Council Statement - Scot Pitzer
1 - Thank you for allowing me to have the floor.
2 - First, I believe this effort by our citizenry in collecting signatures and fighting for a cause has been impressive. You rarely see this effort at any level of government. And for submitting a petition that met borough code and bringing it to the forefront of our consideration - I really do applaud you.
3 - I agree that simplifying government - at all levels, including this Borough - is important. However, I hope you understand several concerns that I have about this process.
4 - First: while this petition doesn't address Ward Elimination, I feel it should be explored simultaneously with council reduction. As our solicitor pointed out at a previous meeting, eliminating wards would require a council reduction to seven members.
5 - Secondly: regarding the 9-7 petition, my chief concerns are whether this legislation has been fully-vetted, and the public understands its consequences and ramifications. Make no mistake about it, this legislation is substantial. I don't know whether the public has had an ample opportunity to digest this proposal. While there have been talks in the past about reducing council, this movement came together quickly. In fact, it's been three short months since signatures were collected and now it's on our agenda. I just want to make sure the public truly wants this.
4 - Thirdly: the process. Any legislation or ordinance that is passed by this board traditionally goes through the committee process for deliberation, discussion, study, review and more importantly public input. This legislation has not. I can't think of any other piece of vital legislation that was passed by this borough in three short months. I'm not going to say this has been rushed, but I can't argue with the perception.
The noise ordinance took, what, two years? The event ordinance took more than two years. The revised sign ordinance took just as long. The zoning ordinance revisions to the hospital district took a year and half. Unlike this ordinance, those ordinances can be tweaked and changed. This legislation is permanent.
5 - Fourthly: I would have supported referring this legislation to the committee level for further review and public input. We need to truly understand as a council if this is what our constituents want. I would have supported a non-binding voter referendum to further gauge public input by those who participate in the voting process; unfortunately, we cannot do that. I think it should be carefully vetted before final approval; considering the consequences and ramifications now instead of later. Again, this legislation is permanent.
6 - Fifthly: I think this council, as a whole, should ask ourselves if this is something our community truly wants. We've been told that 6 percent of the electorate signed the petition. What about the remaining 94 percent?
7 - As for the electorate that signed the petition, I reviewed the paperwork and discovered some interesting data - or some may view the data as discrepancies. For background purposes, this data is all based on my individual analysis.
7A. Out of the 285 signatures, roughly 173 were from First Ward residents, representing about 61 percent of the entire petition. Another way of looking at that figure: 40 percent of the figures came from the 2nd and 3rd Ward combined. Is this truly representative of our community? Does everyone really understand what's going on?
7B. Out of the 285 signatures, roughly 91 were collected on Election Day, Tuesday, 11/04/14. In other words, 32 percent of the signatures were collected on Election Day, presumably at the polls.
8 - In conclusion: as I stated earlier, every other legislation or ordinance that's adopted by Council goes through the Committee system. Again, this has been a three month process, without going through a committee. That may be a record for passing any legislation in this community. This petition got the conversation started - now I feel we should keep the discussion going.
Respectfully submitted,
Sara L. Stull, Borough Secretary