Moderator Vincent Farinella
The debate is available on Oakland public access channel, and residents are encouraged to watch it. 6am, 3pm, 6pm on Channel 77 for Cablevision subscribers and FIOS channel 45.
The Ramapo Reserves, with Vincent Farinella as moderator, sponsored the recent debate between Republican incumbents Chris Visconti and Pat Pignatelli, and their Democratic challengers Malcolm Blum and Henry Lesher. While the debate offered moments of unnecessary drama, it did allow residents an opportunity to hear the candidates express their ideas, philosophies, and display the qualities of leadership residents expect from elected officials.
The enormous rise in property taxes over the last eight years was a major topic of discussion that touched upon almost every question and every answer. The Republican team repeated a litany of efforts made to help keep costs down. Renegotiating health benefits, increased grant money, shared services, and a smaller work force were a few of the items detailed. The Democratic team countered that it was too little, too late, and that residents deserve more vigilant action from a council that has become to complacent.
The debate offered residents an opportunity to hear once again the serious challenges facing municipalities throughout New Jersey. The majority of property taxes, between 70-75%, are used to fund the public school system which is administered by the elected school board members. The next highest ticket item for municipalities is police salaries which are controlled by a state mandated arbitration system. This leaves towns with difficult choices to make with respect to the remaining revenue and incurring debt.
Underneath the moments of drama in the debate, the Democratic and Republican candidates agreed more often than not. The Democratic candidates argued that the council needs to be more aggressive in pursuing shared services that will result in significant savings; make greater efforts to find federal, state and county funds to offset expenditures; and, be more competitive in negotiating fees for professional services provided by attorneys and engineers. The Republican team responded that they have been aggressive in all of these areas, and accused the Democratic candidates of coming forward with no new ideas or plans. The Democratic team responded that the town council should be seeking savings with vendors across the board, implying that the borough attorney and engineer were being treated as patronage positions. It also produced the biggest sound bite as Democratic candidate Blum announced he would, if elected, refuse the annual stipend provided for the position.
The heated exchange continued in a follow-up question with Democrats pushing their main message that the lack of an opposition party on the all Republican council is stagnating the town’s government by conducting too much business “behind closed doors”. An awkward moment ensued as Republican Chris Visconti inadvertently conceded that the council commonly debates differences of opinion in private, but denied their was anything illegal in the practice.
The best arguments were put forth by Republican Pat Pignatelli and Democrat Henry Lesher who calmly, respectfully, and passionately put forth the core case for their respective partisan teams. Mr. Pignatelli spoke with an eloquence and authority that is all too rare for the council chambers. While arguments could be made against his interpretation of the facts, he did display a command of them on a variety of subjects effecting borough operations and quality of life in Oakland. Mr. Lesher countered with a reasoned and rational argument against a complacency on the existing all Republican council, and spoke to the value of a dissenting voice that would bring a fresh perspective and challenge the council to do better.
The debate is available on Oakland public access channel, and residents are encouraged to watch it.
6am, 3pm, 6pm on Channel 77 for Cablevision subscribers and FIOS channel 45.
Visconti’s admission that much discussion on controversial issues is conducted in private is simply a natural outcome of one party rule. Some have argued that this leads to a more harmonious public session. The disadvantage to the residents is that we do not see the process by which important decisions are made and the thinking behind indvidual positions of our elected council members. The issues are rarely flushed out with the clarity a publicly deliberative body can provide. Pignatelli’s eloquence in the debate, for example, suprised me. He has simply not had the opportunity to be his own man in the current set up. I can only imagine the insight he could of briought in a more open and free thinking environment. Candidate Lesher was correct in challenging Visconti and Pignatelli on the closed nature of Oakland politics. Isn’t this type of exchange in which our elected representatives openly, but respectfully, discuss the issues and explain their decisions beneficial to Oakland? Doesn’t it bring out the personal best in everyone while providing some safeguards against narrow, partisan decisions that benefit only a few? While some may believe that electing one challenger to the council will provide the necessary stimulant, I believe that we must elect both because as most folks know in this sports centric town progress is a team effort. The mutual support can be enabling.
I watched it live while happening and thought the Mr. Visconti and Mr. Blum were very heated and over dramatic with the whole “lie” and “talk behind closed doors” thing. Mr. Lesher and Mr. Pignatelli were the best ones at the debate saying their points calmly and with reason.