In her interview with Mile Square View, Mayor Dawn Zimmer was asked if she considers any municipal services ripe for privatization or outsourcing. To her credit, the mayor revealed that she's in the process of reviewing several areas of government for privatization. We'd very much like to hear what those areas are. Unfortunately, however, the mayor refused to share that information. She indicated that she'd only discuss potential areas for privatization after "a decision has been made."

This reticence, in our view, is misguided. For starters, the people should know what the mayor is thinking. Moreover, simply mentioning that a municipal service is under consideration for privatization can lead to efficiencies--even if those services are never ultimately privatized. City employees might suddenly realize they don't need quite so many supervisors, for instance. Or smoking breaks, for that matter.

Mayor Zimmer should go even further, and clearly demonstrate that municipal services are costing too much. The most effective way to do that is to simply request price quotes from multiple vendors. Let's find out what private firms can do, at what cost. This would expose, in specific terms, how much we're currently overpaying for municipal services. City employees would then have to compete.

Flint, Michigan, provides one example of this phenomenon. After the mayor received bids from private firms, the union found ways to collect trash for $1.4 million less. As a result, the city decided not to move forward with privatization. The same municipal workers collected Flint's trash. They just did it faster, smarter, and cheaper.

Like Flint, the City of Indianapolis found that sometimes merely threatening privatization prompted city employees to work more productively. Often, however, using a private firm makes sense. Indianapolis saved $15 million when it privatized trash collection. Closer to home, Jersey City under Bret Schundler found ways to save money via privatization. So did Steve Lonegan, in Bogota.

One area Mayor Zimmer ruled out for privatization was the library. We hope that she reconsiders this stance. There is certainly no harm in at least studying privatization, and receiving bids from vendors. The mere process might uncover inefficiencies that current employees could rectify. Or we might find that a private firm could run it at a much lower cost. Explaining her opposition to privatization, the mayor offered her belief that our library is significantly underfunded. In reality, that's all the more reason to consider some form of privatization. A firm could potentially invest some of its own capital as part of a privatization deal. At a minimum, reduced overhead costs would free up tax dollars for needed improvements or purchases.

In the midst of our city's fiscal crisis, there's no reason not to explore privatizing or contracting out municipal services wherever practical. As other cities have demonstrated, there's no reason to stay mum on which services you're thinking of opening up to competition. On the contrary, it sometimes pays to think out loud.

Our Fifth Annual Lincoln Dinner will take place on the evening of Sunday, March 28th. We are excited to announce that former Jersey City Mayor (and newly-appointed Commissioner of Education) Bret Schundler will headline this year's event. Stay tuned for more details. In the meantime, please save the date!

In a recent interview with Mile Square View, Mayor Zimmer was asked if she’d favor suspending or repealing the municipal open space tax. Unfortunately, the mayor stated that she wouldn’t even consider it, despite the city’s failure to deliver on promises of tax relief. The mayor accurately noted that voters approved the open space tax in a citywide referendum. The city’s hands are not exactly tied, however. That referendum was non-binding. The council still had to vote to enact the tax.

If the mayor feels that we need to consult the voters prior to revisiting the open space tax, fine. Let’s hold another referendum. As we’ve previously written, this tax was approved in a very different political and economic climate than we face today. In these hard times, voters might now have a different opinion.

The champions of the open space tax promised us offsetting spending reductions to neutralize the tax impact. That, obviously, didn't happen. After taxes skyrocketed, Zimmer and her allies then campaigned on a 25% tax cut plan. Now that's not happening, either.

And so, as far as we’re concerned, the least they can do now is move to repeal (or at least suspend) a tax hike they themselves foisted on us (there's no blaming a prior administration, or Trenton, for this one). If they want to fund their pet initiatives, they should find a way to repeal Tripodi's massive tax hike first (or at least achieve that promised 25% reduction). In other words, Mayor Zimmer and her council allies should lead by example — especially if they're planning on asking others to make sacrifices.

During last week's school board meeting, Carrie Gilliard stated that she's disaffiliating from the Kids First coalition. Over the weekend, fellow board member Maureen Sullivan announced that she has left Kids First as well (or, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, Kids First has left her). Sullivan's letter, published in the Hoboken Reporter, explains how she has tried in vain to hold Kids First to their promises of reform:

Dear Editor:

From the minute I took my seat on the school board last April it’s been apparent that my colleagues were not nearly as committed to reform as we had promised during the campaign. For nine months I loyally backed my team in public. But behind closed doors I argued for a tougher stand in union negotiations, a harder line on spending, greater transparency and a commitment to hiring the best people. At almost every step I met stiff resistance. In virtually every case my arguments lost out. Now, following our amateurish search and then the rush to hire an inexperienced superintendent, it’s clear that I must resign from Kids First (the political organization with whom I ran for the board). My fellow board member Carrie Gilliard quit Kids First at Tuesday’s meeting.

In my opinion, the search got off on the wrong foot. When the previous superintendent quit last June, I said the board should hire a headhunting firm that would find top candidates. I envisioned a hunt that would look at executives at, say, KIPP or Teach for America, where Washington’s Michelle Rhee started. I never got a hearing. Instead, I was blindsided at the September meeting with a resolution that the search would start immediately and that the NJ School Boards Association would conduct it. That would largely limit the applicants to NJ public school administrators.

Much of Kids First was fixated on hiring someone – anyone – before the April election to avoid losing that power if it lost control of the board. I thought we should find the best candidate, no matter how long it took. As it happened, the NJSBA presented us with a very shallow pool of candidates. Of 21 who applied, only six were worth interviewing, and two of those soon dropped out. Of the remaining four, only one had ever run a district. Then we conducted a very cursory due diligence.

A trip to Frank Romano’s district was not organized until last Tuesday, after he had already been offered the job. I thought we should heed references from Millburn, but I was told I was just digging up dirt. Then Tuesday I was blindsided again – this time with the news that we were voting to hire Romano that night, although the board and public had been told this was off the agenda. Carrie and I voted no. My main reason is that he doesn’t have the right educational philosophy for our district. Test scores could fall even further. What’s more, his salary and guaranteed raises are far too high.

Volunteering for the school board demands countless hours. We all get some of the myriad decisions wrong. But one thing I can’t get wrong is following the principles on which I was elected: treat the taxpayers’ money as if it were my own, keep the public informed and never forget to put the kids first. I’m not putting together a slate to challenge Kids First in April, but I encourage true reformers to demand accountability and consider running for the board.

Maureen Sullivan

Earlier this week, the Board of Education voted (seven in favor, two opposed) to hire Frank Romano as our district's new superintendent. The board has offered Romano a salary of $190,000, with 3.5% annual pay increases. Those raises are guaranteed, not performance-related. Romano's salary would exceed that of Jack Raslowsky, our last full-time superintendent.

Romano was a rather underwhelming candidate, to put it mildly. He certainly didn't merit such a lucrative contract. In our view, the Board of Education has really let taxpayers down. That said, we commend board members Maureen Sullivan and Carrie Gilliard for their dissenting votes.

During that same meeting, the board voted (five in favor, three opposed) to send member Frances Rhodes Kearns on a $2,300 junket to a convention in Chicago. On that particular vote, Theresa Minutillo joined Sullivan and Gilliard in standing up for the taxpayer.

Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday. He is missed, now more than ever. In this present crisis, our national, state, and local officials would do well to ask themselves, "What would Reagan do?"

A class action lawsuit was filed this week, on behalf of numerous property owners victimized by the capricious enforcement of our city's rent control ordinance. Our city routinely wastes taxpayer dollars defending this antiquated law. Instead, we should take action to prevent costly lawsuits in the first place. At a minimum, we need to amend our city's rent control ordinance, and make sure that it's consistently enforced in a fair manner.

In our view, however, it's time to scrap rent control entirely. Not only would this allow the rental market to function properly (allocating housing more efficiently), it would save taxpayers money. We'd save all the money we're currently spending on rent control administration and enforcement. And, of course, we'd protect the taxpayer from these kinds of lawsuits in the future.

“I don’t think they were elected to reduce taxes.” - Councilman Michael Lenz, 01/30/10, referring to Mayor Dawn Zimmer and her council allies.

Lenz dismissed campaign talk of significantly lower taxes as unrealistic. Instead of cutting taxes, the councilman argued that we should focus on spending tax dollars more "carefully."

Contrary to the councilman's "spin," candidate Zimmer promised a 25% tax cut (to view one of her mail pieces, click here). Voters now expect her to deliver. That said, it is our contention that taxes are not truly "cut" until last year's massive tax hike is fully repealed. Otherwise, we are effectively stuck with a permanent tax increase.

Our state's chapter of Americans for Prosperity has released its final report card of the 2008-2009 legislative session. Over fifty key votes were evaluated from a taxpayer's perspective.

We are sorry to report that our district's representatives have utterly failed the taxpayer. In the Assembly, Caridad Rogriguez and Ruben Ramos both earned failing grades. Rodriguez voted in the taxpayer's interest a mere 8% of the time. Ramos fared even worse, with a 2% score. In the Senate, Brian Stack received a paltry 2% score as well. A dual officeholder, Stack also serves as Mayor of Union City.

We'll keep a watchful eye on this tax-and-spend trio, and let you know how they vote in the upcoming session. In the meantime, hold on to your wallets!