To the Citizens Association

I understand from the Record editor that an abridged version of the letter will be published before too long in the Record. As they left out a few of my observations, I would appreciate it if it could be posted so that it could elicit comment on the entire thing.

The letter reads as follows:

To the Editor:

The article raises a number of issues with respect to Radburn governance that should be discussed to better understand the issues involved. I fear that the information that forms its basis, and that of the letters written by Representative Rothman and Assemblyman Gordon, was provided only by those with their own agenda.

A few facts are important to note prior to hastily changing a 75 year method of governance that has proved the most successful of any planned development, and that was instituted by the original Radburn planners precisely to assure the continuity and effectiveness that have been its primary characteristics.

First, there is a question as to whether we are a homeowner’s association. Voting in Radburn does not correspond to ownership but to residency with each household having two votes for a slate of two candidates selected from four nominated by the board. Since the law applies to homeowners associations, we may well be faced with the possibility of disenfranchising a large block of renters (over 100 households out of 670 or so total).

The second point is that this method of nomination is shared by many other non-profit corporations such as those of religious organizations and charities. There is a good argument for insisting that all such organizations provide a more open nominating process but it is not at all certain that this will result in a better outcome. The board in Radburn as in these other places sit as trustees – this makes it incumbent on them to solicit future members with an eye toward assuring competence and continuity in the ideals under which the community was founded.

Thirdly, where do we look for an example of good governance, especially with regard to nominating process? Is it with Fair Lawn and other towns where primaries are held more often than not with no choice except the single candidate chosen in a back room?

Fourthly, the system for Radburn was purposely structured to avoid politics. Candidates run strictly on qualifications and do not propose a point of view. Those militating for change are doing it based on issues, certainly not competence.

The dangers of a political process are exemplified by the results of the election of the last president of the Citizen’s association, a communal group of the entire community which deals with issues of interest and presents them to the board. (This president sits on the board of Radburn along with 8 other trustees, six elected at large and two elected by the Radburn Association whose membership is sitting and emeritus trustees.) This election is held at a meeting of the Citizen’s association whose attendance is usually less than 30. As such it is subject to being held hostage by any group with an axe to grind – exactly the method by which the current president was installed. This has been cited as the more democratic of the election processes within Radburn by those complaining of the nominating process for board membership.

The yearly election of officers(others than president who sits for 2 years), held this last Wednesday, resulted in the election of a slate of candidates with only one person per position nominated, by a total of less than 30 citizens.

Finally, although Mr. R. Gulack indicated reluctance on the part of DCA to regulate, there has been no mention of whether in fact the current Radburn process actually meets their criteria for fair elections and what precisely needs to be changed in the event that it is not. In view of the wide variability in nominating processes, the board would be prudent to obtain such a ruling prior to beginning the lengthy, costly and tedious task of changing the election process.

Although there well may be merit in wishing to change the process, the issue is certainly not as simple as more verses less democracy. The trustees rightly feel they are perpetuators of a legacy decided by legends in city planning and that any change to their wishes would endanger the success which has made Radburn the model for so many planned communities and has earned it a place among America’s historic sites.

Mark