Reform now!
Everybody claims to support it, from the Governor on down. Other New Jersey towns have enacted it on the municipal level. So why did our own State Senator Loretta Weinberg join all but one of her Democratic colleagues in voting down a bill that would enact statewide restrictions on "pay to play" and other unsavory and wasteful practices last week?
State Sen. Weinberg (D-Teaneck)
State Sen. Weinberg (D-Teaneck)No doubt Sen. Weinberg would offer some lame excuse or another for toeing the party line and rejecting this particular attempt at a long overdue reform. We might even give her a pass this time, as she is generally regarded as a strong proponent of good government. But the bottom line is that as the Township considers new plans for development and the politicization of local affairs increases, Teaneck needs regulations against awarding non-competitive contracts to campaign contributors now more than ever.
If our representatives in Trenton will not oblige, then a Teaneck-specific ordinance will have to come from the Council. And if the Council is reluctant to pass such an ordinance, then residents might think about copying some of the grassroots efforts conducted elsewhere in the state to persuade local officials that our town would benefit from protections against abuses that could threaten the integrity and financial well-being of Teaneck.
A little under a year ago, the Council considered an anti-pay to play ordinance at the behest of then Mayor Kates. With the Council unprepared to act at the time, Kates was tasked with researching the issue further and returning with more information. Whether due to Kates losing interest or the change in makeup of the Council shifting the focus elsewhere or some other set of circumstances intervening, Teaneck has not passed its own ordinance yet. That ought to change. Why subject the taxpayers to unnecessary risks? Why allow the residents' confidence in local government to be shaken? Why imperil the future of open and competitive local elections in our town?
The time is ripe for Teaneck to tackle this issue, even if Trenton won't.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:29 AM
11 Comments:
Is there an online article about this somewhere?
Hereis an article about the vote last week.
I agree that Senator Weinberg needs to show more leadership in this area in the State Senate, along with getting her colleagues to push aggressively for state pension reform measures so that the burden of changing the system does not fall on each municipality and school board to negotiate with each individual union.
How can it be proven that a contract is a "pay to play" award? Or is it just assumed that Italian sounding names are suspect?
How can it be proven that a contract is a "pay to play" award? Or is it just assumed that Italian sounding names are suspect?
Not funny. To answer the serious part of your question, these laws are not about stiffening penalties for contracts awarded on a quid pro quo basis but rather about taking campaign contributors out of the running for non-competitive contracts from the get-go.
From the article it doesn't appear that the Senate Democrats actually "voted down" the bill. They handled it much like our council majority handled the motion to reappoint a commissioner to the New Bridge Landing Historic Park Commission.
While it's not clear that the 20 senators registered any kind of response to the motion in front of them (in contrast to the council abstentions), the spectacle of a motion going down with no votes against it is, either way, pretty embarrassing.
I do wonder whether the Weinbergians who protested the council vote a week ago would be as vocal in their disapproval this incident. By the way, yours truly also protested last week. But this registered Democrat is neither a Weinbergian nor a "Ferrierocrat."
From the article it doesn't appear that the Senate Democrats actually "voted down" the bill. They handled it much like our council majority handled the motion to reappoint a commissioner to the New Bridge Landing Historic Park Commission.
Yeah, but I would submit that there is a very big difference between voting "no" on an issue that is arguably more far-reaching in concern, especially in Teaneck, and abstaining on an individual's reappointment.
jeffostroth said...
I do wonder whether the Weinbergians who protested the council vote a week ago would be as vocal in their disapproval this incident. By the way, yours truly also protested last week. But this registered Democrat is neither a Weinbergian nor a "Ferrierocrat."
Please don't tell me you're a closet Republican.
A lot of registered Democrats in Teaneck are out-of-the-closet reactionaries when it comes to getting real progress for Teaneck. Their Luddite attitude toward any development makes them so.
From the article it doesn't appear that the Senate Democrats actually "voted down" the bill.
You're right, I should have written "declined to support."
Calling reactionary policies progressive is one of the new twists brought to us by the current council majority and its supporters.
Post a Comment
<< Home