Local Loopholes 1

The first regular council meeting of 2012 in Oakland, NJ was dominated by appointments to various local commissions and committees.

This also included appointments for professional services, and these annual appointments provide an opportunity to examine government reform efforts in New Jersey.

It is of no surprise that many private citizens in New Jersey are working to reform government. Having one of the highest tax rates in the nation, a government laden with debt, reform in government spending and accountability are two primary goals of citizen organizations such a the New Jersey Taxpayer Association and The Citizen’s Campaign.

Pay-to-Play reform regularly gets media attention, but numerous loopholes exist as detailed in a report issued in September 2011 by the State Comptroller’s Office. The OSC report examined an exception to the Pay-to-Play law that allows local governments to award contracts to campaign donors with unlimited discretion as long as it uses what the law defines as a “fair and open” process.

The New Jersey Comptroller stated that the “fair and open” requirements under the existing laws offer no real obstacles to local governments seeking to reward politically favored vendors with government contracts.

Acknowledging concerns that overly strict pay-to-play standards might “starve the political process of needed campaign contributions”, the report did offer suggestions for remedying the issue as it relates to municipalities.

While some advocates for government reform would hail this “starvation” as a positive step, there are no legal mechanisms in place to implement a zero policy of contributions from vendors and contractors to local candidates and local political parties.

Legislation cannot eliminate all risk associated with political corruption and donor influence in the government procurement process, but closing the loopholes in the “fair and open” process provides greater transparency for local residents.

The OSC identified deficiencies in how contracts ranging from legal services to audit services were awarded. One major deficiency was the absence of any formal, criteria-driven process in awarding their professional services contracts under fair-and-open. The lack of formal standards allows the governing body alone to determine if they are acting in a fair and open manner.

A recommended safeguard would have municipal governments use a qualified selection committee whose members certify that they are not subject to any conflict of interest in recommending a contract award; and, implement a scoring of vendor submissions to help ensure that a verifiable competitive process is being used.

Reform efforts with “pay-to-play” and “fair and open” also include efforts by local municipalities with respect to political contributions by municipal vendors and contractors.

Oakland has a long history of political contributions being made by vendors & contractors working for the town. The political party controlling the majority of votes on the council appears to reap the greatest benefits, and so it’s not unexpected that this would be the Republican Party in Oakland for the last several election seasons.

As reported on in a previous article, the only FLOW town with a local pay-to-play ordinance is Franklin Lakes . The idea of a local ordinance was raised in Wyckoff by Township Committee Member Scanlan, but no action has been taken.

The Franklin Lakes ordinance follows the model created by The Citizens campaign which basically entails: Limiting contributions to a total of $300 to town candidates and local political parties, $500 to county political parties, and $2,500 in aggregate.

List of NJ towns with local pay-to-play ordinances
http://www.nj.gov/state/dos_pay_to_play.html#2

NJ ELEC Campaign Contribution Reports
http://www.elec.state.nj.us/publicinformation.htm