Debate Over Privatizing Trash Collection in Moorestown Continues

One resident questioned the township's decision not to mandate drug testing and criminal background checks for private trash collectors. Other residents support the township.

Patch File Photo
Patch File Photo
The privatization of trash collection in Moorestown continues to be a divisive issue.

During Monday night’s council meeting, a resident questioned the municipality’s decision to allow private work crews to work without undergoing drug testing of criminal background checks, the Burlington County Times reports.

Mayor Christopher Chiacchio said it wasn’t up to the township to mandate policies to a private company, according to the report.

The township hopes to save about $1.5 million over the next three years via a contract with Casworth Enterprises of Woodbury. That contract is being finalized, according to the report.

Sanitation collection currently costs the township about $1.3 million annually.

Other residents support the township’s decision to privatize trash collection, according to the report.

Pete February 27, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Do we have drug testing for the folks that: Deliver our mail? Your plumber? Collect welfare dollars? Your neighbor? Seems like paranoia to me – or some union tactic to discredit a sound financial decision.
Townie February 27, 2014 at 01:27 PM
Union didn't really lose anything here, so I doubt it's that. Ignoring the drug testing, how would you feel about felons, pedophiles, and other unsavory types riding around town and stopping at every driveway...taking inventory...noting the newspapers are piling up....watching your kids swing in the backyard. I don't think it's unreasonable for the town to request background checks. It's shocking that council wouldn't consider the safety / protection of the residents first in all decisions.
Pete February 27, 2014 at 03:18 PM
@ Townie: Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument. What’s to stop these crooks and perverts from driving their own cars around town to perform the surveillance function? Should we stop all cars except residents from driving on our streets? Don’t you think that there are unsavory people that live here? Are you suggesting that Moorestown become a “gated” township. It IS unreasonable for the township to require background checks!
Our Town February 28, 2014 at 08:43 AM
@Pete, normally I would agree with you but in this case, the private company is working on behalf of the town in service to the residents of the town. The mail carriers aren't here working on behalf of the town, neither are plumbers, but if the town contracts in private companies or individuals to perform work in the same capacity as municipal workers normally would, I don't see it as unreasonable to request drug tests or background checks though I would be surprised if the private company does not perform them for themselves already.
Bella Pelosi February 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM
One of the reasons we had open positions is apparently because of violations to the town's drug and alcohol policy. Why wouldn't the same policy be inserted into the contract? Mr. Chiacchio is an attorney, he should have requested this on behalf of protecting the residents.
Pete February 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM
I stand on my arguements of yesterday.........
Pete February 28, 2014 at 03:43 PM
As an employer, I require drug and alcohol testing to protect MY business, MY employees and to mitigate lawsuits. Seems the township has done the same. For us to require any contract company to do the same is paranoia.
Bella Pelosi February 28, 2014 at 04:58 PM
Pete are you saying you support drug testing but just not in this instance? Why do you drug test if it's not important?
Pete February 28, 2014 at 11:49 PM
@ Bella: Yes, I fully support drug testing under some conditions as I’ve stated in prior posts. I also support drug testing for welfare recipients and people getting unemployment checks.
Bella Pelosi March 01, 2014 at 09:45 AM
Drug testing for some things but not others seems like paranoia to me. If it's ok for a welfare check, it should be ok for a paycheck.
Pete March 01, 2014 at 01:52 PM
And smart employers do require testing.........
Bella Pelosi March 01, 2014 at 02:43 PM
Smart councils hire smart service providers that do drug testing or they require it before they sign the contract
Pete March 01, 2014 at 05:16 PM
Perhaps you can tell me exactly why we should require testing of sub-contractors, and I don't want to hear the BS about those folks looking for piles of newspaper and clutter etc.
Bella Pelosi March 02, 2014 at 09:35 AM
For the same reasons the town required them of the employees and same as you do. To make sure people working on our behalf paid for with our tax dollars are not on drugs or alcohol. It's smart like you said to do it. No reason not to
Pete March 02, 2014 at 03:47 PM
I give up.............
sanlazarro12173 March 04, 2014 at 08:18 AM
Bella, maybe we should randomly drug and alcohol test council members, they are employees of the township. Also a full criminal/background check should be in order too. If it's good enough for just one employee, it's good enough for all.
Bella Pelosi March 04, 2014 at 08:35 PM
I agree. I am surprised it is not already done.
tolian212@yahoo.com March 14, 2014 at 06:54 AM
Picking up trash is a public safety concern? Common, it's enough of paranoia already.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something