Off with their heads!

[davidk]

Your right Sal, the original petition was done improperly and should not have been allowed.
The names were gathered during the primary term and it is illegal to have a referendum on the primary ballot.
the petitions should have been re canvassed in the general term but they were not.
The story I was told by an election official is that when the mistake was discovered the then Election Board attorney allowed the petitions to be carried forward. Either he did not know or care about the law.
I'm not sure about the start date for the petitions to be circulated but please be careful not to start too early as the people who will oppose this idea will use it to void the names. The starting date should be either the second or third week in July and definetly ends on August 2 which is the thirteenth Tuesday prior to the election.
Also, Sue stated in an earlier post about being nervous about taking too much time in the booth.
Legally an elector has three minutes to be in the booth. Not that the judge is holding a stop watch but do not feel pressed when in there. Voting is too important to be rushed. Take your time and double check each lever.
If your at Newton and there is a dispute see me if I'm there.
Do not hesitate to ask questions or complain if you see something that looks funny. This is Lackawanna County and shenanigans are the rule, not the exception. I have seen plenty myself and even made the call that lead to the impounding of the machines in Sherwood vs Casey Round 1. Though that action was in Scranton not Newton.
The night of the election I strongly advise at least one person obtain watchers papers for Newton to oversee the count especially the petition.
I usually have papers myself and they are legally required to be in the room after the polls close. Though I may not be here that night as I am working another campaign.

[burmese1]

davidk,


Please explain how this issue will affect the November election. Will all the current supervisors have to run again for the office, or will only two spots be up for grabs? It seems to me that it would make more sense to keep the five-supervisor board and simply place all five spots up for grabs. That way, Newton voters dissatisfied with the current supervisors have the option to replace some (or all) of them, while allowing the five-supervisor system its deserved trial run.

In any case, I think June to November is too short of a timeframe for all Newton voters to educate themselves on the ins-and-outs of this issue.

[Sal]

Hello burmese1.

The first post in this topic explains how it works.

Essentially, it does not have any effect on the November election.  All that will happen is a question will be placed on the ballot the question being “Should this township return to a three-member board of supervisors?  Yes  No”

If the majority vote no, everything stays the same.  If they vote yes, I will quote Dave’s first post.

If it passes then next year we have an election for three new supervisors. The current ones can run if they choose. The top vote getter is in for 6 years, the second 4 years and third 2 years. They would take office in Jan 2006. After that it's back to six year terms which are staggered.

I think there is plenty of time between now and November for people to understand the ins and outs.  It is not that complicated.

The only problem that we had with three supervisors is that we did not have active and organized citizens in this township to help the minority supervisor and that has changed.  However, when we had three supervisors, you could tell when there was a problem and there were times when residents would go in and put a stop to it.  It is much more difficult to do that when you have five that stick together.  I attended many meetings when there were three supervisors and more than enough meetings with five.  In theory, you would think that we would be better off with five supervisors.  All to often theory and reality is completely different.  

The argument that five supervisors prevent two from voting against one is ridiculous.  With five supervisors, three could vote against two so there is no difference.  In addition, in Newton Township we have something a lot worse.  The five supervisors made a deal you give me what I want and next time I’ll give you what you want.  It is obvious to anyone that attends meetings.  There is never any real deliberation because they made a deal.  The only way to correct this is to break it up.

[susie]

Hi Everyone!!  So if I read this post right, it's really not the number of supervisors that's important, it's the job that they do.  You can have the same problems with three as you can with five. With the major problem of having five in getting enough people to run for the position.  And if no one runs then the others get to appoint someone and that I don't think is a good thing.  

[davidk]

Susie,
It is a combination of the number of elected officials (regardless of office) and how they do their job.
It is better to have fewer people in office as the fewer the easier it is for the electorate to control the situation.
I have to double check but I believe with five the majority turns over every 6 years rather than 4 with a three person board. The terms are staggered so that one seat comes up every two years in a municipal election (i.e. odd numbered year, general elections are in even number years and include state and federal offices).
Okay, I just scratched it out on paper and this is how it looks to me;

05 Jamison and Kerrigan (I think TJ had the two year seat but lets just use his name anyway)

07 Martenson and Pardue

09 Shaffer again

11 Jamison and Kerrigan

13 Martenson and Kerrigan

15 Shaffer again

It's harder to change the majority with 5 than three both in number of seats as well as time.

There is also the problem of getting people to run. As has been noted Shaffer only went last year when he saw no one else was going in the primary. He literally waited till the last moments to file his nominating petition, waiting outside the elections office to see if anyone else would file.
If a seat came open tomorrow I do not know who the board would choose to fill the temporary position. I seriously doubt anyone would step forward.
It is difficult enough getting spots on the advisory boards filled, let alone taking on the role of supervisor.

[davidk]

Scrap my 4 an d 6 comments. I did that in my head which is not a good thing to do. Just use the chart.
I have to learn to proof my posts.

[burmese1]

test

[davidk]

Burmese1,
Let me take this oportunity to clarify some things in your posts concerning my quote and my position in the township.
When I said potential and qualified here is what I meant.
Someone who was willing to put their name on the ballot and run. In recent years there has not exactly been a line for this and since 1999 there has been only three contests.
These include Jamison versus Smith and Kveragas vs. Cosner in 99. Kerrigan vs. Martenson in 01.
There were no contests for the two expansion seats or for the open seat last year. Shaffer ran only when he saw, literally in the closing minutes, that no one else was filing. If someone had filed he would not have submitted his petition.
By qualified I meant someone who knows exactly what the job entails and has preferably, but not necessarily, been involved with the township on an advisory board or at least is familiar with situations going on in recent months or years.
I know of one candidate who ran on a whim and another who was looking to ease a personal project in the township. This was years ago and fortunately they did not come close even in the primary.
I am sure there are candidates who are qualified who have not served on any boards but they are to my knowledge few, i.e. the slim pickings.
All current members, except for Jamison, have served on boards. Four of the five have been on Planning with three having served as chair.
If you know anyone who you believe is qualified please let us know.  If the referendum passes we will need to compile a list.
As for my ties to the media. I wrote a column for approximately 2.5 years for the Journal. It was an unpaid position. I had no influence on the paper.
The columnist position is open, all anyone need do is go in and ask for it.
My status in the township is not that of insider, at least not by Newton standards. I know what is going on by virtue of my presence whenever possible. I attend meetings reguarly and have done so for over ten years.
If I were an insider I would not have been on the side of those who opposed the garbage contract or have voted against the expansion of the board.
Nor would I have dared even consider running for either of the elected offices I have without at least consulting the insiders, let alone garnering their approval.
I took the initive in returning to a three meber board because I was oppossed to it from the start, and in the mentime have seen that it is not working out.
You seem to believe that party affiliation has something to do with this. It doesn't.
Look at how the board is run. If the minority party member was outvoted on a regular basis it would be one thing but party partisanship is not a factor.
Newton is heavily Republican and has been so for generations. This is true of almost the entire Abington area. It is not about to change.
I actually left the party for a time and was independent. I will probably go back to that status in the near future and if I were to run again it woulod be as an independent. It's not as if the party gave me any more support than the insiders.

[burmese1]

et

[susie]

I have also wondered what the supervisors think of the five versus three issue.  I don't exactly know what time constraints are involved in being a supervisor, but does five instead of three reduce the workload for each individual allowing them more time to spend on things.  Is there really too much work for three or not enough for five. Does having five allow more versatility in covering issues as in if one can't make it to check on something, someone else can pick it up.  I think we also have to think of it as running a business and what is the optimal number of employees to get the work done correctly.       Actually, it just dawned on me that they are the public's employees and it is really up to the public to 'supervise' them to a certain extent.        I never really thought of it that way before.  I do mean that they have to know what they are doing more so than us in regard to running the township, but we do have to watch that they stay on the right track and are doing what's best for the township and it's people.

[davidk]

Burmese1,
If the issue makes it to the ballot, I should say when as I think it will easily, there will probably be a debate.
That is one of the best things about Newton, we usually have a meet the candidates forum at the Rec Center.
I remember the ones for Congress as well as County Commissioner in the past.

No, being a member of a committe or board is not a requirement for candidacy, though it does help when running.
If you or anyone else is thinking of running please go for it. I would love to see a wide open race. I cannot stand to see a seat unchalleneged.
That is a reason I ran for school board last year. There was only Cathy running and she was going to crossfile.
I do not believe in crossfiling and did not do it.
With that in mind there will be a seat here in the AHSD Region 2 next year. It is currently held by DiRitter and he needs a challenger.
Their will also be at large seats for the board also.
I should open a thread on the school board here too. Thye fly pretty much under the radar except for the strike situation.
I will do it in the coming days too late tonight.

[Sal]

Well Susie,

Two of the current supervisors told me that they thought we were better off with three supervisors but that was before other supervisors became part of the club.  

There is really not much of a workload and if there were, the supervisors are permitted to hire people to handle it so it is not really an issue.  Besides, there are townships much larger that Newton with only three supervisors.  Being a supervisor is not as difficult as you might think.  Township supervisor is one of the lowest government position however, it can be rewarding and a great learning experience.  On the other hand, some people like to make a career out of it and they really should step aside so that other people can gain from the experience.  In addition, there is nothing preventing a former supervisor from helping out but you rarely see that in Newton.  Once they are done grabbing whatever they can for themselves, they are gone.  Personally, I have lot more respect for people that are without titles and do things to help the community then I do for supervisors.

[susie]

I just sat down and reread the entire post.  There is alot to learn in it!!!  I now fully understand what davidk was trying to say in that with 5 supervisors the turnover of the majority would be slower.  Sorry davidk,  I seem to have missed that previously.  But I blame busyness on not being able to really put my mind on what was being said.  I had to take the time and carefully read all the posts which I just did this am.    

[JoeP]

When I was out collecting signatures for the petition, I heard many comments from the fine residents of Newton regarding how they saw the Township being run, things that could have been done better and the Township Supervisors.  I will not violate the privacy of these conversations.  But one comment I must share, which summarizes just about everything I heard, was that the Township Secretary should run for Supervisor - she does more work than all of them!

The point of this post is to share something more sinister, specifically that some residents expressed a fear of the supervisors.  For example, some were reluctant to sign because they feared that if the supervisors saw their name on the petition, they might be "repercussions" from them.  Others expressed a fear to post things on the Newton Pa Site for the same reason.

Repercussions?  If even the perception of this exists with Newton residents, then this is a sad state of affairs that should only strengthen our resolve to change things.  For the later group I said they can post on the Newton site by registering with an alias - like "scooby-do"  and keeping their Email address private by going to Profile and clicking the NO button to the question Always Show My Email Address.

We can use all the signatures we can get.  There is a copy of the petition in Stanges Store at the checkout counter.  Please consider signing it if you haven't already.

Remember, the purpose of this petition is only to get a question put on the November ballot asking if we should return to 3 supervisors.  If you reluctant to sign consider this: - getting the question put on the ballot will send a message to the current supervisors that it better not be business as usual because many residents are not only fed up, we are watching and organizing.

Thanks,
Joe

[davidk]

Joe,
Thanks for your efforts in circulating the petition.
I am not suprised by the sentiments you have received. Fear of elected officials is ingrained in this area going back to the days of the Coal Barons.
All I can suggest is that you explain to the people that by signing the petition you are simply asking that the issue be placed on the ballot. It is not costing the taxpayers anything and they are under no obligation to vote in favor.
Also, when that curatin is pulled only they know how they vote, no one else. That is unless they vote by absentee and the ballot proceedures are not followed. Though I will be there to oversee that action.
The people also have to understand that there may not be enough candidates to fill the open positions. Remember, Shaffer only ran because no one else filed. There was no real interest.
If no one runs then a replacement is chosen either by the board with or without the vacancy chairman input or by the courts. Does anyone really want this?
In all fairness not all of the supervisors are slack in their responsibilities. I know two that put in many hours weekly and are quite responsive to the residents.
Francine can't run for supervisor as she lives in Ransom.