Rumson and Fair Haven Elections 2023: What You Need to Know

As people go to the polls to vote in Rumson and Fair Haven today, there are some facts about the boroughs’ governing bodies and their function and history that may have eluded many.

So, the notion in mind that an informed voter is a better voter, here are some facts that may enlighten and inspire at the polls:

Form of Government

Rumson and Fair Haven are both run under what is dubbed the Borough form of municipal government in New Jersey. There are several forms. While it may seem like a given that since Fair Haven and Rumson are both boroughs, the form of government follows suit with that name. It’s not.

The Borough form of government is partisan, meaning that borough council members are affiliated with their particular party and elected on that partisan ticket. This form of municipal government is also a “strong” council, “weak” mayor form of government. This means that the mayor does not vote, except in the case of breaking a tie among council members.

The mayor also has veto power over ordinances (which are, essentially, borough laws). His vetoes, however, are subject to what is termed an “override” by a council two-thirds majority vote. The mayor also chairs, or runs, the meetings. The mayor, too, has the power to make professional appointments and liaison assignments to council members with the advice and consent of council.

Each council member serves as a liaison to a particular department or organization within the borough to affect better communication between departments/organizations and the governing body.

The mayor can veto ordinances subject to an override by a two-thirds majority vote of the council. The mayor makes committee and liaison assignments for council members, and most appointments are made by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.

Borough council members are elected to serve three-year terms on a six-member council dais in a completely volunteer capacity. They are not paid a cent to serve. The mayor serves in four-year terms and is elected separately as terms expire.

What happens when a borough council member must resign/retire?

If a borough council member must resign or retire due to emergent circumstances or a move and cannot complete their term on the dais, the governing body must fill the position within 30 days. The replacement, who is chosen from a pool of candidates nominated by the borough party organization (Democrat or Republican, depending on the party affiliation of the council member leaving), serves out the remainder of the term.

Note that the resigning elected official must be replaced with someone of the same party affiliation.

The person who was appointed must run in the November election to either complete that term as an officially elected official; or, depending on the seats up for grabs, can opt to run for a full term and run a newer candidate for the shorter, unexpired term.

In Fair Haven this election …

Two seats are up for grabs on the six-member council dais are those of currently sitting council members, both Democrats, Christopher Rodriguez and Laline Neff, neither of whom is opting to run again as an incumbent. Rodriguez has served as council president and ran for mayor last year and lost to newcomer Josh Halpern who initially filled the unexpired term of longtime previous Mayor Ben Lucarelli when he resigned.

Four, two Republicans and two Democrats, are vying for Rodriguez’s and Neff’s seats. All four are newcomers to the race and relatively new to Fair Haven. The Democrats running are Michal DiMicelli and Neil Blecher (above). The Republican challengers are Melissa Lowry and Brian Olson (below).

Historically, the Fair Haven Borough Council has been Republican-dominated, if not all Republican. That switched in more recent years to Democrat-dominated — a first. Currently Rodriguez and Neff are the only Democrats on the six-member dais. If the Republican challengers win, council will switch back to its historic norm of all-GOP members on the dais, including the mayor.

The major issues in Fair Haven are: affordable housing, seniors, the facilities upgrade, zoning, garbage, recycling and maintaining quality of life at the riverfront and dock.

About Fair Haven

Fair Haven is a roughly 1.6-square mile borough with about 6,000 residents, most of them families. The last U.S. Census report indicated that more than 70 percent of the residents of Fair Haven are married couples. There are roughly 1,700 families.

In Rumson this election …

It’s rare for Rumson elections to be contested. This election is no exception. The council has historically maintained a Republican majority, or all-Republican. With two seats up for grabs, the Republican incumbent council members have opted to not run again.

There are no Democrat challengers and two Republicans are running uncontested for the two seats. They are: Gary Casazza and Linda J. Smith.

Incumbent Republican Mayor Joseph Hemphill is running uncontested as well for another four years.

Legislative District 13 …

Both Rumson and Fair Haven boroughs are part of Legislative District 13, represented by incumbent Republican Senator Declan O’Scanlon. He is being challenged by Democrat Lucille LoSapio, a newcomer to the race.

Incumbent Republican Assemblyman Gerard Scharfenberger and Victoria Flynn are being challenged by Democrats Paul Eschelbach and Danielle Mastropiero.

Votes in Fair Haven may be cast at the single polling place, Church of the Nativity on Hance Road. Polls are open until 8 p.m.

Editor’s note: You may have noticed that R-FH Retro’s candidates’ Q&As are absent this election. At R-FH Retro we, in true professional journalistic form, strive to ensure balance in coverage. Local election coverage is a big part of that goal.

Traditionally, the press has served as a watchdog for the public, fielding questions in candidate interviews that target issues critical to the towns candidates are vying to serve. Accessibility, transparency and accountability are at the core of an elected official’s work.

In years past, in traditional newsrooms, Q&As were not the method chosen for candidate coverage. Interviews were conducted via telephone or in person and candidates used those interviews as opportunities to answer to the public they strove to get elected to serve. They, 99 percent of the time, responded to requests for interviews — and usually immediately and according to the journalist’s (very busy) schedule, not theirs. It was their opportunity to let the public get to know them via a skilled, unbiased professional.

With the advent of social media, candidates’ accessibility to journalists’ election interviews waned. Unfortunately, many, not all, candidates started to feel as if they didn’t need or want to respond to interview requests, as social media had become their public relations venue and they didn’t need the newspaper interviews upon which they used to respect and rely on heavily. The problem with that is that there is a big difference between public relations and election coverage and news. True journalistic news coverage of elections has an invaluable benefit to the voters. The social media opportunity for candidates is great, but it is just that — social media and public relations, not news coverage. In public relations, there’s no accountability, it’s just about promoting what you want to promote rather than analysis and vetting of pertinent facts and issues via specific answers to pertinent-thought-out questions.

And when there’s no response for a requested interview, the rule is three attempts and then a “refused to respond” is recorded. In an effort to make things easier for candidates, journalists started creating election questionnaires tailored to the issues of each town and facts about the candidates’ backgrounds. We worked diligently to create the most interesting, effective questions. Through the questionnaires, candidates were afforded an opportunity to answer within a period of a few days to a week. Going back several years, candidates were generally pleased with the opportunity and thankful for the chance answer the questions over the course of a few days rather than answer on the spot in an in-person interview — one chance.

Unfortunately, in more recent years, some candidates started balk over not having weeks or even as much as a month to answer and some even blatantly stated that they had no time and were “too busy” campaigning and “running the town.” Others didn’t even respond. All of that was very disheartening and much of our time was also wasted on carefully-crafted, thoughtful, insightful professional candidates’ questionnaires that, when answered with as much thought and care, benefitted the voting public that those candidates strove to have the opportunity to serve. So, in light of the disinterest and disregard that created an inadvertent imbalance in coverage, the decision this election was made to not offer the questionnaires, as they were not taken as seriously as they should have been.

We would like to thank the past candidates who were diligent, respectful and thoughtful about answering our Q&As. Thank you! The voting public thanks you. And to those who have supported R-FH Retro and its endeavors on the whole, and advertised we extend our sincere thanks. We always offered to both sides and until last year, both sides always advertised. But, that’s completely separate from the election coverage and a true public relations opportunity that showed support for hyperlocal journalism as well. Thanks to those who have advertised!

Next election, we will return to traditional election interviews. Separate ads will again be offered to BOTH sides again. Those who do not choose to cooperate with the interviews will be, in true traditional journalistic form, be exposed for any refusal to answer to the public they are asking to serve or serve again. Accessibility is key to the role of a true public servant. Remember that. Thank you and best of luck to all the candidates. The work is volunteer and your efforts are appreciated.