I didnt vote for this but since we now have it lets give them a chance to study what the town needs long term. With a town of our size I still see nothing wrong with the current form of government. The only change I would consider is the length of terms for members on the TC from 3 years to 4. Time will tell from the study what the town needs.

I find it most interesting, if not comical, that the Democrats are all spinning like tops out of concern/fear that if the town moves to a directly elected full time mayor -- that it would be Ziad. They all seem quite certain of this. Memo to the Democrats: Assuming that you are correct...that would be a good thing for Springfield.

If you look at most of the other towns that have a directly elected full-time mayor, that person still holds their normal professional occupation, with the exception of very large cities where they can pay the mayor enough so that additional income is not needed.
The last charter study commission recommended that an administrator be hired to handle the day to day duties, while the TC continued to make policy and determine the direction of the town. I don't have any issue with revisiting this with a new study, but I'm not sure how the potential cost will affect the taxpayers on top of what has been and will be spent in the afternath of Hurrican Sandy.

It may not be a bad thing for Springfield if the Charter Commission ultimately decides that a full time mayor makes sense for our town - regardless of who the individual is who assumes the position

What Springfield desperately needs is continuity. With the current structure that has seen the shift in power every year, it has been practically impossible for any progress to be sustained as one year is simply not enough time. With continuity at least there is a chance that things will get done. Think about it folks!

Jeff, there's no assurance the makeup of the remainder of the township committee would result in things getting done (to use your words). There are towns with directly elected mayors who spend a lot of time arguing with the other elected officials and not being productive.
If we learned anything the past year it should be that the public wants the opportunity to express opinions that aren't always in agreement with some members of the TC, without the chair of the meeting yelling at them. Yelling begets yelling and that seems to be what happened too often last year. Over the years, with some exceptions, both political parties have tried to strong arm the meetings and policies being voted on. That's the stuff that has to stop and both sides have to be willing to respectfully discuss issues equally and fairly. Then, whatever vote occurs is what we all live by.

Shane, I never used the word mandate, but that aside, someone would have to be living in a cave to be unaware of the publics unhappiness with the demeanor of the TC meetings. It was often written about by individuals on The Patch and even by reporters for some of the newspapers. It's not a secret and in my opinion was the factor that made the difference in the past election. Many people don't know what goes on at TC meetings and all they hear is rumor and gossip, which often spreads faster then facts. And the rumor and gossip, as well as the facts, were that the chairman of the meetings berated residents when they offered opinions that differed from his. I'm not a fan of anonymous posts, but whoever Really??? is actually stated it right. We pretty much know what the public wants on this one the same way we were told what the public wants by certain TC members from whatever polls they took. In neither case can anyone substantiate the facts but at least in this case we know that the 2 Republican candidates lost and the 2 Democratic candidates won.

I openly admitted that because of the way the current mayor treated people especially seniors at tc meetings is why i voted democrat plus of some of the things he passed i was 100% again. a vote for a republican was a vote for ziads control. If i felt jerry or Marc voted for what they felt was right id have given at least 1 of them a chance. I am 100% convinced they did what they were told to do by ziad. Likewise I will feel the same way if i see the democrats doing the same thing in 2013. They have my support for 2013 but my mind can be swayed if i find ANYONE from either party who has their own interests 1st over the citizens. Ziad promised a turf filed when running and got it. he also made a political issue out of the BOH which to me was just a collasal waste of time. There was nothing wrong with it the way it was being run. an independent BOH who judges any establishment who serves the public is better in my eyes than a board who makes decisions based on politics.

I understand that come 2013 the independent BOH might come back. I welcome this change and now that we have hired Madison for 13 months lets give them a chance to prove they can do a capable job. I dont want to see this issue become more political in 2013. LETS MOVE FORWARD and try to keep springfield at peace. I accept the decisions made in 2012 and I simply say lets move on to new issues and worry about the future.

Really ??? you are correct in that if anyone made a statement to the mayor and it was against his agenda he quickly dismissed your opinion as once his mind is made up to do something he does it. the madison vs westfield issue was all decided as far back as may but they had to put it through the system til it finally passed just last week at the most recent BOH meeting where the public WASNT allowed to speak until after the vote was taken.

Hopefully the politics of the TC meetings will not continue, but we will have to wait and see for ourselves. What we do know is that the township committee form of government affords every member of the TC equal authority, with the exception of the mayor being the chairman of the meetings and the official signatory for the township, and that was not followed. Every member of the TC should be allowed to openly discuss their opinions so the residents understand and can agree or disagree accordingly. If the mayor were a directly elected position, it would have been understandable in regard to how the meetings were handled. But since that was not the case and still isn't, I continue to find fault with this administration. I don't have to agree with the decisions made, but each person has the right to express their positions and then whatever is decided is what we live with. I've maintained all along that even though I don't agree with the current majority on many issues, that isn't the problem. It's the refusal to allow the township committee form of government to operate evenly. And yes, both parties have at one time or another been at fault. But as Bob Groder said, its time for both sides to grow up.

The irony of the charter study commission passing is that Barnett and Bandrowski campaigned how it was a power grab by Ziad and made up bogus numbers of the cost. Neither was true or factual. Just shows their lack of integrity. Especially now that they control of township committee for 2013 and will probably hire Greenspoon and pay him the $60,000 they that claimed it cost just to say, “we told you so.” In the meantime the residents get screwed.
To top it off the Springfield Democratic Party submitted three of the candidates for the commission and Barnett and Bandrowski endorsed four of them in their Patch letter. The things that make you go hmmm

Not true - they didn't endorse all the party affillated commission candidates. They only endorsed thier clickish members.

I disagree with Z Freeman regarding the comment that all previous BOH members were appointed due to political patronage. That comment is pure garbage and was made to perpetuate that belief or due to ignorance of the facts. During my years on the TC there was never a political appointment made to that board, and that includes both Democrat and Republican majorities. Only now is it political and it is disgraceful.

I just wish the bickering about who is better for the town by pure politics would go away but I know this isnt realistic. I am for the democrats this time but I have been for the republicans back in the days before the current administration was taken over by a leader who wants to be a full time mayor which im still dead set against. It only adds to the payroll with more lifetime benefits than is needed.

mr B Freeman... It was brought up at the tc meeting via an ordinance this week that the republicans had lawyers on the payroll for well over 250k in 2012 so whats wrong with 60k? its a lot less than the #'s thrown around in an ordinance approved for 1st reading on tuesday night. Regardless I dont know why we need such expensive lawyers in town from either party. I wish we could keep the expenses down as its bad enough the taxes keep going up more than 2% when you factor in the emergency spending and exceptions that go over the so called cap. We need to do better and id love to volunteer to join any committee in 2013 which helps keep expenses down. I plan on getting more involved. Maybe im unrealistic but like my late dad who was very active in town I do care about the future of springfield which has been my home for the most part since around 1960.

I know 100% for a fact that mr shehady wants to be a full time mayor. its not a rumor. he has become a career politician which is his right but i dont have to fall for it.

Really ?? at least i comment under my own name. it is also known that mr shehady has alias's and has been caught a few times by people from the tc. i dont have time to get into political arguments. im an independent who is sick of the bs that goes on in town., i have witnessed enough with my own eyes at tc meetings. any why is it that mr shehady only spoke openly about the charter study passing which was his baby but he didnt even acknowledge that margaret & david Barnet won in the most recent election. It took Mr. Bergen our former township attorney to do so. if you are supposed to be in unison why is it when the republicans party lost the election that they refused to even give a congrats to the other side?

I already spoke to mr amlen and he has told me that the ordinance to allow for maximum money to be spent on attorneys will be used in its entirety. every time the republicans lose an election that pass on added costs to the township at the end of the year much like they did when mr shehady lost the last time they added unessesary police costs. this isnt rumor this is fact as the #'s are public record. wait until the year is over you will see the money will be spent. this is what politicians do best give them 1.00 they spend a 1.00, give them 10.00 they spend 10.00, etc etc. whatever you give them they will spend it. this does apply to both sides however. im willing to admit that but the republicans refuse to ever take the blame.

really ?? actions speak louder than words and i have also said that since we have the charter study commision let them do their job and let the citizens vote on whats right for town. I was against it but once something passes im more than willing to look at anything thats good for the town and give it a fair chance. I am very opinionated about my thoughts on whats good for town since im here for aprox 50 years.

really ?? Its unfortunately all behind the scenes where this infomation comes from. i cant elaborate further. I just know what I know. you do the math and you can believe what you wish. I shall do the same.

my comment at 12:25 is all I can say on the subject. i am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt and let the charter study commission do their job and let their findings give advice to the town on how we should proceed. I am open minded but i also im opinionated ( much like my late dad) on how i feel. yes you can do both. because im an independent I can accept change. I dont always agree with certain things however which is why I speak so openly on the patch.

you make some good points really ?? i have often had issues with the whole system of policitcs in town so i do agree with you to some extent.

really ?? it is sad but in my opinion it is true that political partys stick together and while im pro democrat today I have gone back and forth based on the issues at the time hence why i am an independent. I do feel that party politics has no place in small towns like springfield but the reality is the system is here to stay. I wish both partys would accept change on occasion.

I stand behind my thoughts really ?? & to you they may be wacky but i have my reasons as I dont like what I know goes on behind the scenes at town hall. I always want change & want whats best for the town long term. I do respect your thoughts & opinions even i disagree with you on some things. for example i do agree with your postings on the leaves / tree issue on another article on the patch.

If over 2300 people voted yes for the proposal, Why don't amy of the commision have even 1500 votes? Is it possible that all the votes were not counted? Maybe the people who voted "NO" did not have their individual selections counted.