PAY-TO-PLAY BANS....Don't let local efforts die

Last spring, Ocean City passed a pay-to-play ban that was not only the strictest in Cape May County ? it ranked among the strictest in the state.

To its credit, City Council dutifully scrutinized its ordinance for potential loopholes and closed them. One councilmember suggested allowing small, $100 contributions from professionals seeking no-bid con-tracts; the majority said no.

Like 51 other towns and counties in New Jersey, Ocean City wisely responded to the growing public disgust for the practice known as "pay to play" ? that is, professionals and other government contractors who make donations and then receive hefty government contracts from the same people they helped put in office. It's a practice ripe for unethical behavior, one that breeds public cynicism and inflates the cost of local government.

In some towns, like Berkeley Township in Ocean County, the payto-play ban came as the result of a petition drive.

Talk about democracy in action. But all this grassroots effort to bring greater integrity to the system will be invalidated next January, when a new, much weaker, state pay-to-play ban becomes effective. It will be invalidated, that is, unless the state Senate passes a bill that would permit municipalities and counties to enact pay-to-play bans that are stricter than the state law. The Assembly passed the bill, but it is stalled in the Senate.

That's outrageous. This is a nobrainer of a bill that should have been passed before the summer recess. And it should be at the top of the agenda when the Senate reconvenes.

New Jersey Common Cause, which has pushed for pay-toplay reform and provided model ordinances for communities, divides local ordinances into those that are as strong as the Common Cause model and those that are weaker.

According to Common Cause, the flaw of the weaker ordinances often is that they do not apply to contributions on the county level ? such as, for example, bans
passed by Cape May, Barnegat and Stafford Township. Others, like Vineland's, exempt con-tracts that are bid.

Still, all of the 52 municipal and county ordinances, according to Common Cause, are stronger than the loosely worded and loophole-ridden state law.

The state Senate must restore the power of local governments which are closest to the
citizenry to react to the public's desire for more ethical government. There can be no excuse for failing to pass this bill in the fall.

Pay-to-play bans
This shows southern New Jersey governments that have adopted payto-play bans.

Laws that meet the Common Cause model:

Manchester Township Ocean County
Berkeley Township Ocean County
Ocean City Cape May County

Weaker measures:

Cape May Cape May County
Lower Township Cape May County
Vineland Cumberland County
Cumberland County
Stafford Township Ocean County
Long Beach Township Ocean County
Dover Township/

Toms River Ocean County
Barnegat Township Ocean County
Little Egg Harbor Township Ocean County

EMINENT DOMAIN

NATIONAL NEWS
Top court favors eminent domain

Friday, June 24, 2005
By JOHN BRENNAN
STAFF WRITER

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling watched closely in New Jersey, on Thursday upheld a Connecticut city's right to seize homes and other properties solely for economic development. The 5-4 decision is likely to make it easier for dozens of North Jersey towns to use eminent domain condemnations in similar ways, supporters and opponents of the decision agreed.
"Most government agencies already have been proceeding on the assumption that economic development is a valid justification [for invoking eminent domain],"

Supporters and opponents both agreed on one thing: The ruling does not preclude the state Legislature in Trenton from passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain.
"If a state wants to set the bar higher for eminent domain use, it still can," said Dianne Brake, president of the Trenton-based Regional Planning Partnership. "The process has to be transparent, for instance, to help avoid having graft come into play."

Beachcomber News - August 26, 2005

Dear Editor,

Whom does government represent? Whose taxes pay the costs of government? To whom is government accountable? To whom does government have a responsibility to report on its activities? The answer, obviously, except to some, is the people.

A part of "the people" in Brigantine is the Brigantine Taxpayers Association, a responsible, active group exercising its rights and responsibilities as citizens. We hold public meetings during the year in order to have open, informative and orderly discussions about our municipal government and public school system. We share facts and opinions and we all learn.

For our next such public meeting on Saturday, September 17, 10 AM in the Brigantine Library, we invited the Public Works Superintendent to be our speaker: He accepted, and in our confirmation letter to thim, we said this: "We are pleased that you are coming to discuss the functions, administration and achievements of Public Works. We believe such a discussion between those receiving your department's services and those providing them will be mutually ,beneficial. It offers an opportunity to ask and answer questions, provide factual, information, present problems and seek solutions, and, in general, promote cooperation and effective municipal government."

This past Monday, August 8, we were told by the City Manager that the Superintendent would not appear at this meeting nor at any others we will hold. Nor would any other City employee be allowed to appear. We do not "abuse" our speakers, and, yet, the City Manager feels it's his job to "protect" City employees from a public discussion about their jobs. Do City employees need to be "protected" from responsible people with questions and recommendations? Such an attitude is demeaning to these employees who feel comfortable appearing before the public they serve, even when, imagine, there are differences of opinion! That's democracy, Mr. City Manager. And, personal hostility should not guide public policy.

What happened is regrettable and a lost opportunity, an example of an unhealthy. Civic life here in Brigantine.

We ask City Council to review this City policy and decide if such a negative attitude is one it wishes to support and present to the people.

Sincerely,
Ray Schillinger, BTA President

Purchase of St. Philip's school Site

On July 20th, City Council, after emerging from a closed session not listed on the meeting's agenda, by voice resolution and without public discussion, authorized the signing by the City of the agreement to purchase for $2.6 million the St. Philip's School site and structure from St. Thomas Catholic Church. While keeping taxpayers in the dark, negotiations for this purchase took place during the past 3 years between representation from the City and the church. This is an amazing story considering the facts, and prompts the question, "What are our 7 Council members thinking?"

1.Let's look at the facts, first at the legal language of the two deeds. The Mayor said the church is "giving up ownership of the site that could be used for religious purposes forever." ("The Beachcomber News" 8/19/05) That's correct. However, he forgot to mention something important. Here it is. The deed is valid "provided however, that the premises are to be used solely for educational and/or religious purposes. If, at any time, the said premises ever cease to be used for such educational and/or religious purposes then title to the said premises shall revert to the City of Brigantine." Note that the word "shall" is used. Evidently, the church can't sell the property to anyone, including the City. If the church surrenders the property, as it is now proposing to do, that means it's not using it for the allowed purposes and the City takes it back, for nothing. Now, according to the newspapers the church wants to continue using the building for church activities without having any financial obligations as the owner of the site. How can the church lose? There will be no more expenses for the property, there will be money for renovating and enlarging the church, and there will be continued use of the former school. Council calls this a win-win situation. Now, there's a "spin" on a bad and apparently illegal deal for Brigantine taxpayers, with tax revenues being spent unnecessarily in violation of the deed restriction. Has the church considered a rental-fee arrangement for the use of the former school after the property reverts free to the City?

Aside from the primary and crucial legal issue, let's look at other ones.

2. "City officials called the purchase a win-win situation since not only will recreation programs have room to expand, but the deal also would help preserve the longstanding church." ("The Press of Atlantic City" - 7/21/05) The future location and condition of St. Thomas Church is not the business of government and the expenditure of tax revenues is not to be based in any respect on the status of any church or in the interest of any church, without exception. Again, it appears the Council needs some legal advice.

3. Council talks of housing recreation programs, art shows, plays and cultural events in the former school building. Has it forgotten the far-superior facilities we already have at our elementary and middle schools, facilities about which it has boasted since their construction? Use them, and more effectively, if the community wants more. Council says it wants another building for particular uses as a youth center and for our older population. But, our public school facilities now serve both these groups. And, the numbers are dropping for both these segments of our population.

4. Council has said it has no idea what costs would be involved in using this former school. We'd need to hire a consultant. Another building means more maintenance costs, more operating expenses, more salaries. How could Council consider such a purchase without knowing something about costs in addtion to the purchase price? The private sector wouldn't be so careless about costs.
5. While reading the minutes of a meeting in 1959 of Brigantine's governing body, we noted that 1 of the 3 Commissioners abstained from voting to approve the purchase from the City of this property by the church. Why? He stated that he was a member of St. Thomas Church Parish and therefore wouldn't vote on a matter affecting the church. How different that is from Council's vote on 7/20/05! No one abstained even though the same conflict as in 1959 exists for several members of Council. They should explain why they didn't abstain at the next Council meeting.

By the way, we can't read the letter of 3/16/59 from St. Thomas offering $9,000 for this property, the offer on which the above Commissioners voted, because it is missing from the City's archives.

Council has been less than open and forthright in its dealings on this property. As such, it gives the impression of having something to hide. Does it? Certainly, something is not right here. Thorough scrutiny is in order. Our comments are intended to throw light on a deal which appears questionable. We will continue to keep Brigantine taxpayers informed.
Instead of increasing the burden on taxpayers, Council should be considering ways to reduce municipal expenditures and our taxes.