Not a good thing for Bloomingdale. The Mayor should not have ability to perform the council's responsibilities as well as his own. He also was not elected to be a full time mayor. It is unprecedented....no more need be said.

Except, Jon, you were honored to be asked, who are you kidding. You have been pushing for this.

What happens when the Mayoral term is up?
Does this mean that going forward those running for Mayor should be prepared to fill the full time job?

I think that there is a confilct here. I dont think the Mayor should serve in both capacities. Who holds who accountable?

What if the old BA made 120,000 and the new fulltime Mayor's position was paid $90,000 and and was effective doing the work of the BA? Wouldnt we be better off if the Mayor did a better job than the previous BA? Or would people have a problem with the $30,000 in savings?

Joann, you do not even live in Bloomingdale. Our local government is a strong council and a weak mayor. This will change with this ordinance. Additionally, if Jon wants to be the BA, let him resign as Mayor, and visa versa.

Rich,

If he has no more authority than what will he be doing to warrant paying him 84k

It sounds like Bloomingdale has another opportunity to save money. Before jumping in with knee-jerk criticisms we can attend a meeting to ask questions. Unless, of course, people would just like to sit back and "react". If Shortman was on board with the idea and impressed with the Mayor's work ethic, it may be something worth thinking about. The initial response, above, sounds quite partisan.

Jon is pleased to be "asked" to be the BA. Who are you kidding? Sir, you attempted to skirt the rules when you were on the council and Rec. leader years ago. You even told the former BA that you wanted his job long before he left! The former BA's starting salary was $82,000 when he started with no experience. How do you feel that you are worth $82,000 with no experience and an extra $2,000 or is that your mayorial salary added on? A Boro admin needs to be a-political, not a die hard Dem. or Rep.!

wow....catnmouse is really playing a cat and mouse game---hiding under a fake name and expressing intense, personal anger and yes--even hatred. But there are so few people who have this ferocity of personal animosity that it's easy to figure out who it is. You elected Shortman. Why not pay attention to her comments in the article above? She is clearly trying to shed the partisanship and work for the town. She is being honest. How about all of us putting the town before our personal likes and dislikes?

Ann are you saying if Linda disagrees she is not shedding her partianship if she agrees she is? Are you also saying that she is being honest because she agrees and would be dishonest if she does not agree? I do not think Jon should serve as both mayor and assume the BA responsibilities. He does not have those responsbilities now based on our borough code why should it be changed for him? If he wants and the council agrees that he serve as the BA, he should resign as Mayor. Our government should not change based on who is elected. Just imagine if the majority tried to put one of their people in as the BA because they had control, what would your reation have been then? If you think it is political on one side, then it is also political on the other side.

Hey, I"ll take the job for $79,999. This way you'll get even more savings and it won't be the mayor, who some seem to have a grudge against. Of course, I don't know anything about the work and might not do a very good job. But if that was important, people would consider the council's (members of both parties) positive reviews of the work the mayor has already shown and their recommendation. If anyone can come up with specific concerns the mayor should not GET A CHANCE, they should raise them at the council meeting, right?

There is no animosity at ALL on my part regarding Jon's positions. What I gave was information that is known by residents who have been living here for a long time. My feelings regarding Ms. Shortman's change of mind in support of the Mayor's plan to also become BA puzzles me. I don't want to state my opinion at this time.

I was interested in Kristen's remark that our government should not change "based on who is elected". That puts me in mind of Ms. Shortman's remark when dismissing people that it was because "they were not with the political party in power".

To answer your question, Kristen, as to how I would have reacted had the majority put one of THEIR people in as BA, I would be fine with it IF it were unanimous and also had the blessing of the minority, as this case seems to have. This was evidently NOT a political vote, since it was unanimous. And, "cat", your tone and phrases like "who are you kidding" do betray animosity, despite what you say. And Royta, I like your humor!

Kevin (and others): Every party with a majority has the right to select its professionals. The remark I mentioned above related to the "firing" of VOLUNTEERS who had done an excellent job for many years--not to the hiring of professionals. IMO that firing was not justified. As to the current controversy (Mayor as BA)--we are talking here about SAVING money--not spending extra as happened previously with a majority appointed lawyer who cost another $150,000 or an accountant who cost another $10,000 (only to have his advice ignored). At that point I think voters have a right to question. If the voters can save many thousands with this currently proposed move, and if the Mayor does a good job, perhaps it will work out to our advantage. In any event, it should certainly be explored before people go negative! Any majority on the Council can do as they see fit with the professionals- PROVIDING IT BENEFITS THE TOWN.

Carolyn, the most important part of your comment is "PROVIDING IT BENEFITS THE TOWN". This is where mistakes are made when leaders fail to make this a priority when analyzing issues for the betterment of the town.

Right you are CnM
All officials--BOTH SIDES-- need for that to be their priority. And, obviously, all voters too, though that is not always the case.
Therefore, nobody on the Coiuncil should be voting in lock-step nor according to personal feelings about individuals, but rather should be considering what is best for the town. And, from the article above, it sounds like Shortman made a decision that this move would be best for the town. We either need to attend meetings and get the details or wait to see if it works to the town's advantage. There is nothing at all puzzling about Shortman's support of the Mayor. On this issue she evidently felt it was best for the town. At least give her credit for voting as she sees it, even if we don't always agree with how she sees it. I would vote for an individual of either party if (and it's a BIG if) I felt they had good judgment and weren't compelled to stay in lock-step.

I don't understand why a town the size of Bloomingdale needs a full time mayor, nor do I understand why the salary for a part time mayor is so hight. No wonder taxes are so high in Bloomingdale. The politicians in this town think they are running a major city.

I is also a disgrace how much the sewer/water bills are for the residents of Bloomingdale are. I know someone who lives in a Duplex and each side is charged the $150 base rate and they share the same sewer line.

I would like to see the budget for the water department.

As far as I am concerned that doesn't justifiy the high water rates. They are ripping off the people of Bloomingdale. Some told me the budget is $500,000 and there are only 4 employees. Sounds rather high and in the future everytime money is need the base rate is going to go up.

I agree 100% go to the council meeting and complain. It does not help just saying it here. Let the Mayor know that you will not tolerate it.