Concurrence on Electing the Mayor in a Council - Manager form of Government

The League of Women Voters of Fair Lawn studied the question of whether Fair Lawn should elect its mayor separately from the council, an option under a Council - Manager form of government, Fair Lawn's current form. The committee consisting of Lorrie Sherwood, Jane Spindel and Sylvia Zasloff gathered information on other towns in New Jersey that elected their mayor separately. We did not study if another form of government would be better for Fair Lawn.

“Fair Lawn operates under a Council - Manager (Plan E of the Faulkner Act) form of Government. All policy making power is concentrated in the council. The mayor is a member of council, and simply presides over its meetings with no separate policy making power. The manager, appointed by council and fully accountable to it, is the municipal chief executive and administrative official." (From www.FairLawn.org).

In a council/manager form of government, the mayor's position is essentially ceremonial, in that the mayor runs the meetings and often is the approved representative of the council in public activities - an equal among equals.

The single most negative aspect of a separately elected mayor is that the mayoral candidate, running independently, comes with a constituency and agenda that may see the mayor and council working at cross purposes, creating a toxic environment, promoting gridlock and providing unnecessary diversion from addressing real issues. In one town, Ridgefield, the council actually declared that, instead of the mayor, would be using the mayor's office, ("A case of office politics: Council wants to evict mayor." Nick Clunn. The Record (Bergen County, NJ) (March 2, 2008): pL03.

It is our recommendation that the mayor continue to be chosen by the council for the following reasons:
Council members are already publicly elected and - -- because the mayor is elected from within the council, the public has had a voice in who sits on the council and who may become mayor.

NEW TREE ORDINANCE IN FAIR LAWN

In December, the Council passed a revised tree ordinance. It is far more extensive than the previous ordinance, and is designed to protect Borough as well as residential trees. A Shade Tree Advisory Committee has also been formed that will keep the Shade Tree Department informed about the condition of the borough's trees and the effectiveness of the ordinance. An educational component is planned in the very near future to teach about the importance of our trees.


Letter from Past president
Presidential Nominations - The Process

by Mary Burdick

The modern primary system consists of each state deciding how its primary is conducted. The entire process has been speeded up by front-loading,that is, vying to hold primaries earlier in the year. This puts enormous importance of the first primaries and caucuses. This year Iowa was first on Jan. 3. The following are given for illustrative purposes only; they may change in time for the next presidential election. Some variations among state rules include:

1) Secret ballots or open ballots

2) Closed primary - may vote only in party registered in, or open primary called cross-over- may vote in any primary or caucus. Independents may vote in either party's primary, sometimes automatically registering to vote in that party.

3) Presidential Preference Primary- actual name of candidate appears on the ballot or only names of convention delegate appear.

4) Delegates may support a candidate or declare themselves -uncommitted.

5) Delegates are bound or pledged to vote for the primary winner at national convention or all delegates are unpledged and may vote for any candidate at convention.

6) Selection of pledged delegates: Democratic party candidates are awarded delegates in proportion to their support in state primary or caucus. Republican party- each state chooses whether proportional method or winner-take-all.

The process itself is chaotic in the extreme to say nothing of expensive, consisting of either primary or caucus in each state and in each party within the state.

In Iowa the Republicans had a primary, a straight forward machine vote by eligible voters. The caucus, on the other hand, is much more informal beginning at 8 PM sharp, often lasting four to five hours. Democrats in each district met in homes, churches and schools, wherever space was available in clusters of supporters of each candidate and the uncommitted. Candidates with fewer than 15% of the total were disqualified, but their supporters were courted by supporters of the other candidates ot either reach the required 15% or to add to others to enhance their positions. This is all done in the open, no secret ballot under the terms of a 30 page manual not completely understood by anyone.

After millions of dollars spent, numerous debates, polls and much media attention about 3% of Iowa’s eligible voters took part and a few nominees dropped out. The chosen delegates, together with party leaders and elected officials go on to the county convention, congressional district conventions, state conventions, and finally winnowed down to the national convention. Iowa represents 1.3% of the delegates at convention.

When all the states' primaries are over, a noisy, gaudy, expensive entertainment takes place to crown the party's nominees.

Can the process be made more democratic? Several plans have been proposed. Congress may or may not have the constitutional authority to become involved. But the federal government is already involved with election related grants to the states.

The problem is, that once esconced in their elected seats, congresspersons are not interested in changing the system that put them there: an undemocratic process.