Wards debate intensifies as Election Day draws near For those with previous experience, cost not among the cited flaws BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer The question of whether to change Edison's system of council representation from an at-large arrangement to a five-ward structure has been a contentious one ever since the council passed an ordinance that would put the issue on the ballot this November. As Election Day draws near, supporters and opponents of the measure are fighting to rally Edison's roughly 100,000 people to their side. On Oct. 4, members of the Edison Township Council held an informational forum to talk about the wards system and what switching to it could mean for residents. During the forum, residents traded frank statements on their thoughts regarding the potential advantages and disadvantages of changing the system. Many, including Councilwoman Antonia Ricigliano, also expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction that the meeting was not televised. The event featured a video of a 2003 discussion on the issue, which Ricigliano hoped would address some of the more common questions and concerns regarding the potential switch, as well as a general question session afterward. If the measure passes this November, the ward system's institution would break 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. The other four members would be chosen at large, as they are now. The measure was proposed and had gained significant traction in 2003, but when the question was finally placed before the residents, it ended up failing by 29 votes. According to procedural rules, four years had to pass before the question could be brought up again. The issue has since wasted no time in coming back for another round. During the forum, supporters of the ward system said the change would increase government accountability, enhance representation, and break up entrenched power structures in local government. The logic is that a ward council member will be more familiar with the issues affecting that particular part of Edison because they live there. "All the council people should represent the entire township, but no council person knows all areas of the township," said Bill Stephens, a former council member. Further, according to supporters, the official is more accessible to the people he or she is responsible for because the person comes from a smaller pool of people than someone representing all of Edison would. "There's going to be more representation at their own neighborhoods. Suppose you have a problem in your own neighborhood and you have a councilman from south Edison and doesn't know ABC about your neighborhood. … It's high time we [adopted this system] at the rate our population is growing, so everyone gets equal representation," said resident Nilesh Dasondi, who is also a member of the zoning board. Edison Mayor Jun Choi has come out as one of the most vocal opponents of the switch to the wards system, having been instrumental in defeating the measure in 2003 before being elected. Despite his personal opposition, though, he acknowledges that the question is ultimately in the hands of the voters. "Personally, I oppose the wards for Edison because it will lead to higher taxes and a more divided community, but I will respect the will of the residents," said Choi. Choi has warned about the potential problems a ward system could pose to residents of Edison. He has said that it could increase government spending, because each ward might want to pursue its own pet projects, and that quid-pro-quo politicking would be a possible method to secure support for them. This mind-set would come from each ward council member looking out only for the interests of his or her own ward, rather than for the good of the township as a whole. Paul Brush, mayor of Toms River, said that the infighting and factionalism Choi had spoken of in the past was something he was also concerned about when his town made a similar switch from an atlarge to a ward system in 2002. On these grounds, he feels the ward system was not the best thing for his town, even five years after the system had changed over, despite conceding that it does carry certain advantages. "There's no denying that the ward council members are much closer to their residents, their constituents," said Brush. "The argument against it, and I think its very valid, is that the ward council members will make decisions and get involved in the planning process on what is most important to their ward only, and I have a concern about that. All in all, I believe that the entire town is better served without a ward system." When pressed for specifics, Brush said that affordable housing tended to get passed around like a hot potato. Working with civic and church groups, he had pushed to get more affordable housing built, but that "I have observed ward council members saying 'not in my ward.' " He disagreed with Choi's other critique of the ward system, though, which was centered on the financial cost of both the transition to the new organization and the increase in government spending due to competition for public funds. "I can't say there was much of a cost factor here in Toms River. … The administrative cost was put together by the council, and it wouldn't have made any difference in our case whether it was a ward system or an all at-large system, so the cost was not a factor in the change of government," said Brush. He also said that he has not observed any of the "horse trading" between ward council members behind the scenes that Choi had warned of, but also noted that as a Democratic mayor working with a Republican council, he simply may just not be privy to such goings on. As far as official costs go, such as overhead and additional staff, Brush said, "That's not an issue at all." "We went from a five-member committee to a seven, plus a mayor, so we have eight elected officials instead of five. So there's a marginal cost, but it's insignificant," said Brush. Ernest Reock, professor emeritus at the Center for Government Services at Rutgers University, advises municipal governments seeking to change their systems of organization. He, too, does not feel that municipalities with ward systems have generally higher costs due to competition for public money. "I haven't seen any evidence of that [higher general expenses due to inter-ward competition]. It may be true, but I haven't seen anything that would document it," said Reock. It is also his feeling that the transition costs of switching between an at-large system and a ward system are not necessarily significant, though noted that there is more wiggle room here, saying that a town certainly could make it expensive by adding all sorts of extra elements such as demographers and attorneys, but this does not have to be the case. "They could spend a fair amount of money if they wanted to, but I think their existing people in government could probably do the job themselves. I don't think it needs to be an expensive proposition," said Reock. During the forum, Anthony Massaro, council vice president, articulated that one downside to a ward system would be that government action would be slower. "The more people there are to make a decision, the longer that decision takes. … You can almost guarantee that meetings are going to go longer," said Massaro. He said, though, that despite this, the people would still be better served by a ward system. "I would dare say any citizen in this township, if they had an opportunity and it was easier for them to pick up a phone or knock on the door of their council member, they would be better served by knocking on the door of their council member than their council committee person," said Massaro, going on to say that council committee people tend to be very partisan. Resident Ralph Bucci urged people to keep in mind that no matter what form of representation the council takes, it is still the responsibility of the people to elect good representatives. "This is just about the form of our government. It's only as good as the people that are in there. … You put nine people in there who stink, you'll get stinky votes," said Bucci.