2-Year Mayor's Term to be Decided by Council Tonight

In addition to when they meet later this evening, Lawrence Township Council members are expected to vote whether or not to adopt a proposed ordinance that would change the office of mayor from having a one-year term to a term lasting two years.

The meeting begins at 7 p.m. at the Lawrence Township Municipal Building at 2207 Lawrence Rd. The meeting agenda and an explanatory memo about the meeting from Township Manager Richard Krawczun can be downloaded directly from the township website or printed from the media box at the right of this story.

Also available from the media box at the right are the complete audio from the last Lawrence Township Council meeting on Oct. 18, the agenda from that meeting and copies of the ordinances that were either introduced or adopted that night.

The proposed ordinance amending the township administrative code concerning the mayor’s term of office is among the documents that can be viewed in the media box.

That ordinance amendment, if adopted, would eliminate the annual reorganization of township council following non-election years. Reorganization of the five-person council would be limited to the Jan. 1 following election years. “At the reorganization the council will continue to elect one member as mayor. In sum, the councilmember would hold the position of mayor for two years,” Krawczun explains in his memo.

With three four-year council seats up for grabs in next week’s general election, such a reorganization would take place on Jan. 1, 2012. With no election during 2012, no reorganization would take place in January 2013. The next reorganization would, instead, take place on Jan. 1, 2014, following the filling of two council seats in the November 2013 election.

Members of the public will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed change prior to council members voting whether or not to adopt the ordinance amendment.

At the Oct. 18 meeting, council approved the introduction of the ordinance amendment by a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Greg Puliti and Councilmen Bob Bostock and Jim Kownacki in favor and Councilwoman Pam Mount and Councilman Michael Powers against.

At that meeting Bostock – the lone Republican on the council – explained why he asked for the amendment to be drafted: “As you’ve all heard me say previously, I think one year for a mayor at a time is not really sufficient. I think that the duties of the mayor not only include ceremonial things and running meetings but lots of meetings with other local, county, state and national elected officials. One of the things that would benefit our community, I think, is if our mayors had an opportunity to develop relationships with those folks over a period of longer than a year. The problem is when we keep changing every year it’s hard to develop those sorts of relationships.

“A lot of things take longer than a year to happen. Each mayor will have his or her own priorities and something that one mayor started may not be picked up by the next mayor,” Bostock said. “Most of the invitations that come in for meetings and things like that come to the mayor, not mayor and council. So the mayor is very involved in setting the agenda for the year and meeting with other elected officials, which is of increasing importance… I think extending it to a two-year period would, at least at this stage, provide the mayor that is chosen by the council a greater opportunity to really develop those sorts of relationships and get things done that may take, as most things do it seems these days, more than a year.

“This doesn’t change the form of government. This doesn’t give the mayor any new powers that he or she doesn’t already have. It merely says that rather than change the mayor every year, let’s give the mayor a chance to really have a two-year term so that the initiatives that he or she starts, the relationships that he or she builds with other levels of government, can work,” Bostock said.  

Kownacki and Puliti both said they view the ordinance amendment as a “housekeeping matter” and noted that council had considered making such a change at least twice in the past, most recently last year when then-Township Attorney Kevin Nerwinski agreed that amending the township administrative code to allow a two-year mayor’s term would be permissible under state law.

A two-year term for an appointed mayor is the allowable limit under the township’s present council-manager form of government, current Township Attorney Michael W. Herbert noted. The form of government used in Lawrence Township would need to be changed to allow voters to directly elect a four-year mayor.

“We talked about it with the previous council. We didn’t make the move then. I’m glad it came back up so we can end it and move on. We’d be doing the right thing. To me, it’s just housekeeping,” Kownacki said.

Powers objected to the amended ordinance being introduced without council first obtaining input from residents. “I think it’s premature to be bringing up this ordinance. I think we need to have some public hearings, some meetings regarding this. This is something that would be a fairly dramatic change from what’ve done in terms of business in the past.”

“I don’t disagree with Councilman Bostock, but I do agree with Councilman Powers that this is a community decision,” Mount said. “This will make a difference to people in this community. They traditionally elect council people and understand that each person may have a chance to take a turn [as mayor]. It would be very different. I applaud you for bringing it up again. This brings it back to everyone’s attention.

"But I do think we should have public meetings – not just a council meeting where this is not debated back and forth, but a real town meeting about how people look at their mayor’s job and the job of their council people," Mount said. "We have always seen our council people as equals. The mayor is one vote amongst the five of us, not a separate person… I think it is a big discussion and I think the citizens deserve to have input and have enough time to have a real town meeting about it, not just a knee-jerk kind of response to it.”

Other Oct. 18 Meeting Notes

Five ordinances were adopted by council at the Oct. 18 meeting.

One of those ordinances concerned funding for the emergency road repairs that were made to . Township council actually adopted the ordinance at its meeting on Sept. 20, but the ordinance needed to be reauthorized because a local newspaper failed to publish a required legal ad after the ordinance was first introduced at the .

Two of the other ordinances adopted that night create the new position of “armed court attendant” who will provide security to the municipal court. The hiring of this person will free up the uniformed police officer who normally is assigned to provide security to the court for 20 or more hours each week.

The new armed court attendant, who will be under the supervision of the township police chief, must be certified by the state to carry a firearm and meet other specific qualifications. The new employee – who could possibly turn out to be a retired police officer – will be paid $22 per hour during 2011, $22.59 during 2012 and $23.16 during 2013.

Another of the ordinances adopted that night raises the township’s dog license fees – going from $10 to $11 for a neutered or spayed dog, and from $13 to $14 for a non-neutered or non-spayed dog. This follows the .

The final ordinance adopted on Oct. 18 concerns payments to the township from several residents who took part in the township’s sidewalk improvement program.