You are here
NJ Municipal Pay-to-Play Ordinances and a State Contribution Database
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Who expects a wonderful local government ethics surprise to come from
New Jersey? Check out the Department of State's Pay-to-Play
Ordinances page, which provides links, county by county, of
municipal ordinances placing a limited contribution ban on those
entering into municipal contracts.
The ordinances are based on a model ordinance drafted by Citizens' Campaign, a New Jersey good government organization. According to an opinion piece in yesterday's Daily Record, about 70 towns and cities have passed such an ordinance. But just last week, Morris Township, a wealthy suburban municipality, rejected a pay-to-play ordinance. One committee member said that the ordinance should cover labor unions, while another said that it would create too much work for procurement officials.
The state has its own municipal pay-to-play law, passed in 2001, but it has too many loopholes (click here for an excellent guide to the statute). The statute deals only with no-bid contracts. It's okay for contractors to make contributions to those with control over their contracts, as long as the agency provides a "fair and open process."
Not only does the agency, including candidates given contributions, determine what is "fair and open" (for example, although the contract has to be advertised, the agency determines what is "a sufficent time to give notice in advance of the contract"). The agency also writes the specifications (or decides who write them), which often discriminate in favor or against one or more contractors. The agency also determines when exceptions apply.
Although the guide to the statute provides guidelines, such as 10-calendar-day notice of bids (which in many cases will not be nearly enough), they are not binding. According to a recent article in the Star-Ledger, a spokesperson for Citizens' Campaign says that these guidelines are being ignored. "We’ve heard horror stories of towns posting for services on Friday night and awarding the contract on Monday morning. It allows the pay-to-play game to continue."
One great thing happened in November: the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission started compiling local government contributions from contractors in one state-local database, so that citizens can see how much money is being given by contractors and professionals who do business with local governments. Elsewhere there is more complete local government contribution data, so you can also see how much money comes from employees, for example.
Here's an amusing quotation on this topic (from the Star-Ledger article). 301 employees of the Essex County Sheriff’s Office gave a total of $68,360 in contributions to the sheriff's re-election campaign, most of them in the amount of $200. The sheriff said he does not solicit his employees for his campaign. "I’m not an aggressive fundraiser. I hate raising money. But people show up at the door and we don’t turn them away. I don’t know if they love me that much, but we get a lot of people from the department showing up."
Well, now they'll show up to the public, too. It takes a lot of scandals to get this sort of information made easily available. Local government associations strenuously oppose this sort of transparency. From their point of view, which often has little to do with the public interest, it can only cause headaches for local officials and make it harder for candidates (especially the incumbents the associations represent) to raise money.
According to the Star-Ledger article, the data showed that "less than half of the money to [municipal] campaigns came from individual voters ... Instead, it came from businesses, political action committees, labor organizations, associations and other special interest groups." It certainly doesn't appear that pay-to-play laws are working.
2009 contribution information will go online in February, and school board campaign data will "eventually" be added.
For more on this, see a guide to NJ pay-to-play laws, intended for companies.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The ordinances are based on a model ordinance drafted by Citizens' Campaign, a New Jersey good government organization. According to an opinion piece in yesterday's Daily Record, about 70 towns and cities have passed such an ordinance. But just last week, Morris Township, a wealthy suburban municipality, rejected a pay-to-play ordinance. One committee member said that the ordinance should cover labor unions, while another said that it would create too much work for procurement officials.
The state has its own municipal pay-to-play law, passed in 2001, but it has too many loopholes (click here for an excellent guide to the statute). The statute deals only with no-bid contracts. It's okay for contractors to make contributions to those with control over their contracts, as long as the agency provides a "fair and open process."
Not only does the agency, including candidates given contributions, determine what is "fair and open" (for example, although the contract has to be advertised, the agency determines what is "a sufficent time to give notice in advance of the contract"). The agency also writes the specifications (or decides who write them), which often discriminate in favor or against one or more contractors. The agency also determines when exceptions apply.
Although the guide to the statute provides guidelines, such as 10-calendar-day notice of bids (which in many cases will not be nearly enough), they are not binding. According to a recent article in the Star-Ledger, a spokesperson for Citizens' Campaign says that these guidelines are being ignored. "We’ve heard horror stories of towns posting for services on Friday night and awarding the contract on Monday morning. It allows the pay-to-play game to continue."
One great thing happened in November: the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission started compiling local government contributions from contractors in one state-local database, so that citizens can see how much money is being given by contractors and professionals who do business with local governments. Elsewhere there is more complete local government contribution data, so you can also see how much money comes from employees, for example.
Here's an amusing quotation on this topic (from the Star-Ledger article). 301 employees of the Essex County Sheriff’s Office gave a total of $68,360 in contributions to the sheriff's re-election campaign, most of them in the amount of $200. The sheriff said he does not solicit his employees for his campaign. "I’m not an aggressive fundraiser. I hate raising money. But people show up at the door and we don’t turn them away. I don’t know if they love me that much, but we get a lot of people from the department showing up."
Well, now they'll show up to the public, too. It takes a lot of scandals to get this sort of information made easily available. Local government associations strenuously oppose this sort of transparency. From their point of view, which often has little to do with the public interest, it can only cause headaches for local officials and make it harder for candidates (especially the incumbents the associations represent) to raise money.
According to the Star-Ledger article, the data showed that "less than half of the money to [municipal] campaigns came from individual voters ... Instead, it came from businesses, political action committees, labor organizations, associations and other special interest groups." It certainly doesn't appear that pay-to-play laws are working.
2009 contribution information will go online in February, and school board campaign data will "eventually" be added.
For more on this, see a guide to NJ pay-to-play laws, intended for companies.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
