Letter to the Press

[James]

I understand a lot of people here don't read the Press or subscribe. Here's a letter I wrote endorsing Win for TC (the headline was done by the paper, not me.)

LETTERS: Committee needs to listen residents
Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:53 AM EDT


After growing up in Cranbury, I eagerly seized the opportunity to return to town last September. Thankfully, Cranbury is still the same neighborly town I remember. People stop and say hello, you can have a discussion over the fence about what gardening hints you learned recently or ask a neighbor to watch your dogs while you’re away. In Cranbury people have a genuine and positive interest in their neighbors.

It is therefore surprising to me that the Democrats on the Township Committee are seemingly the polar opposite of our residents. As the meeting notes attest the current operational model for our Township Committee is to conduct business with numerous sub-committees and closed door meetings; all the while spending hard earned tax payer money on outsourced consultants and other special projects.

During the public comment sessions our Township Committee often hears impassioned pleas from residents about how actions such as the spending on the ball field, preserving the West Property or the revaluation will cause harm to those in our town with fixed incomes. Yet, some of the individuals on the Township Committee dismiss such concerns without reflecting on what these residents are saying. It saddens me to see that the residents’ interests and the care for their well being transitioned to a secondary concern, when it should be the primary and only concern.

While growing up the Township Committee members were our friends and neighbors. Residents in town voted not for the Republican or Democrat ticket, but for the individual name on the ballot. The individuals who held office felt they had a strong responsibility to ensure that sound financial decisions were made, future planning was a key concern and they involved all members of the community in the decision making process.

The operational model for the committee was for the mayor’s role and board positions to rotate regardless of Democrat or Republican majority. Though disagreements occurred party politics were not the basis for Township Committee votes or actions. Party affiliation was not the basis for whether a resident’s concern was valid or invalid.

Perhaps I am ignorant or a bit nostalgic; it would not be the first time I was accused of being either one. However, I firmly believe that Township Committee members who base decisions on party politics or self interest have no place governing our town. I do not believe our town is too far gone that it cannot return to an apolitical process. I am therefore encouraging those who are concerned about the town, COAH and our escalating taxes to vote for Win Cody.

I believe Mr. Cody represents our only opportunity as a town to implement a structure where resident opinions are a factor in decisions, where seniors, people on fixed incomes and young families are considered with every budget process, where our business owners will have someone who will listen, and where party politics and self interest do not get in the way of making sound decisions.

[cranbury liberal]

Nicely done.

I agree completely. I love this town, but am severely disappointed by how the Township Committee majority are handling their offices. I differ from them on some key positions, such as the ball field, the PNC site and the idea of pursuing a separate library right now. But that’s not really the point. I can still respect people and leaders who oppose my ideas.

What I take issue with and believe makes them unsuited for local public office is their methods and philosophy on local government. As you pointed out, Cranbury had a long history of non-partisan government. Some members happened to be Democrat, some Republican, some Independent, etc. But that played no significant part in their roles as TC members. Most decisions were made in the open, there was not an abundance of closed sub-committees and those committees and boards certainly weren’t consciously stacked exclusively with members of one political party as is being done now.

I frankly find it disgusting that Mayor Stout has chosen to decimate this long tradition and reduce the office to something akin to the stereotypical NJ State political machine. He is a member of my registered party and I have to admit I voted for him. When I did I didn’t know much about him and he had not yet, among other things, broken one of the many transitions of Cranbury Township governance expressly designed to reduce party politics by using his majority control on the TC to get re-appointed as Mayor a second year in a row. So I voted along party lines in my ignorance. Since then I am ashamed of my ignorant vote and, unfortunately, ashamed of my party affiliation at the local and State level. It’s ironic I should go my whole life without ever wavering in my conviction about my party affiliation to question it due to the actions of local officials in a small Township, but there it is…

I don’t care whether a TC member is a Democrat or Republican. It should be irrelevant at the local level. What I care about is whether the members of the TC believe they work for the collective interests of the citizens of the Township versus the narrow interests of their friends or allies, and who recognize the need for open government. We should restore the tradition of rotating the Mayor’s office annually. We should exclude closed sessions to only those matters that legally necessitate it. TC members should have most of their discussions in open session. They should not “maneuver” behind the scenes by selectively advising certain people how to position issues or encouraging them to come with shows of force at meetings – they should equally encourage all interested parties to participate and show no preferential treatments. They should strive for totally non-partisan committees and boards, consciously selecting people from a diversity of party, neighborhood and local tenured backgrounds. And they should not manipulate matters that will cost the Township (and taxpayers) significant money in such a way as to contrive reasons it can’t be brought to full public consideration when that urgency need not exist. It is impossible not to suspect the Mayor’s motives with the Babe Ruth ball field, for example, when he has such a clear personal interest in the result and contrived to rush a decision on it without significant public comment or vote for no convincing reason. There was no need for urgency. We owned the land – it wasn’t going anywhere. And even if he did feel compelled to handle it at a TC vote level, he should have excluded himself due to a conflict of interest. Instead he single-handedly chose to reduce it to a vote of 5 people, of which he was one and had the allegiance of two others, which he knew going in. That was a clear abuse of power. Again, even if you agree we should have the ball field, it is the method by which we got it that has no place in small town governing.

I support Win Cody as well, not because of his party affiliation but because he hs expressed his commitment to similar priorities. By comparison, Mr. Ritter has repeatedly stated his support for Mayor Stout, which means endorsement of his methods. For all I know I may share more in common with Mr. Ritter on national political, social, economic or cultural beliefs. But that is irrelevant in Cranbury. I am voting for the person who supports an open, non-partisan local government.