Shared Services Agreement with LTMUA

To the Editor:
Lower Township Deputy Mayor Norris Clark wrote a column attacking the Republicans on Council for opposing the dissolution of the MUA. Apparently, he wants them to be like Councilman Neville who mindlessly nods his head in approval of whatever Clark or Beck say. I disagree with Clark’s decision to demonize others who offer dissenting opinions, and I disagree that dissolving the MUA is in the best interest of Lower Township.
The Independents on Council claim they want to dissolve the MUA because it will save the Township $1,000,000. The alleged savings are “primarily the result of the elimination of duplicative administrative activity.” In other words, the alleged $1,000,000 savings primarily comes from administrative work that current Township employees can perform. Why then is it necessary to dissolve the MUA? A shared service agreement is the most cost efficient model in government and can be done with relative ease. It is something that is currently being practiced in other areas of the Township and can be done here. A shared services agreement would not displace MUA employees, negatively affect the level of service, nor create a hostile takeover of the MUA. Furthermore, the savings that are being touted by Beck, Clark and Neville can be achieved penny for penny with a shared service agreement. Why then isn’t Council considering this?
Clark claims Council’s motive to dissolve the MUA is not to raid its surplus. He has repeatedly assured Township residents that Council cannot raid the MUA surplus because the ordinance to dissolve the MUA protects the money. This appears to be an instance where a politician is caught speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On one side, Clark assures residents that the surplus is protected because of an ordinance. On the other side, Clark assures residents that an ordinance to stop the Beach Drive Public Access project can be revisited and changed at any time. So which is it, Mr. Clark?
Clark knows all it takes to change an ordinance is three votes of Council. Indeed, he and Mr. Beck reminded us at recent Council meetings that ordinances are in fact temporary in nature (they commented several times that the ordinance to stop the Beach Drive Public Access project is only temporary and can be revisited). Similarly, in a few months, the Independents could decide that they want to use the surplus for their next pet project and pass an ordinance permitting them to do so. It is that simple. However, if the Township entered into a shared services agreement, the MUA would remain its own entity, separate and distinct from the Township and Council would not have access to its surplus. Is this why Beck, Clark and Neville aren’t considering this option?
Most importantly, a shared services agreement would protect the livelihood of the MUA laborers who live, work, raise families and pay taxes in the Township. The Independents and their Manager, Mike Voll, have offered these residents nothing more than vague assurances that they “will do their best” to save jobs. Those assurances are analogous to the promise of “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” in the rollout of Obamacare.
Beck, Clark, Neville and Voll have shown that they will say anything and do anything to get what they want. It is important that we all question their representations so that we are not fooled by their propaganda and double talk.