This is the time of the political season for Trenton’s May elections when some candidates feel they have to present their Big Ideas, their Vision Thing for Trenton’s future. The week before last, we read Deputy County Clerk Walker Worthy’s “Plan for Jobs and Economy;” we were not impressed. The Big Idea for Trenton’s economic re-building as proposed by Mr. Worthy was development of the City’s waterfront area, including a Casino. The benefit of a Big Idea like a Casino is that it is an easily understood proposal, able to be summarized quickly and succinctly. The devil, of course, is in the details, few of which were forthcoming from Mr. Worthy.
At the end of last week, Jim Golden released a summary of his plan, which I am looking forward to discussing. But before that, Paul Perez released a proposal that is getting some attention this morning, and which I think counts as his own Big Idea. And that makes it worth a look.
According to an article by Davis Foster in this morning’s Trentonian, “Paul Perez wants everyone in the city connected. The mayoral candidate revealed plans to create a citywide, ultra-high-speed broadband internet network to spark economic development.”
The plan, dubbed with its very own acronym TBS, for Trenton Broadband Initiative, is “to deliver speeds of 1Gbps and higher to attract IT startups, investors and businesses, in addition to providing Wi-Fi to schools, colleges and the residents at affordable prices. ‘Through a public-private partnership we can develop an affordable broadband network and create the conditions for schools, colleges, businesses and even the state offices to have a reliable and resilient IT infrastructure, ‘ Perez stated. The mayoral candidate said cities such as Chattanooga, Tenn., Provo, Utah, Kansas City, Miss. and Austin, Texas are already developing the networks.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
This proposal is certainly ambitious, and even audacious in Mr. Perez’s suggestion that a Trenton Initiative could provide broadband access to New Jersey state offices.
Ambitious and audacious may attract headlines, and perhaps sway votes, but how realistic is this plan? Looking at the municipal examples that Mr. Perez himself cited as leading the way, I have to answer, “Probably not very realistic at all.”
According to an op-ed written last August in the Baltimore Sun by Maryland State Senator Catherine Pugh, “Taxpayers in Provo, Utah, for instance, spent $40 million to build a relatively small and modest network only to sell it for $1 a few years later because they underestimated the massive costs of operating, upgrading and maintaining it.” The new owner of the Provo system, Google Fiber (more about them below) according to Senator Pugh will need to invest another $20 Million into the system – which we are told is barely ten years old – before it is considered “fully operational.”
Yikes! So Provo’s experience really does not recommend the idea very favorably to Trenton. Let’s move on.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, is the location of a municipal broadband system serving 56,000 customers according to the Wall Street Journal, and offering speeds of 1 Gigabit.
But Chattanooga’s system was helped along by several crucial facts. For one, the city-wide Internet broadband was an outgrowth of a plan by the city-owned electric utility to improve the reliability of its electrical grid. With an electrical infrastructure already reaching into every home, school and business in the Chattanooga region, this gave the City a headstart.
Trenton does not own an electrical utility. It does own the Trenton Water Works. A water utility, even one that has struggled to provide dependable basic water service to its customers, is not suited to add on this kind of added functionality.
Chattanooga funded its municipal system in part by $111 Million in Federal Stimulus dollars, and a $220 Million Taxpayer-approved bond. That is One-Third of a Billion Dollars to construct a system for a metropolitan area with about twice Trenton’s population. Using a similar yardstick to estimate the cost for Trenton, one comes up with a number of at least $160 Million.
In her Baltimore Sun op-ed, Senator Pugh tells us “To pay-down these massive costs and to break even year-to-year, municipal networks need to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of customers… [Chattanooga signed] up just 34 customers (eight residential!) to its $350 per month 1 Gbps offering. Chattanooga residents saw little use for a 1 Gbps connection, particularly at such a premium cost.”
Has Mr. Perez run the numbers for Trenton?
Did he even look very closely at the experiences of the other cities he cited?
In today’s Trentonian article, Mr. Perez does talk about utilizing a “public private partnership” to embark upon a program such as he is proposing. In that, he may be thinking about the examples of the other two cities he mentioned.
Kansas City (the one in Kansas & across the river in Missouri, NOT Mississippi as the Trentonian reports!) and Austin, Texas are cities that are being upgraded to advanced broadband services by working with a division of Google, Google Fiber. In Kansas City, the “private” part of the partnership is estimated as costing Google about $1 Billion to build out its system.
This kind of investment from a company such as Google is just the kind of commitment Trenton would love to see.
However, this private investment requires a lot n return. For its part in the project, Kansas City is providing several in-kind items and services: “Free office space, free power for Google equipment, and use of ‘all assets and infrastructure’ in both Kansas Cities… including fiber, buildings, land, and computer tools for nada. And to sweeten the deal more, both cities are giving Google a team of government employees dedicated to the project. ”
Would Mr. Perez be willing to offer this kind of investment from Trenton? He didn’t say in his talk with the Trentonian. He should be asked if that is his intention. Trenton’s recent record of public investment in private enterprises (Hello, Lafayette Yard!) is not exactly a good one, you know!
Austin, Texas is the other big metro area seeking to upgrade its municipal infrastructure with Google Fiber, but that is an effort running into a lot of difficulty, not least of which is that Google’s plans for Austin would require it to have access to the city’s existing utility poles. 80 percent of those are owned by the City, but 20% are owned by competitor AT&T, which is not exactly pleased by Google’s entry into their market. AT&T is challenging Google’s ability to build out its system, claiming that Google is not qualified as a Telecoms services provider by either Texas or Federal regulators.
In Trenton, a similar attempt by a Perez Administration to bring in a company such as Google into a “public private partnership” would likely run into similar objections by the companies that are now here, namely Comcast and Verizon. Not that that should be an obstacle in itself. The prospect of competition in one of its markets might encourage Comcast and/or Verizon to make improvements to its service and pricing. This is certainly something Trentonians would benefit from.
But that hasn’t happened yet. A survey of the industry on Wired.com written last year reviewed developments nationwide including expansion plans by corporations such as Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, as well as the public private partnerships towns such as the ones discussed above along with Google Fiber, and found problems with the timely rollout of our Big Connected Future
Mr. Perez is correct that the future competitiveness of Trenton as a community that can attract investment by businesses and families depends on an improved infrastructure. I can’t blame him for thinking big by proposing that Trenton move into the 21st Century and provide a first rate information infrastructure.
But his proposal as presented this morning is a poor one. Trenton has a long way to go to repair and upgrade too much of its brick-and-mortar infrastructure before we can hope to compete with a fiber optic one.
His proposal today is poorly thought-out. He provides no details on what a “public private partnership” of this sort may look like.
There is no estimate offered on what the “public” investment (taxpayer funds) required by Trenton might be, and what the return on that investment might be.
The other cities he cited as examples to follow in fact offer caution and warnings, clearly not what he intended.
His proposal is certainly a Big Idea, intended to distinguish himself from the rest of the mayoral field, and attract voters looking for a candidate with Vision.
Sadly, Mr. Perez’s vision of the “Trenton Broadband Initiative” is no more serious and practical than Mr. Worthy’s waterfront Casino.
The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) last week filed a complaint against Hoboken Council Member Beth Mason, alleging several violations of the state’s campaign laws dating back to her 2011 election campaign. That complaint, and the nature of the charges, should be of concern to current Trenton Mayoral candidate Eric Jackson and his campaign.
It’s also a matter that should be of concern to Trenton voters who are being asked to vote for Mr. Jackson based on a presentation of the candidate as being the most professional, the most ethical, honest and transparent of the eight candidates running. The conduct of his election efforts in both 2010 and this year – at least in regard to their observance of state campaign finance laws, suggests far less than conscientious compliance.
The State ELEC filed a complaint against Ms. Mason and her husband (who was her 2011 campaign treasurer), charging the council member with six counts of late and incomplete reporting, all in connection with her 2011 council campaign. According to the Hudson Reporter, “In all, ELEC alleged that Mason’s campaign failed to report a total of $126,199 on time, with the information submitted anywhere between 98 and 276 days late. The amounts should have been reported on reports that were due beginning in October 2011 and April 2012, but were not revealed first until July 2012.”
According to the account in PolitickerNJ.com, the Councilwoman and her treasurer husband have the option of contesting the charges at a hearing, or they can accept the the determination of the Commission and likely end up paying fines. Although not spelled out in either of these articles, the amounts of such fines can easily total thousands of dollars. Last year, for instance, the political action committee for Union City Mayor and State Senator Brian Stack was fined $68,725 by ELEC for late campaign filings dating from 2003 to 2005.
That’s some serious money, for serious campaign finance violations.
So, what’s the connection with Eric Jackson?
Jackson’s current 2014 campaign has been in the news over the last few weeks for a few campaign-finance related irregularities. One involves an alleged violation of Trenton’s Pay-to-Play Ordinance by a current contractor with the City of Trenton. The second concerns the failure to properl;y account for and disclose the identities of the donors of nearly $2000 in cash donations given to the Jackson campaign in December of 2013. These two instances cover only the ongoing 2014 mayoral effort by Mr. Jackson.
Where Eric Jackson shares some exposure to charges by ELEC, similar to Beth Mason in Hoboken, is from his prior mayoral campaign, in 2010. Beth Mason is facing charges from filing several of her reports very late . Eric Jackson’s prior campaign failed to even file many of his required reports.
In connection with his 2010 campaign, Mr. Jackson filed 4 reports with ELEC. As required, he submitted both a “29-Day Pre-Election report” and an “11-Day Pre-Election report” prior to the May 11, 2010 election, which detailed all of his donations and expenses up to the point at which the reports were submitted. As of his latest report, the “11-Day Pre-Election report” filed on 4/30/2010, Mr. Jackson had raised a total of $45,371 for his campaign, and had spent only $16,517.
And there the story ends. No further reports were ever filed by Mr. Jackson for his 2010 campaign.
He failed to file a required “20-Day Post-Election report” itemizing all of the income and expenses from his campaign as he incurred them before and after Election Day.
He failed to file Quarterly Financial Reports for the periods ending March 30 and June 30, 2010.
He failed to file any “48-hour” notices of expenses or donations in amounts exceeding $1400, as he would have been required to. Now it is possible that his campaign may not have had any donations or expenses that exceeded those amounts; but given how busy his campaign got toward Election Day, and immediately after when he contested his very tight 3rd-place finish alongside Manuel Segura, that is somewhat unlikely.
And, perhaps most importantly, Mr. Jackson failed to file any reports to formally close out his campaign committee after it had ended the 2010 campaign.
By law, any unspent balance in his campaign accounts would have either had to have been transferred to his 2014 campaign, or returned to donors. If he never formally closed his 2010 account, he would have been liable to file financial status reports at the end of every quarter from 2010 up until now.
Mr. Jackson’ s campaign filed no reports from April 30, 2010 until July 15, 2013, over three years later. That July report, which can be viewed here, is the first for his 2014 campaign, and begins all balances for his new campaign from zero.
According to his last report filed, Mr. Jackson had a balance of $23,770.94 in his account. He has never filed a report, as required by law, to disclose what he did with that money after the 2010 election was over. As far as NJ ELEC and state campaign finance law is concerned, the fate of that $23,770.94 – plus any additional 2010 campaign donations and expenses since April 30, 2010 – is unknown and way overdue to be reported.
Back to Beth Mason. According to the article in PolitickerNJ, she has been formally charged with violations and is now subject to fines for reports that were late by 276 days, 276 days, 184 days, 184 days, 98 days and 98 days.
How late are Mr. Jackson’s reports? One of them, the report for expenses through and including the quarter ending June 30 was due on July 15, 2010. That was 1,334 days ago. Many of his other reports are even more overdue.
Will Mr. Jackson be held liable by ELEC for any of this? I don’t know. But given the examples cited above, Councilwoman Mason and Senator/Mayor Stack, he certainly is vulnerable. And his campaign could be exposed to pay significant penalties and fines, should he be charged.
To me, though, these disclosures are relevant and important for several other reasons.
In reaction to press reports about the pay-to-play violation and the mis-reported cash donations, both the Jackson campaign and the candidate himself have seemed pretty dismissive of the problems. As quoted by the Trenton Times, Jackson attorney David Minchello denied any violation of ELEC law. “There definitely hasn’t been any violation of the ELEC law,” he said, ”but we will make sure that the cash contributions are reported with names as required by law.”
Mr. Minchello’s denial of an ELEC violation is kind of undercut by what he said after “but:” We didn’t violate the law, but we will make sure we will follow it in the future! Hmmm.
Mr. Jackson himself sounded rather dismissive of the problems in his current campaign reporting. According to the Trenton Times, “Although he has to sign the reports before they are submitted, Jackson said he is not solely responsible for any inconsistencies. ‘I don’t see every check that is coming in,’ he said.”
He sounds somewhat less of the hands-on, dedicated professional manager who is the best qualified to bring ethics back to Trenton that his campaign is making him out to be, doesn’t he?
Mr. Minchello and Mr. Jackson could possibly afford to take this kind of position, as long as the conversation was just about one or two minor violations and discrepancies in his current campaign, isolated instances in an otherwise well-run campaign.
But, when viewed in the context of several omissions, oversights and violations conducted by not one but two of his mayoral campaigns four years apart, these isolated instances begin to look more like a pattern of repeated behavior, doesn’t it?
Eric Jackson failed to properly report on, disclose and close out his 2010 mayoral campaign. He has already admitted to violations in campaign record-keeping and reporting in his current one. He admits as well to a certain distance from day to day operations – “I don’t see every check that is coming in” – in a campaign for which he is ultimately responsible.
Does this suggest to you that, as far as observing campaign finance law is concerned, Eric Jackson may be a little less than dedicated? Does he and his campaign believe that there will likely be little chance of being held accountable by ELEC, or the voters, for his campaign reporting lapses?
Perhaps Hoboken’s Councilwoman Beth Mason felt the same. As of last week’s charges against her, I’m sure she feels differently now.
Should all this concern Trenton’s voters? I think it definitely should. Eric Jackson’s unfinished business from his 2010 campaign should certainly be relevant to voters in 2014 as they consider who to elect Mayor to repair Trenton after the past four disastrous years.
Last summer, I wrote a piece that discussed the continuing problems with timely ELEC compliance that several sitting Trenton City Council members were having. What I felt then, I still feel now, and I will finish today with a reprise from that piece.
Yesterday I discussed the poorly thought-out and argued “Plan for Jobs & Economy” released this week by Trenton mayoral candidate Walker Worthy as a central element of his campaign platform for the May election.
Altogether I find it very unconvincing, on several levels. Yesterday I selected only four of his points for any kind of discussion, and I found them all seriously wanting in terms of credibility, feasibility, and lacking estimates of potential benefits to Trenton and its citizens.
Although I could easily discuss some more of Mr. Worthy’s proposals, instead I would like to drill a little further into just one of his ideas. One of the main planks in his economic platform is “developing the city’s waterfront as a tourist draw, including a casino.”
As I wrote yesterday, I thought the proposal of a casino in Trenton sounded like a bad idea. I put my comments in the context of what I suggested may be a saturated market of too many Northeast casinos chasing what may be a limited number of gambling dollars. I also suggested that online gambling, legalized just last year in New Jersey for state residents, might further damage the prospects for a Trenton gaming establishment.
After some further thought and reading, I find that my notes yesterday were too focused on the business prospects of the casino, on the impact of a new entrant into an industry in which it would be hard-pressed to compete.
On reflection, I think that – although I still agree with all of the points I made yesterday – I did not address what probably should be the main reasons that a casino would be a singularly bad idea for Trenton.
Apart from it being a major component of Mr. Worthy’s campaign platform and of his economic development philosophy, I want to make the case that a casino is such a horrid idea for Trenton so strong that no other candidate for Mayor or Council will be tempted to pick up the idea for their own campaign. I don’t want any other candidate to say “A casino is a good idea. Let’s do it!”
Because gambling in Trenton would be an utter catastrophe.
There has been a lot of research and a lot of press on the impact of gaming on urban environments lately, in the midst of what has been over the last 20 years an explosion of gambling throughout the US.
Not all of it is good. Let’s start with this article about casino development in nearby Philadelphia, in which Dan Keating, the project manager for Wynn Philadelphia, a huge project proposed for that city’s Fishtown neighborhood, was quoted. Speaking about other proposed casinos suggested for Philly, he was reported as saying “while the Market 8 and Provence casinos [the other projects] are looking to create jobs and development in their neighborhoods, Keating said that they shouldn’t ‘no one should plan on a casino to bring about urban renewal,’ because that’s not what casinos do.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
If that’s the case, as admitted by a casino developer, then what benefit would such a business bring to a place like Trenton, and why in the world would a candidate suggest it in the first place?
But wait a moment! That quote came in an article written a few months ago in September 2013. Could Mr. Keating’s admission be considered sour grapes, or a rather unpolitic tactless admission of an inconvenient truth known by those inside the gambling business but never admitted in public?
Perhaps it is sour grapes. Because in November 2013, just two months after Keating’s quote, Wynn Resorts abandoned its plan to expand into Philadephia. Oh, well then.
But there is more! As reported in November on Philly.com the main reason that Wynn canceled its Philadelphia casino is, as included in a printed statement
“The board [of Directors] took a host of factors into consideration, including the Philadelphia market performance over the past year and the competition which will result from the recent approval of gaming in the State the [sic] New York. Consequently, the company will withdraw its licensing applications in Pennsylvania.”
Translation: There are already too many casinos in the region, and there will soon be more in New York. Wynn won’t make any money in Philadelphia. See ya!
So, where is any possible rationale for a Trenton casino?? Nowhere, that’s where!
But, I am sidetracked. I went off on another business argument. Back to “no one should plan on a casino to bring about urban renewal.”
Here is another article, titled “Top Urbanists Agree: Casinos Ruin Cities.” The arguments here cover a range of city experiments in gambling, citing examples ranging from well-off towns like Toronto to desperate contracting communities such as Detroit. From this article, let me just include this one statement by leading urban economist Richard Florida:
“Toronto’s business leaders like to think that they are helping to build a great global city, but casino building is city-ruining of the highest order. Virtually every serious study that has ever been done of the economic impacts of casinos shows that their costs far exceed their benefits and that they are a poor use of precious downtown land.”
“City-ruining of the highest order.” Keep that in mind in case you hear anyone in Trenton say that a casino might be a good idea!
I leave for last one more nail in the coffin.
Last year, the New York-based non-partisan Institute for American Studies released a 56-page, highly-sourced and footnoted paper on the economic and social impact of modern casinos. Titled, “Why Casinos Matter: Thirty-One Evidence-Based Propositions from the Health and Social Sciences,” this paper (you can download it here’ Press “Read PDF”) should be required reading, if the proposal of Trenton casinos takes on a life of its own apart from Mr. Worthy’s campaign. Which I hope to hell it doesn’t!
This post is long enough, but I think it is important to list each of this report’s 31 propositions, just in summary form. For full arguments and the footnoted sources backing them up, as well as the names of the scholars who wrote the study, you can go to the report itself.
I don’t think it will take much imagination when reading some of these to imagine the particular damage some of these propositions would cause, were they to come about in Trenton!
Whew! After all these (and remember, for more detail on these propositions and citations on sources, you can go here) points, who all wants a casino in Trenton? Please raise your hand.
I thought so.
Walker Worthy is kind of tied to his proposal at this point. He only released it this week, and he can’t exactly abandon it now. He has to run on his plan, and be judged on it. Which doesn’t bode well for his chances, in my opinion.
I do hope, though, that I have at the very least raised enough of a concern, and created enough doubt about this, that no other candidate for Mayor or Council will touch the idea of legalized gambling in Trenton with a ten-foot pole.
After so many words on the topic, perhaps I could have summarized things much more succinctly:
If you liked the experience with Trenton’s Hotel, then you’ll love having a Casino!
I think that a casino would be even more disastrous for Trenton and its people than the hotel has been, hard as that is to believe.
This is a really, really, really bad idea! Let us not speak of it again, OK?
One of Trenton’s octet of mayoral wannabe’s is rolling out his policy platform this week. Deputy County Clerk Walker Worthy released on Tuesday his “Plan for Jobs & Economy: Focus on Development and Opportunities.” After anxiously waiting for something like this from the various campaigns, I have to say I am not impressed.
The “Plan” is little more than a set of objectives and wishes, with no real road map for getting there, nor have any criteria or scoring been provided to estimate the benefits to the City of Trenton that these objectives will provide.
Let me explain, by quoting just a few of Mr. Worthy’s objectives, and my reactions to them.
“Worthy’s plan for Trenton includes developing the city’s waterfront as a tourist draw, including a casino…”
This is the proposal that is gaining some attention in the media this morning, and it’s what alerted me to the fact that Mr. Worthy released his “plan” in the first place. This strikes me as poorly conceived and thought out. Why a casino? Where would it be? With Trenton surrounded for hundreds of miles by other gambling meccas in Bucks County, Philadelphia, New York, the Poconos, Maryland and Connecticut – not to mention Atlantic City, whose position as New Jersey’s hub of gambling and entertainment has been badly damaged by the competition from these other locations, what would be the draw for a Trenton casino? Who would be the target market, when all of these other locations are located in closer proximity to larger populations?
Would the State allow a casino so close to AC, when its fortunes are declining? And in a state that legalized online gaming last year, what is the future for brick-and-mortar casinos? In January of this year, the state issued a report on gaming revenue results for December 2013. As reported by NJ.com, this report was the first to include results for online gaming as well as casino.
This report showed that in-casino gambling declined 7.6% from December 2012 to December 2013. That is one month’s example, and one can’t derive long-term conclusions from one month’s numbers.
But that report does suggest that legalized online gambling has the real potential to cannibalize market share from existing casinos in the state of NJ. These results suggest that the market for gaming in NJ has a ceiling; it will not expand along with the expansion of opportunities to put $100 on new craps tables. It is what is called an inelastic market. Not good news for Atlantic City, let alone a prospective casino location such as Trenton.
With that in mind, what does Mr. Worthy think the prospects of a Trenton casino might be? What kind of numbers does he forecast for this casino?
We don’t know. His “plan” doesn’t say. He didn’t even cite any positive results or examples from other casino towns to bolster his case. Like so many statements from the candidates and his supporters, he expects the benefits from his “plan” to be self-evident without any arguments nor evidence in favor.
“Worthy is also calling for the creation of a redevelopment authority in the city that will help speed the process for developers and identify critical areas of opportunity for building and growth.”
What’s wrong with the departments and agencies we already have? The City of Trenton has the Department of Housing and Economic Development. The State created the Capital City Redevelopment Corporation with exactly the same mission for which Mr. Worthy calls for a new agency?
Why? What is the case for starting a new authority? Sure, there are many criticisms one can offer up for the city’s H&ED department and the CCRC. But, before calling for a new agency, shouldn’t a candidate first make the case for scrapping the existing ones? I think so.
“Use my experience and relationships with key state and county officials to create public/private partnerships and promote the benefit of doing business in Trenton.”
Hmm, Mr. Worthy only talks about his ”experience and relationships” with public officials in the state and county. OK, I will grant him that he might be able to leverage those connections into something of benefit to Trenton.
But relationships with public officials, as good as they might be, are onlyone-half of any possible “public/private partnerships.”
What kind of ”experience and relationships” does Mr. Worthy have with those in the private sector, and how might they be relevant to developing future opportunities in Trenton? If he has few or none in the private sector, then wouldn’t that require him to be dependent on those “key state and county officials” to gain him entree to the private sector? And will those officials have Trenton’s best interests in mind?
I doubt it. Mr. Worthy’s experience is substantial in public service, on the county level at least which explains why the Mercer Democratic establishment (most of whom reside outside of Trenton) is supporting him so strongly. But he has shown he has no depth of ”experience and relationships” of the kind in the private sector that could benefit Trenton. So,
“Ensure all pending and future development provides a long-term benefit to the city.”
How does Mr. Worthy plan to ensure this? Over the last year or two, we have seen only activity on the development front that singularly fails to provide direct, long-term benefits to the city.
For example, the acquisition by Thomas Edison State College of the Glen Cairn Arms site on West State Street. The only tangible direct benefit to the City was a one-time $300,000 payment in lieu of taxes to the city. The project was touted by the City and County as having the potential of some positive spin-offs to the city: opportunities for nearby retail establishments serving the student body and faculty of the new school being built there, and the educational and professional opportunities to be offered to Trenton residents. But those benefits are intangible, in the future, and anything but assured. In the meantime, one of the prime parcels of Trenton waterfront real estate was taken off the city’s tax rolls, with the active basking of the City, County and State.
The State is also crippling Trenton’s future revenue opportunities, for at least the next 20 years, under the terms of the “New Jersey Economic Opportunity Act of 2013,” the State has created a program of tax incentives and credits for preserving existing commercial development and jobs in the state. But the Act does so by exempting projects developed under this Act from all state and local taxes, including municipal taxes, for a period of up to ten years, and allowing for deep discounts on those taxes for up to another ten.
In the official Legislative Fiscal Estimate prepared for the State Legislature last year before passage of the bill, the impact of this program on towns such as Trenton was predicted as follows:
Given this context, and the environment under which the City will function over the next two decades (at least), how can Mr. Worthy – or any candidate – claim he can ”ensure all pending and future development provides a long-term benefit to the city.”
He can’t. He doesn’t even acknowledge the tremendous roadblocks put in place crippling the City and any new Administration. I’d like to see him, and any other candidate, discuss their plans for the economic future of Trenton in the context of that horrible Act of 2013, and hear their plans for objectives for amending it or otherwise limiting the damage to Trenton from the guarantee of “significantly reduced property tax revenues.”
Unless and until Mr. Worthy can speak to the realities and restraints that these and other handicaps to our development impose upon Trenton, I have to consider his promise as little more than bluster, and therefore a
I’m glad to think that this election process is finally getting to the point when campaigns are starting to talk about substance. But I am entirely disappointed by Mr. Worthy’s proposals, at least as released today. I am convinced that his candidacy for mayor of a City with whose affairs he has little relevance is ill-considered. I am further convinced that the massive support he enjoys from the County Democratic establishment is being provided for purposes other than the benefit and best interests of the citizens of Trenton. What might those purposes be? I have no idea.
But I do know it’s not because he will be the best person to be Mayor of Trenton.
There is an odd and confusing column by LA Parker in today’s Trentonian. It is rather odd because Parker, a professional writer and reporter, criticizes local bloggers and Facebook posters as ineffective do-nothings. His is a bold call for Action: “We need more hands on deck instead of mouths that roar about every penny, position, or publication.”
Yeah, like I said. Real Odd, coming from a guy whose supposed profession is to report (”roar” is reserved for opinion-writers, after all!) about “every, penny, position, or publication.” That’s called Journalism, LA.
It’s kind of confusing, for a lot of reasons. The first is… I kind of think he may be talking… at least a little… about me! But I can’t tell!
It’s very hard to tell exactly who the target(s) of his criticism might be. You see, he names none of the bloggers he finds objectionable (Irresponsible, maybe?), nor does he cite any examples of any posts on blogs or Facebook or any social media that have led to his particular outburst.
Parker follows the example I cited yesterday of mayoral candidate Eric Jackson’ Trenton Times column, similarly free of names, dates, facts, or any specific arguments intended to back up whatever argument he is making.
However, I suppose Parker felt some ingrained need to provide some specific names and dates to support his claims, because he does provide a few examples. But he must have pulled them out of his ass, because they don’t have anything to do with the matter at hand. Weird, right?
Catch this: “In Trenton, people would rather blog about a real-time murder occurring just outside their window instead of stopping the crime. They are cut from the same cloth as those who allegedly watched or listened as Winston Moseley plunged a knife into Kitty Genovese.”
When, exactly, did someone in Trenton “blog about a real-time murder occurring just outside their window instead of stopping the crime.” When?
And these anonymous individuals are “cut from the same cloth” as those who stood by when Kitty Genovese was murdered?!?!?!?
What the Fuck, LA?? How do you take that jump? Are you serious?
I’m afraid he is. Because from Kitty Genovese (and, for the record, LA, in March 1964 when she was murdered in Queens, NY, I was 8 years old in San Francisco. And blogging wasn’t invented yet), he jumps to nearby Hamilton in 2013.
Parker mentions the unsolved July 2013 murder of Shakir Williams, shot at a house party where none of an estimated 100 people reported any details or leads for a suspected murderer to police.
What in the name of Joseph Pulitzer does this have to do with bloggers and Facebookers? I have no freaking idea!
He proceeds from these gruesome examples – which, again, have nothing to do with his thesis – to state that Trenton needs people to DO Things, and not just talk:
I think LA Parker needs fewer (not “less,” LA, fewer!) weekly columns, and more editing!
Overall, this column reads as something slapped together around the barest nugget of an idea. He spun off a few paragraphs, realized they were too short, so he kind of threw in the stuff about Genovese and Williams to plump it out.
What a mess!
As I said at the top, without having any idea what is raising Parker’s bile, who the undistinguished – entirely unnamed – and do-nothing bloggers and Facebookers might be who are the subject of this anonymous attack, this cannot be taken at all seriously.
So, why do I even bother to take note of today’s piece? After all, this column is pretty typical of Parker’s work. Why does this one rankle?
Because I can’t help thinking that, in some degree, LA is talking about me. Over the last week there has been a lot of Facebook and Twitter activity. What with the final ejection of Tony Mack from office, the initial flurry of brooms cleaning City Hall under the direction of Acting Mayor George Muschal, and the (finally!) heating-up of this spring’s elections, a lot of people have a lot to say. And Facebook and Twitter is where people go to say a lot of it.
But there have been relatively few old-fashioned political “blog” posts in the last few weeks. Dan Dodson has written a few times. Ditto Mr. From the Front Stoop. Pat Stewart, may she rest in peace, has passed. Robert Chilson and Michael Walker have been pretty quiet lately. And what Dodson and Mr. Stoop have been writing about has been pretty unobjectionable.
But me? I have to say that, after several months when I have been largely quiet, I’ve been a little busier. Over the last ten days I’ve written three columns about Eric Jackson that have been fairly critical. It’s not that I have anything personal against the man, but he and his campaign have been the most active lately, and have been taking several steps that I find questionable.
His campaign has been involved in a violation of the City Pay-to-Play Ordinance, he accepted a dubious endorsement from Ewing pastor Johnnie Vaughan who personally benefited from an allegedly no-show patronage job under Tony Mack.
Both of these moves I criticized for violating the spirit of his self-proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy toward corruption. He reiterated this policy in a remarkably fact-free Trenton Times op-ed yesterday, about which I had some rather emphatic words to say.
(I suppose this is turning into my Fourth Jackson column, then!)
Hmmm… I published that blog post yesterday morning. And LA Parker publishes his incoherent rant against “some upstart city blog, another one of the countless websites in Trenton manned by people who think criticism makes them a community activist or clairvoyant” online last night at 8:57 PM.
Could there possibly be a connection, you think? Possibly, possibly. But of course, there would never be any way to know for sure.
But it is some coincidence, don’t you think?
So, even granting a possibility that there is not one word in Parker’s screed that is directed my way, is there anything in his column that I can take to heart.
No, not really. I started this blog four years ago when I ran – very unsuccessfully, I will add – for City Council. That run was after several years serving Trenton in such ways as sitting on the city’s Zoning Board for a dozen years; attempting to help the Trenton Library by attempting to establish a Foundation, raising tens of thousands of dollars in the process until blocked by the Library’s then-Chair and former Mayor Doug Palmer; and serving as a Democratic Committeeman and member of the city’s Democrats’ Executive Committee until work commitments forced me to resign.
My blog started as a result and an offshoot of the other work I was doing, not as a replacement. And that has been true of other social media commentators in this town. It’s true of Mr. Stoop, Dan Dodson, and was true of Pat Stewart.
So, to read criticism from the likes of LA Parker that refers to me and my brethren – however indirectly – as “disillusionists, obstructionists, and Facebookers” pisses me off.
Unless, of course, I read his rant as a direct response to the piece I wrote yesterday. Which means that I must have pressed some buttons, touched some nerves, and made some people angry.
In which case, I say I must be Doing Something Right!!!
But, as I said, I will never know for sure. LA didn’t bother to name any of his targets, so I will just ignore the criticism and continue to do what I do.
There is one line in which I find myself in complete agreement. His last line in today’s column.
“It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton.”
Indeed. “Put up” has to mean saying what you mean: naming your subjects, making your arguments with facts and evidence, stating plans and platforms with specifics and not warm & fuzzy appeals to emotion. And meaning what you say.
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Candidates!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Press. That means you, LA!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Voters!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton.
What a remarkable op-ed in this morning’s Trenton Times by mayoral candidate Eric Jackson!
The title of the piece is “Trenton needs leader with ‘zero tolerance for corruption’” and lays out several objectives and standards that a new mayoral administration – presumably that of Eric Jackson’s – will pursue. But the piece is amazing in that it seems to have been written in a vacuum. There are NO references to any people, issues, and events experienced in the City of Trenton over the last four years! The article is misinformed and ignorant of current city laws and systems already in place to provide for the ethical conduct of Trenton’s city government. And the article is ironically silent on Mr. Jackson’s own ethical lapses.
Where to start? How about at the beginning? The piece opens by proclaiming, “Cronyism and corruption. These are not words that should ever be associated with public service and yet, too often, they are. Politicians elected by their fellow citizens to improve the quality of life for their constituents too often end up taking advantage of their office for personal gain. Taxpayers who believe their hard-earned money is going toward improving schools, roads and public safety instead learn that it is being spent to line the pockets of the connected few.”
Do Tell!! Are there any particular examples you have in mind, sir? We don’t know. Less than one week after the convicted felon serving as the previous mayor was ejected from office by a Superior Court Judge, the name of Tony Mack appears nowhere in this piece. In fact, no names appear in this piece, at all!
I find that pretty striking. The opening paragraphs in this piece read as something so abstract, so hypothetical, so conditional, an uniformed reader would have no trouble believing this article described just about any community anywhere in the United States. Even the one bland description of “the mess” left to the new mayor could have been spoken by any candidate in any jurisdiction, at any time, arguing his or her candidacy.
This blandness and lack of specificity extends to Mr. Jackson’s prescriptions for “cleaning up” the undescribed “mess.”
Mr. Jackson wants to create a new position of “independent inspector general.” We read that this new person will “have full and unfettered authority to investigate corruption, fraud and dishonest practices throughout city government” in all agencies and departments.
Why? We are never told. In an environment where a level of oversight of the city – imperfect and inconsistent, yes, but it is a fact of life, which Mr. Jackson fails to even acknowledge, let alone discuss – by the State’s Department of Community Affairs, why would we need a new Inspector General?
Mr. Jackson does not say. To him, this important first step apparently speaks for himself, since he says no more about this.
Next, Mr. Jackson proclaims “Second, the mayor and council must adopt a strong ethics code that will be binding for all elected and appointed officials.”
Good Idea! A very good one! In fact, so good we already have one!!!
Here is the Ethics Code of the City of Trenton, as adopted by the Trenton Ethics Board in November 2013, a body that was created by Ordinance in August 2012, and whose members were appointed in August 2013.
Isn’t it odd that a mayoral candidate in 2014, running on a strong platform of ethical reform, would not know that of the current existence of an ethics code, or apparently of the Trenton Ethics Board?
Yes it is. Very odd, indeed.
The absence of any references to any specific ethical lapses, or any specific individuals during previous Trenton Administrations – note the plural, here!!! – critically weakens the argument of this piece. Without acknowledging where the lapses have been, it is impossible for a reader to judge if Mr. Jackson’s prescriptions, bland and redundant as they are, will work. Or, whether existing systems and mechanisms already available to us might be more effective.
Let me describe one specific example, something that eludes Mr. Jackson in his op-ed today. One of the main failures of the Mack Administration, and one of the main opportunities for corruption was in contracts oversight and administration. Remember, for instance, “Cooper Levenson,” “Five Star Auto Detailing,” and “SR Development“? Mr. Jackson doesn’t.
Contracting and purchasing has been the opportunity for much of the corruption in government, and not only in Trenton. Seems to me that, as I suggested three years ago, that the City may want to actually constitute the “Board of Review” that is already contained in our Ordinances (here it is) to review decisions of the city’s purchasing agent and hear appeals from bidders who may feel their experience was tainted or unfair.
This Board, consisting of two citizens and a City Council member, is already on our books and ready to go. I think that this may be a significant improvement to the honest administration of city purchasing. We should give it a shot.
Does Mr. Jackson? I don’t think he is even aware of its existence.
It is bad enough that a leading mayoral candidate such as Eric Jackson can reveal such shocking ignorance of Trenton’s current municipal structure, and can be so lazy in a major op-ed piece as to speak in vague generalities without reference to ANYTHING that has happened over the last several years.
But for him to go on and state as his central premise “Most important, the next mayor has to lead by example. Municipal government is only as strong, ethical and transparent as its leader. The mayor must make it clear to every employee working for the city and its independent agencies that there is zero tolerance for corruption, personal enrichment or dishonesty.” [Emphasis mine - KM.]
A few weeks ago I asked, “So let me ask: Mr. Jackson, in the context of today’s news story about an apparent Pay-to-Play violation in your campaign [by City Bond Counsel McManimon Scotland Baumann LLC] , what exactly do you mean by ‘zero tolerance?’”
Jackson replied in a way, on Feb 25, by denying he had a problem. “’This issue is really not with my camp,’ Jackson said Monday. ‘I feel as a candidate I want every vendor who supports me to be within the boundaries of our local pay-to-play policies.’ Jackson said his campaign will “absolutely” return the donation if requested by McManimon’s firm. ‘We have a check on standby ready so we don’t hold up the process,’ he said.”[Emphasis mine - KM]
So, “zero tolerance” actually means “some tolerance,” and a tainted contribution will be returned only if the donor asks for a refund?!?!?!?
Sounds like a pretty relaxed attitude to me. Same with Mr. Jackson’s acceptance last week of an endorsement by the Reverend Johnny Vaughan, one of a large group of Trenton clergy who publicly backed Mr. Jackson last week. Apparently this group – whose endorsement was apparently given without any other mayoral candidate having an opportunity to seek it – didn’t have a problem with including Mr. Vaughan in their number, and neither did Mr. Jackson have a problem with accepting it. Mr. Vaughan, about whom I wrote two weeks ago, accepted a patronage job working in the Mack Administration in its early years, a $40,000 per year job that has attracted criticism for being a no-show job with no defined job functions or responsibilities.
Mr. Jackson’s acceptance of Mr. Vaughan’s support, despite his policy of “zero tolerance for corruption, personal enrichment or dishonesty” has picked up some more attention in the media, as in this Sunday piece by LA Parker in the Trentonian. Glad you picked up on this, LA.
But these two instances are relatively minor in the overall context of Eric Jackson’s mayoral campaign. His candidacy is based primarily on his resume of public service, including several years in Trenton as Director of Public Works in the Administration of Doug Palmer. As such, there are many open questions and concerns that Mr. Jackson and his campaign have failed to address. On the basis of today’s fact-and-name-free op-ed, he apparently has no intention of addressing them on his own.
This is not acceptable, if he expects to be seriously considered as a leading candidate to lead this city away from the wreckage of the previous Mayoral Administrations of Tony Mack and Doug Palmer.
This morning, he writes, “I am challenging all of our residents to take responsibility for our community, to help me clean up City Hall and to root out corruption. As citizens, we must take ownership of our government and not leave it up to others to do.”
You challenge us to “take responsibility” and “take ownership,” sir?
Rather than re-cover the same territory, let me extensively quote from a December 2013 piece. Since none of the questions have been answered, and all are still highly relevant, why not?
Trenton Mayoral Candidate Eric Jackson scored a major political coup yesterday. News reports relate that over two dozen clergy, representing several faiths and congregations inside and beyond Trenton publicly endorsed Mr. Jackson’s candidacy.
Those who spoke at yesterday’s endorsement event at the downtown Lafayette Yard Hotel echoed the candidate’s emphasis on a renewed commitment to ethical leadership in office, as was discussed in this space yesterday.
“’Eric Jackson’s vision of restoring ethics in municipal government and his work on behalf of our school children, our families and our community makes him the best person to lead Trenton,’ said Reverend Keith Marshall, Pastor of the Macedonia Baptist Church” as quoted in PolitickerNJ.com’s story. “’Eric Jackson’s commitment to reducing gun violence, bringing more jobs and economic development to Trenton and improving our schools is as important as his demonstrated record of ethical leadership,’ said Reverend Mark Broach, Pastor of the Trenton Deliverance Center.”
Now, I am not that involved in any of Trenton’s faith communities. I attend church only occasionally and cannot number myself among the faithful of any of the clergy on this list. I am sure they are fine people, dedicated to the precepts of their creeds, and devoted to their parishioners.
That being said, I will note that of the 26 individuals named by Politicker, five also endorsed Tony Mack for his election in 2010. At that time, one of those five, Pastor Wayne Griffith of the West Ward’s Lighthouse Ministries, stated
“We have intently followed the mayoral race from its inception, and have carefully listened and prayerfully watched all of the mayoral candidates. Our communities of faith, friends and families are an integral part of the fabric of Trenton. Trenton is where we worship, live, work and join in fellowship. Thus, we collectively share in the future of this city and we believe Tony Mack is the best person to lead us.’’
I suppose that we all have past statements we’ve made that we regret in later years. For these five clergymen, this may be among theirs!
However, over these last four years, I can’t recall any statements from these five gentlemen in which they may have ever stated that regret, withdrew their endorsement, or otherwise expressed any displeasure or disagreement with their emphatic endorsement of Trenton’s now-Convicted Federal Felon Chief Executive.
On that basis alone, I would look upon any new endorsement by these five with no small measure of skepticism. One more point: knowing that back in 2010 the pool of mayoral candidates that these same five ministers all “carefully listened and prayerfully watched” included Mr. Jackson – and that they still endorsed Tony Mack! – is enough for me to personally discount yesterday’s endorsement, at least from those five.
Elections have consequences, gentlemen. So do endorsements. If you choose to lend your moral approval to a candidate, your prior track record on that matter is wide open to review.
For his part, Mr. Jackson was glad for yesterday’s backing from Trenton’s ministerial community. He said, “Each and every single one of these community leaders represents the diversity and strength of our great city. I thank them for their faith in me and for endorsing our platform of safer streets, better schools, more jobs and ethical leadership.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
There’s that pitch about ethical leadership again! I suppose if you can’t be in a room of two dozen ministers and reflect in their collective ethical leadership, when can you?
Please note, though – as I emphasized above – that Mr. Jackson was proud to accept the endorsement from “each and every single one” of the ministers on that list. Even the five who preferred Tony Mack to him four years ago.
But from what we know about one of those five, I would suggest that Mr. Jackson may want to re-examine – or at least explain to the public – his acceptance of support by one specific member of those five.
Johnnie Vaughan, Jr. is pastor of Calvary Fellowship Ministries which is actually in Ewing, not Trenton, as well as in Belvedere Delaware according to his website. As I said before, not being a member of any faith community in Trenton, I know nothing on which to base any knowledge of Mr. Vaughan’s service in ministry. I won’t have a word to say on that.
However, Mr. Vaughan’s close relationship to Tony Mack and the Mack Administration is indeed relevant to today’s discussion, and to his role in yesterday’s endorsement of Mr. Jackson.
As you may recall, upon the beginning of the Mack Administration in the summer of 2010, Mr. Vaughan was hired as an Aide to the Mayor, on top of his ongoing responsibilities to his ministry. He took a job with the Executive after his own race for the West Ward City Council seat in May 2010 was unsuccessful (as, full disclosure, my own race for that seat was, too).
From the beginning of his term there, his precise job responsibilities were unclear, as was his actual attendance at his City Hall job. As reported by Erin Duffy in the Trenton Times on July 22, 2012, “A lengthy lawsuit filed by a former recreation worker last October codified many of the complaints of political patronage in the Mack administration, including allegations that Mack ally Johnnie Vaughan Jr. was hired for a nearly $40,000 no-show job.”
Mr. Vaughan was the subject, along with fellow City Employee David Tallone, of an inquiry regarding how his work time for the City was spent. The inquiry was filed as an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request filed in 2011 by active citizens Jim Carlucci and Robert Chilson. This inquiry became a lawsuit when the Mack Administration, per its usual management style, ignored the OPRA request.
After suit was filed, it was revealed in a letter by the City’s outside lawyer Goerge Saponaro that no timecards existed for either Mr. Tallone nor Mr. Vaughan, therefore no records of time spent on the job for either gentlemen. Documentation of that case is available on Mr. Chilson’s website, here.
David Tallone, you may recall, was a former City Public Works employee and union president who faced his own criminal charge. He was indicted in 2012 of defrauding the City of thousands of dollars over a period of several years, dating back to the Palmer Administration. His charges were dismissed in 2013 after a key expected witness, Tallone’s sister, failed to testify.
No such charges have ever been filed against Mr. Vaughan, nor has it been suggested that he was involved in any of the activities for which Tony Mack or his co-defendants were charged and convicted.
But the suggestion that his job for the City, which ended in March 2012 when he was laid off along with most of the other numerous mayoral aides, was – at the very least – extremely light in terms of duties and very undemanding in terms of his attendance has never been satisfactorily explained.
Mr. Vaughan’s support of Mack at the time extended into other areas as well. On June 4, 2010, the day before Vaughan and his colleagues endorsed Mack for election, Vaughan accompanied Mack to a party in Atlantic County attended by several high-profile people from the worlds of New Jersey business and politics. As described by Alex Zdan in a Trenton Times article in 2012, it was one of those events where those worlds came together. “The attendees of the June 2010 party included about 50 elected officials and others involved in politics, another participant said. They included Lloyd Levenson, a lawyer whose firm later won a contract with the city but withdrew after being accused of violating the city’s campaign finance rules.”
Although FBI agents, according to Mr. Zdan, looked into this party during its investigation of Mr. Mack, none of the charges on which the mayor was eventually indicted were connected to this event and any attendee.In the article, Vaughan defended his attendance as being entirely innocent. “I didn’t know [the party] was a fundraiser. I was just in the mix, talking to people, that’s it… There were people around him, conversing. I wanted to make sure he was safe, basically. I always kept my eye on him.”
Mr. Vaughan is quoted extensively in this Alex Zdan article about his relationship with Mr. Mack and his City Hall job.
About his job, the article states, “Vaughan is named in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former city employee Maria Richardson last fall, in which she alleged Vaughan essentially had a no-show job. ‘I don’t know where they got that from,’ Vaughan said. Vaughan said the job was legitimate, but he spent much of the time caring for his ill father, who died in July 2011.”
On his relationship with Mack, “Vaughan spoke of the mayor as a friend he knew from childhood days when they attended the same church. ‘Tony, I know he’s a good guy at heart,’ Vaughan said. “I know this probably won’t resonate with your readers, but he loves the city.’
We all know how that’s turned out. The same guy who “is a good guy at heart,” and who “loves the city” is disgracing himself, his family and this city by refusing to face the inevitable sad conclusion to his mayoral career by honorably resigning from office. Instead, he will cling to his job until the final moment Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson will eject him from it.
So what does all mean for Eric Jackson?
To me, this means that he gratefully accepted an endorsement yesterday from someone who, upon giving his endorsement to Tony Mack four years ago, accepted a job in the Mack Administration. A job which lasted two years and still carries suggestions it was an undemanding, unproductive little- or no-show job he received as a perq of his endorsement and long-time friendship with Tony Mack. A job that is a significant part of the allegations contained in the still-active Maria Richardson lawsuit against the City of Trenton as it works its way through the courts.
Eric Jackson accepted Johnnie Vaughan’s endorsement yesterday. Such actions work both ways, and this implicitly also entails an endorsement by Mr. Jackson of Mr. Vaughan and his record taking a job with the Mack Administration after endorsing the man.
As I wrote yesterday, Eric Jackson is basing his candidacy as being the one person best suited to bring honor and ethical behavior back to City Hall. He promises “zero tolerance for any unethical behavior or actions.” Yet he accepts the endorsement of a man who was rewarded for his endorsement four years ago with a patronage job working directly for Tony Mack.
What does this mean for Eric Jackson the candidate? What might this mean for Eric Jackson as our Mayor?
For someone promising a fresh ethical start for the City and its citizens, this endorsement along with yesterday’s tale Mr. Jackson’ silence in reaction to a campaign finance violation on the part of a contributor sure provokes a sense of deja vu.
Here we go. Again?? I sure as hell hope not. But it’s not looking good.
Trenton’s 2014 Municipal Election season got off to a very slow start, almost two years ago. This week, less than 3 months before the May poll date, things seem to be picking up. I am not encouraged by what I see.Today that means the news about Eric Jackson and his campaign.
In today’s Trentonian there are two stories involving Mr. Jackson, both written by David Foster. In the first, Mr. Foster passes along the announcement from Julie Roginsky, a political consultant with prior experience on other recent New Jersey Democratic campaigns who has been hired to assist Mr. Jackson’s effort.
That article was noted approvingly by Jackson on his Twitter feed:
However, Mr. Jackson fails to note as approvingly, or even at all, the appearance of the second article by Mr. Foster in the Trentonian. This piece describes how a contribution of $500 at the end of 2013 to Mr. Jackson’s campaign by the firm acting as the City of Trenton’s bond counsel, McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, may be in violation of Trenton’s Pay-to-Play campaign law.
This law, passed by public referendum back in 2006, prohibits companies providing professional services to the City from making any contributions to the city’s political candidates. A violation such as the $500 contribution to the Jackson campaign may lead to the cancellation of any city contract for that firm.
Now this story is in its early stages, and there will likely be more information forthcoming soon from our city’s media about this alleged campaign finance violation.
But I find it curious that we have heard no statement as of yet from Mr. Jackson. It is very probable that he saw the story: it was posted online last night one minute before the story about Ms. Roginsky that Eric Jackson gushed about on Twitter. Mr. Foster also writes that “Jackson did not respond to several calls for comment.”
It is also curious that we have heard no comment as of yet since Mr. Jackson prominently features this issue on his campaign website, and takes a stance that sounds to me to be even more severe and stringent than the City’s own Ordinance.
In the “Issues” section of his website, on a page titled “Ethics,” Mr. Jackson states “As Mayor, I will put in place a series of ethic reforms including an open process for all director positions, pay-to-play contribution protections, and limit political influence on zoning related issues.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
What might those “pay-to-play contribution protections” be, and how would they differ from the City’s current Ordinance? Weaker? Stronger? In the context of today’s news, what does Mr. Jackson think about our Pay-to-Play law?
Eric Jackson wants to make sure that we know he takes the issue of Ethics very seriously. In his “Issues” section, he lists only “Public Safety,” “Education” and Ethics. There are no tabbed sections for Trenton’s Finances, Taxes, Residential or Commercial Development, Unemployment, Infrastructure (including the woeful Trenton Water Works), or any others.
Just Public Safety, Education and Ethics.
To underscore his commitment to an ethical Administration, he declares
So let me ask: Mr. Jackson, in the context of today’s news story about an apparent Pay-to-Play violation in your campaign, what exactly do you mean by “zero tolerance?”
What does that mean in this instance? What will be the consequences of your zero tolerance policy inside your campaign, or with McManimon, Scotland & Baumann’s future with the City of Trenton under a Jackson Administration?
What does today’s story tell us about a future Jackson Administration? Also, while I have your attention, there are still several unanswered questions I raised a few months ago about your prior service to Trenton that I think it would be helpful to discuss.
You may choose to use some other medium than Twitter to reply. Sounds like you may need more than 140 characters to answer.
Oh, and Congratulations on your new consultant! Seems like she got here just in time.
As e-mailed, Wednesday, February 19, 2014, to firstname.lastname@example.org, with cc’s to email@example.com and MHERNANDEZTORRES@trentonnj.org: