I found out the ordinance that established the P2P law (Ord.08-128),contain a section (11) that requires indexing.

There is an public ad that increases the pay to play threshold to political candidates. It is on page 24 in the JJ, 4/1/14. It would have been nice to have a conversation on this before the public ad.

Quote:

Why would he do that now that Healy and friends have been vanquished and Fulop is going to need those developer's love should he decide to run for a higher office? There's principal and there's political reality. Sometime's a girl has to choose between a guy she's passionate about who isn't going places and a guy who can take her to places she wants to go.

why doesn't the new administration and council bring back and adopt their versions/efforts at expansion of both contracting and redevelopment p2p reforms?

the author now works for the Legal Department. the school board adopted even tougher / stricter p2p reform policies last fall.


Quote:

Pink hit the nail. An immature dialogue here.

Pinky is correct

Isn't this exactly what you ALL teach your kids NOT to do?. In the interest of productive dialogue, please quit the personal attacks.

Yes, I understand about calling out bullshit, severability and all. I can definitely appreciate that.

I actually worked with Harry Pozcyki and Citizen's Campaign back on this stuff years ago, around the time Cunningham was mayor. No I haven't been directly involved on it in recent years, my involvement on other issues has been a priority but I do keep abreast of developments. I call out bullshit, which is what I've seen here, a bit from both sides but with vitriol clearly spewing from one.

I get that you use the terms broadly, but when you are a lawyer dealing with these laws they have specific connotations. Using the broad terms to refer to something as being illegal or perceived as shady if not illegal is a way of misrepresenting the situation to the public for a political purpose.

Dan is saying that campaign finance laws are being circumvented and then not saying anything about which laws. In the good government community, NJ Appleseed, ACLU (yes was lucky enough to be at the National HQ when campaign finance was all the buzz), refer to the public funding of campaigns as campaign finance laws. They refer to the giving of redevelopment privileges or city contracts to those donating to a elected official or candidate as Pay to Play. The suggestion that a candidate giving to another candidate as pay to play makes no sense and to try and restrict that would have first amendment issues.

I get that you like to play the devils advocate, but when you are standing for a good government guy, being as clear and specific as possible is a good policy. I say this believing it applies to everyone, Fulop, Levin, all of the activists.

Nice try in trying to make me out to be campaigning and trying to smear someone on behalf of another. I did not see you at the table or helping to reform pay to play, you've jumped in to defend a friend. How admirable of you, but clearly you speak in broad strokes with no specifics and I'm sorry you feel smearing someone is calling them out on their misrepresentations. I'm sorry you feel it is alright to say, hey how about the severability clause when it's already in there. It shows you have no desire to actually find out the facts, just to attack an ordinance to help out a friend who is misleading the public.

Fact is that you and Levin don't like that I've been involved and I talk on a regular basis with Heather of Citizen's Campaign and Diana Jeffrey of NJ Appleseed to make sure I actually have my fact straight. Doing pro bono work and being good friends with the candidate does not make you a more independent and reliable source of information than someone that has worked for the ACLU and actually been in on the talks and crafting of the legislation that passed.

While I'm not really a part of Steven Fulop's campaign, I do work very very closely (just as closely as when I was a paid aide) with Steven Fulop. I'm glad to have a responsive elected official that supports me in my efforts to fix the downtown flooding situation and help craft legislation that will make the City a better place. The municipal code is a horrible mess that often contradicts itself. I was an activist before I met Steve and I am an activist still just as much as Dan. My criticism is of his statements and yes sometimes his character for making those statements.

Sorry that pisses you off so much that I might actually have credibility. I will continue to question anyone that tries to bullshit the public be that Levin or Fulop.

Start reading the actual legislation and working with the good government groups and then lets's talk about the legislation and it's flaws. No one is stopping you from being a part of the process.

Campaign finance refers not just to public funding but to any regulation of the campaign finance system. "Campaign finance reform" is the term used to describe McCain Feingold, etc.

My interest in this goes back to law school, having had the privilege and honor to participate in the first ever seminar class of the Brennan Center for Justice, where the issues of campaign finance and ballot access were the subjects of study, and which led me to do some pro bono work for the Brennan Center on that and other issues after I graduated. Not as someone who takes it up on behalf of their former boss as a campaign tool to smear someone running off ticket.

Dan,

Um, please let your audience know where the circumventing "pay to play" reform laws is happening? Campaign Finance is the term used for the public funding of campaigns. Since we don't have campaign finance in Jersey City I'm not really sure what laws to which you are referring.

I'm also not sure why when you post here or on the JCI I'm then supposed to email you privately to get answers? I'm pretty sure that if you can email me answers then you can also post them here in public since you/OneJC started and continue to post in this thread.

I have no issue with you running for Council person. It makes a lot of sense and anyone who puts themselves out there should be commended. I supported you for at-large whole-heartedly. I think of you as a very good person (not turned evil) and my basis for this actually goes back to some of the things I saw of your personal character back in 2006.

Yes there are penalties for violating P2P laws and they are being followed up on. You probably want to follow up on them as well since you are tied into this ticket and will inevitably be tied to any wrong doing. At the very least you should be reviewing the ELECs. This is what good government people do. They look at everyone.

You and Steve do not get along. You never have even if you claim to be cordial now. This is not something you can deny. You have often been scathing in your criticism of him not realizing the work you are putting down is that of other activists as well. You forget we have friends in common who will corroborate what I am saying.

I'm sorry you feel that I am dragging you through the mud and not allowed to question and enlighten people to the misinformation you put out there. I would think that when you post that you are making your views public. You are running for elected office, you deserve to have your statements scrutinized like anyone else.

I would understand if there was a difference in opinion or approach, but you label yourself as the good government guy whose principals have not been compromised by joining the Healy ticket. Yet, you defend the questionable stuff and misrepresent the passed ordinances in a way that the independent Dan wouldn't.

I have not seen you do much, but many of those I trust and respect that live in the Harsimus Cove/Hamilton Park area will vouch for much that you have done and done well. Many of them no longer support you now that you have joined the Healy ticket because it means you are bringing in votes for someone with a belief system and a way of doing business that is counter to what you say you represent.

I'm only speaking of the Pay to Play reform issues because it is one issue, that like the animal and flooding issues, in which I have been intimately involved. If Steven Fulop were making the comments that you are I would probably be twice as harsh.

The means to an end was not running for council, it was joining the Healy ticket and unfortunately I think you handed Fulop/Osbourne a win here because you would have made a much more formidable independent candidate. Now I often see you as being mute when it comes to the Healy stuff and misrepresenting the situation to suit Team Healy.

As for the severability clause... uuummmm it may be a little confusing because in the ordinances they only listed the parts that would be changed and then listed the sections that would be untouched, but the severability clauses weren't removed. Go ahead, check. You will not see the severability clauses struck out or both NJ Appleseed and Citizen's Campaign as well as Civic JC would have a lot to say about that. I know that this issue was very important to both you and Aaron Morrill. Why not check with campaign manager/corporation counsel on this? Why not raise this concern with your teammates if you thought it has been removed? Or why not call up Citizen's Campaign?

So again, it astounds me that you and Josh sound like you know what you are talking about yet don't bother to actually educate yourselves. Very troubling.

John T. -

if there is an effort to circumvent campaign finance rules it is wheeling. do you have a better name for it? it is hard, if not impossible to prove, just like enforcing the vetoed version of the ordinance.

btw, if you believe, either the existing contractor or redevelopment pay-to-play ordinance may have been violated by Hartz Mountain Industries, there are penalties in the ordinance.

Althea -

like most of the people attacking and dragging me through the mud, you have my email and certainly can get your answers directly if you so choose.

you are getting pretty far out there, why would Steve and I be enemies? I don't think we are. why do we have to be BFF? I can see where we deviate, and he is free to choose his candidates. and yes, while my first thought was that I would have been running with them/you, they locked in their Ward E candidate pretty early, at least March 2012 if not before.

Look, I don't have the wherewithal to be someone like SF, nor do I want to. I am a middle aged family guy with a great partner and two kids. I care about the place that I live and have been actively engaged for around 15 years.

And yes, running for council can be seen as a means to the end - if it means getting more great public spaces like the Grove PATH Plaza, realization of the Embankment and Reservoir as parks, safer streets for bicyclists and pedestrians, bike lanes on our streets, a safer place to live with stable taxes, and a place for exciting entertainment. I have worked for years towards these ends, so yes, I guess running and serving is a means to the end.

Josh-

thanks for what I would have said. regarding a severability clause, that is getting complex, and I believe most of the the council does not even understand what is currently being discussed.

Dan

201.364.1730
danlevin@onejerseycity.org

Josh
Your suggestion wasn't incorporated only because I think the lawyers that explored this never mentioned it. I would suspect there was a legal reason that is beyond me however I know that many many experts in the field have been a part of drafting this and being none recommended it I suppose there was a legal concern from their side - but I will follow up

Josh
To end the conspiracy theories that never seem to end....

1) nobody at b4k is maxed out so there is nothing to circumvent. They have been supporters of mine as well as Troy

2) Troy's support is very simple - he is a young elected official in the state who I have known for a long time. He is a friend and knows I am in a tough election so he wanted to help another young elected official in the state to which I am thankful.

It is amazing that people try to find some evil connection and when they looked and looked and looked they couldn't find anything... Amazing. Clearly nothing to do with wheeling.

One other option which hasn't been talked about is to pass a combined ordinance with severability provisions in case some of the more stringent restrictions are declared unconstitutional.

For some reason neither side proposed that. I wonder why.

Wheeling can go beyond government contracts and pay to play. It can be used to circumvent other campaign finance regulations (such as aggregate limits), or simply to conceal that a specific donor is tied to a candidate.

The appearance of impropriety with Singleton's donation and whether this constitutes a form of wheeling has to do with the fact that Singleton was one of the B4K "chosen." I do not know if B4K has maxed out its contributions to the Fulop team yet.

But a reasonable person would ask why a Burlington County assemblyman, who seems like a decent guy, all of a sudden takes an interest in the Jersey City mayoral race.

I assume it's not illegal unless you could show that B4K has maxed out it's donations. But given the controversy surrounding the B4K money spigot, it is legitimate to ask what prompted the donations from Singleton.

"Wheeling allows deep-pocketed donors ? developers, engineers and other professionals who feed off lucrative government contracts ? to ignore a canon of law aimed at curtailing New Jersey's notorious "pay to play" culture."

Dan is either ignorant or trying to purposefully mislead readers into think there is something corrupt when there is not. Not exactly a trait you want in a public official or community leader.

Wheeling is when person X wants a contract with the city and is willing to "pay to play", but is unable to give directly to Mayor K due to P2P reform laws. So instead he gives to Mayor K's good friend State Assemblyman W's campaign or to dummy PAC "We are good government" which then "wheels" the contractor money right back into Mayor K's campaign fund.

Um, Dan - that's not wheeling. Do you know what it is? And when you say "Jersey City already has a Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform Ordinance in place that appears to be working" does that ignore the $750 your running mate took from Hartz Mountain Industries last quarter?

Quote:

Quote:

I'm troubled by Dan's accusation that this donation was "wheeling." I'm not aware of any evidence that the source of Singleton's donation was a contribution from someone who otherwise would have been forbidden from donating to the Fulop campaign.

Unless there's some evidence, Dan is making a reckless accusation.

Would any of the P2P proposals outright forbid any politician from contributing to any other politician? I don't think so. My understanding is that wheeling must be when a forbidden donor makes the donation to a third party who turns right around and gives it to the candidate.

Political mysteries: Was there a second gunman? Did Rosemary Woods actually erase the tape accidentally? Who forgot to put the override of Healy's latest play-to-play veto on the Council's agenda?

Quote:

Pay to play reform is working? What a laugh.

Tell that to Leona Beldini and all of Healy's other pals who are currently sitting in jail. It is pretty clear that you have crossed a line and have crossed over to the dark side and are willing to engage in the slimy tactics of the Healy campaign.

There is a big difference between someone contributing to a campaign who has no business with the city and taking fat FedEx envelopes stuffed with cash from an obviously crooked developer (all caught on videotape no less)

But you obviously could care less since you have jumped into bed with the slimeballs and are now engaging in slime tactics.


Any respect you may have previously had = lost.

Dan--Could you explain to me exactly what is so wrong with the council's expansion of P2P that Healy was justified in vetoing it? I've only read about unspecified "legal problems."

To me it looks like he vetoed the ordinance simply to deny Fulop an accomplishment, just as the Republicans in Congress blocked even their own ideas as soon as Obama adopted them.

Jersey City already has a Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform Ordinance in place that appears to be working.

The recent efforts from both sides have been to include the Board of Education (both) and expansion (different).

The councilman's version would, perhaps, address this type of wheeling - http://www.politickernj.com/62545/sin ... s-jersey-city-mayors-race.

and the councilman could agree to a committee that includes himself, another council member AND Civic JC AND Citizens Campaign (AND attorney Diana Jeffrey) AND introduce ONE ordinance that makes everyone happy, instead of forcing his version through (with power comes responsibility, not doing something because you can).

how else can developers use taxpayers monies to further their personal developments and increase their profits - many developers see Mayors and Councillors as a cheap prostitutes to get what they want

Attempt to override veto of Jersey City pay-to-play ban is postponed

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal
January 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM

A Jersey City measure intended to override Mayor Jerramiah Healy?s veto of a Dec. 19 ?pay to play? ban was tabled at tonight?s City Council meeting.

Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop, who will face Healy in May?s mayoral election, intended for the nine-member council to vote tonight on the veto override. Fulop would need six affirmative votes to override Healy?s veto, one more vote than the measure received upon adoption.

But Fulop?s veto-override measure was not on the agenda for tonight?s meeting, and there appeared to be some resistance among some of Fulop?s foes on the body to adding it.

In the end, Fulop voluntarily asked to postpone a vote on the measure until the next council meeting, adding that it was ?suspicious? that it wasn?t on the council?s agenda.

?This was requested two weeks ago,? he said.

Vincent Signorelli, an assistant city attorney, told the council that the measure should indeed have been on the agenda for tonight?s meeting. City attorneys don't know why it wasn't included, Signorelli said.

The Dec. 19 measure, championed by Fulop, would have restricted city vendors that receive ?no bid? contracts from contributing more than $200 to candidates for council, school board and some state Senate and Assembly seats.

The ordinance was adopted 5-4, with Healy?s allies on the council voting against. Healy then vetoed the ordinance, saying the restrictions may not pass legal muster.

The council subsequently adopted a similar ordinance, restricting campaign contributions from redevelopers who do business with the city, that Healy also vetoed.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... o_of_je.html#incart_river

wait a second, who on the healy ticket is a good government person?

Yet all three good government groups Healy cites in his reason to veto the ordinances will tell you that the mayor never once reached out to get their opinion and they do in fact believe it can withstand a legal challenge.

The writing on the wall is clear especially when the legal counsel that is supposed to be equally representing the mayor and the Council members is running your re-election campaign and claims not to have an opinion on these ordinances (ie. not doing his job).

Very sad, apparently this is a town that does not punish elected officials for blatantly lying. Not even the good government people on their ticket will actually hold them accountable for lying and not doing their job.

shocker.