Council Approves Resolution Authorizing Layoffs

During a special meeting that was held last night, members of Lawrence Township Council approved a resolution to amend the 2012 municipal budget.

The amendment (a copy of which can be viewed in the media box to the right) includes the layoffs and program cuts that were previously discussed at . It is anticipated that those layoffs and cuts will save the township roughly $900,000 during the remainder of 2012 and 2013.

The next step in the budget amendment process will be held next Wednesday, May 23, when township council will again convene at 6:30 p.m. for a special meeting, during which a “public hearing” will be held on the amended budget prior to its formal adoption by council.  

“The budget amendment resolution takes the changes that appeared on the screen the other night [May 15] and makes the corresponding changes to the state budget document, and these are the line items, subtotals or totals that changed due to that process,” Township Manager Richard Krawczun explained at the start of the meeting.

Despite the savings that will come from the layoffs and the minimal cuts included in the budget amendment resolution, the township will still need to find a way to save another $1.36 million to fully balance the 2012 budget or carry that deficit into 2013.

A large contingent from the township’s senior citizen community was in attendance at the meeting, concerned about how senior services will be affected. Among the layoffs is one person from the township recreation department which, in addition to township recreational programs, runs the Lawrence Senior Center on Darrah Lane East.

“With proposed amendments to the budget, how does this directly affect the programs, services, operations and staffing at the senior center?” Sarah Downing, vice chair of the township’s Senior Executive Committee, asked.

“Right now, there is no change – zero change – at the center,” Krawczun answered. “We still have a $1.3 million problem... There will need to be a conversation going forward about staffing within recreation and the senior center. But there have been no decisions. That conversation is going to take place going forward. It will be an opportunity for us to fully sort out what would change, how does it impact the budget, how does it impact the programs, etc.”

The public participation portion of the meeting was dominated by several emotional presentations made by police union officials and members of the public about the layoffs. Officer Andres Mejia, treasurer of Lawrence Township Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 119, and Officer Andrew Lee, president of Lawrence Township Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 209, went so far as to call upon Police Chief Daniel Posluszny to retire to save the jobs of three young officers who will be laid off.

The formal written statements read by Mejia and Lee can be read in their entirety via .

Posluszny, who was at the meeting, did not publicly speak. But Krawczun and Mayor Jim Kownacki spoke in defense of the chief.

“Officer Lee, I believe you and the other members of the Lawrence Township Police Department understand you operate in a paramilitary organization. The chief is the leader of that organization. I will tell you right now I have full faith in his ability, I have full faith in his confidence, I have full faith in his character,” Krawczun said. “The police chief is a good leader, he’s a good man, and, again, I will stake my reputation on everything I said about that person.”

When it was noted that Lee and Mejia are among the seven Lawrence Township police officers who last month filed a against township officials, including Krawczun and Posluszny, Lee responded by pointing out that he was speaking in his capacity as union president and not as an individual.

“I don’t make this stuff up. I go before my members and ask them, ‘What do you want me to address? What are the areas of concern that you want me to address?’And I address them. I am their voice. This is not me coming up here and doing this. This is me speaking on behalf of every one of those members,” Lee said. “As I stated, this is not personal. This is business. If there’s a way that someone cannot be hurt by retiring and can get a pension and I can save the livelihood of three officers, I’m going to do that.”

Mayor Jim Kownacki chimed in at that point, saying, “Officer Lee, as a union member I respect you. I held the same position you hold. I had to get up there and fight for my people. I respect that. I respect your members out there [in the audience]. As a military veteran of over 25 years, I respect the chief that’s sitting right there. He is a leader. He will be here to lead you… I understand what you’re saying but I have a little problem, personally, with you attacking the chief. So I wish that we could stop the attack… I not here tonight to sit here and get beat up and have to watch my chief get beat up.”

“Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, this is not a beat-up session for the chief of police,” Lee answered. “This is a cost savings/benefit or an option in order for me not to lose three officers. That’s what this is. I’m not trying to beat up the chief. Not one time did I attack his character. I’m here for the purpose, the only reason, to represent my membership and I’m here to represent the three officers that are due for layoffs.”

The meeting’s public participation segment ended with township resident Marvin Van Hise speaking for 12½ minutes about how the township administration and unions need to stop fighting and work together to find an equitable solution to the township’s budget woes.  (Van Hise begins speaking at the 19:00 minute mark of Audio Part 2)

“Everyone, from both sides of the fence, has to sit down and start thinking in the broader spectrum to realize that we cannot continue on this track. If we lose police, we lose security… If we lose recreation, we lose the component that assists the seniors and the children… If we lose the fire department, we’re going to suffer. But it we continue to increase at 37 percent every five years in property taxes, you’re going to lose the tax base because who’s going to pay the taxes here? When the foreclosure signs go up, the house next-door diminishes in value. It’s a massive problem. There’s no one solution. I don’t think anyone can stand here and take a position that only their particular component of this community cannot be sacrificed in part…”

“No one likes these cuts. Not a single person up here does. When you spoke about the officers who will be affected by this – and I will remind everyone that this is not just officers who are impacted by this – I will tell you I was three-months pregnant when my husband was laid off,” Councilwoman Cathleen Lewis said just prior to voting in favor of the budget amendment resolution. “So these cuts hurt. They hurt to make. They hurt the people they are made to. But at the end of the day, the state has put constraints on us… We cannot continue to spend in this fashion. We heard it from residents. These cuts represent what the residents have asked for. They may not represent the cuts that people want but they represent the cuts that need to be made to preserve the township. It’s unfortunate. I wish there was another way.”

For Municipal Budget Background, See:

• May 16: “”
• May 16: “”
• May 2: “”
• May 2: “”
• April 25: “”
• April 20: “”
• April 20: “”
• April 18: ""
• April 16: “”
• April 16: “”
• April 13: “”
• April 12: “”
• April 11: “”
• April 10: ""
• April 2: ""
• March 28: “”
• March 26: “”
• March 26: “
• March 20: “”
• March 14: “”
• March 8: “”
• Feb. 23: “”
• Feb. 9: “”
• Jan. 18: “”