Rigged and broken

This piece by Chris Hedges is a dark, pessimistic rant. Does he overstate his case? Perhaps. But there is no denying the danger this democracy is in.

Yes, the Democrats are ascendent, the Republicans in disarray, but the basics of the system, as Hedges points out, remain in place, undisturbed. The boldness we expect from Barack Obama is not really boldness but cautious tweaking and repair that is happening after too many years of outright neglect.

We need a greater reform effort, a real transformation, but we shouldn’t expect one the way our system works. It is as rigged as Hedges says.

Situational ethics

I’m not sure what to make of this response to Gov. Jon Corzine’s ethics reform package from a group calling itself GOP STRONG — a Passaic County conservative group. The organization issued a press release Monday that called for legislators and officials in the state’s counties to “reject Gov. Corzine’s new ethics proposals because they will further tilt the balance of power in New Jersey toward public unions and that will ultimately lead to higher taxes.”

“The reforms we need are more immediate reporting of contributions, an open and fair contract process and severe limits on donations by public employee unions – the unions that Corzine has been protecting since he got elected,” said Ramaglia. “Jon Corzine isn’t a governor; he’s union leader.”

Corzine’ plan proposes to limit donations and end wheeling the practice of a political organization in one county from donating to a political organization in another county. But Corzine proposes no limits on donations from public employee unions.

“Corzine’s plan will take money out of the political system from the private sector leaving public employee unions with a bigger say in the outcome of elections. That will be a disaster for the taxpayers,” says Robert Fass, a GOP Strong co chair and a business owner.

“The last thing New Jersey taxpayers need is for public employees to control politicians even more than they do now. The reason taxes are so high in this state isn’t because of pay to play from the private sector, it’s because of salaries benefits and ridiculous pensions given to the public employees that taxpayer are forced to pay for,” added Fass.

The group is oposed to the governor’s proposed ban on wheeling — a practice that allows money to be contributed to one candidate but moved to other candidates running for other offices — because it would make “it nearly impossible for party building because it would outlaw donations across party lines.”

The key to understanding the group, I think, is its harsh and constant rebuke of the state’s public employee unions — an obsession that seems to be its entire reason for existing. Consider this comment from the press release:

“Gov. Corzine’s plan is another sham designed to protect the public unions that are driving up the costs of property taxes in New Jersey,” says GOP Strong co-chair Mike Ramaglia.

Or this:

“The reforms we need are more immediate reporting of contributions, an open and
fair contract process and severe limits on donations by public employee unions –
the unions that Corzine has been protecting since he got elected,” said
Ramaglia. “Jon Corzine isn’t a governor; he’s union leader.”

Or this:

“Corzine’s plan will take money out of the political system from the private sector leaving public employee unions with a bigger say in the outcome of elections. That will be a disaster for the taxpayers,” says Robert Fass, a GOP Strong co chair and a business owner.

“The last thing New Jersey taxpayers need is for public employees to control politicians even more than they do now. The reason taxes are so high in this state isn’t because of pay to play from the private sector, it’s because of salaries benefits and ridiculous pensions given to the public employees that taxpayer are forced to pay for,” added Fass.

Apparently, the unions are more powerful than the business community, according to GOP STRONG — a thought so absurd it boggles the mind.

Corzine targets ethics

Gov. Jon Corzine finally maybe living up to the expectations I had for him when he ran for office in 2005.

A progressive-leaning U.S. senator, Corzine figured to be a breath of fresh air after the McGreevey administration and eight years of Whitman/DiFrancesco. But in his nearly three years in office, the governor has stumbled badly, giving in to too many of the political power brokers that have run this state for too long.

While his budgets have begun the difficult process of righting the fiscal ship, he punted on full-scale reform and opted to bet his political capital on a plan to privatize state assets — a move that has helped drive his approval ratings to the basement.

But maybe I’ve been too harsh. The governor unveiled an ethics package earlier this week that would do help clean up state and local governments.

The proposal includes, according to a press release from the governor’s office:
Reforms Through Executive Order
Pay to Play

  • Ban contributions by State redevelopers and their consultants
  • Tighten coverage of current ban on State-contractor contributions to include contributions by partners of professional service firms regardless of percentage of ownership
  • Address issue of evasion of current restrictions by extending current ban to include State-contractor contributions to legislative leadership committees and municipal committees

The above provisions would be codified in subsequent legislation

Ethics Enforcement

  • Appoint a task force to make recommendations on whether the Local Government Ethics Law should be amended to match the State Conflicts of Interest Law and whether enforcement responsibility should be shifted from the Local Finance Board to another entity focused solely on government ethics. Task force also would consider how to implement a training and compliance program for local ethics.

Financial Disclosure

  • Update financial disclosure executive order to address newly created boards and positions that should be subject to disclosure requirement

Reforms Requiring Legislation
Pay-to-Play
State government and authorities

  • Codify Executive Orders that strengthen State contractor ban and that create new ban on State redevelopers

County and municipal governments and authorities

  • Amend current law to remove “fair and open process” exception
  • Tighten coverage to include contributions by partners of professional service firms regardless of percentage of ownership
  • Ban contributions by county government or county authority contractors to municipal candidates and municipal committees in that county and ban contributions by municipal government or municipal authority contractors to county candidates and county committees in that county
  • Enhance compliance and enforcement by making State law apply uniformly across all local governments since with strengthened State law there is no need for the current mosaic of local ordinances
  • Ban contributions by county and local redevelopers and their consultants (modeled on State-level ban to be established by Executive Order)
  • Ban contributions by developers seeking development approvals

School Districts

  • Codify current Department of Education Accountability Regulations regarding pay-to-play (which cover contributions to school board candidates) and extend the ban to cover contributions by school district contractors to county candidates, county committees, municipal candidates, and municipal committees where the school district is located

Regional Utility Authorities

  • Extend contribution restrictions that apply to State contractors to contractors for legislatively created regional utility authorities

Auditors

  • Ban contributions by audit firms and partners to audit clients (as recommend in August 2008 Report of State Comptroller)

Wheeling

  • These reforms will help prevent party committees from being used to evade pay-to-play and regular campaign finance law limits on contributions. Except for certain restrictions on county committees, current law allows party committees to make unlimited contributions to candidates, other party committees, and PACs. Under these reforms, county-to-county contributions would be banned, as would contributions by county or municipal committees to municipal committees in other counties. Party committees would only be permitted to make unlimited contributions to candidates or constituent party committees within the intended sphere of influence of the party committee. In essence, unlimited contributions would be permitted to flow only downhill, not uphill or laterally. As to all other contributions, a party committee would be subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.

State Committees

  • Impose new annual limit of $25K on contributions by State committees to a legislative leadership committee
  • Impose new annual limit of $7,200 on contributions by State committees to a PAC

Legislative Leadership Committees (LLCs)

  • Impose new annual limits on contributions by LLCs to a State committee ($25K), another LLC ($25K), a county committee ($25K), a municipal committee ($7,200), a county or municipal candidate ($8,200), and a PAC ($7,200)

County Committees

  • Impose new annual limit of $25K on contributions by a county committee to a State committee or a LLC
  • Extend current ban on contributions by a county committee to another county committee, which runs from Jan. 1 to June 30, to cover the entire year, and ban contributions to municipal committees in other counties.
  • Impose new annual limit of $7,200 on contributions by a county committee to a PAC

Municipal Committees

  • Impose new annual limit of $8,200 on contributions by a municipal committee to a candidate in another municipality
  • Ban contributions from a municipal committee to another municipal committee in another county and impose new annual limit of $7,200 on contributions by a municipal committee to another municipal committee in the same county
  • Ban contributions by a municipal committee to a county committee in another county and impose new annual limit of $25K on contributions by a municipal committee to its own county committee, the State committee, or an LLC and $7,200 on contributions to a PAC

Campaign Finance
Lower Contribution Limits

  • Lower current annual limit on contributions to a county committee from $37K to $25K.

527s and Similar Groups

  • Require greater disclosure for ads broadcast within certain period prior to election

Contracting Reform

  • Codify Executive Order No. 37 (2006) (independent State authority procurement and governance reforms) and provide for Governor’s veto power over minutes of the few authorities where the power does not now exist (North Jersey District Water Supply Commission and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission)
  • Amend Local Public Contracts Law, Local Public School Contracts Law, and County College Contracts Law to require “fair and open process” as a minimum process for all awards of professional service contracts
  • Amend Local Public Contracts Law, Local Public School Contracts Law, and County College Contracts Law to require “competitive contracting” for insurance contracts
  • Reform local auditing rotation and selection practices to enhance independence of auditors (to include recommendations from August 2008 Report of State Comptroller)
    • prohibit audit firms from providing other services to public entity audit clients during term of audit engagement
    • require rotation of auditors at least every 10 years, replace single-year auditing engagement with five-year engagement subject to termination for violation of professional standards or similar malfeasance, and require competitive selection process

Ethics Enforcement, Compliance, and Training

  • Amend current law to make State Ethics Commission an all-public-member body, as the Legislative Ethics Committee now is

Financial Disclosure

  • Strengthen legislative disclosure regarding sources of income

Other Reforms

  • Prohibit use of State grant funds for hiring lobbyists to lobby State government
  • Amend criminal statutes to add corruption offenses to the list of “predicate offenses” under the State’s RICO statute
  • Modernize enforcement of campaign finance reporting requirements by giving ELEC authority to establish a schedule of penalties for late filing of campaign finance reports and for other administrative violations of election laws (modeled on federal law)
  • Amend law regarding penalties for failure to file financial disclosures so that the per-diem fine would apply to employees but failure to file by unpaid board and commission members after appropriate reminder would trigger automatic removal from position rather than fine

    Al Doblin, of The Record, sums the effort up this way:

    Corzine deserves credit for moving forward on ethics reform. But his timing is a little off. Right now, New Jerseyans are concerned about the meltdown on Wall Street, not ethics reform in Trenton. Corzine’s critics will make the most of that.

    The good and bad of Corzine is he isn’t a natural politician. In the U.S. Senate, he advocated for important social issues, notably against the genocide in Darfur. Jersey politics, and many of its elected officials, are not focused on the big picture. It’s very local.

    The state’s political bosses may have little interest in fixing the national economy, getting our National Guard members home or universal health care. But they have strong views about construction contracts, filling jobs on utilities boards and making sure that political pork is delivered to their home turf.

    In Jersey, wheeling is not a round of Swiss; it is the Big Cheese making the rounds.

    It’s hard to predict how much of Corzine’s reform package will be codified into law, but reformers should celebrate. Fondue would be appropriate.

    Paying their way

    It has always struck me as a bit unfair that my local taxes had to pay for police services when several dozen rural communities were able to take advantage of the State Police without chipping in to offset the cost.

    Think about it. In South Brunswick, we pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $9 million to run our Police Department — about 18 percent of the total budget. If that service were passed along to the state and police spending was eliminated from the South Brunswick budget, the municipal tax rate would be slashed by as much as 20 cents — or about $380 for the owner of a house assessed at the township average of about $190,000.

    The key to understanding this issue comes down to this: South Brunswick taxpayers and Monroe taxpayers and Jamesburg taxpayers and Cranbury taxpayers and the 474 other towns in the state that have their own police departments are paying for a service that rural taxpayers are getting for free.

    Yes, I know that they pay state taxes, but so do I. And I know that most of us are subsidizing the big urban towns, but the big cities — thanks to a host of development policies pushed by the state and the feds — have eroding tax bases that make it nearly impossible to provide services without soaking their taxpayers.

    At one time, the provision of police to small rural towns made sense. Farming towns were considered less well off, but over the years, small farming towns have seen the value of their land skyrocket. At the same time, they’ve been given a pass on paying for police services.

    Paul Mulshine, in last Thursday’s Star-Ledger, comes to the small towns’ defense, calling the state’s decision to bill the towns a “war on small towns.” He quotes Republican Assemblywoman Marcia Karrow, who says that “the entire cost of rural State Police patrols, $12.5 million, could be funded with just 8 percent of the money sent by Corzine to six distressed cities. And those cities also get billions in property tax relief for their schools.”

    “There is all kind of urban aid in the state,” said Karrow. “The State Police is the one small example of something we could call rural aid.”

    Distressed is the key word, for me. The state has a responsibility to its citizens, especially those in distressed areas. The state’s cities certainly qualify and need help. Some smaller towns and working-class boroughs — like Manville and Jamesburg, for instance — deserve help, too.

    But if towns that have the cash should pay their way.

    That’s the argument that The Asbury Park Press makes today, in an editorial that criticizes a plan by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, to assess a “$40-per-summons surcharge on all motor vehicle violations to be used to underwrite State Police patrols in 89 towns that previously had received the service for free.”

    The Press correctly calls the Drew plan “a wrong-headed response to the problem” of “small towns, mostly rural, being allowed to avail themselves of a service without having to pay the full cost.” Their suggestion:

    (T)he towns should be given a reasonable period of time — two to three years — to either wean themselves off State Police coverage or pay 100 percent of its cost.

    Options for the towns would include creating their own police force, contracting with an adjacent police department for coverage or working with other small towns to create a regional police department.

    I would add that towns that can show a real financial hardship — and by that I do not mean just an increase in property taxes, but tax bills that are disproportionate to the income levels of residents — should have access to aid.

    To allow the status quo to continue as it is just isn’t fair to the majority of the state’s taxpayers.

    The budget dance continues

    The Assembly Budget Committee has released the newly revised state budget — a spending plan negotiated between the leadership of the two houses of the state Legislature and the governor — but the state Senate panel is not ready to move.

    So the dance continues.

    It remains likely that a budget will be approved before the July 1 deadline, averting a reprise of the 2006 state government shutdown, but not without some serious battles occurring.

    The budget is a mixed bag. While some of the aid to New Jersey hospitals has been restored, money for Muhlenberg in Union County has not and the medical center could still close.

    Tax rebates have been cut for higher-income New Jerseyans, as well, and there remains no agreement on how to finance aid for school construction.

    So the dance continues.

    The dance, of course, and the difficulty of crafting a spending plan that is fair to everyone in the state demonstrates how badly off the tracks the state’s fiscal reform effort has gone. After the 2006 state shutdown, the governor ordered a special joint session of the Legislature that was supposed to craft a plan to alter the way government works and rebuild state finances that were teetering on a cracked and disintegrating fiscal foundation.

    Some of the early proposals were amazingly far-reaching — a base-closing-style commission that would look at municipal consolidation and shared services and recommend mergers to the Legislature and governor, who would then have final say; a state comptroller with extensive powers to investigate state and local finances; changes in school financing and administration — but in the end most were either watered down or abandoned.

    Other proposals — the governor’s highly questionable plan to leverage Turnpike and Parkway tolls to pay down the state debt — also ran ashore.

    So we stand in the same spot as we did two years ago, the poisonous and partisan culture in Trenton making it impossible for the vast majority of the 120 members of the state Legislature to see beyond their own narrow constituencies and the status quo and make the kind of changes that truly could be called reform.

    We remain wedded to the outmoded property tax system, convinced that rebates are the only way to lighten the tax burden on homeowners. We refuse to consider an expansion of the state income and corporate taxes or significant revenue sharing as a way to reduce the burden on property taxpayers (raise more from income taxes to pay for education, a state responsibility under the state constitution).

    We remain stuck with 566 municipalities in a state of 8 million people, stuck with 611 school districts and another 200 or so taxing districts (county governments, fire districts, etc.) that do little more than create administrative redundancies while doing everything they can to protect their own little fiefdoms.

    I’m not arguing that bigger is better — just look at the mess that the cities of Trenton and Newark have become over the years — and it can be legitimately argued that some small towns have the resources and land mass to manage on their own (Cranbury comes to mind).

    But towns like Jamesburg, Helmetta and Spotswood, many in Bergen County and along the Jersey Shore, and dozens of others (the two Princetons, the Hopewells and Pennington come to mind) should be looked at seriously to see if merging them either with each other or with another neighbor (Jamesburg into Monroe, for instance, or Hightstown into East Windsor) might result in tax savings, better or expanded services or both. There are 70 municipal governments in Bergen County — an absurd number given the physical size of the county and its population.

    We continue to allow legislators to skirt constitutional rules designed to limit their ability to borrow money, which were designed to ensure that borrowing was used only for legitimate longterm expenses (infrastructure improvements, for instance) and not to balance the books.

    And we continue to put off our pension and health care obligations waiting for that time bomb to explode.

    By we I mean not just the state Legislature and governor but municipal and county officials, school administrators, taxpayers, voters — everyone seeking to protect their own small piece of turf at the expense of the larger public good.

    I could continue, but why bother. No one seems to be listening anyway.