It is not the mission of this Task Force to move the mountain, which is New Jersey's over-dependence on the property tax. That will be the mission of the convention. Your mission is to build the bulldozer. With that in mind, I'll confine my remarks to suit that purpose.

As this Task Force considers each issue that needs to be addressed, we urge you to ask yourselves this question. "Which approach will increase the likelihood that the process will yield a fairer revenue system for the future of the families of New Jersey? And which will increase the risk that we will let this historic opportunity slip away?"

Spending issues are vitally important. The convention could be empowered to look at spending issues.

Like other mayors and municipal governing body members all around the State, every year, I carefully consider my town's spending priorities. We try mightily to cut spending where we can and to limit needed increases to an absolute minimum. Every year, freeholders and county executives do the same. Every year, school boards and boards of estimate need to do the same. And every year, the Legislature, through its budget process, has the opportunity to, likewise, seek to limit spending.

So spending issues are, or at least can be, dealt with through processes already in place.

The reason we need a convention is that those processes have NOT addressed themselves to the fairest possible means of raising the revenue.

No matter how much you think government should spend. No matter where you think money is needed or money is wasted. No matter what the appropriate level of revenue we need to meet our responsibilities to the people who elected us, the simple fact of the matter is that there has to be a fairer way of raising it.

That needs to be the primary focus of a special convention dedicated to property tax reform. That is my main goal, and the central aim of the League of Municipalities and all the other early advocates of this approach. And that is the crying need of the property taxpayers of our State.

Accordingly, we agree that the convention can have the opportunity to look at certain spending. But whatever spending recommendations may emerge, they need to go to the people separate from the revenue recommendations. If we tie the two together, we increase the risk that this historic opportunity will become an exercise in futility. But if we keep the questions separate, we increase the likelihood that the process will yield a fairer revenue raising system for the future of the families of this State.

Beyond the requirement that revenue recommendations be presented to the voters separate from spending recommendations, we believe that the convention should be permitted to decide for itself whether each should be framed as one, or more than one, question. If the convention decides to present its revenue recommendations as a package, or not - if the convention decides to offer a single spending plan, or a list of options - that decision is best left with the members of that body. Not knowing what the recommendations will be, we shouldn't prejudge how they should be framed for the electorate.

We recommend a limited convention. The convention bills that we have supported in the past would have taken "Abbott" off the table. They would have taken "Mount Laurel" off the table. And they would have taken a state-wide equalized property tax off the table. Those bills looked for 'revenue neutral' solutions to the property tax crisis. We supported those bills and we would support a Task Force recommendation that took them into consideration.

Again, ask yourself, "What moves us forward? What would hold us back?"

We believe that delegates should be elected using current legislative districts to ensure the closest possible adherence to the principle of "One Person, One Vote." We support delegate eligibility for all who are eligible to serve in the General Assembly, with no automatic, arbitrary disqualification caused by other public service. The Convention should judge the qualifications of its members, provide for filing vacancies, select its own officers, adopt its own rules and govern its own procedures. Provision should be made for staffing. The time and place of first meeting should be specified. Delegates should be compensated at rate equal to average State worker and entitled to similar reimbursements. This, I think, is the best way to allow the broadest possible field of candidates, who could run without fear of dramatic economic consequences for this crucial public service.

We support Ratification of the call for a convention by a majority of those voting on the question. NOT a super majority or a majority of those voting in the election. Many will not bother to vote on the question, since the majority of the information they receive will be about the candidates for office at the top of the ballot, rather than about the questions, which follow the candidate selection portion of the ballot. And, we support ratification of both the call for a convention and of the convention's recommendations at the next general (November) election. Since we fill State offices in odd numbered years and federal offices in even numbered years, turnout for either should be sufficient to gauge popular support of interested voters without allowing a minority of interested voters to unduly influence the vote, as might happen with Spring or other special elections.

Likewise, ratification of the convention's recommendations should be by a majority of those voting on each recommendation.

We support a convention of 3 months duration and a requirement that recommendations be approved by a majority, rather than a super majority of the delegates.

We are willing to compromise on these recommendations, just as we were willing to compromise of the bill, as it progressed in the Legislature. Our bottom line is progress toward giving the people of New Jersey a chance to free themselves from unfair, inequitable and onerous property taxes.

Thank you for your time and considerate attention.