Mahwah September 5, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 5 Mayor’s recycling letter draws council critique by Frank J. McMahon Several Mahwah Council members publicly criticized Mayor William Laforet for placing a full page ad in a local newspaper in which he chastised the five council members who voted against his plan to privatize the collection of recyclables. In his ad, Laforet claimed he was elected with a clear mandate to stabilize taxes and change the way the township’s government is managed. He pointed to the 1.75 tax increase last year and the township’s AAA bond rating as evidence of the strides that have been made toward that goal. But he stated the township is facing another budget year with a mandated two percent tax levy cap, and he reviewed the budgets of all the township’s departments looking for potential savings opportunities. He then proposed the outsourcing of the township’s collection of recyclables. He criticized the council in the ad for ignoring a 2006 report on the department of public works, stating that the Blue Ribbon Citizens’ Committee he formed to advise him on last year’s budget was amazed that the information was not made available to the public. He accused the council of assuring future tax hikes or service reductions by voting against the recycling proposal. Councilmen Roy Larson, John Roth, and Harry Williams voiced their criticism of the mayor at public council meeting held in late August. The council members claimed the ad was offensive and inappropriate. Councilwoman Lisa DiGiulio and Councilman Charles “Chuck” Jandris, the other two council members who voted against the privatization plan were absent from the meeting. “I was offended by the mayor’s letter published in the newspaper,” Larson said. “It seems our mayor takes offense when he doesn’t get his way.” Larson explained that he was offended by the mayor’s tone of accusing the council members who voted against his proposal of doing so for political reasons. “When you throw out accusations that are not true that’s where I have a problem,” he said. Williams told the mayor, “That’s patently wrong to accuse us of those motives. You have no right to accuse us of those motives.” Williams pointed out that he had asked for more facts about the recycling proposal, but they were never submitted. He said the recycling proposal was not well thought out. “We never discussed the analysis I asked for, the timetable (in the proposal) was questionable, and the facts kept changing,” he said, referring to the number of employees who would be laid off. He also claimed that the estimated $334,000 cost saving was never clearly established and never agreed upon by the council. Williams also said the recycling proposal was never put forward as part of a budget crisis and that he did not vote against the proposal because of politics or because he was against it, but because he wanted to consider the proposal as part of the overall budget for next year. He reminded the mayor that he asked him to move up his submission of next year’s budget if there is a budget crisis. Williams also disputed Laforet’s claim that the council ignored an independent study of the DPW’s operations and hid this information from the public. Laforet claims the council commissioned this study and the taxpayers paid for it in 2006. “That study was never brought to the council as part of this proposal,” Williams said. “I was not aware of it and yet I am accused of hiding it.” Williams said the mayor was putting politics above the council’s fiduciary responsibilities and he addressed the mayor, saying, (continued on page 6)