TorPayMe is still alive
Ha. I rarely look at MOL these days, but I assume you are referring to my email below?
URGENT: BOT voting On Monday to forever alter South Orange history by changing our Village Charter to provide for themselves to receive compensation.
Dear Neighbor,
I wanted to share an important issue with you - On Monday night (July 24), the South Orange Board of Trustees is scheduled to vote on Ordinance 2023-09 on second and final reading which will forever alter the rich culture and history of South Orange Village, by changing the Village Charter, which is equivalent to our municipal constitution.
12 years ago, the Village undertook a Charter review process and one element that was considered and ultimately dropped was a proposal to provide compensation to the Board of Trustees. 10 years ago, this came up again and, after a public outcry, the proposal was dropped again and other charter changes were submitted to Trenton without a provision for compensation. For some reason, the process "died" in Trenton and now yet again, the Board of Trustees is proposing that these volunteer positions be given monetary compensation, paid for by our property taxes. I shared the following arguments 10 years ago and they hold as true today as they did then:
For over 150 years, South Orange has been governed by a VOLUNTEER Board of Trustees and Village President. Now, the Board of Trustees is planning to revise our Village's Charter, allowing for these volunteer positions to be given monetary compensation, paid for by your property taxes.
This is wrong for so many reasons:
Serving as a volunteer is a longstanding Village Tradition
Since the Village was settled, serving as a member of the Board of Trustees has been an honor and a privilege for those who want to serve the community. In all that time, this honor has been done by VOLUNTEERS who were not paid for their service. People served the community because they wanted to do the right thing for the Village, not because they were looking to supplement their income. This tradition is an important part of the culture and history of South Orange and should not be changed.
Providing compensation is not necessary
Serving the Village on the Board of Trustees is a part-time volunteer role. The Village already has a large payroll of full-time paid staff that handle the day-to-day operations of the Village. As a former member of the Board of Trustees, who proudly served from 2007-2013, I can say firsthand that serving on the Board of Trustees does not require a financial outlay for any mandatory expenses. In addition, the Board of Trustees already receives complimentary admission to many political fundraisers, a complimentary parking sticker to park in any permit space downtown, two free nights at the Borgata in Atlantic City for the annual League of Municipalities convention and other perks. Plus, a reimbursement policy for travel expenses is already in existence. No cash compensation is required for the Board of Trustees to complete their duties.
Changing the Charter opens a Pandora’s Box
Altering the Village Charter to provide monetary compensation to the Board of Trustees will open a Pandora’s Box that can never be closed. What begins as a modest “stipend” today, will inevitably grow over time. Simply do a search for Congressional salaries over time as an example of how, when given the opportunity, politicians love to pay themselves more and more money over time.
Our Taxes are already beyond excessive
In this time of flat incomes, reduced services, reduced staff, and skyrocketing property taxes, we simply cannot afford a new expense added to the budget. We simply cannot afford it. There are some that make the ridiculous claim that without payment, some people cannot afford to run for office. I think it is far more important that with our oppressive taxes, far too many people can no longer afford to move to or continue to live in our town and this financial stress only reduces our diversity and all of our property values. The taxes in South Orange are outrageous and we need our elected officials to find ways to REDUCE the budget, not INCREASE the budget by adding an additional expense to pay themselves. Ironically, the BOT is also proposing moving municipal elections to November and are stating how much money that will save, yet at the same time are claiming this similar expense is only a "minor" expenditure. With our obscene taxes, every dollar matters.
I commend and thank the BOT for stepping up to volunteer to serve the community. I also thank them for many initiatives they have taken on to try to control taxes, such as merging the Fire Department and fighting for energy tax receipts. However, while I keep hearing references to "90% of communities" paying their politicians, the relevant fact is that taxes in South Orange are still higher than over 95% of all towns in NJ. We simply must do better.
I hope you will join me in expressing your opposition to this radical change to over 150 years of our Village's long proud history. You can speak before the BOT at the Public Hearing on this Ordinance on Monday night at 7pm via Webex.
Sincerely,
Michael Goldberg
South Orange Village Trustee 2007-2013
Please, go to nextdoor and look at Sheena's reply to this. Michael is glossing over a lot of things to get to the "I don't want to spend a dollar" argument.
This is the response from Sheena copied and pasted by me. No changes or alterations.
Good evening, neighbors -
I’m Sheena Collum, and I’ve been your Village President since 2015. I also was a member of the last Charter Review Committee long before being elected to office.
I’m offering some clarity to the post here from Mr. Goldberg for those of you who are interested.
South Orange has a “special charter,” which was enacted by the legislature in the mid-1800s. There’s a handful of communities like this. Later, the legislature enacted laws permitting various forms of more widely known types of government and also banned “special charters,” but we were grandfathered and never changed as others did.
Our charter most resembles a Mayor-Council form of government. You directly elect a mayor (known in South Orange as “Village President”), responsible for administration and operations, and you elect six council members (known in South Orange as “Trustees”), which are responsible for policy and budget adoption.
The current Charter Review recommendations build on past recommendations, which include the following:
1. Changing our formal name from “Township of South Orange Village” to “South Orange Village.” In the 1970s, the charter was changed to add “Township” to its name to take advantage of federal money, which is no longer relevant and causes confusion in our name and is duplicative.
2. Changes the titles of your elected officials to reflect a modern understanding of roles and responsibilities in municipal government. Presidents and Trustees are not titles affiliated with elected officials in government. It’s very confusing conducting business, advocating on behalf of our residents, and certifying documents that never have our titles correct. Presidents and Trustees are more broadly affiliated with nonprofit and corporate boards.
3. Moving the municipal election date from May to November. About ten years ago, the legislature permitted local governments to remain nonpartisan and move their elections to coincide with general elections in November. In our assessment, this will increase voter participation and will save $80,000 for each election. The charter change will permit the board to move the election via ordinance.
4. Updates all references that are now superseded by state laws. While we have a special charter, we cannot do things contrary to state laws. Items such as filling vacancies on a board, recall elections, and terminology of statutory positions such as Chief Financial Officer, Clerk, Tax Assessor, and Tax Collector are not within our purview to define as we see fit. State laws govern that and our charter must reflect these provisions of general law.
5. Using gender-inclusive language throughout the charter. For the first 100 years of the community’s existence, the Board of Trustees only had men serve, and thus, the charter will now reflect all gender-inclusive pronouns.
6. Removing the provision that elected officials shall receive “no compensation,” which is the sole focus of this post (which doesn’t reference the other changes above. The ranges for municipal elected officials in New Jersey go from $0 to $250k+. Some include pension credits and health benefits, which are roughly 30-35% above the salaried position. The proposal being contemplated in South Orange is to compensate elected officials with a stipend with no other benefits such as pension or healthcare. This number will be discussed at a future date and will require the adoption of an ordinance. The language being discussed on Monday is that it is no longer “prohibited.” This prohibition is only unique to South Orange in New Jersey.
a. If a stipend were proposed, it would likely fall within the range of $5,000-$15,000, at which point an ordinance would need to be introduced, and the community can speak on the amount. While no figures have been proposed, I know this just through conversations with my colleagues, research, and the board’s desire not the introduce salaried roles but rather permit stipends.
b. Time Commitment:
i. I cannot speak for other boards, but I do about 30-40 hours a week while having another full-time job (sometimes higher and sometimes lower).
ii. Trustees do anywhere from 10-20 hours a week and also have full-time jobs. Committee assignments range anywhere from 7-15 day/night meetings a month and then work in between.
c. Expenses
i. Right now, all our job expenses are out of pocket. There is no requirement to spend money if you never need anything to perform your job functions.
This is a policy debate and no one is “right” or “wrong”.
As Mr. Goldberg noted, he wants South Orange to remain fully uncompensated and supported by:
1. Pointing out that we have full-time staff, which is the case for every municipality in NJ.
2. Suggesting there is no “mandatory” financial outlay. While no one is required to “write checks” during hundreds of hours or work on behalf of our residents, many expenses are incurred.
3. Suggests “complimentary admission to political fundraisers(?)”; I don’t find that to be the case. It’s not political fundraisers that cause lots of expenses. It’s attendance to the dozens of nonprofit organizations in our community that ask us to attend or support their work. For individuals who are more well-off, this may not be difficult. But for people with less financial means, it gives the appearance of non-support for lots of groups doing good work who have invited their elected officials to come.
4. A parking sticker in dedicated non-metered areas is correct.
5. Two-day travel to the annual League of Municipalities Conference is correct, valued at about $200/person with a room block rate. But for working individuals, this is taking time off work. Professional development is important for elected officials.
6. Yes, taxes are incredibly high, which I can discuss in another post, but for those interested, our website has all budget documents, presentations, and videos of budget workshops. No one is disputing that, and I do appreciate Mr. Goldberg acknowledging the tremendous efforts the board has taken financially.
Those advocating for some form of compensation are actually more varied in their approach to what they consider appropriate.
• Equal pay for equal work.
• Acknowledgment that our power, politics, and diversity don’t reflect the standards that were set 150 years ago about who should serve and who could serve.
• Access to run for office – our board should reflect the socioeconomic diversity of our community.
• Elected officials spend money out of pocket all the time for job-related expenses, functions, travel, etc.
• The cost trade-off in hiring more staff to perform the functions currently being done by elected officials.
• Parity with other communities.
In the last go around, three ballot questions were posed, and all were passed by the voters (name change, title change, stipends). The board at the time did not agree to ask the voters when they wanted elections to take place.
I hope this post offers another perspective and perhaps a more nuanced perspective to this urgent alert post.
There was a community meeting this past week and the video and other relevant information can be found here: https://www.southorange.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2396
Thanks for your interest in this topic or any topic, and always feel free to reach me at scollum@southorange.org or 973.378.7715 ext 2.
You can email your comments to all members of the board (or I can forward them) and you can also attend our meeting on Monday and any subsequent meetings related to stipends and moving our municipal elections to November.
Thanks as always,
Sheena
PS - I support all the proposed changes as I did 12 years ago during the last review as a private citizen, whether it's for streamlining, modernization, compliance with general law, inclusive language, and creating greater equity, parity, and access to elected officials who run and serve in their community.
And here’s the response I shared to the post above:
Sheena As always, thank you for taking the time to engage with us here and in other forums. As many people know, you and I have discussed this directly, so it's a little awkward to get into this in a public forum with you, but there are a number of points worth clarifying from your comments:
1) You state "The proposal being contemplated in South Orange is to compensate elected officials with a stipend with no other benefits such as pension or healthcare." The problem is that is NOT what the proposed language does. As I noted above: The proposed change states that the BOT may receive compensation, but does not provide ANY specifics. Once the charter is changed with that language, all bets are off. The specific amount is at the whim of whoever sits on the BOT and can be changed at any time by a simple Ordinance supported by 4 people. Even if we respect the current Board, as I do, we have no idea what any future Board can do. It could be $5,000/year or it could be $50,000+ per year. It COULD include pensions, healthcare or other benefits. The proposed charter language change is wide open. It is an ENORMOUS MISTAKE to revise the charter to such open and ambiguous language.
2) There is no question that you devote a lot of time to the community and it is appreciated. I am sure many of your current colleagues do, as well. But you also know that you and I have both had colleagues who essentially showed up twice a month for meetings when the TV cameras were on and were never heard from otherwise.
3) In recent years, our Board of Trustees has already absolutely represented the diversity of the community with respect to age (from 23-70+), race, religion, gender, neighborhood, socioeconomic status, employment status etc, all of whom proudly served as a volunteer.
4) You frequently reference the referendum in 2012 which posed the following question? Should the Village Charter be amended to provide the Village President an annual stipend of $2,400, without other benefits, and provide Village Trustees with an annual stipend of $1,800 each, without other benefits?
The results were as close as they could be, with a difference of 35 votes between Yes and No:
YES – 1,330 (50.67%)
NO – 1,295 (49.33%)
Above you referenced that the compensation now COULD be as high as $15,000, which is nearly 10 times what was proposed in the referendum. Sure, there has been inflation, but I challenge that most salaries certainly have not gone up 10x in the past 10 years and this is the EXACT slippery slope argument I have been making for the past 10 years that what may start as a "modest" stipend of $1,800 becomes $15,000 10 years later and could just as easily be $100,000 in another 10 years.
5) Lastly, there is a public hearing on this topic on Monday, I do hope you and your colleagues come to that forum with an open mind and are willing to hear suggestions to revise or kill this proposal. I certainly plan to present some ideas and I'd hate to think the decision has already been made before the public weighs in.
Thanks!
Perhaps if Sheena spent less time posting reasons why she should be paid, she’d be spending less time doing this very past time volunteer position.
CharlesG said:
Perhaps if Sheena spent less time posting reasons why she should be paid, she’d be spending less time doing this very past time volunteer position.
i think you have found something Michael and I probably agree about. This is a stupid post.
Maybe especially because its from someone who purports to be a newbie in Maplewood.
jamie said:
How much are Maplewood Township committee members getting per year?
I don’t know the exact amount. It would be easy enough to determine by reading the town budget should anyone be interested. The basis for the stipend is to reimburse TC members for expenses they encounter in their role as TC members, primarily the expense of attending public events. Aim is to eliminate the financial burden being placed on TC members, thus increasing the number of residents who could afford to hold this office.
joan_crystal said:
jamie said:
How much are Maplewood Township committee members getting per year?
I don’t know the exact amount. It would be easy enough to determine by reading the town budget should anyone be interested. The basis for the stipend is to reimburse TC members for expenses they encounter in their role as TC members, primarily the expense of attending public events. Aim is to eliminate the financial burden being placed on TC members, thus increasing the number of residents who could afford to hold this office.
The last time I checked, it was in the range of $5K per year per committee member.
It seems to me that if S.O. (or any other town, for that matter) gets to the point where the elected officials can grant themselves unreasonable compensation and get away with it, then democracy is effectively dead and there are bigger problems.
tjohn said:
It seems to me that if S.O. (or any other town, for that matter) gets to the point where the elected officials can grant themselves unreasonable compensation and get away with it, then democracy is effectively dead and there are bigger problems.
like the US Congress, we’re doomed
Scully said:
tjohn said:
It seems to me that if S.O. (or any other town, for that matter) gets to the point where the elected officials can grant themselves unreasonable compensation and get away with it, then democracy is effectively dead and there are bigger problems.
like the US Congress, we’re doomed
I don't find the compensation of Congresscritters to be out of control. Now, the quality of the work they do...
tjohn said:
It seems to me that if S.O. (or any other town, for that matter) gets to the point where the elected officials can grant themselves unreasonable compensation and get away with it, then democracy is effectively dead and there are bigger problems.
exactly.
if the voters are not OK with the compensation the trustees vote themselves, the remedy is to vote them out, and replace them with people who will repeal the increases.
the notion that SO trustees will grant themselves increases as far as the eye can see is pretty dubious. It hasn't happened in Maplewood.
if the best argument against compensation is a slippery slope, maybe the opposition doesn't have much to stand on.
yahooyahoo said:
The last time I checked, it was in the range of $5K per year per committee member.
That was the amount set years ago when the stipend was first enacted. I don't know if it has increased since then.
Tonight, thr BOT agreed to TABLE the Ordinance since it was abundantly clear that the language was loose and ambiguous. The Ordinance will be reintroduced in August and another Public Hearing will be in September.
That said, they each made it clear they are going to proceed with paying themselves unless more people speak out.
Torpayme, indeed.
michaelgoldberg said:
Tonight, thr BOT agreed to TABLE the Ordinance since it was abundantly clear that the language was loose and ambiguous. The Ordinance will be reintroduced in August and another Public Hearing will be in September.
That said, they each made it clear they are going to proceed with paying themselves unless more people speak out.
Torpayme, indeed.
So,is a rewrite to be specific good enough, as you implied earlier, or are you just opposed to it no matter what, which is not what you implied earlier?
How have the responsibilities of the BOT changed over the years? Has it become more time-consuming and more exposed to personal liability job? Is this the same job that it was in, say, the 60's. Isn't it possible that some sort of compensation makes sense today?
As I see it they do put in a good bit of time. But any amount would have to be publicly debated, and if we don't like it we can vote them out. I find it fascinating that people expect great commitment and sacrifices from others but revolt at the idea of a token financial contribution.
DanDietrich said:
As I see it they do put in a good bit of time. But any amount would have to be publicly debated, and if we don't like it we can vote them out. I find it fascinating that people expect great commitment and sacrifices from others but revolt at the idea of a token financial contribution.
Related to those people who have great ideas for people to open charming (non-profitable) boutique stores in town.
Is the problem that the proposed ordinance establishing a stipend is open ended? If so, do what Maplewood did and include the compensation in the ordinance. Is the problem that the proposed ordinance does not indicate the basis and justification for the stipend? If so include that in the proposed ordinance. Is this strictly a money question at a time when municipal budgets are even tighter than usual? If so be up front about this being the reason the stipend proposal is being tabled or outright rejected. If the problem is that it has become too expensive for qualified candidates to hold the office of trustee, and a stipend is too expensive given current fiscal constraints, find some other way to level the playing field so the most qualified can serve.
The DPW workers make more than the mayors…and the roads still are not good enough for the amount of taxes being paid.
What will they do for Sheena? Plant a tree in the park?
I remember riding the train to nyc with Vic…to his day job.
am I understanding this wrong? But isn't the village charter revision simply a means to ALLOW the trustees to vote themselves compensation? It seems to me the charter shouldn't be getting into the weeds of how many dollars and cents the compensation would be. That would be determined by municipal ordinance.
maybe I'm confused on this, but the whole idea that the charter revision is too vague or open ended is something of a red herring. Is the purpose of the charter to create municipal ordinances? I wouldn't think so.
it would be analogous to the U.S. Constitution including a provision for the compensation of members of Congress. And without new amendments, senators would to this day be getting paid $200 a year, and a stipend for buggy rides from their state to the capital.
Jaytee said:
The DPW workers make more than the mayors…and the roads still are not good enough for the amount of taxes being paid.
What will they do for Sheena? Plant a tree in the park?I remember riding the train to nyc with Vic…to his day job.
I get the idea that a town may not want to have full-time government, and prefer to have people in office who have other professions and experiences.
but the resistance to paying them what amounts to an honorarium is baffling to me. it seems petty, IMHO.
ml1 said:
am I understanding this wrong? But isn't the village charter revision simply a means to ALLOW the trustees to vote themselves compensation? It seems to me the charter shouldn't be getting into the weeds of how many dollars and cents the compensation would be. That would be determined by municipal ordinance.
maybe I'm confused on this, but the whole idea that the charter revision is too vague or open ended is something of a red herring. Is the purpose of the charter to create municipal ordinances? I wouldn't think so.
it would be analogous to the U.S. Constitution including a provision for the compensation of members of Congress. And without new amendments, senators would to this day be getting paid $200 a year, and a stipend for buggy rides from their state to the capital.
As I interpret this, there are two separate actions being proposed. (1) To amend the Village charter to move from a Village model to a Township model. (2) To adopt an ordinance allowing for a stipend for elected officials.
joan_crystal said:
ml1 said:
am I understanding this wrong? But isn't the village charter revision simply a means to ALLOW the trustees to vote themselves compensation? It seems to me the charter shouldn't be getting into the weeds of how many dollars and cents the compensation would be. That would be determined by municipal ordinance.
maybe I'm confused on this, but the whole idea that the charter revision is too vague or open ended is something of a red herring. Is the purpose of the charter to create municipal ordinances? I wouldn't think so.
it would be analogous to the U.S. Constitution including a provision for the compensation of members of Congress. And without new amendments, senators would to this day be getting paid $200 a year, and a stipend for buggy rides from their state to the capital.
As I interpret this, there are two separate actions being proposed. (1) To amend the Village charter to move from a Village model to a Township model. (2) To adopt an ordinance allowing for a stipend for elected officials.
actually, according to the quote from Sheena above, the charter amendments include this:
6. Removing the provision that elected officials shall receive “no compensation,” which is the sole focus of this post (which doesn’t reference the other changes above. The ranges for municipal elected officials in New Jersey go from $0 to $250k+. Some include pension credits and health benefits, which are roughly 30-35% above the salaried position. The proposal being contemplated in South Orange is to compensate elected officials with a stipend with no other benefits such as pension or healthcare. This number will be discussed at a future date and will require the adoption of an ordinance. The language being discussed on Monday is that it is no longer “prohibited.” This prohibition is only unique to South Orange in New Jersey.
ml1 said:
am I understanding this wrong? But isn't the village charter revision simply a means to ALLOW the trustees to vote themselves compensation? It seems to me the charter shouldn't be getting into the weeds of how many dollars and cents the compensation would be. That would be determined by municipal ordinance.
maybe I'm confused on this, but the whole idea that the charter revision is too vague or open ended is something of a red herring. Is the purpose of the charter to create municipal ordinances? I wouldn't think so.
it would be analogous to the U.S. Constitution including a provision for the compensation of members of Congress. And without new amendments, senators would to this day be getting paid $200 a year, and a stipend for buggy rides from their state to the capital.
It's about $12,500 here in West Orange for council members, and twice that for the mayor, and I think they're set by ordinance. Maybe it's possible to put something in your charter declaring it is to be a small stipend intended to cover the expenses of the position and not to be an income source, and that it may in no case exceed some externally set and regularly updated figure, like 50% of the federal poverty guideline (currently $14,580, so 50% would be $7,290, or use some smaller percentage to get it to what seems like the right number right now) -- that way it's harder than just changing an ordinance to change it to a huge sum, but when they feel it needs increasing some years down the road, there's an already-established target number that should be in keeping with the original intent of a small stipend. They won't have to change the charter to go from $5,000 to $6,000 in 2033, but they WOULD have to change the charter to go to $200,000.
One problem at hand is the general decline in volunteerism. Here’s one statistic:
For decades, volunteerism in America has been declining. But according to a recent U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps survey, it dropped another 7 percentage points between 2019 and 2021
I believe this trend can certainly affect how people feel about running for a non-compensatory political office.
My unscientific theory:A few decades ago, a single-earner household might be more capable of supporting a volunteer mindset. Dad goes off to work in the city. Mom takes care of the house and kids. Dad comes home to a tidy house and dinner on the table at 6:30 and pops off to the Lions or Elks or Village Trustees or whatever.
Right now, it seems like it’s difficult for most families to live here on a single salary. So that puts more pressure on the wage earners to then come home and take care of domestic responsibilities. Doesn’t matter if it’s Mom and Dad, Dad and Dad, Mom and Mom or just one parent.* Everyone is cooking and cleaning and driving to sports practice or dance lessons.
I’m not making a judgement or pining for the Good Old Days (only Good for Straight White Men like me). This is just my observation. But continuing to rely on a sense of civic duty seems anachronistic at this point. If you’re taking on a job that eats up 15-20 hours of your life every month without pay that’s a bigger deal than it was in 1973.
The frosting on the cake is the world we live in now is so Much more instantly connected. If someone says something at a public Trustees meeting, a few seconds later it’s spreading on social media and the judgements and responses start shortly thereafter. So beyond the work there’s the concern about exposing yourself and family to public scrutiny and harassment. Like that jackass that went after Jerry Ryan in a restaurant over the generator installation at town hall.
My last observation is this: our most recent Trustee/VP election in South Orange was uncontested. Last I’d heard, nobody was registering as a BOE candidate for this year either. A theoretical $5K/year isn’t going to entice greedy corrupt people to come take over our town, but it could lower barriers for people to give their time and energy to a thankless job.
* I’m 100% serious when I say I’m sorry for any family structures I left out. I know families look totally different than the Cleaver family.
Thank you, Michael Goldberg, for bringing this to our attention.