Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Proposal opposed by local officials
BY TOM HESTER SR.
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
Legislation designed to encourage local governments to share public services as a way to cut costs was approved by the state Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee Monday.
The proposal (S-2) would require state’s Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and Consolidation Commission (LUARCC) to study municipal governments to determine where taxpayer dollars could be saved through sharing of services. If the study shows that a savings can be realized in one or more local governments or departments, the question of whether to do so or not would be put to a public referendum in all cities or towns involved, assuming those municipalities do not enter into a shared services agreement on their own.
If the towns involved fail to either enter into a shared services agreement or pass the proposal by public referendum, they would be subject to losing state aid in the amount equal to what they would have saved had they shared the service. If one town approves it but another denies it, only the town that denied it would lose aid.
Civil service rules would be suspended or relaxed for employees impacted by any shared services agreement that is reached. The move is designed to address a concern raised by local government leaders that civil service rules serve as a barrier to sharing services. In putting together the legislation.
Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester), a prime sponsor, said he met with local officials to garner their insight on the proposal.
“If governments don’t wish to run their towns more cost-effectively, there is no reason the taxpayers of New Jersey should have to foot their bill,” Sweeney said. “It is time we start providing the necessary incentives to get us moving on shared services. Towns can share services with each other while not losing their individual identity or the uniqueness of their communities.”
Sen. Christopher “Kip” Bateman (R-Somerset) charges the Senate Democratic majority “stole” the bill he sponsored in the past as (S-3146) or (S-910).
“Democrats, the Senate president and this committee did the right thing today, number one, for taxpayers,” Bateman said. “As residents, the governor and Senate president know, we have to emphasize more shared services.”
The New Jersey League of Municipalities, the lobbying arm for local governments, opposes the bill.
“While we appreciate many of those provisions, we must oppose the bill, as currently drafted,” League Director Bill Dressel said. “Our opposition is directed solely at the taxpayer penalty provision …. Under that provision, the voters would be threatened with the diminishment of future CMPTRA funding, if they do not vote in favor of a LUARCC shared services recommendation.
Voters should hold elected officials accountable; not the other way around,” Dressel said. “We must oppose any proposal which would, on the one hand, allow the voters to express their will; but, on the other hand, inform those voters that they will be punished, if their will does not comport with that of a majority of the appointed members of the LUARCC. As taxpaying citizens of the State of New Jersey, our taxpayers must be allowed the unencumbered right to determine the future government of their communities. And they must be assured equitable access to the benefits secured by their own tax dollars. We will continue to urge state legislators to remove that provision.”
The legislation now moves to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee for consideration.
"If the towns involved fail to either enter into a shared services agreement or pass the proposal by public referendum, they would be subject to losing state aid".
So the citizen should be asking; Why bother with a referendum? If the NJ State Legislators think they know so much better than the people, don't waist any time or money on elections, just force it right into our face!
And then there is this from Senate President Steve Sweeney
"If governments don’t wish to run their towns more cost-effectively, there is no reason the taxpayers of New Jersey should have to foot their bill,”
Really Steve Sweeny? Perhaps the money these towns send to Trenton that are collected from taxing their residents should just stop sending it all to Trenton. It's "THEIR" money and i have a feeling they can all pay their own bills.
Bare with me because what I'm about to say might sound off subject. But if you come to understand what is happening in other areas of our state government you'll begin to see a pattern.
Currently their is a state appointed committee moving through NJ. They have held 4 public hearings so far with just two remaining. One of which is tonight "Tuesday" at Monmouth University, 6pm. The hearings are about a plan called "NJ Redevelopment Plan". The bill written about in this article looks to me as if it is an outside step preparing to institute this Redevelopment Plan. The game plan is to have regions rather than towns. To allow the state to make micro-management decisions on all issue concerning towns and it's citizens. Issues such as, where people can conduct certain business or what type of house or how much acreage you need or can build on. This all from the state level rather than your local towns. The plan is written in vague verbiage with a vocabulary not used by every day people. Words such as "Sustainability" "Sustainable Towns" "Sustainable Living" "Sprawl" "Industrial corridor". It goes on and on like a Freshman in high school tried to write a legal paper.
I suggest people look into this ridiculous notion that Representatives and bureaucrats from Trenton should, over time some how completely take over every function of our daily living.
The language and intent in this plan is so vague that it is easy to see that over time the loss of private property rights "For Almost Everyone" is in the works.
On the introduction to this plan a few paragraphs down it reads
"The State Plan is the result of a Cross-acceptance process that
included thousands of New Jersey citizens in hundreds of public forums..."
This statement in it self is a lie. So why would anyone not question the intent of this plan. For starters, the truth of the matter is that this plan has been in the making for a while and the only public that had a say in it are special interest groups. In actuality there has been very limited access to have a say in this plan for the general public. The people it will have the largest effect upon. There have been a total of 6 meetings arranged through out the state jammed into a two week period with on average approximately 100-200 citizens attending "depending on which meeting. 6 "six" meetings not hundreds, 500 "five-hundred" Citizens not Thousands!
Bill Dressel deserves an applause for his common sense. We don't have to much of that in government nowadays. But there is more to this issue than meets the eye.