A Bigger Mailer Cannot Rewrite Poage, Illis and Machado’s Record

The huge campaign mailer for Susan Poage, Margaret Illis and Bill Machado talks about planning ahead, responsible spending and relationships that deliver. Reading it, you could almost forget that these candidates already sit on the Township Council.

Poage advertises seven municipal budget cycles. Illis and Machado have served since January 2024, nearly three years. They have already had years to set priorities, approve budgets and address these issues.

Haven’t they had enough time to be judged on what they have delivered?

Consider the mailer’s promise of “building relationships that deliver.” In 2023, the Township announced a $400,000 grant for Riverbend-area stormwater drainage improvements, with completion targeted for September 2025. Its project webpage, headed “Status Updates as of September 30, 2026,” still lists construction bids being prepared.

A year beyond the original completion target, the Township was still reporting bid preparation. The mayor had cited pending DEP approval in January 2026. Whatever the obstacles, residents deserve an explanation of the missed target and a reliable completion schedule. A grant announcement does not provide flood protection.

Separately, consider the wastewater treatment plant and sanitary-sewer system. The mailer calls for planning major investments before they become emergencies. Yet a May 2025 Township statement bearing all three candidates’ names acknowledged years of underinvestment, severe understaffing and an “unsustainable” financial situation.

The following April, the Township identified roughly $40 million in wastewater plant and related sanitary-sewer projects needing attention. It also acknowledged that wastewater priorities and existing municipal-complex debt were pushing other needs aside. These are wastewater-system issues, separate from Riverbend’s stormwater drainage project.

That record raises a serious question about their promise to plan ahead. Which needs have since been resolved? What remains unfinished? What will it cost residents to complete the work? Those are the results their campaign message should be measured against.

Then there is transparency. In my view, this council’s approach has been a nightmare for residents seeking clear answers. In January, a court ordered the Township to provide previously redacted public records in unredacted form. The council’s own March 3 minutes record Poage criticizing what she regarded as excessive, repetitive public-records requests for taking up Township time.

On October 2, NJ21st reported that Poage and Machado had not responded to its questions about PILOT agreements and school funding. Illis replied, “Do NOT use this email address for anything except township matters.” That response did not answer the policy question. These are issues affecting residents’ taxes and schools. They deserve substantive answers from the people already making the decisions.

A campaign mailer lets candidates choose the questions. Accountability means answering the questions residents and reporters ask, too.

The issue is how much remains undelivered after years of their leadership. Securing funding and announcing plans are steps toward a result. Residents are entitled to judge the result itself.

Before asking residents for more time, Poage, Illis and Machado should explain the missed Riverbend target, the unfinished work and the questions left unanswered during the time they already had.