Government Transparency: "Fashionable"!

Dear Senator Whelan... (0.00 / 0)

.....would you please sign onto

the bill to straighten out that awful initiative law which puts a 10 year moratorium on the petitioning for a local government change to go before the voters.

That was South Jersey voters can have a co-sponsor, too.

Warm regards,
Jay  

Jay_Lass on Twitter.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:59:49 AM CST

Pork, Transparency, and Hospitals (0.00 / 0)

Good work on the "shadow governments," which the Star-Ledger recognized in Sunday's editorial.  Many of the salaries and expenses of these groups are obscene.  Pork by any other name is still pork.  Time for these folks to have their belts tightened.

Am glad you are working on "transparency and accountability."  These words are not just fashionable - they are the heart and soul of good governance.

Hospitals were created to treat the ill, but increasingly have become institutions more concerned with their own financial success.  Their dealings with politicians, physicians, and vendors are rife with conflicts of interest -  and in some cases criminal. It is time to get hospitals out of the business of business and back to treating the ill.

Again Happy Birthday and best wishes for the success of your many progressive endeavors.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." - Sen. Ted Kennedy

---

by: BillOrr @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:12:27 AM CST

what about transparency at DEP? (0.00 / 0)

Senator - we have filed petitions to force disclosure of meetings between DEP officials and lobbyists, like those involved in the Encap fiasco.

DEP has obstructed and denied those efforts.

WE could use some legislative muscle to get this done. See:

WILL NEW JERSEY OPEN UP ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING? - Corzine Denial of DEP Transparency Rules Creates Opportunity for Christie

Trenton - The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has once again rejected a package of transparency rules proposed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The action, published in the New Jersey Register this week, leaves it to new Governor Chris Christie and his DEP Commissioner Bob Martin whether the scandal-plagued agency will adopt open government rules.

In his Tuesday inaugural address, Gov. Christie declared that "Today, a new era of accountability and transparency is here." Similarly, Commissioner Martin ran for a state senate seat in 2007 on a platform of ending agency corruption in Trenton. The DEP has been at the heart of recent "pay-to-play" indictments as well as well-publicized cases of suppression or alteration of scientific studies due to lobbyist pressure.

The PEER rules would have required public disclosure of meetings and communications between DEP policy makers and representatives for regulated industries and developers. DEP routinely conducts these meetings to negotiate permits, enforcement actions and health standards behind closed doors. The PEER plan would also require that calendars of top officials be posted on the web. In addition, PEER proposed that DEP end gag orders so that scientists, inspectors and other professional staff can speak honestly to the public and the media without fear of retaliation.

The DEP rejection of the PEER transparency package was made by the outgoing Corzine administration on the basis that public knowledge about meetings of top agency officials would "chill communications":

   "Rules that would mandate disclosure of senior staff calendars would have the potential to chill communications with the many constituencies with whom the Commissioner and other high level managers meet. Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 226 (1978), quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (the point of executive privilege is to ensure that those assisting the executive freely explore alternatives in the shaping of policies and are permitted to do so "in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately"). The identity and the sequence of the persons with whom Department senior staff consult could reveal the substance or direction of the judgment or mental processes of the Commissioner and Department staff."

"The official embrace of executive privilege is precisely the problem at DEP. Anytime an agency wraps itself in the rhetoric of the Nixon White House case for secrecy (U.S. v. Nixon) it is time to watch out," stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP analyst, noting that top officials at U.S. EPA now post their calendars without apparent ill effect. "If the Christie administration wants to restore public trust at DEP, the first step is to open the closed doors that now shield lobbyists, lawyers and consultants working the back channels."

The Christie administration has yet to indicate whether it will outlaw gag orders that restrain DEP scientists, engineers and other specialists from disclosing data and technical findings or whether scientific papers will still remain subject to political review before release.

"Genuine transparency means that the public can see information regardless of whether it supports the Commissioner's policy," Wolfe added. "We will explore whether we should re-submit these rules once again to the Christie administration."

PEER first proposed these rules in 2007 but then-DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson rejected the rules on the very day they were published. PEER re-submitted the rules again in July 2009 and this time DEP requested extensions to further consider the proposal but, despite the months of additional review, issued the same decision couched in virtually the same language as before.

###

Read the DEP rejection of proposed transparency rules

See the proposed PEER transparency rules

Revisit DEP role in latest corruption scandals

Look at an example of DEP skewing science for political reasons  

---

by: Winston Smith @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:13:15 AM CST

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (0.00 / 0)

Go for it Senator - if ever there was an authority in need of cleanup, that is one.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:00:50 AM CST

Here is the link (0.00 / 0)

to the BlueJersey diary from your press conference on Cleaning Up New Jersey:

http://www.bluejersey.com/diar...

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:03:21 AM CST

A new disturbing trend in the news (0.00 / 0)

in North Jersey are towns who want to create a land use board instead of separate zoning and planning boards.  I fear this is a way for politics to unduly influence land use decisions under the guise of "saving money".  

Zoning boards are quasi-judicial bodies separate from the overwhelming influence of a Mayor, who gets to appoint all but ONE member of the Planning Board.  In Emerson and Montvale, they are deciding whether to abolish their zoning boards and let the planning boards (which have already been appointed by the Mayors) take over ALL duties.  

Since Mayorships are traditionally the most expensive elections in a town, needing wealthy donors, and since Mayors exert undue political influence on Planning Boards - which was my experience when I was the only member of the Tenafly Planning Board appointed by the Council and witnessed first hand the appointments of people who did not even know what a "building footprint" was,  (sad but true),  I think it is inviting the fox into the henhouse UNLESS the state legislature REQUIRES Land Use Board members to have the approval of more than just the Mayor.  

Mayors don't usually disclose who donated to their campaigns but I find it too coincidental that the folks that wind up on boards like in Tenafly, often don't have any land use experience, can't read a site plan, yet are well- connected attorneys who are the most wealthy in a town.

As part of the Cleaning up NJ initiative, could the legislature look into a bill that would require better vetting and more checks and balances on the approval of Planning Board members, because big political donors often operate in that sphere, and planning boards often change Master plans to zone a Borough to better benefit certain developers, or Mayors exert undue influence to "spot-zone" projects they don't like to the detriment of the rights of an applicant with a worthy project.  (Another thing I also witnessed).

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:20:21 AM CST

PS - Dumont is also a problem. (0.00 / 0)

Dumont is in the news this week for donation wheeling.  Note that Dumont has a Land Use Board instead of two boards.  Mayor McHale - a top influential Democrat - and member of the Board, is at the center of the controversy:

http://www.northjersey.com/new...

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:35:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Can't say it enough how much I appreciate you taking the time to post your work here. Two very good efforts as well.  

---

by: mmcgrath @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:15:43 AM CST