Posted on

Ridgewood Village Clerk Rejects One Village One Vote Resubmitted Petition to Vote on Taking Away Your Vote

vote

Dear Ridgewood Community,

Today, August 13, we submitted a “supplemental petition” to the Village Clerk to cure the defects she identified with our original submission. The law allowed us just ten days to fix the issues identified by the Clerk, collect new signatures, and resubmit. Thanks to tremendous support from the community we were able to meet this tight deadline. And we did so with 582 signatures from Ridgewood voters, once again well more than the 410 threshold needed to put the question to consolidate Ridgewood’s elections on the ballot in November as a binding initiative.

As a quick recap, our original petition submission was deemed by the Village Clerk to be “insufficient” for two reasons. First, the full text of our proposed ordinance to move the timing of the elections needed to be on the actual petition form each voter signed, rather than the more simplified summary we had included. Second, while use of an online form is acceptable under Governor Murphy’s Executive Order 132, the Clerk objected to how the form was shared on our web page and potentially by others in the community.

Given the grassroots nature of our effort, these obstacles do sometimes arise; however, we received some great advice and fixed the identified defects. We included the full text of the proposed ordinance on the amended petition form, and we ensured that only the five official petitioners personally circulated and collected the petition form. With these updates, the Village Clerk has five days to review, and then we expect her to certify that the petition is sufficient.

Most importantly, neighbors in the Village are really talking about the issue, sharing their perspectives, and listening to each other. We all care about our Village passionately. This initiative will make Ridgewood a better place to live by improving our democracy – increasing voter turnout, saving tens of thousands of dollars per year, and helping with school security. And while not everyone agrees with us, this much now seems clear: IT IS TIME TO LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. This is an important issue which merits conversation and a binding vote. We call upon the Village Clerk and Village Council to ensure this happens this November.

 

Yesterday, August 18th, the Ridgewood Village Clerk notified us via email that our petition again was rejected. This occurred despite our rapid resubmission of a revised petition that addressed the Clerk’s stated reasons for her initial rejection. The clerk did not share reasons for the new rejection; rather, she stated that more information will be provided at the next Village Council meeting, September 2nd (still 2 weeks away). One of us visited her office in person today to obtain more information but was referred back to the email noted above.

Given that we resubmitted a petition that fully addressed the Clerk’s initial concerns, we are stumped. As Village residents who hope to improve the rate of civic participation here in Ridgewood, we deserve a courteous, complete, and timely explanation as to why our petition, signed by a substantial portion of the electorate, was rejected.

We have been advised that the Clerk’s office is not complying with the relevant state statute, that states “…if the petition be still insufficient, (s)he shall file his (her) certificate to that effect in his (her) office and notify the Committee of the Petitioners of his (her) findings….”

We will be meeting as a group to determine next steps. We are especially concerned that we have minimal time before ballots are finalized for the upcoming election, and hope to update you in the near future.

Finally, we would like to say a warm thank you to the Ridgewood community for all your support and help.

Bob Fuhrman
Matthew Lindenberg
Stacey Loscalzo
Deborah Steinbaum
Siobhan Crann Winograd

16 thoughts on “Ridgewood Village Clerk Rejects One Village One Vote Resubmitted Petition to Vote on Taking Away Your Vote

  1. Thanks be to God.

  2. If Siobhan is for it, I’m against it.

    9
    1
  3. Bob “I want a private street with no sidewalks “ Fuhrman.

    6
    1
  4. Good. Now sheila cannot have her term extended by another six months.
    She already benefited TWICE with six months extensions and she was hoping for another one with this move. I have heard she was making phone calls for signing this petition..also her pet super was also asking people to sign it.

    8
    1
  5. There still might be hope for RW…

  6. This was a plan created by hatred by a bunch of losers. Of course it failed.

  7. Queue up voigt saying we need to get our government back. He backed this plan. One of the sorriest lowlifes ever.

  8. I can’t follow this …. too confusing…

  9. Please tell me how removing residents’ right to vote on the school budget would enhance democracy.

    This misguided effort has represented a sad waste of a lot of people’s time. New hobby recommended.

    Goodbye, Sheila.

  10. The petition signers were not informed that the Nov election would not allow them to vote on the budget portion of the election…….only the candidates. The public needs to keep the ability of voting on the budget. In order to vote on both the candidates and the budget the election needs to be held in April. Clear information to the public means fair and open transparency before signing petitions.

  11. Whether you agree or not with the question shouldn’t we all wonder why it was rejected again? That is how democracy works.

  12. Not a peep from this blog on why it was rejected again… nothing.

    1. thats the article

  13. Why was it rejected?

    1
    1
  14. The blog does not know what the deficiencies are. The village clerk knows. And when the council meets the reasons will be revealed. Then we will all know.

  15. Siobhan your plan sucked. You wanted to take away our right to vote on the BOE budget. What a jackass plan. So glad it was rejected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.