Dispatches from M.Emory Layne – Thinking Outside the Pine Box

By M. Emory Layne

The GOP candidate for mayor, Robert Gatto, hasn’t held office in North Plainfield. That should not be seen as a liability – everyone had to hold their first position at some time.

But he has run for office in North Plainfield before … and lost.

Unless Mr. Gatto decides to try an approach noticeably different than past GOP efforts, it’s not too much of a stretch predicting the same result: a campaign that would die a quiet death.

First, a little background on previous tries.

In 2004, Gatto ran for Council on the Frosoni, Carley, Lewis and Gatto ticket; they lost to Allen, Hitchcock, Righetti and Stabile.

In 2006, Gatto again ran for Council, this time with D’Amore, Jones and Lewis. While they lost to Forbes, Giordano, Singleterry and D. Soto, the vote in that election was not a runaway. The average number of votes for a Democrat candidate was 2,043 while the GOP candidates received an average of 1,857 votes. In a nutshell, swaying 94 voters would have resulted in victory.

Interestingly, though, Gatto received a fairly strong endorsement from the Courier-News. The newspaper opined that GOP candidates Gatto and Margaret Mary Jones, along with Democrat candidates Singleterry and Forbes, showed “the best mix of smarts and philosophy.”

Current Democrat mayoral candidate Giordano was not one of those named.

The Courier-News had provided more detail about Gatto in a previous article. “Gatto could emerge as a strong GOP presence, even in a minority role,” they wrote at the time. “A New Jersey native who had lived in Los Angeles for years (his wife is an actress), Gatto’s a vocal advocate for stronger zoning enforcement to curb apartment overcrowding. He is also a critic of recent large increases in some borough administrative salaries.”

Interestingly, this is what they had to say about his current opponent, Michael Giordano: “Giordano was elected to a one-year unexpired term last year,” they said, “and has served as a good Democratic soldier on the Borough Council to date.”

In a past dispatch, I listed some things that I would like to hear from a mayoral candidate for a change – things that would be different from the run-of-the-mill statements made at the last minute or in namby-pamby ‘meet the candidates’ speeches. Naturally, since I’m not running, I have no right to make demands. But I do think I have enough experience with past elections to make strong suggestions.

Doing things the old-fashioned North Plainfield GOP way has resulted in a record of one win in the past 15 years. I’m not going to factor in repeated wins in years past by Margaret Mary Jones while all the other GOP candidates on the ticket lost. That never made any sense to me, as Mrs. Jones was neither a “good soldier” on the Council for the opposing party nor a strong voice for a position opposite the status quo. Aside from her wins and the recent Flynn victory, the GOP’s track record has been foul-smelling.

I’m not going to waste time rehashing GOP flubs and blunders in past elections, though there were many. And there’s not enough space here to address highly questionable approaches taken by the eventual victors in previous run-ups.

The simple fact is that ANY town can become very stagnant and very predictable if the same group with the same principles and the same desires hold power for too long. That isn’t going to change unless someone comes along who’s willing to be different.

There’s quite a while between now and when we cast our ballots; why wait until the last minute to say anything? Now’s the time that people should be getting to know if there’s truly something different here. The issues that are on residents’ minds can’t be any clearer – open this blog. And the approaches that are needed aren’t mysterious; they’re straight-forward.

Will Mr. Gatto … or anyone … address them?

I wonder how a candidate would be perceived if he came out and said something like:

“I will make sure that the people I hire are the best people for the job. I will examine the people who are currently doing work for the taxpayer – and if they’re not performing adequately, I will pursue replacing them. And if there’s some backroom deal that was made that makes getting rid of them difficult, I will bring it to the public’s attention immediately.”

Let’s see … a handful of people on the payroll versus thousands of people footing the bill; who has a stronger voice?

Suppose a candidate said that he’d reexamine each and every appointment to positions that affect policies and spending in town. Suppose he said that no one was ‘safe,’ that even the smallest infraction, abuse of authority or laxity in performance would be call for dismissal? Let’s see … thousands of voters go through that every day of their work lives; why would they feel it unfair for the people they pay to be subject to the same examination?

Imagine a candidate running for mayor of North Plainfield who said he or she planned to spend four years rooting out the favors, the friendship arrangements, and the lack of oversight? That being mayor meant more to them than maintaining a buddy system throughout Borough Hall? That if someone was goofing off and stealing taxpayer dollars through non-performance of any job, from zoning officer to floor sweeper, they’d answer to the taxpayers? That ALL deals and agreements would be aired out in public?

A wise man once said that if you do the same thing incorrectly over and over, you simply become and expert at doing it incorrectly.

I think that was me who said that.

I ask you bluntly – what are you afraid of?

Saying the wrong thing?

Look what saying nothing has accomplished in the past.

Taking a stand?

Addressing the primary issues in town?

Everyone smiles, shakes hands, and posts signs with their name on them.

And in the end, one wins and the other loses.

I dare say it’s worth the ‘risk’ to try something different this time.