Much has been said in recent weeks about the need for civility in the public’s remarks before the West Windsor Town Council. I certainly don’t have any issue with that sentiment. People should be able to make their points and not get ugly about it.
There is, however, a difference between being uncivil and being persistent. There is a difference between being uncivil and holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. There is also a difference between being uncivil and saying things the mayor and some members of the Council would rather the voters not hear. For the most part, the residents of this town who are coming to the meetings are doing so in the hope that the mayor and the majority of Council members will actually listen to them and take actions that will bring some satisfaction.
From my perspective, such satisfaction has been very hard to come by. Take, for example, the budget. The mayor proposed a $37 million budget that he expected to be passed without change, as if he brought the Ten Commandments down from the mountain. Attempts to cut spending or reduce the excessive reserves embedded in the document did not get very far.
It didn’t help that the procedure for budget deliberations was changed, at the urging of the Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh and Kamal Khanna, the Council president. This had the effect of making revisions to the budget document much more cumbersome. Yet the mayor and his allies want us to be polite and happy, in the knowledge that we cannot afford a dedicated Animal Control Officer because we need to pay tens of thousands of dollars for helicopter lessons and Ivy League tuition payments for certain Township employees!
In the same vein, I suppose it would be more civil if the residents on South Post Road simply shut up and allow 45 acres of solar panels be placed near their property. I suppose they should follow the very civil example of the mayor who closed his eyes to the whole issue until the squawking got too loud too ignore.
Finally, there’s the Grover homestead controversy. Even Ted Grover had to correct the mayor about crucial details in front of everyone at the May 29 Council meeting regarding the condition of the house after his mother moved out. I guess that was very uncivil of Mr. Grover.
No doubt about it — these three issues have provided a lot of fodder for some lively discussions. Amazingly, they have happened over the course of less than three months. One issue could be chalked up to bad luck. Two issues could be considered a very unfortunate happenstance. But three issues –– well, that smacks of carelessness or, even worse, an uncaring attitude on the part of the mayor and his administration to the needs and wishes of the town. In reality, there is no need for name-calling or ranting and raving. All we need to do is stick to the facts and make sure that the residents of West Windsor understand how they are not being served as they should be.
James R. Solloway
5 Monroe Drive, West Windsor
