While Montclair’s municipal elections might ultimately be moved, it won’t happen in time for this coming November — meaning that whatever decision is made won’t extend the terms of the current council members.
An impromptu meeting of the Montclair Town Council was held on July 19 to consider a resolution, put forward by Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville, to set up a commission to study the possibility of moving the nonpartisan elections of the mayor and council from May to the date of general elections in November. The resolution acknowledges the public’s recent debate over the issue, and would fund a nine-member commission $2500 (for office expenses) to collect input from other NJ municipalities that have changed their election date.
Based on comments from individual council members, the only suspense was not whether it would pass, or even how many votes it would pass by, but how long it would take to vote on it. With Third Ward Councilor Nick Lewis and Deputy Mayor Kathryn Weller-Demming absent, the measure passed by a vote of 4-1, with Mayor Jerry Fried the only dissenter, after about thirty-five minutes of public comment and debate. The rest of the township council members present — Dr. Baskerville, First Ward Councilor Rich Murnick, Second Ward Councilor Cary Africk, and Councilor-at-Large Roger Terry — had all signed a letter endorsing the proposed commission.
The resolution establishes a Municipal Election Review Commission that will evaluate the arguments for and against moving municipal elections from May to November, and submit recommendations to the council no later than the first town council meeting of January 2012. The passage of this resolution eliminates any chance of getting the question on the ballot for this November, before the September 2 deadline.
The wording of the resolution passed by the council differs slightly from the resolution as it appears on the township’s Web site. The specific requirements for who should be on the commission were dropped, but it still endorses a commission of residents and registered voters, with at least one from each ward.
“The idea is for it to be inclusive and representative of the entire community,” Dr. Baskerville explained.
The resolution received a mixed reaction from the few residents providing public comment. Jerry Kapner welcomed the opportunity for a commission to seek various points of view and expressed eagerness in determining what is best for the community. Harvey Susswein, noting that the township will have to wait ten years to change back to May elections if the move to November elections is made, urged careful study of the issue and commended Dr. Baskerville for her leadership.
Sandy Sorkin, however, expressed mild skepticism, urging the council to consider how it would go about appointing the people to be on this commission, hoping they could avoid appointing members with preconceived ideas, and also asking the councilors to contemplate what commitment they would be willing to make in weighing the commission’s decisions when it comes time to vote.
During the debate, Mayor Fried spelled out his reasons for opposing the resolution. He found the idea of a commission a needless complication of the issue, and he instead endorsed doing what had been done when many Montclair residents wanted to change the township’s form of governance of the schools to an elected school board: collect signatures and get the question on the ballot. The voters then decided overwhelmingly to keep a form of school governance having a Type 1 school district, where the mayor appoints the Board of Education.
Mayor Fried supported the idea of encouraging more Montclair residents to vote in municipal elections, noting that only 7,000 of the township’s 26,000 registered voters participate in them, but he found fault with the $2500 proposed for the commission – which he repeatedly referred to as a “committee” – and how its members would be chosen.
“I think getting more people involved in local governance is really an important goal,” Mayor Fried said. “I do think that spending $2,500 to have this committee discuss things . . . [is] totally unnecessary. We don’t really have any other committees in the township that have a budget. I’m not really sure that there’s any need to be spending money.”
Regarding the make-up of the commission, Fried added, “The people on that committee will be voted in by a majority of the council. That’s not necessarily going to be each person getting whom they want to be on it.” Majority support for a election commission, Fried concluded, didn’t guarantee a diverse group of voices on it.
But without Councilor Lewis, who had voiced opposition to such a commission on the grounds that it didn’t give the voters a direct say in the matter, the mayor was clearly in a minority of one. Councilor Murnick expressed confidence that a commission would allow new Montclair residents to hear arguments for or against moving the elections to November and emphasized that it was public interest driving the idea more than the council. He also hoped the commission would consider staggered terms for council members, rather than continue having the entire council elected all at once. Councilor Africk concurred with Murnick’s views, while Councilor Terry endorsed the commission as a way of bringing greater transparency to municipal government.
For her part, Dr. Baskerville said she would be open to the commission’s input, and she stressed that the resolution was intentionally worded to encourage a referendum on moving the elections to November to be voted on in May 2012, thereby avoiding the extension of the current council’s terms.
When the as-yet-unappointed commission does meet, it will consider the pros of moving the municipal elections to November, such as greater voter participation and a savings in expenditures on ballots and poll stations for a separate election, as well as the cons, which include higher costs for running for council and lack of a guarantee of more ballots being cast for municipal offices with higher offices at the top of the ticket.
So?
All the major issues the township faces and THIS is what they’re spending their time on? November can’t come soon enough.
uh, I mean May…
ROC, if Jerry gets his way, that would be NEXT November. Instead of next May. I’m just wondering what happened at the meeting.
Hmmm. So it’s July 20th and the commission or committee or whatever you want to call it has not been named. No way there will be time to study the issue and get the ballot language crafted and sent to Essex County by September 2.
$5 says Fried uses this as an excuse to have the council pass this by ordinance effective November 2012.
njgator, i’m not taking that bet. so far, our mayor has been politically astute enough to push through just about anything he wants.
look for little puffs of white smoke over the Municipal Building indicating a decision has been made
It’s interesting that the Mayor chooses now to embrace democracy. It wasn’t all that long ago that he wanted people to avoid signing a petition to put the question of an elected Board of Education on the ballot. That’s a lack of interest in Democracy squared: block the petition and block an elected BOE.
But perhaps this isn’t about Democracy. Perhaps it is just a grab for six more months – six more months he knows he cannot get by himself, but which he can try to sneak in via this ballot question.
I side somewhat with those that would not move the election date, but I am interested in hearing more from this commission and its research. Yet I must remain steadfastly against the move if it means another six months of the current council. Even if it were a terrific and effective group, this type of power grab cannot be permitted to succeed.
…Andrew
Andrew, I believe it’s even more than just gaining another 6 months. I believe it is an attempt to gain votes for candidates with strong ties to the Democrats and Bluewave. Our local elections are set up to be non-partisan and moving the election to November would give an advantage to candidates with party ties. Even though it’s a party for which I always pull the lever, I think this is a bit underhanded.
Moving the municipal elections to November has absolutely nothing to do with increasing voter turnout as Mayor Fried claims. This is a fairly obvious political power grab by the Bluewave/Democratic party machine looking to take over the local electoral process.
@jerseygurl & @peterzorich I’ve seen that assertion before, but I don’t understand how this would benefit those people. Could you explain, please, how that would work?
…Andrew
” Could you explain, please, how that would work?”
I believe the thinking goes: more lefty liberal bluewave types will be charged-up and turn out in greater numbers for a national election than merely a local one. How else can the our Mayoral Compost-Crusader explain the lack of support for all his world-saving initiatives?
Personally, I think with polls like the latest:
Obama Job Approval (US) Approve 43.0%, Disapprove 57.0% / Zogby
US-Right Track/Wrong Track Right Track 18.0%, Wrong Track 69.0% / Zogby
The “bluewave theory” could backfire.
I don’t care when the elections are. It’s fine to move them. I just don’t think any change in the term of office should apply to a sitting council, only the next council.
I am just connecting the dots. The Mayor fires the town attorney and replaces him with someone connected to Bluewave. Just do a quick google search on Ira, and the agenda becomes obvious. Shortly thereafter the Mayor declares he wants elections in November and 2 reasons are given – increased voter turnout and saving the town $50k.
Since saving the town money has not been any part of the agenda ever, saving about $12k a year doesn’t seem like the real motivation.
More people do vote in general elections so, yes there will be greater voter turnout. However, Montclair voters overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in general elections so anyone tied to that party on a local level will have a distinct advantage since there will be a number of voters who will vote the party line – even though local candidates are supposed to be non-partisan. Local candidates will also need more support, including financial, in order to be “heard” during a general election so again, having ties to a party will be an advantage.
Also, more renters vote in general elections, and local elections tend to attract homeowners. So we’ll get more renters — and again in this town guess who wins.
I’m just guessing here, but everything this Mayor does is tied to a very personal and extremely left leaning agenda. And again, I should be thrilled because I am not a Republican but I find this political maneuvering somewhat offensive. I’d really like the local elections to remain focused on local issues – look what happens here and how the dialogue becomes left versus right when we’re discussing anything the council does.
@jerseygurl You raise some interesting points. Certainly, I see your point about needing more money to overcome the national conversation.
But a few more questions, if you don’t mind.
How would having ties to a party help given the non-partisan nature? It’s not like the party can donate. *People* that happen to be members of a party can donate, but wouldn’t that be even easier for a party to arrange outside the noise of the national and state elections?
I also wonder about the voters not aware of local issues. How would they choose the bluewave candidate in that case? I presume that there’d be no D and R line for the local elections, so “the party line” wouldn’t seem to apply. Or would it?
I do agree about the Mayor’s agenda, and I also question his actions with respect to the town attorney (as well as others). It just seems to me that, if the goal here is to assure bluewave victory in local elections, I don’t see how this is going to make that much of a difference. If anything, the Mayor’s history is going to taint anyone associated with bluewave when running for local office for a long time.
…Andrew
“I’m just guessing here, but everything this Mayor does is tied to a very personal and extremely left leaning agenda.”
I couldn’t agree more. Montclair has a very left leaning local electorate. Shouldn’t it all be fine then? What’s amazing to me is that people are beginning to see the folly and failure of such policies in their own communities but can’t extrapolate any further.
It all smacks of a notion like: “we all want lefty liberal ideas only so long as we don’t feel or notice their impact.” which makes me think people only like the *idea* of being a “progressive liberal” and not actually being one.
@ROC Are you in the pay of the current council? You seem rather strongly disposed to change the topic of conversations away from our local council.
…Andrew
That’s just it, Andrew. Many, if not most, of the lefty liberal policies bankrupting the township are imposed by a lefty liberal state legislature and a lefty liberal federal government. You will never solve the one without solving the other.
We’re powerless against public employee unions and lavish benefits because of state level negotiations. We’re powerless to reform our schools because of state level funding and state and federal level mandates. A significant chunk of our local taxes fund a lefty liberal county government. We can chafe and quibble about the fraction of our tax woes which are connected to discretionary spending, but not much will get better.
The problems we face locally and nationally are all due to the same problem. We expect government to do too much, supervise too much and provide too much.
The only way to unwind that problem (in an organized fashion) is to recognize that what some local liberals are starting to realize locally extend far beyond local politics.
How about this? Moving the next election to Novemember 2012 is a money losing proposition for Montclair. Fried and his gang will blow way more than the measly $50k this will “save” with an extra 6 months at the helm of the Titanic.
@ROC Your position that local and national issues are the same is fatally flawed. The purpose of national government is different from that of local government, and the economic tools available to national government are different from those of local government.
Your assessment of the Mayor as “liberal” is also flawed, but this is apparently a common misconception. It is highly illiberal to advocate for an appointed BOE, for example. It is highly illiberal to keep reports upon which town actions are based out of the hands of citizens, for another. His “I know best” attitude towards governance is far more like the so-called “social conservatives” (that aren’t really “conservative”, for that matter) with their love for intrusive and paternalistic government controlling our lives.
Frankly, I’m not clear why people call our Mayor liberal. You’ll likely make some claim that liberals are poor managers of money, but – using your preference for national perspectives – 2000-2006 shows this argument’s flaw: financial imprudence knows no party boundaries.
But more to the point, your attempts to change each local conversation into a national one serves to obfuscate what’s going on locally. This seems perfectly aligned with the Mayor’s goal of having our town elections in the midst of the noise of the national elections, and it would also appear to serve the same obfuscating purpose.
You claim a rightist position, but appear to be aiding someone with a claimed leftist position. On the other hand, those claims of a leftist position are, as I noted above, highly questionable.
…Andrew
The problems we face locally and nationally are all due to the same problem. We expect government to do too much, supervise too much and provide too much.
Its more accurate to say ROC, that current government revenues do not support what our government is currently committed to.
So you can raise revenue, or you can cut spending.
What’s hilarious of course is that the cause of the problem in your mind is always “lefty liberal” entitlements. Our military adventures cost way, way more than anything “lefty liberals” have ever proposed, but cutting the military never seems to occur to you.
Funny too, you never seem to acknowledge that one of main reasons revenue doesn’t match expenses is because that “lefty liberal” government in 2001 cut taxes without cutting expenses as well. Because they believe in the magic laffer curve fairy that turned out unable to grant their wishes.
Yes. Andrew I’m sure most would agree that Jerry, Cycle-Montclair-LEEDS-construction-Bluewave-progressive-Democrat Fried is NOT a lefty.
oy vey. I rest my case.
Malformed link Ill try again:
Yes. Andrew I’m sure most would agree that Jerry, Cycle-Montclair-LEEDS-construction-Bluewave-progressive-Democrat Fried is NOT a lefty.
oy vey. I rest my case.
I think your mind is rather muddled, ROC and as usual, your position is on the fringe. Amy reasonable person will recognize that some structural changes to our finances need to be made to make them sustainable, but our country’s/state’s current fiscal mess is due in large part to the drastic weakening of the economy. The economic weakness is not a lefty-liberal issue; it came about under Bush and a significant contribution to the bubble and its subsequent popping was the deregulation of Wall Street. I’d rather have Obama’s attempts to use fiscal policy to strengthen the economy than the Republicans’ idea that what the economy really needs is a significant fiscal tightening. I guess what I’m saying is that the poor state of our finances is due much more to the extreme economic weakening (not lefty-liberal caused) than to lefty-liberal mandates. Of course you will never see this POV, but it’s worth saying nonetheless.
@ROC First, I note that you avoid the central theme of your aid to the current council and Mayor.
As to that Mayor’s actions: Yes, some appear environmentally progressive. However, that correlates to “politically liberal” about as well as “socially conservative” equates to “politically conservative”. I have no doubt, for example, that our Mayor would force everyone to take environmentally progressive actions had he the power to do so. That’s more fascist than liberal, even if for an “environmentally progressive” cause.
I apologize if this is too complex. Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are descriptors of regions along a spectrum, and “political” and “environmental” (as well as “social”, “fiscal”, etc.) represent different spectra. Unfortunately, too many people have trouble in a multidimensional world. They need to simplify to a flat “left” and “right”, never realizing or acknowledging the information that’s lost.
However, some people benefit from the information loss. What is “obfuscation” but the hiding of information, after all? So here we are back to the idea that you’re obfuscating for the benefit of our Mayor’s politically rightist – albeit apparently environmentally progressive – agenda.
…Andrew
Tudlow,
I assume you missed the deregulation of Wall Street under Bill Clinton when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed in 1999 which is also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass–Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
Also Bill Clinton pushed through many more NAFTA agggrements that shipped jobs out of the country. Please review the quote of Ross Perot saying how bad these deals would be. He specifically said there would be a “sucking sound” of jobs to lower paying countries!
Wake up
Yikes!!!! What hath the Heat Wrought??!!!
C’mon. Let’s all meet at Red Mango (I won’t eat any because it tastes like throw-up, but since they’re expanding someone must like it), I’m buying.
Because y’all need a TIME OUT!!!
“We’re powerless against public employee unions and lavish benefits because of state level negotiations.”
How does this work, exactly? I’m curious about this for a couple of reasons. First, we’re getting close to entering into negotiation with the MEA. That we’re negotiating suggests that we’ve at least some power.
Second, during the last budget the BOE essentially transferred a fair number of employees off of the current MEA contract. Whether one agrees or disagrees with what was proposed and what was ultimately done, this doesn’t not seem to reflect a lack of power.
Claims of a lack of power seem an easy excuse to me. Yes, there are unfunded mandates; I won’t argue that these don’t exist. But claims that we’re powerless would appear to serve local politicians unwilling or unable to “bargain hard” (or take some other action) when we need it.
Interesting that we once again reach a conclusion that ROC’s statements serve our current political administration in town.
…Andrew
1993 Presidential Debate:
Perot, Bush Sr., Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls
1992, I meant
This thread serves to illustrate the problems we will have if we move the local elections to November. I honestly don’t want the local discussions lumped in with whether or not we should be funding the war and how to save social security. Andrew, perhaps left leaning was not the right way to describe the Mayor – suffice it to say he has a very very personal agenda and while we are in the midst of a financial crisis, there are many people who would prefer to see him focus on the town’s fiscal problems rather than going off to China. The fact that he wanted to buy a $3.5 million building for a recreational center, with Weller chiming in about what we’ll say to the next generation if we don’t do this now is a mind blower. They weren’t trying to preserve something valuable to the community – they were trying to convince the community it needed a place to congregate despite the concerns about lack of parking at that facility and despite the fact that there was no money for the purchase and despite the fact that there was no evidence presented for the “need” other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
As far as Bluewave, they could certainly endorse a local candidate. They could assist with promotional materials, volunteer, and contribute funding as well.
@kyle41181 You’re right that the deregulation played a big role in the bubble and subsequent collapse. But Bush’s unnecessary deficit spending left us with a federal government ill equipped to handle even normal economic cycles.
I’d call it a team effort, and this is yet another reason why I claim that fiscal imprudence knows no party boundaries.
Consider: If this really were an R or D thing, then the House – currently in the hands of the R party – would be clamouring to undo Clinton’s work and replace Glass–Steagall.
[Actually, didn't McCain propose this a year or so back? What ever happened with that? Or am I misremembering?]
Meanwhile, back in Montclair…
…Andrew
Exactly, meanwhile back in Montclair we have a dysfunctional council. There’s way too much disagreement about what the problems are, let alone how to solve them. And the fact that they undermine each other all the time is really disheartening. We need some adults at this table.
“Mayor’s politically rightist”
I can’t tell you how entertaining this is. The cognitive dissonance is so thick that the good liberals of Montclair need to stretch mightily to put the mayor *somehow* into a right-wing box so he might be opposed. (Because there is no possible way a *true* liberal could do such things!)
If you think Montclair’s problems are related to its right-wing policies or its right-wing mayor I wish you luck. You’ll need it.
“This thread serves to illustrate the problems we will have if we move the local elections to November.”
Indeed. I was indifferent to the election date change itself until someone pointed this out to me. It is, I believe, an excellent reason to leave the election as it is. Local elections deserve local conversations about local topics.
“there are many people who would prefer to see him focus on the town’s fiscal problems rather than going off to China”
In the Mayor’s defense (for a very brief moment, I promise {8^) I suspect that he had hoped that there would be some economic benefit to his efforts. Wasn’t there talk, around the time of his trip, about some Chinese investment within Montclair?
“As far as Bluewave, they could certainly endorse a local candidate. They could assist with promotional materials, volunteer, and contribute funding as well.”
Yes? Have they done so in the past? If not, why not?
Perhaps I’ve simply forgotten, but I don’t remember a bluewave endorsement of our current Mayor.
Also: What exactly does “non-partisan” mean in the context of our elections? That one cannot be associated with a national party? But association with a clearly-in-the-D-fold group like bluewave is okay?
…Andrew
“And the fact that they undermine each other all the time is really disheartening.”
I’d like to explore this idea a bit further. I’ve found myself uncomfortable with the idea of “election slates”. This seems too close to violating my own personal interpretation of “non-partisan”. That is, I want to have voters voting for candidates; not “parties” – even if we’ve renamed them to “slates”.
But this current council leaves me questioning that perspective. In theory, at least, doesn’t sharing a slate imply the ability to work together?
On the other hand, wasn’t Cary on the Fried slate?
Ignoring other qualities and qualifications for the moment, how is a voter suppose to choose candidates that can work together without the constant sniping and undermining we’re seeing today?
…Andrew
My first issue is with respect to multiple clauses in NJ P.L.2009, c.196 which initiates powers to Municipalities to change their election and gives guidelines in so. There is language that gives the Council the ability through ordinance after January 1, 2011 to:
“The term of any person in office when the ordinance is adopted shall be extended until the beginning of the term of the person elected to that office on the day of the general election in November.”
This inherently gives four months to individuals who were not elected for that designated term extension by virtue of the electorate. Simply they can reward themselves by taking a vote, like any other vote on an ordinance. That is simply wrong. It would be best for this Council’s term to end in May and have the residents informed that the next elected council will run a term of four years and 4 months, with elections moved to November 2016, if the change is eventually made.
My second issue with a clause in NJ P.L.2009, c.196 reads as follows:
“Once the November date is selected, it cannot be changed back to May until 10 years have passed and an ordinance approving the change is adopted.”
Not being able to make a change for 10 years is a very compelling reason I believe the council should, though not required, put the issue up for a referendum in May 2012. Being that I believe this current council should reap no benefit from changing of Election Day, it is important to point out that these rules would not have to be changed before May 2012. As long as there is an understanding of the possibility of a change over in policy, candidates and residents would still be given the opportunity to elect individuals they understand may possibly serve 4 extra months at the end of their terms in 2016.
There are positive aspects of the plan, one being the monetary savings incurred by moving the elections. $50,000 every four years is a teachers, cop, or firefighter salary that year. Though I suspect that out of a budget of $70,000,000 we could figure a way to account for the upcoming costs every four years. The town budgets one year at a time with no consideration for future costs that are guarantees. This council is so inept they have produced three deplorable budgets, two many months late, and with huge burdens to residents facing very difficult decisions monetarily in their own lives. Currently municipal budgets are due in April for review by the county. By changing elections from May to November you hinder future councils by giving them too few months to produce a budget in their first year. If this council cannot do it in a year because of the difficult financial climate we live in, then why would we allot future council’s only three months in their first session to produce the next year’s budget.
Then there is the argument of producing a larger turnout because of the Federal, State and County elections being held in November and historically producing a larger voter turnout. I believe the political and financial climates were dramatically different in May of 2008 when our current council was elected. This was before the financial meltdown, the “Great Recession”, 10 Million jobs lost, housing prices utterly collapsing and a 22% increase in property taxes in Montclair from 2007-2011. I provide as example, the BOE referendum to change its format in 2009. More people voted on that referendum than did in 2008 when this council was elected, and it was a single issue. We are seeing residents becoming politically involved more than ever. I believe it is because the issues impact people on a greater scale than in the past. It also allows candidates to focus on key Municipal issues instead of broader topics that have less implication and impact on our community directly. Most of our Municipal spending (Education, Public Safety, and discretionary) is funded through property tax revenue. Federal, County, and State aid is minimal compared to the total. It is also not a guaranteed as we learned the last two years with State Education Aid and Municipal being stripped and then returned. Having a separation allows for the conversation to not be swayed by larger more broad themes which happen during National and even State elections. Also with our current form of Government we need this focus, we rely highly on the Mayor to control the BOE. This is a focused topic that can get lost in the rallying cries for “better education” and “investment in education”. We need to hear specifics on what type of nominees would they choose, and what direction they would like to turn the behemoth we call the Montclair BOE. Education spending accounts for 60% or more of our spending, that’s over $100,000,000. This all controlled by the Mayor’s choice for appointments and the BOSE which the Mayor has a seat on.
Yep, its the “lefty-liberals”!
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/102210_conservative_eco_op/the-consequences-conservative-economic-policy/
This thread serves to illustrate the problems we will have if we move the local elections to November.
This threat has comments from 10 people. It illustrates nothing aside from the views of the 10 people commenting on this issue.
I still don’t see the issue, aside from the “oh no! change!” fear, which is understandable. Other towns in NJ have nonpartisan elections in November. And I think NJ is one of the few (if not the only) states that has elections in May. My point is, thousands of other towns do it without a problem.
Another point is, Mayor Fried is wrong (surprise!) when he says there may be some appreciable uptick in voter turnout for the local race. The proof is in the pudding: other towns in the area who hold local races in November do not see any major increase in voter turnout. People who are tuned out of local races come to vote for President and then leave.
In other words, after all this sturm and drang, the same folks who vote in May will probably be the only folks who vote in November.
Oh kyle, you have not exactly proven yourself to be a paragon of objectivity or really even a reasonable person on this site but I’ll show you the courtesy of a response nonetheless.
So the Gramm(R), Leach(R), Bliley(R) act, which passed with one Democratic supporter in the Senate, was a liberal act? Strange interpretation. Also, regulatory laxity under President Bush was lefty-liberal? Again, strange interpretation. And finally, liberals didn’t push NAFTA.
Re: the foofaraw about moving the election, I agree with nick.
And on another note, what is the deal with featured comment? Who chooses it? It just seems like it’s always the same people, some of whom don’t even live in this town or are constantly threatening to leave (that’ll show ‘em!), and they are always, ALWAYS, complaining, mocking, making histrionic statements, etc etc etc. It’s become a bit stale in my opinion.
“It’s become a bit stale in my opinion.”
“Sour Grapes, party of one, your table is ready.”
Tudlow,
“So the Gramm(R), Leach(R), Bliley(R) act was signed off by a Democratic President who before being elected loved the idea. Please read: From Mother Jones; a lefty paper
http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/its-deregulation-stupid
“Yet Bill Clinton, elected in large part because of that recession (a la James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid”), was talking about deregulation before he was even inaugurated. The National Review reported that “Bill Clinton embraced at least one Reaganesque idea at the Little Rock economic summit” he held in December 1992: “banking deregulation.”
So i guess sarbanes oxley act of 2002 was another one of those evil “right wing” deregulating problem causers huh…….
BILL CLINTON signed NAFTA, not George Bush. DEMOCRATS controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency at the time of ratification.(1993) I do not care if you think it was a “lefty” idea or not. Democrats passed it through all branches of the Federal Gov’t! Do some fu**ing research man…..
Nick,
In GR, the number of votes cast in local elections in presidential election years is much higher (50% or more) than in non-leap years. Since the proposals I’ve seen in Montclair have all involved keeping your local elections in leap years, I suspect that it would dramatically change the number of votes cast.
“Nick,
In GR, the number of votes cast in local elections in presidential election years is much higher (50% or more) than in non-leap years. Since the proposals I’ve seen in Montclair have all involved keeping your local elections in leap years, I suspect that it would dramatically change the number of votes cast.”
This is a politically motivated change and that is the ONLY reason the Mayor is pushing so hard for it.
I also recall when the Mayor first proposed doing this, a number of ex-Mayors and council members sent him a letter and spoke at the council meeting advising against making this change on his own without getting input from the township. That’s what made me step back and wonder why they would band together on this one issue.
Carl – I’m sure that is true for Glen Ridge. But I’d wager Glen Ridge is one of only very few exceptions. Voter turnout there is generally higher in most elections than in neighboring towns, isn’t it?
“In other words, after all this sturm and drang, the same folks who vote in May will probably be the only folks who vote in November.”
This is the sort of information I hope we get in detail from this commission. And if GR is a counterexample to this, I hope this is further explored. Why would it be so? Would Montclair therefore also be a counterexample?
However, I note that you’ve not addressed the “noise” issue. That is, the need to be “louder” during a November election to be heard over the noise of the state and federal elections. The ease with which this thread was side-tracked to national issues is a point in favor of keeping the two sets of elections as distant as possible. I’d like for local elections to follow in-depth conversations about local issues. This is far more difficult in the midst of a discussion of national and state issues.
That was, I believe, a point being made by @jerseygurl.
“Other towns in NJ have nonpartisan elections in November.”
Just as I don’t agree with the sentiment that we must be different in Montclair, nor do I find the argument that others are doing it compelling. Clearly, it can be done. But we already know that. The better question is: what is the gain and/or loss in doing so?
“Also with our current form of Government we need this focus, we rely highly on the Mayor to control the BOE…We need to hear specifics on what type of nominees would they choose, and what direction they would like to turn the behemoth we call the Montclair BOE.”
I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with this. We appear to be stuck with a single politician having an unreasonable amount of control over education in town. That single politician therefore requires a great deal of vetting on that subject. I hope that, in the coming election cycle, this matter is visited with the various candidates in greater depth than last time.
…Andrew
Turnout is generally higher in GR, yes, that’s been my observation, but I’m not sure that lower turnout in the local wouldn’t make the effect even greater.
Turnout in Presidential elections is generally much higher pretty much everywhere. If even a relatively small percentage of those additional voters votes in the local, it can make a big difference, especially if turnout in local elections tends to be light.
For example, in 2008, 6974 votes were cast for Mayor in Montclair. By comparison, 19,101 votes were cast in the General Election that year. If just 25% of those additional voters now vote in the local election, that’s over 3000 more votes – that’s about a 45% increse.
“Do some fu@$$g research, man!”
Like maybe this kind:
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ
Glad to see kyle that the quality of your research has remained unchanged since your hilarious “haggis is illegal” episode.
Glad to see kyle that the quality of your research has remained unchanged since your hilarious “haggis is illegal” episode.
Kyle might also research into who opposed NAFTA the most (and who still wants it repealed.
(hint: it starts with a “u” and ends with a “nions”)
NAFTA as with any treaty has to be ratified by Congress, Senate and President.
the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[1][2] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: “…NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”
NAFTA not NAFINA. I refered to NAFTA. My facts were correct.
And Cro, imported Haggis from the UK, which is traditional Haggis, is illegal. Regardless of what you think!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/america-haggis-ban-lifted-burns
Cro,
American or other non UK haggis is like calling Wagyu Beef, Kobe Beef, its not the same.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123179163
It’s still illegal to import haggis from Scotland, despite reports saying otherwise. There’s been a ban on this concoction of sheep meat cooked in a stomach since 1989, when mad cow disease was in the news.
kyle, head on in to Myers of Keswick in NYc for some haggis. It really is comical how to hang onto your nonsense.
Thanks for the civic lesson, by the way, but the NAFTA agreement was signed on december 17 1992 by President Bush. He left office before formal ratification, which means that Clinton signed it after that ratification.
Keep “researching”, though. In this heat, we all need a good laugh.
Cro,
Did you even read your own link
December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, “subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.”
“subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.”
“subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.”
It doesnt matter if Bush signed a piece of paper. All treaties have to be ratified by our Congress via teh Constitution. otherwise its just a piece of paper. the Congress Senate or Clinton could have voted it down and the signing would have been worthless.
Kyle, you stated that “Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, not George Bush.”
But you see, Bush signed it before Clinton did. Had Bush won the election, then of course he would have signed it, since it was in many ways his baby.
It really does become draining dealing with you, because you appear to be willfully obtuse. So, I’m retiring from the field, settling in to some sassafras and haggis, and turning on the TV.
NAFTA is a treaty signed into LAW. For a law to be enacted in the USA, it has to be voted on by the HofReps, Senate and President. Bill Clinton signed into LAW, not George Bush.
facts are on my side.
For example, in 2008, 6974 votes were cast for Mayor in Montclair. By comparison, 19,101 votes were cast in the General Election that year. If just 25% of those additional voters now vote in the local election, that’s over 3000 more votes – that’s about a 45% increse.
That’s a big “if,” actually. There’s so much dropoff between top of the ticket (President) and bottom (town council), that I’d be surprised if the increase even cracks 10%.
Look, I’m all in favor of moving Montclair’s elections to November. But Jerry Fried’s been talking for a year or two about the difference is going to make, and there’s been no evidence there will be any difference. I’d like to think this laughable commission will actually investigate this, but I’d bet money they don’t.
and there’s been no evidence there will be any difference.
There certainly will be a difference, there is no question that turnout will be much higher, especially if you do it in a presidential election year:
http://www.montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/Election_Breakdown.pdf
You maintain that the difference won’t be seen “down-ballot” and dismissed my general observation about GR – fine. How about every other municipality in Essex County that holds council elections every year? I did a comparison of the Council Elections in each of them for 2007, 2008 & 2009. Every single one had substantially more votes cast in 2008 than either 2007 or 2009:
Municipality 2007/2008/2009
Caldwell: 1644/3283/2460
Fairfield: 1888/3848/1534
Maplewood: 3595/9780/7128
Millburn: 1844/8898/3168
N. Caldwell 1200/2651/1406
Roseland: 1718/2679/2367
W. Caldwell: 2802/5150/3721
Total Council Voters:
14,691/36,289/21,784
(Source: http://www.essexclerk.com/election_results.html)
Now, it’s true that there are going to be differences in individual elections from year to year, but I think even accounting for that, the numbers make it pretty clear that a substantial number of additional voters will vote down-ballot – the average over all the towns above was an astounding 99% increase in presidential election years.
And keep in mind, that’s just the difference between general elections in presidential vs. non-presidential years. Muni elections in Montclair generally have even lower turnouts than the non-presidential general elections.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the other differences, such as increased partisan impact and the “Noise” issue mentioned above (and the somewhat-related campaign cost increases).
You can get haggis (if you really have to) at a few places in Kearny. Cameron’s Meat Market comes right to mind. There’s no need to cross the Hudson for it. As for its “quality” vs. imports (a relative term when we’re talking haggis), a boiled sheep is pretty much a sheep wherever
you go. Ditto for the traditional accompaniments of turnips and potatoes.
It’s not wildly vile. It’s basically just a form of sausage, no worse than what Anthony Bourdain samples weekly on TV. And for folks who’ve traveled a bit through Asia, haggis is actually rather tasty and healthy in comparsion to much “stuff” available over there. Though I will leave to others’ imaginations what those Asian options are, even as more than one former tourist in China has remarked on the “golden,” retriever-like dogs they’ve seen raised there in a country not known as a pet lover’s paradise.
It’s not wildly vile …the way it tastes is “interesting”. But the way it looks…its not very pretty…no curb appeal…and the way it kind of rolls around an the serving platter…scary. Haggis just is what it is….a stuffed boiled sheeps stomach. Lasagna is so much prettier.