Ward question in the hands of the voters Council approves placing of ballot question for government change BY TOM CAIAZZA Staff Writer Give it to the voters. That's what they said.The Edison Township Council passed an ordinance July 11 to put two referendum questions on the November ballot that could change the current form of government that many believe is no longer adequate for the state's sixth-largest town. For the third time, voters who enter the voting booths on Nov. 6 will see two questions that would change the current at-large form of government to a ward system, allowing representation of the town's several communities in a fashion similar to congressional districts. The movement, which has resurfaced after a required four-year hiatus, asks voters to scrap the current form of government in favor of a ward system, but also would allow for the addition of two new council members to the seven-member board. The overwhelming sentiment expressed by council members at the July 11 meeting was to keep out of the way of change and allow the public to decide if the ward system is the right way to represent an increasingly diverse population of 100,000 people. "My personal thoughts on the issue don't matter," said council Vice President Anthony Massaro. "I believe the residents of Edison have the right to determine their own future in regard to their government." The measure passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote, and Councilman Rob Karabinchak, who was absent from the meeting, expressed regret in a letter that due to time constraints, the issue could not be held until the following month's meeting so that he, too, could be involved in the discussion. Council member Robert Diehl said that giving the voters the right to vote on the matter, and making that decision as early as July, was a step toward the public making as informed a decision as possible. He said the "beauty of voting in July" to put the question on the ballot is that the township has ample opportunity to have a discourse on the pros and cons of scrapping the current government, something that was not as readily available the last time the decision was presented to the voters. In 2003, the council at first refused to put the question on the ballot. A group of residents, current Councilwoman Antonia Ricigliano and former council member Bill Stephens included, spearheaded a petition drive to collect an adequate number of signatures to overrule the council's denial and force them to put the question on the ballot. After the council received the 6,000-plus signatures, council members acquiesced and added the question. It failed by 29 votes. The Faulkner Act, the state legislation that sets parameters for both the at-large style of government and the ward system, requires a four-year period before the public can request another vote on a change of government. "It's in your hands," Ricigliano said of putting the question on November's ballot. "The only thing the council is doing would be to give you the chance to say yes or no." The ward system breaks the township up into several districts, each with one spot on the council. Edison would most likely be divided into five wards, allowing one candidate chosen from each ward to serve on the council. The other four council members would be chosen at large, as they are now. Proponents of the change say that it gives the township, which has seen expansive growth in the 30 or so years since the ward question was first defeated, the ability to better represent the individual needs of each area while still keeping a handle on the township's issues as a whole. "It gives people hope in areas that would be overtaken by the majority," said Joe Petrucelli, a resident and member of the township's Finance Committee. "We want to be a community again, and the only way to be a community again is for people to have a voice." Robert Engel, also a resident, said that the council should have greater faith in the electorate. "Give us the confidence as the electorate," Engel said. "Give them the confidence, and they will vote accordingly." There are some, mayor Jun Choi included, who say the ward system could be more costly and could foster a "quid pro quo" precedent in the allocation of capital projects. Choi has said in the past that the ward system of government could result in more "pork" projects for wards. One resident expressed concern over the possible polarization of the electorate and likened the ward system to the feudal system. Eleanor Both said that while the decision should be made, it should be made by the incoming council members, not the outgoing ones. Four of the seven current council members were defeated in a primary and will not be on the November ballot for re-election. Other supporters of the ward system said it would be easier to approach their council member because he or she would be from that community. Sylvia Engel, who is working on the campaign for the Republican council candidates, said that it could be as easy as knocking on their doors. "You can knock on the door of your council person," Engel said. "If they don't do what you want them to do, you vote them out next time." There was some concern over whether the public understood that the referendum was posed in two questions and that either could stand without the other. The public will choose between having a ward system with seven members or nine, or an at-large system with seven members or nine. The council members were all in agreement that further discussion of the ward system before Election Day would be beneficial.