Expressing my personal opinion as one ordinary member of the Millstone Township Planning Board, I would say we have been undeservedly beleaguered by repeated misrepresentations. Negative stories like disasters, conflicts, and wrong-doing sell more papers than reports that "all is well," but please dig past opinion and into facts, separate fact from fantasy, and avoid repeating banal unsubstantiated criticisms as news.

For one example, the Examiner ran a page-one story about allegations of wrong-doing at the Jan. 14 meeting and threatened lawsuits by Mr. [Evan] Maltz, but a page-seven story about the judge tossing the case on all counts.

Mr. Maltz’s thank you to Millstone’s volunteers, who came to the meeting on time and ready to work, was to sue them. Only new and recent members were sued. Well-seasoned members missed the meeting, missed being sued, and missed being named in the Examiner. Those same unnamed, lucky, seasoned members include other frequently quoted fifth-columnists, Mr. [George] Zanetakos and Mr. [David] Lee.

The facts are: We had an application to hear Jan. 14. The applicant (a farmer), attorney, and other citizens were present. State statutes and Millstone ordinances both say that these meetings "shall be held as scheduled unless canceled for lack of applications for development to process." Therefore, meeting was not unlawful, but a cancellation would have been unlawful.

A second example is stories on the switch to one meeting per month. 

The Examiner reports people saying it might be bad, or might not, or "I really can’t say … I can’t say … I don’t know… ." Are such obvious dullness, vacillations and vacancies so newsworthy that they merit repeating thrice?

The facts are: Some (not all) advisory boards meet once a month and do not have new information for the Planning Board twice a month. By law, the Planning Board must act on applications within 45 or 95 days — well within the once-a-month schedule. There is no example of information not delivered on time.

A third example is this trite foolishness, repeatedly reported, about the fusion of the Zoning Board and Planning Board into one unified board being "a power grab" or "dismantling of checks and balances."

All duties exercised by the two separate boards now would still be exercised by the one combined board.

By and large, the people on the unified board would be the same as those on the two boards now. However, instead of having only one member on both boards, two different meetings, two different engineering firms, two different planning firms, and two different legal firms working for two different boards, as well as duplication of efforts and (believe it or not) resolutions going from one board to the other, the taxpayers in general would benefit from reduced government bureaucracy.

Individual citizens would also benefit. Already twice this year the Planning Board found that citizens came to the Planning Board when they should have gone to the Zoning Board. Therefore, they must pay for a second application to a second board, and pay their attorneys and experts a second time for a second hearing. If there were one unified board, it could have decided the case. I call the current duplicate expense "double taxation" caused by too much government bureaucracy. If the two boards were fused into one, it would be impossible to appear before the wrong one. 

The New Jersey State Legislature, executive, and judicial branches have all recognized that many municipalities and citizens benefit from one unified board instead of two separate boards. Our three branches of government have written, implemented, and upheld laws allowing more and more municipalities to combine two boards into one, and more and more municipalities are doing so. The real checks and balances are fine.

The so-called checks and balances between the Zoning Board and Planning Board are pure fantasy. The two boards consider two different types of applications — that is the distinction. There is no such thing as, if you don’t like the decision of one board, you can appeal to the other. None. Both boards must base their decisions on the same state statutes, master plan, and zoning ordinances — only. Appeals from either board go to the Township Committee — period. Neither board checks and balances the other. 

All three branches of our government have decided and acted on the basis that fusion of two separate boards into one is legal — and preferable.

With these examples, I ask the Examiner to dig a little deeper in its reporting.

Mark A. Cascella is a resident of Millstone