Professional Services in Cranbury

[Jay T.]

On Cranbury Day and walking through town, Dan and I have been able to speak with many residents concerning our professional services contracts in town; how they are reviewed, when are they reviewed and how are they managed.

I was very glad to see these questions being asked because it is something that Dan and I are both concerned about as residents and have been raising before the Township Committee for a while now. Before Dan and I decided to run for office we were questioning amongst ourselves and our friends whether the town was truly reviewing the professional services contracts.

Dan and I sat in the budget meetings and saw the cycle of auto renewing contracts occurring. We openly questioned some of the professional services and at one point I became disturbed to learn that one of the services had not been put to bid in a number of years. In essence this firm had an evergreen contract with our town. The good news is that two contracts the Township Engineer and the Township Attorney are now out to bid. However, there are certain commitments that need to be made to our residents and which Dan and I firmly believe that a town our size needs to be doing:

1) We need to establish service standards with all of our professional services to ensure accountability and to ensure efficiency for our town and residents. As a town we need to guarantee that if a service needs to be delivered it should be done with the least cost and expediency. It is not acceptable for a firm to reply that tax dollars are not being used when residents are paying for town mandated work at their home or business and therefore act as though other residents in town should not care.

2) We must bid contracts out as they expire. It may cause work for our town, but we need to ensure we're paying fair prices for services delivered.

3) We should look at alternatives. Is our spending on services from private providers appropriate? Perhaps efficiencies and lower costs can be gained through shared services with other towns or bringing certain services in house.

4) Encourage resident feedback and open communication. Let us know your experiences with the outside firms the town employs. We need to catalog these concerns and use them when we review proposals for services. We also need to make this part of our service standards.

We feel the current contracts which went to bid were due in large part to Win Cody pushing for this action. If elected we will continue to work with Win Cody and our fellow neighbors in Cranbury to find potential savings to the taxpayers in these areas and others in our municipal government and budget.

[Guest]

Well said, Jay.

Accountability and performance standards must be set and maintained. The deficiencies in the oft-discussed ballfield, from my understanding of comments I've heard, were avoidable had engineering oversight been more keen. Additional billable hours to resolve performance issues would not be acceptable (not sure that this is the case in this instance, but I've certainly seen it in other professional situations).

Bidding must occur. Auto-renewals frighten me and rarely lead to increased cost efficiency and performance. And personal and professional ties between hiring officials and professionals also need to be disclosed at minimum, preferably avoided.

[Guest]

This is great. I support it.

[Andrews]

Yesterday I rode the train with Jay Taylor. During the trip we discussed among other things the upcoming election. This was the first time I had met him, but with the post above I want to comment on my view.

Here are my thoughts:

- It is clear that he and Dan Mulligan are truly vested in running. He was able to articulate the issues, but he was focused on solutions. He mentioned that he and Dan are running together because they feel that with Win they can actively control expenses. The post above to me reflects that view to me.

- Long term planning seems to be their central premise. Whether it is fighting COAH, Consolidation or taxes they all affect us long term. Whether it is our revaluation or sewers. It's clear they want to make decisions with a long term view and plan for potential issues that may arise prior to the issue being a major problem. Proactive, not reactive management.

- What impressed me was he said while he has views, he has been wrong on occasion . Referendum and resident input are critical.

- He and Dan have young children. My personal view is that since they do they are linked to our town long term. So I believe their personal interest is in keeping their promises because they will be putting their money where their mouth is.

[Guest]

A vote for Dan and Jay... Free

The opportunity to rid our town of the pompous tool we call our town planner... Preiss-less

[Guest]

What specifically are the problems with our planner?

[Guest]

My observation has been that he is condescending and outright rude when presented with residents' (you know, the folks paying for his services) concerns or questions. I can't comment on how effective he his in providing services. But it does make you wonder in light of his evidently low regard for town residents at planning meetings.