A fellow resident knocked on the front door late Sunday afternoon asking for my signature. They are re-doing the petition, and this time there are lawyers involved. Dollar signs danced in my eyes with the prospects of lawyers now being brought into the equation this early in the process. I assume that there will be more on this at the Borough Council meeting this evening.
Speaking of equations, what are some of the variables that the study should look at - cost of services, taxes, etc. If you were tasked to design the study, where would you focus your attention?
Finally, who are the firms that conduct these studies? Are there previous works to view? Is Rutgers University a more cost effective option?
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»cGood for them! I'll sign it again. All they want is an unbiased study and judging from the editorials on Brennan's website I'm not sure that they're going to get it from that bunch.
While the main focus of the study will be the consolidation with cherry hill, I think the alternative of fixing our high school situation needs to be addressed, i.e. what would cherry hill want to accept our kids? or maybe a focus at just consolidating our schools with cherry hill altogether.
My point is, there needs to be more than one solution to our problem.
[Blogger: this time there are lawyers involved...who are the firms that conduct these studies? ...Is Rutgers University a more cost effective option?]
GOOD QUESTIONS, but you do not expect the petition crew to know the answers, do ya? That would be yet another petition and study and don't forget the consultations with whatshername NGO pictured a couple of threads down. No, the guys who talk here just do petitions.
What is this one, the 3rd petition?
I find it interesting that the petitioners are not --at least they appear not to be-- talking to the councilmen and the mayor about their progress in those promised actions.
Collecting another petition of signatures, this time with more specifics, reminds me of kids one sees from time to time in the street revving the engines of their muscle cars and smoking their tires in a run down to the stop sign and back.
It makes a lot of noise and smoke and all the kids seem to enjoy impressing themselves. But it all goes nowhere and a lot of neighbors debate with themselves whether to call the cops or go back to bed.
I believe this petition is written to satisfy the formal requirements for a question to be placed on the ballot this November so that the entire community can vote yes or no as to whether or not they want to have a study done. If there has been involvement of lawyers it has merely been to get the petition language precisely right so that it satisfies the formal requirements to get a question on the ballot. The vote would NOT decide if the community wants to merge with Cherry Hill. The vote would merely be to decide if a study should be done in that regard.
I would recommend staying away from Rutgers, They already have study (1999) recommending that Merchantville be merged with Pennsauken.
Aw, come on KT -that's not true. All council has to say right now is that they've met with Cherry Hill and Senator Beach. Sen. Beach was going to investigate funding. Council appears to be waiting for that. All sounds very responsible...
But the fact of the matter is you really can't know if somebody is going to fund if for you until you know what it costs. You can't find out what it costs until you put it out for proposals via RFP. You can't put it out for RFP until you apply to the DCA in Trenton. You can't apply to DCA until Council passes a resolution to form a committee.
I'm sorry - they are playing rope-a-dope here. Catch 22. We won't move ahead on a study till we know what it costs and who is paying. And you can't know who is paying and what it costs until you move ahead on a study.
Council can move this forward any time they wish, without a referendum. Why haven't they done so? I'm left to believe they don't want to make a study, and they don't want to consider a merge, or they would have gotten the ball rolling already.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned over the cost of a study before committing to it.
If the study was voted to go forward before costs were known, would there be a way to opt out of it after the fact if the costs came back too high and we didn't get funding from the state?
Of course! The study is not authorized until you sign a contract with the consultant.
The point is you can't even get there if you don't appoint a committee and make an application to the state. Council is just delaying, counting on people to not understand what is actually going on.
First - thank you for your thoughts, but please don't respond to my question with a comment about the council.
It makes it difficult for many of us to ask questions (or want to ask questions) when the conversation turns this way (no matter who says it) I don't happen to believe that Perno and the council are doing as you suggest just as I don't believe you are out to ruin the town.
Second, I understand that the nothing is binding until a contract is signed. I think that some of the concern is over how much a study will cost. Some say over $100,000 and others say $42,000 or less. That number and who is paying for it does matter. If we vote "yes", and every bidder bids $120,000, are we bound to go through with the study? Or will there be some provision that puts a limit on the cost of the study and if we can't do it cheaper, we won't do it.
How do I get in touch with the petitioners? I want to sign.
If it did cost $120,000+ and Merchantville alone had to pay for it and, as a result of the study, there would be a slight glimmer of hope that M and CH would merge, then the study should be done. The cost would be worth the risk that merger would not happen. The overall net benefits to the Merchantville community of a CH merger are that great.
Obviously it would be better if the costs were shared or picked up by the state, but solely bearing the costs so long as there was a glimmer of hope is well worth it.
There is not going to be a "sure thing" in the preliminaries of this. Risk has to be taken. Powerful forces may exist who do not want it to happen (Trenton officials, Pennsauken, Conners, Conaway, Cherry Hill partisans, Merchantville partisans, etc.) and they will start to act. The petition and the study are worth it so long as there is a glimmer of hope that a merger could actually happen.
The existence of a "yes" ballot referendum and a thorough study of a M/CH merger if the actual merger does not happen, could be useful in refuting a Pennsauken merger which will be pushed onto Merchasntville down the road if a CH merger does not happen.
I understand your concern, wondering. The answer is nothing is bound by forming the committee and making the application to the state. In fact that is the only way to find out how much a study will cost, and then to figure out how or who to pay for it.
If you are indeed in support of a study, this is in fact the only direction there is to head. That is where the process starts.
So the answer to my question is we should not expect a limit placed on the cost of the study. It may be as low as the $30,000's or it may be over $120,000. (numbers are random estimates obviously) No one know for sure. And the cost may be covered by the state, shared between towns, or absorbed by just Merchantville.
It would never fall to one town or the other. My understanding is that cost is shared.
Lets face reality:
1. Cost of a good study will be much closer to 100K than 40K. Its not rocket science to know this. Studies have been done by school boards with less financials to look at that have cost at least as much as half of the 100K.
2. why would conaway, connor, and allen want to lose merchantville from their district. Cherry Hill is a different district? I would imagine this would be a political nightmare alone.
3. Career politicians will sit back and listen, make you believe that they will help you get what you want, but in the end will do what is best for them.
Not one dime should be spent of my merchantville Tax dollars for a consolidation study of the entite town. On the other hand I would strongly support a school consolidation and or send receive study by our school board.
So you'll buy an empty bank building for $1M, but you won't invest in a study to explore a more sustainable future connected to Cherry Hill. BTW we just might get all of the money required from foundations and the state.
[So you'll buy an empty bank building for $1M]
If there had been enough residents to say "no" to buying the bank, including Cruiser who cheered the idea, Merchantville would not be in such a large pickle barrel and needing Cruiser's "slight glimmer of hope".
WOW. I live in cherry hill and was very anti-merger.
looks like this thing will never get off the ground so there is no cause for concern. It is at least 5 years away and the courts (yes there will be courts as merchantville will be sued by pennsauken and folks in cherry hill will sue) will determine AGAIN that the flight from pennsauken schools is racially motivated.
we have all written and emailed the mayor regardless. our main concern is that we don't want another population of kids in our schools, we don't want to subsidize another town and other childrens education. I'm not impressed.
we also don't want to contribute to any study. if merchantville want s a study, let them pay for it. we would rather use the the extra $150k for our schools. I suggest merchanville begin to invest in its schools as well.
why don't you speak to the cherry hill mayor? the last few weeks have been challenging for him.
cherry hill will pay nothing toward the cost of a merger,
what the hell does the purchase of the bank building have to do with the consolidation study? If you are unhappy with our elected officials, vote em out. It is a thankless position which gets berated from both sides. Frankly your bullying tactics are getting quite old. pound your fist some more and get the State to pay for the study, which if it makes it to a ballot will only get voted down for very obvious common sense issues. I begrudge the petitioners nothing it just seems so clear to me what a huge monumental waste of time and devisive issue this is that I can't see wasting any more time on it. I just can't believe that I have not heard one good argument for the petition. Other than "We need a study to make an informed decision" hogwash
And one more thing Cherry Hill has nothing that I want for my family and community.
"Silent" majorities don't blog all day.
Silent majority sounds like a loud, small minority.
I have lived in Merchantville for nearly 40 years as well as my wife and I both have graduated from Pennsauken High. We have proudly raised four children all of whom have also graduated from Pennsauken. The last child graduated in 2005 so we are not talking ancient history here. All of my children have had the good fortune of going on to pursue degrees in higher education. In case it has been forgotten, just like in life, high school is what you put into it.
Some claim that Merchantville has a better school district than our friends in Pennsauken. This has made some believe that going to Cherry Hill High Schools will have a greater benefit for our students. If our students are that much more motivated to succeed, why is it that there is not a steady stream of high school valedictorians with a Merchantville address? While sending our students to a Cherry Hill School may have its advantages, I believe that those advantages will in the long run, be a disservice to our residents in the form of unneeded higher taxes.
If you are so intent on sending your child to Cherry Hill, I suggest moving there.
I'm new to this and on the fence about the movement to dissolve the town. Is there any word on who the blogger is? I mean what is their personal motivation?
The obvious response in order to remain anon would be to chorus the previous posts and comments. I'd just like the source of the op.
@lavardera If you love Merchantville so much, why see it be washed away into Cherry Hill?
I'm trying to make rational conclusions but I'm only reading contradictions.
Is there a list of pros/cons?
We just want a study and now we're going to get it.
And if the study recomends keeping the arrangement with Pennsauken will you then move to cherry hill
@lavardera If you love Merchantville so much, why see it be washed away into Cherry Hill?
Because I don't see it being washed away. All we are talking about here is the politics of the town, not the identity, not the character, not the neighbors, not the businesses, not the history. Everything I love about living here will remain the same.
I think we should study a merger because the town is in a very difficult place financially, and in order to make our budget work in the future we will have to make significant cuts to services. I believe these cuts will decrease the quality of life, and our property values. I think that the possibility of Cherry Hill being able to provide these services at a level we have enjoyed in the past may be possible, and that the study will clarify these questions. If the study proves a merger will not be beneficial, then I won't support it.
If our students are that much more motivated to succeed, why is it that there is not a steady stream of high school valedictorians with a Merchantville address?
Because all of Merchantville's best students go to private school, or move away.
Not only not true its insulting to the students that attend Pennsauken
Sorry - poor humor. You are right.
Listen, I'm very glad that they are pleased with their children's high school experience, but the fact remains that the majority of Merchantville parents disagree and send their children elsewhere. This arrangement does not work for us, and has not worked for us for many years.
Their conclusion that it will result in higher taxes are simply unfounded. This is why the study is needed.
And if we want to be critical, I find their suggestion that the solution is for me to move to Cherry Hill to be rude and insensitive, hence my poor humor that followed.
re: Because I don't see it being washed away...
I'm not sure you understood the statement. Merchatville the town won't exist. In it's place will be a section of Cherry Hill. Right?
So when Merchantville dissolves into Cherry Hill the employees of our town will lose their jobs? They will be replaced by Cherry Hill work force. Will it be a one for one replacement?
There won't anymore birthdays? Right? Without the township will other events continue? How is this not a monumental shift from the current culture?
_________________________
re: I find their suggestion that the solution is for me to move to Cherry Hill...
Essentially, at the end of the day, this is what you want right? You want to be apart of Cherry Hill but you don't want to physically move.
I'm just trying to gather my thoughts on this.
I'm not sure you understood the statement. Merchatville the town won't exist. In it's place will be a section of Cherry Hill. Right?
Of course Merchantville will exist. All of our neighbors, our streets, our businesses, everything will be here, except the local government. That is my town. It will exist no matter where the government is.
So when Merchantville dissolves into Cherry Hill the employees of our town will lose their jobs? They will be replaced by Cherry Hill work force. Will it be a one for one replacement?
This is something the study will begin to answer.
There won't anymore birthdays? Right? Without the township will other events continue? How is this not a monumental shift from the current culture?
I can't see any reason why we would not continue all of our traditions, such as the Merchantville Birthday Celebration, the holiday parades, the historic house tours. There is no reason for these things to stop. In fact I have to say no - there is no monumental shift in culture.
I'm very willing to respond to your questions, but I'd be much more willing to be helpful if you dropped the cloak of anonymity. Its just too easy for others question your credibility and the sincerity of you questions when you remain anonymous. I don't want to see your credibility dissolve because others suspect you are not who you claim to be.
Question One: If we merge with Cherry Hill, will there be signs welcoming you to Merchantville when you enter the town?
Yes/No
Question Two: If the Merchantville government and groups associated with the government that were responsible for these events cease to exist then who will pay for and organize the events?
How can we have a birthday celebration for a town that doesn't exist?
Shouldn't we be questioning the credibility and the sincerity of this blog? Let's stay on point please.
I'm sorry if I'm being stubborn but I can't make sense of this.
Question One: If we merge with Cherry Hill, will there be signs welcoming you to Merchantville when you enter the town?
Sure. Why not? Merchantville is a place. That lasts longer than a political district.
Question Two: If the Merchantville government and groups associated with the government that were responsible for these events cease to exist then who will pay for and organize the events?
Public events that are currently paid by for by local government would continue to be paid for by local government. A merger does not mean an end to these events. They can be organized by the same volunteers that organize them now.
How can we have a birthday celebration for a town that doesn't exist?
The place still exists. The history still exists. The birthday still comes each year. Why would we stop?
I'll continue to play along, but its clear that your questions are thinly veiled objections to merger. Thats' fine. I'll be your dupe if you wish.
All of your questions revolve around a political identity vs a community identity. I did not choose this town for its politics, and it really does not matter very much to me if its one town or the other. Local government has a job to do in providing public services, and Merchantville the government is facing an increasingly difficult task to do that. Enough so that Merchantville the government may prove to be a liability to Merchantville the place to live. When that day comes I will happily hand over the responsibility to govern to another group that can better provide for Merchantville the place that I live.
If you wish to equate your town with the political and government dimensions, well then be my guest. But long after the Merchantville government washes away and dissolves, Merchantville the place to live will still be here.
lavardera: the town is in a very difficult place financially, and in order to make our budget work in the future we will have to make significant cuts to services.
Do you think a merger with C.H. will not cut your services? Check what the ratio of C.H. police-per-capita is. (You don't need a study for that; check the annual report municipalities submit to the State Police.)
If Merchantville had cut its police force to the C.H. per capita size five years ago, or to the average Camden County per capita, WE WOULD NOT BE IN "a very difficult place financially".
Time and again if anyone asked Council to cut services, there was a resounding "No, we need our police".
Well, you will not have 3 cops per shift as a Cherry Hill community. You will get a cut equivalent to 3 cops off today's Mechantville force.
None of Cruiser's favorite officials nor Cruiser himself would have championed a cut that big. Propose it to Council tonight.
I am very pleased, lavardera, you are using the HTML tags to show italics and bold in your thoughts. And reducing the snipes is "moving" you towards 100% neighborly.
Now, do us the favor of asking Council if while proceeding on the merger research they promised, if they will consider cutting Merchantville services NOW towards the level we should ecpect in a merger.
KT - Borough Council met last night, not tonight.
Neighborly - I don't think council can say what services will be like after a merger. I think that is an analysis better done by an independent third party.
An announcement has been posted at the Merchantville Study for Consolidation Facebook Group explaining what transpired yesterday:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=135090249834880&topic=157&ref=nf
... Merchantville Connecting for the Future took the lead last weekend by circulating a petition to implement an independent study in a timely fashion. In only two and a half days, almost 3 times the legally required number of signatures were gathered, a profound indicator of the study's widespread support among residents.
On Monday night, Cherry Hill extended its hand to Merchantville with a 9-0 vote to submit a joint application for the study to the Department of Community Affairs on behalf of Cherry Hill township and Merchantville Connecting for the Future....
Trying again to make a live link:
Merchantville Study for Consolidation Facebook Group
Congratulations to all who have brought this matter this far and best wishes for future success.
ktbfw - I have always advocated that as long as a separate M community exists, its police force should exist and it should be managed by elected officials to be as efficient and effective as it needs to be. I am in no position, and neither are you, to gauge whether or not the current force size is appropriate, excessive or short.
Criteria like officers per resident are clearly not appropriate in comparisons of Merchantville and Cherry Hill.
I think you are merely trying to add unnecessary baggage to the discussion about the merger study.
If you think local government is not managing the police force to be efficient and effective, don't vote for their re-election.
If the opposition candidates for the upcoming election are hellbent on reducing the size of the police force, they should honestly and honorably disclose that in their campaign literature.
The voters will decide.
And its curious how since yesterday while Council has been occupied trying to figure out how to un-do what we've done, that all my mysterious anonymous tormentors have vanished. The supposed Cherry Hill Residents that have been bad mouthing our school and telling us Cherry Hill is not at al interested- not a peep. What a coincidence. Just sayin'... draw your own conclusions.
I was at the Cherry Hill council meeting yesterday. The Merchantville resolution was passed 9-0. Many spoke in favor, none spoke against it.
lavardera,
Not all Council members are occupied with trying to undo what you've done.
I for one support any effort that will get us a comprehensive study. If the latest petition will get that done, good.
Right now most of the arguments pro and con are based on subjective criteria, not hard facts about what the consequences, good and bad, of a merger would truly be. We sorely need the objective criteria a study will provide to give us all some substance to chew over.
I don't believe the Council is, in general, trying to block those asking for a study. Maybe some members are so inclined; I don't know. Certainly the two I've spoken with on this subject are not. In fact, they've both expressed the same opinion I have - this must ultimately be a town decision, not an elected officals' decision. (No, I won't divulge who I talked with. The conversations were confidential. Sorry).
One thing though - while I support proceeding with this process, we do need to proceed in a very deliberate manner, and in concert with Cherry Hill. It may try some folks' patience, but we need to do this right the first time, because depending on the ultimate outcome it might be the ONLY time.
Mark, I don't mean to implicate any individual when I refer to "Council". Council acts as a body, and even if an individual Councilman is not in favor, the body follows the majority vote.
Our group has proceeded very carefully and very thoughtfully. We have done the homework and the footwork to talk to the people in town. We've been able to start the process of having a study done.
The question anyone watching these events has to ask, is why would Council try to undo this now that is is done? Why so eager to work with Cherry Hill now after stalling? Why push for Councils Resolution instead of our Petition?
Greg, you make lots of accusations here against other persons.But you have no facts. I applaud council for not acting on impulse and being strong armed by a group of people who want what they want when they want it and are not open to compromise. Your actions have been in my view disgraceful. I would support a feasability study in principle but knowing what you have done turns my stomach. and somehow I can't help but think that the feasability study would not be fair.
I applaud the actions of this group, it would not have happened without their strong arm tactics.
Now we need to vote these people out of office. I would like to see this group endorse some candidates and work on getting the vote out this election.
That is not going to happen. Our group's focus is having a study - not running candidates.
I've always supported the current admin. and its only over this issue of the Study I've been disappointed.
You’re straddling the fence here, LaVardera. Only yesterday you declared in what sounded like a strident voice: “Our local government has broken our trust here. Instead of acting in the best interest of all the citizens they have been pursuing a private agenda.”
Then someone asks you to work on getting these trust-breakers out of office and you say meekly that’s not going to happen. Now suddenly the local government that you say has been pursuing a private agenda is just fine with you.
A pretty sad day, indeed.
Gail - No fence straddling at all. I am clear where I stand on the current events related to getting a study done.
I don't appreciate your appropriation of my complaints into an election campaign call. That is not what its about and I resent your attempt to politicize it. It takes the focus off the issue I'm concerned with and I don't believe this does anything useful for moving a study forward.
This is about the study, and you won't guilt me or drag me into it. Shame on you for trying.
This is a free country, Greg, and our system allows you one secret vote. If you’re willing to continue to support members of this administration who have broken the public trust and pursued a private agenda instead of acting in the best interests of all the citizens, then go for it. That doesn’t surprise me.
I’m not trying to guilt you or drag you into anything -- just pointing out your inconsistencies, “wide open for all to see”, as you said about the Mayor and Council. You’ve made your position very clear. You’ve always supported the current administration and it’s only over this issue of betrayal of the public trust and following a private agenda that have disappointed you. Certainly not enough to influence your vote.
By the way, someone in your consolidation group did threaten the Mayor and Council at either the June or July Council meeting with your large block of several hundred voters, enough to sway the election. It wasn't you, I know, but do you recall who it was?
1. I was there at both meetings and dont remember that.
2. "Consolidation group" misrepresents the group as they dont want consolidation but instead a study for consolidation
Take a hike Gail - you are not going to bully me into any election support or attack. My strong feelings on the Council's behavior regarding the study is not a declaration one way or the other regarding the election. I've made no public commitment on my upcoming vote and never will.
When you post something like Certainly not enough to influence your vote. you are putting words in my mouth and being deliberately provocative towards me. I don't owe you any explanation of how events influence my vote and you are being highly presumptuous and foolish by trying to antagonize me and attack my character for not subscribing to your simplistic conclusions.
This is about the study. Note the title of the thread: "The Study" I'd appreciate if you took your election discussion elsewhere.
Anon. 8/12: It was a smart move for you to remain anonymous. Now you tell us that the group (let’s call it by its proper name: “Merchantville Connecting for the Future”) doesn’t want consolidation -- they just want a study for consolidation.
Think about what you're saying -- of course the "Merchantville Connecting for the Future" group wants consolidation. Why would they be pushing so hard for a study if they didn’t want consolidation?
Also, “Merchantville Connecting for the Future” is working closely with “Courage to Connect New Jersey”, a group that encourages mass municipal consolidation.
Gail - We've always made clear that we want a study so we can make an informed decision. If a study shows a merger to be bad for Merchantville citizens, then we won't support it.
This is now in stealth mode, since it involves bailing out CH. Half of their deficit relief just fell into their laps. Wait till you see how fast this consolidation happens. Sad to say it is a done deal. The voyeurs got what they wanted.
So what's next?
We have the petition, we have Cherry Hill's Resolution. Next we make our application to the State requesting the Study.
[Anon 9:06 AM: ...it involves bailing out CH. Half of their deficit relief just fell into their laps.]
Sounds very scary but, oh, so plausible.
What do you think is the chance C.H. would add public personnel and police to its unbalanced budget to service Merchantville? I think not a chance.
Disclaimer – I am in favor of the study because we need facts.
BUT,
Mr. Lavardera is typical of the many one-issue constituents I encountered while sitting on the BOE. They tend to see their issue as being so important that all other considerations should be ignored. Those one-issue constituents tend to make a lot of noise over a short period of time and then fade away whence they realize that their issue is either unrealistic or unwanted by the elected officials who were given the mandate to make those decisions for the majority.
The original petition, though poorly worded, set into motion an admirable goal – to commission a consolidation study. This goal appears as though it will be achieved. BZ to the organizers.
BUT,
The discussions on this blog have deteriorated into abject stupidity. The knee-jerk reactions from Mr. Lavardera could be the death of this noble effort. To attack Gail, who has been our Borough’s Devil’s Advocate for as long as I can remember, is just ridiculous. Her service to this community, as much as it pained those of us who sat on the other side of the table, is the epitome of informed and concerned advocacy. We should all thank her for her service to our country during the war (CAPT USN Ret.) and our community since she retired.
The townsfolk are everywhere on this. Marvin opposes the study – when was the last time you heard him on the same page as Mayor North, et al? Mike is in favor – he hasn’t gone against Mayor North, et al, since the long ago East Chestnut deal. And to be fair, that occurred during Mayor Brennan’s administration.
To Mr. Lavardera – please put the claws away. If this is meant to be, it will happen. You won Round 1 of a very long fight. I‘m inclined to root for you as the fight goes forward. Don’t turn the crowd against you by biting Gail’s ear off. Or anyone else’s.
To Marvin and the Anons – let the study happen. $42K, $100K, whatever – it is worth putting the money down to get the facts. I don’t want to see it come out of my taxes any more than you do, but the study could prove to be a great, and community saving, investment in our future.
To Mayor North – sorry about the et al. I know you are an independent thinker, but there are many who think you are part of a vast conspiracy to scuttle this. I know better and so do the majority of Merchantville voters who elected you. And you know I would not be too shy (or anonymous) to tell you if I thought otherwise.
I very much appreciate your defense, Drew -- that's a rarity, indeed. Maybe I'll have it framed. I really wanted to do that with the "Gail’s hot” comment that appeared not long ago, but the blogmaster removed it before I could print it out.
By way of clarification, I retired from the Navy Reserve (USNR, not USN). My “war” was Vietnam, 40 years ago, and I was a young Lieutenant in Washington when Jane Fonda chained herself and others around the Pentagon. My office overlooked Arlington Cemetery, so I heard “Taps” played all day long for the better part for two years. Jane didn’t listen. In those days, we were ordered NOT to wear our uniforms.
Thanks again, Drew. I, too, favored a consolidation study, but LaVardera has made me not even care anymore.
The Mets and Phils are tied 0-0, but it's only the 5th inning. The Phillies don't come alive until the 8th.
If one or two opinionated people can make you "not care" then you aren't the person i know and drew described. we need you on our side gail. i hope that statement is not true.
lavardera is passionate about this and may have thrown some grenades but i think the basis for his statements are reasonable.
lets now band together lavardera, gail, loue(haha, i think he is still here), brunton, cruiser, and anyone else that you have seen in support of a study and get this done!
I’m not the person you think you knew, whoever you are. But I don’t know any anonymous people, so I don’t care what you think.
In my opinion, the basis for LaVardera’s statements are not reasonable at all -- he’s been wrong too many times to suit me.
And 3 of the 4 people you named are not my friends -- ask them, they’ll tell you that without any hesitation.
You already have all the people you need on your side. I heard there were more than 300 names on the most recent petition -- that leaves 2,300 of us who don’t matter.
I do not know Gail. But I have seen her in action at many meetings. I find her to be an antagonist who is more concerned with being right, than what is right. She uses the record as her source of fact, but sites hearsay when it suites her, then attacks others who do the same. Her petty shots like there are 2300 people who don't matter, or saying Lav has been wrong too many times are total garbage. These passive aggressive shots are her cover. And when others come straight back at her she cries foul.
Drew: To Marvin and the Anons – let the study happen. $42K, $100K, whatever – it is worth putting the money down to get the facts.
Okay! Do the study, if only to set the costs next to the benefits imagined.
I'll repress my worry that Cherry Hill will do to us what it did to itself.
I don't feel a study is necessary, I want no parts of Cherry Hill Municipal Government. I don't need a study to tell me one way or the other. Read the newspapers, read council minutes, read school board minutes. I love Merchantville just the way it is and when I have a complaint I can actually talk to someone who cares, not a career politician want to be. My family and I feel safe and secure, out trash gets picked up, our streets get plowed, our kids are brought up in a small community that looks out for each other. Municipal workers know who we are (For better or Worse) It's persoalized service and I get alot of bang for my bucK.
The school issue is the school issue, consolidation of our community is not and will never be the answer. It's a disgrace that a small minority can finagle the law and circumvent the people we elected to represent us.
I don't need a feasability study to tell me what I already know. Our community is not perfect, it never will be but it is our community and I don't need or want Cherry Hill politics here. There are many of us who know who is behind this, and come election day I hope those of us who know will remember, and I am sure between now and then many more will be informed.
I am just so disgusted with the politics that has been going on behind the scenes. Why won't the real slim shady please stand up, please stand up.....
"Finagling the law" is a pretty serious charge. Care to elaborate?
"There are many of us who know who is behind this.."
Can you enlighten the rest of us?
"Finagling the law" is not a serious charge but is a fact and is perfectly legal. The group is well within their rights to have done what they have done. I do however think it speaks to integrity and working within the system. I do not understand the rush to go around our elected officials and petition another government. In my view it was underhanded, backstabbing, and premeditated.
Alice if you do not already know ask and or listen or read between the lines. You will figure it out.
I admit that I cannot figure it out from "reading between the lines."
If it is important to know, please tell all of us.
Patience, and in due time. Alice do some investigating on your own.
I am investigating by asking you.
Why can't you just answer?
I was there says:
The Blue Ribbon Committee was suggested by Council Person Perno. (fact)It appeared that some of the council members along with the Mayor were blind sided by this.(Hearsay,Observation,Don't quote me)
Alice,
This should lead you in the right direction.
But you did not explain what finagling took place? How does it go around elected officials?
I’d like to know why Mayor Platt didn’t take a copy of the petition presented by the Merchantville group and tell them he was going to talk to Mayor North first to see if the neighboring towns could work together.
That would have been a nice gesture of professional courtesy.
Mayor Platt or Dan Keashen would have to answer that question.
Greg,
Are you seriously asking me that question?
Merchantville residents signed a petition took it to another towns group of elected officials, circumventing our own elected officials. Because someone was unhappy with the speed or lack thereof. I guess you all jst showed up on Cherry Hill's doorstep and they had no heads up?
Well you got your nice new street, and curbing, and speed hump I guess you'll get your feasability study too....
Gail, this is all being worked at behind the scenes. I know you are astute enough to read between the lines.
I should add took it to Cherry Hill Council without the knowledge of Merchantville Council. Except maybe for one or two.
Alice,
do you need more hints? or are you figuring this out.
I don't understand your objection to us acting within our rights. In order for us to advance the petition of course it had to be discussed with Cherry Hill. We were willing to coordinate with them. Council was not. Why do we need to run this by Council beforehand. They were certainly not doing us that courtesy. This expectation seems one-sided.
I'd also like to see you disclose all these secrets, but don't expect it to be credible if you don't also disclose who you are.
Whoa! I don't get the picture either.
Are the anonymice saying that Councilman Perno is in this extra-governmental action with lavardera? And they both got a new street complete from sewer lines four feet under to new curbing and a 7-inch speed hump?
NO, that can't be. Councilman Perno told citizens last year there was no money for paving the gravel alley behind Wellwood Manor and installing street lights to keep the drug dealers at bay? He said there was only enough money to make "repairs". Rebuilding his own street and sidewalks is not a repair, so it couldn't be he.
NO, Councilman Perno is the person who chaired the community committee that created the $150,000 bike path. We don't know how it got to be the $400,000 bike path afterwards in an undisclosed meeting but I am sure that the Cooper's Ferry company in charge of the Camden bicycle path extension was not involved.
No, you must be talking about a different Mr. Perno taking a petition to another municipality for action, not our Councilman Perno.
Alice, what does your research tell us? Is it Perno? Pernicious? Poseidon? Preposterous? Posthumous? ... who?
What a surprise. Wild accusations from an anonymous commenter.
Greg,
we may be anonymice on this blog but we are real people elsewhere. no falsities have been posted here, you make claims that our council has done nothing, but the mayor did meet with Cherry Hill. Who is feeding this frenzy of information I suspect your neighbor who could care less about anyone but his own agenda. he has proven it time and again. Greg don't play stupid you know very well that this is all true.
You are implying there is something wrong, some conspiracy sort of conspiracy. But all you have tossed out is public knowledge - where of what is the subterfuge? Perno is the one that first raised merger in council. That's no secret. He supports the idea, he signed our recent Petition and agreed to be on our proposed Study Commission. None of that is secrets.
Our group initiated contact with Cherry Hill before the first Petition. There has been no intermediary. This is why we know Merchantville did not return Cherry Hills calls after the meeting, this is why we know they were saying one thing to our citizens and doing another.
I have no idea what you are suggesting regarding various repavings. It sounds like you think I could pull some trick to get my street repaved? I really could not care less about that. I would like to know how you think any person could get all that paving money spent out of our budget without the rest of Coucil knowing about it.
You may want to discredit me, but I don't matter dusky in this. The interest in a study would be happening even if I never lifted a finger. If council had not behaved badly over this you would not be needing to cast suspicions on others. Your behavior as an anonymous poster has been shameful. Bad mouthing our school, posing as Cherry Hill residents, and now implying legal wrong doing finagling laws and acusations of manipulating public contracts. It's time to come out of the shadows and speak in your own voice. Be babe enough to own all the slander you sling.
Greg, obviously you had no control over funding for paving, that would have to have been a council person. I have not slandered anyone in any way shape or form. Who had contact with Cherry Hill council? And When? I already know this answer but I would like you to put that information out to the public. I do not know if you are lying or believing the lies you are being told. This is the first that someone put out that Perno was behind this, but thanks for straigtening this one out.
Lavardera - Is the proposed Study Commission, the group that will put the study out to bid, help design the study and review results? Is the Merchantville Connecting for the Future Group, the one who designates the Study Commission? Or is it the Council? the Mayor? With all the back and forth it seems that no one group should put it together. It would be virtually impossible to find 5 individuals who are unbiased and open-minded (and who would want to be in the group.) Whoever decides, it seems to make sense that you would want people that are obviously for it, against it, and undecided. I think you would then have the best chance to get all the information out (pros and cons)
Anonymous said... so eager for answers from me, and unwilling to say who you are. Sad.
Look, our group was in contact with Cherry Hill before I was involved. I began at the end of may when sigs were being collected. Russ was speaking to them then. Nothing secret there. We were not going to collect sigs if we did not know Cherry Hill was interested.
This is the first that someone put out that Perno was behind this, but thanks for straigtening this one out.
I don't know what you are talking about. I just explained that he was not "behind" our group. If you mean he was the first one to mention it in Council - that's not news. It should have been part of the minutes, but we discerned here what went on weeks ago. Please no more spin.
Come out of the shadows and say who you are.
Wondering:
See the DCA guide to consolidation. Alice posted this link on the other thread:
Here is a link to the DCA's Shared Services and Consolidation guide. The section on consolidation starts on page 17.
http://tiny.cc/nw4rn
This describes the process of forming the study.
As far as the commission members from Merchantville. They are designated as part of the Application. The members we have proposed are committed to an unbiased evaluation, and was why we selected them. Despite what you might think from debate here, our group is not sold on merger - we just want an unbias study done. Right now I don't trust Council to select commissioners without bias. I'd welcome their suggestions however - I see no harm in that. That's just my opinion - I can't speak for the group in that regard.
Please elevate the level of discourse on the blog by not posting anonymously.
I will read what you suggest - however I respectfully disagree that complete unbias exists. This is not to say that the people you selected don't want to be unbiased or even thinks that they are unbiased, it's just hard to obtain. A group will likely uncover all pros and cons if there is a mix - it also tends to keep the group honest. Just my experience.
While I am clearly in lavadera's corner in all which has been said so far, I see no need for people to be anonymous if they want to be. It is akin to the secret ballot on election day.
People who just agitate others under an anonymous name are shameful.
In reading recent blogs, I am curious about the tentative timeline for all of this. I take it that the goal is to have a question solely about having a study on the November, 2010 ballot in both communities. There would then be about twelve months for the study to be done and the commissions to work. Assuming they agree on a defiinitive plan, there would then be another ballot question in both communities (November, 2011 ?) Assuming the voters approve, the definitive plan would go into action, possibly as soon as January 1, 2012. School changes would take place beginning with the 2012-2013 school year. Is that how those closest to this matter see the timeline at the current time?
Have you or have you not had conversations with Mr. Perno outside of council? Mr. Loue is the puppet/bad guy/front man for Mr. Perno. Mr. Perno and Dan Keashan are political cohorts. This is fact not fiction whether by my real name or anonymous for obvious reasons. So Gregg stick to the question or don't I really could care less. It matters not by what name I go by if any.
I'd like for Lavarda and the Brennans to take a break from blogging. Go outside/ take a deap breath.
I can assure you I am a puppet for no one. Ask any member of the connect group how this all started. I was quite clear at our first meeting and shared it to Council when we submitted the first round of signatures. Councilman Perno has been very consistent. He made it clear on the record and directly to me. I think his statement was something like "I have never made a decision and looked back and wish I had less information." Mr Perno strongly supports a study but told me that the numbers will inform his support. Since the group got going I did reach out to Dan Keashen on my own to find out if in fact Cherry Hill would entertain the idea of a study looking at connecting the two towns. If we were getting support and advice from those you list, then we would not have made the mistakes with the first petition. It took Courage to Connect to come in and help us out and get things legally going. Every person in the group still make it clear at every meeting that they will not support consolidation unless the numbers make sense. All of this is not new. I am proud of what the group has pulled off to this point. Now just relax and wait for the study.
It seems that lavardera is way over his head in trying to explain this merger movement.
Maybe somebody else could jump in the pool to get him and the details out ... if only to help me and others get down off the pool fence on the right side.
I, too, misread lavardera's 8/15/2010 3:04 PM comment as revealing that Councilman Perno was involved in the Cherry Hill merger resolution. In fact, I sent a note off to one of our officials asking if he knew about such a sidecar action.
Lavardera is so heavily involved in this thing, and unrelentingly suspicious of the many "anonymous" commenters, that I have lost confidence in all that he writes.
Somebody, bail him out and straighten us out.
[Mr. Loue: Ask any member of the connect group how this all started.]
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Loue.
Let me ask you, who are the members of this "connect group" should anyone want to follow up on your suggestion?
They are on the petition Marvin. There are a few more that are not but those are the peeople that got this started. You could also go to the facebook page (Merchantville Study for Consolidation) and post any question you want. It is an eclectic group of residents.
Stick to using people's pseudonyms please...
I'm very concerned that this could actually happen. I had full faith that the council would never allow our town to be discarded, but now all bets are off. My family has been in this town for generations, but now people who live in apartments and speak Spanish will have the same say as me. This is WRONG!
"but now people who live in apartments and speak Spanish will have the same say as me. This is WRONG!"
At one time spanish tenants couldn't vote in Mville? Awesome! How do we go back and put that in place.
I am sorry - I shouldn't have said those comments about those who live in apartments and speak Spanish. I am actually FOR the merger and a friend of the Connecting for the Future group. I was just trying to upset those who live in apartments to get them on our side.
Once again I apologize, I took it too far.
I call BS on the last three posts
Lavardera,
are you going to answer the question posed from Mr. Mice?
Why won't Cherry Hill just consolidate with our school board?
Why does it have to be the whole ball of wax?
What's in it for Bernie?
What's in it for Perno?
Mr. Loue,
Sounds like you are the press secretary for Mr. Perno. It's OK with me if Mr. Perno is one of the charter memebrs of this petition movement. I just want him to own it.
Mr. Perno has had nothing to do with our group or the petition. Mr. Lavadera doesn't need to answer every and all questions. Let's pace ourselves here. This will be a 16 month process and all votes will be counted. Please feel free to address your questions to the Facebook group- Merchantville study for consolidation. We will also be launching a website shortly. Please attend our public conversation in October.
Could you take off the Request to Join feature of your Face book page? Through Facebook, you can't comment without your name so everyone would have to own their comments. Is there really a need to join?
Thats what facebook is all about. The admins don't control that. Just own your comments.
Anon 8/16/2010 8:28 PM: Mr. Lavadera doesn't need to answer every and all questions. Let's pace ourselves here...
This writer will not be going to a facebook group for any reason no matter its importance to others. So I hope you are not saying you want to end merger/study discussions here.
Right now I have a couple of questions on communication ... because clear communication is very important to the formulation of an opinion on the issue.
First, I heard that Mr. Keashen told the newspapers that the mayor was out on snow plow duty when in fact the mayor was in Florida during the month of February.
Secondly, I heard Mr. LaVardera when getting petition signatures told people that a councilman told him the mayor and council are against the study and have had closed door meetings to sabotage the study and possible merger despite no such meetings having occurred.
Thirdly, I heard that some proponents have claimed that our mayor has not returned telephone calls from Cherry Hill despite the fact that calls placed by Mayor Platt to our mayor relating to consolidation and to meeting with Senator Beach were returned, each in turn, and the meeting took place.
Would someone clarify? Politely.
So, will the consolidation group be willing to take of the Request to Join feature of their page?
ktbfw
You statements already show that you do not believe lavardera's version since you refer to other version of events as "fact." Under that circumstance, I see no reason for lavardera to answer you as you have already made up your mind.
I have not found Mayor North to be very truthful in the past. He lied publicly about negotiating with PNC Bank; he told residents of 606 West Maple (at a PB meeting) that if the property were taken over by the boro, no one would be put out of their apartment; he denied knowing who the Merchantville Taxpayer's League was even though he personally had helped organize a joint event with them in the past and he wrote a very nasty public letter about MTL.
If your version comes from Mayor North, I have trouble believing it.
Can we go back to the quiet for awhile? It was so nice for the past 6 hours. Shhhhhhh......
[Kathy: I see no reason for lavardera to answer you as you have already made up your mind.
]
Kathy, please do not jump to conclusions or try to second guess sources when all I asked for was a clarification of the communications in the public.
Your friend, Lavardera, does not need to respond. Notice, I did not ask him. But I hope someone would clarify the discrepancies out in the public lest everyone falsely conclude that everyone else has already taken a side, if sides there be on a study, with the result that no one talks to anyone different.
Maybe you, Kathy, could start by describing the fear you are projecting. Or if that would be too personal, would you go into detail about the "application" that was submitted which is supposedly different from the petition according to lavardera. You might explain why he is holding onto it out of public view, although he did tell Alice she could go to his office to look at it.
There are several things unexplained, Kathy, for you and Anon 8:28 PM to ask for a sudden shut down of blog communications.
That brings out a fourth request for clarification. Why would Lavardera withhold the petitioners' application from the public eye?
The problem with ktbfw's 8/16 10:31 PM post may simply be that he does not hear well.
These "heard" things are either hearsay or minutiae. Do we really need to be discussing the professed whereabouts, heard second hand, of the mayor of CH during a February snowstorm? Do you really expect your smear of Mr. Keashen to be refuted now that it is August? Would nothing less than videotape of the exact whereabouts of that mayor and Mr. Keashen saying the opposite, convince you of the truth? Is it important? Is it relevant?
I can tell the blog, from personal experience, not from hearsay, that when Mr. Lavadera came to my door he did not say any of the things mentioned in ktbfw's posting. That being said, and using ktbfw's logic (minus the hearsay), the imputed truth is that Mr Lavadera did not say those things at any of the doors he visited. ktbfw, as usual, is wrong.
ktbfw's quip (8/17 6:45 PM)that "someone would clarify the discrepancies out in the public lest everyone falsely conclude that everyone else has already taken a side" is very naive. It is absolutely normal and expected that most people have taken a side, some pro and some con. In effect, practically everyone has taken a side. They may not say so to be polite but the emotional aspects of this are so strong that in their hearts, their position is basically carved in stone. Very few people will change their present bias as a result of the study. The study should be done to satisfy the requirement that it be done and as part of normal "due diligence" in such a transaction that nothing has been missed. Absent some blockbuster revalation coming out of the study, there will be no significant change in the original leanings of individual members of the community. A few undecided people may go one way or the other based on the study but the study will not affect many.
Public officials will mostly be masters at hiding their present bias, sayng over and over that they want to wait for the study. They should be like that so that all members of the public feel that they are being heard and they should listen to all members of the public. If behind the scenes they are using their public offices to sabotage (to include delaying) the effort that a substantial number of citizens have formally indicated they want (that is, the study), that would be disgraceful. I don't think they are doing that.
It’s been eerily quiet on the blog recently. No comments from LaVardera or any of the other “Merchantvilleans Connecting for the Future” for days. LaVardera used to make a comment every hour or so, but hasn’t said anything since Sunday.
After a spate of comments about Councilman Perno’s possible involvement in the submission of MCF’s application, which was shared with Cherry Hill’s Mayor & Council but not with Merchantville’s Mayor and Council, the silence set in.
Don't get all bent out of shape, Greener Grass -- you can just call me an antagonist citing fact and implying wild accusations. There’s not necessarily a connection here. Maybe all the players went on vacation. Merchantville does tend to be very quiet in August.
The fire siren has sounded several times during the past couple of days, and a truck just rolled out. Are we having a lot of fires or are the alarms just going off because of weather problems?
Although our Cruiser has determined that all peoples have already made their minds on the merger issue and, of course, the veracity or not of various promotional comments about it, still, let me announce that this week Cherry Hill Mayor Platt CANCELLED his latest scheduled meeting with our Mayor.
I am not suggesting there is anything diabolical in the act; I'm saying it has occurred. So quarter me if you must because of my parted lips, or because of the particular side you imagine me to occupy, but I stand as firmly in my conviction of that fact as The Lion In Winter did some 800 years ago in England with his facts.
Go ahead, refute it.
IT WAS OUR MAYOR'S DOING I JUST KNOW IT.
[lavardera: Perno is the one that first raised merger in council ... he signed our recent Petition and agreed to be on our proposed Study Commission. None of that is secrets. 8/15/2010 3:04 PM]
Mr. lavardera, the test of openness is giving information to those you suspect might use it in ways not supporting of your cause.
I would like to be appointed to this Study Commission. Who decides? Who is on the Commission? How do I volunteer?
McFarlans has really great salads!
The commission is by mayoral appointment. Hopefully some of the petitioners will be on the commission. We'll see...
Looking at the school numbers, merging with Cherry Hill would add to about 350 elementary students and maybe another 100 high school students to C.H.'s 11,500 students. That would be an increase of 4%. About 120 of our students would need remedial services to get them above the state minimum standards.
Cherry Hill cut its school budget $2.5 million for next year. Our school taxes going to them would exceed $4 million. Our school revenue would erase their total school budget cut and give them $1.5 million to provide remedial services to our 120 kids needing extra help.
I think the vote in Cherry Hill for merger would be successful.
ktbfw--
Your formulation of your "questions" was as follows--
"I heard [Larvardera's version] when "in fact" [a pro-mayor version].
I don't need to be anyone's friend (I've never even met larvardera) to see that you treat one version as spin and the other as "fact."
I don't know which is fact, and it doesn't matter to me. People in public office getting their feelings hurt is irrelevant. The study is going forward legally and that is a fact. I want to see what the study says and listen to the arguments about consolidation. I don't need all this "Perno hurt my feelings" and "the mayor didn't return my calls" stuff that you are getting into right now.
[Kathy: you treat one version as spin and the other as "fact."]
As you say, Kathy, I posted spin juxtaposed to facts.
Generally, when I discover that salesmen have spun information to make their products look better, I become suspicious of the quality of the goods and tend to back away. However, in this instance where the spin might be considered incidental to the petition --as you suggest, Kathy-- I showed both together to ask the question "Would someone clarify?".
Whoever knows first hand about the spin could benefit all of the petitioners by explaining, defending, apologizing for, whatever would be appropriate, the differences between what was told by a few individuals and what is fact.
My request has been on the board three days. I hope that someone cares enough to say something so that us outsiders can form a good impression of the petition and the petitioners.
ktbfw
Kathy's point is a good one. It is clear you have already decided which version is "fact". In that context your "question" is rather pointless.
I think we can all decide which verison to believe or, like Kathy, decide that it is irrelevant.
kt,
unfortunately you will never know the absolute truth unless Mr. Perno steps up to the plate. I would hope that your gut tells you something it may not be fact, but it is intuition. and I am sure you have spoken to some people you trust who do not lie. What was written on this thread, blog about the lack of integrity amongst some of the charter members of this petition is the absolute truth.
ktbfw,
you need to dig deeper to understand the cherry hill school budget. we lost $13m in state aid this year. we cannot accomodate another 350 elementary school kids and 120 needing remedial work.
I can tell you the results of the study now. merchantville needs to merge with pennsauken. cherry hill has no resources to bring these kids up to speed.
Cherry Hill anonymous,
Geez you're wrong if you looked at the numbers on the send/receive issue it would be a no brainer for your board. 9 to 10 K per student times roughly 40. That's alot of money that could be used for the benefit of all your children. You should go to your board and ask them why they have no interest in a send/receive with Merchantville.
To further elaborate 40 students per year times 4 =160 times 10K
1.6 Million, do you think your Schools could use that money? It certainly would cost significantly less to educate the Merchantville kids. It would be a cash cow for your board. It would do away with the nonsense of Merging communities. Your Mayor will sell you down the river on this merger thing, he needs the money to plug his budget and could care less about the problems it would create if all Merchantville kids were forced into your K-12 school system.
Thanks for the help. Sorry it took so long for me to respond.
I had to climb out from under a mountain of bu11$hit
So does anyone have any comments pro or con about Mayor North's latest letter to Merchantville residents? At least form me it clears up a few things.
It came off as a guy covering his ass to me. I hadn't thought he did anything wrong in all this til I saw that letter.
Something is dirty....
Dirty indeed I would start digging on Morris Street.
The Mayor's latest letter raises a big question in my mind. What was Council man Perno doing at this meeting? Was he invited, or did he just show up?
Cherry Hills mayors office stating North has not been returning phone calls? Platt doesn't know. Boy Can't wait to be governed by that mess. Let me think Cherry Hill Mayor's Office (Dan Keashan) Councilman Perno apparently showing up uninvited to meeting, Sounds like theres a rat in the wood pile.
I'll support self govern if we vote out ALL of our current council. We should probably have a fire sale and sell off all the vacant property we bought own.
I thought the letter from Mayor North was well-written and I appreciated the timeline of events.
$900 to refute blog rumors via the mail. What a joke.
JAMR (Teddy Brennan):
What makes you think Perno wasn't invited? You couldn't have read this from the text of this letter. I'm guessing that you were at the meeting and were disappointed to see Perno.
Why is that. He is a councilman just like you.
J.A.M.R. (NOT Teddy Brennan)"He is a councilman just like you"
Yes he is a councilman just like Teddy in name only, that is where the similarity ends.
Teddy grew up in this town and cares about the community, I am sure Teddy was invited, I am sure Perno wasn't. No suprise there though because Perno does what he wants with no regard for anyone else.
What happened to the latest petition? Mr. Perno could you fill us in?
After re-reading the Mayor's letter Councilman Brennan was not there, nor where any councilmen from Cherry Hill. Dan Keashan was there, Anthony Perno was there, amazing how Mr. Perno can makle meetings he wasn't invited to attend but can't make meeting he was scheduled and rescheduled to attend!
My bad, you're right. Brennan was not at the meeting, but what makes you think Perno wasn't invited? Where does it say who was and wasn't invited?
To J.A.M.R. and Anon: The answers to your questions seem to be in Mayor North’s letter.
To J.A.M.R.: Why was Perno at a meeting he wasn’t invited to?
On page 1, paragraph 4 (June 22, 2010), Mayor North names the people who attended the June 22nd meeting with Cherry Hill in Sen. Beach’s office. He specifically named Councilman Anthony Perno. He also announced that at the July 12th Council meeting. Council Perno is the Council President, and was probably invited to the meeting by Mayor North for that reason.
To Anon (on this thread and another one): What happened to the latest petition?
On Page 2, paragraph 5 (Aug. 11, 2010), Mayor North states: “The petition was forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs.”
For both of you, on pg. 3, bottom line, the Mayor says that he is available at Borough Hall most Sundays between the hours of 9:30 a.m. thru 12:30 p.m. Don’t putz around -- go down to Borough Hall tomorrow and ask him yourself.
OK Gail, I am not putzing around. I would still like to hear it from the horses mouth if Mr. Perno was invited or invited himself. I know the answer already and ust want everyone else to know. Unfortunately I can not reveal my sources. But a little investigating on your own will reveal the truth to my accusations.
[JAMR: ...like to hear it from the horses mouth ... I know the answer already ...can not reveal my sources. But a little investigating on your own... ]
STOP! Think through what you want to say, consider if anyone would want to hear it, and only then post it. The drivel puts you into the same category as laV.
I have just learned, from one horse’s mouth, that Mr. Perno was not invited by Mayor North to the Mayors’ meeting at Sen. Beach’s office on June 22nd. I understand the only person Mayor North asked to attend was our solicitor, Tim Higgins.
Mayor Platt invited his Chief of Staff, Dan Keashen, and the township’s solicitor/general counsel, Sherri Schweitzer. Senator Beach’s Chief of Staff, Ivy Rovner, was also there.
It would appear that Councilman Perno was either invited to attend that meeting by someone from Mayor Platt's office or by someone from Senator Beach’s office. Unless, of course, he knew the meeting was to take place and had the chutzpah to just show up. I doubt that -- not that he didn’t have the chutzpah, but that he wasn’t invited.
Looks like we’re going to have to ask Mr. Perno just why he attended the meeting in Sen. Beach’s office.
Looks like Senator Beach invited him. What's wrong with that???
JAMR,
when was the last time you were in a classroom in cherry hill east or west.
we cannot accomodate any more kids. we are busting at the seams.
yes. do the study if you want to pay for it but we will push back hard on any consolidation.
it will never happen. cherry hill should not have to fix your school problems. do what you need to do for your community. fire the teachers and start over start a charter school. take action. but don't look to cherry hill.
JAMR,
Do you really think it would be responsible for the cherry hill board to bring in a group of kids that are less than 50% proficient. why would we every want a send/receive relationship.
don't you think cherry hill has been approached in the past regarding this. guess what? they have just about every year.
the answer is still the same "no".
dig deeper there is more to find.
this is not what it seems
This is a nice blog.
We'll rename it.
Cherry Hill - a great place to live and play - when we merge.
Do you really believe Merchantville will still have an identity after the merger.
Get real. A merger is to SAVE MONEY.
All local services will be consolidated. police, fire, admin, school, post office
there will be no local services.
It will all be done out of Cherry Hill exisitng facilities.
Nothing will stay the same. It will all close along with the school.
Nobody said anything was “wrong” with someone inviting Councilman Perno to a meeting with Senator Beach and the mayors of Merchantville and Cherry Hill. I just want to know who issued the invitation and why. That’s a fair question.
You seem to know a lot about this issue, Anon. Can you tell us why Mr. Perno was invited without his mayor’s knowledge? If you know, you might also tell us why Mr. Perno would have attended the meeting without first informing the mayor of his own town. That would have been common courtesy.
Common courtesy would have also suggested that Sen. Beach (6th District, Cherry Hill) would have invited Sen. Diane Allen (7th District, Merchantville) to the meeting.
Then again, Senator Allen doesn’t take her marching orders from the Camden County Democratic machine. She would have been the only Republican in the room.
I live in Cherry Hill. My sister lives in Merchantville and she told me about this blog- so funny! I think a merger is a great idea and most of my neighbors don't really care, but are overall favorable. The problem with Merchantville is that professional families move out because of the highschool. As part of Cherry Hill, Merchantville would attract and retain the professional sorts. All boats would rise. Do what you want. I doubt you'll get another chance.
Cherry Hill Anon,
Does it concern you at all that the student population of Merchantville is less than 50% proficient???? The average school population in Cherry Hill is 85% proficient.
It would cost millions to bring these kids up to speed.
Cherry Hill pays more per student than Merchantville so we would be subsidizing their education???
Cherry Hill would be responsible for maintaining their older infrastructure???
This will be a drain on our resources and schools???
Not sure where you live but the folks in Cherry Hill I speak with do NOT support this merger.
We are actually considering a petition against the merger and will only support the study if it is paid by Merchantville or the State of NJ.
Cherry Hill is already a large community.
Merchantville - you are already 50%with Pennsauken, just make it 100%.
Gail, keep digging your getting there. I doubt we will get the truth from Perno or his cronies.
I think that Cherry Hill residents should feel just as empowered as a few Merchantville residents did and start a petition against the study if they feel strongly enough. The people of Cherry Hill should take control and let their Mayor know how they feel.
J.A.M.R - Don't you have some crime to prevent. Get back to work. You do not even live in town.
Anon,
The truth is the truth, doesn't matter who I am or who I am not. But I will bet no matter who I am my integrity far exceeds yours!
Lets not lose focus here, Gail formulated a good response and some valid points/questions, are they going to be truthfully answered? or I we going to try and redirect the topic and lose focus? Good tactic but it will not work.
Firing false accusations against named individuals without evidence is of the highest integrity. You are actually a coward.
[Scoff: Firing false accusations against named individuals]
What are you talking about?
Gail's point is well taken. Our mayor made clear whom he invited to the Senator Beach's office meeting. So who invited councilman Perno? And why?
The reasonable questions one might ask include was it Mr. Perno's involvement in the petition and in its presentation to the Cherry Hill council that got him invited to the merger meeting?
Mr. Perno's attendance seems to go against our council's decision to delegate our mayor to the task. Why would he go?
And lastly, might one suspect that Mr. Perno's self-insertion into the talks is an attempt by him to direct or control the issue?
No, I do not see "false accusations" in this incident. I see genuine concern about private motivations unrevealed. Remember, Mr. Perno now heads the Cooper Ferry group which is heavily involved in multi-million dollar redevelopment projects that extend from Camden into both Cherry Hill and Merchantville. Knowing how the CEO behaves and why is transparency.
I’m weary of the games, JAMR. If you have something to say, just say it.
I don’t have to know who you are, but I’d like to hear what you think is going on here.
Otherwise, I’m ready to redirect the topic.
Please, let's redirect.
The mayor wasted money and time telling us that CH "phone records' will support his story (WHO SERIOUSLY CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE!) and JAMR is wasting our time accusing Mr. Perno of having personal motives to merge the town.
This is a big non-troversy.
It is a distraction from real financial issues facing the town. It is a distraction from the real issue of potential merger.
Is this what people mean when they say we are like Mayberry? More like Peyton Place.
WAKE Up, It is all about Mr. Perno and his tactics, along with the group he has pied pipered to his cause. No games here Gail, I have said all I can say, KT get's it do you? I am stepping back to see if anything fruitful develops here, I do not want to Lavardera people to death here.
speed humps, location, curbing etc. were approved during the tenure and spearheaded by Mr.Perno. Additional monies were spent from capital when they could have been saved.
The DCA (Mr. John P. Rasimowicz, Division of Local Government Services) sent back the petition (received yesterday afternoon) saying that both communities need to either present a petition signed by 10% registered voters based on the last general election or pass a resolution by the governing body.
Our council, Cherry Hill's mayor and a representative of the petitioning committee have been notified.
Is everybody happy now?
If what you say is true, then this "ruling" has apparently been interpreted as meaning that the same method must be used by both communities, so that either Cherry Hill must go the 10% signature vote, which would be more than 2,000 Cherry Hill voters ... or Merchantville's governing body must pass a resolution.
If that's the way the law reads, it doesn't make sense to me. Each community should have a clear "either/or" choice. They shouldn't have to use the same method.
Doesn't surprise me that DCA seems to be reading the law a different way. That's why those public employees get paid so much more -- they're just smarter!
Thank God! This is great news! Now our council can be in the drivers seat again and we know they would never allow this abomination to go forward. I was really begining to worry about the outcome of a townwide vote. This is done now.
If you were worried about a town wide vote, does that mean you think a majority of Merchantville residents support merger?
Because then you are saying you are glad the Council is ignoring the majority.
I was worried about how newer residents would vote. They all seem to favor thowing away the town, because they are not stake holders. The mayor and council respect the true stakeholders. I'm very pleased with this news.
Why do you think petitioners won't pursue signatures in Cherry Hill?
Anon 4:52, your dismissal of newcomers (how do you define it?) is sad. What happened to Merchantville as Mayberry? I am sorry if you represent the true Merchantville.
I think many reasonable people supported a Study.
Why are so many of you convinced that Merchantville Borough Council will not seek a study? Mayor North’s recent letter said this (bottom of pg. 3):
“In closing, I am fairly certain that a majority, if not all members of both Merchantville and Cherry Hill Councils, believe a study to be a potentially good thing. It would provide a clear and honest look at the realities of the financial standing of both communities and the expected commitment that each community needs to make to remain independent or consolidate.”
Hold him to that.
If you have lived in Merchantville for a significant amount of time, move over. Those who are new to the town are the life-blood and the true stake-holders of Merchantville.
I was about to post the same thing Gail.
Great minds...
And anon, both newcomers and oldtimers are residents of Merchantville. Everyone is a stakeholder here.
I call BS on these posts
Anonymous said...
Thank God! This is great news! Now our council can be in the drivers seat again and we know they would never allow this abomination to go forward. I was really begining to worry about the outcome of a townwide vote. This is done now.
8/24/2010 3:41 PM
Realist said...
If you were worried about a town wide vote, does that mean you think a majority of Merchantville residents support merger?
Because then you are saying you are glad the Council is ignoring the majority.
I think the apparent decision by the DCA is sound, it prevents just the kind of back door baloney that went on. Citizens should attend council meetings, or write letters, and or speak to the Mayor about your feelings on this issue. Then council should be able to make a clear informed choice on how to proceed. If you disagree with their choice when its made then you have the power to vote aginst them. That is true democracy in action.
I am a "Stakeholder" Raised here, raising my family here. I SUPPORT the merger.
Don't speak for us all.
I too am a stakeholder in town. Moved away once and moved back. Raised my family here. Volunteered lots here. Elected to office here.
I SUPPORT the merger.
[JAMR: Citizens should attend council meetings, or write letters, and or speak to the Mayor about your feelings on this issue. Then council should be able to make a clear informed choice on how to proceed.]
I used to make my thoughts known at almost every council meeting, so I'm not the one to suggest other than what JAMR proposes. However, noticing the heat to date I suspect our Council has no choice but to pass a resolution similar to Cherry Hill's.
That would make Two little Indian boys sitting in the sun;* to fill out the application together.
*(One got frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Indian boy left all alone;
He went and hanged himself and then there were none.)
I signed the first petition, but haven't been involved. Every one I know is hoping for this merger to happen. I would be willing to petition Cherry Hill residents and I don't think it will be hard. Nobody in Cherry Hill really cares about this. I grew up on the East side of Cherry Hill and know alot of people. Who do I get in touch with to get started?
*(One little Indian boy left all alone; He went and hanged himself and then there were none.)
Who handled the funeral arrangements -- Platt Memorial Chapel?
Alice: Can you put your application on line at the Facebook page? If not, how can a copy be obtained ...?
Lavardera: No, the Application ...basically just asks permission of the state to form a commission and take the steps needed to have a study. ...As soon as we hand it in I think the plan is to post it online- we are going to put up a web site.
As I read the Department of Community Affairs requirement, if our Council approves a resolution requesting DCA approval to create a Consolidation Study Commission, then the merger petition and its accompanying application become moot because Cherry Hill does not have a comparable petition. The next application would be based on resolutions.
QUESTION: If C.H. and Merchantville become the applicants, do they alone decide the composition of the Consolidation Study Commission?
“The Local Option Municipal Consolidation Act (copy was included) specifies two methods of requesting approval to create a Consolidation Study Commission. The governing bodies of the two communities may apply to the Local Finance Board (by resolution) of [sic, "or"] a representative committee of registered voters of the two communities may petition the Board (NJSA 40A:65-25.b). The law also specified the number of signatures required. A completed application form must also be filed under either method.”
yeah, i agree about getting a petition in cherry hill being a pretty easy task. If we need 2,000 signatures, honestly, we could go to the mall and ask people for a couple hours and probably get it done.
In the last General Election there were 23,705 residents who cast votes in Cherry Hill. If the requirement for a petition or application is 10%, then the minimum number of signatures needed would be 2,371.
It would be smart to get more than the minimum number in case some signatures are not valid.
The total number of registered voters in Cherry Hill in 2009 was 50,250.
The preferable alternative for remedying this situation is for Borough Council to quickly adopt a resolution equivalent to the resolution passed by Cherry Hill. Borough Council should not drag out this needed action. It should be done by say September 15. It should not be something on which action is delayed until after the November election. The Borough Council vote on having a study should not a matter of conjecture in a political campaign. Candidates can certainly have campaign positions for how they would like to see things go after the study is completed but the issue of having the study should be over and done with before the campaigning begins.
That is what I am now expecting of Borough Council. Just do it!
Well, what do we need to do to get council to vote on it? Sign me up.
The problem with this Chris is that council would appoint a committee consisting of individuals with anti-merger bias. Do you think Cherry Hill wants to work with that group? Our mayor only returns phone calls when the heat is on.
Correct me if I am wron here, but the only thing the commission does anyway is, with the cherry hill commission, select a third party to perform an independent study, the results of which will be available to the voting public. Do we really need to be concerned with anti-merger bias on the commission? And for the sake of argument, if we were to obtain the 2700 signatures from cherry hill, would the petitioners be in charge of selecting the commission? In that situation, the memebers would have a pro-merger bias which isn't necessarily a good thing either.
The commission can endorse or reject the plan. Residents only get to vote if the commission endorses.
Under the statute, whoever files the application has to "include provisions for the means of selection and qualification of study commissioners..." That sounds like the DCA gets to approve the method.
Furthermore, the DCA is required to hold (it looks like) 3 public hearings on the application. If people thought the selection method was biased, that would be the time to speak up.
DCA is a required "non voting member" and the DCA prepares the fiscal study. If the boards of ed would also consolidate, then the Commissioner of Ed gets a non voting member, too, and the County Superintendent prepares a study.
It doesn't sound like "packing the commission" would be easy.
Someone from my church told me that pro-merger petitioners were knocking on doors all over Barclay Farms last night. They must be coordinated with or by the Merchantville petition gang.
[ If the boards of ed would also consolidate, then the Commissioner of Ed gets a non voting member, too, and the County Superintendent prepares a study.]
Alice, why the subjunctive mood? Doesn't this consolidation attempt cover both municipality and school board?
I used the wording in the statute and the statute says "If".
NJSA 40A:65-25(f).
I haven't asked for a copy of the application yet so I don't know what it specifically asks for.
My understanding is that the intended merger is for both the town and the shool district.
The law is likely written with the "if" in it to accomodate towns whose schools are in a regional school district already encompassing the towns to be merged. In the merger of such towns, the Department of Education would not be involved.
would that be everyone's worst nightmare? we actually merge the towns, but we still had to send our kids to pennsauken. haha.
I checked with my friend in Barclay and no petitioners hit her street/block/immediate area.
Post a Comment