The Haddonfield Republican Club is hosting a forum for Candidates running for Commissioner to discuss their positions on important issues facing our town at their next monthly meeting, Wednesday April 10th. The Club meets at Borough Hall in the 2nd floor assembly room beginning at 7:00 P.M.
In keeping with our mission to help educate citizens on topical issues, we are welcoming residents to attend the discussion.
We will ask the candidates to briefly explain:
- why they are running;
- to define their platform, and
- what makes them qualified to be a leader of Haddonfield.
As of March 19th, four of the six candidates have graciously accepted the club’s invitation.
For more information contact haddonfieldgop@gmail.com or call Shelly Castorino at 856-795-0644.
Bill Tourtellotte
7:27 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
This should be a good event. Also, the candidates form sponsored by the Haddonfield Civic Association and moderated by the League of Women Voters will be at the HMHS Auditorium on Wednesday, April 24th.
C.V.
8:20 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
snore
Walter Weidenbacher
10:08 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Wake up, lazy bones. We need to hear what our future leaders are saying, lest we vote ourselves into more trouble than we're already in. Let's just hope the candidates don't answer the first question, "why are they running," with somnolence-inducing bromides. Or else we'll all be snoring.
Jeff H
12:41 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
We don't necessarily need leaders. We don’t necessarily need candidates with great photo shopped campaign pics and grandiose ideas. It's time to execute on the basics/necessities and less on the 'WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVES'. The Bancroft Referendum should have been a big wake up call to the folks who THINK they know what's best for this town. THEY DON'T! So.. If you aren't ready to privatize, think way outside the box, and reduce the size of this government while also reducing taxes and the improving the quality of the services provided, please rethink your campaign!
Walter Weidenbacher
4:38 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Maybe I should have put "leaders" in quotation marks. Like it or not, we ARE electing our leaders, and it will be leadership that takes us wherever we go, even if it's to more privatization. Incidentally, privatization is hardly a panacea, but often seems to be, due to the history of utter failure of government to run certain operations. Responsible stewardship and total transparency is what's needed, and no back room "deals." How long can we expect privatization to preclude corrupt management of funds?
BTW, it's possible this election will indeed tell us how big was the Bancroft referendum wake up call you're wishing for. Me too, because, IMHO, the Referendum was more a reproach of the politicking that was trying to carry the day.
Maryann Campling
6:15 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Mr. W.....I couldn't agree more!
Jeff H
10:36 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
W.W.: CASE IN POINT: A number of years ago the borough converted all of their water meters over to 'smart meters' to allow for automated reading, to the tune of $1 million +. These meters also have the capability to ‘tier’ pricing based upon time of day usage. WE DON'T USE THAT CAPABILITY. INSTEAD, we send messages to homeowners asking them not to water their lawns during peak hours in order to avoid pressure issues. A PRIVATE OPERATOR would be smart about this and charge lower rates during off peak times to change residents’ behavior. A PRIVATE OPERATOR would also bill on a monthly basis in order to identify leaks sooner, and smooth out the revenue flow. Heck, the savings on float alone would cover the extra postage. INSTEAD, we do it THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE. IT HAS TO END!
Walter Weidenbacher
1:50 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Such intelligent billing sounds like the multi-solution you describe. But the idea would necessarily have to be vetted by the borough before a contractor could do it, and then, well, the borough could do it! So, the problem/solution isn't about privatization, it's about government leadership and decision making (again), isn't it? I ask in this election season, which candidates are going to advocate this great idea (if that's what it is)? More than privatization, we need to shake the Luddite mentality that (often, very often) COSTS MONEY (frequently referred to as "waste").
Brian Kelly
2:43 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Great point Walter, The fact that stewardship and fiscal responsibility, among other issues, is a platform for newer candidates and talk is prominent concerning said issues shows the referendum is already making an impact.
Most importantly, we as voters hold the greatest responsibility. Don't just listen to a candidate give campaign pledges. Your vote is your chance to be heard. Tell a candidate if they want it then listen to your concerns. Tell them what you think is best for our town. They're running to serve the community at large.
For me it's important to judge a candidate for their whole body of work. I might vote for a candidate who disagrees with some of my concerns as long as their position is honest and they not only respect my concerns but take them into account.
HaddonGirl
10:21 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
It's great that there are 2 opportunities to meet and greet, to hear what (most of) the candidates have to say. Borough Hall will probably be a more collegial, informal atmosphere that allows the candidates to feel more comfortable talking to their neighbors, due in part to the size of the room. The HMHS auditorium, lovely as its nearly refurbished self is (stage curtain is still in sad shape), will likely be a large echo chamber, and not conducive to "neighborly" repartee. But the more chances to hear people live and in person, the better.
David Siedell
10:32 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
HaddonGirl,
I completely agree the more chances to meet the candidates and hear their ideas on the issues is fantastic.
The Civic Association felt that having a commission debate at Borough Hall would give a home field advantage to current commissioners. Also a big difference between a forum and debate is in how it is structured. A forum allows each candidate equal time to state their case, the Civic Association debate is just that, a chance for the candidates to challenge each other. Questions can be posed to all, or to just one or a few of the candidates. Hearing a position is great, hearing that position challenged by another candidate gives the voter a better feeling of how the candidates differ, even if they generally agree on an issue. Our debate is moderated by the League of Women Voters. They control the meeting, from selecting the questions from the pool submitted to keeping responses within time to challenging the candidates themselves to give more complete answers if they feel they were not addressed. The LWV moderator and timekeeper by their rules are not from the Haddonfield area, they have no dog in the hunt, so to speak, and are completely independent of even the HCA in the outcome of the debate.