#b#Information Withheld Is Bad Policy#/b#
I should be flattered that West Windsor Township has a full-time employee whose job description includes responding to any criticism of the mayor’s action by me through a letter to the editor. This is at least the third time Ms. Ward, the director of community development, has responded to my letter raising questions about both the process and substance of actions by Mayor Hsueh. As the mayor said at the last council meeting, the buck stops with him and he should not use a paid township employee to respond to criticism of his actions. He is welcome to engage in a discussion if he so chooses. But sadly as he states in his own letter, “I have not involved myself in the dialogue.”
Ms. Ward cleverly tries to deflect attention from the process followed for the RFP and the mayor’s actions. No one on council, including me, has questioned the authority of the mayor to issue the RFP or begrudge the fact that the RFP was issued in the first place. Although the mayor is jumping to take credit, the record shows that the mayor had no plan to fix Canal Point Boulevard (CPB) this year. His budget as submitted to the council didn’t include any plan to fix the road in 2016. The council forced his hand by unanimously demanding that the road be fixed this year.
The troubling part of the process is that the mayor either directly or indirectly forced township employees to withhold information from the council. Although the mayor knew full well that the RFP was not only issued but also returned three days before the council meeting on March 21, he refused to share it with council. When council found out about the RFP, he insisted that the RFP was confidential and council should not share it with anyone. As township attorney Michael Herbert stated when asked, RFPs are public documents. The length to which the mayor has gone to hide information from council and avoid any debate on this issue is very troubling.
The mayor has done great damage to the relationship of township employees with council. After this incident, every time a township employee provides information to council, I will be forced to ask, “What information does the mayor want the employee to hide from council?” It is unfair to the paid professional employees of the township.
Ms. Ward claims West Windsor leaves itself open to a lawsuit if the township doesn’t pursue the road diet as preferred by the mayor. Ms. Hamilton was also reading from the same playbook at the last council meeting. Let me point out a few things to Ms. Ward, Ms. Hamilton, and Mayor Hsueh.
Your consultant, the Burns Group, has admitted in public that it did not consider response times for EMS vehicles in its study of the road diet plan. One of the strongest proponents of the plan in a subsequent Facebook post admitted that EMS response (including ambulances and large fire trucks) would be slower under the road diet plan. If subsequent to completion of the road, EMS response is delayed during an unfortunate incident, you have now exposed the township to a much bigger lawsuit by publicly admitting you have ignored the issue.
Moreover, the Burns Group also stated in its report that the road diet is not a viable permanent option anyway, as the area has already been approved for significant further development, which would require a four-lane road. This is one of the few times in life that I hope I am wrong and that people living around CPB don’t suffer significant negative consequences of the plan that is forced upon them without much public discussion.
Hemant Marathe
Vice President,
West Windsor Council
#b#What Happened to Collaboration?#/b#
A spirit of collaboration and good communication between the Council and the mayor were themes that I stressed as we ushered in the new year. The mayor agreed as these are critical elements for good decision making.
During the review of the mayor’s proposed capital budget, Council expressed its strong disappointment that he did not include enough funding for the repaving and restriping of Canal Pointe Boulevard. This road has been plagued with potholes for years. In 2015 the Council approved capital funding for this project in the amount of $350,000. This year the mayor proposed $500,000 in capital funding and $900,000 for 2017. The Council demanded that this project be totally funded and completed in 2016. It was then that the mayor allowed his administrators to identify the needed funding in existing capital accounts with a more formal process to follow.
With the first issue of identifying funding resolved, the conversation focused on how to stripe the repaved road. The debate has been over the so-called Road Diet verses the current four lanes. The Road Diet Study is available for review on our municipal website.
Council encouraged the administration to move forward with developing a request for proposal (RFP) for surveying and engineering work. The administration did so but failed to communicate about their progress. The Council only learned that the RFP was released during the March 21 work session on the Road Diet Study. The next day I asked that Council receive the RFP and the administration complied.
We then discovered that the RFP had in fact been sent out on March 7, 2016, and responses were due by 11 a.m. on March 18, 2016. That was three days before our work session. The deliberate withholding of such information is astounding and contrary to the collaborative approach I had expected. Regardless of our Faulkner Act form of government, there was no reason to withhold critical information from Council. Questions regarding the RFP could have been discussed at this work session, rather than during what turned out to be a grueling debate on the night of the April 4 contract vote.
By the mayor’s design, the RFP and the now-approved contract allow him to direct the engineering firm on how to proceed with the type of road restriping. The mayor buried the decision on the restriping as his to make within the confines of the contract. This has the brazen feel of a power grab, rather than the collaborative approach he agreed upon. Four days after the Council approved the contract the mayor sent us a memo stating that he is moving forward with the Road Diet.
The mayor writes in a letter to the editor that “throughout this process, the professionals and safety experts have continued to call for a reduction in the number of lanes along Canal Pointe Boulevard. Emergency Services has also approved the approach” (The News, April 1). I find these comments to be in sharp contrast to the conversations that I have had with the township’s two professional fire chiefs. Are they not considered professionals by the mayor? Or is it just the paid staff that is considered professional? For some reason, the mayor didn’t feel compelled to speak directly with them and is leaving their critical concerns to hopefully be resolved in some future discussion with the consultant, the director of emergency services, and a Council liaison.
Safety is at the top of everyone’s list, and every second of response time matters in an emergency. The mayor did agree at the April 4 business meeting that he would bring the consultant’s work product back to Council before releasing an RFP for the construction contract. In his words he will give Council “another bite of the apple.”
I thank so many of you who have attended Council meetings and contacted us. As the process progresses, please continue to let the mayor and Council know your thoughts.
Linda Geevers
Hawthorne Drive,
Princeton Junction
The writer is president of West Windsor Council. This letter reflects her own views and not those of council.
#b#The Road Diet Facts#/b#
On April 1 Councilman Hemant Marathe submitted a letter to the editor making certain allegations about failures by the West Windsor Township administration on the Canal Pointe Boulevard issue. He ends this letter with a threat to withhold funding and delay the resurfacing of Canal Pointe Boulevard if the roadway isn’t striped the way he wants it done, which is contrary to the recommendation of federal and state agencies, professional engineers, public safety personnel, and a majority of township residents who have provided input.
I provide the following facts and ask that you take these into account when considering the Road Diet issue. These statements are based on documents and stand in contrast to the distortions of the facts made by Councilman Marathe.
Marathe argues that the mayor wants the Road Diet and has not considered other alternatives. It is nationally and locally acknowledged by professional engineers that the road diet is an effective mechanism to improve safety, reduce speed, and reclaim streets for our neighborhoods.
In 2004 the NJDOT conducted an independent study of Canal Pointe Boulevard and made the following recommendation: “A combination of traffic calming measures and pedestrian facility enhancements are recommended to make this area more pedestrian and bike friendly … These improvements should have the effect of reducing vehicular speeds on Canal Pointe Boulevard, thus making the roadway more amenable to pedestrian and bicycle travel alike … Major new development is anticipated in the Canal Pointe area, and the traffic studies should thus be conducted to determine whether the proposed three-lane cross section can accommodate an increase in traffic. It should be noted that roadway capacity issues are most critical at intersections, and the provision of left-turn lanes at intersections may be sufficient to maintain reasonable vehicular levels of service, even under build-out.” This study was not commissioned or paid by West Windsor Township but rather, was conducted and paid for by the NJDOT.
In 2010 West Windsor Council passed a resolution adopting the “Complete Streets Policy,” which states as follows: “BE IT RESOLVED that all public street projects … shall be designed and constructed as “complete streets” whenever feasible to do so in order to safely accommodate travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and motorized vehicles and their passengers, with special priority given to bicyclist and pedestrian safety.”
As a direct result of passing this “Complete Streets Policy,” which is consistent with West Windsor’s master plan, West Windsor has received substantial grants to help it comply with this policy, most recently receiving $250,000 for Alexander Road. Deviation from this policy will result in ineligibility for those grants.
Marathe also claims that the administration has not been transparent in its plans for CPB. The administration obtained the report from the Burns Group on the Road Diet Study based upon the NJDOT recommendations. Subsequently, the administration held a public hearing on April 21, 2015, to discuss the report. Of the total 43 public comments on the issue, 31 were in favor of the road diet. Of those in support 23 live along CPB.
At a public hearing before Council on March 21, 2016, a total of 15 residents spoke on the issue, and 10 were in favor of the road diet plan. At another public hearing before Council on April 4, 2016, 28 residents spoke; 17 were in favor of the road diet plan. The administration has not yet taken a final decision but has advised that based on input received during each of these public hearings, the plans for CPB will likely be modified, as appropriate, to address residents’ concerns.
Marathe also claims that the administration has failed to consider public safety in the Road Diet considerations. He neglects to mention that the Road Diet plan, which initially proposed concrete medians, now only contains striping in consideration for the concerns raised by the fire chiefs and director of emergency services. Further, the director, Jim Yates, issued a memo dated March 8, 2016, to the municipal engineer, which states: “I have recently become aware of changes in the initial proposed Canal Pointe Boulevard Road Diet Program. It is my understanding that medians are not being constructed on Canal Pointe Boulevard and rather the roadway will be painted to create the traffic lanes and bike lanes without medians. Based upon this information, I am no longer concerned that the proposed plan would impose an impediment on emergency response.”
Marathe claims that the volunteer fire chiefs are completely opposed to the Road Diet, though their testimony at the March 21, 2016, meeting says otherwise. In fact, when questioned on the lack of medians and the enhanced safety striping, they stated that they were not opposed to the Road Diet plan. Police department representative also testified that the Road Diet plan is a “no brainer” from a safety perspective. As the Council liaison to the Emergency Services and Public Safety Department, I have publicly instructed the administration that no design plans for the Road Diet will be finalized without input and guidance from both volunteer fire chiefs, the police department, and Director Yates.
Marathe also claims that he wasn’t advised about the RFP process, which is not true based on the public record. At a public hearing on the budget held on February 29, 2016, Council asked questions about the delay in repaving CPB and on the procedure to get this moving as soon as possible. Councilman Marathe told the township engineer to do what can be done before we decide on the number of lanes. Council instructed the township engineer to move forward with issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the basic engineering work to be done to obtain bids from paving contractors. Council specifically instructed the engineer to proceed with the RFP with the specific language that the “road diet” issue (number of lanes) will be decided later. Based on council instructions on March 7, 2016, the administration issued the RFP containing this specific language: “West Windsor Township is currently seeking consensus for the implementation of the ‘Road-Diet’ based upon the Canal Pointe Boulevard Road Diet study dated March, 2015, prepared by the Burns Group … A final decision and direction will be given to the successful consultant during the contract period, and prior to the preparation of design plans.” Either Councilman Marathe is distorting the record intentionally for political purposes, or he is not fully engaged and aware of proceedings at council sessions.
Councilman Marathe also claims that he hasn’t been advised about the decision making process on this issue. However, as a member of our local government, he is, or should be, aware that the West Windsor Township voted in 1993 to adopt a form of government under the Faulkner Act, which sets forth the division of labor, i.e. that Council holds the “purse strings” while the administration is charged with the ministerial duties, including the task of determining how the roads will be paved and striped.
We should not tolerate his attempt to bring “Washington Style” politics to West Windsor — by threatening to hold our Township Budget hostage because he doesn’t get his way.
Ayesha Hamilton
Hereford Drive, West Windsor
The writer is a member of West Windsor Council. This letter reflects her own views and not those of council.
