An everyday tale of unintended consequences for the Charter Commission
Within a few days of holding a public consultation forum to which nobody came (okay, two diligent members of the community answered the call) Red Bank’s Charter Study Commission was faced with the inevitable consequence of their righteous endeavours; the result of a “non-partisan” council election, in the very town cited by them as a model of civic involvement certainly cast doubts on the principle.
Long Branch City’s election for five councillors produced five “non-partisan” candidates, who naturally were returned unopposed. Surely a triumph for representative local democracy? At least going by the enthusiastic reception by the local state senator and inspiration of just one single-issue (non-partisan elections) mayoral candidate in Red Bank.
From the outset, it has been clear that the Commission was never going to consider actual voting and representative reform in the town. One might have thought a town which has prided itself in its support for immigrants and in particular the DREAM generation of DACA might have some ambition for the near 20% of the town who aren’t citizens and have no form of representation. Not an impossible consideration since there are many towns and cities throughout the US which permit non-citizens to vote in local elections, and even stand for mayor. But as the commission stated right from its Genesis, solutions were bound by the existing rules. Rules which had already resulted in the town’s predicament. And as an afterthought, for the 30% of the town for whom English is a second language, there is always Google Translate.
But luckily, a model example of the commissions’ collective dream exists near Red Bank, in the similar-sized town of Long Branch. Perfect in respect of implementing their ideal, but not so ideal in the actuality. This election was for five council positions with a four-year term. Such was the level of community interest that they barely managed to find five “non-partisans” to fill the vacancies so there was no contest otherwise. To compound this charade the turnout was 6.76% such was the level of community involvement. It would be mischievous to suggest that this would meet the commission’s real intent, but it seems evident that someone has been barking up the wrong tree.
So here we are in a town paralysed by factional intrigue and intent on ploughing on with the agenda of a dissident and unimaginative faction no matter what.
The prime quality mark of representative democracy is the quality and integrity of its representatives. Perhaps Red Bank would be better served by everyone working on that aim.
Non-partisan elections are just another word for voter disenfranchisement. The proof is in the results, and the motivation is to shut down as much public input into local government as possible in order to ensure that the back room dealing goes on interrupted.
The RBCCS was inspired when the petulant losers of the 2021 RB Democratic nomination process, (one of whom now stands accused of stealing from our school children). Rather than work within the system they decided it would be better to blow it up, and ran to Monmouth County Democratic Chair Dave Brown, (the only “big boss” with power,) to give them what their own community would not. This, in my opinion, proves their own hypocrisy and desperation: they cannot secure the support of their local party, so they go outside and ask for the blessing of those who seek to control out town’s development, finances and in the process enrich themselves and their friends.
At last night’s council meeting the impact of this outside interest was once again crystalized when two elected officials pushed another resolution championed by a State senator (who lives in Long Branch and to whom they owe their political existence) that is meaningless, toothless, sounds-good-on-paper-but-will-do-NOTHING-for our residents.
Notice they couldn’t say what the resolution actually accomplished, who it would help, and could only scratch their heads when asked what kind of help it offered our low income residents.
And in the meantime, our town continues to be understaffed and underserved.
This commnission appears to me to be nothing but a scam, an outcome looking for a justification, and I hope voters reject their recommendations in November. Four of these Commissioners are as disingenuious, ill-informed and politically opportunistic as those at whose command they serve.