Quote:

and the committed is now running the asylum

Only in jersey city do you fail upwards.Carl was a lousy chief of staff so now to get rid of him they promote him to the head of a multi million dollar agency.

Why is this a record? Is this a high burn out position?

"Carl's tenure as chief of staff for two years and 10 months is probably a record in that position in Jersey City."

this issue was first discussed on a prior thread when he went over the heads of the Historic Commission - RENOVATION RESISTANCE

though I find the title of this discussion more appropriate.

now doing my best GrovePath, Carl Czaplicki is about to be appointed Jersey City's "development czar" ........


Healy's likely new role for Czaplicki: directing city's HEDC department

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Carl Czaplicki, Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy's chief of staff for nearly three years, is changing jobs.

Healy intends to appoint Czaplicki to be director of the city's Department of Housing, Economic, Development and Commerce, according to sources.

Through his spokeswoman, Jennifer Morrill, the mayor confirmed that Czaplicki's transfer is imminent.

"I do envision using Carl's skills and talents to benefit me and the city at either the HEDC or the (Jersey City) Redevelopment Agency in the near future," Healy said through his spokeswoman.

Asked why he was moving Czaplicki out of the chief of staff role, Healy said, "Carl's tenure as chief of staff for two years and 10 months is probably a record in that position in Jersey City.

"However, there was a vacancy made at HEDC when Barbara Netchert (the department's former director) left to become the new county clerk.

Since Netchert's appointment to the county clerk post in July, Jersey City Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Robert Antonicello has been HEDC's acting director. Dominick Pandolfo, the mayor's deputy chief of staff, is expected to be named to replace Czaplicki, sources said.

Pandolfo is "one of the many names that's been proposed as the next chief of staff," Healy said.

KEN THORBOURNE Healy's likely new role for Czaplicki: directing city's HEDC department

Quote:


Thanks !!!!

DTG

Quote:

There is a typo:
mayorhealy@jcnj.org not @jc.org

Quote:

Trouble scrolling past the colon?

The Mayor stated on record in the past that he does not read e-mail.

Also call:

Office of Constituent Services
Tel: (201)547-4900/5555



Quote:

Quote:



If you are disgusted by this shameless act e-mail him


MayorHealy@jc.org


Just like the Pay to Play Ordnance maybe we should visit the City Council and express our outrage!!!

Yes, the Healy Admin. has now slid below even our lowest expectations of it...Da Mayor REALLY should be asked to respond to this in public. Can you imagine another Big City major being allowed to get away with such cronyism? Unfortunately, it's just business as usual in JC. No wonder the ethics bar is so low for our knave civil servants...

From what I have read in the last 18 months living in Jersey City, (some of what I find hard to believe) the Council / City Hall would hate legislation similiar to this - I'm sure there must be a large number of disgruntled employees and victims of Council decisions that would be only too happy to 'expose' them with a monetary incentive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fraud whistleblowers could get cash rewards


Peter Walker and agencies
Thursday May 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Members of the public who inform on companies or individuals defrauding the government could get huge rewards under possible new laws outlined today.
The Home Office consultation paper on recovering more illegally-acquired assets also proposes other new measures making it easier to seize criminals' "bling", such as expensive jewellery and electrical goods like plasma screen televisions and laptop computers.

The paper describes a government aim to double the current amount of illicit assets seized every year to at least ?250m by 2009-10, a figure it calls a "staging post" towards an eventual annual target of ?1bn a year.

The most eye-catching new scheme is based on a US measure known as Qui Tam - the first words of a Latin phrase meaning "he who sues for the king as well as himself" - which allows anyone who becomes aware of a fraud to launch a legal claim on the government's behalf.
In successful cases, informants receive between 15% and 30% of seized assets.

The principle dates back to 1790 but has been far more widely used since a change to US law in 1986. Since then there have been more than 5,000 actions in which whistleblowers have received almost ?900m in awards, while recovering ?5.5bn for the state.

"It seems to have been successful in the US," said home office minister Vernon Coaker, introducing the consultation paper.

"We are asking is it applicable in this country, is it something that people would find acceptable and is there a workable model?"

The Home Office paper calls the US system "strikingly successful" but stresses that it comes from a "very different US historical, legal and cultural context", one currently alien to England and Wales, where it could be introduced.

The document, which is open to responses until November 23, also suggests a series of other changes to make it easier for criminals' assets to be taken from them.

One proposal would involve changing the law to allow police to seize high-value goods as soon as a suspect is charged and hold the items pending a trial, selling them in the event of a guilty verdict.

The paper also outlines the "radical option" of allowing the seizure of not only cash and cash substitutes but also so-called "lifestyle property" such as jewellery, plasma TVs and laptops to an equivalent sum

It notes: "While this would be a highly powerful tool against bad criminal role models, it would clearly increase the risk of human rights challenge."

The paper also proposes removing a current 12-year time limit applying to the Assets Recovery Agency's ability to confiscate property under civil recovery laws.

Earlier this year the ARA's former director, Jane Earl, admitted that the agency had been hampered by the time limit which meant it could not pursue some of its key targets.

The ARA was set up in 2003 and given powers to confiscate assets from crooks, even if they had not been convicted of a crime. If a criminal confiscation or civil recovery proved impossible, officials could land the law-breakers with a tax bill.

The agency was described as a "mess" earlier this year after the National Audit Office said it had cost ?65m to run but had seized only ?23m from crooks.

However, the agency's new annual report, published today, revealed that for the first time it had seized more money than it cost to run it in the past 12 months, ?15.9m against ?15.5m.

You can write the city's Ethics Board and request that they investigate the situation.

Jersey City Ethical Standards Board
c/o Robert Byrne, RMC
Office of the City Clerk
280 Grove Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302

Quote:

Their just the ones that got caught.Imagine what slips threw the cracks.

They both should be removed from having any postion in government. What scumbags.

What a f**king joke. The guy uses his position and bribes a planning board member who then gets the commission of the property she sold and voted for.

This ranks right up there with the Equipado scandal.

Do these people even think before they pull crap like this, or do they know exactly what they are doing is wrong and just don't give a sh*t?

What happen to that ethical committee to oversee crap like this not happening, and are any of the players in this crap on it?

Also, wasn't Healy's secretary upto some real estate crap as well?

Jarrett Renshaw's Jersey Journal Column
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy's chief of staff, Carl Czaplicki, went before the city's Historic Commission in November and pleaded for approval of his plans to renovate and expand his Second Street home.

Among other things, he said the changes were urgent and necessary because his wife was pregnant and he wanted to begin construction as soon as possible in order to prepare the home for raising a family.

The Historic Commission took a pass on the plans, and Czaplicki then took a pass on the Historic Commission. Instead of going back with new plans for approval, he sidestepped the commission and took the plans directly to the Planning Bard, where he received a much more favorable outcome.

The snub of the Historic Commission grabbed headlines after several local officials - both publicly and privately - questioned Czaplicki's decision, saying that as the mayor's right-hand man he should have been more willing to follow procedure.

However, Czaplicki said at the time that he didn't have the time or the patience to bring the plans back to the commission, citing his family's urgent need to get into the house.

Well, just this month, Czaplicki sold the house for $785,000, thanks in part to the Planning Board's favorable decision. So what about all those dreams of moving his family back into the house?

Czaplicki refused to provide details of the sale, or much of anything else, referring all questions to his wife. The bout of selective amnesia - or cowardice - was particularly odd given his willingness to talk about the property six months ago.

For the record, I decided against calling his wife.

One of the players in the sale was Roseanna Petruzzelli, a Planning Board member who gave a thumbs-up on the plans just months earlier. A realty agent, she represented the buyer in the transaction and says the property was listed with her company months after the Planning Board decision.

"I am very careful about these things, and I was not involved in the property when it came before the Planning Board," Petruzzelli said.

And now it appears that Czaplicki might have not been straight with the Historic Commission, the Planning Board, or the public when he sought the approvals.

Real estate records show he had been trying to sell the property since at least 2005, but it wasn't until he got the planning approval, which included increased density, that he was successful.

An advertisement for the house read, "Excellent opportunity for an investor. Plans and approvals have been granted to allow this property to be converted to a three-unit condo. All you have to do is pull the permits and start construction."

The contrast between his public comments and his private actions is troubling, and shows his willingness to say whatever is necessary to get the public out of his way. Such spin is unacceptable, especially for a public figure.

Perhaps it's time we lower the bar on our expectations of local public officials. That way they can easily rise above it, instead of trying to find ways around it.

This property remains unrenovated and has a For Sale sign on it, of course, now with favorable zoning changes.

I understand Alan's point, but zoning variances, approvals and upzoning should be property owner / developer neutral and based on the merits of the plan or project, not whether the current owner is a good neighbor, nice guy,or a longstanding member of the community etc.

Quote:

As distasteful as the appearance of a high-ranking government official seeming to get preferential treatment is, you make a good point as to why the process should allow for overrulings. The Historic Preservation Commission is concerned only with appearances and what appears to be slavish re-creation of the past, with no "real life" considerations or value of the, in this case, historic residents.

I own a house that abuts Carl's. It is a small, shallow building that faces the Women's Shelter, Hope House, on 2nd Street. I am not happy with the process being bypassed, but he should have been given priority service and cooperation for his willingness to renovate his family home (he is at least the third generation to live there, I used to talk to his grandmother thru our shared backyard fence). I can't imagine anyone buying that house as long as the shelter remains open, so let's give the guy some credit for his willingness to invest and raise his family there.

Unfortunately in both cities, developers can and do make campaign contributions to the very elected officials that approve and upzone their projects and tax agreements, worse the elected officials accept these "legal" bribes, fail to recuse themselves from discussions and votes and then try to say they are acting in the public interest.....

These development decisions involve irrevocable upzoning and billions of dollars in development.

Lets not just yell and scream about the small transgressions, but realize that there are major issues that anyone serious about reform must get behind.

Quote:
Classy, as always. When's the next election?

In Mr. Healy's neighborhood developers and his Chief of Staff dont have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. This is very different than in Mr. Roger's neighborhood where everyone is the same.

RENOVATION RESISTANCE
Monday, November 13, 2006
By JARRETT RENSHAW
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Historic Commission is overruled

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy's top policy adviser received a thumbs down from the city's Historic Preservation Commission for plans to renovate and expand a townhome he owns in Harsimus Cove.

But eight days later, Chief of Staff Carl Czaplicki received a much different response from the city's Planning Board - unanimous approval.

Czaplicki wants to restore the front facade of his Second Street property and build a four-story addition in the rear of the home.

The Preservation Commission on Oct. 16 denied the proposal, saying it threatened to ruin the character of the building. Board members also said they were concerned the proposed plans were not a compatible use of the building, according to city documents.

"I tried for a year to work with the staff of the Historic Commission, but in the end they were offering me their opinion on what my house should look like and not dealing with things that were within their power," said Czaplicki, who added that many people share their frustration with the commission.

Stephen Gucciardo, the Preservation Commission chairman, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

However, in actions in historic districts that also require Planning Board approval, the Preservation Commission only acts as an advisory board, Planning Board Chairman Mike Ryan said. The Planning Board has the final say.

"Our staff recommended approval, and, in the end, the Historic Preservation Commission only provides an opinion," Ryan said.

Ryan added that Dan Wrieden, the Preservation Commission liaison to the Planning Board, told him all of the Preservation Commission's concerns were addressed in the final plans.

Czaplicki says he didn't have time to go back before the Preservation Commission with the final plans.

"If I waited to go back to the (Historic Commission) in order to get their recommendation, it would have been January until I got in front of the Planning Board, and I and my family could not wait that long," Czaplicki said.

Ryan said Czaplicki didn't receive any "special treatment," but not everyone agrees.

Downtown Councilman Steve Fulop said other residents would have worked with the Preservation Commission or would have been rejected by the Planning Board.

"I think it's a tale of two cities, one set of rules for residents and another set of rules for the mayor's office," Fulop said. "When it's convenient for the administration, they hide behind the Historic Commission, but when it's about personal gains, they claim they are just following the rules," Fulop said.

Healy's response: "Steve is entitled to his opinion, but as always, I disagree with Steve."