March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Minutes of the meeting of the Charter Study Commission of the Township of Millburn, in the County of Essex, New Jersey, held in the Bauer Center starting at 8:00 PM on the above date. Mr. Drucker welcomed those present and read the following notice: In accordance with Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Laws, 1975, be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the Bulletin Board in Town Hall, and forwarding to the officially designated newspapers, that this meeting would take place at the Bauer Center at 8:00 PM on Thursday, March 26, 2026. All those in attendance joined in the Pledge of Allegiance. Upon call of the roll, the following Charter Study Commission members were recorded present: Corey Biller, Jerry Kung, Shaunak Tanna, Joanna Parker-Lentz, and Chris Drucker. Also present: Suzanne Cevasco, Esq. of King, Moench & Collins LLP. Mr. Biller made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Tanna. All voted in favor. Mr. Biller made a motion to approve the March 19, 2026 meeting minutes. Seconded by Ms. Parker-Lentz. All voted in favor. Reports There were no reports since the previous meeting. Public Comment Mr. Drucker opened the public comment period. Jay Morreale, Millburn resident, commended the Commission on its work. He asked whether a strong mayor has been interviewed. He shared his views regarding partisanship. He also expressed concern about the handling of the decorum incident at the March 22 meeting. Commissioners noted that the individual had been issued a three-strike warning and asked to leave, that the Commission’s attorney had restated the ground rules, and that Mr. Biller had forewarned the audience to respect one another. The Commissioners denounced the behavior and it was noted that the individual publicly apologized at the end of the meeting. Jeanne Cosgrove, Millburn resident, argued that non-partisan elections do not solve the underlying problem of including unaffiliated voters, as like-minded candidates would still organize into slates, leaving unaffiliated candidates at the same disadvantage. She asked that the Commission leave the question of non-partisan elections off the ballot. Charles Bambara, Millburn resident, introduced himself as an engineer with over fifty years of experience. He described volunteering for the township’s flood mitigation committee out of a desire to apply his expertise to help flood-affected residents. He stated that his participation was repeatedly met with partisan challenges questioning his motives and misrepresenting his work. He attributed these incidents to partisan politics infecting what should be a purely technical process and expressed strong support for non-partisan elections on that basis. Dianne Eglow, Millburn resident, stated that she is “completely in favor of” non-partisan and asked how elections would be conducted. The Commission replied that it would be governed by the New Jersey Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law and held the same as Board of � March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Education elections. Ms. Eglow asked about ranked choice voting. The Commission replied that ranked choice voting is not allowed in the State of NJ. David Morrow, Millburn resident, expressed support for the commission and stated, “I believe that it’s time for Millburn to go completely non-partisan.” He suggested having an elected mayor. He echoed Mr. Bambara’s comments regarding the vitriol of partisan elections. He stated that there are enough issues that we need to deal with in town such as infrastructure, schools, and flooding, and that national anger and partisanship are getting in the way of good governance. Regina Truitt, Millburn resident speaking via Zoom, thanked the commissioners for their work and identified herself as a Democratic district leader. Ms. Truitt expressed support for retaining partisan elections, citing party affiliation as a useful signal of candidates’ policy platforms and party funding as an important resource that levels the financial playing field for candidates without financial resources. Frank Saccomandi, Millburn resident, spoke to the question of campaign funding in a non￾partisan system. He noted that in his own campaign for Township Committee, approximately 15 percent of his fundraising came from the county party, with the remainder raised from individual donors across party lines — suggesting that strong candidates can raise money independent of party infrastructure. He cited the Board of Education as a local precedent for non-partisan elections that operate effectively without party funding. He also noted that his opponents had received significant contributions from party politicians outside of Millburn and expressed the view that local elections are better served without outside political money. He expressed support for non-partisan elections. Ms. Eglow asked if a directly elected mayor is required in a non-partisan election system. Mr. Drucker replied no. David Cosgrove, Millburn resident, speaking individually, noted that the local parties may still choose to endorse and fund candidates in a non-partisan system. He expressed the view that the hostility observed in local politics reflects broader national discourse rather than the partisan election structure itself. Mr. Drucker closed the public comment period. New Business Mr. Drucker read the following statement into the record: “Before we begin deliberations, I want to briefly reflect on the work that has brought us to this point. This is our sixteenth meeting as a Commission. For context: the Red Bank Charter Study Commission held 16 total meetings over its entire process. The Bradley Beach commission held 15. We have equaled or exceeded both. In Phase I, we conducted structured private interviews with 12 current Millburn municipal employees and 16 current and former Township Committee members — 28 interviews, covering every major department and every era of Millburn governance back to 1991.� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes In Phase II, we went beyond our borders. We spoke with elected officials and managers from other New Jersey municipalities who have lived through exactly the governance questions we are deciding. In total, we conducted 43 interviews across 36 individuals. Throughout, we have held two rounds of public comment at every meeting, recorded and posted every session, and been guided by excellent legal counsel. We have done the work. Now we deliberate.” Questions 1 and 2: Form of Government. The Commission considered whether to recommend adoption of a form of government under the New Jersey Optional Municipal Charter Law (the Faulkner Act), as opposed to retaining the Township Committee form. Commissioners agreed that the Township Committee form lacks the statutory framework that would formalize and protect the executive authority that Millburn’s Business Administrator has exercised by practice and ordinance for decades. One commissioner noted that Millburn’s first Business Administrator, Timothy Gordon, who served beginning in 1984 and for approximately thirty-one years thereafter, reportedly conditioned his acceptance of the role on the codification of full executive authority in a municipal ordinance — underscoring that the de facto structure Millburn has long relied upon is currently protected only by ordinance rather than state statute. Commissioners noted that the Faulkner Act also makes available to Millburn a range of governance tools currently unavailable under the Township Committee form, including the statutory right of initiative and referendum. Commissioners further agreed that the council￾manager form is the foundational recommendation from which all other structural decisions follow. Commissioners also cited the elimination of annual elections as a significant benefit of moving to the council-manager form. Under the current Township Committee structure, elections are held every year, which municipal employees and interviewees described as a practical burden and a drag on effective governance. One commissioner noted that the Mayor of Verona had observed that with annual elections and a partisan system, the effective governing window runs from January through March — after which attention shifts to the primary and the next election cycle, making it difficult to advance policy. Commissioners agreed that more time between elections, as allowed under the Faulkner Act, would lower the temperature of local politics between cycles and give the governing body a meaningful window to govern rather than campaign continuously. The Commission considered and rejected the mayor-council (strong-mayor) form. Commissioners noted that the Commission’s formal public interview program did not include a currently serving official from a strong-mayor municipality operating at a scale comparable to Millburn, in part because the body of evidence from interviews was uniformly unsupportive of that form for a community of Millburn’s size and demographic composition. One commissioner cited the experience of a neighboring municipality operating under the mayor-council form, which had reportedly missed an affordable housing compliance deadline as a direct result of conflict between a directly elected strong executive mayor and a council majority. Commissioners agreed that divided authority at the local level — where a mayor is elected independently of the council and may hold views and appointments at odds with it — poses structural risks that the council-manager form avoids by vesting administrative authority in a professional manager accountable to the governing body as a whole.� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Decision: The Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend that Millburn adopt the council-manager form of government under the Faulkner Act. Question 3: Governing Body Size. The Commission discussed whether to recommend a five-, seven-, or nine-member governing body. Commissioners agreed that the current five-member Township Committee is limiting in terms of committee and work-group structures. Under the Open Public Meetings Act, a quorum of a public body may not meet without the meeting being noticed and open to the public; accordingly, a five-member body can convene work groups of only two members, whereas a seven-member body would allow three-member work groups capable of conducting substantive policy work between full meetings. Multiple commissioners cited this as a meaningful structural advantage of a seven-member body. Commissioners also noted that Millburn’s population has grown over time, and that a larger governing body would allow for broader distribution of committee assignments and workloads across members. Nine members was considered and found potentially unwieldy for a municipality of Millburn’s size. Ms. Parker-Lentz entered the deliberation leaning toward retaining a five-member body. She expressed concern that expanding the governing body might dilute the pool of highly qualified candidates willing to serve and would require the manager to communicate with proportionally more principals — adding administrative burden without a clear offsetting benefit. Another concern was that a five-member structure was familiar and had functioned adequately in comparable communities. Ms. Parker-Lentz was ultimately persuaded to support a seven-member body on two grounds. First, the voting arithmetic of a five-member council produces narrow governing margins: a supermajority requires a four-to-one vote, leaving little room for discourse. A five-to-two vote in a seven￾member council allows dissenters to continue the discussion and potentially peel off a member of the supermajority. Second, and more persuasively, the three-member work group advantage under the Open Public Meetings Act was described as a practically significant structural benefit. Under OPMA, a quorum of a public body may not meet without public notice and an open meeting; on a five-member council, informal work groups are therefore limited to two members. A seven-member council enables three-member subcommittees — a meaningful difference in the Commission’s view, because a three-person group can deliberate substantively and reach working conclusions between full public meetings in ways that a two￾person group cannot. Ms. Parker-Lentz acknowledged having been convinced and stated that this subcommittee efficiency argument, in combination with the voting margin rationale, resolved the initial hesitancy. Decision: The Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend a seven-member governing body. Question 4: At-Large versus Ward Representation. The Commission considered whether council members should be elected on an at-large basis or by ward or district. Commissioners expressed the view that ward-based elections, while appropriate in some contexts, can pit neighbors against neighbors and cause council members to prioritize the interests of their ward over the township as a whole. At-large elections were seen as better suited to a community where issues of general municipal concern — infrastructure, land use, fiscal management — transcend geographic subdivision. Decision: The Commission reached consensus to recommend that all council seats be elected on an at-large basis.� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Question 5: Staggered versus Concurrent Terms. The Commission considered whether to recommend staggered biennial elections or concurrent elections in which all seats are on the ballot in the same cycle. Commissioners noted that the Commission’s interview subjects had uniformly favored staggered elections as a means of preserving institutional knowledge and providing continuity of governance across political transitions. With a seven-member body and staggered terms, a core of experienced members always remains on the governing body while new members are being onboarded. Decision: The Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend staggered biennial elections. Question 6: Mayor Selection — Direct Election versus Council Selection. The Commission engaged in extended deliberation on this question. Several commissioners described starting the study with an inclination toward a directly elected mayor on the theory that residents should choose the public face of their community. Over the course of deliberation, all five commissioners moved to recommending an indirectly elected mayor — that is, a mayor selected by a vote of the council from among its own members following each biennial election. Commissioners who described changing their position acknowledged having done so. Commissioners identified several principal reasons for this shift. First, in a council-manager form of government, the mayor's role is fundamentally different from what voters typically associate with the title. The mayor presides over meetings and serves as the public face of the governing body but holds no independent executive authority — that authority rests entirely with the professional manager. Directly electing someone to a largely ceremonial role creates a fundamental mismatch: candidates may campaign on promises the position cannot deliver, and voters may expect executive power that the office does not carry. Commissioners agreed that asking residents to elect a mayor whose formal powers are equivalent to any other council member invites confusion about how the government actually works. Second, a directly elected mayor who subsequently loses the confidence of the council would nonetheless retain appointment power over key township positions, including seats on the planning board, the zoning board, and the library board. The resulting conflict between a mayor with one popular mandate and a council with a different one was described as a structural "nightmare scenario." Third, commissioners noted that under the recommended biennial election structure, the council would select a mayor from among its members at each reorganization following an election. Any mayor who loses the confidence of the governing body has, at most, a two-year term in that role before the council reorganizes and may select a different member as mayor. This was described as an important built-in corrective that a directly elected mayor system does not provide. By contrast, a directly elected mayor would serve a full four-year term in that role regardless of the governing body's confidence, with no mechanism for removal short of recall. Fourth, commissioners noted that a directly elected mayor can blur the critical distinction between the council's policymaking role and the manager's administrative role, and that a council-selected mayor reinforces the principle that the governing body acts as a body and the manager is accountable to that body as a whole. Commissioners noted that a mayor selected from and accountable to the council naturally serves as a unified conduit between the governing body and the manager, reducing the manager's communication burden and ensuring that mayoral direction reflects council consensus rather than an independent political mandate.� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Fifth, in a directly elected mayor system, a candidate who runs for mayor and loses cannot pivot to a council seat — potentially removing otherwise qualified individuals from the governing body entirely. In the context of a seven-member council with multiple available seats, the indirect model creates more pathways to leadership and eliminates this structural inefficiency. Decision: The Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend that the mayor be selected by a vote of the council from among its own members, following each biennial election. Question 7: Partisan versus Nonpartisan Elections. The Commission engaged in extended deliberation on this question, which several commissioners described as the most personally difficult decision in the study. All five commissioners ultimately reached consensus in favor of nonpartisan elections. Each commissioner noted having started the study with a different position and described the reasoning behind their change. Commissioners identified several grounds for the recommendation. First, approximately forty￾three percent of Millburn’s registered voters are unaffiliated, and those voters are currently excluded from partisan primaries that in practice often determine the outcome of general elections. One commissioner noted that the 1972 Charter Study Commission had observed that in Millburn at that time, nomination by the Republican Party was tantamount to election – illustrating that the structural concern of a single party dominating local elections is not new to Millburn. Second, commissioners discussed the concern that a party label on the ballot conveys less reliable information about a candidate’s positions on local issues than voters typically assume. Local governance questions — filling potholes, negotiating labor agreements, approving site plans, meeting affordable housing obligations — do not map onto state or national party platforms. Placing a partisan label on the ballot was described as signaling to voters to sort themselves into teams before hearing anything about a candidate’s actual record or platform. Dr. Kung offered an analogy to a Mac-versus-PC preference: an identity marker that generates strong group loyalty around an essentially arbitrary distinction, and produces tribalism — a dynamic commissioners tied to a pattern of partisan behavior in Millburn in which achieving a worse outcome for residents was accepted as long as one’s party came out ahead of the other. [Dr. Kung’s prepared statement is attached.] Third, commissioners expressed concern about career and professional consequences for potentially qualified candidates who are reluctant to be publicly affiliated with a party. Commissioners noted that certain individuals who might otherwise seek election had expressed that a party label on a ballot would create personal and professional complications. Fourth, commissioners cited Ben Forest’s account of Red Bank’s experience. Mr. Forest, who serves on a Democratic municipal committee and had previously served on Red Bank’s charter study commission, described making a deliberate choice to forego his party’s structural advantage in the interest of broader community inclusion. In Red Bank’s nonpartisan system, he described knocking on every door in his community — including the door of a neighbor who displayed a flag supporting a presidential candidate of the opposing party — and receiving that neighbor’s vote. He attributed this to the nonpartisan structure’s removal of the party label as a sorting mechanism, which encouraged him to engage voters of every background rather than concentrating effort on reliable partisans. One commissioner stated that Mr. Forest’s account had been personally decisive, specifically because Mr. Forest, as a Democrat who had relinquished a partisan structural advantage on the ground that excluding forty percent of the � March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes electorate was morally unjustifiable, provided a model for how commissioners who themselves identified with a party could reconcile their party identity with a recommendation for nonpartisan elections. That commissioner described having shifted positions on the question multiple times during the course of the study, and that Mr. Forest’s consistent position — unchanged on the record and off — ultimately resolved the uncertainty. Fifth, one commissioner circulated data from the 2025–2026 Essex County Community Development Block Grant allocations. According to the data, municipalities conducting non￾partisan elections received more county grant funding than municipalities conducting partisan elections. Belleville, Montclair, Nutley, Orange, Verona, and West Orange – which all hold non￾partisan elections – received between $100,000 - $332,000 in grant funding from the county. In contrast, Millburn, Fairfield, and Livingston – which hold partisan elections – received between $31,000 - $74,000 in county grant funding. This was offered as empirical evidence that the predicted grant-funding disadvantage of nonpartisan elections was not borne out in the available data, countering concerns that had been raised in interviews and public comment. [Note: The data circulated is attached to these meeting minutes.] Sixth, commissioners discussed testimony from an interviewee who had argued that the Township Committee position serves as a useful entry-level stepping stone to higher partisan office — Assembly, Congress, and beyond — and that the partisan structure facilitates this progression. Commissioners found that this argument made the opposite point: that the purpose of local elected office is to serve the township, not to advance a commissioner’s political career. The concern was that candidates with aspirations to higher partisan office will make decisions based on what looks good to the party rather than what is good for the town. Commissioners also noted that individuals with aspirations to higher office can still use their local governance experience as a credential in nonpartisan elections; removing the party label from the local ballot does not foreclose participation in party politics at the state or national level. Seventh, one commissioner noted that testimony from a nonpartisan municipality had suggested that the cost of running in a nonpartisan election is often lower than in a partisan one, because candidates are not immediately competing against well-funded party organizations with established donor networks. While the force of this argument was acknowledged to be partial — parties may still endorse and financially support individual candidates in nonpartisan elections — commissioners agreed that removing the party apparatus from the official ballot structure lowers the practical barrier to entry for otherwise qualified candidates who lack established party connections or major fundraising capacity. Commissioners acknowledged that nonpartisan elections do not remove parties from the political process: parties may still endorse candidates, conduct voter outreach, and provide logistical support. Commissioners agreed that the goal of the nonpartisan recommendation is not to eliminate parties from civic life but to remove the party label from the official ballot, so that voters evaluate candidates on their ideas and record rather than their partisan identity. Commissioners also noted that Democrats may run against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans in a nonpartisan election, forcing candidates to differentiate themselves on local issues rather than simply presenting themselves as the party alternative to the other side. Decision: The Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend nonpartisan elections. Question 8: Runoff Elections. Ms. Cevasco explained the Faulkner Act’s runoff provisions for nonpartisan elections. She noted that the statute permits, but does not require, a runoff provision under which a runoff election is scheduled when one or more candidates fail to � March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes attain a majority of votes cast — with the denominator being the number of voters who cast ballots, not the total number of votes. She described the timing of runoffs under both May and November election cycles and noted that a runoff for a November general election would be held in December. She further noted that in a runoff, the two candidates who received the greatest number of votes in the initial election appear on the runoff ballot and the candidate receiving the greater number of votes in the runoff is elected. The Commission discussed whether to include a runoff provision. Commissioners agreed on several grounds that runoffs are not well suited to Millburn’s context. First, runoff elections are an additional cost to the municipality. Second, voter turnout in a runoff — held weeks after the initial election with no other races on the ballot — would likely be lower than in the original election, making the “majority” achieved in the runoff a nominal majority at best, and almost certainly less than the plurality produced by the original election. Third, the Millburn Board of Education, which operates without runoffs, was noted as a functioning local precedent. One commissioner stated a preference on philosophical grounds for candidates attaining a majority, but acknowledged that the practical benefits of a runoff do not justify the cost and logistical complexity for a municipality of Millburn’s size. Decision: The Commission reached consensus not to include a runoff provision. Council seats will be awarded to candidates who receive the greatest number of votes (plurality standard). Motion to Recommend Council-Manager Form of Government Dr. Kung made a motion to recommend the council-manager form of government with a seven-member governing body elected at large on a nonpartisan basis with staggered elections, a mayor selected by the council from among its members, and without runoff elections. Seconded by Mr. Tanna. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Biller: Yes Dr. Kung: Yes Ms. Parker-Lentz: Yes Mr. Tanna: Yes Mr. Drucker: Yes The motion carried 5–0. The Commission noted that timing of the elections was still to be decided. The Commission directed the attorney to prepare a draft report reflecting these recommendations. Public Comment Mr. Drucker opened the public comment period. Michael Becker, Millburn resident, expressed strong support for the Commission’s recommendation, stating his intention to vote yes at referendum. A lifelong Democrat, he noted that he votes across party lines because local elections concern local issues – not abortion, immigration or national policy. He observed over fifty years in the community a growing difficulty in recruiting qualified candidates willing to navigate the partisan system, which he attributed to a deterioration of civility in local campaigns. He cited two specific individuals who had switched parties to run and noted that he had supported both. He � March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes expressed the view that the proposed changes would remove that structural barrier and expand the pool of people willing to serve. Alex Zaltsman, Millburn resident, expressed gratitude for the Commission's work and, drawing on his experience serving on the Board of Education, stated that he sees no value in political parties playing a role in local elections. He expressed hope that the community would adopt the recommended form of government, stating his belief that it would attract the best candidates rather than those most connected to party structures. Jamie Serruto, Millburn resident, detailed his experience running in a partisan election for Township Committee. He noted that his opponents ran a campaign focused on national political associations rather than local issues that are the purview of the local governing body, such as parking, sidewalks, holiday lighting, flood mitigation, and pedestrian safety. He expressed disappointment that the partisan nature of elections led many lifelong friends to turn their backs on him. He hoped that he would be the last Republican elected on a partisan ballot and that Michael Cohen would be the last Democrat ever elected on a partisan ballot. Charles Bambara, Millburn resident, noted that he and David Cosgrove are fellow parishioners who share many of the same values despite belonging to different parties and that both consider themselves centrists. He expressed concern that party labels invite unfair branding and argued that such labels have no place in local governance. He commended the Commission on the thoroughness of its work and expressed strong support for its recommendation. Jay Morreale, Millburn resident, commended the Commission on the robust discussion around the issues. He commended Dr. Kung for addressing the decorum incident. He asked whether the timing of elections, May or November, would be considered. The Commission replied yes. He asked about the involvement of political parties in non-partisan elections and what could be used as slogans on the ballot. Ms. Cevasco replied that the slogan cannot identify party affiliation and cannot exceed six words. Mr. Morreale asked whether a strong mayor was publicly interviewed. The Commission replied that Gregory Poff, who was publicly interviewed at a prior meeting, had direct experience with a strong-mayor form, and acknowledged that there were no public interviews with individuals presently serving in a strong-mayor form. Frank Saccomandi, Millburn resident, commended the Commission for all the hard work and time they put in. He recognized the tremendous amount of work that was done and praised each of them for their thoroughness. He expressed wholehearted support for the recommendations, noting that it would set Millburn up for success in the future. Mr. Biller thanked him for his comments and noted that “we’re not a success unless this gets passed” and that there are a few outstanding issues, including timing, that need to be addressed. Adjournment Ms. Parker-Lentz made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Biller. The meeting was adjourned.� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes ____________________________ Dr. Jerry Kung, Commissioner Charter Study Commission Secretary Approved: April 15, 2026� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes 2025-2026 Essex County Community Development Block Grants: • Municipalities with nonpartisan elections: Belleville, Montclair, Nutley, Orange, Verona, West Orange • Municipalities with partisan elections: Fair<ield, Livingston, Millburn� March 26, 2026 Millburn Township Charter Study Commission Meeting Minutes Dr. Kung’s prepared statement presented during discussion on Question 7: Partisan versus Nonpartisan Elections: I'm a Mac person, and I have strong opinions about it. I will argue with you about it all day. Now — should that be on the ballot? Think about what the Mac/PC divide actually is. It's a preference. A group identity built around a completely arbitrary distinction. Mac people think PC people are wrong. PC people think Mac people are hopelessly pretentious. Neither side can fully explain why it matters so much — it just does. The label is enough. Once you have the label, you have a team, and once you have a team, you have an opponent. There's a famous psychology experiment called the Robbers Cave. Researchers took a group of ordinary twelve-year-old boys to summer camp and randomly divided them into two groups. There were no real differences between them — just a name for each group. Within days they had developed fierce hostility toward each other. Raiding cabins. Refusing to share meals. Fighting. All of it triggered by nothing more than an arbitrary label. But here's the part that should genuinely alarm you. When researchers studied how individuals arbitrarily sorted into groups made decisions, they found something worse than competition. Folks would choose outcomes that were actively bad for everyone — including themselves — as long as their group came out further ahead of the other group. Not better. Just more ahead. They accepted lower overall welfare in order to maximize the gap. They would rather win than do well. That is not an abstraction. That is what happened here. Rather than negotiating the best possible outcome for Millburn residents on affordable housing, the partisan dynamic produced finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and a worse result for everyone — because beating the other party mattered more than solving the problem. That is what partisan elections do to local government. The R and the D don't describe any real difference in how you fill a pothole, negotiate a DPW contract, or approve a site plan. They're not supposed to — they were built for debates about foreign policy and federal spending, issues over which we have exactly zero jurisdiction. But once the label is on the ballot, the Robbers Cave dynamic kicks in. Voters stop evaluating the candidate and start picking a team. Candidates stop talking about what they'll actually do here and start performing for a national audience. And when something goes wrong, everyone points across the aisle, nobody is held accountable, and the town pays the price. We are asking voters to choose between a Mac person and a PC person to decide who manages this town. That is exactly how relevant Republican and Democrat are to local governance. And look — if party affiliation matters to you personally when you evaluate a candidate, you are welcome to find that out and factor it in. Just as you are welcome to ask a candidate whether they use a Mac or a PC. Nobody is stopping you. But putting it on the ballot draws the fault lines before the conversation has even begun — it tells every voter to sort themselves before they've heard a word about what anyone actually stands for. It does a disservice to candidates who want to be judged on their ideas, and it does a disservice to residents who want to make an informed choice.�