Delaying Tactics

Why does the Mayor withhold information?

What legitimate purpose serving the best interests of West Windsor does it serve? Here are two prominent examples.

Writing a redevelopment plan

Council held an educational meeting on February 21, 2006 about responsibility for writing the redevelopment plan. The critical question was whether responsibility for writing the plan should be delegated to the Planning Board or retained by Council.

The Mayor solicited an opinion from the Township Attorney immediately following that Council meeting. That memo was released to the Mayor March 3, 2006 listing the reasons why responsibility for writing the plan should be delegated to the Planning Board.

The existence of this memo was not disclosed until seven months later on October 6, 2006, four days before the October 10, 2006 Council meeting to discuss the issue preliminary to its decision about delegation to the Planning Board. See the October 6 memo from Mr. Herbert disclosing the existence of the March 3 memo along with the March 3 memo by clicking here.

The timing made it impossible to obtain a balancing opinion listing the reasons for the opposite decision. In fact, Council elected to delegate the plan to the Planning Board without having the benefit of a thorough listing of all of the cons as well as the pros.

Did this serve the best interests of West Windsor?

Interestingly, the Planning Board subsequently returned this responsibility to Council.

Keeping the Alexander Road Bridge Open

I have maintained that the Alexander Road Bridge did not need to be closed for 90 days. You can read about it by clicking here.

Mayor Hsueh accused me of being misleading for taking that position. You can read his memo by clicking here. In his memo, Mayor Hsueh said that "We really need to work together to minimize misinformation and unnecessary confusion over the next several months."

Mayor Hsueh also attached an email dated April 11, 2008 from the Project Manager to his July 16, 2008 memo.

Why was the email from the Project Manager withheld for more than three months until after the bridge closure? Is this "working together to minimize misinformation and unnecessary confusion?"

What purpose did this secrecy serve? Could it be that they did not want a response while there was still time before the bridge closure to implement an alternative plan that would have avoided the 90 day closure?