New Brunswick City Council ignores its constituents

by: Scott Weingart

Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EDT

Supporters of the ward system argue that their proposal, which provides for six ward and three at-large councilmembers, would make the city's government more representative and accountable. The ward system will increase the political influence of New Brunswick's minority constituencies, including African-Americans (23% of the population), Hispanics (39%) and students (about 30%). Because they would represent fewer people on the council, ward councilmembers can more effectively respond to their constituents' concerns and more ably represent them in city hall.

On Monday, June 30, the group filed a petition to put the ward question on the ballot. Supporters of a ward system collected 1,116 signatures, far more than the 357 required for a ballot initiative, to ensure that the petition could withstand intense signature-by-signature scrutiny from the measure's opponents in city hall.

Needless to say, the City Council doesn't much like the idea of responsive, representative government. Yesterday, they voted unanimously to put another question on the ballot which would ask voters to approve establishing a commission to study the city's form of government. New Jersey law prohibits two competing questions from appearing on the ballot in the same election, so if the council manages to get its referendum on the November ballot, the ward question will be left off. However, because the residents filed their petiton two days before the city council passed their resolution, the petition should take precedence:

"I'm pretty sure that the filing of the petitions is the critical point," said Ernest Reock, professor emeritus at the Center for Government Services at Rutgers' Bloustein School of Planning and Policy. "The law says you cannot start action for a charter study commission while some action under the direct petition method is pending. I think that's pretty conclusive and I'm pretty sure that's the way it's always been interpreted."

Council President Elizabeth Garlatti told the Home News Tribune that she offered the ordinance not to undermine the ward initiative, but to encourage a more "deliberative" process. That's nonsense. If the ordinance isn't part of an effort to push the question off of the November ballot, then why try to pass it now, after the petition has been filed but before the city clerk can validate it? Why not ask the city attorney to interpret the statute and decide whether the residents' petition or the ordinance would take precedence before passing the (potentially illegal) ordinance?

The Council simply wants to keep the question off the ballot during a high-turnout presidential election year when the political machine has a much weaker grip on the city electorate. Shame on them. Their brazen attempt to subvert the will of city residents only underscores the need for a ward system in the city.