TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON, N.J.—Council President Michael DeSena changed his vote on March 31, joining a 3–2 majority to approve a 2% across-the-board annual salary increase for municipal employees—reversing a vote to limit raises to 1.5%.
In a surprise move about an hour after voting against the 2% increase, DeSena reintroduced a motion to approve it, following intense criticism from two council members and the mayor. Councilwoman Daisy Velez accused him of “taking food out of the mouths” of local employees by cutting raises to 1.5%.
Two council members—Steven Cascio and Michael Ullman—voted twice to support only 1.5% annual increases.
Officials said they plan to introduce a preliminary budget at the April 7 meeting. In February, Mayor Peter Calamari presented a budget that included a 1.5% increase over last year’s spending, equating to an $85 property tax hike on the average assessed home, plus a $19 average library tax, for a total increase of $104.
Earlier in the March 31 meeting, a split council voted 3–2 to reduce the next year’s salary increase for municipal employees from 2% to 1.5%, prompting heated debate.
Councilmembers Tom Sears and Daisy Velez opposed the cut, while DeSena, Vice President Cascio, and Ullman voted in favor of the 1.5% cap. The 2% raise had been recommended by the mayor.
Verbal Fireworks Interrupt Hearing
Approximately 40 minutes into the more than three-hour budget workshop, Cascio proposed that all municipal employees not covered by union contracts receive a 1.5% annual raise rather than the 2% originally suggested. It was never stated how much would be saved by the 0.5% reduction, said Calamari, who opposed the cut.
Cascio’s motion was seconded by Ullman. DeSena noted that the 1.5% increase would apply only to positions not governed by collective bargaining agreements.
After Velez said the 2% raise was “quite fair, especially in today’s economy,” Cascio responded that he preferred the 1.5% figure “because it was a 0.5% savings. That’s my reasoning.”
Velez called the cut unethical. “These are people’s salaries, their livelihoods,” she said.
Cascio and Ullman disagreed and said it was not unethical.
“To do that to our employees, who give so much to the community—that is not right,” said Velez.
Sears added that a 1.5% increase “is nothing for what they contribute,” and said the 2% raise was “really fair” and necessary.
“It’s insulting. It’s insulting. The savings is incredibly minimal in the long run,” Velez said.
Calamari later asked whether those who voted for the 1.5% raise had calculated how much would be saved by the change.
“I would make the assumption that everybody up here did better than 1.5% in their jobs,” he said.
“It really shows the employees how little we think of them,” he continued, questioning whether anyone had looked into how neighboring towns were compensating their employees. “I wouldn’t be surprised if employees start sending out resumes tomorrow.”
“When you’re talking about this many employees, I think you’re doing the town an injustice,” he added. “The total savings from a 0.5% reduction is really not saving a lot as opposed to the message the council is sending our employees. I would ask you to reconsider based on those reasons.”
Velez Offers to Give Up Stipend
Velez then asked whether the 0.5% cut was part of the council majority’s “fake 10% promise”—a reference to their 2023 campaign pledge to cut the municipal budget by 10%. She said the savings from the salary cut “does not equate” to that promise.
She offered to give back her council stipend and challenged the council majority to do the same to restore the 2% raise. DeSena responded that the value of stipends would not match the savings achieved through the 0.5% cut.
Velez charged that the council majority was trying to meet its campaign goals “at the expense of our workers.”
“You’re taking food out of people’s mouths,” she said.
DeSena denied that. “I don’t like the theatrics,” he said. Velez replied that she and Sears had been working cooperatively with the majority “making cuts where we agree can be cut,” but said the reduction in salary increases went too far.
“You gentlemen are on the wrong side of the issues,” she concluded.
About five minutes later, Sears said, “Just close the book, take the whole budget for a vote. I’m voting no, and I’m sure the councilwoman is voting no also.”
Velez told Ullman she was “very disappointed” in him. “You constantly are in favor of providing for our employees,” she said, “and yet you’re cutting their salaries.” She added, “I expected that from the other two,” referring to DeSena and Cascio.
DeSena defended himself, saying he supported all township employees.
Sears replied, “No, you don’t, if you’re cutting their salaries.”
Velez added, “No, no, to achieve nothing.”
Ullman did not respond.
Approximately a month earlier, Velez and Sears agreed to work with Cascio to trim the proposed 2025–2026 budget. In return, Cascio voted to appropriate nearly $3 million in bonding for a new Department of Public Works facility.
Previously, Cascio had said he would “DOGE” the budget, referencing Elon Musk’s calls to drastically cut federal government spending.