Charter Study News

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

Charter Study Commission Candidates Set Themselves Apart
By Keith Hagarty



The question of whether to form a charter study commission to look into the various forms of government available to Howell is slated for the November 7 ballot. If voters approve the formation of a commission, they will also be asked to decide who should sit on the commission.

Two members of the rival groups of opposing candidates, Barry Goldberg and John Lebrio, spoke with The Howell Times, wanting voters to understand what they will be voting on and why they should cast their votes in favor of their ticket.

If the question is approved, a commission would be formed in January, with their recommendation for or against a new form of government, then sent to the council nine months later for review, before finally being posed to voters on the November 2007 ballot.

The three Republicans, two Democratic ticket is comprised of Michael J. Revier, of Driftway Road, Robin A. Shaughnessy, of Richard Road, Jeanine E. Raccuglia, of Squankum-Yellowbrook Road, William J. Adams, of Kent Road and Bruce Goldberg, of Brickyard Road.

The second slate of candidates includes a mix of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, including John J. Lebrio, of Starlight Road, Reinhard "Fritz" Kirchhof, of Moses Milch Drive, Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio of Estelle Lane, of William H. Field, of Spring Hill Drive and George Y. Wyatt, of Spicy Pond Road. All of the candidates on the ticket, aside from Wyatt, were members of the political-action group known as R.A.F.T. (Real Accountability For Taxpayers) who actively pushed last year for the change of government over to a ward system.

Howell currently has a council-manager form of government, whereby the council members are policy makers elected to represent the community. The manager is then appointed by the mayor and council to carry out their policies and ensure the community is being served.

As a registered Democrat on the politically mixed ticket, Barry Goldberg told The Howell Times he is proud of the diversity of political ideologies his group would bring to the table if elected, believing that such a commission could be a benefit to the community.

"Why not take a look at it in these times?" Goldberg

said of the proposed

charter study commission. "Why not take a look at the form of government and see if we can make it better for the needs and wants of the township?

With R.A.F.T. pushing hard for change of government last year, Lebrio said he's happy his group helped prompt the ballot question.

"It makes me feel great that once again you had to have grass roots people bring these things up," he said. "We had been studying these changes in the form of government since May of last year, so we have a pretty good head start on what forms of government Howell falls under and basically this would give us a formal incentive to sit down and whether there should be a change in the form of government or not."

Questions Of Objectivity

While Goldberg said he can appreciate and respect the initiative shown by the R.A.F.T. members, he and his running mates were driven to run in order to bring objectivity to the commission.

"I had heard talk around town that there was already one group (of charter study commission candidates) formed and they were part of the R.A.F.T. group, and it seemed to me that if they got elected, the people of Howell wouldn't get a fair shake," said Goldberg. "Because the whole thing (commission) is set upon being open minded and looking for other forms of government."

Goldberg is concerned that the R.A.F.T. members on the rival ticket have already made up their minds on what government they want to have, namely, a ward system.

"It's not even that I disagree with their stance, it's just that this whole (charter study commission) would be put together to find out if the form of government needs to be changed in Howell, or if it needs to stay the same," he said. "I already think they made up their mind-I wouldn't be involved if I didn't think that."

"You can't go in there being opinionated already," he added. "You have to look at everything."

Lebrio strongly disagrees, saying that having the experience of him and his fellow R.A.F.T. members, who extensively studied the various forms of government available to municipalities, would be a major benefit to the commission. While R.A.F.T. did initially recommend a ward system, Lebrio said circumstances in the town have changed.

"At the time after all of our studying, that (the ward system) was the one we came up with that seemed to be the best, but since that time our population has increased to the point where we're now considered a city and not a suburb anymore, so that opens it up a little more to different forms of government," said Lebrio.

R.A.F.T. members have made no secret of their initial preference for a ward system of government, whereby the town is segmented into voting districts, with each district voting for an elected official.

"All along you kept hearing things about what do the people in north Howell know about the people in south Howell and visa versa, and if you had three out of five council people that came from one area, that just doesn't represent the entire town," said Lebrio. "But if you break it up into a ward system, at least you would have people familiarized with the particular area that they live in and would have a more direct input into what that particular part of the town needs."

While he would review such a system if elected and determine whether it is a good fit for Howell, Goldberg isn't convinced right now that it's the way to go.

"It's just that from what I've read in looking into the ward system, I can see that Newark, Paterson and Atlantic City haven't really had success with it," he said. Dover Township is one of the few nearby municipalities to have a ward system of government.

"That system may work for them and it could work for Howell, but who knows?" said Goldberg. "I'm going to go into this thing objectively ... we're going to look into everything."

If the voters are going to vote for a charter commission to review the best options for town government, then Goldberg wants to see them make the best decision.

"I don't think the other group is going to

give a fair and objective opinion," he said. "If the residents are going to vote on it, then they should have people in there that's going to give them an honest opinion."

The members of R.A.F.T. are just as concerned about the motivations of those on the opposing ticket, said Lebrio, pointing to the family connections two of them share with a GOP candidate for council.

"If anything, there's more of a direct conflict of interest on their slate than the fact of this guy worrying about there being four R.A.F.T. members on our team," Lebrio responded.

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

My response:

[size=14]Dear Editor:
I read with interest the article, Charter Study Commission Candidates Set Themselves Apart by Keith Hagarty.  I was most interested in the concerns voiced by Mr. Goldberg on my objectivity and that of my running mates.

I suggest Mr. Goldberg get his own house in order before casting aspersions on others.  The fact is that two of Mr. Goldberg’s running mates are closely related to one of the Republican candidates for council.

With a full benefits package at stake, I fail to see how Mrs. Raccuglia, and her brother in law, Mike Revier, would vote in a manner that would affect her husband negatively.  If Mr. Raccuglia wins the election, Mrs. Raccuglia would have to make the choice of putting her husband up for another grueling election, possibly losing a fully paid benefits package worth several thousand dollars.  If he loses, it would definitely be in her best interest to give her husband a second chance to reap those benefits.  I hardly see how this could be construed as “objective”.  

It appears Mr. Goldberg and I differ in opinion on the role of the commission. Mr. Goldberg seems to be under the impression that the commission should decide whether to give the public any choices, which follows the current administration’s policy of excluding the public from the process of government.   Indeed, the mayor campaigned hard AGAINST putting a question on the ballot last year and the close ties between Mr. Goldberg’s slate and the mayor, who also acts as campaign manager for the Republican candidates, which includes Mrs. Raccuglia’s husband, are obvious.

I believe we should let the public decide if this form of government is working for THEM.  I believe the public has a right to be included in the process and our leaders have an obligation to allow the public to exercise that right.  This should not be a decision left to 5 people, as my running mates and I have always believed.  The 5 people elected should look for the best alternative to our present form of government and LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

Sincerely,

Sharon Carpenter-Migliaccio[/size]

[Vincent_Mattera]

Sharon,
Well written, well said, nuff said!

[John Lebrio]

Sharon,
Your letter is to the editor is exactly what the people of Howell need to read. Well done! Unlike the opposition, our focus has always been what is best for the residents of Howell.

[Jim_Burgess]

[size=14]You're Joking I'm sure[/size]

[John Lebrio]

What exactly are we joking about?

[Vincent_Mattera]

John,
Sharon's letter is right on the money. As a matter of fact, I think I see a question that needs to be asked of the Republican candidates!
 

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

[size=14]And from Wikipedia:

nepotism:
 
Nepotism means favouring relatives because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities.[/size]

[Jeanine]

Campaigns such as the one taking place within our Township are difficult on the candidates but I would say they are even more difficult on the candidate’s families. We so often have to turn a deaf ear to the criticism, the accusations, the innuendo, and the mean spirited and purposely hurtful rants on community boards. As spouses, we live with “our candidates” every day. We know them. We truly know them.

I watch my husband of twenty-four years with our children as a giving caring father. I watch him hard at work each day with our family owned business in order to provide a wonderful life for our two sons and me. I watched him as a loving son and now I witness the care and love he affords his grieving mother every day since his father’s recent passing. I watch him spend countless hours at the Little League fields umpiring games, coaching children and working with the parents, coaches and volunteers in an effort to make the League a place the children and families will always remember fondly.

As spouses, we sit at our kitchen tables for hours and talk about the positives and negatives of running for Council in this Township. Finally, often reluctantly, we offer our support. We recognize in their eyes and in their words the commitment to truly want to help our community and we know the sincerity in their hearts to do so. It is difficult because we know their will be unkind words, and unwarranted attacks, but as spouses, we take a deep breath and relent and hope that people will attempt to see in our spouses all the good that we have seen for the many years we have known them.

I have spoken with spouses of candidates on both the Republican and Independent slate about how difficult this process can become.

When the attacks begin and our children hear them, we attempt to explain that it is simply adults behaving badly and partisan politics and hope that they will not be hurt too badly by the words of others.

What you don’t expect however, and cannot prepare yourself for is when the attacks come from a family member. For those of you who are not aware, Sharon Migliaccio is my cousin. We are both candidates for the Charter Study Commission to research alternate forms of government for the Township, as is Robin Shaughnessy who also happens to be Councilman Walsh’s cousin. (Sharon failed to mention that in her letter to the editor, a copy of which she posted on this board)

It seems that Ms. Migliaccio was upset about an article in the Howell Times. Ms. Migliaccio took exception with the suggestion that individuals who had already decided that a ward system would be the best form of government in Howell and had gone on record as saying so, might not be the most open-minded individuals to sit on a committee to decide what the best form of government for the township should be.

Maybe in the future when the Independent side is asked to offer a group of individuals for an important study such as this, they will more wisely choose to offer a group, who's majority has not already made up their minds.

As for Ms. Migliaccio’s accusations regarding my ability to remain impartial, I will respond with the following: I was asked about a year ago and long before my husband considered running for council, to consider being part of this study. If I am elected to serve in that capacity, I will take the job very seriously.

Unlike you Sharon, I will wait until the study is completed before making up my mind. I will look at all evidence that is presented in a fair, open-minded, impartial and non-partisan fashion. That is what we are being asked to do if we are elected for this role.

Think about this Sharon: You question my impartiality as you offer to serve on a committee to decide a question you have already (very publicly) decided.

Since you are now offering definitions here is an accurate one:

Hypocrite: somebody who gives a false appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, and feelings.

Sharon, nepotism means favoritism shown by somebody in power to relatives or friends, especially in appointing them to positions.

The position in which I may serve is elected not appointed. If elected, I will not be “someone in power”. Therefore I can’t be guilty of nepotism. I cannot make policy. I will be only one voice on a committee of individuals whose only purpose is to offer recommendations to the Township Council.  

To imply that my integrity or that of my husband would be compromised by a “benefits package” for a Council job that pays $5,500 a year salary is as ludicrous as it is sad. It is sad that an intelligent woman would embarrass herself and our families by becoming little more than a party mouthpiece.

Jeanine Raccuglia

 

Ms. Baratta,

I have been continually asked by my husband not to post or read this type of nonsense and he is right I am sure. But since my cousin Sharon did not respond to my call to her home, I felt forced to respond in this forum.

I am sorry but that will be it for me as far as posts, so Sharon can continue to carry on publicly or she can simply chose to return my call.

Frankly, I now have to explain all this to my mother and I am disgusted.

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

Yes, I have absolutely decided that the question of the form of government in this town should be decided by the VOTERS, not 5 people.

Call that not being impartial if you will.

You will have the power to allow the public to decide this question or not.  Your husband's campaign manager, Mayor Joseph DiBella, tried everything he could to not allow this question to go to the voters last year, including circumventing proper procedure when adopting an ordinance/resolution.

As recently as last month Peter Tobasco said this form of government is working just fine.  Nothing impartial about that.

I have nothing to lose or benefit by allowing this question to go to the public.  You, however, have a vested interest.

Sorry you feel it is personal, it is not.  But you know that.

[Kathy_Baratta]

[size=14]
Jeanine, (May I call you Jeanine?),

You do not owe me any kind of an explanation for your post.

I will only say at this point that I hope you will continue to post in the future when issues arise about which you hold an opinion.

My best to you and Mauro who has my continued respect,

KB[/size]

[Jim_Burgess]

I don't think anyone with any common sense can deny the fact that the five candidates, 4 of which were members of RAFT, have already made up their minds as to the form of Goverment we should have. Numerous newspaper articles are available to back this up.

[Sharon Carpenter Migliaccio]

The 5 members don't decide the form of government, the VOTERS do.

What the 5 people decide is IF the voters will have that chance.

As for deciding which form to put up to the voters, yes we have done a lot of research, research that the other slate would have to do as well.  What is attractive is the fact that a Charter Study would have the opportunity to have open public hearings and invite people from other towns to speak about their experiences.  That would give added insight into which form to put to the voters.

Maybe you should inform Mr Goldberg that Jackson decided against a ward system, and several people on that Charter Study also pushed for a change in the form of government to a ward system a year or so before.

They changed their minds....I would be interested in hearing why they did so.

However, if the question NEVER goes to the voters, then the voters of Howell have been disenfranchised.

THAT is my concern...and one the Republican backed platform has clearly made reference to...NOT giving voters a choice....following the present administrations lead.

[Sue_Veitengruber]

In fact, Sharon, Charter Study Commissions are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act,Open Public Records Act and a myriad of other State laws. The CSC will not be able to have their meetings at the URC gatherings, closed to the public.  Bet they didn't know that.

[Jim_Burgess]

But when your minds are already made up, input from the citizens falls on deaf ears.