To the editor:
David Kutner’s recent letter in support of Nancy and George Youngkin’s candidacies for Medford council misstates the record in several crucial areas.
As our opponents and their supporters have frequently done throughout this campaign, Mr. Kutner has incorrectly characterized our reaction to the concepts of zero based budgeting, shared services and outsourcing. Far from describing these concepts as gimmicks, we and the three other current members of council have used each of them during the past ten months. The true “gimmicks” are Mr. and Mrs. Youngkin’s simply parroting what has already been done and trying to claim these strategies as their own.
Mr. Kutner is simply wrong when he states the current council has shown literally no interest in zero based budgeting. Very early in the 2012 budget process, council instructed the township manager to prepare a chart identifying every category of expense in the budget and indicating whether each expense was required by law. This information guided our budget deliberations and, without using the fancy “zero based budgeting” label, we followed the process described in Mr. Kutner’s letter. For example, at our March 13, budget meeting at Memorial School, we reviewed each of the services offered by the township and analyzed whether each is required by law. We also went through the budget line-by-line and discussed whether each line item could be eliminated or reduced.
Mr. and Mrs. Youngkin’s discussion of zero based budgeting, and their pledge not to increase property taxes, did not start until the Medford Leas debate on Sept. 27, almost six months after they announced their candidacies. Both are general ideas designed to suggest to voters that our opponents are adequately prepared to deal with Medford’s financial crisis, but neither is accompanied by any useful substance. Despite their having attended many of the budget meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Youngkin have been utterly incapable of describing to voters specific budget items that can be cut and sources of revenue that can be obtained to eliminate future budget deficits. General concepts and buzzwords are not going to solve Medford’s problems. Concrete, specific plans are required.
This newspaper will post online on Wednesday, Oct. 24 the candidates’ ideas for dealing with Medford’s financial crisis. Our separate responses detail specific measures the current council is using and will use in the future to make Medford financially strong for the long haul. In deciding which team of candidates to choose on Nov. 6, we urge all Medford voters to compare our responses to those of our opponents.
Mr. Kutner’s letter did contain one important correct statement. He is absolutely right that this issue is not about political party — it’s about good government. The current council has been working successfully to restore Medford since the beginning of this year. We know and understand the issues, and have a proven record of dealing with them. Mr. and Mrs. Youngkin lack this on the job experience, and they have offered nothing new to help fix Medford. Their election in November would be a step backward for our town.
Jeff Beenstock and Chuck Watson
Medford Council Members and candidates
Medford, NJ
