By JEFF KASKO
Special to the Sun
When I ran for borough commissioner in 2009, I pledged to seek thorough, thoughtful consideration of important issues and decisions in order to fulfill two goals: to give all Haddonfield residents a chance to be heard and give me the ability to make more informed decisions. I believe the maximum amount of public input, and the maximum amount of listening to fellow residents, leads to better decision making in government.
Almost all of the major issues and decisions by the board of commissioners over the past three years have included a healthy amount of discussion, consulting, consideration and public input with adequate notice to the stakeholders involved — which usually means the taxpayers who live here and fund the operations of local government. This was true of the annual municipal budgets, the outsourcing of services like trash collection, the sharing of our municipal court services, the redevelopment plan for Bancroft, plans to expand or relocate our public library, changes to the overnight parking ordinance and many other issues that we debated and solicited public comment on before taking action.
On these types of issues, we spent many hours considering options, appointing committees, listening to experts and consultants, reading reports and holding public hearings. And most people in town, from what I can tell, appreciate the thorough and thoughtful consideration of important issues that our residents have come to expect and that they deserve.
I certainly do.
For example, when we pass an annual municipal budget, which includes setting the property-tax rate and multi-year capital-improvement plan, we have several months of planning and discussion, followed by a first reading, public advertisement, notice of public hearing, period for public inspection and second reading and public hearing before final adoption.
When we introduce a new ordinance or change and existing one, the process is pretty much the same. And it’s the same when we approve a capital ordinance, which authorizes the issuance of debt to pay for capital projects. On Bancroft and the library, just to name two issues, the process has been long and deliberative, with plenty of public input along the way.
This process of notifying and soliciting input from the public is followed for two basic reasons: because it is required by state law (in some cases) and because it is the right thing to do. It allows for maximum public input, as well as openness and transparency in government.
At our last commissioners meeting, on May 22, we had under consideration a resolution to commit a capital expenditure to install an artificial turf field near the high school, despite the fact that our annual budget and multi-year capital plan do not include it and the body of the resolution includes the potential use of Open Space Trust funds, not just capital/debt to finance the turf field. While this may be a worthwhile undertaking by the borough (I voted to approve it and have thanked the turf committee for their work on this), I am troubled by the rushed process that was utilized — totally unlike the thorough and thoughtful way the issues I just mentioned were considered.
That night’s agenda and the turf field resolution were not published or adequately publicized by the borough ahead of time. Only seven days had passed since the turf field proposal was presented to the commissioners as a group, with no advance public notice and no members of the general public in attendance at that work session. For the May 22 meeting, no notice was published in the borough’s official newspaper, no notice was included in the previous Municipal Matters, no notice was included in a borough email blast sent the week before, nor was there any type of public inspection period, press release or mention of it on the borough’s website — until the agenda and the resolution were posted online at approximately 5 p.m. that day.
In addition, not one lick of paper about the merits of a turf field, in the form of a written report or any findings, studies, surveys, cost estimates, proposals, or financial/fundraising plans, was made available to the public prior to the meeting. I was handed two of these documents (a cost proposal and a soil study) 10 minutes before the meeting. Not very thorough. Not very thoughtful. And not at all open or transparent.
To the residents who read about the turf field issue on the Haddonfield Sun website or who received private emails about it a few days before: Thank you for attending and for speaking up, either for or against the resolution. Your interest, passion and dedication to our town and its recreation and athletic facilities impress me and have made an impact.
To the residents who did not receive word about this or would have liked more adequate notice and discussion, I hope you will look at the borough’s overall track record and consider this an aberration — not the norm — for discussing important borough issues, especially those involving the expenditure of your property taxes.
I do remain hopeful that in the future, we will strive to make decisions in an open, thorough and deliberative process, with the maximum amount of public input, and that we’ll do what’s best for the present and future residents of Haddonfield.
