More discussion needed, but not by the voters or council in Evesham

by: Jason Springer

Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:55:36 PM EDT

Talk about a surprise at the first working meeting of the new council in Evesham this past Tuesday night:

The council voted last month to put a referendum on the November ballot, asking residents whether they want local elections held in November, instead of May.
But in a surprise move, Deputy Mayor Joe Howarth introduced an ordinance Tuesday that would repeal that decision Tuesday.
Howarth said he's not opposed to the referendum or moving the election, but said he thinks more discussion needs to take place.

More discussion has to take place, but at the last minute he rushes through a resolution to repeal the chance for voters to weigh in on that conversation? Apparently he wants to have a discussion, but not letting members of the current council know what he was planning to do surely doesn't lead itself to more discussion:

Mayor Randy Brown said he and Councilman John McKenna, both Democrats, weren't told about the ordinance.
Howarth said even Hackman and Croft were caught off guard.

Those are some great communication skills for the discussion. Howarth appears to want to defend the politics he has, not what may be; and there is a cost to the voters:

Supporters of the referendum say it will save the township $50,000 every two years and could increase voter turnout.
But Howarth offered a different take.
"If it was just about the money, it would've been done after (Brown) took office, in that first year," he said. "But they did it after they lost an election, and that leads me to believe there are other motives."

Ah, so those evil sore losers. There was actually talk and plans to move the election because of cost savings and increased turnout long before the last results came in. Rather than a discussion with everyone, it seems like Howarth is just talking to himself. Or maybe he is only having his "discussions" with those same politically connected people that helped to get him elected.

He says he wants a discussion, but he didn't tell anyone he was raising the issue and now has scheduled an emergency special meeting on July 27 to expedite a 2nd reading on the matter. And where was he discussing the issue during the open comments when the resolution was being considered after he was elected to office, but before he was sworn in? Howarth had an opportunity to "join the discussion," but sat silent. That's some in depth conversation Howarth is leading.

Jason Springer :: More discussion needed, but not by the voters or council in Evesham

Tags: joe howarth, Burlington County, Burlco GOP, evesham republicans, Evesham, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

More discussion needed, but not by the voters or council in Evesham | 1 comments

Does this surprise you? (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans are at it again in Evesham. Once again they find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. On July 15, 2009, Deputy Mayor Joe Howorth introduced an ordinance that would rescind an earlier ordinance passed by council allowing the voters to decide whether or not to change Evesham's elections from a nonpartisan May date to the November general election date. He claims that more discussion is needed, and that the only reason that the Democrats passed the ordinance is sour grapes at having lost the election. The elections that this town has been holding in recent years have been nonpartisan in name only. As the largest municipality in the largest county in the state, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have taken more than a cursory interest in these elections, while the local population has steadily lost interest in these elections. Why? It is due to election fatigue. The idea of moving the municipal election from May to November has been thrown around Evesham for as long as I can remember. However, not one Republican-controlled council ever passed an ordinance to do that. Now with Deputy Mayor Howarth challenging the ordinance I have to wonder what the Republicans have to hide. What are they afraid of in allowing the people who elected them an opportunity to consider whether or not to move the municipal election from May, when few pay attention to it, to November, which is when people are more used to having an election. Deputy Mayor Howarth would have the people of this town believe that the Democrats had some hidden agenda in moving the election when in reality they were simply following the will of the people. People in this township are fed up with all of these elections. This is a township that holds primary elections, November general elections, a school board election, a fire district election, and a council election. It's too many elections going on in one township. Every time an election is held it costs the town money. How can the Deputy Mayor claim that they were elected with a mandate to reduce what they claimed was the wasteful spending of the Democratic council, but then argue it's ok for the township to spend $50,000 every two years in an election that few people participate in? This is an opportunity for the town to save $50,000 every two years, and in these economic times I see no reason why the town shouldn't make every effort to conserve cash, especially in light of the taxes being so high, the township crying poverty at every turn, and the newly minted council members claiming they want to cut wasteful spending. You want to begin reducing township spending? Allow the voters to move the election. What are you afraid of? What do you have to hide?

by: phiwings @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 21:03:24 PM UTC