Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh has vetoed the controversial ordinance that increases his salary and the salaries of the West Windsor Council members by 50 percent, saying the increase sends the worst type of message to the township’s hard-pressed taxpayers.”##M:[more]##
In response, some council members are proposing to instead come up with a reimbursement system similar to the mayor’s flat $250 mileage allowance each month that would cover all of a member’s expenses. Council President says he has drafted a policy for discussion at the council’s next meeting on Monday, June 9.
The veto came just a week after the council’s approval of the ordinance on May 19. A crowd of about 50 residents attended the heated and controversial meeting, where most voiced their protest of the measure before it eventually passed.
In a memo to Anklowitz and Township Clerk Sharon Young, Hsueh says the loss of $240,”412 in state aid and an increase state-mandated pension costs combined with increases in school and county budgets are placing more of a burden on taxpayers.
“I realize that the actual dollar impact of the salary increase on our budget would be insignificant,” Hsueh stated. “However, it is what this ordinance symbolizes, rather than its economic impact, that makes it so objectionable. How can we ask our taxpayers to bear an ever-increasing tax burden or how can we negotiate with our employees for restraint in their demands for higher salaries or for the reduction of costly benefits, when the leadership of this town votes themselves a 50 percent salary increase? The answer is we cannot and should not.”
Hsueh backed an idea by Councilwoman Linda Geevers, who voted against the ordinance, to update the township’s reimbursement policy instead. Hsueh said he recognizes that the veto can be overridden since it was originally adopted by a 4-1 vote, but asked that at least the section of the ordinance that provides for his own salary increase — from $17,”685 to $25,”000 — not be incorporated “in any overriding ordinance.”
“As mayor, I will not accept a salary increase at this time,” he stated.
Township Attorney Mike Herbert says that in order to override the mayor’s veto, the council must simply adopt a motion, and if that motion receives four votes, it becomes part of the original ordinance, and the ordinance will stand.
Anklowitz says his proposal is unlike that of Geevers, who prefers an itemized reimbursement system, where receipts are submitted one after another. He has talked to township staff, who said “it would take an awful lot of time to process that,” he says. In addition, going that route still leaves the issue open to questions about what should and should not be reimbursed. “Either it gets rejected, or it becomes a political football,” Anklowitz says.
Anklowitz says that if a monthly reimbursement similar to the mayor’s $250 allowance is given to council members that would cover everything, not just mileage reimbursement — it would accumulate to more of an increase than called for in the salary ordinance. Bringing that number down to $200 a month would be about the same.
“There just needs to be some practical functioning,” Anklowitz said. “I also don’t want to have a situation where you put the administration in charge of telling council what it can and cannot do in terms of constituent relations,” he said. Setting up a reimbursement in this manner would keep a “strong, independent council,” he said.
Councilman Charles Morgan, who said he believes the council has enough votes to override the veto but does not know yet if that will happen, also suggested a similar reimbursement proposal. “I’ve been saying all along this is about expense reimbursements and covering our costs, and the fact is that the current system’s political,” he said.
The public was vocal in its opposition to the salary ordinance before it passed on May 19. In addition, Planning Board Chairman Marvin Gardner, who spoke out against Councilman Charles Morgan’s submission of a reimbursement voucher for taking Gardner out to lunch (see story page 16), referred to the council’s action to increase the salary as “political suicide.”
The salary ordinance increases the salary for council members and the mayor beginning in 2009, giving the public a chance to petition to have the measure put on the November ballot for a referendum. In the ordinance, a council member’s salary would increase 50 percent, from $4,”941 a year to $7,”500.
Most council members say the raise is intended to cover the expenses they incur while on the job, and that the raises will eliminate the need for submitting reimbursement forms and questions that could be raised when it comes to determining which reimbursements are appropriately associated with a council member’s job.
Geevers has said that expenses legitimately occurred by council members as part of township business should be submitted and reimbursed. She also says in a time of economic downturn, the council needs to “show leadership” in cutting down on expenses, and a salary increase does not do so. She proposed her own reimbursement policy earlier this month that would tighten up the township’s current policy and require council members to submit itemized reimbursement requests.
Geevers, who voted against the salary ordinance, now says she does not support Anklowitz’s proposal for a flat monthly reimbursement. “This is a new twist for getting council members more money,” Geevers said. “It’s also proposed as a resolution and not as an ordinance, which would require a hearing and then mayoral consideration. I think that compensation has to be approved by an ordinance — this way, the public can formally comment on the issue.”
Further, Geevers said she disagrees “with the notion that the council members need to receive extra monthly compensation. My proposed reimbursement policy is less costly to the taxpayers and represents more openness in government.” Her own reimbursement policy is also on the agenda for discussion on June 9. “If they want their salary increases, they should override the mayor. The council’s responsibilities are very different from the mayor’s responsibilities.”
Andy Bromberg, a resident, said when he first began coming to the meetings a few months ago, he was excited to see that redevelopment seemed to be picking up momentum. Now, he says, the salary issue has become one of the biggest and most controversial topics in town.
He said he ran into resident Pete Weale and Trenton resident Mike Ranallo — a business owner in town — who were collecting signatures at the Bagel Hole on May 17 to get the salary question put on the ballot in November, and feels that their petition drive will be successful. He said the issue will end up hurting the council in the future. “You guys do a good job,” he said. “Give yourself a few percentage points (in raises) a year — like 5 percent,” and not 50 percent at once, he said.
Weale and Ranallo said during the meeting that they had already collected over 300 signatures — almost half of the 712 signatures they needed by law to have a referendum question put on the November ballot to have voters decide whether or not the raises should take effect. Weale says he has since collected more signatures, and although they have not yet been counted, he estimates they have “eclipsed 350.” Referring to Councilman Morgan’s claim that the council’s current salary equivocates to a salary of $4.75 an hour — less than the $7.75 minimum wage level expected to be in place in 2009 — Weale said that when most people have jobs they can’t afford, they get rid of those jobs. “I think our council is not listening, and perhaps some council members should consider another vocation.”
Resident Paul Eland said between the salary increase, the quality bidder resolution, and redevelopment, “all three of these items are costing the taxpayers money.”
“Although it’s a small increase against the budget, it’s still an increase,” Eland said of the raises. He said he has worked in corporate America, where at many companies, including his, employees have to submit reimbursement vouchers as normal practice. “I know they’re a nuisance, but it does give you openness, and a salary increase doesn’t,” he said.
Resident Al Lerner said the council “has allowed a small issues to divert its time and energy away from a big issue,” referring to redevelopment. Recalling a slow redevelopment process which has not yet turned out a completed redevelopment plan, Lerner said: “You don’t deserve a pay raise.” Perhaps if the redevelopment process had proceeded much further than where it currently sits, Lerner said, “we may feel more sympathetic to the salary adjustment you feel is due you.”
Resident David Brienza told the council he feels council’s institution of a pay raise is against what their core responsibilities are, and that they shouldn’t get “a 50 percent increase in your salaries for what should be a volunteer position.”
Later in the evening, after the measure passed, Brienza got up and said, “This is how corruption in New Jersey begins,” prompting Council President Will Anklowitz to say he was disorderly and said if he continued, he would have to leave. Brienza, putting on his coat, said he was leaving anyway, and said to Anklowitz, “I wish you would, too.”
Village Grande resident Paul Pitluk said he spent many years volunteering for the Shade Tree Commission, which required him to drive around to look at various trees and sidewalks around town. “I’ve never even thought of asking for compensation,” he said. “This is not a job where you’re sitting here to be compensated.”
The ordinance states that “the salary increases would be in the public interest, but what would be in the public interest is public service,” said resident Ina Marx. She said the council should either serve the public and submit reimbursement vouchers or resign.
Before voting on the salary ordinance, Geevers reiterated her feelings that because the economy has taken a downturn, and because there have been increasing costs in energy and food, that council should be showing leadership in cutting costs. She also noted that the salary increase would cost taxpayers an extra $400 per council member in pension costs, and that there should be a tight reimbursement policy since “the premise for the raises seems to be over the reimbursements.” She suggested council members cut back on their cell phone usage and mailing political letters to township residents. “Everyone’s tightening their belts, and council should, too.”
During the second public comment session, resident Janet Lerner called the move a “shameful act.”
