Amended Municipal Budget Adopted, Layoffs to Happen

Lawrence Township needs to make additional expenditure cuts – including possibly more layoffs – prior to the start of 2013 or find ways to regenerate surplus at a greater rate than has been anticipated for the remainder of this year.

Lawrence Township’s amended 2012 municipal budget – containing cuts that will now result in layoffs to police officers and other municipal employees – was unanimously approved by Lawrence Township Council during a special meeting held last night (Wednesday, May 23).

A total of 13 municipal positions – including five in the police department – will be eliminated because of the cuts, while a 14th position will be reduced from full-time to part-time.

The municipal budget had to be amended because that had sought permission for the township to raise the municipal tax rate 9 cents above the state’s 2 percent tax levy cap.

“One of the frustrations with the 2 percent cap is if you have an inefficient municipality and you have a lot of waste and you have a lot of folks sitting around doing nothing, it’s easy to meet the 2 percent cap – get rid of the dead weight. But if you’re running a government in an efficient manner, there’s no fat to remove – you’re cutting into bone,” Councilman Michael Powers said. “And that’s what you’re seeing tonight. You’re seeing the council being responsive to the voters and making the cuts that the voters have demanded.”

(Complete audio of last night’s meeting can be found in the media box above. Also available is a copy of the amended 2012 municipal budget that was approved last night, a copy of the budget originally introduced by council back in March prior to the referendum, and copies of Affordable Housing resolutions that were also approved by council last night.)

The amended $44 million budget approved last night still includes a 5-cent tax rate increase separate from the 9-cent hike that was the subject of the unsuccessful referendum. Those 5 cents raise the municipal tax rate from $0.84 per $100 of assessed property value to $0.89, meaning the owner of a home assessed (for tax purposes) at the township average of $160,828 will pay about $1,431 in municipal taxes for 2012, or about $80 more than in 2011.

With the rejection of the referendum by voters and significant public opposition to an alternative plan proposed by council and the township administration that would have seen residents pay a , the township needed to find new revenue or make expenditure cuts totaling $2.27 million in order to balance the 2012 budget.

By , the township will be able to save in excess of $900,000. In order to fully balance things out, however, the amended 2012 budget makes use of a larger portion of the township’s surplus fund as a form of revenue than was included in the original version of the budget.

In order to avoid an even greater financial crisis next year by draining the surplus fund so low, the township needs to make additional cuts to expenditures – including possibly more layoffs – prior to the start of 2013 or find ways to regenerate surplus at a greater rate than has been anticipated for the remainder of this year.  

“So after all these layoffs, we’re still going to be dealing with approximately $1.3 million you’re going to have to come up with by next year then?” one resident asked during the public participation portion of last night’s meeting.

“That’s right,” Township Manager Richard Krawczun responded.

“There’s going to be meetings, and we’re going to start them in June, working on next year’s budget,” Councilman Greg Puliti added. “Basically, everything’s going to be on the table.”

Later in the meeting, Puliti said, "Tonight’s adoption of the budget does not solve next year’s revenue gap and we will be confronted at future meetings [with] deciding [on] reductions or eliminations of more services. As we move forward I believe the discussion is going to focus on what services are core services that we need to provide for this town."

Of the five positions being cut in the police department, one is currently vacant because a recruit hired in March recently dropped out of the police academy. Another position is currently filled by Deputy Police Chief Joseph Prettyman who plans to retire later this year. The remaining three police positions will be eliminated by laying off the two patrol officers with the least seniority – Chris Stylianou and Iwona Smith – and another recruit, Ryan Dunn, hired in March who remains in the police academy.

Also being laid off are a clerk from the tax collector’s office, a part-time public health nurse from the health department, a recreation coordinator from the recreation department and a part-time fire apparatus mechanic. Two vacant firefighter posts and a vacant secretary’s position in the township manager’s office will be also eliminated. A park maintenance worker in the public works department who is resigning because he is moving away also will not be replaced. The employee whose hours are being reduced is an executive assistant for planning and redevelopment.

Some of the handful of residents who spoke at last night’s meeting urged council members to make further cuts to reduce the burden on taxpayers, while others spoke out against the layoffs, particularly the cuts to the police department given the .

Prior to voting on the amended budget, council members offered the following remarks:

Councilman Greg Puliti:

“This has been a long process with having to make hard choices to balance this year’s budget. We’ve heard lengthy public comment wanting to cut township expenditures, and that’s what we did. The township budget is a service-oriented business and reductions in expenditures relates to cuts in services. It’s that simple. Tonight’s adoption of the budget does not solve next year’s revenue gap and we will be confronted at future meetings [with] deciding [on] reductions or eliminations of more services. As we move forward I believe the discussion is going to focus on what services are core services that we need to provide for this town.

"I’d again like to thank the two citizens who took the time to have an in-depth look at the budget and gave council the courtesy of a public response... I respect the unions for coming out to defend their members. But I’d also like to say, as the mayor and manager have stated before, I have full faith in the chief’s [Police Chief Daniel Posluszny] leadership of this [police] department, now and in the future.

"During the course of the budget meetings, there have been a few unflattering – to say the least – comments and opinions made about the township manager. And I would like to respond to those comments now. The job of the township manager, besides running the day-to-day operations of the township, is to craft and put together a budget based on the policies set forth by this council. Municipal finances are not simple mathematics and require a superior knowledge of local government finance law – which he has. As manager, not only does he have the highest ethical standards I have ever seen, he also has the utmost respect and austerity for the taxpayer’s dollar, and has my full support for his leadership and guidance to this council, now and in the future.”

Councilman David Maffei

“Mr. Richard Krawczun, our municipal manager, is responsible for our day-to-day operations of Lawrence Township. He is more closely involved with the welfare of our community and loves Lawrence as much as my fellow council members at this table. But what about our residents who, at this moment, are participating in one or more of our programs, and those spectators who enjoy watching and conversing with those around them?

“It is an extremely difficult task to take the list of all our township’s responsibilities to its citizens and then have to decide what services or individuals must be eliminated and still have our town working well and progressing on its programs. I was not elected to council to dismiss people from their means of support. Since January our energies have been focused on the budget and how it would affect our services and township employees; what departments could least afford to lose some of its support staff and still fully function on limited time.

“Council has listened to the health, municipal court, engineering and construction, police, fire, public safety, recreation and ELSA [Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority] departments on what is needed to function on a steady level. Mr. Krawczun has taken our recommendations from many long discussions and constructed a plan that will succeed for our residents. I believe one of our functions is to listen to our township manager, as he has the most current findings on our township’s wellbeing. I would be remiss if I did not vote yes on his recommendations.”

Councilman Michael Powers:

“First of all, the manager serves at the pleasure of the council. If we did not believe that Mr. Krawczun was doing the job, we would remove him from office. Let’s remember, although it’s five Democrats sitting up here, there was a bi-partisan review when Councilman Bostock was part of council. Republicans and Democrats gave their vote of confidence to the manager in terms of his performance review. So, again, council sets the policy.

“I heard there’s a lot of complaints in terms of council not listening. But this is democracy in action. You are seeing the council, as a result of democracy on April 17, responding to the requests of the residents. We had proposed to remove garbage from the municipal budget. There was an overwhelming ‘No’ to taking garbage out of the budget. This budget that hopefully we’re going to adopt tonight has garbage back in the budget. But, that being said, we all know about the shortfall for next year. So as Councilman Puliti has indicted, everything is on the table for next year, and that includes garbage.  We’re going to be looking at everything.

“And, frankly, one of the frustrations with the 2 percent cap is if you have an inefficient municipality and you have a lot of waste and you have a lot of folks sitting around doing nothing, it’s easy to meet the 2 percent cap – get rid of the dead weight. But if you’re running a government in an efficient manner, there’s no fat to remove – you’re cutting into bone. And that’s what you’re seeing tonight. You’re seeing the council being responsive to the voters and making the cuts that the voters have demanded. You heard from our municipal manager – 13 positions are being eliminated, one is being reduced [from full-time to part-time]. This is across the board. This is not us targeting the police department. This is not us targeting the public works department. Every department has felt the cuts – the health department, the recreation department, public works, police…this is across the board.

“One of the things from a policy perspective that I made very clear in my meetings with Mr. Krawczun is shared sacrifice; that this had to be across the board in terms of these painful cuts that we’re having to make as a result of this difficult situation we find ourselves in. Now that being said, we’re not through the woods yet. Don’t think that, ‘Oh, everything’s great now.’ We have been fortunate to have a large commercial ratable base in Lawrence Township. When times were good economically, that commercial ratable base subsidized the residential taxpayers. Unfortunately, we’ve had the bad economy and, as a result, because we have a large commercial ratable base, that subsidy has disappeared and now we have to make the painful cuts that we’re doing here tonight.”

Councilwoman Cathleen Lewis:

“First, I want to address some of the comments that came up tonight. I also want to point out that Mr. Krawczun, as many of you have pointed out, is indeed an employee of this township and an employee of this council. And, as such, he is a public official who has taken many hits over the last few months and he should be applauded for doing so in such a professional manner. He presented a budget that was not popular; that was, I’ll be quite frank, not a budget that I had hoped to face in my first month in office. But I will tell you, when I looked at this budget I looked at it from the same viewpoint that many of you do. I looked for cuts. I looked ways to share services. And the simple truth of the matter was many of those things had been done for years. And when you come to find that the budget was already to the bone, there is nowhere to go except increase revenues or make cuts that will hurt.

“Even the citizens that have come up here have said there wasn’t a hidden largess somewhere, there was not an extra pot of gold somewhere that we were sitting here hiding. There is none of that here. However what I did find was that the state mandates and the 2 percent cap have tied the hands of the municipalities. Laws that govern the tax appeals that are paid out have decimated our reserves, forcing us to use municipal funds to repay the debt to the school board and county when paying out successful tax appeals. Despite the fact that we receive roughly 20 percent of the property taxes, we pay out 100 percent of the appeals. The 2 percent cap was intended to curb the rise of property taxes, however what it has done for this municipality and municipalities all over the state is prevent our ability to provide the services that residents come to rely on.

“Tonight and many times over the last few nights we’ve heard that this budget is over-reliant on property taxes. Well, the bill that has been proposed that would put user fees under the cap will make it impossible for the township to collect user fees for services to cover their costs – that includes fees for recreation, inspections and health capacities we are already doing. Not just trash, but everything we do; we will not be able to cover the costs through fees if that legislation goes forward. The overreliance on property tax is a continuing problem. It is not a problem that this township is unique in. It is the way that the state has set up this system. When we approved the referendum we approved it to ask residents what they wanted to do. Did they want services to continue in the way they’ve always been provided? If they did, it would cost money. The user fee was an attempt to address the service reduction without having to raise taxes. We heard you. Everyone said ‘No.’ That leaves us only with cuts.

“And I will point out that only one-third of these cuts touch the police. For residents who have asked us to look elsewhere, we have. And as other council members have indicted tonight, we are not done looking. We will continue to look at the June meeting so that we can start to make those cuts for 2013. The cap did not work to address all the loopholes. We cannot continue to live under this cap unless we address them. Tonight’s vote and tonight’s layoffs in this budget represent what municipalities will have to do to live under a cap. They will have to cut services. We will have to lay off necessary and important personnel. It is not a budget that will be popular. It’s not one that anyone on this dais wants to have. Unfortunately, these are the choices we’re left with and this is what the residents asked for. And that is why I will be supporting the budget tonight.”

Mayor Jim Kownacki:

“I’m not going to sit here and repeat what all my fellow council members said, but I do support my manager, Rich Krawczun, 100 percent. Over the last few months, I know, personally, we went toe-to-toe on a few of the issues but we worked them out and you looked that much closer at the budget to come up with the answers. I support the police chief. He is the commander; he is the top man. If there’s problems in the police department, that’s something he’s going to have to deal with and get through. It’s something I don’t have any control over. I want to thank all my council members for the past months, the extra time we had to put in, the Saturdays we had to meet and come up with a budget. The residents that volunteered, I want to thank you. We hear you, we hear the voters. What we come up with tonight, it’s hard for all of us. Speaking for myself, it is hard. I’m a union member. But I looked at everything. I’ve got to put aside being a union member and say I’m now the chairman of this board, the mayor, and I’ve got to vote the right way. I support the budget if it goes through tonight. There was nothing else we could do.”


For Municipal Budget Background, See:

  • May 24: ""
  • May 18: “”
  • May 16: “”
  • May 14: “”
  • 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: “”
Stinki Garbaage May 24, 2012 at 07:51 PM
The budget's been online for 4 months
josh hamilton May 24, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Wahooooooooooooooooooo. I am due to receive MY BIG FAT PENSION CHECK in a few days. I will certainly think of you when I go deposit in the bank. I've already booked my next cruise using that BIG FAT PENSION that you will never get. Jealous people like you will never be a deterrance to the brave men and women in blue. You are one of these wimps who wanted to wear the uniform but yoj were turned away for your lack of manhood. Call them names, say what you want but all I know is that you will never protect your home using your second ammendment right because quite simply, YOU'RE A COWARD. The men and women in blue run to frightful situations and people like you run from them. The brown running down your leg and the yellow following like a waterfall. You are a COWARD who has no manhood. Say it as you may, I am a retiree and I guarantee that this "ticket writer" could still run circles around you. WHY? Because I have a big fat pension to pay for my GYM COSTS.
Lville Rob May 24, 2012 at 07:57 PM
Here's a link to the proposed budget: http://lawrencetwp.com/documents/manager/Documentsfor2012Budget/2012%20Budget%20Recommendation.pdf
Hedley Lamarr May 24, 2012 at 08:12 PM
It’s a shame this post follows such a great post asking us all to come to the aid of our community, in its time of need.
Stinki Garbaage May 24, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Ditto, just a silly war
grill master May 25, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Maybe you should jump off the ship on your next cruise. You add nothing of substance to these comment sections. Enough with your "brave people in blue" nonsense. Are you proud of the fact that you have robbed the taxpayers? You sir, are the weak one since Wahoo is getting exactly what he wants and that's annoying the hell out of you.
Joe Russo May 25, 2012 at 01:29 AM
Thanks Stinki Garbage, and Lville Rob. Found the budget. Did a first lookover. If all Lawrence Twsp employees, including Town Council, gave a little off their salary, we could keep the 3 Police Officers, in my view. Please, all, take a look a contract awards, which show up monthly on the Lawrence Twsp website. These, of course, are the disbursements that go out the door each month. Thanks.
Let's Dance May 25, 2012 at 01:57 AM
The Mayor & Council are taking a 10% pay cut as stated two Council meetings ago and they are the only municipal employees to do so. The police union refused, that's how much they care about saving their sister and brothers.
Joey Fats May 25, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Let's dance. 10% off council sounds impressive but equates to pennies. The police union was not asked for anything other then to consider "givebacks". The manager told the police union that even if they gave money out of their salaries it was unlikely to stop layoffs. Why in the world would the union give money back to the township if the manager told them that the layoffs would still be approved? Between increased employee contributions for medical and pension the police are paying much more back to the township then the 10% the council is giving back. Sounds good to say the police don't care for their coworkers being laid off but if the manager gave hard numbers and a promise that no one would be laid off if the money was given back there would have been a different outcome to his request. Let's stop the finger pointing and address the issues.
Joe Friday May 25, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Let's Dance, You are wrong. There was no amount of concessions the police officers would have been able to make that would have allowed them to save these three jobs. The municipal manager said it himself when asked by a Trenton Times reporter a week ago. Why would the police open their contract seven months shy of it expiring and make concessions that would be futile? The answer is they didn't and if YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES you wouldn't either. If you say that you would you are full of $&#%! This is not the cops fault and quite frankly the manager and council are feeding all of us a bunch of Bull$&#%. Stinkii and others have pointed out that there is wasteful spending in the budget and the manager and council have failed to heed their recommendations and instead elected to cut jobs, and still carry over a deficit of $1,300,000 into the next budget year. We are all being taken for fools by the council and manager. Remember this come November and express your disgust for the actions of the council! While the Mayor and Council taking a 10% paycut is noble, they are not fulltime employees and have careers that allow them to provide for their families. Their paycuts barely make a dent in the deficit.
grill master May 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM
“There’s going to be meetings, and we’re going to start them in June, working on next year’s budget,” Councilman Greg Puliti added. “Basically, everything’s going to be on the table.” Yeah that's it, more meetings to waste more money. What a joke you dolts are!
grill master May 25, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Of course the manager won't ask the police for pay cuts. A) he is a coward. B) I'm sure there is some kickback somewhere for the manager. Bribes and kickbacks, that's what it's all about folks.
Let's Dance May 25, 2012 at 02:47 PM
It was also mentioned at the Council meeting that eliminating longevity pay and the uniform allowance budget line item would cover the cost of keeping the three police officers. You can't be a greedy employee and want to take all the perks in a bad economy when your town can't afford it and then complain when people get laid off. Everyone has been paying more than muni workers for health ins for years and many of those make far less. Just stop it. Joe Friday- here's a newsflash for you, I don't have to guess what I'd do in this situation because I have already been there and guess what...I and many others took a reduction in pay to save others. Shocker, I know. I guess that's part of the reason I couldn't afford to approve a 17% property tax increase- I'm already maxed out on my charitable giving.
Chief Wahoo May 25, 2012 at 03:22 PM
let's dance, you dont have to explain to him or any public servant.......TAXPAYERS ARE THE EMPLOYERS !
josh hamilton May 25, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Grill Master, Let's Dance, Chief Wahoo and Lamarr, you are a bunch of cowards who hide on the patch. You remind me of the little kids who startes trouble at school with the big kid and ran and hid behind the teacher. Stop whining.... you are not going to get my former brother and sisters in blue to concede to your foolishness. If you want to advocate for layoffs, so be it. You will ultimately suffer because the price of the police department is not going down, you'll just pay these fine remaining officers time and a half for over time. THE SALARIES OF THE CURRENT OFFICERS WILL SKY ROCKET. THEY WILL BE LIVING BETTER THAN ME WHILE WORKING AND TWICE AS GOOD AS ME WHEN RETIRED. I talked to a few of my former brothers the other day. They tell me that the current layoffs are be sought after by several police departments already. YOU SEE, YOU COWARDS, YOU WILL NEVER BREAK THE SPIRIT OF ANY OF THE FINE OFFICERS OF THE LTPD (past and present) YOU WILL LINE THE POCKETS OF THE CURRENT OFFICERS AND THE LAYED OFF ONES WILL GET REHIRED PROBABLY FOR MORE MONEY. GO CLIMB BACK IN YOUR LITTLE SELF RIGHTIOUS HOLES AND CRY LIKE THE LITTLE GIRLS THAT YOU ARE. KEEP YOUR HEADS HELD HIGH FORMER BROTHERS AND SISTERS. YOU ARE PROTECTORS OF PEACE. s
Hedley Lamarr May 25, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Its Hedley.. Mr. Hamilton: Let me say this first, I hope that that these fine officers find jobs elsewhere and quickly, I hope we can even bring them back to Lawrence some day. Now, I feel the opposite of a coward as a freely say what I wish, in no fear of you or anyone's name-calling Anonymity is part of the environment here, so who is hiding and what are we hiding from? Is Josh Hamilton even your real name? I don’t recall ever calling for layoffs, and I also don’t recall seeing many posts on here calling for layoffs. Just because you keep saying we are calling for layoffs doesn’t make it true. I think that 99% of the people here on all sides of this argument wish the lay-offs didn’t have to happen – for the police officers and the other town employees. What I have seen are calls for some union givebacks on thing like longevity, uniforms, and overly generous retirement benefits. You can wave the American flag and your union banner, but it’s in part because we have to pay for you and your retired brothers acorss the state a fair amount of your former salary to sit around and gossip – we have no more money left to keep these fine young officers on the street.
josh hamilton May 25, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Hey Lamar, Let me say this first. You are paying my pension until the day I go 12 Feet under. I absolutely love living my life knowing this. Please speak freely, That's your right. BUT, LET ME TELL YOU THIS Lamaaaaaaaaaaar. You and your buddies grill master, chief wahoo and let's dance are still going to pay the same amount of money for cops weather they lay no one off or they lay 50 % Of the force off. My former brothers and sisters who do remain will work overtime at 1.5 Times their hourly rate and live the GOOD LIFE. As I said earlier, the officers who do get laid off will go to other towns with better pay and benefits so it will be their gain. As a retired LTPD officer, I am proud that my former brothers and sisters are sticking together and not opening any contract. That bring me a smile from ear to ear because that's UNITY, BROTHER/SISTERHOOD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT'S WHAT THE LTPD OFFICERS ARE ALL ABOUT. As far as I've been told, no give backs will ever happen besides giving back the uniform the day these fine officers retire with over 65 % Of their pay coming in every month. Oh, that's right. Its called a PENSION. Sit home and do nothing anf get paid. How sweet that feeling is Lammmmmmmaaaaaarrrrrr.
Lville Rob May 25, 2012 at 08:30 PM
The more I read "Josh Hamilton's" posts the more convinced I am that he is posing as a former police officer in an effort to discredit police officers. His comments reflect an incredibly selfish and immature attitude that no real public servant coud possibly possess. I think he is actually someone who hates cops and is trying to make them look bad through his over-the-top posts.
Hedley Lamarr May 25, 2012 at 09:00 PM
It's Hedley.. Mr. Hamilton: Thank you for proving my point that we pay retirees way too much for way too long. I never asked to pay less in taxes; I have asked that the money be re-distributed from paying officers to retire to paying to keeping more on street. Yes, unity, brotherhood & sisterhood are what the LTPD is all about. So much “unity” among your brothers & sisters that the 60 something of them cannot agree what union to belong to; so you to have two: Police Benevolent Association and Fraternal Order of Police. Now that’s unity!
People are crazy May 25, 2012 at 09:33 PM
When the manager approached the unions he specifically stated that longevity and uniform allowance give backs would NOT help him because they had already been paid out. So rather then judge and spread misinformation know the facts. Mr. Krawczun was very specific in saying uniform allowance, longevity and health care giveback would not assist the township in preventing layoffs. He asked for salary givebacks only and said that even with givebacks out of salaries the layoffs would be approved. Why in the world would anyone give up their salary for no reason. Stop spreading misinformation.
Chief Wahoo May 25, 2012 at 09:48 PM
No he is a lowlife cop. They just can't control their tempers. Just ask their ex wives and girlfriends. They are no heros and people can finally see that.
josh hamilton May 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM
LoL Chief Wahoooooooooooooo.... This is my last post on this topic because its memorial day weekend and I have beach time planned. I plan on using my pension check to eat, drink and be merry. I hope you and the rest of the jealous posters enjoy your memorial day as much as I am because you are paying for mine. My last word to you is that I ll spread peace, love and prosperity while you lowlife losers are JEALOUS MISERABLE MORONS WHO ARE GOOD FOR PAYING MY PENSION CHECK AND THAT'S ALL. LOVE YOU GUYS. OVER AND OUT
Hedley Lamarr May 25, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Yes you are correct when speaking about about the most recent lays-offs. But givebacks could go a long way to saving officers jobs in the future.
David Smith May 26, 2012 at 01:38 AM
@ No Clue, For someone claiming not to single someone out your post about the female officer was not only based on ignorance it was very clearly singling someone out. Perhaps you should get a clue before you post.
David Smith May 26, 2012 at 01:39 AM
Maybe we will get lucky and you won't be able to afford internet access any more.
David Smith May 26, 2012 at 01:42 AM
@Chief, Me thinks you protest too much.
David Smith May 26, 2012 at 01:43 AM
@ Chief, you got those numbers for us? Please share.
David Smith May 26, 2012 at 01:59 AM
@ Hedley, you can't ask for givebacks when you are still giving the township manager over a 5% pay increase. Either all township employees give back or none do. You can't target one group it's just not fair.
People are crazy May 26, 2012 at 02:36 AM
And if the manager went to the unions with numbers and a real plan maybe the unions would be inclined to give something back. Just asking for a blank "giveback" with no guidance or plan of what the manager was looking for is ridiculous. Then saying he asked the unions to open their contracts and they said "no". Let's be fair here. Asking the unions for givebacks was a formality and there was never serious thought put into it by the township.
Hedley Lamarr May 26, 2012 at 03:27 PM
@David Smith fair enough, but just given their size the police need to step up in order for give backs to really mean anything.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something