Hoboken's Municipal Elections Will Not Be Moved
The city council rescinded a prior decision to move municipal elections to November.
Hoboken residents will keep choosing their municipal representatives in May.
Although an ordinance was passed earlier this year to move municipal elections to November—when other, general elections, are also held—this measure was officially undone on Tuesay night.
In a 7-1 vote—Fourth Ward Councilman Tim Occhipinti voted against and First Ward Counciwoman Theresa Castellano was absent—the initial ordinance was rescinded.
Council President Ravi Bhalla sponsored rescinding the election move, after a couple of thousand residents signed a petition against it.
Although some of the majority council members, who have the support of Mayor Dawn Zimmer, said that there were issues with the petition, they voted to rescind the move nonetheless.
"I haven’t had a chance to review the signatures that have been submitted," said Fifth Ward Councilman Peter Cunningham who represents the northwestern part of town, "I’d like to see how many residents are from the fifth ward."
Bhalla said he heard other concerns about city government in the process. "I've heard we should not have nine people running this city," Bhalla said, continuing "there’s been complains about a December run off," which he said begs questions about a run-off in general.
Third Ward Councilman Russo, who voted against the move months ago, asked his fellow council members why they had changed their minds.
But, the people of Hoboken will still have a chance to cast their vote in a referendum in November. Hoboken's rent control advocates also completed a petition action and gathered more than 3,000 signatures to put the issue of rent control on the ballot.
Cheryl Fallick, a tenant advocate, attended Tuesday's special meeting. "I think this is a good thing," she told the council members, "to repeal something that 3,000 citizens protest." But, she added, that she would like to see the rent control ordinance rescinded as well.
The election move would have added six months to all council members' terms, as well as the mayor's term, which would also have added several board appointments to the hands of Zimmer and the council majority.
After all, it seemed that the move itself was less of a discussion than how the councl made the decision.
"I have no problems with moving elections to November," said Franz Paetzold, who went out to get signatures for the petition drive, "if that’s what the people want."
hobokenhorse.com
10:30 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Councilwoman Beth Mason also thanked Franz Paetzold for his efforts to keep the status quo elections from a November election. And also thanked Frank Raia.
More:
http://hobokenhorse.com
Redrider765
10:32 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
2 more dishonest people you probably couldn't find anywhere.
KenOn10
10:41 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
I'd still like to know why the CC wouldn't let the referendum go to the ballot. What is wrong with letting the voters decide? If the 3,000 signatures were invalid or gathered under false pretenses there is nothing to fear.
Redrider765
11:01 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Since when did the people backing the referendum ever let the voters decide anything? Aren't you at least a little bit afraid of a couple thousand $40 checks being issued to voters and how that will probably determine the outcome? Once a referendum like that gets passed, for several years after the fact you can't pass a law overruling the referendum. I personally don't want the vote buyers to get their way and have them kill any chance of moving elections to November. My guess is the CC before the expiration of their current terms will change when the terms expire but it won't take effect until the following term. They do it that way then nobody can complain about a 6 month power grab b/c the change doesn't take effect until the next term and voters will know of that ahead of time.
greenhaven
12:06 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ken - you appear to suffer from the misimpression that the petition actually asked to "let the voters decide." It did not. It asked that the ordinance be repealed. I'm guessing that there will a future conversation as to whether or not we should "let the voters decide" in 2012. It will be interesting to find out whether those who said they wanted to "let the voters decide" were telling the truth. If they truly want to let the voters decide then a 2012 referendum which will let the largest number of voters decide will give them nothing to fear. Do you support a referendum in 2012? Will you sign a petition that truly allows the voters to decide? I suspect we'll have the opportunity to find out next year. I would love to be the canvasser knocking on Mr. Paetzold's door asking him to either sign or explain why he's changed his mind about letting the people decide!
KenOn10
12:12 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
the whole point of moving the elections to November was to make it harder to buy votes. if Tim $40 and his ilk can buy off the referendum then the idea was flawed from the get go.
Redrider765
12:27 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ken, they only have to do it once for the referendum. They have to do it every election til the end of time if the change becomes permanent. Which do you think costs more? Think it through already.
greenhaven
2:02 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ken - why do you think the "whole point of moving elections to November was to make it harder to buy votes?" The votes are for sale no matter when the election is. The idea is to have elections at a time that overall turnout will be higher so it will be harder to buy elections (as opposed to votes). The highest turnout for a referendum by far will be in 2012 - what possible reason would there be for having it in 2011 instead other than to facilitate the purchase of the election? I hope you will support putting this on the 2012 ballot so that the "people" can truly decide.
KenOn10
3:38 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sounds to me like the Castle Point gazebo will be repaired before the referendum ever makes it to the ballot... but if it does, I'll happily vote to move the Muni election to November. In fact, I wish the CC had let it go to ballot and put up a fight (electorally speaking) but they apparently don't think it is worth the effort. Disappointing.
IMHO it would be better to directly address the problem with addition campaign reforms, i.e. cap campaign spending, outlaw PAC contributions, limit the number of "campaign workers"... or maybe establishing a minimum wage of $500 per worker? Or, revamp the vote-by-mail program, which may help some few seniors and shut-ins but is more about buying votes.
greenhaven
3:49 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ken - while I support the reforms you suggest they are simply not possible, except for the PAC limitation which the CC is doing. Capping campaign spending is unconstitutional, as is limiting campaign workers or establishing a minimum wage. Vote by mail is here to stay, and the reforms that would limit wrongdoing (like barring campaign workers and volunteers from handling ballots) are unlikely to be adopted by our state legislature. we need to make the changes we actually have the ability to get done, not fantasize about the changes that cannot be made.
KenOn10
6:39 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
"we need to make the changes we actually have the ability to get done"
considering how quickly the CC backed off on moving the election, that sounds a bit defeatist. we need to think of new ways to challenge the corrupt status quo. i'm already having nightmares about Mayor Occipinti.
Bet Mazin
7:16 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tim is nothing without me. I gave him the tens of thousands of dollars and that 4th ward seat is mine. I paid for it, end of story.
Tim can't get elected to anything without my checkbook. The Feds can't touch me, I'm good to go. Let's get the vote out for me early and often for mayor!
greenhaven
8:19 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ken - its not defeatist to choose strategies that give you the best chance of success. Flailing at windmills may be cathartic but its not effective. The CC made a move. The old guard countered. The ball is now back in the CC's court. Let's see what they do. Keep in mind the goal in all this is to have honest people get elected in honest elections. I think we've come a long way in that regard over the last few years. In the next election cycle we will either take another big step forward or give back what we've gained.
Andy
8:07 am on Thursday, September 15, 2011
I'm so sick of people like Pupi and Russo scr*wing the Hoboken voters - and wasting tremendous tax dollars in a time we can least afford it - by diluting our votes with multiple elections each year. What are you afraid of - having a fair and legal election with significant voter turnout if they are combined? Yeah, I guess that would scare people who live off corruption. Hence, the petitions.
cassandra
2:34 am on Friday, September 16, 2011
It seems to me that the administration is simply afraid of the voters. Rational, since most of the most recent municipal and school board elections haven;t been going their way. Not very principled.
InfotainMe
5:21 am on Friday, September 16, 2011
If the legislation is re-introduced next year, the referendum vote will take place against the backdrop of the presidential election in which the highest number of voters will participate. Who will be afraid of the voters then?
.
I would prefer that council elections align to congressional midterms while mayoral elections align to presidential years. There is a certain symmetry to that, and it guarantees maximum turnout, come what may. Moreover it could not be invoked until 2014 & 2016 respectively, thus paving over the issue of extending terms by 6 months. The strawman concerning inconvenience to seniors would also fold up and blow away. National elections will not be moved to suit anyone; since seniors need to vote then anyway - if at all - there is no additional burden.
.
Thoughts, Cassandra? Does this not maximize turnout? Is it not the cheapest alternative - pegging our election calendar to standing elections? Does it not place the referendum where the largest number of people can decide the issue? Does it not eliminate the "adding 6 months to their terms" issue?
.
I eagerly await your honest commentary.
cassandra
10:48 am on Friday, September 16, 2011
I agree with you. I guess the administration (council majority) is not as smart as you. On the other hand perhaps they were afraid of the Hoboken senior citizen vote - the vast majority of which are born and raised Hobokenites. Who knows?
FAP
11:15 am on Friday, September 16, 2011
Info can you show us in the law, likely the Faulkner Act, why elections are currently timed as they are and what legal mechanism exists to making the change you suggest? It's nice to say things should be changed but if the State has not given that option you're arguing with the wrong folks.
FAP
1:38 pm on Friday, September 16, 2011
BTW Info not trying to shut you down or even disagreeing with you. It would just be helpful to understand the legal reason why the elections are timed as they are and know what legal options exist to change them.
InfotainMe
8:28 pm on Friday, September 16, 2011
FAP, what I like about our side is that we get to disagree.
As for the application of Faulkner, I'm no expert. Did a little reading and don't see anything that precludes it. I've suggested it a number of times waiting for an expert to tell me why it's impossible So far no takers.