Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2

[Cranbury Press]

Mayor's seat to be decided Jan. 2
By Maria Prato-Gaines, Staff Writer
Posted: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 12:05 PM EST

CRANBURY — The Township Committee’s reorganization meeting is fast approaching and while most members are still on the fence on who they would support as mayor, Committeewoman Pari Stave and current Mayor David Stout say they’re interested in the position.

Committeeman Tom Panconi said that although he’s not interested in stepping in as mayor at this time, he supports anyone who has had experience in the position.

Four of the five people who will sit on the committee in January have served as mayor in the past, with the exclusion of newly elected and sole Republican Committeeman Win Cody, who will be sworn in to a three-year term on Jan. 2. Mayor Stout has served two one-year terms in the position.

In the Township Committee form of government the mayor has few powers. The mayor is one of five votes on the committee, runs the meetings as chairman, and makes some appointments.

Mr. Panconi said he plans to wait until the reorganization meeting to see who is interested before making a decision.

”It’s an honor to be the mayor, however, we’re a Township Committee of five and we all work together,” he said.
Mr. Cody said he won’t be seeking the mayor’s position. Since all of his peers have experience with the job, he said that he will also wait until the meeting to see who is up for the daunting task as mayor.

”I’m going to go there to the meeting and hear out who wants to do it,” he said. “I’m willing to support whoever can do the best job and whoever can put the time into doing it.”

Due to travel obligations at work, Committeeman Richard Stannard said he would be unable to fulfill the duties of mayor, but added that there is a pool of qualified candidates to choose from.
”Three (others) have been mayor, so there’s no question about the qualification,” he said. “I guess certainly (Mayor Stout) has done a fine job for the past 2 years. Pari (Stave) would be a very good mayor again because she has the ability to see through conflict and find compromise. (Mr. Panconi) did it once before and did an incredible job. It kind of narrows it down to a couple of folks.”

Ms. Stave said she would consider taking the, but will base her decision on the feedback from other committee members.

”I’m still undecided,” she said. “I guess I’ll see how the others feel.”

”I guess it’s a question of (Mayor Stout’s) level of interest. I definitely have appreciated all the time and intelligence he’s given. But I do think our tradition of rotating in Cranbury is a good one.”

Mayor Stout said that he would once again serve if asked to do so.

”It’s really up to the committee,” he said. “If the committee wishes to have me do it, I’ll do it. But any person (on the committee) is capable of doing it

[Guest]

I'd like to see Richard Stannard in the role. Mr. Stout has been mayor for 2 years which is against tradition and 3 would be too much. I was surprised and disappointed that he did not decline. As Mr. Stannard did.

Pari and Tom are both up for election. If either decides not to run, then they would be a good choice. I don't like the Mayor being one who is up for running.

On a side, the other article mentioned the Mayor's comments about saving this year. The economy was bad last year and people knew this was coming, but he still supported a 7% raise in taxes as did the others except for Wayne. At least they see things in front of them this year.

[Guest]

Tom would be the best choice by far though I'm not sure he is running and I'm not sure he could get the votes since he's not part of the 3 person alliance. He did a great job before and is the only true independent on the board. Unlike some others he doesn't continue to praise Linda Greenstein for doing absolutely nothing to help us...

[Jay T.]

I also would support Mr. Panconi as mayor at this point. Mr. Stannard and Ms. Stave would be fine if Mr. Panconi does not want to hold the position.

I am concerned at the idea of having a person retain the Mayor's role for 3 years in a row. It's not a personal issue, only that since the role is honorary and the town does not vote for a Mayor. I believe that it should rotate among the members of the committee.

[Guest]

Does the public have a say on who will be the Mayor? Or is it a decision by the TC members?

[Jay T.]

The TC chooses the Mayor. We don't vote on the Mayor here in Cranbury.

[Guest]

Hope Mr. Panconi reconsiders, based on his performance this year, I would like to see him as Cranbury mayor in 2009. He made some hard public decisions this year by going independent showing that he is more interested in the welfare of Cranbury, not party politics.

[Guest]

[Frugality in Cranbury]

[Guest]

Will someone please post here tonight when this has been determined?

Thanks.

[Guest]

Pari Stave was selected as mayor by the TC.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Not surprising. Stout, Stave and Stannard collectively control the vote -- they can just continue to share the job as long as they hold a majority and act as a unified party, as they have all this time. Ultimately thye just had to settle it amongst themselves and unless they were in-fighting there was no shot for anyone else and therefore no purpose to even throw their hats in the ring...

I am not hopeful. This just means more business as usual. If Win had not been elected, I'm sure by the next agenda they would be pursuing the PNC site again. At least he and Tom can still collectively assure they can't pursue any pet spending projects without some kind of check on them...

[Guest]

You have no idea what you are talking about with regards to Pari and the regulation baseball field. I have seen a number of comments about Pari and Dave with regards to the baseball field. I think that you use this issue just to take unfair anonymous shots at them.

[Jeff M.]

I am not sure what the poster believes was Pari's responsability or David's. It's true that the cost over runs for the contaminated field are not the direct result of actions of anyone on the TC.

However, in speaking with the town office there are 2 grants we have recieved. Those two cover the whole cost of the field today and their original intent was in fact to cover all items involved in the build.

Due to the cost over runs, the money designated for bleachers, dugouts, fencing, signage, etc... has already been spent on the construction to date. Therefore, due to the over runs the TC will have to ask the county for additional funds or cover the remaining cost through in house funds.

The ballfield was in fact a pet project by Pari, Richard, David, Tom and Becky. You can look at the meeting notes from 2004 and there was a unanimous vote of the TC which was all Democrat at the time. Therefore, I hold all of them responsible for the field and costs.

There is also speculation of the township doing a town wide revaluation. I am opposed to this as we have warehouses and commercial property sitting empty. So while the value of our homes has decreased, the commercial has decreased more. Another revaluation will further burden the residential tax payers.

[Guest]

It seems to me there are only two ways to interpret the decision of the people who pushed for and voted in favor of the Babe Ruth field. One is to assume they were smart and competent enough to understand that while their "intent" may have been to get it totally covered by County money that overuns in construction are not just possible but probable and that there was always a good chance Cranbury would have to help foot the bill. Therefore it is immaterial that the overuns weren't part of their plan and they still have to accept responsibility for committing the township to a project that they knew might cost taxpayers as well as deeding public land to a private organization to support something that best case would only benefit a tiny fraction of township citizens and at worse none of them. In all their defense of the decision I have never seen any concrete imperical evidence that they had good data to suggest that this field would get used by a meaningful number of Cranbury citizens or that their was a need for another Babe Ruth field in our area.

The other interpretation is that they didn't understand all that, in which case they are incompetent to be in a position of authority within our Township. I hope the former is more correct. But either way it is silly to defend the result as unexpected or out of their control.

Also, either way, it is dumb and unethical to say "its all County money so we don't have to worry about it." County money is us too -- it is still ultimately our tax dollars. So the fundamental question still stands -- what is the justification for this expense, regardless of the source of funds? I would like to see their supporters stop debating the nit picky issues of where the money comes from and who supported what and instead come up with some real facts to support why it was a good use of public funds, period. Is spending over $1 million of this field good public policy and if so why?