger. Dr.
>> I think I think another argument against concurrent is >> four years between the public getting any input into their governing body members is quite a bit too long for my taste. >> Um you know if you elected someone this
year three years from now they're still up there. I mean anything short of a recall which is basically impossible removing them. I don't I think you need some amount of accountability and I think having those midterm elections to be able to you know change the composition on the governing body I think that was >> right that's a really good point and
that was the one person who voiced their concern to me you know privately that they like the idea of electing somebody every year because they feel their voice is heard if you take away that voice talk about every four years like people will become so disenchanted and also disinterested like we lose the public
what I loved about the Verona interview is that the fact that that town is so engaged and they are it seems very healthy and they're they're listening to each other and I hope that you know this process will engage more people and then every two years you get people like
liven up again to be like okay we're running this is kind of cool every four it's like who's running what did they do like unless something you know really controversial happens >> so every two years you're like either three people or four people >> correct >> and in the in the first election after
the initial election will be three people or four how you so three people >> will three people pick a two-year term in after the initial election or four people >> after the at the initial election >> at the the initial election after
governing body is accepted. So then you have you have three people with the seven members you've got three people going into a four-year term and four people going into a two-year term. And back to the point we were discussing before, that initial two-year term is just for purposes of that first term.
After that, everyone goes back and forth. >> Got it. So, so poor people get the shot straw, so to speak. >> Correct. >> Mhm. >> So, I I guess I I'm of the same opinion. We should have staggered elections. >> Dr. Khan. >> Yeah. I think um you know what we have
currently with Township Committee with elections every year, I think that's too much. I think elections every four years is too infrequent. I think two years is a happy medium. Um I think that sufficiently increases the governing window so to speak. You get at least a year, maybe a year, six months, nine
months depending on partisan, nonpartisan, um which is a big improvement from our current three-month governing window. >> True. You imagine the potential of seven lawn signs. >> Hey, our lawn sign was wide enough.
You just need to take >> Commissioner Parker Lens. >> I I am all for staggered. >> You don't need to argue with anybody about that. >> Council staggered. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Question number six. Selection of
mayor. The mayor may be directly elected at large as a designated council seat or appointed by majority vote of the council at reorganization. This is the one I have the most trouble with. Me too. Me too. I started with a
>> I think we all did. Yeah, we all have a problem with this. >> So, on the one hand, I went in wanting the direct election of mayor. I, you know, I thought the the town president should have a >> direct say in their mayor. However,
I'm I'm conflicted a little bit because with a weak mayor, which I think we we sort of are are going for, is it confusing to tell the people that they're electing a mayor, but the mayor really doesn't have much power more than a council person? So
>> I I I feel like it sends a confusing message to to the residents to say you're electing a mayor, but they're really not really any different than >> it would be different if you elected a strong mayor. Right. >> Right. That would actually be like, okay, now you're actually really running
the town. You you're you're >> well kind of working full-time and you're in charge of it. It also there's also a concern that in theory if more than one person when if you're going to have more than one
person run for mayor then that's going to cut them off from potentially good candidates from from be serving on the town council >> because if they lose the mayor election, it's not like they can fall back and be on the council. And so now you need even more people to run because you want a
contested council election. you want a contested mayor election. I well I well you know and then we're expanding to seven council people. I I don't know you know I don't know what that does to the election. So, so as of now, I've sort of
flopped over to the nondirect election of mayor, which to me is kind of crazy that I'm saying that >> I have to say I feel crazy about that, too, because I was so I was so excited that like people would have a chance to to elect the mayor, especially like almost everybody that had a slightly
more contentious, you know, experience on TC getting the votes among the five people to become mayor. somebody's always like feeling hurt and then in the new year it takes a couple months for those feelings to tamp down before they can kind of govern together again and it
it just changes that dynamic. So going back to that to be like, well, we're going to tell you to do that again. But I'm hoping that with the number increasing to seven, there will hopefully be less hurt feelings, more people who can kind of I don't know, and
I don't know if that's possible based on the number, but then correct me if in a weak mayor system under the council manager, the only the power of the weak mayor is they appoint the zoning and the planning.
They have the ceremonial power. Um let me get >> to marry >> to marry. Yeah. Um they are they do the agenda. They lead the meetings. Um but other than that they are just a member of the council and then you will vote to everyone else. >> What about appointments? Are they
appointing people to >> zoning or planning board? >> I thought they use I think that >> and also the library. >> Yeah. So, so the other concern is that if you get somebody rogue, they're there for four years. >> Four years. Yeah. There's a lot more damage that could be done over a
four-year period. >> You mean people select or elect somebody? >> Well, I I I don't necessarily mean >> Yeah. I don't necessarily think rogue, but I think >> when you have a directly elected mayor by the people, it sort of sets up this hierarchy where that person might think
that they're better than everyone else. Um, and if they hold a 4-year term, they and let's just say they're not a good mayor, right? So, they're elected for a four-year term, they're not a good mayor. Residents of the town recognize this. They vote a majority of council people, you know, to oppose that mayor's
policies. Now, that mayor is just going to stonewall or obstruct and say, "Well, I still have appointment power. I'm going to appoint whoever I want to appoint." Now you're in the sort of nightmare scenario which is which is and literally >> what you pointed out with one of our neighboring towns that like they're not they're fighting with each other about appointments and they missed the deadline.
>> It was for me it was literally a nightmare scenario because I woke up in the middle of the night and I was like oh gosh like a directly elected mayor would cause this problem where you know two years into this let's just say terrible mayor term. You know everyone doesn't like them. You vote in a majority of the council to oppose them. Now that mayor is just like well I still
have appointment power. Let me just obstruct make the majority of the council look bad. Now, four years later, that mayor's up for re-election. No one knows who's causing the dysfunction. Is it the majority that you voted in or is it the mayor from four years ago? >> Right? That's the we don't know what we don't know. And I think that's always
very, you know, that cautionary tale of we really don't know. So, so in order to protect that from ever happening, you have you have your peers to report to and to, you know, >> well, my thing was um let's say your
group gets together they want to uh uh have a direct mayor. Okay. So, let's say, and I'm just making this up. Don't quote. Let's say uh you're on the right. >> You want to call me
Don't quote me. This is just a >> This is him thinking. >> This is a hypothetical thinking. >> This is a hypothetical. >> Don't crucify you. >> Yeah. Right. >> Let's say Milbour Short Hills uh youth baseball. you know, they have over 700, you know, kids, right? And parents and
what? So, the president of the uh baseball league gets everyone together and they go like, you know what, vote for me for mayor and I'll have the board of ed by I'll have the the town by the oki track and we'll make uh you know,
turf fields and we'll make baseball fields and that doesn't happen. So what happens to you know all all the folks that voted for me? >> What happens to what happens to him or her? They get totally right. So like and
then it tells the manager they don't have the power to make it happen. >> Right. Right. Anyway, >> I think that was a that was a cautionary tale from one of our interviews where they said the problem is you have this directly elected mayor and and they were
worried for that person actually because now the public thinks you could do all this stuff for me when you don't it's like but I'm still your neighbor. I really can't. I'm a weak mayor. What does that mean? People don't really understand what a strong mayor are until they do. And then it's like okay what what what have you done for me lately?
Well, I'm just the same as the atlarge members. So, >> yeah. So, so me the the the weighing is all right. Do we solve for the bickering that happens at every reorganization meeting to where the council >> Well, it doesn't happen all the time.
>> Not all the time. >> Some not all the time. >> Well, it's not as public all the time, >> but it happens. Um, so do you solve for that issue? But then since we're moving to a different form of government with
different terms, you're just solving for that issue, creating another issue. So it's the weighing of which issue is which issue is is easier to live with. And so so that's where I'm trying to grapple is is is the issue of, you know, avoiding that that horse
trading and bickering by having the council nondirectly elected. is that benefit of avoiding that outweigh the I suppose detriment of having
a an elected mayor that could be in place for four years and has the power to appoint people to three of the most important boards that we have in our township. I would almost argue that the the so-called horse trading is almost a
feature rather than a bug of the indirectly elected mayor. >> I think that some of that horse trading is, you know, when you have a minority coalition, if you want to get someone support for mayor, you say, you know, I'm willing to support you for mayor, but I would like these appointments on,
say, the planning or the zoning, right? And that actually allows a minority viewpoint on the council to be represented in those appointments >> rather than to just be steamrolled for four years and not actually have any representation. >> So yeah, >> I think if done correctly,
>> it shouldn't it shouldn't bleed out into the public sphere. I totally agree with that. But I think the and I did, you know, walk through all the scenarios in my head. I think having seven people does help to mitigate some of the dysfunction that we've seen recently just because it creates more pathways to
the mayorship. I know on the board of education they select the um board president from amongst themselves. They have nine people. >> I don't think it's been as contentious of late but >> it's like a corporate board, right? So a corporate board is going to elect their chair.
>> Yeah. And I think that that's a good point because council manager is actually based off of the organization structure of corporations, right? You have a board of directors, they appoint a CEO, the CEO has all the executive power. Normally for these um boards of directors, they elect their own chair. And so it's not that the shareholders
are directly electing the >> chair of the board. >> Shut up. >> Well, I just want to bring Susan bring you in on this one a little bit. Can you summarize for us how a mayor's position
if and if it is different under council manager form versus the current council committee form? >> Uh >> what are the is there is there a difference in the power that the mayor has? >> I didn't prep on the council form. I mean on the on the on the township
committee form. Sure. So let me try and do this um off of my head. Um, so it's still a percentage vote, right? Um, that's based on a number on the council committee, not on the >> not about how they're selected, but what
powers they have once they're in office. >> So, they're voting on they're voting as part of the legislative body of the council >> right. Exactly. Um, under council manager, they have the appointment power that we've already selected. Um,
>> are you do you have a specific question to help me? >> What I'm trying to what I'm trying to get to is um there's really nothing that would change under a recommendation as it relates to the mayor's role of power.
Is that statement correct? >> That is correct. Yes, that is correct. >> Correct. >> So, so the mayor in the council manager form is still the first equals best. the weak mayor as we have been talking about. Um but at the same time the
argument for a directly elected mayor is the is the public face of the town. >> Correct. Uh and should the people of the township have a say in who they want the public face to be? Uh but then does it
create a misalignment because hey I'm directly voting for someone they should have the power to do something but they are not they don't have any power different from the other council members other than some appointments. Right? >> That that's the tension that was identified earlier. >> Correct. So
um so I again I'm just laying out the for and against arguments in my own mind which I initially when I started this exercise and read up all the options my view was we need to have a directly elected mayor. It should be the public who chooses the public face of the town
and not just the five or seven members of council. But then I looked at hey what does the mayor actually do and realize not too many things different from the other council members. So why should I mean >> why does that person get a four-year term to be the mayor the entire time?
>> Well, there are other council members who get four year terms. I mean four year terms I need a term as the mayor. >> Right. >> And if they lose my bigger my bigger problem was now now that person who could be incredibly qualified to serve. >> So the council is not even serving on the council >> right now. They lose as the mayor and
they don't get a chance. So that wasn't that was like one of my big like oo wait a minute that I don't like that either. But it takes out one more. What I'm just trying to lay out is I started feeling that there should be a direct election and I should say that that feeling was created a little bit after watching a
recent council committee meeting. Um but then I realized uh that's not the right approach when you look at the role of the mayor. It is more appropriate that the mayor is elected by the council members than otherwise. So that's where I'm leading a motion to answer your question.
>> This shocked me the most for myself. It sounds like you guys were all in the same place when you first started complete flip-flop. I was >> just to just to piggy back off of the point where it's um you would lose a good council candidate in a mayor race.
>> The sort of flip side of that is if you have a directly elected mayor and a council person is on the off cycle when the mayor gets elected and that council person wants the promotion to mayor, now they're running for a different seat two years into their term, right? just to get that promotion. If they do get the
promotion, now there's a vacancy out. >> Well, they serve out the remainder of their council term, but if they do get in, there's a vacancy that that needs to get. So, it creates some of these structural edge cases that I >> don't >> Yeah, that's more complicated for
>> Yeah. for for a position that is really like not much different from a council person position. understand. So it's if if there is a vacancy caused by somebody getting elected to mayor, who who's got the appointment power to >> the majority of Well, that depends on partisan versus
>> non that's where I was going with this. If if >> I know I know how it works in partisan, so how would it work in a nonpartisan? >> Yeah. So just for the benefit of the public um in a partisan form and council can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that if there's a vacancy and that
vacancy belongs to either the Democratic or Republican party then the local municipal party committee suggests three replacements that gets presented to the governing body. The governing body can vote on it. If they sit on it for too long then the municipal party committee
chooses the replacement um from one of the groups. Um, so that's the replacement process in a partisan. Um, in a nonpartisan election system, people uh, a majority of the people would submit to, you know, fill the vacancy. Members of the public would
submit to fill the vacancy and majority of the governing body would vote to appoint. >> That's more like the BO. >> Exactly. Got it. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Um, and just another last point that I had in a directly elected mayor system, I think that it does create
additional, you know, vitriol and, you know, putting one person against another. And I think that's something we've been trying to avoid in our discussions. Um, >> but we didn't think it would. That's the thing like in the beginning it was like, well, it's not going to because you're elected by the public. But there's still hurt feeling it was
>> and now you're the person in charge for that many years. >> All right, Corey, how do you feel? I'm going um non elected mayor. >> I'm I'm not elected mayor too. Yeah, >> I'm not elected.
>> I will say the mayor is elected by the council. >> Sorry. Not elected by the public. Sorry. By the public. >> Uh the majority of the vote of the council in Rio. >> Okay. That's the proper term.
>> Decent enough. I do my little more we will have council seat have all these discussions that >> that's a good point we should definitely mention that >> so for the benefit of the members of the public the council >> the only type of seat that is up for the
council person seat those seats are four years >> right so >> and so but because we chose staggered elections we have elections every other year the mayor will be selected after every election so a reorg where the mayor is selected by the a majority of
the members of the council will occur every two years. >> So their term as mayor technically could be as short as two years, but they would still consider continue as a council person. Exactly. >> Or they could be reelected as mayor and so it could be four years that they >> But that's also where we were talking
about try to eliminate the vitrial of not getting you know that person on board to to side with you and be you know like advocate for you as mayor. Now you don't have to do it every year. Once again it alleviates that concern. over two years you get to govern in peace so
to speak or as peacefully as you can and that that was like really got me you know made me happier >> just to put a bow on this issue I think because the mayor is the chair of the governing body the council um it's important that the mayor always
basically has the support of the majority of the council so that we know the council speaking in one voice >> when the mayor is directly elected by the people you could end up in a scenario where the mayor doesn't have the support the majority of the council and now there's just additional dysfunction and I think this is an
important point because we've heard from our interviews that the managers actually use the mayor position to get the message out to the majority of the council and since we're going to a seven member council I think having the mayor and the council always be in alignment I think will be just helpful going forward
>> I'm not quite getting the point because uh once the mayor is selected during this during the term in office they may lose support of the majority of the council, but that doesn't mean they can do anything. >> Yes, that that's certainly possible. >> The mayor still serves a two-year term,
right? >> Yes. >> Unless Yeah, that that that's certainly possible. I I think that my my point was more at some point that mayor did get buyin from the majority of the council. So hopefully they were selected to be able to chair a meeting rather than or some other, you know, criteria that is
not. But in theory, by having a not directly elected mayor, you could have a mayor that's elected for four or elected by the council for four years, but you also have the protection of if somebody
is not assigning properly or not doing the job properly, then through pressure on the other council people, you can change that mayor in only two years instead of four years. >> Right. And Corey, when we interviewed uh the mayor of Verona, he has uh he has
served um two terms as as mayor that, you know, they keep on uh electing him mayor. You know, >> Verona the Verona thing is is interesting. >> Yeah. >> The way they they describe it how they have such engagement in that community. >> Yeah. Governing utopia.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's >> and part of it is like it it seems too like it seems a little bit too seems a little foreign. >> I have clients who live there. They love it. >> Chlory Doc Dr. >> We went and Dr. Don and I we spent
multiple hours there. >> They sound like >> Yeah. Governing >> we spent a lot of time. >> Librarians were lovely. Municipal employees were lovely. >> Again, best practices. I think when we looked at the towns that we admire, >> I think there's a lot of things we can
learn from each of them and create this best practices manual. So, it's not really something we're tasked with. I think we were all pretty excited about the opportunity to to give some best practices even from former TC members of like, well, this is what we didn't see working. This is what you could encourage people to, you know, create
that civility because I agree that's not going to, you know, going well that's going to the next one. make that point. >> So, council, you have the may of reorg. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> All right. This is a >> this this one is a big one. >> Special one. >> All right. Partisan versus nonpartisan. Should elections for the new governing body be partisan or nonpartisan?
>> I picked this one up. Um, you know, I can kick it off because I really thought that we should, um, I guess a while ago when, you know, when you ran, Corey, I thought we should be nonpartisan. I I was I so much, you
know, I I didn't like the process how it went. I was like, "Oh, I got to be nonpartisan and partisan." Then I really thought about it as a an older person, as a, you know, more experienced individual who spent more time thinking about it. I was like, "But I everything is partisan." You know, there's so many partisan decisions that you make even
without thinking about it and local Nashville whatever I was like well I would like to know who is who and I really bought into comments made to me that you know if you go nonpartisan wolf achieves clothing you really don't know who it is but on a local level you know I think I told a story last s last
Sunday that when my cousin was a you know total staunch Democrat for him like locally and nationally and he did the firemen rescue during a massive massive flooding incident and he rescued the mayor who was not his own party and he got in trouble with this party and they were like we're not going to support you
and it was a whole big like shenanigans ensued. He's like I don't think I can do that on a on a local level. I have to just move parties because the people it's the people not the party. And I started to really think about it more when he encountered that. And it became
evident to me that like and and I am very much a I'm transparent about it. I don't care who knows. I'm very much a bleeding heart liberal. I'm a Democrat. I've always been a Democrat. Um, I feel like on that local level, I
started to think, gosh, the partisan maybe isn't the right thing. Even though that's what I really wanted because I want to know. I kind of do. I'm not going to judge people on it. I'm going to be friends with people not from my party. I'm going to be friends with independents. I I've learned in my life that I'm wrong sometimes. It's really been a hard lesson to learn, but I've
learned it by listening to opposing viewpoints. And they teach me and inform me a lot. and I work with a business partner who's very adamant about her point and I'm very ad about my point. Someone has we both can't be right. So I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong
sometimes infrequently and this issue has been sort of this revolving issue really since your campaign. It's the first time I kind of got involved with like supporting them. I didn't like how it went locally. So, I I tended to flip-flop. Um, and I really thought I'd
be more proartisan, and I have not stayed that way. I'm I'm much more in favor of a nonpartisan deal, especially after speaking to so many people who are so proartisan. I was like, but on a local level, it's creating this this weird dynamic.
>> I don't know. I feel um in doing some research 43% of the folks in Mildrant Township declare themselves nonaffiliated independent whatot and so we're leaving
those folks out you know so >> well that was Ben's point I really I liked how I was um I was in the camp of partisan but >> you were very much in the partisan. >> Yeah. >> Like you were like, I am not into this.
>> I don't like it. >> Right. >> You know, >> as I talk to folks, I am um I'm sort of leaning towards nonpartisan, but >> Dr. Khan, >> yeah, you know, I and just for sake of
full disclosure, I've been a Democrat. I've been an independent Republican now, but that's because of my involvement locally. I honestly think and you know when I changed to be a Republican I had you know I had to think about it right
because people will ascribe certain things to certain labels and >> they sure will I did I didn't like you when I met you. >> I know >> I mean I met you for hours and I when I told you I didn't like you >> I know. Um, and look, I I lived in
Boston in New York when I was a registered Democrat and I was fine with it. But when I moved here and I saw stuff that was going on locally, I I decided that it was in the best interests in the town to change parties. Um, and I think that it look it took it
took a long time to come to that conclusion, but I think that it was a necessary step in order to, you know, make improvements in what we saw was dysfunctional. >> Um, >> so let me ask you this question. When you decided to change bodies,
>> was it more for just Millburn Township? >> Yes. >> And and not national at all? Yes, it was for Milbour Township because in order to you know >> but it's a lot to swallow for people because they would I certainly didn't want to I didn't believe you >> right
>> and I didn't believe Frank and I didn't believe them. Another argument folks uh have said to me is that with partisan, you know, what uh they want to know what what the what that person is
thinking, >> you know, and with with um with this day and age, you could Google somebody and you find out in in a nancond. >> Can I actually talk to that point because I know I know it's been brought up as a positive. I think it's a
negative. Okay people, >> no for the idea of having partisanship support the being an important piece of information. I think it causes people being lazy. >> Like I believe that if you are going to rely on just a D or an R
and and I have plenty of friends who do this. They just vote the line and they don't take the time. So if you strip that away, yeah, there's still people who won't be informed, but at least there are going to be some who will be forced to actually look something up about a person and actually learn about their beliefs and what it is. So I
actually, you know, that's that's I've been look I was leaning towards nonpartisans to begin with. I'm not going to sugar, but I pretend. But I was I always like to be challenged. So I was looking for a reason to change my mind. And the
reasons that were given to us were it helps with funding because not everybody has financial resources. I I think from that perspective it's actually unequal because it then will give certain person a big pool of money
which will then force somebody who was not nominated to try to have to figure out how to level the playing field. And I do think that there is some validity to the point that look not everybody has a lot of um funds that they can use for elections. And so there is going to be
inequity because you have might have somebody running who is just better off than somebody else. But you know we can't fix everything in society quite frankly. It it is what it is. We're not going to fix that that problem. Um, but I think it it's more equal if everyone at least has a shot as
opposed to coming out of the gate where you're already fighting against somebody who has a a big coffers. Um, you know, the the argument that it gives, you know, it informs voters. Again, I've already addressed that. I think it misinforms voters a lot of
times and it prevents people and we've had definitely people in elections who have run without a platform whatsoever. They have not taken opinion. I had actually I sat at a candidate forum once. Somebody was running and I was talking to the person. I'm like, "Hey,
you know, tell me about why you're running. You know, what are the things you want to do in town?" And the person literally said to me, "Well, I don't think that's a fair question. I haven't been elected yet." I'm like, "You got to be at the table." Like, and so, but they were running on a party line. And so,
nobody knew that. They just sort of got elected based on a party line. So I just fundamentally think that that that sort of does is not you know great for our township. I think we have had issues lately and partly not not solely but
partly because people got elected based on party officilation alone and not based on experience and merit. And that's what we need to to start electing people for. Look I acknowledge that even in nonpartisan election parties can still
endorse people. We we can't do anything about that. >> Well, Red Bank decided not to, right? >> They did. And look, I I'm not under any false pretense that in Milurn that's going to happen. I think that if we go to nonpartisan election, I think the >> parties will probably still, >> but you know what? That that won't be on
the ballot. It won't be when people walk into the the the voting, it won't say endorsed by whatever party. So, yeah, it it will give them >> I think that's okay because that will give people the information. >> No, no, that's what I'm saying. I think the committ still if that's going to be the case and that's be the position of
each committee they can endorse and that way people will still know. >> I think if there won't be that case of like well I don't really know and if you don't know enough about somebody you'll learn more about them right. >> Yeah. Yeah. No that's what I'm saying is that like look we can't get around the fact the parties will likely endorse. >> Oh no.
>> But at least that endorsement doesn't actually into into the into the right. >> Yeah. I don't think I think it >> but it won't specifically exclude both. >> Yeah. And the other thing is Chris to your point I do think oh you know
another thing is that even if somebody does forget about the independents and those people there are also people who don't run want to run as a de democrat or republican because then you're on the internet you have Facebook you have everything else and from a career-wise
what if you want >> you know you want to you know get a new job >> our politics are so toxic now that you have to then worry hey I don't want to run for office We got to put a D or an R next to my name. And hey, what if I want to run for a job? >> I mean, frankly, I' I've I've had that
happen to me because I ran in a Democratic primary >> and looking, you know, for job a few years ago and an interview people told me they looked me up on the internet and saw and and my interview turned into a a political discussion. Like, so it's
real. Well, there were two two people that I know were being um I think they were being vetted and they were both like I really can't come out and and say what my party is. My my business will not me not allow it. >> So we said we just can't I just can't. And they were actually two very good candidates. So I didn't really think
about it back then, but in retrospect now I started to review like conversations I've had in the past since 19. So, so bottom line is I don't think that going to nonpartisan, I'm not under some false illusion that going nonpartisan will solve all problems. I don't
necessarily think it'll solve the toxicity of elections. I think that's a a problem from a larger perspective. But I do think it will get it will increase the likelihood of qualified candidates and increase the number of candidates that are running. And for those reasons,
I am in favor of nonpartisan elections. >> No. Well, this this was a tough one. I had no prediction at all when I started this exercise. I'm very keen to examine the question. I have to say I've always been unaffiliated. I'm not a registered
Democrat or Republican. I never have been. And I voted I always based on the candidate whether it's national, local, or state elections. I voted for people on both sides and regretted my more political points. Just such as the nature of the polity
right now. Um I do want to comment on something that was said by multiple people in the public comment section of this meeting that if somebody's standing on a party platform it tells you something about that person and that is what I want to challenge
right it it every individual has individual views and opinions there are many things about core Republican positions that I like there many about things about core republican positions that I hate and vice versa on the democratic side and if I look at myself
I feel that and I'm not alone in that position I feel like many of us are issues based people like they're going to support a particular issue in a particular way irrespective of which party is saying what >> so how do you if I'm up as a democratic
candidate how do you how do you kind of know what I stand for unless you ask me the question >> because it doesn't say anything >> because there there are certain loud voices who do stand for everything and in each party and both sides, >> right? But I think it's it's like uh
it's saying that this may sound politically incorrect, but saying that if you're a Democrat or a Republican, you automatically believe in or you stand for one or two or three things is like saying, "Hey, if you're Indian, you must be good at technology."
I suck at it, >> right? No, you're good at that. You're not. Well, that's I mean it's it's that same kind of I I and to to use your word core is lazy, right? Right. >> To not form a view of the candidate. So,
uh so I'm not really addressing whether I'm part of favor of partisan or not partisan. But I'm against the mentality that you can judge a person simply by the party that they are seeking to kind of use as a >> feel gives you an assumption. >> Sorry. Do you feel it gives the a
misconception assumption about a person that may not that isn't the case? You automatically assume that that's going to be >> if somebody is automatically assuming that somebody is standing for an R or D stands for some issue in a particular way. I think that assumption is wrong.
You should always ask the question and it may be true that the person is standing for some core position but that's fine. Ask that person the question before assuming what that person is standing for. Right? And we tend we don't tend to do that. >> I may be guilty of that too. I may assume hey if somebody is a Republican
or Democrat that's what that person stands for. Maybe I'm lazy sometimes and not looking at what that person has said. So bottom line I I think that mentality whether we are in partisan elections and nonpartisan elections is not correct. I'm just responding to some
public comments for now. Um and then coming to whether we should have partisan or nonpartisan elections. I am in favor of uh nonpartisan. I also want to point out as was said before that these are optional things that can
change. So I want people to give it a shot with having in mind that four years down the line if we are all not happy with the way things turn out we can always go back to partisan elections. It's not a end all be all choice that we
make at this point. U I think I think uh one with a nonpartisan elections you'll have more people come out to the run because of the reasons you guys just discussed. >> Mhm. >> Um I think people will explore the
candidate deeply because again if you don't have a platform you're standing for you the electorate doesn't know what you stand for. So hopefully is going to ask you the questions and take the time to understand what you what your platform really is. Um
and it look whether somebody who stands for elections is a registered Democrat or Republican is an easy thing to find out, right? So it's not as if somebody's going to pretend to be who they are not by not talking about their party. You
can know whether the person is Democrat or Republican. So it doesn't it doesn't uh I think going nonpartisan doesn't take parties out of the equation. I think parties are important. You don't want to I mean parties need to exist. >> I agree on on a national state level
that that that point about being >> bring a culture of political participation right you have at least a starting point to get political engagement with a group that you perceive to be likeminded if you have differences with them but at least there are some core things may appeal to you
and you may say okay this is how I start my political engagement. So, I think parties are really important. Going nonpartisan doesn't mean I hate parties. I just feel back to your point for local township matters. It doesn't matter whether somebody's a Republican or a Democrat, right? And
>> well, some people think so. Some people think they have the right to have the right to think so. There's nothing against it. I'm just trying to say I mean this has been said multiple times. There's no Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole, right? So um I I
think we as a township need to give this a shot. >> Uh I think it will empower a lot of the people who currently feel that hey we I don't really have a place to run because I don't want to label myself. I think that's a very important point. The parties would still be involved and
that's fine. They can endorse someone. They can provide some canvasing support. They cannot they cannot fund anybody and that's I don't think that's a disadvantage or an advantage. People need to raise money and sell themselves on their viewpoint. Anyways, people do that in the BOE election all the time and it hasn't stopped people from
engaging or it hasn't made only people of certain uh wealth uh be participating in the BOE election. So I think the arguments I've heard against nonpartisan elections don't hold water for me. The arguments I've heard for partisan
election actually are the wrong arguments in the sense that women need to move to nonpartisan elections. Um, so that's what I'm doing. >> Yeah, that was a very long explanation. Sorry for that. >> That's a question because specifically for you because I'm I also was concerned about um
I guess the idea that um the primary is and I know we have we've we've had you and I have had the primary discussion, but maybe it's not the primary that that allows the vetting, but like the actual committees vet, you know, like so the concern that people have stated to me and it was my concern too is who vets
the people? I guess people just decide to run and you just go like the B. But are you concerned at all about the vetting of these people? >> I am. Uh but at the same time, I mean what is happening today is if
you're nominated by Democratic party, you almost have a better chance of winning than whether if you're nominated by Republican or independent. Right? So if if >> I mean I have no reason to doubt the vetting process or the people behind the vetting process, but that's not an
election. >> Well, that didn't happen pre in the recent elections. >> Uh but I do want to say >> but I do want to say things change, right? I'm going to read a line out of the 1972 report. Uh the 1972 report said under our
religion system the voters of Melbourne Township have little choice in the election of members of the township committee. At present nomination by the Republican party is tantamount to election. This was 1972 right? I can
repeat the same words and change the name of the party today. And the same argument holds for nonpartisan elections. So again, uh I'm not sure if I'm answering the question directly, but uh uh >> I guess if we can just open it up for a
minute just to whoever wants to opine on the idea of the vetting process, you know, like if you feel like it eliminates vetting process by going nonpartisan. >> Yeah, I I think look, I think the vetting process for the political committees locally, they're quite
opaque, right? I think Corey, you lived through essentially that you had to run in a contested primary. Um, you know, in my mind at least, I think, you know, one of the parties, >> in fairness, the vetting process was not an issue for mine. I had gone through
the process. I had been offered the ability to run the year before, chose for personal reasons not to. Um, I happened to run in the year I did. I guess that's supposed to process. I didn't have an issue that I wasn't
chosen as part of the vetting process because the year before I had been chosen and chose not to. My issue was with that year what the vetting process who the vetting process resulted in. I felt strongly was very unqualified to
run for office and serve this township and that's why I created a primary. So I mean I guess I had an issue with the vetting but it wasn't a personal issue that they didn't select me. But but you still had a primary. So it's not that >> Yeah. forced primary. >> Yeah. You mean the point is
>> not really. >> Okay. >> We had a primary, >> but the other candidate was supported by the party that got the party money that got the party line. So it wasn't a
>> I guess I guess different from the vetting question I guess is the sourcing question, right? So when you have these party committees, their goal is to go and find members of the community that they think would be good candidates for township committee moment. >> Now the party's criteria for whom they
select might not necessarily be aligned with what is best for the township. It might be aligned with what is best for the party, right? And I think that creates a incentive problem where you know now the party is trying to think who am I going to select that will you
know bring the party the most benefits and I think unfortunately Miss Egllo left um you know there was that letter that I am happy to read about how you know the party support came with strings attached when she got into office she was given a list of you know people that
she that she was told the township should hire right so >> other people we interviewed said the same thing that when they were brought down to >> there was a oh gosh what was the >> county um >> uh ra mayors >> ra mayors yeah it was the raw mayors and
>> they were told specifically and then they got in trouble for for questioning for asking questions >> um >> so I I I say that you know having a party committee yes I understand the party committees are elected by party members in our town but there was also
that incident um recently in Morris County where the entire Dober Democratic Municipal County Committee was ejected by their Morris County Democrats for you know what they perceived as disloyalty. Right? So I personally have a huge
problem with people who are not in a municipality ejecting elected members of a municipality that are then going to decide who the candidates are for a local election. And I think that for an election where the issues really are nonpartisan in nature, I think having
this extra partisan machinery in place just gets in the way of a lot of government. >> The parties can still enter in some >> Oh, no. So, it's not Yeah. I mean, how does that >> how does moving a nonpartisan alleviate
the concern as who is encouraged to run? >> Um, >> I guess it opens it opens the door for the unaffiliated. >> Correct. Almost be a little bit more legal in terms of to some degree. >> It even opens the door like I said to affiliated who don't want to necessarily
go public with their affiliation, >> right? Meaning, you know, I'm a registered Democrat. You know, maybe >> some people will find out. >> Yes. But it's not it's not as blatant that you have to put a D next to your name and an R next to your name so that you know like the career issue that I
was talking you might have people say like all right yeah I'm a >> you don't have to run as >> I don't have to run if I don't want to as a dem and I can still you know potentially hold up >> I think an important point for nonpartisan elections is that Democrats can run against Democrats in the
nonpartisan election right I think that that's sort of where the frict you you you almost want that friction to happen so that the Democrat rats can differentiate themselves on the local issues rather than you know running as a Democrat which you know assume because right now you have the Democrats and
they're set up in opposition to the Republicans and I personally think that that's a huge part of the vitrial that we're seeing because you have one side constantly badgering the other side you know on things that don't really have pertinence in our local governance but
when you have say multiple Democrats they're not going to start arguing national issues They're going to start to differentiate themselves on how they feel differently about what >> that vitrial is also based on potentially false assumptions. >> Exactly. >> Because you know a lot of it is like hey
they voted for this person they're Democrats or they're Republican so they voted for this person so they must be an idiot but you don't really know how they voted just because you're registered as a Democrat or a Republican. They could have different stances than whoever and they could have voted for the Democrat or they could have voted for the
Republican. So it's you know the argument that it's it's informative actually it's not it's misinformative I >> think and this is a important point I think setting two sides in opposition to each other is just not a healthy dynamic. Um I did prepare some
statements that if you don't mind chair I'd like to just read aloud because I wanted to capture the whole >> Go ahead. >> Okay go ahead. >> So I'm a Mac person. I use my Mac. I have strong opinions about it. I will argue with you about it all day if you allow me the opportunity. Now, here's a
question. Should that be on the ballot? Think about what a Mac or PC divide actually is. It's a preference, a group identity built around a completely arbitrary distinction. Mac people think PC people are wrong. PC people think Mac people are hopelessly pretentious.
Neither side can fully explain why it matters so much. It just does. The label is enough. Once you have the label, you have a team. Once you have a team, you have an opponent. There's a famous psychology experiment called the robber's tape. Researchers took a group of ordinary 12-year-old boys to summer
camp and randomly divided them into two groups. There were no real differences between them. They just gave a name to each group, the Eagle, the I believe it was the Eagles and the Rattlers. Within days, they had developed fierce hostility toward each other. They were raiding cabins, refusing to share meals,
and fighting. All of it was triggered by nothing more than an arbitrary label. But here's the part that should genuinely alarm you. When researchers studied how individuals arbitrarily sorted into groups made decisions, they found something worse than competition.
Folks would choose outcomes that were actively bad for everyone, including themselves. As long as their group came out further ahead of the other group, >> not better, just more ahead. They accepted lower overall welfare in order to maximize the gap. They would rather
win than do well. That's not an abstraction. I personally think that's what happened here. Rather than negotiating the best possible outcome for Melbourne residents on affordable housing, the partisan dynamic produced fingerpointing, blameshifting, and a worse result for everyone because
beating the other party mattered more than solving the problem. And this is what partisan elections do to local government. The R and the D don't describe any real difference in how you fill a pothole, negotiate a DPW contract, or approve a site plan. They're not supposed to. They were built
for debates about foreign policy and federal spending, issues over which we have exactly zero jurisdiction. But once the label is on the ballot, the robber's cave dynamic kicks in. Voters stop evaluating the candidate and start picking a team. Candidates stop talking about what they'll actually do here and
start performing for a national audience. And when something goes wrong, everyone points across the aisle. Nobody is held accountable and the town pays the price. We're asking voters to choose between a Mac person and a PC person to decide who manages this town. This is exactly how relevant Republican and
Democrat are to local governments. And look, if party affiliation matters to you personally when you evaluate a candidate, you're welcome to find that out and factor it in, just as you're welcome to ask a candidate whether they use a mash or a PC. Nobody is stopping you. But putting it on the ballot draws the fault lines before the conversation
has even begun. It tells every voter to sort themselves before they've heard a word about what anyone actually stands for. It does a disservice to candidates who want to be judged on their ideas and it does a disservice to residents who want to make an informed choice. >> Thank you.
>> I think look, I I I agree. I think that everyone has a right to judge somebody who's on a ballot and you can judge them based on whatever criteria you choose to do it as long as you've done the homework to find out that they actually stand for what you're judging them on,
not based on some assumption. >> Okay, let's vote. >> Oh, no. I think there's a lot more we should go. >> Oh, you want more? >> Absolutely. >> Too big of too big of an issue. about what happens I think we addressed
that briefly but what happens in a vacancy is created in the council partisan versus a nonpartisan election in a partisan election just to re what we said before whichever party seat gets vacated that
party's committed three people and then the council will vote for one of those three group >> yeah that's one of the issues that I was having with it I didn't realize you know >> so so what happens to broadly contrast what happens in a nonpartisan election inst. So, in a nonpartisan
election, my understanding is members of the public would put in to be appointed and a majority of the governing body would select. Um, it's similar to how they do it on the >> somebody would volunteer to get appointed and >> correct >> and then they would do public hearings, present their case or whatever and then
>> Yeah. I don't know if you're familiar with the the board of ed. They've had things. >> I'm aware of it. I just don't I don't follow the process how they do. >> Yeah. Essentially they they apply to the board of ed and they have like a meeting where there's like an open public meeting where they do a speech and then
at that meeting board of ed the current sitting members >> and they sit out for the remainder of the term >> put that on record as to how it happens in a nonpartisan setting. So >> I did want to mention a point that did
come up in our interviews. I believe one and I think Chris, you and I were in this interview. Um, one person argued for partisan elections on the basis that county and state funding would be redirected towards Milbourne if we had a
partisan system. Um, I did a little bit of research. Um, and this was the 2025 to 2026 community development block. I will pass all this around. I have a couple extra copies for the audience. Um
this was thank you. Um so this was uh just released last month from our county. These were community development block grants in county. >> You know I think this is pretty interesting. Um
>> you know I I went through and I looked at all the municipalities that received funding. Um, all of the municipalities on this sheet at least that got six figure grant funding were nonpartisan municipality or municipalities that hold
nonpartisan elections. Um, Milbert is on here as a partisan election municipality, but we got five figure grant funding. Um, so I think you know for anyone who was interested in the idea of partisan versus nonpartisan, I think one of the arguments presented against nonpartisan elections was that
we might not get as much grant funding. But the empirically at least in this calendar year it does not pair out. And look >> and and let me let me say this. Dr. Connor and myself we we interviewed uh two guys that were on DC together and
one was a big R and the other guy was a big D. And uh what basically came down to was uh they they they both said what is best for Milbour Township and they came together
>> and I think we from our interviews with other townships that were nonpartisan they indicated that they've had no issues uh getting funding from account >> from county. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I did want to also, and I know
Joanna, this was an important point that we saw on Sunday when Ben Forest um graced us with his presence. He drove up all the way from Redbank for a second meeting in a row. Um I think he had mentioned that he's on the Democratic Municipal Committee in Redbank and he also served on the charter study
commission. They actually had the opportunity because um I guess his block on the Democratic Committee in Redbank had taken over the majority. it was actually better for him and their block personally to stay with partisan elections.
>> Um, but they I think I'll call it they did the noble thing and they relinquished their you know hold on local political power by going to nonpartisan and I think he said he because he felt it was in his words morally abhorrent for 40% of the electorate to be ignored.
>> And he said they still serve a purpose because they still support the uptick um ballots and and things like that. So there's still a purpose for the local Democratic in his their team and presumably the Republican party as well. >> But well that he was definitely the
voice that was you know resonated more with me because you know he is also a Democrat and I wanted to so again I I do look at D and I'm like oh should I listen to you a little bit more and I felt like that was a voice. So I I was
biased. I was like okay what was his >> thought process? What was his logic? and you know having the interview and having spoken him off the record as well and just getting his opinion he's been staunch in his you know logic on the record off the records open the same and
unequivocally like in this one direction I was like I kind of feel like I have to hear him out and give him a bit of more weight in terms of how he processed it because I wasn't sure how I'd process it as a registered Democrat I'm like would I be betraying my own party in my time
by saying we should go nonpartisan and I didn't want to do that. So that's why I think we were both very much like this art should not change like this is what like I I like knowing as well but then I'm like if it causes all the other stuff and I liked the art I I really didn't think about that 43% unaffiliated
as much >> and I thought well that's justifiable those you know they can still run >> but I really feel like that voice was like in my head. >> Yeah. I think he's saying that like he's able to be nonpartisan locally but still
participate >> that he feels passionate about >> and publicly. >> I think what I found inspiring from Ben's experience is that >> in the nonpartisan system you know sure in a partisan had bank gone partisan the Democrats would have won you wouldn't
have to campaign and get buy in from independents or Republicans. I think I found it inspiring that he actually takes advantage of the fact that their local elections are nonpartisan. He'll knock on every single person's door. Right. I think the anecdote of someone down the street has a Trump flag in
front of their house and he knocked on their door and got his vote, >> right? Yes. I actually like that too. The fact that he felt comfortable going to the entire town. >> He presumed he said he got his >> Yes. He said he he believes him. He said he said he voted for me and I I believe
him. And and honestly, I think when you live in a community with lots of people who hold potentially infinite, you know, combinations of ideas on the national level, to be able to have that conversation with your neighbor is a very empowering and unifying, right? And
I think that's something that I feel personally has been missing in our town because of the way elections have been run, um, how they've been developed recently. >> But I think that, >> well, not that recently. It's been that way for 10 years or since complete streets. I mean, Complete Streets started it. >> I don't want
>> And I have nothing to do with party. >> I don't want to set the expectation that the victory may lessen or change just because of partisan versus nonpartisan, right? I still think nonpartisan >> Well, he did say it calmed down. >> Well, I don't think it may calm down
here. >> They had election fatigue. Um I I just think there are many other reasons right uh just encourages a wider pool of people just run for office that's one and we need the talent for sure um
national issues or national partyline positions have nothing to do with how we govern our town >> um we don't want people to judge someone just because of the label they choose to run under. I think those are all good reasons to give this a shot for at least
four years and then see if you want to make a change. Interestingly, uh Corey and I had one interview where u was the long-erving mayor of a town u not too far from us who initially got elected as a
Republican but then was a Democrat and and and and is in a Democrat party dominated town and said that the partisan system works well for them. Well, when when we were
asking, hey, would it be does does the party politics or does the would nonpartisan election create a difference in atmosphere in the town? And the answer was yes, I can concede that the general guideline would be great. It would be great if people
put party labels aside, but it's probably advantageous not to start with a right. >> So, it was definitely an interesting conversation because he he they have partisan elections. He was in favor of partisan elections. But then as we started to talk to him, he started second guessing going, "Oh, you know
what? Maybe we shouldn't have these." And okay, yeah, that's an advantage. >> You and I had the same conversation with somebody else. >> It was definitely an interesting interview where it started at one point and and instead of us learning something, they kind of learned
something also. >> We encountered that with some of our interviews as well where we were like, >> well, what do you think? because people who were staunchly proartisan and were like well we asked more questions like actually >> it wouldn't be so bad. So that also allowed me to endearing people who were
aligned with more of what my thought process is and really the party that I am. I was like oh I started to see the the picking in their heads and I was like well that'sing in my mind and perception as well. So I allowed myself
to open my mind to be like, "Okay, well if they're thinking of changing in their minds, I shouldn't necessarily be." And I flip-flopped a lot in the beginning. I was one thing, then I wasn't, then I was this and I started to change. And I think Ben really sealed the deal for me.
>> Just one last point to bring up for completeness. Um, one of the folks we interviewed, I think Chris, it was you and me. um they were arguing in favor of partisan elections because they felt that the township committee position was
useful as a stepping stone for higher political office. Um they felt it was the the sort of entrylevel position that once you serve on township committee you prove yourself then you can be promoted to assembly person you know congressperson etc. I actually felt in
my mind that this was making the opposite point. I don't think that candidates should be selecting or using our local governance as a stepping stone to higher office because I think the moment they get those ideas in their mind, people will start thinking about
what looks good to the party versus what's good for the town. >> And I think people still use it as stepping stones whether it's for the party or for like to become a judge or to become something else. They still use it as a stepping stone if they choose to. >> Like you can't really eliminate that just because you go nonpartisan.
>> And frankly, you can you can participate in party politics in order to get your name on the radar of of the party without necessarily using it using our township council as as that. >> And I think if you're registered, you
can still say later like, "Hey, I actually have aspirations to go hire. You know, this is what I did. This is this is my history with the town. This is how I helped. I left a better place. >> I would argue that this is an inefficient way to time to start a council. There's a lot quicker ways to
get to state office than than starting at our >> I feel like people should be using local office as a stepping stone. I think experience of governance at every level should matter. Uh but if they're not going to do the right thing for their elected office and think about larger
party pictures, >> how are they going to do in the future? I mean >> right >> right so I think that's more of a reflection of the person and their values and their qualities >> but I think uh people should be coming through the local governance levels and
going on to run the county or the state or federal office I don't think there's anything wrong with that >> you know I don't think non I think the point was that the >> appeasing parties versus doing what's more of a character question >> you can still use that as a stepping
stone in a nonpartisan system Um, the reason I bring it up, you know, use the stone analogy, I didn't want to leave any stone unturned in our discussion of all of what we've been considering. So, I think that is all of the points that I wanted to make on topic unless
>> Okay. So, I'm going to start with you, Dr. Khan. >> Just so also from Verona, >> um, the comment was made to us that that the amount of money he had to raise was actually less, right? So, that was interesting to me, too. It was like and and I and I started to see that point too that like you don't have to keep
competing against each other with and I guess >> well that's my point is it's it it arguably sets the bar lower. Yes, you still have to raise money >> but unless the party comes in and supports
somebody. So, there's weakness to that argument, but in theory, the bar is lower because everyone, >> so what I started out with is that like if you're not out of the gate knowing you're competing against two different parties that or already have a a
war chest, then in theory, you you have more people who could feel comfortable running because I I I'm not under again, I'm not going to pretend that that you know, there are some people who are more financially comfortable can have more have more expendable funds and they can
do it and but that's an inequity we can't control anymore. >> This this particular point for me was a a like a big sore because I'm like there's you're not we individually
and as a group will not appease everyone here. I hate I hate not appeasing everyone. I I I really would like everyone to feel like kumbaya about this stuff. This isn't the one thing that like there's going to be people who really hate how this gets decided
because I think change is really hard to begin with. So the fact that there's a change potentially, you know, government and it's potentially because voters get to choose, right? >> But this is the part that's going to divide people where I feel like as you know, the volunteers that we are, we shouldn't be divisive. And it bothers me
that this is going to be the the point that is going to divide over people and say, "Oh, I can't believe you voted that way." >> Well, that that's why I'm trying to say to people, think about it a choice that is potentially temporary. Well, so that's that was the other thing was
helping convince because I had a hard time like I think Ducker and I approached it very much with like a oh, I don't change these things. I would change certain things and and as we spoke to more people, I became more open to it. And I'm I my as I get older, I feel like I should be open to change. Like if you're not open to change,
you'll always be a close-minded person who can't survive and and thrive in the future, you know, and you can't connect with the younger generation. So, I can never say that I'm always right about everything and and I thought I was right about this and change my mind, you know, and I might change it back if it's not working right.
The reality is we're not going to satisfy everyone, >> but the and this is what Chris started the meeting off with to to identify the amount of diligence we put into the process. So any decision that is made here is an informed decision. It's not a finger in the wind. It's not an
emotional decision. It's an informed decision. Um and and that's one of the reasons I I agreed to run with all of you is because you indicated that you had an open mind to consider every point and and so yeah I I don't regret any of
the decisions we're making. Um some of which we agree with each other and some of which we still don't. So but at the end of the day it's it's an informed decision and one that's aimed at bettering the township and I have no qualms and no question about it. >> I understand. And I think all of us have
a deep feeling of wanting to leave something better than when we started. and a a fellow realtor of mine who recruited me to um help co-run work bombs recruited me on the basis of she and she recruited me to Melbourne Foundation too along with a few other
people and they said don't you want to come on board to help make this better and if you have the ability to make something better is that something you want to strive for even though it's going to be hard and I think that's why you know I did agree to you know help create this group because I think
collectively we all have that in our hearts And I think a lot of people in our town do. So with that same approach, I feel like making that hard decision to publicly say, "I changed my mind. It's time voting." And knowing that it's going to make some people angry, that really bothers me greatly. But I feel
like we did approach it with like a very, >> you know, expansive, you know, research model and as much of an open mind. We we had our minds made up in a one way. Each person I think started on different points made up and then we changed our minds multiple times and we argued with
each other and individually because we couldn't argue together except for when we were here. So I think we took that really seriously and I do feel like the decisions that I am making are mine. I understand I was still 5'7 is really but I wanted to be convinced. I wanted you guys to like fight me on it to say this
is why I think you're wrong. This is why you consider it. But ultimately at the end of the day, I really still feel like if we don't have to go through this from 1972 to now to create a charter study to change something, we still have the ability to later. It may not be easy, but if I'm mad about something, I can
get a lot of people off their butts to, you know, stomp in and get the signatures they need. So if something's not working, I'm happy to be held accountable to be like, "This isn't working and this is why. Can you help me get the signatures?" And I'll be the first to say, "This isn't working. will totally help you get the signatures. Even if the seven person council is not
willing to make that change, I'll be that citizen to pitchfork right in there and be like, "Y'all, this is wrong." >> I have a question for all of us. If if I know we don't control this, but if we could control this, would we say to the parties do not endorse a candidate, make
nonpartisan work in the rights to it? >> No. >> I Well, it's I don't think that's up to us. I don't think Redbank did that >> collectively, but Red Bank is also largely democratic and they collectively did it together. So I I I would I mean that eliminates people's choice. >> I don't want to dictate how people
choose to support their candidates. And I think the tamp down, >> you know, of a fellow party person to say you can't support somebody and and don't support somebody. >> No, you can support an individual party officially. >> Yeah. I think parties should I agree with that. I think parties should not
feel threatened by moving to nonpartisan elections because they can endorse candidates. They're not out of the process in >> that would be correct. Yeah. I don't think any anyone here is formally saying like I said I think the local party serve could serve a a very important
function in localiz in in mobilizing local people for ups. Dr. Khan. >> Yeah. Look, I this whole process has been a lot of work from, you know, the moment we all
decided to run together, collect 200 signatures um on each of five petitions because you can't have >> seemed like the easy part. >> Yeah. Right. Um, and I think this whole process has brought us, we've explored every nook and cranny, I think, of
every, you know, portion of the decision that we've made today. Um, and I honestly I really enjoyed having this discussion and I think this is something that we were all somewhat looking forward to just having >> spreading it. >> Well, I think just having having the
opportunity to comment on a lot of theories because I think that we >> finally together. Well, we all feel very strongly about making the town a better place and I think >> not having the ability to discuss this in public as >> you know based on the guidelines from
the recorder's manual um you know I think >> actually allowed us to engage with the material more deeply and not make not come to a judgment. I think we all went through some twists and turns particularly with the directly versus self- selected mayor. Um, you know, the
partisan, nonpartisan, there's just a whole bunch of literature out there regarding that. And I think I think Shanik makes a good point. I think the members of the public, they might be upset about one one point or the other point, but I I would encourage them to not throw the baby out with the
bathwater. I think a lot of these structural changes, moving to council manager, is very much needed. Um I my back my academic background is in computer science and applied math. So I like to think about how things break. Um
you know certainly when you learn when you take an algorithm scores you focus on studying the worst case scenario. But when I look at structures and I see worst case scenarios right now what we're operating under the township committee it's an informal sort of designation of executive authority to
the business administrator and it's almost like give you a bad analogy it's almost like running modern-day AI code on a very very old piece of hardware you really need to update your hardware at some point because times have changed you know software has changed and I I
feel like this upgrade almost solidifies that it's like upgrading our hardware in some sense so that in the future we can see you know better things going forward. So apologies for the um you know lack of subject area relevance here
but that's sort of how I view the world. Um and when I came into this it was very much a how do we improve the system to prevent you know certain failures that may have happened in governance over the last 5 10 years how do we prevent those from resurfacing again at a structural level. Um, so I thank everyone here for
>> I agree with what you said and I think I've been saying moving from the township committee form to a council manager form is the overarching decision. If somebody doesn't like the other optional features that we're recommending,
please remember you can change those features as a lectctorate uh without the charter commission process in the future. So don't throw the baby out border just it is important that we move to the council manager form and we can tinker with it um as members of the
public in the future if we want to. >> I encourage us to give it a fair share. Let's not assume like hey four years let's make this change. Let's let's let it marinate. Let's let's let's see how it works. Right.
>> All right. I think we should uh vote. I will lead us off >> for this one. Yeah. >> Oh, for partisan nonpartisan. >> Uh you voted for nonpartisan. >> Nonpartisan. >> I'm going to go nonpartisan even though that's not where I started.
>> I'll go nonpartisan. >> Nonpart. >> Okay. Council nonpartisan. >> Thank you. >> Question eight. Runoffs. In a nonpartisan election, the commission may provide a runoff when no candidate
attains a majority. >> Dad, could you explain the concept of runoffs? >> Yes. Um, >> guys, we're going to have guys just just for we're going to have a whole synopsis of of this and we're going to send it to, you know,
>> there's a second round of public. There's a second round then we'll you know >> but thank you guys for coming >> for your work. Yeah, >> we appreciate. >> Okay, so runoff elections um are conducted when no when a sufficient
number of candidates fail to attain a majority of the votes. Um and the number of what a sufficient number of candidates is depends on the number of atlarge seats which our proposal in your proposal tonight is going to be seven. So the way that the runoffs work is that
if the vision is to have nonpartisan elections in the May municipal elections, the runoffs get held on the fourth Tuesday following that election unless in that year the date of the primary election, in which case it happens on the fifth Tuesday. Um, if the
>> if you are doing a nonpartisan election in the November general election, the runoffs are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. >> Um, >> December. >> In December. Did I say November? Yeah. Thank you. December. Um, and in that
runoff election, um, the two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes are listed and then the person who receives the greatest number of votes in the runoff is elected. And I suspect that is the important part that you were all really looking for when I was giving you the timing. Um, are there any Well,
I'm not going to ask for questions, but that's the explanation. We can get questions later. >> So, so the denominator to be clear is not the number of votes, but the number of voters who cast ballots. Is that right? Because if if you're voting for seven people, each person can choose.
>> Correct. Each person. So, so instead of the denominator being because if 500 people show up, you could have 3,500 votes potentially. >> Correct. >> So, I just want to make sure the denominator would be 500. >> Correct. Correct. If I'm understanding it correctly. Yes.
>> I didn't quite get this to be honest. So, what I mean if there are three seats up or four seats up, right, that's going to be except for the first election, that's what's going to happen. You're going to have either three seats up >> or four seats up. >> Correct. So, are we saying that in a
four, just to make math easy, in a four seat situation, if at least four of the candidates don't get at least 25% of the votes, then we have a runoff. Is that what you're saying? I don't think so. That's >> So, so my understanding is
>> when do we have a runoff is my question. >> My understanding is say there's four seats up, >> right? >> And say a thousand people show up to vote. >> There's 4,000 votes. >> 4,000 votes. Now the number of voters who showed up as a thousand. So anyone who attains more than 500 votes is
elected. >> Oh okay. >> So the denominator >> question is do we want to require a majority to to to win in an election? >> So you need to to win as a candidate should you have at least 51% of the
vote. So more than 50% correct. So just to just to give a sense right now we have a partisan system which doesn't allow for runoffs. >> Now and I have to go back to look at the I believe in 2022 when an independent was running no
individual achieved a majority of the votes cast. So in that in our partisan case where you cannot have runoff elections a plurality is what is needed to win an election. That is >> possible. Yes. So in a nonpartisan case,
you can have a similar, >> you know, way to run the election or a plurality with the election. Or if you're uncomfortable with that, you can also have a provision for runoff elections where if there are people that do not attain a majority of the votes
cast or the denominator is the number of voters, then you have a runoff election to make sure that they would have >> mathematically if you have four things Wouldn't you need more than eight candidates for that to happen?
>> Not necessarily. So people could show up and only vote for one person. >> So if if a thousand people show up and all vote for candidate A then >> and they just ignore the other. >> Yeah. So >> there are four wards, but they just chose to >> correct. Yeah.
>> And there's no ranking. >> There's no rank choice. We're not >> at this point in New Jersey. There is no rank choice voting. there's some um movement out there to make that change. Um >> that's a story for a different a different forum. That's not tonight. >> My position on this is kind of an
economically driven decision. So while I I do from a philosophical perspective prefer having candidates gain a majority, I am concerned about the cost of having a runoff election. And so, you
know, what is I guess what is the likelihood that we're going to have that situ situation? We don't know that we can calculate that. Um and then even if we have the situation, is it better to have a majority
um candidates elected by a majority and spend the money or is it better to save the the money and and just go with the >> plurality? So for BOE, they don't have runoff
elections. Correct. And that seems to work okay in my mind. >> Yeah. >> Um my main issue with runoff elections is that the timing of the runoffs is such that there will be few people show up to vote. >> Yeah. Local. >> And so is that really determinative as
to >> a real election? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. I'm guessing the number of votes that you would get in a runoff election even if you got a m majority would still be less than the plurality because somebody people would have just voted
you know three four weeks before and you're there's no incentive for them to come out other than a local election and we just know real realistically you know people will find reasons not to come out. >> I I think I I'm ready to vote on this.
I'm part of plural plurality. I'm supposed to uh I just think it's just too complicated to have people show. I mean, it's difficult to have them show up for the first time, >> right? Show up again. >> We're too small of a town. >> Too small of a town.
>> And wouldn't that also make more people angry with each other? Now you're like down to the final two. I know. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the the the argument for a majority is that you want a candidate in theory to have some sort of mandate to to but it's a false
mandate if in a town our size for these type of elections. It's not a real mandate. So So I I'm guess. >> Yeah. Me too. >> I'm I agree. >> Yeah. I think it adds a little complication that's not really buying us. Yeah. In terms of cost benefit
>> council. Got it. No runoffs, >> right? No runoffs. >> So, we'll um So, I think now we've resolved all of the eight questions on the agenda. Um, since it's getting late, >> right, >> can I make a motion to recommend the
council manager form of government with a seven member governing body elected at large with staggered elections on a nonpartisan basis with the mayor selected by the council
without runoffs? >> Did I get that correct? Right. >> Yes, I got it correct. I second. All right. Roll call vote. >> All in favor? >> We should do. >> Okay. Dr. Khan, you want to do >> uh Mr. Biller? >> Yes. >> Dr. Kung votes. Yes. Miss. Parker Lens.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Tenno. >> Yes. >> Mr. Der. >> Yes. >> Still haven't decided the timing of elections and all that. Second question, but we will that at a later date. >> All right.
So, the motion carries. Um, and council, um, you're directed to prepare a draft report with recommendations consistent. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Public comment. Speak during the You know what? I don't have to read
all this. >> Mike, start us off. >> Mike Becker, 15 years in town. senior senior citizen. Tip O'Neal said all politics are local. That's not really correct. It's all
local politics are local politics and therefore uh you can't tell me how to vote, but I can tell you how I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote yes. I'm very happy about the outcome. You guys did a great You
people, excuse me. That's because I'm old. >> Um, you did a really good job. Very thorough. I've watched every meeting. This is way past my bedtime piece. I never stay up this late. I leave all the
meetings at, you know, 9:30 or 10 and then I go back and watch it for a few minutes and then I pass out. Um, the reason I'm happy is that living here 50 years, I've seen it all. I'm not going to tell you about it all, but uh,
there's so much talent in this town. And, uh, I've watched lately that the parties are having trouble getting people to run because of this the fear factor, this lack of civility,
and it's been awkward. And I think that by doing this, by voting yes, that if people do vote yes, I'm voting yes. And I have five voters in my family. >> Well, there we go.
>> I think it's going to uh allow a little more freedom to not only not have primaries, but to make it through the shoot. The one of the things that caused me to really be excited about the way you're
you're coming out with your vote is that there were two candidates who I wasn't going to say it, but then I heard you say it. They they were trying to get one party to take them, but they had already picked their people, their two people,
so they had to switch parties over to the other side in order to run. They ran. One's a mayor, one's on the council. They're doing a good job. And they could have easily not made it through the whatever you call that
paddle. You know, the shoot was just there was just no opportunities. And I think that that I I'm a Democrat. I have been for life, but I vote all different ways. I'm not I'm not a hard
voter. I don't just vote the line. So, I was able to go help uh Ben Stler and Frank Sakamani because like I said, it's local and uh the the the things that a local uh
politician has to work on. It's not abortion, it's not ICE, it's not immigration, it's it's local issues. >> Thank you, Michael. Next,
um, yeah, Alex Smith, I lived here a fraction of the years of my past. Um, I just want to say I'm grateful for for this body, for the board, for these for these specific people to be the ones that um did this study, did do the work,
and I'm very grateful um having been on the board of ed several elections. Personally saw no value in political parties playing uh any role in local elections in the sense of like, you know, you have to say who you are and you have to be picked by the party and all the other things. Um, and I'm really
hopeful that that our community will uh adapt and adopt uh this new form of elected leaders. And I also do believe that it will attract the best people, not the people that are most connected, not the people that are in some party system, but it will attract everybody
and be multiple board elections. Um, you know, you just you just go you want to you want to run, go run go do it. I know there's some differences, but um I'm I'm I'm hopeful that this community will make the choice. Thank you all again.
>> Thank you. U Jamie Jamie Sudo, lifelong resident. You know, I have worked on so many town projects with all of you sitting up here and around this room. Uh I grew up here. Um I've had, you know, nearly 25 members of my family go through the school system. I'm the only
one who who got into politics. you know, I got into the board of ed, sitting township committee member, was registered unaffiliated, had to choose a party, got involved in politics, and I'm emphatic to see sort of the process unfold here, the studying of the details
of um, you know, weighing all sides, really thinking about town first. And, you know, I'm a product of the school system. I'm a product of, as I mentioned, so many events and activities that have crossed political lines, right? the alliances and the friendships
and the networks that I've made and then it comes to the ballot booth and a mailer goes out to the township with a picture of the president of the United States and myself >> trying to divide.
I'm in office right now and I'll tell you what, I'm working on parking, sidewalks, holiday lighting, flood mitigation, pedestrian safety, uh trying to get money from our our representatives. I don't know how that has has anything to do with, you know, a
party affiliation and putting me next to the president of the United States. for someone who who grew up here um who who has built uh bipartisan friendships and I'll keep those friendships till I die. Um you know it was really upsetting to
see how partisan elections have divided this community and made lifelong friends my short life long friends uh turn their backs uh or or feel hesitant to to to talk or associate with me because of a party affiliation. So, now that I see
how the sausage is made on the inside, um I can confidently say that, uh, you know, this model that you've put forth, uh, will continue to serve the community. Well, just to talk about numbers real briefly. You know, Mikey Cheryl received 63% in this town
roughly. Jack Cedarelli received 36%. I received 51%. We have about 15% registered Republicans in this town. And I was elected, right? So, think about how many crossed over and Michael Cohen was elected,
right? Um, you know, my election outperformed the top of the ballot by 27 percentage points, right? So, me running with the same letter that a governor candidate or that a Senate candidate or that a
presidential candidate was running on, it didn't make a difference here. And, um, I'm hoping it won't make a difference for the future. And I hope that I am the last Republican elected in this township's history on the ballot. And I hope Michael Cohen is the last
Democrat ever elected on the ballot uh with >> Thank you, Jamie. >> Bas uh it's a shame David Cosgrove uh had to leave because I turned to him and I said, "You and I have known each other. We're fellow parishioners. We're both
about the same age. I think we share a lot of the same values. He said, 'Yeah, we do.' I said, ' And yet, you chose to be a Democrat and I chose to be a Republican. I said, 'But we still we're centrist and we still have a lot of the
same values. I said, how would you feel? put yourself in my shoes and somebody brands you and calls you MAGA in in in a public forum when when you and I both know neither of us are
you know so I think there's brands attached to party affiliation that don't belong in this township don't belong at a national level be it but we have control over this township this is the
first meeting of this of this committee that I've been able to attend and I am extremely impressed with with the job we've done and I I thank you all personally. I think you've done a a marvelous very thorough job. You've done
your research and and I applaud you. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I'd like to uh commend the commission on the robust discussion around the issues. I'd like to commend Dr. Khan for
his words, Mrs. Condro and Mr. Tana for announcing the actions of the individual at the Sunday event. Um question on the timing of elections mayor November. Is that something that the committee is
going to make a statement on? Is that is that going to come at a later date? Is >> I was surprised not to see it on the list of issues. Okay. >> So, these meetings will continue and at a future date there'll be a discussion
on Mayor November devices. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Correct. >> Um clarification on a couple of things that maybe I heard of. One was that the political parties cannot fund candidates. That's not my understanding.
They can. They can. >> Okay. I miss I misheard somebody who said that the political parties won't be able. >> No. >> No. Red Bank. They couldn't chose the parties chose not to endorse candidates. >> Correct. They chose >> the parties are alive and well in
Redbank, in Verona, in Hoboken, which are all nonpartisan. So, >> um I just want to clarify. Also, I think I heard somebody say that uh um the next the name will not be a party designation, but my understanding is
that every candidate can have a slogan and that slogan could say endorsed by the Democrat. >> No. >> So, what what are the Okay, so maybe then somebody could explain what is allowed to be put on the ballot. Um and then um might
>> you do that? Do you want to pause and I can go now or do you want to continue? >> If I can continue. Sure. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, so the slogan um cannot identify party affiliation and it cannot exceed six words. Um, some of the sample
slogans that have been used in the past are things like focused on the future, choose forward, strong and free, and fighting for families. >> So you can't mention party in this. >> Okay. Can you say I'm a registered Democrat or I'm just a statement of fact?
>> No, not not in the slogan about campaigning >> out out and about. >> Out and about >> when you go knocking on doors. >> Sure. Sure. >> You can put it on your campaign literature and everything like that. That's
>> like Democrat for Miller or Republican. >> No, I didn't mean to slogan. >> There's no prohibition identifying your party affiliate. for melty. I will leave that to your personal counsel to run for election.
>> Thank you for that clarification. Um, and then finally, I I wanted to make sure I understood the response to my question. So, if I got it wrong, please correct me. The question was um did you
have a any strong mayor testify uh before this uh uh group publicly and the answer was no. We decided early on that we were going to go for council manager and therefore we just brought in people. >> Okay. So
>> well we we did interview >> Okay. So could you >> we did interview a not so weak mayor >> right? Uh, is that how I would characterize >> Madison? >> Madison because that's a bur I think. >> U and we did evaluate the
>> publicly. >> No, not because that was my question. My question was publicly did you interview? No. >> No. The answer is publicly. >> Did you publicly interview anybody from that wasn't from a council manager form of government?
>> Publicity. Uh well we interviewed someone who was a manager under well first of all Redbank I believe people at a burough council form of government prior to their council manager form of government. >> No my question was current
>> current iteration >> in a >> not publicly. >> So so the only people that were interviewed were from our council man >> in a public setting. Right. Exactly. >> Doesn't mean we didn't deliberate that. I mean I just for the record I know you don't
>> I understand that. That's just for the public, >> right? >> You know, perception and for the public to hear from others, the decision was made. >> To to be clear, the manager of Randolph, who currently operates under a council manager form of government, has experience in other forms of government,
including in county administration, >> right? So, but but the question was, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone on Oh, I'm sorry, Frank. So, I just want to commend you all for
all the hard work and time that you put in. I've seen how much time Jerry's put in. I've heard him on the phone. I haven't heard the conversation, but I've heard him on the phone with all of you for hours and hours. You all have done a tremendous amount of work. Um, when the five of you came together to run
together, I was elated. And that's why I helped behind the scenes campaign for you guys because you are five fantastic individuals. you have diverse backgrounds. Um, and you're all doers. You had a task at hand and you you went
in there, you charged ahead, you got it done. And I just am amazed by the speed, efficiency, and thoroughess of the process that you went through. Um, you left no stone unturned. And I think you guys came up with a fantastic set of
recommendations. Uh, I look forward to it going to referendum and I know that I will fullheartedly support that referendum and uh and advocate for >> one. Thank you. But for the record, we're not done. >> No, no, two things like like genuinely
we are going to have we're going to have to discuss about the timing of of elections and stuff, but you know, we're not a success unless this gets passed, >> right? >> I I will help in any way I can pass. >> Thank you. This this set will burn up
for the future. Otherwise, >> Chris, say something. Chris, >> I want to go home. >> All right. All right. All right. >> Wait a minute. Anyone >> on the speaker? >> Say I echo. >> No one.
>> This is the first meeting I was able to attend because I had my knee replaced and I couldn't have walked here tonight. Well, I would have liked probably this was my first briefing. >> Well, you can go online. >> Yes. >> All the videos are up there. >> Okay. Uh I now close the second public
comment period. >> May I have a motion to adjourn? >> Motion. >> Yay. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Thank Thank you everyone. I do a poly work.