Peter Marks writes to us: “Appointed commissioners and paid consultants, many with no experience in consolidation, have prepared a “roadmap” which they expect will determine the shape, size, and functions of our future (consolidated) government. Commission meetings were open to the public, but there were no public hearings on the many substantive judgments which are the basis for the projected cost savings. The judgments span staff reductions, future services, required infrastructure, and the location, expansion and/or divestiture of existing muncipal buildings. Some issues, e.g. leaf removal in the Township, were not addressed. Others, e.g., the closing of Borough Hall, the expansion of Township Hall, the relocation and downsizing of the police force, are presented as a foregone conclusion — i.e. as necessary components of the consolidation package.
If consolidation is approved, the pre-selected transition team will begin almost immediately to plan and implement restructuring and staffing cuts, including a major reduction in the police force. Members of the consolidated municipal government will not be elected until November 2012, and, once elected, will have only eight weeks to decide on the transition team’s recommendations. This is a prescription for the rubber stamping of a “roadmap” defined by unelected commissioners.
Will a vote for consolidation be construed as an endorsement of the Consolidation Commission’s entire package of prescriptions and recommendations — with the result that major decisions will have been made with minimal scrutiny by either the public or our elected officials (e.g. the appropriate size and distribution of our police force)? In
their rush to sell the concept of consolidation, even adherents are likely to find that they have implicitly approved changes that some may later have reason to regret. Isn’t it reckless to vest implementation in the Consolidation Commission? Their role, now completed, was to study the mechanics and financial impact of consolidation. A new group, preferably dominated by a future council, should decide how best to implement consolidation, if in fact it is approved.”
As a sidenote, unfortunately the RFP sent out by the Commission when hiring a consultant to assist them did not address the question of whether consolidation itself was a good or bad idea, but instead assumed consolidation was the right thing to do and asked for assistance in how to structure a consolidation. From the onset, the Commission steered the intent of the study away from retaining the status quo by limiting the scope of the work to municipal consolidation or shared police/public works services. From Day One, the Commission dismissed the status quo and once awarded the contract Joe Stefko assumed that one of these options had to occur thus eliminating complete objectivity. Stefko had to work backwards to come to a recommendation prescribed by the RFP.
Princeton In Depth 