Friday, February 25, 2011
NJMEP (New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program)
P.s New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program has encouraged manufacturers in our district to contact them for help. The contact number for Robert Loderstedt, NJMEP's president is (973) 998-9801.
Letters from a 3rd Grade Class at St. Bartholomew Academy in Scotch Plains
Thank you Sister Elizabeth for sharing these letters from your class with me and my readers.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Courier Post Op-Ed / Feb. 22nd 2011
Affordable Housing Need Endures
The issue of where to create new housing opportunities, how many homes should be built, and who should be able to live in them is a very contentious subject in the State of New Jersey. Just mention "COAH" in some places and hear the battle lines being drawn. And yet several weeks ago, a compromise was reached in the legislature that should have been welcomed by all parties.
-
It took months of negotiations between mayors, developers and advocates to create a workable alternative to the current situation. The final proposal even included some of the Governor's main goals: the abolition of COAH and getting rid of the developer's fees.
-
Assembly representatives Jerry Green and Mila Jasey, co-sponsors of the bill, worked hard to balance a wide range of interests and viewpoints. Without Assemblyman Green's thoughtful leadership, the bill might have died in committee. Instead, it was passed by both houses and is supported by everyone from business interests to housing activists.
-
And yet the Governor vetoed it, issuing conditions that would effectively strip the bill of everything that would ensure fair treatment to those who cannot afford $500,000 homes.
-
Without State oversight and without clear mandates, there will be no new homes for everyday working people and struggling families. Towns like Plainfield, Roselle and East Orange would be forced, yet again, to carry water for places like Watchung, Summit, and Westfield, places that have escaped their obligations for too long.
-
Why throw away all the hard work that has been done so far? Why not take this workable bill and keep New Jersey moving forward?
-
Rev. Julia Hamilton
Executive Director
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey
Friday, February 18, 2011
Housing reform bill veto hurts
Published: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 4:35 PM
By Independent Press
To the Editor,
Governor Christie vetoed the housing reform bill (A.3447/S.1) that after much compromise was adopted by the state legislature. Assemblyman Jerry Green's housing committee held numerous hearings to put together a bill under which all towns would have to do their fair share. It took more than a year to get a bill that both advocates and critics of affordable housing could agree on.
In our community, it is difficult for families to stay as the costs of rents continue to increase with few affordable housing options. In these difficult economic times, I hear many stories of people who worry about paying their rent and seniors who move due to high property taxes.
Governor Christie needs to welcome any compromise housing bill that helps New Jersey residents to live in decent housing and offers opportunities for families to stay in their homes.
Karen Malnati
Summit
By Independent Press
To the Editor,
Governor Christie vetoed the housing reform bill (A.3447/S.1) that after much compromise was adopted by the state legislature. Assemblyman Jerry Green's housing committee held numerous hearings to put together a bill under which all towns would have to do their fair share. It took more than a year to get a bill that both advocates and critics of affordable housing could agree on.
In our community, it is difficult for families to stay as the costs of rents continue to increase with few affordable housing options. In these difficult economic times, I hear many stories of people who worry about paying their rent and seniors who move due to high property taxes.
Governor Christie needs to welcome any compromise housing bill that helps New Jersey residents to live in decent housing and offers opportunities for families to stay in their homes.
Karen Malnati
Summit
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Bill A444
Today the Assembly will vote on bill A444, upon passage of through the Assembly the Senate will have its vote. For your edification an explanation of the bill is posted below.
The Senate amended the bill to require a member of a charter school board of trustees to undergo a criminal history record check and would disqualify that individual for the same offenses that would disqualify a member of a board of education under the provisions of the bill. The amendments would also permit a board of education or a charter school to reimburse a school board member or a member of the board of trustees, as appropriate, for the costs of the criminal history record check.
This bill would provide that any person elected or appointed to any board of education would be disqualified from service on the board because of a current or past conviction for any of the crimes that, under existing law, disqualify an individual from holding employment in a public school. It provides that the oath of office taken by a member of a board of education prior to assuming office will contain a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from holding that office due to conviction of one of those crimes or offenses. A member who falsely swears or affirms that he is not disqualified due to a conviction would be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
In addition, the bill would require each member of a board of education, within 30 days of election or appointment to that board, to undergo a criminal history background investigation for the purpose of ensuring that the member is not disqualified from membership due to a conviction of a crime or offense. The State Bureau of Identification would immediately inform the Commissioner of Education of any new charges filed against any member who has previously undergone a background investigation. A board member holding office on the bill’s effective date must undergo a background investigation within 30 days.
This bill would take effect immediately.
In order to enhance school safety and the welfare of the State’s students, current law disqualifies an individual convicted of certain crimes from employment in a public school.
These crimes include any crime of the first or second degree; an offense involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a "controlled dangerous substance" as defined in the "Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987," or "drug paraphernalia"; a crime involving the use of force or the threat of force to or upon a person or property including, but not limited to, robbery, aggravated assault, stalking, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder; a third degree crime, or any of the following crimes: recklessly endangering another person; terroristic threats; criminal restraint; luring, enticing child into motor vehicle structure or isolated area; causing or risking widespread injury or damage; criminal mischief; burglary; threats and other improper influence; perjury and false swearing; resisting arrest; any crime of the fourth degree involving a victim who is a minor; or conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid crimes.
This bill would expand current law to disqualify any person elected or appointed to any board of education who has been convicted of any of the above crimes. Under the bill, the cost of the background investigation would be the responsibility of the school board member, but unexpended campaign funds may be used for this purpose.
ASSEMBLY ACTION:
A-444 was prefiled and referred to the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee (ALP). ALP reported the bill on June 10, 2010 by a vote of 7-0-1. YES: Johnson, Albano, Evans, Moriarty, Bramnick, Handlin, Rible. ABSTAIN: Wilson. On June 21, 2010 it passed the assembly by a vote of 80-0 and was referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED).
On January 6, 2011, A-444 was received in the Assembly for concurrence with Senate amendments.
SENATE ACTION:
S-295 (Allen/Buono) was prefiled and referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED). It was reported from SED on October 14, 2010 by a vote of 5-0. YES: Ruiz, Whelan, Turner, Kean, Allen.
On December 20, 2010 A-444 was substituted for S-295 and amended in the Senate. The Senate amended the bill to require a member of a charter school board of trustees to undergo a criminal history record check and would disqualify that individual for the same offenses that would disqualify a member of a board of education under the provisions of the bill. These amendments would also permit a board of education or a charter school to reimburse a school board member or a member of the board of trustees, as appropriate, for the costs of the criminal history record check. On December 20, 2010 it passed the Senate by a vote of 36-0.
LAST SESSION ACTION:
A-4019 (Green/Bramnick/Conners/Conaway) was introduced on June 4, 2009 and referred to the Assembly Law and Public Safety (ALP). S-157 (Allen/Buono) was prefiled and referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED).
This bill has not been certified for a fiscal note and should not impact State or local finances.
The Senate amended the bill to require a member of a charter school board of trustees to undergo a criminal history record check and would disqualify that individual for the same offenses that would disqualify a member of a board of education under the provisions of the bill. The amendments would also permit a board of education or a charter school to reimburse a school board member or a member of the board of trustees, as appropriate, for the costs of the criminal history record check.
This bill would provide that any person elected or appointed to any board of education would be disqualified from service on the board because of a current or past conviction for any of the crimes that, under existing law, disqualify an individual from holding employment in a public school. It provides that the oath of office taken by a member of a board of education prior to assuming office will contain a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from holding that office due to conviction of one of those crimes or offenses. A member who falsely swears or affirms that he is not disqualified due to a conviction would be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
In addition, the bill would require each member of a board of education, within 30 days of election or appointment to that board, to undergo a criminal history background investigation for the purpose of ensuring that the member is not disqualified from membership due to a conviction of a crime or offense. The State Bureau of Identification would immediately inform the Commissioner of Education of any new charges filed against any member who has previously undergone a background investigation. A board member holding office on the bill’s effective date must undergo a background investigation within 30 days.
This bill would take effect immediately.
In order to enhance school safety and the welfare of the State’s students, current law disqualifies an individual convicted of certain crimes from employment in a public school.
These crimes include any crime of the first or second degree; an offense involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a "controlled dangerous substance" as defined in the "Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987," or "drug paraphernalia"; a crime involving the use of force or the threat of force to or upon a person or property including, but not limited to, robbery, aggravated assault, stalking, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder; a third degree crime, or any of the following crimes: recklessly endangering another person; terroristic threats; criminal restraint; luring, enticing child into motor vehicle structure or isolated area; causing or risking widespread injury or damage; criminal mischief; burglary; threats and other improper influence; perjury and false swearing; resisting arrest; any crime of the fourth degree involving a victim who is a minor; or conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid crimes.
This bill would expand current law to disqualify any person elected or appointed to any board of education who has been convicted of any of the above crimes. Under the bill, the cost of the background investigation would be the responsibility of the school board member, but unexpended campaign funds may be used for this purpose.
ASSEMBLY ACTION:
A-444 was prefiled and referred to the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee (ALP). ALP reported the bill on June 10, 2010 by a vote of 7-0-1. YES: Johnson, Albano, Evans, Moriarty, Bramnick, Handlin, Rible. ABSTAIN: Wilson. On June 21, 2010 it passed the assembly by a vote of 80-0 and was referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED).
On January 6, 2011, A-444 was received in the Assembly for concurrence with Senate amendments.
SENATE ACTION:
S-295 (Allen/Buono) was prefiled and referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED). It was reported from SED on October 14, 2010 by a vote of 5-0. YES: Ruiz, Whelan, Turner, Kean, Allen.
On December 20, 2010 A-444 was substituted for S-295 and amended in the Senate. The Senate amended the bill to require a member of a charter school board of trustees to undergo a criminal history record check and would disqualify that individual for the same offenses that would disqualify a member of a board of education under the provisions of the bill. These amendments would also permit a board of education or a charter school to reimburse a school board member or a member of the board of trustees, as appropriate, for the costs of the criminal history record check. On December 20, 2010 it passed the Senate by a vote of 36-0.
LAST SESSION ACTION:
A-4019 (Green/Bramnick/Conners/Conaway) was introduced on June 4, 2009 and referred to the Assembly Law and Public Safety (ALP). S-157 (Allen/Buono) was prefiled and referred to the Senate Education Committee (SED).
This bill has not been certified for a fiscal note and should not impact State or local finances.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Anti-Bullying Seminar in Clark on February 9th
Left to right: Top Row: Superintendent Kenneth Knops, Board of Education Member Carmen Brocato, Board of Education Member Sheri Sandler, Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman, Assemblyman Jerry Green, Presenter John Halligan, and Assemblywoman Joan Voss.
Left to right: Clark Superintendent Kenneth Knops, Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman, Assemblyman Jerry Green, Assemblywoman Mila Jasey, Presenter John Halligan, and Assemblywoman Joan Voss.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
GREEN: CHRISTIE COAH VETO SHOWS HE WANTS HIGHER BUSINESS TAXES & COURT FIGHTS
(TRENTON) – Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green released the following statement Monday on Gov. Chris Christie’s conditional veto of legislation he sponsored (A-3447) he sponsored to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and reform affordable housing laws to put less pressure on municipalities.
In his conditional veto, the governor sought the original version of the bill that was judged unconstitutional by the Office of Legislative Services – that opinion is attached - and imposed a 2.5 percent fee on businesses.
Green’s bill was deemed constitutional and lowered the fee to 1.5 percent:
“The governor has now made it clear that he supports unconstitutional legislation that imposes higher fees on New Jersey businesses.
“The last thing New Jersey and its economy needs is unworkable laws that force businesses to pay higher taxes, but that’s exactly what the governor has endorsed with this unfortunate decision.
“Our bill was backed by a broad range of businesses, housing advocates, legal experts and local officials who understood it was the best way to provide housing for working class residents, create jobs and spark the economy.
“The governor, sadly, wants higher business taxes and a court fight. That accomplishes nothing.”
In his conditional veto, the governor sought the original version of the bill that was judged unconstitutional by the Office of Legislative Services – that opinion is attached - and imposed a 2.5 percent fee on businesses.
Green’s bill was deemed constitutional and lowered the fee to 1.5 percent:
“The governor has now made it clear that he supports unconstitutional legislation that imposes higher fees on New Jersey businesses.
“The last thing New Jersey and its economy needs is unworkable laws that force businesses to pay higher taxes, but that’s exactly what the governor has endorsed with this unfortunate decision.
“Our bill was backed by a broad range of businesses, housing advocates, legal experts and local officials who understood it was the best way to provide housing for working class residents, create jobs and spark the economy.
“The governor, sadly, wants higher business taxes and a court fight. That accomplishes nothing.”
Plainfield City to receive an award from the Community Services Block Grant
February 15, 2011
The Honorable Jerry Green
Assemblyman, District 22
17 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, New Jersey 07060
Dear Assemblyman Green:
On behalf of Governor Chris Christie and the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, I am pleased to inform you that Plainfield City has been approved to receive a $89,196 award from the Community Services Block Grant - Non-Discretionary program. This award will provide funds for health, education, employment, housing and other services benefitting the low-income population of the City of Plainfield.
Sincerely,
LORI GRIFA
Commissioner
The Honorable Jerry Green
Assemblyman, District 22
17 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, New Jersey 07060
Dear Assemblyman Green:
On behalf of Governor Chris Christie and the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, I am pleased to inform you that Plainfield City has been approved to receive a $89,196 award from the Community Services Block Grant - Non-Discretionary program. This award will provide funds for health, education, employment, housing and other services benefitting the low-income population of the City of Plainfield.
Sincerely,
LORI GRIFA
Commissioner
Monday, February 14, 2011
CYBERBULLYING ASSEMBLY AT CLARK PUBLIC SCHOOL
On Feb. 9, 2011 I attended an assembly for the students of Clark Public School, during this visit I had an opportunity to discuss the topic of cyber bullying with some of the young people in my district.
Below are some of the points that were discussed:
- New Jersey was one of the first states in the nation to pass anti-bullying legislation in 2002.
- On Jan 5, 2011 New Jersey signed into law the Anti -Bullying Bill of Rights Act. This new law is a product of nearly a year of research and discussion with top experts on the effects of bullying, anti-bullying advocates and the victims themselves.
- At its core, it will help combat harassment, intimidation and bullying among students.
- Additionally this bill provides a basis for schools to use for taking measures for the students to protect them from physical and cyber bullying.
- The new law designates the week beginning with the first Monday in October of each year as a “Week of Respect” and requires districts to observe the week by providing age-appropriate instruction focusing on preventing harassment, intimidation or bullying.
Below are some of the points that were discussed:
- New Jersey was one of the first states in the nation to pass anti-bullying legislation in 2002.
- On Jan 5, 2011 New Jersey signed into law the Anti -Bullying Bill of Rights Act. This new law is a product of nearly a year of research and discussion with top experts on the effects of bullying, anti-bullying advocates and the victims themselves.
- At its core, it will help combat harassment, intimidation and bullying among students.
- Additionally this bill provides a basis for schools to use for taking measures for the students to protect them from physical and cyber bullying.
- The new law designates the week beginning with the first Monday in October of each year as a “Week of Respect” and requires districts to observe the week by providing age-appropriate instruction focusing on preventing harassment, intimidation or bullying.
Privatization Services in the Sate of NJ
Privatization Meets Strong Resistance in New Jersey
Diverse Coalition Formed to Fight Damaging Effects of Privatizationhttp://www.nj-cop.com
Trenton, NJ: In an unprecedented show of unity, a diverse group of organizations representing consumers, tenants, workers, ethnic communities, community groups and environmentalists took a unified stand against the rush to privatize everything from parks to parking lots in NJ with announcement of the NJ Coalition on Privatization.
“Our organizations are standing side by side with a shared concern that privatization contracts are perpetuating corruption and adversely impacting taxpayers and ratepayers, service quality, jobs and the environment,” said Jim Walsh, NJ Director, Food & Water Watch and Spokesperson for NJ Coalition on Privatization.
Privatization of government services is something that is gaining more and more attention as budget shortfalls push state, county and municipal governments to seek remedies to structural budget deficits.
“Privatization contracts can have unintended consequences, which can leave communities worse off than they were before the privatization took place,” said Frank Argote-Freyre, President, Latino Action Network. These contracts can disproportionately hurt people of limited incomes," added Argote-Freyre.
“Turning public services over to private entities is always a gamble, said Joanne O’Neill, State Coordinator, Progressive Democrats of New Jersey. “Although most claim to be cost cutting, the privatization of government services has rarely delivered on its promise. In study after study, it has been shown there was very little, if any gain and in most cases the public suffers substantial losses,” added O’Neill.
After residents saw their water bills double or triple following a water privatization contract, North Brunswick, NJ took back public control of their water system, saving rate payers $140,000 per year.
“There is no reason to believe that private contractors will do a better job than the public sector”, said Matt Shapiro, NJ Tenants Organization. Lack of public accountability, coupled with profit motive, can foster an environment where abuse and corruption can grow.”
“With privatization we see higher costs, worse services, and at times threats to public health and safety. It is bad for the consumer and for the environment.” said Jeff Tittel, Director of NJ Sierra Club. “Many of the companies care more about their shareholders than the public they are suppose to serve. The word privateer comes from privatization which is just another name for a pirate.”
Last week the Assembly State Government Committee heard testimony on ACR150/SCR131, legislation introduced by Senator Rice and Assemblyman Barns that would allow New Jersey voters to determine an amendment to the state constitution that would set minimum standards and procedures regarding certain contracts to privatize public services.
“This legislation will help protect communities from damaging privatization contracts and help ensure public assets and services are managed for the public good, rather than for private gain, said Senator Rice.”
"This legislation does not eliminate the privatization of services, it simply places safeguards to guarantee the public receives the same quality of services that they have grown to expect" said Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes III (D-Edison). "We cannot allow private companies to charge us premium prices for mediocre services," added Barnes.
In addition to working to enact protections for communities from privatization, the coalition plans to educate the public about the negative aspects and broad impacts privatization can have on our communities.
Speaker Oliver Weighs in on Privatization of State Services 2/14/11
(TRENTON) – Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver today offered her support to the Coalition on Privatization, stressing the need to proceed with caution when it comes to privatizing state services.
“We’ve seen many instances in the past where privatization of various state functions was rushed into blindly without a full understanding of how it would impact the delivery of services, the workers involved in the operations or the long-term costs to the state.
“Often times these agreements only deliver short-term cost savings but long-term damages to the delivery of services offered to taxpayers. In many instances, lower wage earners are the ones who suffer when their jobs are eliminated or replaced.
“Any privatization arrangement should be conducted under a microscope with a full cost analysis that demonstrates how savings would be achieved without increased fees, substantially reduced workforces, or lower standards of service or workplace safety. Only then would it truly benefit the taxpayers of New Jersey.
“Otherwise, it would simply be a short-term gimmick to plug a budget hole, one that could have disastrous long-term effects.”
Diverse Coalition Formed to Fight Damaging Effects of Privatizationhttp://www.nj-cop.com
Trenton, NJ: In an unprecedented show of unity, a diverse group of organizations representing consumers, tenants, workers, ethnic communities, community groups and environmentalists took a unified stand against the rush to privatize everything from parks to parking lots in NJ with announcement of the NJ Coalition on Privatization.
“Our organizations are standing side by side with a shared concern that privatization contracts are perpetuating corruption and adversely impacting taxpayers and ratepayers, service quality, jobs and the environment,” said Jim Walsh, NJ Director, Food & Water Watch and Spokesperson for NJ Coalition on Privatization.
Privatization of government services is something that is gaining more and more attention as budget shortfalls push state, county and municipal governments to seek remedies to structural budget deficits.
“Privatization contracts can have unintended consequences, which can leave communities worse off than they were before the privatization took place,” said Frank Argote-Freyre, President, Latino Action Network. These contracts can disproportionately hurt people of limited incomes," added Argote-Freyre.
“Turning public services over to private entities is always a gamble, said Joanne O’Neill, State Coordinator, Progressive Democrats of New Jersey. “Although most claim to be cost cutting, the privatization of government services has rarely delivered on its promise. In study after study, it has been shown there was very little, if any gain and in most cases the public suffers substantial losses,” added O’Neill.
After residents saw their water bills double or triple following a water privatization contract, North Brunswick, NJ took back public control of their water system, saving rate payers $140,000 per year.
“There is no reason to believe that private contractors will do a better job than the public sector”, said Matt Shapiro, NJ Tenants Organization. Lack of public accountability, coupled with profit motive, can foster an environment where abuse and corruption can grow.”
“With privatization we see higher costs, worse services, and at times threats to public health and safety. It is bad for the consumer and for the environment.” said Jeff Tittel, Director of NJ Sierra Club. “Many of the companies care more about their shareholders than the public they are suppose to serve. The word privateer comes from privatization which is just another name for a pirate.”
Last week the Assembly State Government Committee heard testimony on ACR150/SCR131, legislation introduced by Senator Rice and Assemblyman Barns that would allow New Jersey voters to determine an amendment to the state constitution that would set minimum standards and procedures regarding certain contracts to privatize public services.
“This legislation will help protect communities from damaging privatization contracts and help ensure public assets and services are managed for the public good, rather than for private gain, said Senator Rice.”
"This legislation does not eliminate the privatization of services, it simply places safeguards to guarantee the public receives the same quality of services that they have grown to expect" said Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes III (D-Edison). "We cannot allow private companies to charge us premium prices for mediocre services," added Barnes.
In addition to working to enact protections for communities from privatization, the coalition plans to educate the public about the negative aspects and broad impacts privatization can have on our communities.
Speaker Oliver Weighs in on Privatization of State Services 2/14/11
(TRENTON) – Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver today offered her support to the Coalition on Privatization, stressing the need to proceed with caution when it comes to privatizing state services.
“We’ve seen many instances in the past where privatization of various state functions was rushed into blindly without a full understanding of how it would impact the delivery of services, the workers involved in the operations or the long-term costs to the state.
“Often times these agreements only deliver short-term cost savings but long-term damages to the delivery of services offered to taxpayers. In many instances, lower wage earners are the ones who suffer when their jobs are eliminated or replaced.
“Any privatization arrangement should be conducted under a microscope with a full cost analysis that demonstrates how savings would be achieved without increased fees, substantially reduced workforces, or lower standards of service or workplace safety. Only then would it truly benefit the taxpayers of New Jersey.
“Otherwise, it would simply be a short-term gimmick to plug a budget hole, one that could have disastrous long-term effects.”
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Redistricting Hearing Scheduled for Sunday Feb 13, 2011
The New Jersey State Legislature-Apportionment Commission will hold a public hearing on legislative redistricting scheduled for North Jersey tomorrow at Hudson County Community College. The hearing will start at 1 pm.
Hudson County Community College
Culinary Conference Center
Scott Ring Room
2nd Floor
161 Newkirk St.
Jersey City, NJ
Hudson County Community College
Culinary Conference Center
Scott Ring Room
2nd Floor
161 Newkirk St.
Jersey City, NJ
Friday, February 11, 2011
Today in Trenton 2/11/11
BURZICHELLI BILL TO HELP LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SAVE MONEY THROUGH IMPROVED ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL RELEASED BY PANEL
(TRENTON) - Legislation Assemblyman John Burzichelli sponsored to help control animal population and save local governments money was released Thursday by an Assembly panel.
The bill (A-3205) prohibits a shelter, pound, animal rescue organization or an auxiliary organization from releasing a dog or cat for adoption unless the dog or cat has been sterilized, and at least seven days have elapsed after arrival of the dog or cat at any of these facilities.
"Overcrowding in animal shelters has become a very serious issue, and one that
costs taxpayers money year after year," said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester/Salem/Cumberland). "Sadly, a big part of that is the unwanted pet population, so clearly we need to take steps to control it.. This will save local governments money and is the human thing to do."
The bill provides an exception from the sterilization requirement if a licensed veterinarian determines it would be detrimental to the health of the dog or cat.
The bill would also authorize a shelter, pound, animal rescue organization or auxiliary organization to charge a person adopting a dog or cat for the cost of sterilizing the animal before its release for adoption, up to a maximum of $100 or such higher maximum established by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
The bill was released unanimously by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural ReDests Committee.
CONNERS, TUCKER & MORIARTY BILL TO CREATE PEER SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR VETERANS ADVANCES
(TRENTON) - Legislation Assembly Democrats Jack Conners, Cleopatra Tucker and Paul D. Moriarty sponsored to establish a veteran-to-veteran peer support telephone hotline was advanced Thursday by an Assembly panel.
The bill (A-2616) would make permanent a program started by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
"The helpline is a great idea that receives and responds to calls from veterans, service members and their families," said Conners (D-Burlington/Camden). "We sadly know all too well that many of our veterans need a helping hand once they've returned home, and hopefully a peer support program like this will encourage them to seek help when they need it."
"This program provides New Jersey veterans and their families with access to a comprehensive network of mental health professionals specializing in post traumatic stress disorder and other veterans issues," said Tucker (D-Essex). "It's a great program and we should ensure it's here to stay."
"The services are free and confidential, and since its inception, the helpline has fielded more than 6,000 calls," said Moriarty (D-Gloucester/Camden). "It's a valuable program that has already helped thousands of veterans in need after their service, and we need to make sure it continues to help veterans for years to come."
The bill was released by the Assembly Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee chaired by Conners.
PRESS OF ATLANTIC CITY: 'Another end-run around campaign laws / Disclose donors'
The Press of Atlantic City published the following Thursday on Democrats urging Republicans to disclose the donors and expenses of their secretive redistricting group.
The stakes in New Jersey's redistricting process are very, very high. The party that comes out ahead gets a huge edge in getting and staying in power for the next decade. And the process is often viewed with cynicism - for some legitimate reasons. Legislative districts are drawn less on the basis of logical boundaries than on the basis of creating districts likely to support a particular party.
Still, the process itself is relatively fair and reasonably open: A 10-member Legislative Apportionment Commission of five Republicans and five Democrats meets and holds public meetings. If it can't agree on a new map, an 11th member is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to break the tie.
But Republicans are now creating a whole new basis for cynicism: a secretly funded organization to finance Republican efforts to redraw the map in their favor. The organization, Center for a Better New Jersey, is known as a 501(c)4 nonprofit - the same kind of nonprofit as Reform Jersey Now, a now-defunct group formed to push Gov. Chris Christie's agenda.
These innocuous-sounding, 501(c)4 groups are popping up nationwide as a way to circumvent financial-disclosure, campaign-contribution, pay-to-play and other laws regulating political donations. The nonprofits are not legally required to disclose who is donating, and donors can contributed unlimited amounts of cash.
The history of Reform Jersey Now demonstrates why this is such a dangerous road. Under intense public pressure, Reform Jersey Now finally did voluntarily disclose its donors in December. Contributors included firms with hundreds of millions of dollars in state contracts. It included lobby and special-interest groups with a financial interest in specific bills in the Statehouse. In short, these donors were looking for something else besides property-tax and civil-service reform. Wealthy companies and lobby groups do not spend tens of thousands of dollars unless they expect a return on their investment.
Democrats are now calling on Republicans to disclose the donors of Center for a Better New Jersey. In response, Sen. Tom Kean, R-Essex, says the nonprofit group will "fully comply with all reporting and disclosure laws" - which, of course, do not apply.
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around here. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine created a similar nonprofit to promote his toll-hike plan - and under pressure, eventually disclosed donors, which included some state contractors. One of the key Republican legislators pressuring him to release that information was ... that same Tom Kean.
Still, Christie came to office promising ethics reform and strict pay-to-play laws. He should be among the chorus calling for disclosure on this issue - or risk being labeled the biggest hypocrite.
VAINIERI HUTTLE: 'BATTLING FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE FUNDING'
Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) had the following published in www.politickernj.com:
"Women’s health should not be held hostage by one person’s ideology or the propaganda spread by anti-abortion groups, especially as none of the money previously appropriated for family planning services was used to provide abortion services nor would any money be allocated for that purpose in the future…"
GOVERNMENTS SAVE MONEY THROUGH IMPROVED ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL RELEASED BY PANEL
(TRENTON) - Legislation Assemblyman John Burzichelli sponsored to help control animal population and save local governments money was released Thursday by an Assembly panel.
The bill (A-3205) prohibits a shelter, pound, animal rescue organization or an auxiliary organization from releasing a dog or cat for adoption unless the dog or cat has been sterilized, and at least seven days have elapsed after arrival of the dog or cat at any of these facilities.
"Overcrowding in animal shelters has become a very serious issue, and one that
costs taxpayers money year after year," said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester/Salem/Cumberland). "Sadly, a big part of that is the unwanted pet population, so clearly we need to take steps to control it.. This will save local governments money and is the human thing to do."
The bill provides an exception from the sterilization requirement if a licensed veterinarian determines it would be detrimental to the health of the dog or cat.
The bill would also authorize a shelter, pound, animal rescue organization or auxiliary organization to charge a person adopting a dog or cat for the cost of sterilizing the animal before its release for adoption, up to a maximum of $100 or such higher maximum established by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
The bill was released unanimously by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural ReDests Committee.
CONNERS, TUCKER & MORIARTY BILL TO CREATE PEER SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR VETERANS ADVANCES
(TRENTON) - Legislation Assembly Democrats Jack Conners, Cleopatra Tucker and Paul D. Moriarty sponsored to establish a veteran-to-veteran peer support telephone hotline was advanced Thursday by an Assembly panel.
The bill (A-2616) would make permanent a program started by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
"The helpline is a great idea that receives and responds to calls from veterans, service members and their families," said Conners (D-Burlington/Camden). "We sadly know all too well that many of our veterans need a helping hand once they've returned home, and hopefully a peer support program like this will encourage them to seek help when they need it."
"This program provides New Jersey veterans and their families with access to a comprehensive network of mental health professionals specializing in post traumatic stress disorder and other veterans issues," said Tucker (D-Essex). "It's a great program and we should ensure it's here to stay."
"The services are free and confidential, and since its inception, the helpline has fielded more than 6,000 calls," said Moriarty (D-Gloucester/Camden). "It's a valuable program that has already helped thousands of veterans in need after their service, and we need to make sure it continues to help veterans for years to come."
The bill was released by the Assembly Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee chaired by Conners.
PRESS OF ATLANTIC CITY: 'Another end-run around campaign laws / Disclose donors'
The Press of Atlantic City published the following Thursday on Democrats urging Republicans to disclose the donors and expenses of their secretive redistricting group.
The stakes in New Jersey's redistricting process are very, very high. The party that comes out ahead gets a huge edge in getting and staying in power for the next decade. And the process is often viewed with cynicism - for some legitimate reasons. Legislative districts are drawn less on the basis of logical boundaries than on the basis of creating districts likely to support a particular party.
Still, the process itself is relatively fair and reasonably open: A 10-member Legislative Apportionment Commission of five Republicans and five Democrats meets and holds public meetings. If it can't agree on a new map, an 11th member is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to break the tie.
But Republicans are now creating a whole new basis for cynicism: a secretly funded organization to finance Republican efforts to redraw the map in their favor. The organization, Center for a Better New Jersey, is known as a 501(c)4 nonprofit - the same kind of nonprofit as Reform Jersey Now, a now-defunct group formed to push Gov. Chris Christie's agenda.
These innocuous-sounding, 501(c)4 groups are popping up nationwide as a way to circumvent financial-disclosure, campaign-contribution, pay-to-play and other laws regulating political donations. The nonprofits are not legally required to disclose who is donating, and donors can contributed unlimited amounts of cash.
The history of Reform Jersey Now demonstrates why this is such a dangerous road. Under intense public pressure, Reform Jersey Now finally did voluntarily disclose its donors in December. Contributors included firms with hundreds of millions of dollars in state contracts. It included lobby and special-interest groups with a financial interest in specific bills in the Statehouse. In short, these donors were looking for something else besides property-tax and civil-service reform. Wealthy companies and lobby groups do not spend tens of thousands of dollars unless they expect a return on their investment.
Democrats are now calling on Republicans to disclose the donors of Center for a Better New Jersey. In response, Sen. Tom Kean, R-Essex, says the nonprofit group will "fully comply with all reporting and disclosure laws" - which, of course, do not apply.
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around here. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine created a similar nonprofit to promote his toll-hike plan - and under pressure, eventually disclosed donors, which included some state contractors. One of the key Republican legislators pressuring him to release that information was ... that same Tom Kean.
Still, Christie came to office promising ethics reform and strict pay-to-play laws. He should be among the chorus calling for disclosure on this issue - or risk being labeled the biggest hypocrite.
VAINIERI HUTTLE: 'BATTLING FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE FUNDING'
Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) had the following published in www.politickernj.com:
"Women’s health should not be held hostage by one person’s ideology or the propaganda spread by anti-abortion groups, especially as none of the money previously appropriated for family planning services was used to provide abortion services nor would any money be allocated for that purpose in the future…"
Thursday, February 10, 2011
"Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" Black History Month Program
Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm
First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens
Somerset, NJ
Senior Pastor: Rev Dr. DeForest Soaries
Initiated by the Honorable United States Senator Robert Menendez, this program is presented in honor of the New Jersey Legislative Black Caucus for its unwavering advocacy for New Jersey Families in the promotion of economic and social justice, providing affordable healthcare, ensuring a quality education for all students and creating affordable housing.
N.J. redistricting commission holds third public hearing
Below is a prime example of what happens when a person walks into a situation without doing homework. The Republican advisor to the governor took Mr. Estevez’s comments and turned them against him. With good intent Mr. Estevez rendered comments with no preparation, unfortunately the Republican quote eats him up. Lack of preparation for statements and comments and rendering blatant lies have become very acceptable here on the local level. However, involvement with state issues in any leadership capacity requires anticipation and an understanding of what the opposition is going to do in order to be effective.
N.J. redistricting commission holds third public hearing
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
BY MATT FRIEDMAN
State House Bureau
STATE HOUSE BUREAU
NEWARK -- Democrats on the commission to redraw the state’s 40 state legislative districts Wednesday night attempted to head off an expected argument that “packing” minorities into legislative districts will elect more of them to office.
"Clearly we have more work to do, but we should not turn the clock back during the process with a map that would pack minority citizens into as few legislative districts as possible,” Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex), who sits on the 10-member apportionment commission, told an audience of more than 150 people at the commission’s third public hearing at an Essex County office building.
Oliver noted that she is the first female African-American Assembly speaker, and that the first Hispanic speaker, Albio Sires, served under the current legislative district map.
Ten years ago, Democrats successfully argued that minorities would be able to elect more state lawmakers if their populations were spread out over districts where they made up a significant part of the population but not a majority of it. Over the years, more minority lawmakers were elected, and the change benefited Democrats by putting Democrat-leaning minority voters into more districts.
But Latino Leadership Alliance President Martin Perez, who has met with a Republican redistricting organization, has said that strategy didn’t work, pointing out that Latinos – with just seven state lawmakers – are underrepresented in the Legislature.
Latinos now make up almost 18 percent of the state’s population, according to Census figures released last week. And while Asians make up about 8 percent of the population, there are only two Asian-American state lawmakers.
Republicans have not publicly advocated the packing strategy, although they hired an attorney, Benjamin Ginsberg, who is known for promoting it in past legislative and congressional redistricting efforts. Concentrating minority voters would mean other legislative districts would have more white voters who would be more open to voting for Republicans.
After Latino Action Network Vice-President Christian Estevez noted Hispanics live all over the state, not just in its northeastern cities, and said he opposed packing, Republicans brought up a number of towns with high minority populations that are represented by white state senators.
“Do you know who represents Perth Amboy in the state Senate?” said Bill Palatucci, a Republican member and close adviser to Governor Christie. “Who represents Pleasantville in the state Senate? Who represents Passaic in the state Senate?”
The answers: state Sens. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) and Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen).
The 10-member commission, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, has until early March to come up with a new legislative district map by themselves. If they deadlock, which is expected, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner will pick an 11th tie-breaking member. From that point, the commission will have another 30 days to choose a map.
The commission’s next meeting will be Sunday at 1 p.m. in Jersey City, at Hudson Community College’s Culinary Conference Center at Culinary Conference Center, 161 Newkirk Street.
The public can keep tabs on the meetings and read transcripts at www.apportionmentcommission.org.
N.J. redistricting commission holds third public hearing
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
BY MATT FRIEDMAN
State House Bureau
STATE HOUSE BUREAU
NEWARK -- Democrats on the commission to redraw the state’s 40 state legislative districts Wednesday night attempted to head off an expected argument that “packing” minorities into legislative districts will elect more of them to office.
"Clearly we have more work to do, but we should not turn the clock back during the process with a map that would pack minority citizens into as few legislative districts as possible,” Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex), who sits on the 10-member apportionment commission, told an audience of more than 150 people at the commission’s third public hearing at an Essex County office building.
Oliver noted that she is the first female African-American Assembly speaker, and that the first Hispanic speaker, Albio Sires, served under the current legislative district map.
Ten years ago, Democrats successfully argued that minorities would be able to elect more state lawmakers if their populations were spread out over districts where they made up a significant part of the population but not a majority of it. Over the years, more minority lawmakers were elected, and the change benefited Democrats by putting Democrat-leaning minority voters into more districts.
But Latino Leadership Alliance President Martin Perez, who has met with a Republican redistricting organization, has said that strategy didn’t work, pointing out that Latinos – with just seven state lawmakers – are underrepresented in the Legislature.
Latinos now make up almost 18 percent of the state’s population, according to Census figures released last week. And while Asians make up about 8 percent of the population, there are only two Asian-American state lawmakers.
Republicans have not publicly advocated the packing strategy, although they hired an attorney, Benjamin Ginsberg, who is known for promoting it in past legislative and congressional redistricting efforts. Concentrating minority voters would mean other legislative districts would have more white voters who would be more open to voting for Republicans.
After Latino Action Network Vice-President Christian Estevez noted Hispanics live all over the state, not just in its northeastern cities, and said he opposed packing, Republicans brought up a number of towns with high minority populations that are represented by white state senators.
“Do you know who represents Perth Amboy in the state Senate?” said Bill Palatucci, a Republican member and close adviser to Governor Christie. “Who represents Pleasantville in the state Senate? Who represents Passaic in the state Senate?”
The answers: state Sens. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) and Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen).
The 10-member commission, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, has until early March to come up with a new legislative district map by themselves. If they deadlock, which is expected, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner will pick an 11th tie-breaking member. From that point, the commission will have another 30 days to choose a map.
The commission’s next meeting will be Sunday at 1 p.m. in Jersey City, at Hudson Community College’s Culinary Conference Center at Culinary Conference Center, 161 Newkirk Street.
The public can keep tabs on the meetings and read transcripts at www.apportionmentcommission.org.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
An appreciated note of support
Dear Assemblyman Green,
I attended the break out session on Saturday and would like to thank you so much for your support. You seem to be an advocate for educators at a time when we are perceived as greedy and lazy. Thank you so much and thank you for your personal reflections. You made the time spent worthwhile.
Marie Papaleo
Marie F. Papaleo
6th Grade Science
Cresskill Middle School
Cresskill, NJ 07626
I attended the break out session on Saturday and would like to thank you so much for your support. You seem to be an advocate for educators at a time when we are perceived as greedy and lazy. Thank you so much and thank you for your personal reflections. You made the time spent worthwhile.
Marie Papaleo
Marie F. Papaleo
6th Grade Science
Cresskill Middle School
Cresskill, NJ 07626
Monday, February 7, 2011
A word from Senator Nia Gill
My distinguished colleague Senator Nia Gill presented the following appeal to the Senate. The speech is posted on today's blog with Senator Gill's blessing.
Senator Nia H. Gill
Senate Floor -December 20, 2010
I rise today to speak to you about an action that has created a constitutional crisis in our State. As this body is aware, a little over a week ago, Associate Justice Rivera - Soto issued two opinions objecting to the interim appointment of Judge Stern to fill a vacancy on the New Jersey Supreme Court. Not only did Associate Justice Rivera-Soto state his opposition to the appointment, he also unilaterally decided to abstain from all future cases heard before the State’s Supreme Court. And thus, one lone Associate Justice, in defiance and refusal to perform his Constitutional duties has manipulated and undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System.
As we know, the Chief Justice, not only presides over the Supreme Court, but is also the administrative head for the State’s court system. What this means, is that the Associate Justice has told his boss that he will not sit or participate on cases that he, the Associate Justice, has determined. However, the Associate Justice will still be paid $185,000 a year for reducing his Supreme Court position to a no show job.
If this happened in your legislative office, where we, as Senators, are the Chief Administrative Officer, and your Chief of Staff came to you and said Senator, I’m not going to work on the following issues because I believe the positions you hold are unconstitutional. What would you do? You would fire the person in a blink of an eye. And that is what is happening in this case. For a salary of $185,000 a year, this lone Justice will decide when, under what conditions, and if he is going to work. This action is an affront to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court.
And you may ask - how does this lone Justice’s defiance and refusal to perform his constitutional duties manipulate and undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System?
The Supreme Court, much like our caucuses prior to a voting session, get together and conference. During this time, they discuss substantive issues on cases argued before them and the Chief Justice assigns an Associate Justice for decision writing. Subsequent to discussion and before a final decision has been reached; draft opinions are circulated among the Court.
What this means, is that Associate Justice Rivera-Soto has created a scenario where he is able to pick and choose which cases he involves himself. Thus, the Associate Justice can make a calculated political decision as to whether or not he wants to participate in a case before the Court, based upon information he learns while attending the conferences, as well as oral arguments.
If the Justice decides that he wants the lower courts’ option to stand, all he has to do is abstain from voting and thus permit a 3-3 split decision by the Supreme Court, therefore, allowing the lower Court’s decision to prevail.
Conversely, if this lone Justice does want a lower Court’s opinion to be overturned all he would have to do is participate in the decision and thus create a enough votes to over turn the decision. At his whim and at his will.
His actions pointedly undermine the people’s trust of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System, particularly when you look at the breath of cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in the next 10 months, before Associate Justice Rivera Soto’s term expires. Let’s look at the Johnson case, this case involves sensitive issues of child custody, parental issues and visitation rights. However, the Associate Justice in his dissenting opinion decided to abstain, stating that the court is unconstitutional as comprised.
Imagine, you are a litigant; you are before the Supreme Court on issues that affect you, your life and your children. And an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court writes a dissenting opinion saying, in essence to the litigants -the findings of the Court are unconditional because the Court is unconstitutional. Therefore, this lone Justice can manipulate, without a written opinion, the potential outcome of a case. That goes to the trust and integrity of our judicial system.
Let us look at the kinds of cases the Court will decide in the next 10 months. We know the Abbott v. Burke School funding case is scheduled for oral arguments on January 4th.
So if this Justice, for whatever reason, decides after conferences and potentially participating in asking questions during oral arguments, that the case is going one way or another, he can simply by abstaining hope to sway and skew the Court’s opinion.
In the next 10 months, the Court will hear cases on, if a blogger has the Constitutional right to receive the First Amendment protections as a journalist. I invite you to look at the Supreme Court’s website to see the kinds of cases that are up before the Court, they touch every facet of our lives.
If Associate Justice Rivera-Soto continues to abstain from all cases he will have been allowed to create a precedent that would permit any current and any future Supreme Court Justice, as well as, the State’s Superior Court judges, to not hear or participate in a case because he or she disagrees with a decision made by the Chief Justice.
I want to be clear. I am not talking about the Governor’s Constitutional authority to not reappoint, nor the Senate President’s Constitutional right to not hold a hearing on the Governor’s appointments and it is certainly not about the use of Senatorial Courtesy. It is about permitting this process that undermines the trust and integrity of the Supreme Court and the entire judiciary to continue.
It does not matter to me that we are discussing Associate Justice Rivera-Soto; it does matter to me that you can allow a lone Justice to defy the Constitution and the people of this State.
In response to Justice Rivera-Soto’s abstention, the Chief Justice, wrote “It is one thing to dissent from an opinion of the majority; it is another to refuse to participate -- to vote -- in matters before the Court. Under our system of law, holding a contrary view about a settled legal issue is not a basis for abstaining”.
The Constitution grants to the Supreme Court the authority to remove a Superior Court Judge and the Supreme Court has established the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, better known as ACJC, to assist the Court by investigating allegations of unethical judicial conduct and by referring to the Court matters that the Committee considers to require public disciplinary action. Through the ACJC’s investigations, the Supreme Court has reprimanded, censured and removed Superior Court Judges.
However, the Supreme Court only has the authority to reprimand or censure a Supreme Court Justice because the framers of New Jersey’s Constitution expressly vested the power to remove a Justice with the Legislature, through the process of impeachment. Therefore, by the
Legislature not acting to remove Associate Justice Rivera-Soto, we are abdicating our Constitutional duty and allowing a lone Justice, in defiance and refusal to perform his Constitutional duties, to manipulate and undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court and the people’s trust in our judicial system. This is an issue of impeachment, because Associate Justice Rivera-Soto has openly defied and abdicated his Constitutional responsibilities.
Senator Nia H. Gill
Senate Floor -December 20, 2010
I rise today to speak to you about an action that has created a constitutional crisis in our State. As this body is aware, a little over a week ago, Associate Justice Rivera - Soto issued two opinions objecting to the interim appointment of Judge Stern to fill a vacancy on the New Jersey Supreme Court. Not only did Associate Justice Rivera-Soto state his opposition to the appointment, he also unilaterally decided to abstain from all future cases heard before the State’s Supreme Court. And thus, one lone Associate Justice, in defiance and refusal to perform his Constitutional duties has manipulated and undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System.
As we know, the Chief Justice, not only presides over the Supreme Court, but is also the administrative head for the State’s court system. What this means, is that the Associate Justice has told his boss that he will not sit or participate on cases that he, the Associate Justice, has determined. However, the Associate Justice will still be paid $185,000 a year for reducing his Supreme Court position to a no show job.
If this happened in your legislative office, where we, as Senators, are the Chief Administrative Officer, and your Chief of Staff came to you and said Senator, I’m not going to work on the following issues because I believe the positions you hold are unconstitutional. What would you do? You would fire the person in a blink of an eye. And that is what is happening in this case. For a salary of $185,000 a year, this lone Justice will decide when, under what conditions, and if he is going to work. This action is an affront to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court.
And you may ask - how does this lone Justice’s defiance and refusal to perform his constitutional duties manipulate and undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System?
The Supreme Court, much like our caucuses prior to a voting session, get together and conference. During this time, they discuss substantive issues on cases argued before them and the Chief Justice assigns an Associate Justice for decision writing. Subsequent to discussion and before a final decision has been reached; draft opinions are circulated among the Court.
What this means, is that Associate Justice Rivera-Soto has created a scenario where he is able to pick and choose which cases he involves himself. Thus, the Associate Justice can make a calculated political decision as to whether or not he wants to participate in a case before the Court, based upon information he learns while attending the conferences, as well as oral arguments.
If the Justice decides that he wants the lower courts’ option to stand, all he has to do is abstain from voting and thus permit a 3-3 split decision by the Supreme Court, therefore, allowing the lower Court’s decision to prevail.
Conversely, if this lone Justice does want a lower Court’s opinion to be overturned all he would have to do is participate in the decision and thus create a enough votes to over turn the decision. At his whim and at his will.
His actions pointedly undermine the people’s trust of the Supreme Court and our Judicial System, particularly when you look at the breath of cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in the next 10 months, before Associate Justice Rivera Soto’s term expires. Let’s look at the Johnson case, this case involves sensitive issues of child custody, parental issues and visitation rights. However, the Associate Justice in his dissenting opinion decided to abstain, stating that the court is unconstitutional as comprised.
Imagine, you are a litigant; you are before the Supreme Court on issues that affect you, your life and your children. And an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court writes a dissenting opinion saying, in essence to the litigants -the findings of the Court are unconditional because the Court is unconstitutional. Therefore, this lone Justice can manipulate, without a written opinion, the potential outcome of a case. That goes to the trust and integrity of our judicial system.
Let us look at the kinds of cases the Court will decide in the next 10 months. We know the Abbott v. Burke School funding case is scheduled for oral arguments on January 4th.
So if this Justice, for whatever reason, decides after conferences and potentially participating in asking questions during oral arguments, that the case is going one way or another, he can simply by abstaining hope to sway and skew the Court’s opinion.
In the next 10 months, the Court will hear cases on, if a blogger has the Constitutional right to receive the First Amendment protections as a journalist. I invite you to look at the Supreme Court’s website to see the kinds of cases that are up before the Court, they touch every facet of our lives.
If Associate Justice Rivera-Soto continues to abstain from all cases he will have been allowed to create a precedent that would permit any current and any future Supreme Court Justice, as well as, the State’s Superior Court judges, to not hear or participate in a case because he or she disagrees with a decision made by the Chief Justice.
I want to be clear. I am not talking about the Governor’s Constitutional authority to not reappoint, nor the Senate President’s Constitutional right to not hold a hearing on the Governor’s appointments and it is certainly not about the use of Senatorial Courtesy. It is about permitting this process that undermines the trust and integrity of the Supreme Court and the entire judiciary to continue.
It does not matter to me that we are discussing Associate Justice Rivera-Soto; it does matter to me that you can allow a lone Justice to defy the Constitution and the people of this State.
In response to Justice Rivera-Soto’s abstention, the Chief Justice, wrote “It is one thing to dissent from an opinion of the majority; it is another to refuse to participate -- to vote -- in matters before the Court. Under our system of law, holding a contrary view about a settled legal issue is not a basis for abstaining”.
The Constitution grants to the Supreme Court the authority to remove a Superior Court Judge and the Supreme Court has established the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, better known as ACJC, to assist the Court by investigating allegations of unethical judicial conduct and by referring to the Court matters that the Committee considers to require public disciplinary action. Through the ACJC’s investigations, the Supreme Court has reprimanded, censured and removed Superior Court Judges.
However, the Supreme Court only has the authority to reprimand or censure a Supreme Court Justice because the framers of New Jersey’s Constitution expressly vested the power to remove a Justice with the Legislature, through the process of impeachment. Therefore, by the
Legislature not acting to remove Associate Justice Rivera-Soto, we are abdicating our Constitutional duty and allowing a lone Justice, in defiance and refusal to perform his Constitutional duties, to manipulate and undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court and the people’s trust in our judicial system. This is an issue of impeachment, because Associate Justice Rivera-Soto has openly defied and abdicated his Constitutional responsibilities.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)