Was Corzine sealing a deal with referendum non-veto?

Plainfielders following the story of the last-minute switcheroo by Jon Corzine on the anti-referendum bill get another piece of the puzzle this morning.

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck), lobbied her November running mate not to sign the bill, and thought she had made her case, only to discover -- 13 minutes before Chris Christie was sworn in -- that Corzine had moved the bill out of the 'vetoed' column, according to a story on PolitickerNJ (see here).

'It's bad public policy, it's bad government, it's bad politics ... to change the law to take democratic action away from the citizens is to me a rather serious step,' Weinberg said.

I'll second that.

This being New Jersey, one has to wonder whether there was some sort of deal at stake here, some quid-pro-quo between Corzine and the Democratic power structure.

What could he have wanted that was in their gift?

Perhaps we shall see soon.

(Hey, Auditor! You lookin' at me?)

---

• PolitickerNJ: "Weinberg upset Corzine did not veto referendum bill"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

I take that back, Corzine had no testicular fortitude after all

It seems like only yesterday that Plainfield Today credited former Gov. Jon Corzine with unusual testicular fortitude for vetoing the Legislature's rush job bill that would set a 10-year interval between referendum votes on structuring local governing bodies (see here).

Actually, it was only yesterday.

My post was based on a story that appeared on the Courier's website (see here), filed as a 'staff report', a story without a reporter's byline.

I had been happy to find the online item, as I was stymied in trying to find out the fate of the bill on the Legislature's website, since I didn't have the bill number and couldn't find my way through the maze.

Turns out that Gannett's statehouse reporter Michael Symons posted an item to the 'Capitol Quickies' blog at 1:27 PM yesterday afternoon REVERSING THE STORY (see here).

Corzine did NOT veto the bill, he signed it. Take back that 'testicular fortitude' stuff. Not only that, it is RETROACTIVE to 2009, meaning the New Brunswick folks are 'grandfathered out', so to speak.

Which also means that Assemblyman Jerry Green, the 'team player', voted with the winning side -- guaranteeing that New Brunswick's voters would not enjoy a chance at the same sort of governing body representation that his hometown Plainfielders do for another ten years.

If you want to see how quickly the Legislature can move when it has a mind to (check THIS out, good government advocates), consider the history of the bill --

1/4/2010 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government Committee
1/4/2010 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading
1/7/2010 Passed by the Senate (21-15)
1/7/2010 Received in the Assembly without Reference, 2nd Reading
1/11/2010 Substituted for A4264
1/11/2010 Passed Assembly (Passed Both Houses) (41-34-2)
1/18/2010 Approved P.L.2009, c.339.

-- ONE WEEK FROM INTRODUCTION TO PASSAGE. You can also read the bill as introduced in full here (PDF).

It should come as no surprise that the 'big D' Democrats would stack the cards against 'small d' democracy if exercising that democracy impinges on their preponderance.

That doesn't make it right.

Do you suppose that the moral dunces in our Legislature will draw the appropriate conclusion from the loss of Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican in yesterday's Massachusetts election, that voters -- across the board -- are tired of being taken for granted?

I wouldn't bet on it.

---

• Plainfield Today: "Corzine veto was the right thing to do"
  
• Courier: "Corzine vetoes bill restricting government-reform ballot questions"
• APP's Capital Quickies Blog: "Strike that, reverse it"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

One for Assemblyman Green to vote AGAINST

I normally don't comment on Plainfield Assemblyman Jerry Green's votes in the Legislature, but there is a bill to be taken up tomorrow on which I believe the Assemblyman should vote a resounding 'NO'.

For those who followed the epic grassroots struggle in New Brunswick last year to change its form of Council elections from entirely at-large to one where there was Ward representation in addition to at-large seats, the bill now being considered in the Assembly looks like a mean-spirited attempt by those in power to shut down the democratic process.

Grassroots activists were able to get a question on the ballot only after months of maneuvering and court challenges. Then, at the last minute, the powers-that-be mounted a phony 'grassroots' counter-campaign designed to confuse the public.

The net result was the proposal to go to Ward representation went down to a narrow defeat.

The activists have been planning to bring the question up again in two years, but the bill before the Assembly tomorrow would make it impossible to bring another public question on the matter before a decade has lapsed.

Plainfielders who think this is someone else's problem should reflect for a moment.

Given the much higher voter turnout numbers in Plainfield in Ward 2 and Ward 3, a totally at-large Council such as New Brunswick has would stand a good chance of leaving Ward 4 and Ward 1 with little or no voice in city government.

All they want in New Brunswick is a chance to have what Plainfield already has: some representation by Wards to guarantee no one gets left out.

This alone should suggest that Assemblyman Green would stand on the side of disenfranchised voters.

But will he?

I certainly hope so.

---

• PolitickerNJ: "Bill would block new referendum votes for a decade"
• Courier: "Bill would lengthen time between votes on changes in government"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Political meddling in Roselle Civil Service case?

If you think Plainfield politics is a jungle, consider outside political intervention in the affairs of Roselle, and the statewide effects of same.

When Roselle's mayor, Garrett Smith, appealed a borough Council layoff plan which eliminated the borough's CFO, Adrian Mapp (who is also a Plainfield council member) to the state's Civil Service Commission, he received a preliminary ruling in his favor.

The Civil Service Commission held that the borough council had improperly made the borough clerk the 'appointing authority'.

Yesterday, the Ledger reported that that ruling was reversed by the Commission, which declared borough councils to be the appointing authority for civil service jobs (see here). The fallout from that ruling will be widespread, predicted Bill Dressel of NJ's League of Municipalities.

Today's Ledger runs a story (see here) of several boroughs' reactions -- indicating a wide range of methods of handling civil service appointments -- but basically aligning the newspaper on the side of Roselle's borough council in the matter.

Word on the street is that a certain state senator allegedly intervened upon learning that the Civil Service Commission was preparing to issue a final ruling upholding Roselle's mayor Smith as the 'appointing authority', insisting that Attorney General Milgram make a determination on the point of law. And that Milgram found against the pro-Smith ruling; hence the Civil Service Commission's reversal of course.

Milgram had come under attack in October by Sen. Ray Lesniak and state Dem chair (and Assemblyman) Joe Cryan (see here) for her 'indictment by accusation' of Roselle council president Jamal Holley over alleged voter fraud.

Holley, who was chief of staff to disgraced former Assemblyman Neil Cohen, now works for Union County and is considered the darling of Union County Dem power brokers.

One has to wonder whether the attack on Milgram by Lesniak and Cryan had anything to do with how the Attorney General arrived at the opinion said to be behind the Civil Service Commission's reversal.

And why, after more than two years, Milgram has yet to resolve the investigation into the financial dealings of Union County Dem chair Charlotte DeFilippo.

Union County political hanky-panky has been curiously exempt from the high-profile investigations that have snared so many pols over the past few years.

Will that change once corruption-buster Chris Christie takes the Governor's chair?

If so, the possibility of political meddling in the Roselle situation would be as good a place as any to start.

---

• Ledger --
• Thursday: "Roselle ruling has statewide impact"
  
• Friday: "Borough governments weigh new hiring rules"
• PolitickerNJ: "Lesniak and Cryan pummel Milgram over Holley case"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

North Plainfield Sunshine Act would leave Plainfield in the dust

If adopted, a citizen-driven initiative in Plainfield's sister community North Plainfield would leave the Queen City in the dust when it comes to access to public records.

Led by a committee of six residents and needing to collect 300 signatures by the end of this month (tomorrow), the effort is an outgrowth of North Plainfield Citizens for Community Rights (NPCCR), a grassroots community organization formed two years ago. See their website here.

Provided enough signatures are gathered, the petition would place a fully formed ordinance (The North Plainfield Sunshine Act) on the November ballot, where ratification by the voters would make the ordinance a public law in the borough.

Plainfielders interested in access to public records would do well to study the proposed ordinance -- see the petition and ordinance here (PDF) -- which sets out a clear and comprehensive public meetings and public records policy.

Among items of interest are the following --

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Not only the Council, but every board and committee would be required to establish a period of public comment near the beginning and end of EACH PUBLIC MEETING (section 6). As things stand now in Plainfield, the public can only comment at the end of the Council's agenda session, and there are no established overall rules for public comment at various boards and committees.

RECORDINGS

An explicit policy is set that sound recordings be made of ALL meetings -- including closed (executive) sessions, and that they be made available in a prompt manner in both printed and electronic format(section 8). Procedures for redacting minutes of closed meetings are outlined as well as a process for guaranteeing these minutes eventually become open public records to the extent allowed by law. Aside: As I learned in 'Clerk University', municipalities which sound record their public meetings but not their executive sessions put the town at risk in case of lawsuits over what was discussed at those closed meetings. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that executive sessions of Plainfield's City Council have had improper conversations in the past, a situation which the North Plainfield proposal would discourage its Council from indulging in.

ACCESS

The proposed ordinance would make access to public records (including financial records) easy by posting them to the borough's website or making them available electronically, or both. This would allow residents to download minutes or financial spreadsheets and perform their own analyses of payments made or budget allocations, etc. -- something to delight open government advocates anywhere.

FEES

Lastly, the proposal establishes a common-sense and up-to-date fee structure that includes not only photocopying fees (as state law currently specifies, but at a lower rate that reflects recent adjudications on the matter), and outlines fees for providing records in other formats, such as DVD, etc.

All in all, this is a very forward-looking effort and one that Plainfielders and the City Council should keep an eye on.

---

• Website: "Grassroots Groundswell"
  

-- Dan Damon

Dem Committee: Jerry's guy Owen's letter in Courier

Assemblyman Jerry Green's employee Owen Fletcher has a letter in today's Courier praising the conduct of the the City Committee's reorganization meeting last Monday evening (see here).

The thrust of Mr. Fletcher's letter is summed up as --

...[s]ecret ballots by elected officials are antithetical to transparency and democracy.

While this IS TRUE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, county political party committee members (of which Plainfield's Democratic City Committee is a subset) ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS.

People, evidently including Mr. Fletcher, get confused about this because party committee members (both Republican an Democrat) are voted for on public voting machines which are watched over by election officials -- all paid for by the taxpayers -- on the same ballots as public officials like Assemblyman, mayor and city council member.

But political party committees are private organizations; their members are not public officials per se. (If you need more evidence, consider that a judge ruled in the case of New Brunswick's recently contested Dem committee seats that petitioners did not need to meet the statutory length-of-residency requirement for elected officials because...you guessed it, they are NOT elected officials.)

Not only this, Mr. Fletcher completely ignores the fact that a bill (full text here) is advancing in the Assembly (see reports here and here) to require just EXACTLY what he rails against: SECRET BALLOTS by county political party committees on contested matters.

I think everyone agrees there were contested matters at the PDCC reorg meeting, especially when one recalls Assemblyman Green's offering up of multiple renditions of a slate of officers when a motion concerning same was already on the floor (see my post here).

Whatever the fate of the bill in the Assembly, and I for one can certainly understand why Assemblyman Green would be opposed to this reform measure, let's not pretend the idea is not on the table, or that it is 'antithetical to transparency and democracy'.

And, when writing letters to the editor, let's not forget to tell people who signs our paycheck.

In the interest of transparency, if not democracy.

---

• Letter, Courier: Owen Fletcher: "Open vote preserves democracy in Plainfield"
• PolitickerNJ: "Weinberg Bill On County Committees Approved By Assembly Committee"
• Ledger: "Bill making county political parties more open advances"
• Full Text of Bill: "A-1904, concerning county political parties"
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Former Plainfield Councilor Bramnick wants public comment brought to the Legislature

Jon Bramnick served as Plainfield councilor from 1984-1991.

Former Plainfield councilor Jon Bramnick, now an Assemblyman representing District 21 and the GOP's Assembly Whip, introduced a bill Thursday to introduce REAL public comment into the state's legislative process.

The legislation would allow public comment ON THE FLOOR OF THE LEGISLATURE for the first time.

The proposed bill would require the state Assembly and Senate to set aside specific times to listen to the public.

Bramnick's press release points out that in opening the floor for remarks, the Legislature would be adopting the good government principles used by every town council and school board, where the public is already invited to speak.

“As a former Plainfield councilman, I recall quite vividly how citizens would take the microphone on a weekly basis. They would ask questions and request answers to issues facing their city and neighborhood,” said Bramnick.

“Citizens regularly attend meetings and they express their views during what some municipalities call privilege of the floor. We need to allow New Jerseyans the same right in the statehouse,” he added.

Under the existing rules, public comment is permitted ONLY DURING COMMITTEE HEARINGS and then ONLY ON TOPICS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

The proposed legislation allows the public to bring ANY ISSUE to Trenton. Each house would determine how much time is reserved for comment and any rules governing the speaker’s conduct. In addition, the proposed legislation recommends the public comments session occur at least four times a year.

“Politicians say they rely on public input to guide them. What better way to tap public opinion than to invite comment on the floor. Too often, the state capitol is a remote and isolated territory, where only the special interests can wield influence,” Bramnick said.

If the bill is enacted New Jersey would be a pioneer in public outreach. Officials at the National Conference of State Legislators know of no other state where the public is allowed on the floor of the legislature. Most states elicit comments through e-mails or provide hotlines to gather public opinion.

Bramnick said “if we set aside time for the public to address our lawmakers, we will be emulating one of the best parts of local government and helping build trust in government.”

---

• For more information, contact Assemblyman Bramnick's office directly at (908) 400-4214 or by email to AsmBramnick@njleg.org.
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

DWI: A defense playbook?

Walking a straight line is one of several field sobriety tests.

'DWI', 'DUI', 'driving while impaired' -- whatever it's called, it's regarded as a serious offense and in New Jersey, a conviction typically involves the loss of driving privileges and a hefty fine.

Plainfielders may recall one DWI which finally played out in area courts.

Today's Bergen Record carries a story about a 'noted local attorney' from North Jersey who is contesting a DWI charge (see here). I found the outline of the case interesting.

When arrested, the attorney was found to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.17, more than twice the legal limit. He failed several sobriety tests.

The arrest was made July 15, 2007 and the case has yet to go to trial.

Reasons?

• Multiple transfers to other courts.
• Rescheduled court dates.
• Motion to suppress all evidence obtained.
• Requests for extensive documentation on
• a) the types of sobriety tests given, and
• b) training and credentials of officers involved.
• Request for documentation on testing history of Breathalyzer involved.

Is there a DWI defense playbook?

Next appearance scheduled for October 2.

Bets, anyone?

---

• Bergen Record: "Noted local attorney fighting DWI charges"
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Corporation Counsels: A curious tale

Plainfield, like all municipalities, has a Corporation Counsel, as required by the city's charter.

The Corporation Counsel is essentially the town's lawyer, looking over the town's business and activities, rendering legal advice, reviewing legislation, assessing risk and liability, and overseeing the attorneys hired to do specialized work.

So, this person is the attorney for the Corporation.

And, as we know, THE COUNCIL IS THE CORPORATION in New Jersey, the Mayor being the Corporation's executive officer under a charter like ours.

The Corporation Counsel's job is to represent the interests -- including the fiduciary interests -- of the Corporation, meaning the Council, right?

As Bill Clinton might say, that might be a 'fairy tale'.

The situation in Detroit, where the City Council is now at loggerheads with Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (pictured above), is informative.

Briefly, the Mayor is under fire for lying to prosecutors about whether he had a romantic relationship with his chief aide. It is not the relationship that is the problem, but the lying about it under oath. The Detroit Free Press uncovered the lies in the course of investigating why the City settled with some of its cops in a lawsuit.

Turns out the cops were fired for blowing the whistle on some of Mayor Kilpatrick's activities. Their suit was ended without a trial when Kilpatrick signed off on an $8.4 million settlement with the cops.

Which, of course, needed City Council approval (Councils have the power of the purse).

So why then did the Corporation Counsel for the City of Detroit urge the Council to sign off on the settlement without disclosing to them the perjurious situation of the Mayor and the evidence (text messages) on which it was based?

Why indeed?

Councils everywhere should ponder whether, when push comes to shove, their Corporation Counsel sees itself as representing THE CORPORATION'S interests or THE MAYOR'S.

And what to do should the need arise.

---

• Detroit Free Press: "Council kept in dark on settlement details"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Plainfield smacked down over Health Officer firing

Dr. Jadwiga Warwas, Health Officer, during the May 2005 'Top Off 3'
Counterterrorism exercise at Muhlenberg Hospital.

Santa knows who's naughty and who's nice, as Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs and Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson learned to their chagrin last Wednesday.

And as I learned when I returned home from Monday's City Council budget hearing (no, not from the subject of this item; there are other folks interested in transparency of government EVERYWHERE in New Jersey who forwarded me a copy of the document).

On December 12, administrative law judge James A. Geraghty handed down his decision in the appeal of Plainfield Health Officer Jadwiga Warwas, MD, over her termination by Mayor Robinson-Briggs in September 2006, allegedly for 'insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public official'. I have posted a copy of the decision online (see it here).

In a crushing blow for the City, Geraghty's findings of fact were that Dr. Warwas was 'neither insubordinate nor guilty of conduct unbecoming a public official', and further 'that appellant committed no misconduct'.

The city alleged Dr. Warwas was working for the City of Paterson without the express permission of the City of Plainfield, hence the 'insubordination' and 'conduct unbecoming' charges. The decision says that the City was made aware of the Paterson employment by way of an 'anonymous message'.

Dr. Warwas held that her resumé, submitted in the normal course of seeking employment, fully disclosed her part-time, at-home, off-hours position performing Quality Assurance Control for the City of Paterson in gathering and reporting HIV/AIDS information, by way of her home computer, to Paterson officials and residents.

As Geraghty finds, '[t]he City officials who conducted the interview offered [Warwas] the Health Officer position without requiring her to abandon work [for Paterson]'.

What raised my eyebrows was that Dr. Warwas' resumé could not be produced by the City from her personnel file, nor could it be found during her attorney's discovery process.

What happened to the missing resumé?

I would never think that Karen Dabney, the City's Personnel Director, could misfile or would remove such an important document.

Which leads one to ask just how it came to go missing. Was the personnel file ever out of her control and safekeeping? And if it was, who had it? Would the removal of the resumé, which the tribunal judge avers supported Warwas' contentions, constitute some form of obstruction? And if two or more parties were involved in its removal, is there conspiracy?

Could someone who had access to or was aware of the contents of Dr. Warwas' resumé have been behind the 'anonymous message'?

As I said, I cannot for a moment think that Ms. Dabney would involve herself in such shenanigans. But it would certainly be helpful to know the chain of possession of that personnel file, wouldn't it?

Curiously, Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson represented the City at the September 30, 2006 disciplinary hearing which led to her dismissal. It is curious only because Mr. Williamson was also the 'private prosecutor' (as the decision states) in a harassment proceeding initiated by an employee against Dr. Warwas. Those charges were dismissed by a Municipal Court, as the decision states.

But one wonders if there was not a conflict in Mr. Williamson being party to both matters.

The City also alleged that Dr. Warwas had failed to designate an acting health officer while she was on vacation from June 19 to July 7, 2006. On July 6, one day before her return from vacation, City Administrator Carlton McGee (he of blessed memory!) issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action, charging her with neglect of duty.

(It would be unkind of me to mention that McGee's authority as acting head of Administration and Finance, to whom Warwas reported, had expired prior to July 6 -- see Bernice's post from 2006 here -- so I won't. At the time, Assemblyman Jerry Green, in a 'what, me worry?' response opined to Bernice that McGee's timing out was no problem, 'noting that it wasn't costing the city any money'. Wonder what he's thinking about it costing the city money this morning.)

The 'neglect of duty' canard was trumped in the hearings before Geraghty when Dr. Warwas authenticated a memo she sent to McGee on May 15, 2006, advising that Randy Mascaritolo, Senior Registered Environmental Health Specialist, would replace her during her vacation as he had in 2005.

After all this, Judge Geraghty concluded that Dr. Warwas 'was neither insubordinate nor guilty of conduct unbecoming a public official' in this matter, and further that she 'committed no misconduct'.

Geraghty's decision is in favor of Dr. Warwas and orders the charges be dismissed, and that she be reinstated as Health Officer with full back pay, pension rights, benefits and attorney's fees.

How's that for a smackdown!

Geraghty's decision is labeled 'initial' because the process allows either side to file written exceptions with Merit System Board within thirteen days of the mailing of the decision, and further, it can be adopted, modified or rejected by the Merit System Board. If the Board does nothing within 45 days, and unless the matter is extended, the initial decision will become final.

Quick, now! How much will all this cost the taxpayers?

SIDEBAR THOUGHT: If the City is going to be so scrupulous about 'outside employment', one wonders if Corporation Counsel will start pursuing the matter of the many licensed Realtors^® sprinkled copiously throughout City government. And whether they perform any of their real estate duties on city time, or use city supplies (paper, copiers) or city phones in the conduct of their sideline business affairs. And whether they have filed written requests for permission to work other than for the City.

Hmmmmmmmm.

In any event, a Merry Christmas to all!

---

Office of Administrative Law: "Warwas v. City of Plainfield, Initial Decision"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Dottie G. reports on Death Penalty repeal

From Blue Jersey video posted to YouTube.

Plainfielders who have followed and/or participated in the death sentence repeal campaign in New Jersey know that Plainfield's own Dottie and Joe Gutenkauf have played an important role in marshaling citizen support and input in the long-drawn-out process. Dottie reported on the final vote with an email which is reprinted in full below --

It is my great joy to report that the NJ State Assembly passed the death penalty abolition bill yesterday. The vote was 44 to 36. On Monday, the State Senate passed it by a vote of 21 to 16, and Governor Corzine is expected to sign it very soon. This makes New Jersey the first state to abolish the death penalty through legislation. A broad coalition of citizens and organizations has spent many years working toward this goal, under the leadership of New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, and Joe and I are proud to have been involved in their efforts.

You can see a clip from the post-vote press conference [on YouTube here].

Our 22nd Legislative District Assembly representatives, Jerry Green and Linda Stender, supported abolition. We were especially proud of Assemblyman Green, who spoke eloquently in favor of the bill and who chaired part of the Assembly session while Speaker Joe Roberts addressed the body about the importance of the legislation. Outgoing Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, who cosponsored the bill with Republican Kip Bateman, has earned our everlasting gratitude and leaves a magnificent legacy. In the Senate, Ray Lesniak (D) and Robert Martin (R) led the repeal effort. The legislation could not have passed without bipartisan support.

It saddens me to have to add that our 22nd District State Senator, Democrat Nick Scutari, voted against the bill, as did former Plainfield City Councilman, Republican Jon Bramnick, now an Assemblyman from Westfield. Given the fact that Plainfielder Byron Halsey, convicted of the brutal murder of two Plainfield children, was recently exonerated after spending nearly twenty years in prison, I had hoped that those two legislators would have been particularly sensitive to the problems inherent in capital punishment and the possibility of executing innocent people. Fortunately for all of us, one courageous juror in Mr. Halsey's case refused to agree to the death penalty--and we are grateful to him for preventing the execution of an innocent man.

I can't adequately express our thanks to all of you who helped in this effort throughout this long and arduous process. Joe and I were proud to represent Plainfield in the legislative chambers as this historic legislation was passed by the State Senate and the Assembly. Our thanks to you for your continued support, encouragement, and action--this is one more example of the importance of citizen involvement in the making of public policy.

Dottie Gutenkauf

Well done, Dottie and Joe!

---

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Plainfield faces court challenge on 'blighting' for parking deck

Plainfield's City Council appeared surprised on Wednesday evening by the announcement of a prominent land use attorney that he represented several property owners who will challenge the city's attempt to include the parking lot on East Second Street in the expanded North Avenue redevelopment plan.

Peter Dickson, of the Princeton firm of Potter and Dickson, successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in the landmark Gallenthin v. Paulsboro case last spring. The high court unanimously ruled a municipality cannot condemn a property simply by declaring it not fully productive, thus raising the bar on proofs for 'blighting' an area to further redevelopment.

(The Planning Board meets at 8 PM this evening in the City Hall library to hold a public hearing on the 'reduced' -- and poorly named -- Netherwood area redevelopment plan. This plan was reduced from 93 to 16 properties in response to the eminent domain case at the heart of the parking lot challenge. The public is invited.)

For those who have observed the Planning Board's struggles with its own consultant, George Stevenson of Remington & Vernick, Mr. Dickson's comments seemed well-aimed.

Stevenson has repeatedly been challenged by the Planning Board, its attorney, and members of the public on the lameness of his research and attempts to frame compelling reasons for blighting -- not only in regard to the parking lot, but other areas as well.

Some observers have thought Mr. Stevenson a hapless and lackluster researcher. Others, perhaps more seasoned, have surmised that he knows exactly what he is doing and that he is marching to a different drummer -- decidedly NOT the Planning Board -- and that the unconvincing material he dredges up as arguments for 'blighting' are simply the best that he can do because they are the best available.

In any case, if Mr. Stevenson suffers any pangs of trepidation as he drives up to Plainfield twice monthly, they are not likely to be eased by the prospect of duking it out with such heavyweight eminent domain attorneys as Mr. Dickson and his partner, R. William Potter.

Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson was quick to reply to Mr. Dickson's comments, asserting confidence in the Planning Board having done its homework.

Councilor Cory Storch leapt into the breach -- while his colleagues sat slackjawed -- stating forcefully and eloquently his belief that the Planning Board, which had gone back to review and revise the study after the Supreme Court ruling, had done its homework and could withstand a court challenge.

Whatever the outcome, Assemblyman Jerry Green is greatly in debt to Councilor Storch for coming to the defense of the plan, which is part of Green's larger vision for downtown redevelopment.

"Fasten your seat belts," as Bette Davis said in All About Eve, "it's going to be a bumpy ride."

---

• Law.com: "N.J. Court Sets a Tougher Test of 'Blight' for Using Eminent Domain"
• NJ Eminent Domain Law Blog: "Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro"
• Philadelphia Inquirer: "An Owner Fights Paulsboro's Plan to Develop a Site"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Princeton dog taking a bite out of Assemblyman Green's dog law?

A number of years ago, after several maulings of Plainfielders by vicious dogs, Assemblyman Jerry Green proposed -- and got passed -- legislation toughening the laws regarding vicious dogs and penalties their owners face.

Now comes a story from Princeton -- picked up today by the NY Times -- of an incident in which a landscaper, an undocumented laborer from Honduras, was severely bitten by a German shepherd named 'Congo' and four other dogs belonging to the owner of a property where he was working.

The gardener underwent three hours of surgery and endured 65 painful rabies shots as a result.

Giovanni Rivera after being attacked.
Photo by Kevin Riechelson.

A judge has ordered the German shepherd put down.

Animal lovers are rallying around the owner, and the victim's legal status has become a major part of the public discussion.

Even Union County Assemblyman Neil Cohen has gotten into the act, proposing legislation -- nicknamed 'Congo's Law' -- to give judges more latitude in declaring a dog vicious.

Thus putting the bite on the law previously championed by his Union County colleague Jerry Green.

The AP story was previously run by both the Courier and Newsday. Curiously, the Courier cut the mention of Cohen's legislative maneuver when it ran the story.

---

NY Times: "Landscaper mauled, and sympathy goes to dog"
Newsday: "Immigration debate ignited after gardener mauled by dog in N.J."
Courier: "Princeton dog attack sparks immigration debate"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Roselle Park's Good Samaritan Montoya gets justice - of sorts

Monica Montoya (pink blouse) assists accident victim.

Monica Montoya, the Good Samaritan of Roselle Park, got good news yesterday -- Union County Prosecutor Theodore Romankow dropped all charges against her in the arrest by Roselle Park cops after she helped an accident victim and tried to leave to pick up her child from school.

Does being Prosecutor mean having to never say you're sorry? Seems so.

That's the conclusion Ledger columnist Bob Braun draws in today's piece.

Those of us who have followed the case and seen the video (links below) have wondered why it took so long -- on the face of it, the Roselle Park cops seem to have gone quite overboard.

Should we be drawing parallels between Montoya's treatment at the hands of the justice system and that of the Jena 6?

The difference here is that she did absolutely nothing to deserve getting entangled with the cops and the Prosecutor.

And yet, given all this, she says she will cooperate in the Prosecutor's investigation into the Roselle Park police division's handling of the matter.

Jersey justice.

---

• Ledger: "Cleared, Montoya plans to aid county probe"
• Ledger, Bob Braun: "Wronged woman gets good news. Now where's the apology?"
• The Arrest Videos: "Full video" | "Abridged version"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

NJ nonprofits fight disclosing political contributions

New Jersey nonprofits were supposed to start filing reports on their political contributions with the state's Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) this month, according to rules promulgated last Spring.

ELEC has extended that deadline to October 30, but is facing pressure from politicos (why am I not surprised?) and the nonprofits to drop the requirement, according to reports in the Ledger and the Courier.

The jawdropper is that even Harry Pozycki, Mr. Get-Rid-of-Pay-to-Play, is agin' it.

Huh?!

I don't get it.

If you're a nonprofit and you're making political contributions (which I happen to think you should not), you should report. Pure and simple.

And, yes, I know it's a pain in the butt. Been there, done that.

And if you think that public knowledge of your nonprofit's contributions would disaffect your financial supporters or create bad publicity for your organization, why on earth are you doing it in the first place?

---

Ledger: "Nonprofit groups get reprieve on campaign donation rules"
Courier: "Nonprofit groups get extension to file forms"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Misprision: Are you guilty?

Word comes this morning that Philip Russell, who had been the attorney for a church embroiled in a child pornography case, admitted yesterday to one count of misprision of a felony.

What, you say?

Misprision, as Merriam-Webster holds, is "concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony."

Mr. Russell got in trouble for destroying the church computer on which the music director of Christ Episcopal Church in Greenwich, CT, kept child pornography.

New Jersey being New Jersey, what are the odds that politically engaged adults over the age of 18 have committed misprision at some point or other?

---

ConnPost.com: "Lawyer pleads guilty to destroying evidence"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

IRS drops investigation of church over sermon

All Saint's Church hears IRS news. (Phot, LA Times.)

In an important First Amendment case, the IRS has dropped its attempt to rescind the non-profit status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, over a sermon delivered by a former rector in 2004 in which he was critical of the war in Iraq and of President Bush's tax cuts.

Parish leaders are confused, however, by the IRS letter closing the case, in which the IRS holds -- still -- that the sermon was illegal.

The church wants a clarification -- and an apology.

This is only church's most recent tussle with the government -- it has a long history of social activism, dating back to World War II, when it's then-rector preached against the internment of Japanese-Americans and the theft of their property by official government action.

I'm glad for them they won they fight.

I'm not holding my breath on the apology.

Plainfield connection: Former Plainfield residents Debby (costumer of the stars) and Jerry (you've seen him in many, many commercials) Lancaster are members of All Saints Church.

---

• LA Times: "Pasadena church wants apology from IRS"
• CBS News: "IRS Grants Church Absolution Over Sermon"
• Paul Caron's TaxProf Blog: "IRS Drops Investigation" -- Complete links to all coverage.
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Candy police come to Woodbridge

The candy police have come to Woodbridge. With all the real dangers in your child's world, you'll be happy to learn the Woodbridge Council is restricting the sale of candy cigarettes and those toy look-alikes that light up when 'puffed'.

The Ledger reports that the township, at the urging of councilman Charles Kenny, is pondering extending the ban it already has on sales by licensed event vendors to include all shops in New Jersey's fifth largest municipality.

There is actually a group, The Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids, which dedicates its energies to the banishment of these dangerous candies.

John Winthrop would be proud.

---

• Ledger: "Woodbridge cracking down on the sale candy cigarettes"
• Candylovers: "Candy Cigarettes: Eventually You'll Get Pretend Cancer" -- Online exhibit.
• Old-Time Candy: "Candy Cigarettes"
• Wikipedia: "Candy cigarette"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Piscataway Council attendees are now frisked

Welcome to the Piscataway Council meeting. Raise your arms. Spread your legs.

For five months, according to a Ledger story on Monday, guests at the Piscataway council meetings have been patted down and subjected to wand searches. Yikes!

Piscataway is the only community in the state to frisk those attending Council meetings, and it's raising plenty of eyebrows.

Mayor Brian Wahler insists it's a sign of the times, but opponents argue it is an intimidation tactic.

Though some security 'experts' may argue this is the wave of the future (after all, it's a bread-and-butter issue to them), others in the security field don't see it that way.

The Ledger cites Vincent Smith, head of Long Island University's Homeland Security Management Institute, who says --

"It doesn't make any sense, the level of security should be tied to the level of threat," Smith said. "Piscataway is very pastoral, a nice place to live. It's not Newark or Camden. It doesn't have that level of threat."

"A basic American liberty is the right to go down to city hall and literally stand on the steps," he said. "To attend a town meeting, that is the bedrock of American democracy. So we have to be very careful with the level of security we implement, because we don't want to discourage people from participating in government."

Wahler was unmoved by the criticisms, saying "Get used to it."

That is certainly an attitude that I don't think would play well in Plainfield, where there is a long tradition of active participation in Council meetings, and a sense of community that recognizes people have a right to express their opinions -- even angrily -- to their elected officials.

Thank God Plainfield has not been fear-mongered.

Yet.

---

Ledger: "Security gadgets gaining upper hand"
Piscataway: "Piscataway Township"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

White supremacist backlash over Jena case

This morning's Chicago Tribune reports on the buildup of a white backlash over the Jena 6 case, being led by white supremacist groups and individuals. Here is the complete story --

"White supremacist backlash builds over Jena case"

By Howard Witt
Tribune senior correspondent
6:59 PM CDT, September 24, 2007

HOUSTON

No sooner did tens of thousands of African-American demonstrators depart the racially tense town of Jena, La., last week after protesting perceived injustices than white supremacists flooded in behind them.

First a neo-Nazi Web site posted the names, addresses and phone numbers of some of the six black teenagers and their families at the center of the Jena 6 case and urged followers to find them and "drag them out of the house," prompting an investigation by the FBI.

Then the leader of a white supremacist group in Mississippi published interviews that he conducted with the mayor of Jena and the white teenager who was attacked and beaten, allegedly by the six black youths. In those interviews, the mayor, Murphy McMillin, praised efforts by pro-white groups to organize counterdemonstrations; the teenager, Justin Barker, urged white readers to "realize what is going on, speak up and speak their mind."

Over the weekend, white extremist Web sites and blogs across the Internet filled with invective about the Jena 6 case, which has drawn scrutiny from civil rights leaders, three leading Democratic presidential candidates and hundreds of African-American Internet bloggers. They are concerned about allegations that blacks have been treated more harshly than whites in the criminal justice system of the town of 3,000, which is 85 percent white.

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, last week announced his support for Jena's white residents, who voted overwhelmingly for him when he ran unsuccessfully for Louisiana governor in 1991.

"There is a major white supremacist backlash building," said Mark Potok, a hate-group expert at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group in Montgomery, Ala. "I also think it's more widespread than may be obvious to most people. It's not only neo-nazis and Klansmen—you expect this kind of reaction from them."

Controversy over the Jena 6 case has been percolating for months but it exploded into national view last Thursday when a crowd of at least 20,000 peaceful demonstrators from around the country marched through the central Louisiana town.

They came to support the six black high school students who were initially charged by the local prosecutor with attempted murder for attacking Barker, a white classmate who was beaten and knocked briefly unconscious last December. The charges were later reduced to aggravated second-degree battery.

The incident capped months of racial unrest after three white students hung nooses from a shade tree at the high school after black students asked permission to sit under it. School officials dismissed the noose incident as a prank, angering black students and their parents and triggering a series of fights between whites and blacks. The whites involved were charged with misdemeanors or not at all while the blacks drew various felony charges.

McMillin has insisted that his town is being unfairly portrayed as racist—an assertion the mayor repeated in an interview with Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement, a white supremacist group based in Learned, Miss., who asked McMillin to "set aside some place for those opposing the colored folks."

"I am not endorsing any demonstrations, but I do appreciate what you are trying to do," Barrett quoted McMillin as saying. "Your moral support means a lot."

McMillin declined to return calls seeking comment Monday.

Barker's father, David, said his family did not know the nature of Barrett's group when they agreed to be interviewed, adding, "I am not a white supremacist, and neither is my son."

But Barrett said he explained his group and its beliefs to the Barker family, who then invited him to stay overnight at their home on the eve of last week's protest march.

Rev. Jesse Jackson told the Tribune that he had grown so concerned about white extremists' threats against the Jena 6 families and perceived injustices in the town that he called the White House over the weekend to ask for immediate federal intervention. Jackson said the acting head of the U.S. Justice Department's civil right division phoned him Monday to say that the agency had begun investigating the Jena situation.

hwitt@tribune.com

---

Chicago Tribune: "White supremacist backlash builds over Jena case"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/