Pay to Play, Part 1 - the corruption tax

We all read the headlines with great anticipation when US Attorney Chris Christie indicts yet another public official for breaking the law. Yet the cost to the public for fraud and other illegal activities in actual dollars is very small compared to the total cost of government. A much more significant cost to the taxpayers comes from legal and "necessary" campaign contributions from the companies and individuals that do business with state, county and local government. This is true all over New Jersey.
Common Cause estimates the cost to New Jersey taxpayers to be close to $1 billion a year. One needs to go no further than Plainfield to illustrate the costs of pay to play.

But first, for the uninitiated, a little q & a:

1. Is pay to play "necessary"? - from the perspective of vendors, it is a necessary evil. Many government contracts do not require competitive bids and donations to the party in power can lead to lucrative business deals. A prominent New Jersey business cut back on pay to play donations a few years ago and lost significant business. They had to get back in this game to keep their business afloat (I did not have permission to use their name).

2. I thought that there are limits to campaign donations that level the playing field in the struggle for influence? - there are loopholes that allow companies to donate through each business partner, spouses and other family members. Donations can also be maximized by giving money to many campaign committees that are affiliated. Last but not least, there are a few campaign committees that have no limits for donations - these are the state Democratic and Republican Committees and the committees for the legislative leaders of each party.

3. What is wheeling? - that is how money, coming through the loopholes mentioned above can be funnelled from all over the state into select election campaigns. Big money was wheeled into Plainfield from south jersey Democrats to defeat Mayor Al McWilliams 3 years ago. I heard estimates of $100,000 to $200,000 but its hard to confirm facts given the convoluted paths this money follows.

4. What does this money get spent on in election campaigns? Mailings, robo-calls, lawn signs, television commercials, political polling, campaign consultants and much more.

Ok - so how does pay to play work in Plainfield?

In a mostly one party town, the primary, especially a contested primary, is where the action is. The Plainfield 2008 primary was a battle between the Regular Democrats, with pay to play money, and the challengers who got mostly local donations from residents. Why did the Regular Dems get all the pay to play money? Very simple. The Mayor and Plainfield Democratic City Committee chairman are Regular Democrats. The Mayor signs city contracts. If you want to get elected in Plainfield, it really helps to have support from the City Committee chair. That person decides your fate in the primary election: he or she decides who gets the party line on the ballot, a huge advantage in Plainfield.

The vendors know this and of course they want to back the winners. So when they have to choose between attending the Jerry Green fundraiser for the Regular Democratic candidates or the challengers event, its a no brainer. So if you were wondering why the incumbents could run numerous tv commercials and the challengers could not, wonder no more. In my 6 City Council campaigns, I've been on both sides of this situation. Feast or famine. But I was very careful not to take money from the party for anything more than lawn signs. Didn't want to owe too much to people whose agenda was not clear to me.

This kind of political fundraising is part of the American landscape. Why should we care? Because cost are high and guess who pays?

We taxpayers do in several ways. First, the vendors must build their donations into the cost of doing business with government. That road project includes the cost of engineering, a profession well known to make big pay to play donations regularly. Attorneys and auditors get no bid contracts so they have to play this game, like it or not.

The second way taxpayers/citizens are affected has to do reduced value for the services we pay for. If a business can get the contract through donations rather than offering the best price and value, there is less incentive for high performance to get and keep Plainfield's business.

To sum up, pay to play results in paying more and getting less. This is the corruption tax and it is perfectly legal.

In my next blog I will provide some details on local pay to play. If you like internet research, google NJ ELEC for a search engine that will locate the money and you can start to understand how it flows. Warning - you may get the feeling you are only scratching the surface by doing this.

Plainfield Democratic Party: Can we kiss and make up?

This is the question of the day. It will take leadership to bring us all together. We elected officials will have to take the credit or blame for how it turns out. I want to highlight one recent small step that points the way.

On election night, after the results were totaled and the McWilliams-Mapp celebration was in full swing, Don Davis, City Councilman, 3rd ward and candidate in the election, came over and personally congratulated the winners. I know Don and his family. They have deep roots in the community. There is a lot family pride here and it wasn't easy for him to come over and face the group that beat him in a heated campaign, especially after the painful hits he took near the end of the campaign.

It was a classy thing to do. We all need to follow his example. I wish Don the best in everything and lets not forget he continues to serve Plainfield until his term ends December 31. After that, I know he will stay involved as will the rest of his family.

We Democrats will have to take baby steps to rebuild our team. At McWilliams-Mapp headquarters, in the middle of the victory celebration, Don Davis said this to me: "Whats done is done. Lets move on. Its all about Plainfield"

Plainfield's Primary Election: What does it mean?

Congratulations to the Democratic Party winners who will be on the ballot for City Council in November: challengers Annie McWilliams for Council at large and Adrian Mapp for 3rd Ward. Lets not forget Bill Reid, who ran uncontested in the 1st ward. And there still is a Republican Party in town, to be represented by Deborah Dowe for the Council at large seat in November.

Some of my fellow Democrats are now cringing. I made the mistake of mentioning the opponents name, a no no in campaign tactics. I will make up for it by campaigning hard for Annie McWilliams who will be running against ......?????. Is that better?

It's hard to draw conclusions from election results in Plainfield because we are such a diverse town. And I don't just mean diversity along the black-white-hispanic-asian dimension. We are diverse socio-economically, culturally and politically.

By the way, can you name the Plainfield ward that is the most diverse along the racial, ethnic and family income dimensions? Hint - it is the same ward for all three dimensions. The answer will be in my next blog.

Here is my take on the election results:

1. A good door to door campaign trumped pay to play money this time around. I have yet to see the final spending reports but my guess is that the incumbents outspent the challengers by a 3 - 1 or 4 - 1 margin. Good news for good government!

2. Direct voter contact led our walkers to believe that people are impatient with local government. Mayor Robinson Briggs, who was campaigning actively for the incumbents, apparently did not deliver many votes. Significant pluralities for McWilliams and Mapp bear this out. They were not easy to find on the ballot but people were looking for their names. McWilliams' 1800 to 1000 vote victory over Gibson would have been much greater if we factored in ballot position.

3. Lack of action on roads was a concern over and over again. Taxes also. The incumbents campaigned on "the lowest tax increase in the county". The voters didn't care or didn't believe it.

4. The McWilliams name is still important. Not to take anything away from Annie. She ran a very good campaign as her own person.

5. The New Democrat label, thought by some to have suffered irreparable damage in the last few years, did not harm McWilliams and Mapp. On the other hand, it is not clear if it helped them either. The challengers did not use it much and the incumbents actually did use it, thinking it would work against McWilliams and Mapp.

6. Adrian Mapp's vote total might have been even higher if not for Olive Lynch's candidacy. She made a surprisingly strong showing.

One of the best comments I heard on election day was from a local resident who works for the state legislature in Trenton. He said the total Plainfield vote is more important than who wins local elections. Resource allocation decisions at the county, state and even national levels are influenced by the size of the voting public. How are we doing so far this year? Barack Obama certainly benefited from a very good Plainfield turnout in February. In the June primary, a slow year for local elections, Plainfields turnout was better than expected. McWilliams and Mapp get much of the credit for that. Our man in Trenton predicted a Plainfield vote total of 1600 based on his analysis of previous years voting totals. It was close to 3000. The challenge for all Plainfield Democrats is how to come together to maximize our potential influence.

Muhlenberg rally - May 16 - the good, the bad and the useful

I attended the Muhlenberg rally on Saturday. 100 people gathered in downtown Plainfield to march and hear speakers discuss the problems we face at our hospital.

I give much credit to the POP organization - Peoples Organization for Progress. They have skillfully organized and help sustain the grassroots movement to save Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center. It turned ugly for me when the rally was hijacked by Assemblyman Jerry Green for the purpose of promoting his slate of Plainfield Council candidates. I hope POP and any local organizers will not let themselves be used to advocate for an agenda other than fighting for the hospital,the people who need its medical care and the employees who work there.

City Council does not have direct jurisdiction on decisions concerning Muhlenbergs Certificate of Need or sale. What local elected officials can do is advocate for the hospital and for people in the greater Plainfield area who need its services so very much.

Such advocacy must be pro-active. Otherwise we will be in the same place as today: desperate measures, finger pointing and losing control to forces outside our community.

An example of pro-active advocacy would be for the Plainfield City Council to pass a resolution in support of State Senator Vitale's Universal Health care bill. This would be a step beyond just begging the state for more Charity Care money. This would provide health insurance for preventative and acute medical care. We would reduce the wasteful, inhumane and expensive use of the emergency room for non-emergency care. It would increase hospital revenues and make for a healthier hospital for our children and grandchildren.

I will be asking my council colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution. Senator Vitale's office has indicated willingness to work with Plainfield to push this bill forward. Some of my colleagues are saying "not now, the Democratic leadership is not ready". I repeat the famous saying "if not now, when?"

Yes it will cost money and Governor Corzine has said he is reluctant to support it at this time. But then again small towns organized to fight cuts to their state aid and they won. Is our cause less important? Why can't Plainfield fight this good fight? We are a mostly Democratic town. We are a town that gave a huge plurality in the last elections to the Governor and our three state legislators. We helped them. Whats in it for us?

Save Muhlenberg Hospital

Here are my comments, made before the NJ Health Planning Commission last Tuesday evening at Plainfield High School:

"I am a health care professional who has lived and worked in the Plainfield community for 30 years. I am also a Plainfield City Councilman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to officials of the state Planning Commission.

We would be more prepared to solve the current problem if we were joined by state economic development officials and Congressional staff working on immigration reform.

When Muhlenberg Hospital was founded 131 years ago, it served a small number of patients and the cost could be covered by a few wealthy families.

In modern times, the number of beds rose to 400 and the cost of medical care increased significantly. Health insurance became necessary to spread the hospitals costs over a large population. But Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements never kept up with the true cost of care and the insurance system never provided coverage for all that needed it. Hence Charity Care.

Charity Care was never intended to solve the problems that plague New Jersey hospitals. Looking back, it is clear that we skipped the most important step in assuring that people have good health care: fixing the health insurance problem.

Charity Care is only a stop gap measure for Muhlenberg. The permanent solution requires the following acts on the part of our governments, local state and national:

1. pass State Senator Vitale's Universal Health Care bill (S 1557)- that would bring more revenues to our urban hospitals from uninsured and under insured Americans.

2. urge New Jersey's Congressional delegation and our Presidential candidates to fight for sensible immigration reform - helping illegal immigrants who are already here to become citizens means more people and employers paying taxes and insurance premiums.

These recommendation may sound relatively disconnected from the crisis we face tonight in Plainfield but without solutions on these fronts, we will be left with mostly suburban hospitals in New Jerseys.

3. Plainfield will need to seriously consider creating a medical enterprise zone. But we do need help from the state. How can New Jersey urge us to do Smart Growth, transit oriented development and at the same time close down the biggest economic engine in Plainfield.

4. The big solutions will take time. We need two years of Charity Care support from New Jersey for Muhlenberg. The state Commission on Rationalizing Health Care is on the right track. Some hospitals do need to close. But not essential ones. When will the state take responsibility by releasing the list of essential hospitals. Muhlenberg would surely be on that list.

I received a written statement from the Dept of Health saying there is not enough money to save Muhlenberg Hospital. But a truer statement is that there are other priorities. We need leadership from state government to create some winning options for local health care. You can see the local community is deeply committed to working with you {comment added: there were 1200 people at the hearing}.

I ask the state Department of Health to make a financial commitment to the health care of our urban communities. A good place to pick up the pace is right here in Plainfield."

Towards a City Council Agenda

Now is a good time for the Plainfield City Council to play a stronger role in local government. Long time followers of our local government will agree that when the Council exerts its authority, it is usually to say no to proposals from the Mayor. A major city initiative originating from the Council, like the 15 year road reconstruction plan, is the exception to the rule.

When there is strong leadership from the executive branch, the agenda of legislators is generally to follow and support that agenda. That is how I felt during the administration of our late Mayor, Al McWilliams. I also felt that I needed to give the current Mayor, Sharon Robinson-Briggs, a chance to lead when she began her administration.

Now we are two and a half years into the Robinson -Briggs reign and I see a need for a stronger role for the Council. Plainfield could be better served by its government. The current administration is working very hard on redevelopment plans. But what about our other challenges: high taxes, public safety problems, uneven code enforcement, poor internal and external communications and strained relationships between government and the local business community. These are problems that must be addressed with the help of local government.

The Council needs to demand more accountability from the Mayor and her administration. Oversight is one of our critical legislative functions.

Towards a Mayor - Council Partnership
The agenda in Plainfield is controlled by the Mayor and/or the executive branch. Our city charter gives the Council power to approve or vote down almost every action of the Mayor and some call this a strong council-weak mayor form of municipal government. That ignores the simple reality that the Mayor has staff and the council has none.

A Mayor-Council partnership is crucial to the future of Plainfield. It has been a difficult objective to achieve due to the shifting sands of Plainfield politics. Our best example, in my opinion, was the McWilliams - City Council relationship at the beginning of his second term. We saw good results: downtown street scape, Park Madison development, improved performance in Public Works, tax collections and Municipal Court.

Some would say that the supportive Council of the last two years has been helpful and I agree, up to a point. The Mayor has been given virtually everything she has asked for. Now the Council has to demand results. One way to go is for all elected officials to agree to a set of measurable objectives for public safety, code enforcement, economic development and financial performance. The Council and Mayor took a stab at this five years ago. We had a retreat and reached consensus on priorities but did not follow through on measuring our progress.

Towards a Council Agenda
In order for the city to succeed, the Council needs to demand more results from the Mayor and her administration. We are at a point where the act of setting measurable objectives is even more important than objectives themselves. I am confident that elected officials, with a healthy dose of community input, will get the priorities right. But we need the built in accountability going forward.

The Council needs to go further than that though. In order to improve confidence in local government, the Council needs to enact legislation to make local government more open, transparent and user friendly for residents, business owners and potential investors. We can't count on the administration, or any administration in power, to give up control. The legislative body, the City Council, needs to step up on this front.

It may sound a contradiction but the best way for the Plainfield City Council to help our Mayor succeed is to challenge the performance of her administration and demand more accountability. That will require a change in approach for some Council members or a change on election day.

In God We Trust, but not Elected Officials

I was recently asked by a friend, "How will you deal with the last minute primary election filing of Annie McWilliams, candidate for Plainfield City Council?" It was not a question of whom I support (Annie McWilliams is the one!). It was how I, as an elected Democrat, would reconcile myself with the local Democratic Party which supports the incumbent at large Council representative.


This is not always an easy question for local Democratic council members to answer. There is heavy pressure to support the choice of Assemblyman Jerry Green, the chairman of the Plainfield Democratic Committee, who has ultimate authority for who gets to run on the party line in the primary election. There are also consequences for "not being a team player." For instance, my wishes to continue serving on the Council Finance Committee and as the Council's representative on the Planning Board were ignored in January by incoming Council President and "team player" Harold Gibson. Let's face it - that is how politics is played at all levels.









Supporting Ms McWilliams, my questioning friend thought, would not be good for my political career. It would weaken my influence in local government. Probably true in the short run. So why would I do it?


Two reasons:

1) It seems that when a political party maintains power for a long period, its leaders get overconfident from their success. They may forget that the purpose of a primary election is to strengthen the quality of candidates through competition. Does this sound familiar? I may support Frank Lautenberg, but isn't it a good thing that Rob Andrews gives the Democratic Party voters a choice? Same thing in Plainfield, especially Plainfield where we haven't always had much choice and as a consequence, not always quality candidates.





2) I am encouraged by Annie McWilliams' candidacy. As a life long Democrat who believes in the values and traditions of my party, I am worried that some of my party leaders are losing touch with the people. The people do not trust the people they elect. I see too much emphasis on protecting the power of the party over the needs of the party's constituents. For example: if the people came first, my party would have implemented real pay to play legislation by now. Young talented outsiders like Annie McWilliams are just what the Democratic Party needs.

I think we are a reflection of the national scene where Barack Obama has created hope for new solutions. Annie McWilliams is the local reflection of this phenomenon and we should be very glad to have her name on the ballot. Plainfield has many struggles at this point in time and progress will be slow in the short run. But Obama and McWilliams are why I am optimistic about the United States and Plainfield in the long run.