What will Maplewood TC results mean for Mayor and Deputy Mayor?
LOST said:
Does Vic want another term as Mayor?
Good question. The article says that he did not comment. It may be that he thinks it is time to step aside. One way or another, we'll find out on January 1 (if not before). Maybe others here have better knowledge of his intentions or this situation, which is why I asked. If we will have a new mayor for the first time in nearly a decade, that would be interesting news for many residents (in my opinion, at least).
Back when Vic and Fred were both on the TC, they had an agreement that the mayor position would alternate among TC members. Since Fred left the TC that has not been the case. I don't know if that's because the TC was happy with Vic being mayor or if Vic had the votes to stay in power.
It's clear Lembrich wants to be Mayor, it's just a matter of when. I don't agree with his leadership style but I'm not on the TC. Dafis and McGehee are close and I would expect them to vote as a block.
If Greg or Nancy are given the job, it might be "interesting news," but it's not clear to me how things would be materially different for the town and residents.
One issue which seems to be getting more attention is making the town more affordable and accessible for seniors. It seems odd - though possible - that the younger candidate and his "newer/younger" supporters would be better advocates for that.
The loudest issue (aside from taxes) seems to be traffic, congestion and parking. Do Vic, Greg and Nancy really have significantly different positions on that?
The development of the P.O. site is probably the biggest difference between Lembrich and DeLuca.
apple44 said:
If Greg or Nancy are given the job, it might be "interesting news," but it's not clear to me how things would be materially different for the town and residents.
One issue which seems to be getting more attention is making the town more affordable and accessible for seniors. It seems odd - though possible - that the younger candidate and his "newer/younger" supporters would be better advocates for that.
The loudest issue (aside from taxes) seems to be traffic, congestion and parking. Do Vic, Greg and Nancy really have significantly different positions on that?
Maybe, but after all of the noise about this building, Vic was reelected. And almost every Facebook post I see is how much people like the new restaurant/bar in the building.
To me, the biggest issue with the building is the original developer pulled out, and the current developer brought in a somewhat "lesser" architect. I don't know how that would have been different had Greg or Nancy been mayor.
People say the town could have struck a better financial deal, and maybe that's fair. But I think there's this perception among some folks that Vic is actively courting developers and that he personally flew out to Seattle to get Starbucks to come to the village. Simply isn't reality.
I'm not saying Greg or Nancy don't deserve the seat - I'm just skeptical that it would make a meaningful difference.
yahooyahoo said:
The development of the P.O. site is probably the biggest difference between Lembrich and DeLuca.
https://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/op-ed-maplewood-must-avoid-making-costly-mistake-post-office-site/
apple44 said:
If Greg or Nancy are given the job, it might be "interesting news," but it's not clear to me how things would be materially different for the town and residents.
One issue which seems to be getting more attention is making the town more affordable and accessible for seniors. It seems odd - though possible - that the younger candidate and his "newer/younger" supporters would be better advocates for that.
The loudest issue (aside from taxes) seems to be traffic, congestion and parking. Do Vic, Greg and Nancy really have significantly different positions on that?
The vote on the TC with Greg sitting was unanimous to allow the Carbuncle building
The consensus among 40 merchants who attended Engage meetings in the early morning hours was no building.........yet only Mr Profetta had the integrity on the
Village Alliance to vote no and then resign from the group he helped found
Greg differs from Vic how?
Meet the new boss......you know the rest
author said:
The vote on the TC with Greg sitting was unanimous to allow the Carbuncle building
Greg differs from Vic how?
Meet the new boss......you know the rest
author, I think you are factually wrong on this. Greg and Nancy did not get elected until November 2015 (even though the primary was in June) and were not sworn in until January 2016. All of the votes on both the TC and Planning Board regarding the Post House/Clarus had already taken place by the end of 2015, before either was on the TC. In fact, demolition began in spring 2016, so I don't believe that Adams and Lembrich participated in any TC votes regarding the building. If you have any specific facts to the contrary, please let me know, but I think the timeline "exonerates" both of them from any credit or blame for the Clarus, at least as TC members. Nancy Adams was on the Planning Board in 2015, so she obviously voted as part of that body on issues involving the building.
yahooyahoo said:
Back when Vic and Fred were both on the TC, they had an agreement that the mayor position would alternate among TC members. Since Fred left the TC that has not been the case. I don't know if that's because the TC was happy with Vic being mayor or if Vic had the votes to stay in power.
It's clear Lembrich wants to be Mayor, it's just a matter of when. I don't agree with his leadership style but I'm not on the TC. Dafis and McGehee are close and I would expect them to vote as a block.
yahooyahoo, I agree that Lembrich is ambitious (and I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way). Not sure what your particular issue is with his "leadership style", but that's obviously a matter of personal perspective and opinion in any event. Lembrich seems tightly allied with both McGehee and Dafis, so maybe the 3 of them are the new "ruling majority" on the TC. DeLuca and Adams as the "old guard" and the others as the "new order", so to speak. India Larrier was certainly part of the former group, so her replacement with Dafis may show a swing in power to the latter group. If I am correct, Lembrich getting sworn in as the next mayor seems likely, if not in 2018 then soon after.
apple44 said:
Maybe, but after all of the noise about this building, Vic was reelected. And almost every Facebook post I see is how much people like the new restaurant/bar in the building.
To me, the biggest issue with the building is the original developer pulled out, and the current developer brought in a somewhat "lesser" architect. I don't know how that would have been different had Greg or Nancy been mayor.
People say the town could have struck a better financial deal, and maybe that's fair. But I think there's this perception among some folks that Vic is actively courting developers and that he personally flew out to Seattle to get Starbucks to come to the village. Simply isn't reality.
I'm not saying Greg or Nancy don't deserve the seat - I'm just skeptical that it would make a meaningful difference.
apple44, I think you are right that the Clarus building largely will be a non-issue moving forward. A handful of people on either side may still cling to it, but I really think at least 99% of town has moved on (to the extent they ever cared to start with). The focus for the coming year will be on other issues, be it the police chief situation, pedestrian safety, merging fire departments with South Orange, leaf blower redux, or something else. The building is what it is and people will get used to it.
I also agree that a change in the Mayor's chair will have little impact on the town overall. Vic DeLuca will still be on the TC for at least 3 more years, and he will yield tremendous influence regardless of his title. Also, DeLuca/Lembrich/Adams don't seem to have major differences in philosophies such that I would expect the town to be run much differently regardless of which one has the position. In that respect, I also agree with author that the new boss will pretty much the same as the old boss, but for me that is just fine. I think any of the 3 would do a fine job, and highly doubt that any of them will do much to screw things up.
The political intrigue is interesting to me as an observer, but I don't think the outcome will make much difference for Maplewood at the end of the day.
yahooyahoo said:
The development of the P.O. site is probably the biggest difference between Lembrich and DeLuca.
https://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/op-ed-maplewood-must-avoid-making-costly-mistake-post-office-site/
That's history. What differences now?
sac said:
yahooyahoo said:
The development of the P.O. site is probably the biggest difference between Lembrich and DeLuca.
https://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/op-ed-maplewood-must-avoid-making-costly-mistake-post-office-site/
That's history. What differences now?
yup. and at this point, some of the prophecies of doom appear even more exaggerated than they seemed at the time. So I doubt anyone is going to be out hyping their opposition to the development.
tomdevon said:
author said:
The vote on the TC with Greg sitting was unanimous to allow the Carbuncle building
Greg differs from Vic how?
Meet the new boss......you know the rest
author, I think you are factually wrong on this. Greg and Nancy did not get elected until November 2015 (even though the primary was in June) and were not sworn in until January 2016. All of the votes on both the TC and Planning Board regarding the Post House/Clarus had already taken place by the end of 2015, before either was on the TC. In fact, demolition began in spring 2016, so I don't believe that Adams and Lembrich participated in any TC votes regarding the building. If you have any specific facts to the contrary, please let me know, but I think the timeline "exonerates" both of them from any credit or blame for the Clarus, at least as TC members. Nancy Adams was on the Planning Board in 2015, so she obviously voted as part of that body on issues involving the building.
You are correct.........tried to cut and paste the article but no go. I guess an incoming but not yet seated
TC member is powerless
For what it's worth, since making this post on Friday I have heard from a few people who I know to be knowledgeable (and a few others who seem knowledgeable) both in person and though private messages here. Each person seems in agreement that Greg Lembrich will be the next Mayor, and apparently this has been common knowledge in some circles for a while. I've heard conflicting views on how, why, what this means, etc., but no one seems to disagree on the issue of who. More than one person mentioned that they expect Frank McGehee to be the Deputy Mayor. Assuming this all true, I hope that the transition goes smoothly (and would expect that it will).
I liked large parts of Mike Sumersgille's platform. There are several people in town that are disturbed by the large number of apt units springing up in the towns As an aside I heard but cannot confirm that so many units of the building at Valley and 3rd remained unrented that they had to be offered as section 8 rentals
I will not start up the argument about increases in the school population but I am told the Board of Ed did their own study which concluded a new school will need to be built.
Town planning or can any builder with the wherewithal purchase the little remaining land and build?
I continue to make claim that any political entity governed exclusively by a one Party appparatus without a loyal opposition loses balance
I think we will lose somewhat if Vic is replaced as mayor. He has built a lot of connections and has made a name for himself and the town.
We have come to expect a full time mayor for what I believe is under $5k a year. I do not see Greg being able to put in the time and energy as Vic did with a full time job and young children at home.
Yes Vic can go to county and state meetings to represent the town but it doesn't carry the same weight as being mayor does. And I am not sure Greg will want Vic to be seen as still the man in charge. I think there may be a bit of an ego thing with Greg.
Being honest, I personally do not care for Greg's leadership style and I think he comes off a little to arrogant at times.
I watch a lot of the TC meetings and there were a few times when I just shook my head at his remarks. Not necessarily just his view but the way he said them and the actual wording.
Vic has done a great job on putting forth a vision for the town and seeing those plans, policies, and projects through. I think the big difference between the two of them will be the handling of smaller issues or problems. It didn't matter how small a problem was, if it was an issue for a resident Vic made sure he heard your complaint and tried to rectify it for you. He didn't just send a department head out to handle it, he often would go with an employee or even go by himself to evaluate it and then respond directly to you.
I can remember being at a meeting until 10:30 at night and Vic asking if I had a few minutes to go with him to check out a complaint of poor lighting on a street which lead to a resident not feeling safe at night. He wanted to see for himself how the resident felt, get my opinion, and discuss possible solutions.
I don't see Greg getting that involved. It may sound petty but his caring so much is what has kept him in office so long.
EricBurbank said:
I think we will lose somewhat if Vic is replaced as mayor. He has built a lot of connections and has made a name for himself and the town.
We have come to expect a full time mayor for what I believe is under $5k a year. I do not see Greg being able to put in the time and energy as Vic did with a full time job and young children at home.
Yes Vic can go to county and state meetings to represent the town but it doesn't carry the same weight as being mayor does. And I am not sure Greg will want Vic to be seen as still the man in charge. I think there may be a bit of an ego thing with Greg.
Being honest, I personally do not care for Greg's leadership style and I think he comes off a little to arrogant at times.
I watch a lot of the TC meetings and there were a few times when I just shook my head at his remarks. Not necessarily just his view but the way he said them and the actual wording.
Vic has done a great job on putting forth a vision for the town and seeing those plans, policies, and projects through. I think the big difference between the two of them will be the handling of smaller issues or problems. It didn't matter how small a problem was, if it was an issue for a resident Vic made sure he heard your complaint and tried to rectify it for you. He didn't just send a department head out to handle it, he often would go with an employee or even go by himself to evaluate it and then respond directly to you.
I can remember being at a meeting until 10:30 at night and Vic asking if I had a few minutes to go with him to check out a complaint of poor lighting on a street which lead to a resident not feeling safe at night. He wanted to see for himself how the resident felt, get my opinion, and discuss possible solutions.
I don't see Greg getting that involved. It may sound petty but his caring so much is what has kept him in office so long.
Sensitive and insightful submission. Of course the general public has no real input into the election of a Mayor etc.....but as a suggestion..........Greg for Mayor and Vic for Vice Mayor. Yes there will be events that
Greg cannot attend because of his full time employment.....but Vic has reached retirement age and so
has the necessary time and expertise to represent Maplewood. Besides his wife would probably want him out of the house once in a while
EricBurbank said:
We have come to expect a full time mayor for what I believe is under $5k a year. I do not see Greg being able to put in the time and energy as Vic did with a full time job and young children at home.
That does seem like a lot to expect for a part-time position, and kudos to Vic for giving so much of himself to it. Did mayors in Maplewood before DeLuca make a similar full-time (or similar) commitment to the job? Do mayors in comparable towns make that kind of commitment? Just curious about how common this is and if it reasonable for us to expect this of future mayors. Obviously it's great to receive that kind of dedication from a mayor, but it may limit who can serve if this becomes an expectation.
EricBurbank said:
Being honest, I personally do not care for Greg's leadership style and I think he comes off a little to arrogant at times.
I watch a lot of the TC meetings and there were a few times when I just shook my head at his remarks. Not necessarily just his view but the way he said them and the actual wording.
A few people have said this, or something similar. I have watched a fair number of TC meetings myself (though admittedly fewer this year than last year) and haven't gotten that vibe from Lembrich. Maybe it is because I am also a lawyer, so his style may not rub me the same way it does others. Do you recall anything specific that made you shake your head? I'd be curious, especially since your opinion does not seem isolated.
author said:
I liked large parts of Mike Sumersgille's platform. There are several people in town that are disturbed by the large number of apt units springing up in the towns As an aside I heard but cannot confirm that so many units of the building at Valley and 3rd remained unrented that they had to be offered as section 8 rentals
I will not start up the argument about increases in the school population but I am told the Board of Ed did their own study which concluded a new school will need to be built.
Town planning or can any builder with the wherewithal purchase the little remaining land and build?
I continue to make claim that any political entity governed exclusively by a one Party appparatus without a loyal opposition loses balance
author, given the numbers we see election after election, it's hard to imagine any Republican having much chance in Maplewood. Not only would a Republican need to overcome the significant advantage that Democrats have in terms of voter registration in town, but he or she would also need to distance him or herself from their state and national counterparts given the unpopularity of Christie, Trump, etc. in this area. I don't know that development would be much of a partisan issue one way or the other, so that might be the kind of thing where a candidate would have more success as a challenger in a Democratic primary (as Lembrich did when he ran against Jerry Ryan and Nancy Adams). Anyone running as a Republican in Maplewood, for a better or worse, will probably get drowned no matter how good his or her ideas might be.
Again I agree but am not happy with the situation I have lived in Maplewood for 40 years. There has been the much discussed sea change in politics. With a TC containing some of both parties......there would not necessarily be checks and balances but I think at least an airing of divergent thoughts and concepts. Unicorns anyone?
I believe every town is different in their needs and visions. Some towns are ok with just staying the course so in those towns you don't need as much time from a mayor. I believe Maplewood is always trying to take the lead and make changes to stay in line with our values so it it takes more time.
Is it fair to expect so much for so little? No. But once you get used to it, it's hard to let it go.
Previous mayors varried on time commitment but in my 30 years here no one put in time Vic did. Ellen Davenport put a lot of time in too.
tomdevon said:
EricBurbank said:
We have come to expect a full time mayor for what I believe is under $5k a year. I do not see Greg being able to put in the time and energy as Vic did with a full time job and young children at home.
That does seem like a lot to expect for a part-time position, and kudos to Vic for giving so much of himself to it. Did mayors in Maplewood before DeLuca make a similar full-time (or similar) commitment to the job? Do mayors in comparable towns make that kind of commitment? Just curious about how common this is and if it reasonable for us to expect this of future mayors. Obviously it's great to receive that kind of dedication from a mayor, but it may limit who can serve if this becomes an expectation.
EricBurbank said:
Being honest, I personally do not care for Greg's leadership style and I think he comes off a little to arrogant at times.
I watch a lot of the TC meetings and there were a few times when I just shook my head at his remarks. Not necessarily just his view but the way he said them and the actual wording.
A few people have said this, or something similar. I have watched a fair number of TC meetings myself (though admittedly fewer this year than last year) and haven't gotten that vibe from Lembrich. Maybe it is because I am also a lawyer, so his style may not rub me the same way it does others. Do you recall anything specific that made you shake your head? I'd be curious, especially since your opinion does not seem isolated.
One case that comes to mind was the dealing with becoming a sanctuary city. I think the entire TC was in favor of the idea but there was some questions of to what extent and how to come up with and implement the policies.
When the mayor and I believe India were explaining the Police Chief's position and concerns Greg was quick to jump in and state that the chief works for the residents not the other way around, followed by his questioning why we would ask the Cheif for his opinion. His tone was one of arrogance and a sense that the employees worked for him and the residents, and should have no input. This is not the way to run a town or company. You have experts working for you to provide you with facts and opinions, which at the least you should consider what they are telling you.
In this particular case the chief's comments on the matter had to do with what he was legally allowed to do or not do as set forth by the State AG. You could see that Greg was not happy that it didn't go his way or that the chief didn't bow down to him.
There were other times but his attitude real showed that night.
Thanks Eric Burbank. I see your point about it being difficult to adjust from a full-time Mayor to a part-time one in fact, regardless of the job description in theory.
I also appreciate your thoughts on Lembrich's handling of the sanctuary city proposal. I remember that being a very contentious issue, and producing a more vigorous debate than usual among the TC members. I recall many on Facebook (particularly those from community activist groups) praising Lembrich at the time for "standing up" to Chief Cimino, so this may a new resident vs. old resident divide.
Given that Cimino has since resigned in some indignity, I don't know how many will hold Lembrich's hostility towards the Chief against him. Of course, our (part-time) elected officials should rely upon and respect the views of our (mostly full-time) professional town employees, so I can see where Lembrich's attitude bothered you.
tomdevon said:
That does seem like a lot to expect for a part-time position, and kudos to Vic for giving so much of himself to it. Did mayors in Maplewood before DeLuca make a similar full-time (or similar) commitment to the job? Do mayors in comparable towns make that kind of commitment? Just curious about how common this is and if it reasonable for us to expect this of future mayors. Obviously it's great to receive that kind of dedication from a mayor, but it may limit who can serve if this becomes an expectation.
I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but this is not a part time job. It is VOLUNTEER. Different office holders commit part or full time commitment to the position as each sees fit. Whatever stipend they receive is given back to the to town when the the various local charities come calling.
Red_Barchetta said:
tomdevon said:
That does seem like a lot to expect for a part-time position, and kudos to Vic for giving so much of himself to it. Did mayors in Maplewood before DeLuca make a similar full-time (or similar) commitment to the job? Do mayors in comparable towns make that kind of commitment? Just curious about how common this is and if it reasonable for us to expect this of future mayors. Obviously it's great to receive that kind of dedication from a mayor, but it may limit who can serve if this becomes an expectation.
I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but this is not a part time job. It is VOLUNTEER. Different office holders commit part or full time commitment to the position as each sees fit. Whatever stipend they receive is given back to the to town when the the various local charities come calling.
I seem to recall that the position also includes access to benefits such as health insurance, etc. If that is true, then it IS compensated, even if not adequately for the amount of work done. (But I'm open to correction on this point as I learned it "in conversation", not through any official channels.)
In any case, Vic has certainly done yeoman's work for us. I guess we will see what happens.
All municipalities should be non-partisan (which is how it is in S. Orange). Local issues really have little to do with state or national party politics. The sanctuary city issue was merely symbolic at this level and was meant to show support to the cause.
South Orange elected officials do not get paid. From what I see, their elected officials all put in a lot of time as well and certainly Ms. Collum seems to work endlessly for the village.
The systems are very different in SO and Maplewood. The Village President in SO is directly elected and has real statutory powers. So a good person in the office (Collum) can do real good and a bad person in the office (Torpay) can cause harm. In a Township Type, the Township Committee is elected and chooses one of its own as Mayor. The powers of the Mayor compared to other committee members is pretty much non-existent. The Mayor is mostly just the ceremonial face of the township. So a good, active Mayor can do some good with the bully pulpit but a bad Mayor can not do any greater harm than if that person was just a Township Committee member.
Just curious as I was not educated in civics in this state, having grown up elsewhere - It seems that the laws of the state of New Jersey allow each individual municipality to decide on their "system"(?) I know that there are different forms of municipalities (Cities, Towns, Townships, Boroughs, etc.) and it seems reasonable that those would differ. But I'm pretty sure that South Orange and Maplewood are both Townships, so why the difference there? (partisan vs non-partisan elections, Mayor/Council forms, civil service/non civil service, etc.)
actually South Orange is "the township of south Orange Village" according to their website.
and it does seem like every township/village/city/whatever can choose from many different forms of government.
And What harm did Torpey to do S. Orange Village other than nothing getting done during his term (and that is not always a bad thing).
Rentals
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Advertisement
Reading this Joe Strupp article on TAP this week got me thinking. http://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma/columns/maplewoodian-by-joe-strupp/articles/election-day-is-over-now-what
Mr. Strupp seems to speculate that Mayor DeLuca, despite winning re-election, may not have the votes on the Township Committee to continue as mayor. Curious what others here might know about this. Does anyone have information on this? Thoughts?
I have heard some discussion among neighbors and fellow commuters that Greg Lembrich has been gaining momentum with his "next generation of leadership" push, and that many newer/younger residents support him. Personally, I think Vic has done a great job as Mayor, but also would like to see someone else have a chance to step up (particularly while Vic is still on the TC to help with transition, bring institutional knowledge, and mentor newer members as they take on larger roles).
Also possible that Nancy Adams is looking to move up from Deputy Mayor. As a longtime community volunteer and only woman on next year's TC, she may have a case as well. I'm presuming that McGehee and Dafis are too new to try for Mayor, but maybe one or the other may have his sights on DM?
The article also speculates about whether Elizabeth Baker will remain school board president, which seems like a legit question as well. Given her strong re-election performance, one would think that she is well positioned to keep the chair if she wants it, but there may be a desire to give someone else a chance, especially as our district starts over after Ramos and begins searching for a new Super.
This all seemed like interesting fodder to me, and I haven't seen much online discussion, so raising it in hopes of learning more from those of you who follow all of this stuff more closely or may have inside insight. Thanks.
GTD