It's a fact of life. Wealthy and powerful people have perks that the other 99% don't have. That's fine. I would rather see them spend their "hard-earned" money locally and employ Americans than buy a villa on the Riviera. But especially now, with the growing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots", those more fortunate people should be aware of how their extravagant spending is perceived.
Case in point: Much has been written about Governor Christie's use of a taxpayer-funded State Police helicopter to attend his son's baseball game. While the governor eventually paid back the incremental operating cost of that ride, the incident emphasized how out of touch he is with the realities facing his constituents.
Now the governor's consigliere, George E. Norcross III, is emulating the state's chief executive with a helicopter of his own.
The Carl Lewis saga continues to play out in the 9-time-Olympic Champ's favor, despite the Burlington Republican machine's concerted efforts to have him throw off the ballot. The BurlCoGOP likes things the quick-n-easy way for reasons too numerous to name here.
Anyway check of this video where Carl discusses issues like education, the millionaire's tax and jobs. Nadia Comaneci and Doctor Freud come as well.
We posted over this last night with an update about the Dem state conference changes - sorry, deciminyan - so I'm pulling it up top for a bit. - Rosi
For many years, my wife and I have been lucky enough to take a week's vacation every summer on Long Beach Island. We look forward to a time of relaxation and enjoyment of the pristine beaches. But during his first term in office, Congressman Jon Runyan is working to take that pleasure away from us.
Working in lock-step with his Republican colleagues, Runyan is actively promoting off-shore oil drilling in the Atlantic and providing the wealthy oil companies (i.e his campaign contributors) with more financial benefits - as if they need them.
To be fair, Runyan is delivering on campaign promises. I don't understand why Ocean County residents would vote for someone who will put their tourism industry in jeopardy, but they did.
Now Runyan is making it even more attractive for oil companies to drill. He voted on a bill to allow these companies to obtain new leases, even while they owe the government payments for fines from previous sins. And while he's voting to cut Medicare in the (false) name of fiscal responsibility, he also voted against elimination of taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.
Drilling off the Atlantic coast is not the way to solve our insatiable lust for energy. It's not a matter of whether an oil spill will devastate Atlantic beaches, it's just a matter of when and how badly.
Our vacations on LBI have become even more cherished over the last couple of years, as we have started a family tradition of having our grandson (and his parents!) visit us at the beach each summer. They live 300 miles from the nearest ocean, so this is a special time for our grandson as well as us. Let's hope that Runyan's pro-oil, anti-tourism approach magically avoids Murphy's Law and that we don't see a repeat of the BP disaster in our back yard. For our grandson's sake and the sake of all those kids who love the beach.
How many more years will my son and grandson be able to enjoy LBI if Oilman Runyan has his way?
So, now we know the Governor doesn't feel he should be expected to have any "Town Halls" at night, when most working people can attend, because he doesn't work nights. Seems he doesn't work weekends, either. - promoted by Rosi
I learned this through a Google alert, in a news site I hadn't heard of called southjerseylocalnews.com. Apparently I have once again been purged from the governor's email list. After a conversation with a Christie staffer a few weeks ago, in which he denied that non-supporters were being removed from the email lists, and denied the existence of a secret advance notice email list for supporters, the staffer promised to add me back to the list.
After that I got not one but two invites to last week's Manalapan event, one from the standard email distribution and one personally sent by my new "friend" from the governor's constituent relations office. I politely declined, citing the need to show up for my day job.
I was told by my friend from the governor's office that these events cannot be held in the evenings because the governor works very hard during the day, has four kids, and spends evenings with his family.
When Governor Christie started his Town Hall political extravaganza, I was not on his mailing list, and never was invited. After all, I’m a registered Democrat. One early morning in October, a friend of mine (who keeps his politics close to his chest, but I think he’s more on the “R” side than on the “D” side) asked me if I was going to the Governor’s Town Hall meeting in Moorestown that day. I told him that I was unaware of the event, but he gave me the details, including the 10:00 AM start time.
Being retired, I’m very busy, but my schedule is more flexible than, say, the school teachers the governor loves to berate, so I modified my plans for that day and was able to attend. I won’t rehash what happened there; I wrote a diary In the Belly of the Beast for Blue Jersey. You can read it if you wish. I even complimented the governor on his answer to one of the questions from the floor. I had my video camera, waiting for a YouTube moment, but this Town Hall was on the tame side (could it be the Quaker heritage of Moorestonians?)
No - not our Blue Jersey, but rather New Jersey's men and women in blue who work in our police agencies across the state.
Agencies from the State Police to local Police Departments are using the Internet as a tool to facilitate communications with the citizens they serve. But, as with most advances in the exploitation of new technologies, there are both upsides and downsides in how these new tools are used.
According to Captain Frank Locantore of the Evesham Police Department, the Internet is a valuable tool for reaching out to the community whose only other contact with the police has traditionally been motor vehicle stops or investigations of burglaries. Other than that, he pointed out, most people are unaware of the workload or types of incidents handled by their police agency.
Continue reading below.
The Evesham Police Department has started a new program where it posts on the Internet mug shots and other personal information on individuals who are arrested for DUI.
Drunk driving is a serious problem, and I applaud the Evesham police in their effort to reduce this danger, but their approach is all wrong. Under the presumption of innocence, the police are pre-emptively punishing innocent people without their being able to exercise their rights. Once this information is posted on the Internet, it stays there essentially forever, even after a "not guilty" verdict.
Supporters of this program argue that the data is available from other public sources - newspapers (remember them?), police blotters, etc. Yet, posting this information on line makes it much easier to access through search engines by potential employers and other parties. This puts potentially innocent people at a distinct disadvantage.
While its approach is probably legal, ruining the reputation of any innocent person is not the job of the Police Department. In today's economy, the time and effort spent by the Evesham PD in maintaining a Facebook database could be better spent in outreach programs to young drivers and in other DUI awareness programs.
Talk about a surprise at the first working meeting of the new council in Evesham this past Tuesday night:
The council voted last month to put a referendum on the November ballot, asking residents whether they want local elections held in November, instead of May.
But in a surprise move, Deputy Mayor Joe Howarth introduced an ordinance Tuesday that would repeal that decision Tuesday.
Howarth said he's not opposed to the referendum or moving the election, but said he thinks more discussion needs to take place.
More discussion has to take place, but at the last minute he rushes through a resolution to repeal the chance for voters to weigh in on that conversation? Apparently he wants to have a discussion, but not letting members of the current council know what he was planning to do surely doesn't lead itself to more discussion:
Mayor Randy Brown said he and Councilman John McKenna, both Democrats, weren't told about the ordinance.
Howarth said even Hackman and Croft were caught off guard.
Those are some great communication skills for the discussion. Howarth appears to want to defend the politics he has, not what may be; and there is a cost to the voters:
Supporters of the referendum say it will save the township $50,000 every two years and could increase voter turnout.
But Howarth offered a different take.
"If it was just about the money, it would've been done after (Brown) took office, in that first year," he said. "But they did it after they lost an election, and that leads me to believe there are other motives."
Ah, so those evil sore losers. There was actually talk and plans to move the election because of cost savings and increased turnout long before the last results came in. Rather than a discussion with everyone, it seems like Howarth is just talking to himself. Or maybe he is only having his "discussions" with those same politically connected people that helped to get him elected.
He says he wants a discussion, but he didn't tell anyone he was raising the issue and now has scheduled an emergency special meeting on July 27 to expedite a 2nd reading on the matter. And where was he discussing the issue during the open comments when the resolution was being considered after he was elected to office, but before he was sworn in? Howarth had an opportunity to "join the discussion," but sat silent. That's some in depth conversation Howarth is leading.
Drollas is with Burlington County GOP Party Boss Glenn Paulsen's law firm, Capehart Scatchard Attorneys at Law of Mount Laurel. While Paulsen isn't the formal party Chairman, his next door neighbor Bill Layton holds the role. The Burlington County Democrats put out a video last year detailing the connections of the Paulsen's 20 shell game and how they finance the election of Republicans in the county. At 2 minutes, 19 seconds of that video, they explored the connections of Drollas guaranteeing $30,000 in loans along with the work he and his family have received. Not only did Drollas become solicitor, but Capehart scored another appointment with Brian Kowalski being named the new bond counsel. The Burlington County Democrats didn't miss the chance to respond to this latest connection:
The Paulsen's 20 (www.paulsens20.com) is a political version of a Ponzi scheme founded by Paulsen in which investors have made over $30 million in taxpayer-funded contracts, jobs, salaries and billings.
Paulsen said his contributions have nothing to do with his law firm doing work in the county.
"Pay-to-play is illegal. There never were quid pro quos when I was county chairmen or now," he said. "That shouldn't preclude me or anyone else from exercising their first amendment rights in accordance with the law."
Come to think of it, it's probably fitting that Chris Christie didn't attend the event. He turned his back as US Attorney while corruption reigned at the Burlington County Bridge Commission, where under oath it was said by Bob Stears at sentencing, "I got sucked into a corrupt group of people." The former Republican Mayor of Evesham Gus Tamburro said Paulsen held the attitude, "So let it be written, so Let it be done." Last Wednesday, it was done once again.
Last night, Chris Christie was on the original agenda to attend the swearing in of the newly elected council candidates in Evesham. Up until around 2pm yesterday, he was even listed on the public agenda on the township website:
But magically between 2pm and 3pm yesterday, the agenda was was taken down from the website. The page was no more. And Chris Christie did not attend the swearing in of the new Evesham council candidates. He decided not to swear in the GOP candidates as they took control of council in the largest municipality in Burlington County. So what changed? Why did Christie not go?
The only difference between last week when his appearance was confirmed and the swearing in yesterday were the campaign finance allegations that became public earlier this week. I wrote about it on Monday and an article appeared in the Courier Post on Tuesday.
Howarth acknowledged that donors were given that direction -- outlined plainly on an invitation to a "victory party" for the candidates held in early June -- but said it was in an effort to comply with the pay-to-play law, not circumvent it.
As to whether some firms might have given more than one $300 contribution to different PACs, Howarth said he had no idea who gave what to the committees. He noted that firms seeking contracts with Evesham must disclose their campaign contributions when they submit their bids, and said those contributions would come to light during that process.
"It's up to the professionals," he said. "I have no control over that. It's not my job."
Ah, it's up to the firms who want the contracts to say they gave more money than makes them eligible to get them. He's either misleading or misinformed because under the local pay to play ordinance, all vendors are required to do is disclose that they are in conformance with the law. There is no provision for disclosing what they give.
He wants you to believe that in an effort to comply with the law, he said to give under the reporting limit to multiple committees rather than a lump sum to him directly. Then in the same breath, he says he has no control over who contributes to his campaign and then applies for contracts. Both parties are generally keenly aware of financial reporting and limits. If he doesn't have control over who he takes money from and isn't aware, then who does? He is the one who signed his campaign filing and the one who will vote on the contracts. This seems more like willful blindness than true lack of knowledge.
In the May "non-partisan" elections, Democrats lost all three seats for council in Evesham. The result raised many eyes, but the news to come out since may raise a few more.
A June 10 story in the Burlington County Times prompted Evesham Councilman Mike Schmidt, who lost his re-election bid, to call for an investigation into whether recently elected Republicans Kurt Croft, Joe Howarth and Deb Hackman violated laws which prevent "purposely concealing campaign donations."
In addition to the story, which talked about how the GOP outspent the Democrats, Schmidt pointed to a fundraising solicitation for the Croft, Howarth, and Hackman team which requests donors to make contributions to any or all of four continuing PAC's, the Evesham Republican Club, the Evesham Municipal Committee, the Evesham Federation of Republican Women and the Evesham Young Republicans. But there were clear instructions on what you could give and to whom:
*Checks to each account should not exceed $300.
Hmm, how convenient that they get all this money just under the state reporting threshold. But Schmidt, who authored the local pay to play ordinance, pointed to further potential issues:
"Furthermore, $300 is the maximum contribution a candidate for office in Evesham can accept from individuals looking to receive contracts from our government. Therefore, an individual who donated $250 to all four PAC's would be in violation of our local pay to play law. The fact that they specifically asked donors to keep the donation under the reporting limit shows a blatant attempt to conceal the nature of their fundraising efforts."
According to ELEC, the Republican women PAC was created the week before the election. Follow me below the fold for more of the story as late last week, Schmidt officially filed his complaint with ELEC spelling out his allegations.
From my local paper the Marlton Telegram: (no copy online)
Council introduced an ordinance at last week's meeting to change the qualifications for post-retirement benefits of township employees.
That makes it sound like there are a large number of people that will feel the effects of this latest change, but it's actually just aimed at 1 person:
Council hopes to change an ordinance passed in 2002 under former Mayor Gus Tamburo that said township employees - including elected officials - who are at least 62 years old and have worked for the township for 15 years are eligible to receive post-retirement benefits.
Tamburo is the only elected official to receive post-retirement health benefits as a result of this ordinance, according to Tom Czerniecki.
So as mayor, Tamburo came up with an ordinance that only he would benefit from. He lost re-election after serving 16 years, but not before making sure he took care of himself. On 11/12/2002, Tamburo voted in support of ordinance 41-11-2002 which passed 5-0 giving him the benefits. And what exactly are post retirement benefits you may ask? Those would be lifetime health benefits and Tamburo has already received $10,000 worth in two years.
The new council ordinance passed 5-0 at this week's meeting and prohibits any member of council from receiving benefits after July 1, 2007. The town also sent a letter to the former Mayor asking for him forfeit the benefits as a result of the ordinance, so we'll see what he has to say about it.
There is currently a battle raging in Evesham Township, Burlington County regarding recreation issues and whether or not to install artificial turf. I opened my Courier Post this morning to the headline "Artificial Turf War erupts in Evesham".
Where is the line between public and private. That which is accessible to the taxpayer because of the position they hold, but not to the public at large because they still have a right to privacy.
Superior Court Judge John Sweeney rejected a request by the school board to determine at this time if home computer of board members is a public record. The judge said the New Jersey Government Records Council and not the courts have primary jurisdiction in determining what documents are public.
"The government records council is uniquely qualified to examine the question and a court should not exercise concurrent action," said Sweeney, who postponed further review pending a government decision.
The judge denied the request for jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, saying it would be subversive and that would have a "chilling effect" on the public. He said it would encourage public agencies to rush to a courthouse and cause unnecessary litigation expenses.
I do see the concern that many good people will leave public office and further more will seek not to run because of this further intrusion in their life. I know others will say, if they're not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.
People have a right, even public people, to the privacy of their homes and their communications. If there is a reasonable thought that there has been a crime committed, then aren't there already procedures in place for getting at the communications?
As far as public records go, it's not the government's job to do the investigating for you. Through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the ACLU will have to know that the document -- in this case e-mail messages -- exist prior to asking for them. It would seem that suspecting that the emails exist is not enough to prove that they are in fact real. But if you can't see the document, how can you prove it exists. Seems like a catch 22, unless you're carrying a big subpoena with you. The Judge has said he won't take a concurrent look, choosing to wait for the Government Records Council to rule. Unless the ACLU has specific examples, past rulings would point to denying the request putting the issue back in the hands of the court.
I think this is a great discussion waiting to happen so that's why I ask you, where is the line?
The ballroom at the Indian Spring Country Club is called the Aurora Room, named for the Roman goddess who rises from the ocean in a chariot to bring on the dawn and is a reminder of former Councilwoman Dawn Marie Addiego's role in its construction.
She said she was proud of her efforts "to turn around what was a struggling club, rife with corruption, and set it on the course to become a well-regarded golf facility and highly sought after banquet facility that will be a revenue generator for Evesham Township's recreation programs and its residents."
Now for the real story. This course that was "rife with corruption" helped Addiego play a shell game to avoid taking the blame for her financial mismanagement of the town. The golf course allowed she and council to avoid raising taxes by borrowing from the golf course fund until she left to become a Freeholder in 2000 leaving a financial mess. More below the fold...
There is currently a debate going on about what to do with the Marlton Circle. The NJ Department of Transportation would like to move forward on their plans to install an overpass lifting Route 73 over Route 70, however concerned residents have been questioning whether an at grade intersection, similar to those that have replaced the circles in Medford, Berlin, Ellisburg and the Race Track in Cherry Hill would provide a better solution.
The residents have established a website, Marltoncircle.com, spoken with local elected officials, conducted a letter writing campaign, and have been collecting petition signatures to try and stop the planned overpass which they believe is being forced on the community by the NJ Department of Transportation.
Residents are Suggesting an at-Grade Intersection
They cite maintaining the character of the town, the impact the new design will have on local busineses, whether it will actually resolve traffic congestion and the potential savings of an at-grade project as reasons the current plan should not go forward.
This has been a decades long debate and discussion about planning along with funding for the project and if you follow me below the fold, I will try to explain how we got to this point today.
I don't always agree with them, but today's Courier Post's editorial on the controversial film "That's a Family" was right in telling the Evesham school district to butt out of the business of teaching our kids about certain sensitive topics:
The Evesham school board was right Thursday to vote to not show a video designed to teach elementary-school kids tolerance and about different kinds of family structures. The video briefly features children whose parents are gay couples. [...]
As much as schools should work to teach kids about diversity, tolerance and acceptance of others, there are certain topics that many parents want to be the first to communicate to their children, and homosexuality is probably one of those topics. And, as the outcry in Evesham indicates, many parents don't think their kids are ready to learn about homosexuality in elementary school.
I couldn't agree more. I'm not a parent yet, but I hope to be one some day, so this issue is very important to me. There are certain topics the school should mind it's own business on, and alternative "family" types is certainly one of those.
Imagine having your child exposed to and indoctrinated by a film showing a white woman and a Hispanic or black man with their family. I'm not sure how I would handle that, so I can understand the outrage of some of these parents. It's just icky and against the laws of nature. You don't see jackrabbits and sea otters raising families together in the wild, because that's not the way God intended things to be.
After seeing this film, confused third graders will come home with awkward questions. Naturally, they will inquire about the details of how the white woman and non-white man have sex. It's not right to put parents in the position of explaining that lifestyle to their kids - especially not while they're that young. That's something I will teach my kids when I want - on my terms. I don't care what deviant things people choose do in their homes - that's their right - but don't shove your interracial, godless "marriages" down my throat and brainwash my children into thinking they are "normal" and acceptable under the guise of promoting "tolerance".
The school should worry about math and geography, and I'll make sure they learn proper values.
I wanted to get some thoughts up promptly after last night's jam packed board of ed meeting in Evesham. But after witnessing the hostile scene unfold all I ended up doing is coming home and going to bed. By then it was nearly midnight anyway. The big item on last night's agenda was the film about tolerance called "It's a Family." Clearly nothing brings folks out of the woodwork like homophoba. But they sure came out in droves yesterday. The place was teeming.
Instead of a cohesive narrative, I thought I might share some of the impressions i came away with.
Group think is (still) scary. The place was positively rife, a much bigger crowd than I imagined. So crowded in fact, I had to park at a drugstore nearby. When I walked inside I was surprised to see the number of genuinely hostile people screaming and pumping their fists.
Image: MARCIN SZCZEPANSKI/Courier-Post.
Bigots are self-conscience about how they look. Every person who stood up to share their (mostly hateful) thoughts prefeaced their words with "I am not a bigot, but..." or "I have gay friends, but...." Again, the folks who did so were emboldened by the crowd and would constantly look toward others like them for an appropriate response before continuing.
Bigots are big on self-congratulations No matter how inarticulate or nonsensical, if the speaker spewed hate, they were met with a hearty round of backslapping afterwards. If you want to imagine how ignorant the naysayers came off, imagine Miss Teen SC. Minus the tits and ass, of course.
A dim view of outsiders One guy said "disregard everything from non-members of the community!" Another went further: "If you don't live in Evesham or Marlton, GET OUT!"
Cllearly this didn't apply to outsiders who shared their views like members of the Family Research Council. In conclusion, gay tax dollars are welcome. Gay opinions are not.
The "Ex-Gay Movement was on hand to remind the crowd that "people are not born gay!" This to a rapturous applause. Ironically, this so called "ex gay" was the queeniest guy in the room.
Evesham parents have dubious priorities.The vote to remove a film about gay (and other non-traditional) families came half way through the meeting. Afterwards, the room emptied out nearly completely. This mean a vast majority of the people who showed up missed the most substantiative points of the meeting. Funding for arts and music budgets? Allocations to hire math and language arts staff? They had no time for these issues.
One step forward, two steps back. The pragmatist in me was heartened by the notion that many young speakers had a much more relaxed attitude about this than their parents did. In otherwords --demographically speaking -- their message will die off long before ours does.
As usual our brothers and sisters from Garden State Equality were on hand for last night's battle. Thank god for that and for their relentless persuit of equality for all New Jerseyans. After all, this issue is far from over.
In January we told you about the Evesham school district where some parents were up in arms over the showing of a film, "That's a Family" to 3rd grade students. The film teaches kids about all kinds of families - married, divorced, and single parent families, interracial and mixed-religion familes, adoptive parents, grandparents as guardians, and - gasp! - same-sex families. That last part was too much for some parents to tolerate and in February the school board decided to suspend it from the curriculum.
At the Evesham school board meeting tonight, the School Board review committee - composed of over a dozen community members - recommended reinstating the film "That's a Family" into the curriculum, though starting a year later in 4th grade, rather than third. There would be no special opt-out from the film beyond what state law already requires for sex education. Right-wing parents attending the meeting went crazy with anger that their kids might be taught to be more tolerant than them.
Update: The school board just voted 7-1 to reject the recommendations of the review committee. Based on their reaction, the decision was pretty clearly based on the school board being uncomfortable with the gay community. There will probably be litigation following this decision. Steven Goldstein, the chair of Garden State Equality, says this is "far from over".
