Voters reject proposal to study forms of govt.
BY LARRY HLAVENKA JR.
Staff Writer

HOWELL - Voters have declined to support the formation of a charter study commission which would have investigated the different types of municipal governments that could be used in Howell.

The question appeared on the Nov. 7 general election ballot and was soundly defeated, 6,198 votes opposed to 4,449 votes in favor of the formation of the commission.

The results had still not been certified by the Monmouth County Board of Election as of Nov. 10, but the outcome was obvious and accepted on Election Day.

The names of 10 residents who wanted to serve on the five-member commission also appeared on the ballot. The top five vote-getters would have been appointed to the charter study commission. Although the point is now moot, had the question passed, the following residents would have served based on their vote totals: Sharon Carpenter-Migliaccio, Jeanine Raccuglia, Michael Revier, Robin Shaughnessy and George Wyatt.

The other five candidates running for spots on the commission were William Adams, William Field, Bruce Goldberg, Reinhard Kirchhof and John Lebrio.

The charter study commission would have had nine months to hold public meetings and come up with a recommendation that would have been forwarded to the Township Council. Any proposed change in Howell's form of government would have to be placed before voters.

Carpenter-Migliaccio said residents did not see the need for a charter study commission.

"The residents spoke," she said. "It was a wide margin, so that meant people thought this form of government [council-manager] is adequate. I'm fine with that."

She cited problems with neighboring Jackson's recent change of government and said that may have discouraged voters from approving the formation of a charter study commission in Howell.

"That [Jackson situation] probably put a bad taste in people's mouths," she said. "We thought that perhaps we could be served better by a different form [of government], but I think the question is put to bed."

Another prospective commission member, Lebrio, has now struck out twice in change of government proposals. Last year he led an initiative that proposed a specific new form of government for Howell and attempted to place that proposal on the November 2005 ballot. The effort did not gather enough signatures on a petition to place the question before voters.

Lebrio's group known as RAFT (Real Accountability for Taxpayers) supported a nonpartisan mayor-council form of government. The group proposed dividing Howell into wards and holding municipal elections in May instead of November.

A resilient Lebrio was not discouraged by the outcome of the Nov. 7 vote.

"I'm not disappointed, I was going to abide by the choice of the people," he said. "But that doesn't mean I'm going to go away someplace."

When asked if he plans to pursue any change of government proposal in the future, Lebrio preferred to take a wait-and-see approach.

"Right now I think I'm going to put everything on hold and see what direction the town goes in," he said.

Based on the newly elected council members, whom he supported, Lebrio said that with their leadership, "there may not be a need" for a change in government.

At one time Howell operated under a Township Committee form of government in which the mayor is not directly elected by residents. The municipality eventually changed to its present form of government, a council-manager format. The mayor is directly elected by residents, but serves as a voting member of the five-person council. There are no voting wards in Howell and all council members are elected at large.