Top-down versus Bottom-up Changes in Municipal Government

The British Crown created counties in the original 13 American states, just as the Crown had done in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, in order to efficiently collect taxes and to watch over their subjects with Crown agents locally based. 

After winning the American Revolutionary War, the new powers that be in New Jersey were the "free holders of land" who originally were the only voters, and these free holders elected the New Jersey counties' "Boards of Chosen Freeholders" to govern. 

New Jersey Counties being considered local made some sense in the 1700's and early 1800's when New Jersey was mostly farmland and mines. But today we are the most densely populated state in the nation and even the suburban Morris County has more than 450,000 residents and nearly 40 municipalities.

I, for one, want access to a government that is closer to home and more likely to care about local families and businesses. I also want to retain my borough's character. 

New Jersey state and municipal governments can legislate; but New Jersey counties cannot. Counties just collect some taxes and provide some services in return. 

I, for one, do not like that we only seem to have the choices of county and municipal as scale of local government. One is too small to be cost-effective and the other too large to be held locally accountable.

What's the point?

On November 29, 2012, the New Jersey Senate passed bill S-2 which allows the State Treasurer's office to decide which towns should share which services with which other towns. If a municipality does not do it, then the NJ State Treasurer will calculate how much money the municipality would have saved with those shared services and will deduct that amount from the municipality's state aid funding. 

That's top-down mandates on We the People's right to establish and operate our own local governments.

Outrageous! That's the final straw in a top-down authoritarian government process that started with the early 1700's British Royal Crown and then was reinforced by the late 1700's free holders of land to rule from above and crush home rule.

Not only does this reek of top-down, power-grabbing authoritarianism ... 

SHARED SERVICES DO NOT WORK. MERGING MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONS DOES WORK.

Shared services between 2 municipal administrations creates a constant power struggle between the 2 municipal administration hierarchy over each and every shared service. It's us versus them. Who rules. Local pride versus local pride. 

Merging municipal administrations fully eliminates the multiple administrations for one elected by the combined municipalities' voters. The municipalities retain their local names and pride. Merging municipal administration separates the issues.

Shared services does not cut the tops. It keeps the duplicate expense of operating multiple municipal administrations. If it doesn't cut the top, then where are most of the savings? Big savings really would come out of the field. 

Merging administrations cuts the tops. It saves the duplicate expenses of 2,3, or 4 complete administrations but keeps the service level in the field -- public works, police, parks, etc. -- high, and maybe higher, at lower cost to taxpayers. 

For example, this year Scotch Plains and Fanwood (in Union County) are merging administrations to be elected and accountable to the combined population of voters. But Fanwood will always be referred to as Fanwood and residents will still have that pride and sports competition with Scotch Plains. 

An example which already has been working well for services and taxes is the merged administrations of Hanover, Cedar Knolls, and Whippany (in Morris County). They have one administration as Hanover Township, while each retains it's name, pride, and identity among residents and businesses.

In both merging administrations and shared services have one good thing in common: The  decisions are made from the bottom-up ... at the grassroots level ... by and between the municipalities. That's democracy.

In NJ Senate Bill S-2, the State decides, not the municipalities. (Remember, the Counties do not have  legislative authority; only State and Municipalities do.) What does a State official down in Trenton know about the local identities in every Municipality in every County? Nothing.

NJ Senate Bill S-2 has passed the full Senate already. But its sister bill (this year) is NJ Assembly Bill A-1171 and it remains in committee. Lobby your NJ Assembly representatives. (Each district gets 2 NJ Assembly representatives.) 

Tell you Assemblymen/Assemblywomen to oppose NJ Assembly Bill A1171. Write a letter-to-the-editor. Write your legislators a letter. Stop into their office. Tell them to vote "no" on A-1171.

Let's rebuild the government level that provides local services from the bottom-up. Let each municipality select and negotiate merging with neighboring municipalities. We know our local identities and needs better than NJ State administrators in Trenton.

Let's replace the top-down Crown and Aristocrats mandated County configurations with town-by-town direct negotiation and municipal mergers.

For more information on shared services, municipal mergers, and other related topics, contact Courage-to-Connect. Gina Genovese, the leader of Courage-to-Connect NJ, has a statewide grassroots network that encourages municipalities to merge and helps them with the process. 

Also, download the "Courage-to-Connect NJ Guidebook: The tools for municipal consolidation in New Jersey" at their website.

I, for one, look forward to opposing NJ Assembly Bill A-1171, joining Courage-to-Connect and reading their "Handbook", and ...

... to seeing what municipal merger configurations emerge from a bottom-up, grassroots, democratic reform process.

By Steven J. Reichenstein